Generated by All in One SEO Pro v5.0.1.1, this is an llms-full.txt file, used by LLMs to index the site. # Law offices of Alexander Ransom Bellingham Criminal Defense ## Posts ### [Blog](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/blog/) **Published:** June 24, 2015 **Author:** admin --- ### [Broad Coalition Launches to Restore the Constitutional Right to Trial](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/broad-coalition-launches-to-restore-the-constitutional-right-to-trial/) **Published:** June 7, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL)](https://www.nacdl.org/) [reports](https://www.nacdl.org/newsrelease/News-Release-~-05-03-2023) that numerous organizations have united to end the trial penalty. This coalition, called [End the Trial Penalty](https://www.endthetrialpenalty.org/), consists of twenty-four criminal justice organizations, impacted people, think tanks, academics, activists, and reform leaders from across the ideological spectrum have united to end the trial penalty. **What is a “Trial Penalty?”** A “trial penalty” refers to the substantial difference between the sentence offered in a plea offer prior to trial versus the sentence a defendant receives after trial. This penalty is now so severe and pervasive that it has virtually eliminated the constitutional right to a trial. To avoid the penalty, accused persons must surrender many other fundamental rights which are essential to a fair justice system. The coercive and punitive effects of the trial penalty are so pervasive that they have virtually eliminated our constitutional right to trial. In fact, [over 97%](https://www.ussc.gov/research/sourcebook-2022) of cases ending in a conviction never go to trial, leading to a range of issues reverberating through our legal system, including the waiver of numerous constitutional freedoms and rights, overcriminalization, loss of public oversight, and racial injustice. Fortunately, the [End the Trial Penalty](https://www.endthetrialpenalty.org/) Coalition aims to restore the right to trial, helping right these wrongs to ensure a fair, rational, and humane criminal legal system. Members of this new Coalition will work together to raise awareness of the adverse effects of a justice system without trials, advocate policy reform, and forge relationships with key policymakers. The Coalition will also serve as a resource for people interested in participating in an impactful criminal legal reform movement. The Coalition has published a comprehensive [Policy Overview](https://www.nacdl.org/getattachment/8f599e36-b73d-438b-9c39-123f977e9762/ETP_-Policy_Overview-(1).pdf?lang=en-US) which includes policy ideas to combat coercive practices in the plea bargaining process, to improve data collection and transparency, and to foster post-trial reform and accountability measures. The Coalition plans to further partner with impacted people and their families, community leaders, criminal legal system stakeholders, and local organizers to ensure everyone has a seat at the table in the efforts to restore justice to our legal system. **About End the Trial Penalty** End the Trial Penalty is an ideologically diverse coalition of criminal justice organizations and leaders committed to ending the trial penalty to ensure a fair, rational, and humane criminal legal system. The coalition aims to eliminate the coercive elements of plea bargaining to restore our fundamental constitutional rights, including the right to a jury trial. My opinion? The Sixth Amendment enshrines the right to trial for anyone accused of a crime. Yet, in America today, less than 3% of criminal cases ever make it to trial. Many factors drive that statistic, including the trial penalty. Defendants are confronted with an impossible choice: either fighting for their innocence but often risking decades in prison or admitting to something they didn’t do but salvaging their family and future. It’s no wonder that innocent people can and do plead guilty. I’m pleased that organizations like [End the Trial Penalty](https://www.endthetrialpenalty.org/) exists to uphold our constitutional right to trial. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Uncategorized **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Police Bodycams Hold K-9's Accountable](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/police-bodycams-hold-k-9s-accountable/) **Published:** June 9, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article in NPR](https://www.npr.org/2023/06/08/1180641287/k-9-dogs-police-body-cams) by [Martin Kaste](https://www.npr.org/people/2100722/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](https://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/opinion-recap-trust-the-police-dog/), were usually enough. But the [recent spread of body cameras ](https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/research-body-worn-cameras-and-law-enforcement#:~:text=Use%20of%20Body%2DWorn%20Cameras&text=47%25%20of%20general%2Dpurpose%20law,deployed%20their%20body%2Dworn%20cameras.)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](https://www.economist.com/babbage/2011/02/15/clever-hounds) 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 ](https://ij.org/press-release/lawsuit-texas-sheriffs-deputy-falsifies-traffic-offense-to-justify-unwarranted-truck-search/)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](https://ij-org-re.s3.amazonaws.com/ijdevsitestage/wp-content/uploads/videos/Babb%2BBodycam%2B(Stop%2C%2BQuestioning%2C%2BSearch%2BPart%2B1)_2.mp4), 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](https://www.npr.org/2017/11/20/563889510/preventing-police-bias-when-handling-dogs-that-bite), 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](https://nndda.org/the-double-blind-attack/). Former K-9 officer and trainer[ Andy Falco ](https://www.falcok9academy.com/pages/about-us)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](https://reason.com/volokh/2023/03/23/idaho-supreme-court-rules-fourth-amendment-violated-when-drug-sniffing-dog-intermeddled-with-defendants-car/) 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](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Body camera, K-9 Police Dogs, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Use of License Plate Readers Spreading Across Washington](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/use-of-license-plate-readers-spreading-across-washington/) **Published:** June 10, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.king5.com/amp/article/tech/license-plate-readers-washington/281-929b1e5c-42ad-464a-b0c0-9cb4712db9f9) by journalist [Natalie Swaby](https://muckrack.com/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)](https://www.eff.org/pages/automated-license-plate-readers-alpr#:~:text=ALPRs%20automatically%20capture%20all%20license,uploaded%20to%20a%20central%20server.) 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](https://twitter.com/TukwilaPD/status/1616240344416546817?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1616240344416546817%7Ctwgr%5E3ea3a7a27ff878a61ee8d9efe7bbc0472d21ad4b%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fb-townblog.com%2Ftukwila-police-will-install-35-automated-license-plate-reading-cameras%2F), 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](https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/location-tracking/you-are-being-tracked#:~:text=enforcement%20agencies%20only-,License%20plate%20readers%20may%20be%20used%20by%20law%20enforcement%20agencies,to%20an%20ongoing%20criminal%20investigation.) 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](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** ACLU, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Federal Judge Prohibits Seattle from Enforcing Its Anti-Graffiti Law](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/federal-judge-prohibits-seattle-from-enforcing-its-anti-graffiti-law/) **Published:** June 16, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** U.S. district court has [ruled by injunction](https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2023/06/gov.uscourts.wawd_.317868.50.0_1.pdf) 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](https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/) 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](https://library.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT12ACRCO_SUBTITLE_ICRCO_CH12A.08OFAGPR_12A.08.020PRDE) 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](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Malicious Mischief](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/malicious-mischief/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, First Amendment, Graffiti, Malicious Mischief, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [The Most Dangerous States In the Nation](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/the-most-dangerous-states-in-the-nation/) **Published:** September 7, 2026 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** According to a [map published by Visual Capitalist](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-the-most-dangerous-states-in-the-u-s/) using FBI figures covering March 2025 through February 2026, a new ranking has successfully scored every state on violent crime per 100,000 residents. The nation’s two major tools for measuring crime, the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) measures crime data across states. Their combined data shows long-term trends for rates of [serious violent crime](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/), [motor vehicle theft](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.065), and [burglary](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/). **WHICH STATES HAVE THE HIGHEST VIOLENT CRIME RATE?** Washington, D.C., sits at the top with 789 violent crimes per 100,000 residents. The figure is partly elevated because the district is entirely urban, unlike states that also include suburbs and rural areas. Among the 50 states, Alaska leads at 731, and the rate is driven largely by rape and aggravated assault. New Mexico is next at 645, the highest in the contiguous United States, followed by Arkansas (533), Tennessee (482), Kansas (465) and Louisiana (461). The numbers cover murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault, drawn from the [FBI Crime Data Explorer](https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/home). **WHICH STATES HAVE THE LOWEST CRIME RATES?** Maine reports the lowest violent crime rate in the country at 92 per 100,000, followed by Connecticut (108), New Hampshire (121) and Rhode Island (143). New Jersey (194) and Virginia (201) also land near the bottom. A few results break the geographic pattern. Wyoming (189) and Hawaii (190) both post rates lower than New Jersey despite sitting nowhere near the Northeast. Illinois is the bigger shock. Home to the city Americans instinctively associate with crime, Illinois ranks 31st among the 50 states at 250, below Florida (252) and Massachusetts (267). **IS CRIME GETTING WORSE?** No. The FBI [released its full 2025 crime report on Aug. ](https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2025-reported-crimes-in-the-nation-statistics)[14](https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2025-reported-crimes-in-the-nation-statistics), showing that violent crime was down 9.3% from the year before, the largest single-year decline since national estimates began in 1936. The murder rate fell 18.1% to 4.1 per 100,000, matching the rates in 1955 and 1956 for the lowest ever recorded. Property crime dropped 12.4%, and motor vehicle theft fell 22.7%. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Uncategorized **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [DUI For Left-Lane Travel](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/dui-for-left-lane-travel/) **Published:** May 13, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. ](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/333418_pub.pdf)[Thibert](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/333418_pub.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) upheld the DUI conviction of a motorist who was pulled over for the traffic infraction of travelling in the far-left lane of the freeway. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Deputy Justin Gerry was on routine patrol one morning in July 2013 on westbound Interstate 82 in [Benton County](http://www.co.benton.wa.us/). He observed a silver Chevrolet Impala in the left lane pass a vehicle in the right lane, traveling faster than the posted 70 miles per hour speed limit. The Impala continued to travel in the left lane long after passing the vehicle in the right lane, even though no other vehicles were traveling in the unobstructed right lane. The deputy initiated a traffic stop not for the car’s speed, but for a violation of [RCW 46.61.100(2)](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.100), captioned “Keep right except when passing, etc.” On approaching the vehicle, which was being driven by Mr. Thibert, Deputy Gerry smelled the odor of fresh marijuana. What looked like a smoking device was hanging from Mr. Thibert’s neck. Mr. Thibert told the deputy he was a medical marijuana patient and used the smoking device to smoke marijuana oil. Deputy Gerry noted that Mr. Thibert had difficulty finishing his sentences and that he “would sometimes stop speaking and just giggle.” Mr. Thibert agreed to perform [field sobriety tests](https://duijusticelink.aaa.com/issues/detection/standard-field-sobriety-test-sfst-and-admissibility/). Based on Mr. Thibert’s performance, Deputy Gerry concluded he was under the influence of marijuana and could not safely operate a motor vehicle. He placed Mr. Thibert under arrest and transported him to the hospital for a [blood draw](https://hightimes.com/culture/everything-you-need-to-know-about-marijuana-blood-tests/). THC was present in Mr. Thibert’s blood at 55 nanograms. He was charged with [driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of marijuana](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/drug-dui/). Mr. Thibert moved on multiple grounds to [suppress evidence](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) obtained as a result of the traffic stop and events that followed. The district court denied the motion. It found among other facts that Mr. Thibert’s “remaining in the left lane, when one could lawfully and safely return to the right lane, is an infraction and provided Deputy Gerry [probable cause](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause) to stop.” The parties agreed to submit the case to the court for a determination of guilt on [stipulated facts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bench_trial). The district court found Mr. Thibert guilty. Mr. Thibert appealed to the [Benton County Superior Court](http://www.benton-franklinsuperiorcourt.com/), which affirmed the judgment, dismissed the appeal, and remanded the matter to the district court for sentencing. Afterward, Mr. Thibert appealed his case to the WA Court of Appeals on the issue of whether Mr. Thibert was stopped unlawfully because the fact that he drove in the left lane, without impeding traffic, did not establish reasonable suspicion for the stop. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** “At issue is whether [RCW 46.61.100(2)](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.100), on which Deputy Gerry relied in stopping Mr. Thibert, creates a traffic infraction,” said the Court of Appeals. The WA Court of Appeals said that a [reasonable articulable suspicion](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_suspicion) of a traffic infraction, like a reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity, will support a [warrantless traffic stop](https://traffic.findlaw.com/traffic-stops/vehicle-search-and-seizure.html) under [article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx). Subsection (2) of RCW 46.61.100, which Mr. Williams contends addresses only the “primary use” of the left lane of a multi-lane highway, states: > “Upon all roadways having two or more lanes for traffic moving in the same direction, all vehicles shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, except **(a)** when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction, **(b)** when traveling at a speed greater than the traffic flow, **(c)** when moving left to allow traffic to merge, or **(d)** when preparing for a left turn at an intersection, exit, or into a private road or driveway when such left turn is legally permitted.” Plainly read, RCW 46.63.020 and 46.61.100 make it a traffic infraction to travel in the left lane in the four circumstances identified by RCW 46.61.100(2). The word “shall” in subsection **(2)** (“all vehicles shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, except . . .”) “is presumptively imperative and operates to create a duty.” Subsection **(4)**, which he contends identifies the only infraction arising from driving in the left lane, provides: “It is a traffic infraction to drive continuously in the left lane of a multi-lane roadway when it impedes the flow of other traffic.” The Court further reasoned that, plainly read, RCW 46.63.020 and 46.61.100 make it a traffic infraction to travel in the left lane in the four circumstances identified by RCW 46.61.100(2). The word “shall” in subsection **(2)** (“all vehicles shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, except . . .”) “is presumptively imperative and operates to create a duty.” The Court disagreed with Mr. Thibert’s contention that if each of subsections **(2)** and **(4)** of RCW 46.61.100 identify traffic infractions, then they are irreconcilable or cancel each other out. “The subsections are reconcilable,” said the Court. “An individual is permitted to drive in the left lane when one of the transient exceptions identified in subsection **(2)** applies, unless the transient exceptions arise so frequently that the individual’s continuing travel in the left lane is impeding traffic.” Also, because the conduct that was forbidden by the statute can be understood by ordinary people, the Court of Appeals rejected Mr. Thibert’s passing argument that the statute is [void for vagueness](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/void_for_vagueness). With that, the Court of Appeals upheld Mr. Thibert’s conviction. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, DUI, marijuana, misdemeanor, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Is It Against the Law to Destroy Flock Surveillance Cameras?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/is-it-against-the-law-to-destroy-flock-surveillance-cameras/) **Published:** August 31, 2026 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Across the nation, people are vandalizing [Flock surveillance cameras](https://www.flocksafety.com/) 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](https://deflock.org/) 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](https://deflock.org/) 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)](https://deflock.org/what-is-an-alpr#faq-transparency). 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](https://maps.deflock.org/?lat=48.7810&lng=-122.4705&zoom=13.38) 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](https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/renton-protesters-flock-camera) 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](https://www.404media.co/how-cops-use-flock-to-track-people-not-cars/) 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](https://www.ice.gov/), police officers have been performing searches to [aid in immigration sweeps](https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-camera-network-data-shows/). **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](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/malicious-mischief/) 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*](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/670b4da4bb239e2d46e9711b), 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)](https://www.aclu.org/campaigns-initiatives/get-the-flock-out) 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*](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/585/16-402/)) and GPS trackers ([*United States v. Jones*](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/565/400/)) 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*](https://local12.com/news/local/felony-charges-dismissed-against-clermont-county-man-destruction-flock-camera-cincinnati-union-township-cody-morelock-damage), 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](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) Legal Guide and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 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 **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Pretrial Drug-Monitoring "Sweat" Patches Ruled Unconstitutional](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/pretrial-drug-monitoring-sweat-patches-ruled-unconstitutional/) **Published:** August 24, 2026 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*Bailey-Cobb v.*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/875850.pdf "https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/875850.pdf")[*Snohomish County District Court*, No. 87738-1-I (Aug. ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/875850.pdf "https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/875850.pdf")[17, 2026)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/875850.pdf "https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/875850.pdf"), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that [Pretrial Drug Monitoring Patches (PDMP’s)](https://www.pharmchek.com/resources/how-the-sweat-patch-works) 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](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/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](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime involving [Search & Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) issues. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 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 **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [WA Supreme Court: When Taking DUI Breathalyzer Tests, Tobacco Strands Are Not “Foreign Substances” In a Person’s Mouth](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/wa-supreme-court-when-taking-dui-breathalyzer-tests-tobacco-strands-are-not-foreign-substances-in-a-persons-mouth/) **Published:** August 15, 2026 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Sliger, No. 103563-2 (Aug. ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/1035632.pdf "https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/1035632.pdf")[13, 2026)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/1035632.pdf "https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/1035632.pdf")*, the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that tobacco strands are not a “foreign substance” in a person’s mouth and therefore do not invalidate a breath test if seen and not removed. The court reasoned that in cases involving the debatable presence of a foreign substance in the defendant’s mouth within 15-minutes before or during the breath test, the State must rely on expert testimony to make a prima facie showing that the defendant’s mouth was free of foreign substances. Here, the State met its burden when it presented expert testimony that the tiny strands of tobacco between the defendant’s teeth would not affect the reliability of the [Draeger Breath Test](https://www.draeger.com/en-us_us/Productfinder/Alcohol-and-Drug-Testing#information) results. The other admissibility requirements for breath tests were also met. Thus, the breath test was admissible. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** Mr. Sliger was charged with [Vehicular Homicide](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/vehicular-homicide-vehicular-assault/) after being involved in a fatal collision with a dirt bike. At the scene, Sliger admitted to drinking a few hours before the crash. He voluntarily took a portable breath test. Prior to taking the test, Sliger was instructed to spit out a lump of chewing tobacco from his mouth. Sliger was arrested and taken to jail. At jail, Sliger agreed to take a Draeger breath test. Prior to administering the test, Deputy Kahns asked Sliger if he had any foreign substances in his mouth, and Sliger denied having any. In his DUI arrest report, the officer checked off the box indicating that Sliger denied having any foreign substances in his mouth. He also checked off the box indicating that he visually examined Sliger’s mouth. Next, he checked the box indicating that foreign substances were found and explained that there were “tiny tobacco strands stuck in teeth.” The tiny strands of tobacco were not removed prior to administering the test. The breath test results indicated an alcohol level over the legal limit. The State charged Sliger with vehicular homicide. Sliger filed a [motion to suppress the breath test results](http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/CrR/SUP_CrR_03_06_00.pdf). He argued that the test results were inadmissible because the tiny strands of tobacco in his teeth constituted a foreign substance that should have been removed before conducting the breath test. An evidentiary hearing was held during which the court heard testimony from the arresting officer and the State’s expert, Trooper Axtman, a breath test technician. While testifying, Trooper Axtman made a distinction between a lump of chewing tobacco and tiny strands of tobacco for purposes of determining admissibility of a breath test. After hearing testimony, the trial court denied Sliger’s motion to suppress the breath test results. The court concluded that the State met the burden of providing prima facie evidence that Sliger did not have any foreign substances in his mouth at the beginning of the 15-minute observation period. Notably, the trial court’s rulings were based solely on Sliger’s verbal denial of having foreign substances present in his mouth. Sliger appealed the trial court’s rulings. On appeal, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not err in determining that Sliger’s denial alone constituted prima facie evidence that no foreign substances were present in his mouth. Sliger again appealed on the legal issue of whether the State provided prima facie evidence that Sliger did not have any foreign substances in his mouth at the beginning of the 15-minute observation period prior to administering the test. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** Ultimately, the WA Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals and the trial court’s rulings. We hold that the State produced prima facie evidence that Sliger did not have any foreign substances in his mouth when it provided expert testimony that the tiny strands of The WA Supreme Court began with a review of former RCW 46.61.506(4)(a). This statute, which was in effect at the time, governed the admissibility of breath tests. To determine whether a person has a foreign substance in their mouth before administering a breath test, WAC 448-16-040 requires officers to either examine the individual’s mouth or have the person deny that there are any foreign substances in their mouth. Next the WA Supreme Court addressed Sliger’s arguments that the prosecution cannot meet its burden for admissibility here because the statutory term “any foreign substance” includes tiny strands of tobacco. Sliger emphasized that “any” before the term “foreign substance” means that ***any*** quantity of a foreign substance, regardless of its size, results in an invalid test. However, the WA Supreme Court disagreed with Mr. Sliger. It said the statute at issue here does not speak to quantity of substance in a person’s mouth. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that interpreting ‘any’ to mean any quantity of a foreign substance is not a reasonable interpretation of the statute. : > “Interpreting ‘any’ to mean any quantity of a foreign substance would lead to absurd results. This interpretation would mean that the presence of microscopic amounts of a foreign substance would prevent the admissibility of breath test results regardless of whether it has any impact on the reliability of the test. Officers are not equipped to conduct a thorough inspection of an individual’s mouth for any strand or speck of a foreign substance. In accordance with Fernandez, a more reasonable interpretation is that “any foreign substance” refers to any kind of foreign substance capable of impacting the reliability of the test results.” ~WA Supreme Court With that the WA Supreme Court held that the State met its burden of establishing prima facie evidence that Sliger’s mouth was free of any foreign substances when it presented expert testimony that the tiny strands of tobacco would not affect the reliability of the breath test results. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [WSU Issues "Back To School" DUI Emphasis Patrols](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/wsu-issues-back-to-school-dui-emphasis-patrols/) **Published:** August 12, 2026 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The Washington State Patrol (WSP) issued a [Press Release](https://wsp.wa.gov/media/media-releases/#:~:text=WSU%20Back%20to%20School%20Emphasis%20Patrols) stating “Back to School” DUI emphasis patrols are at Washington State University (WSU) are in effect. This comes wWith increased traffic and a history of serious collisions associated with students and families traveling back to WSU in Pullman after summer break. WSP will conduct emphasis patrols from Friday, Aug. 14, through Sunday, Aug. 16. During the emphasis, District 6 troopers in Grant and Kittitas counties will focus on speeding, distracted driving, impaired driving, and other collision-causing violations. Speeding continues to be one of the leading causes of serious and fatal collisions across Washington. Troopers will be actively enforcing posted speed limits throughout the emphasis. Drivers are reminded to pay close attention to changing speed limits as they travel across the state. Troopers will also have zero tolerance for impaired driving. In addition, motorists are encouraged to eliminate distractions and remain focused on the safe operation of their vehicles. Motorists traveling to WSU can expect an increased WSP presence along State Route 26, Interstate 90 over Snoqualmie Pass, and through Ellensburg and Grant County. > “Whether you’re a first-year student or returning to campus, the start of the school year should be an exciting milestone, not one that ends in tragedy. The Washington State Patrol is committed to helping ensure everyone traveling back to school has a safe and enjoyable trip.” ~WA State Patrol Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Flock Cameras Raise Privacy Concerns](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/flock-cameras-raise-privacy-concerns/) **Published:** August 3, 2026 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** [Flock Safety](https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Flock_Safety) is one of the largest ALPR vendors in the United States. Their cameras are installed for police departments, businesses, and HOAs. Captured vehicle data is uploaded to Flock’s cloud system, where participating agencies can search and share information across jurisdictions. Flock is not the only ALPR vendor. Other vendors still participate in similar practices. **WHAT ARE ALPR’S?** Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs or LPRs) are AI-powered cameras that capture and analyze images of all passing vehicles, storing details like your car’s location, date, and time. They also capture your car’s make, model, color, and identifying features such as dents, roof racks, and bumper stickers, often turning these into searchable data points. These cameras collect data on millions of vehicles regardless of whether the driver is suspected of a crime. These systems are marketed as indispensable tools to fight crime, but they ignore the powerful tools police already have to track criminals, such as cell phone location data, creating a loophole that doesn’t require a warrant. **WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH FLOCK SURVEILLANCE?** Flock’s ALPR cameras aren’t like your normal traffic cameras. This surveillance technology records and tracks every car that comes into view.Next, an AI algorithm catalogs the make, model, color, license plate number, bumper stickers, and even scratches. This personal information is then uploaded into a nationwide database that [any law enforcement agency with a Flock contract](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2026/04/Schmidt-v.-Norfolk-file-stamped-amicus.pdf) can search — with few regulations or oversight on how they use what they find. Flock provides one of the most widely used ALPR systems, but they aren’t the only surveillance company. Other vendors still participate in similar practices. See this list of [other common ALPR vendors](https://deflock.org/identify). Problematically, these ALPR’s have a lack of transparency, oversight, and regulation into how they collect, store, and use our data, and how to hold public and private actors accountable if they abuse it. Consider how much someone could learn about your life if cameras constantly tracked where you drove. They could discover which doctors you visit, what house of faith you worship at, who you visit or drive around with — even which political meetings and protests you attend. And we’ve already seen how this mass surveillance tool can be weaponized and abused by law enforcement. [ICE and CBP](https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-camera-network-data-shows/) have repeatedly used Flock to go after immigrants without warrants. [Kansas police](https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/tracking-alpr-cameras/alpr-against-op-ed-writer) used them to pursue a man who wrote a critical op-ed about the department, while a [Colorado police officer](https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/flock-cameras-lead-colorado-police-wrong-suspect/) wrongfully accused a woman of theft based on a Flock hit and then refused to look at evidence proving her innocence. A mother and her children were [held at gunpoint](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/license-plate-readers-alpr-mistakes/) because ALPR cameras wrongly flagged their car as stolen. My opinion? Automatic license plate reader (ALPR) companies like [Flock Safety](https://www.flocksafety.com/book-a-demo-paid?utm_content=&utm_theme=evergreen&utm_tactic=evergreen&utm_campaign=GGL|BRD|SEM|MIX|MIX&utm_source=google&utm_medium=ppc&utm_term=flock%20safety&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=20639620445&gbraid=0AAAAADLwpwcUDazP6OeCcsrCPhvqUzbxt&gclid=Cj0KCQjw-MDTBhCgARIsAKAkdlQACZ_g-v3OyREuoYZ2-8vohxKLOslKP1nqTQ61jDBLrGrper5JtvEaAgOxEALw_wcB) are quietly trying to build a nationwide mass surveillance system. If there are Flock cameras in your city, they are tracking, logging, and sharing your movements without a warrant. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime involving [Search & Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) issues. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Surveillance Creep, Technology, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Crime of "Receiving Unlawful Compensation" Also Includes Receiving Sexual Contact](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/crime-of-receiving-unlawful-compensation-also-includes-sexual-contact/) **Published:** July 20, 2026 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Tarver*, No. 40603-2-III (Jul. 14, 2026)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/406032_pub.pdf "https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/406032_pub.pdf"), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) held that the word “compensation” in the [Receiving Unlawful Compensation statute](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.68.030) is not limited to receiving money. It also includes receiving sexual contact that a public servant receives in exchange for exercising official discretion to assist another with a “transaction.” **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** Mr. Tarver, a former Department of Children, Youth and Families (the Department) caseworker, was charged with several crimes after having sexual contact with a mother he was assigned to investigate. Following a bench trial, he was acquitted of extortion but convicted of perjury and [Receiving Unlawful Compensation](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.68.030). On appeal, he challenges only his conviction for receiving unlawful compensation. He argued that sexual contact is not “compensation,” and a “transaction” does not include parent-child visitations or a dependency case. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals (COA) began its analysis by reviewing the [Receiving Unlawful Compensation](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.68.030) statute, which reads: “A person is guilty of receiving or granting unlawful compensation if,being a public servant, he or she requests, accepts, or agrees to accept ***compensation for*** advice or other assistance in ***preparing a bill, contract, claim, or transaction*** regarding which he or she knows he or she is likely to have an official discretion to exercise (emphasis added). The COA ruled that the definition of “Compensation” is not limited to an economic or financial exchange. While compensation might include something of pecuniary value, nothing in its ordinary meaning limits compensation to an economic benefit.: > “Instead, the definition of compensation, along with the context in which the word is used in RCW 9A.68.030(1)(a), focuses on whether the thing received functioned as remuneration . . . In short, we conclude compensation and pecuniary benefit are not interchangeable or synonymous.” ~WA Court of Appeals The COA also ruled that the word “transaction” includes visits between a parent and child or a dependency case that the public servant assists with: > “Here, the dependency action filed by the State was a communicative activity that involved and reciprocally affected the children (through the State) and Mr. Tarver, as a public servant, advised and assisted in preparing this transaction by providing testimony intended to influence the ultimate decision-maker and exercising discretional authority to determine the terms of visitation.” ~WA Court of Appeals With that, the COA ruled that Tarver’s request for sexual contact was a request for compensation in exchange for his advice and assistance in preparing a transaction, which included R.J.’s visitation with her children and his influence in the dependency action. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Receiving Unlawful Compensation, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [High Court Rules "Geofence Warrants" Constitute a Search Under 4th Amendment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/high-court-rules-geofence-warrants-constitute-a-search-under-4th-amendment/) **Published:** July 13, 2026 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*Chatrie v. United States*, No. 25-112 (Jun. 29, 2026)](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf), the [U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) held that [Geofence Warrants](https://www.nacdl.org/Content/Geofence-Warrants) constitute a “search” under the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment). They acquire people’s location data from [Google](https://www.google.com/) by linking to their cell-phone location information. **WHAT ARE “GEOFENCE WARRANTS?”** Geofence warrants are an [investigative tool](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13818003430150241744&q=107+F.4th+319&hl=en&as_sdt=20006#:~:text=On%20May%2020,covering%20the%20bank) typically employed when law enforcement knows the approximate time and location of a crime but not the identities of [suspects](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14464858627349802379&q=110+F.4th+817&hl=en&as_sdt=20006#:~:text=%22Unlike%20a%20warrant%20authorizing%20surveillance%20of%20a%20known%20suspect%2C%20geofencing%20is%20a%20technique%20law%20enforcement%20has%20increasingly%20utilized%20when%20the%20crime%20location%20is%20known%20but%20the%20identities%20of%20suspects%20%5Bare%5D%20not.%22). In executing a geofence warrant, law enforcement compels a company to provide certain [information](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14464858627349802379&q=110+F.4th+817&hl=en&as_sdt=20006#:~:text=In%20requesting%20a,by%20law%20enforcement.%22) 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*](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/585/16-402/), 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](https://ij.org/issues/ijs-project-on-the-4th-amendment/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](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime involving [Search & Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/). Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 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 **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Can Ozempic Decrease Violent Behavior?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/can-ozempic-decrease-violent-behavior/) **Published:** July 7, 2026 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The Journal of Criminology [published](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9125.70058) 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](https://gizmodo.com/can-ozempic-treat-alcoholism-heres-what-you-should-know-2000764479) 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](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) or any other violent crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Violent Crime, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [U.S. Supreme Court Limits the Federal Gun Ban on Drug Users](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/u-s-supreme-court-limits-the-federal-gun-ban-on-drug-users/) **Published:** June 29, 2026 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*United States v. Hemani*](http://chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1234_g2bh.pdf), the [U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) voted unanimously to narrow the federal ban on gun possession by people who use illegal drugs. Additionally, the Court ruled government must show that their drug use poses a risk of dangerous behavior. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** Ali Hemani was a dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan who was born in Texas. He has spent most of his life living in the Dallas area with his parents and working a stable job. Suspecting Mr. Hemani and his family members of terrorism-related activities, the government conducted a search of the family home in 2022. Throughout the process, Mr. Hemani proved cooperative. He surrendered a gun he kept in the house, pointed agents to some marijuana on the property, and consented to an interview during which he told law enforcement agents that he used marijuana about every other day. More than six months after the search, and relying solely on Mr. Hemani’s admitted use of marijuana, the government prosecuted Mr. Hemani under [18 U. S. C. §922(g)(3)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922) (herein, “§922(g)(3)”) for knowingly possessing a gun in his home while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance. Mr. Hemani moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the government’s effort to enforce §922(g)(3) against him violated the [Second Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment). The federal district court granted the motion, and after an unsuccessful appeal to the Fifth Circuit, the government asked this Court to review the case. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court. He explained that under the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in [*New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen*](https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-bruen/), courts should uphold restrictions on gun rights only when there is a tradition of such regulations in early U.S. history. Here, Gorsuch wrote, the federal government cannot meet this high bar. Although the government points to early American laws targeting “habitual drunkards” – for example, by jailing them, placing them in workhouses, committing them to asylums, or requiring them to post a bond to ensure their good behavior – these laws are not sufficiently analogous to justify Hemani’s prosecution. Gorsuch suggested, a “habitual drunkard” was not the same thing as someone who regularly uses intoxicants such as alcohol. He wrote that even some of the Founding Fathers were heavy drinkers by today’s standards, Gorsuch noted, but to be regarded as a “habitual drunkard” someone would have to frequently be so drunk that they were practically incapacitated and incapable of managing their affairs. Gorsuch next rejected the government’s argument that the law at the center of this case serves a similar purpose as the law targeting habitual drunkards – that is, to protect the public from ‘unusually dangerous’ individuals who will misuse firearms to commit violent crimes. Even if that is the goal of the law in this case, Gorsuch countered, the habitual drunkard laws normally had little to do with protecting the public from categorically violent and unusually dangerous persons. Moreover, Gorsuch continued, the habitual drunkard laws are not an apt analogy because their operation differs significantly from the operation of the law at the center of this case. In particular, Gorsuch stressed, those laws usually provided some form of process – such as a trial, proceedings in a probate court, or a bond hearing – before an individual lost any of his liberties, even temporarily. By contrast, under the government’s rule, the law in this case automatically divests an individual of his constitutional right to bear arms the moment he becomes an unlawful user and until he ends his drug use. Gorsuch made clear that the court did not question that sometimes an individual’s unlawful use of marijuana (or any other controlled substance) may render him a danger to others. But here, he said, the government is asking the court to conclude that anyone who regularly uses marijuana is categorically violent and dangerous without any further showing. Such a position, Gorsuch posited, is at odds with the government’s own actions – for example, its recent decision to downgrade the categorization of marijuana on its list of controlled substances, so that it is now classified as having a lower potential for dependence and abuse and a currently accepted medical use. Gorsuch emphasized this ruling was “a narrow one” that did not address whether the government could prosecute drug addicts for having a gun or the legality of other gun restrictions – such as the ban on the possession of guns by people who have been convicted of felonies. Indeed, Gorsuch added, the decision did not even address whether the government could prosecute someone if it had proof that a specific individual’s drug use renders him a danger to himself or others. My opinion? Good decision. *Hemani* makes it clear that the government cannot make it crime for people to own a gun – which the Supreme Court has held is a fundamental constitutional right – simply because they use marijuana. With nearly half of Americans reporting marijuana use at some point in their lives, this ruling protects the rights of millions and curbs the government’s ability to impose arbitrary and discriminatory penalties. The court has sent a strong message that the government cannot criminalize the conduct of large numbers of people by making categorical and unfounded assumptions about whether they are dangerous. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Firearm Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Firearm, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [The Crackdown On Repeat Impaired Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/the-crackdown-on-repeat-impaired-driving/) **Published:** June 22, 2026 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Between Memorial Day and Labor Day, [DUI arrests](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) 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](https://app.leg.wa.gov/BillSummary/?BillNumber=1493&Year=2023&Initiative=false), 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](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Public Defenders Join Lawsuit Against WA For Funding](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/public-defenders-join-lawsuit-against-wa-for-funding/) **Published:** June 15, 2026 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Public defenders are suing. To be more precise, the King County Department of Public Defense is [joining a lawsuit](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28188858-order-granting-mtn-to-intervene/) 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](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/wa-income-tax-plan-drops-public-defense-for-cities-counties/) 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](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/was-public-defender-system-is-breaking-down-communities-reeling/) 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](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/wa-appeals-court-says-counties-can-sue-state-for-public-defense-funding/) and the state Supreme Court [declined to intervene](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/wa-court-wont-stop-counties-from-suing-for-public-defense-funding/). 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](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/wa-counties-want-big-money-to-address-public-defender-crisis/), 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](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/wa-supreme-court-orders-much-lower-caseloads-for-public-defenders/) 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](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Public Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Study: Forest Fire Smoke Leads to Increased Criminal Activity](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/study-forest-fire-smoke-leads-to-increased-violence/) **Published:** June 8, 2026 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Summer approaches. And with it, [wildfires](https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/wildfires) are on the rise. In Washington State, the wildfire season usually begins in early July and typically culminates in early October when regular rain returns to the Northwest. around the globe. [Ever more frequent](https://www.who.int/health-topics/wildfires), severe and longer lasting fire hotspots are expanding to new territories, as the fingers of climate change reach farther around the planet. This isn’t just hazardous to our physical health, it’s impacting people’s [mental wellbeing](https://www.sciencefocus.com/tags/mental-health) as well. Interestingly, the most insidious threat is only now being understood. New research has found that wherever the smoke goes, a rise in crime may not be far behind. **THE REPORT** [Doctoral researcher Lion Kircheis](https://www.polver.uni-konstanz.de/en/ag-international-politics/personen/lion-kircheis/) is a political scientist from the University of Konstanz. He analysed crime report data from the Seattle Police Department from 2013 to 2023, and identified smoky days caused by wildfires on the basis of satellite data, analyses of wind direction and local monitoring stations. What he found surprised him. According to [his report](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ae436c), For 11 years, assaults were higher on days when nearby wildfires had released smoke and particulate matter into the Seattle air. anD when the particulate matter increased by 7.0 μg m−3, there were 3.6 per cent more assaults on these smoky days. > “That’s equivalent to around one additional assault per day in a city the size of Seattle. The statistical increase of 3.6 per cent is not high but, crucially, it is consistent. On those days, when air [pollution](https://www.sciencefocus.com/tags/pollution) is up by 7.0 μg m−3, it’s not as if the sun gets blocked by a thick haze of smoke or anything – the air still looks clear. But what is striking is that even a little bit of smoke in the air has an impact on people.” ~Lion Kircheis, Political Scientist Kircheis looked for any other likely causes for the increase in violence, such as more traffic jams or an increase in police response time. But neither of these were the case. Interestingly, [domestic violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) call numbers didn’t rise when wildfire smoke was present. That suggests that outdoor exposure to wildfire smoke was the culprit – not indoor air pollution. And, of course, socio-economic background then comes into play – although we might think we all breathe the same air, it’s not the case for those who work outdoors or do not have access to filtered indoor air. This doesn’t mean the average person will become more violent just because they’re inhaling invisible wildfire smoke. What is more likely is that aggressive conflicts will spill over into violent actions when there is wildfire-induced smoke in the air. And it’s not just civilians who are susceptible. Police statistics suggest that officers in Seattle responded with more physical force on those smoky days. The findings are supported by [another study](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10640-025-01053-2) that used crime data from 21 major US cities from 2007 to 2020. This research showed that [violent](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) and [drug-related crimes](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) were particularly prevalent when wildfire smoke was in the air, with a 0.88 per cent increase in violent offences and a 1.35 per cent rise in drug-related crimes. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime during wildfire season. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Violent Crime, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [U.S. Supreme Court Sides With Death Row Inmate in Challenge to Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/46171-2/) **Published:** June 2, 2026 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*Pitchford v. Cain*](https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/pitchford-v-cain/), the [U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) reversed a Black death row inmate’s criminal conviction and death sentence. By a vote of 5-4, the court agreed with Defendant Terry Pitchford that the judge at his 2006 trial had not properly analyzed whether the prosecutor in Pitchford’s case violated the Constitution’s ban on racial discrimination in jury selection. Forty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court’s [*Batson v. Kentucky*](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-6263) held the [Equal Protection Clause ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection)bars prosecutors from exercising [peremptory challenges](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/peremptory_challenge) based on race. In *Batson* and subsequent cases, the Court has spelled out a three-step process for a trial court to determine whether a prosecutor employed a peremptory challenge based on race. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** in 2004, two black teenagers, Terry Pitchford and Eric Bullins, robbed agrocery store near Grenada, Mississippi. During the robbery, Bullins shot and killed the white store owner. Bullins reached a plea agree–ment and received a 20-year sentence for the homicide. The State charged Pitchford with capital murder and sought the death penalty. During jury selection at Pitchford’s trial, the prosecutor used peremptory strikes against four of the five black potential jurors. Pitchford’s counsel raised an objection under *Batson* and made a prima facie showing that the strikes of the four black jurors were based on race (step one). The trial court asked the prosecutor for race-neutral reasons for each strike, and the prosecutor offered reasons (step two). The trial court declared the prosecutor’s stated reasons to be race neutral, but the trial court did not afford defense counsel an opportunity to rebut the prosecutor’s race-neutral reasons as pretextual (step three). Nor did it make any findings regarding whether the prosecutor’s stated reasons were pretextual. At the close of jury selection, defense counsel sought to raise the *Batson* issue again, but the trial court twice cut off defense counsel. The empaneled jury, consisting of 11 white jurors and1 black juror, convicted Pitchford of capital murder and sentenced him to death.On direct appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court concluded that Pitchford had waived his Batson objection by not arguing to the trial court that the prosecutor’s proffered explanations were pretextual. Pitchford later filed a habeas corpus petition in U. S. District Court. Applying the applicable standard to obtain federal habeas relief under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the District Court concluded that the Mississippi Supreme Court had unreasonably applied Batson and had unreasonably determined that Pitchford waived his *Batson* objection. The District Court explained that no state court had conducted the full three-step *Batson* inquiry, and that the trial court had “thwarted” the “attempt by Pitchford’s counsel to argue pretext.” The Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court, concluding that the Mississippi Supreme Court’s waiver finding was reasonable. The United States Supreme Court granted review. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** the Supreme Court reversed the 5th Circuit’s decision and sent the case back to the lower courts. Justice Kavanaugh’s delivered the majority opinion. His analysis in his opinion for the majority was succinct. “After a prosecutor asserts race-neutral reasons for a peremptory strike,” he explained, “the defense counsel must at least have an opportunity to argue that the asserted race-neutral reasons were not the actual reasons—that is, the reasons were pretextual. Then, the trial court can determine whether those asserted reasons were the actual reasons or instead were pretextual.” Here, however, Kavanaugh emphasized that the *Batson* analysis was not correctly or accurately provided: > “Whether due to confusion, oversight, an overly hurried jury selection process, or some other cause, things broke down, and the ordinary trial-court procedure for resolving *Batson* claims at step three never occurred—notwithstanding the repeated efforts of Pitchford’s counsel to pursue and preserve the *Batson* objection.” ~U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh Kavanaugh conceded that, in cases involving AEDPA, federal courts normally are “deferential to the state court. But deference does not mean abdication,” he stressed. And here, “the Mississippi Supreme Court’s conclusion that Pitchford waived his opportunity to rebut the prosecutor’s proffered race-neutral reasons was unreasonable.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Homicide & Manslaughter, Jury Selection, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [City of Bellingham to Lower Speed Limits](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/city-of-bellingham-to-lower-speed-limits/) **Published:** May 25, 2026 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The Bellingham City Council recently voted to lower speed limits 5 to 10 mph. This means slower speeds in most neighborhoods, including arterial streets and in the downtown core. **THE DATA** In recommending the new speed limits, Public Works officials sought guidance from the [“City Limits” report](https://nacto.org/publication/city-limits-quick-guide/) prepared by the [National Association of City Transportation Officials](https://nacto.org/). The data included the following information: - Over the past decade, the total number of crashes on Bellingham roads has declined, but their severity has risen. - From 2015 to 2019, there were five traffic deaths on Bellingham streets. That includes a 2017 crash that killed a bicyclist. - From 2020-2024, there were 15 traffic fatalities, including 10 bicyclists and pedestrians. Two people have been killed on Bellingham streets so far this year, including one pedestrian. - Bellingham has 670 “lane miles” of streets. - More than half of Bellingham streets have a 25 mph speed limit, and more than a third of its streets have a 35 mph limit. - Only 3% or streets have a limit of 50 mph or higher. - Lowering speed limits will require a change in city policy, which now uses a system that sets speeds as a function of how fast 85% of drivers are going on a particular street. **WILL DECREASING SPEED LIMITS LEAD TO INCREASED PRETEXTUAL POLICE STOPS?** Probabaly, yes. A pretextual traffic stop happens when a police officer pulls someone over for a minor traffic or equipment violation to try and find evidence of another more serious crime. The legality of these stops is highly controversial, relying on deeply established federal law and evolving state-specific restrictions. **KNOW YOUR RIGHTS** - **Duration Limits:** Officers cannot legally prolong a routine traffic stop beyond the time it takes to issue a warning or citation unless they develop a new, independent suspicion of a crime. - **Consent to Search:** You have the right to refuse a search of your vehicle unless the officer has probable cause or a warrant. - **Legal Defense:** Because these stops walk a fine line, experienced criminal defense lawyers often challenge the validity of the initial stop or the scope of the officer’s search in court Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a driving-related crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Reckless Driving, Reckless Endangerment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Street Racing, Traffic Infractions, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Admitting Evidence of "Common Scheme or Plan" Under Evidence Rule 404(b)](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/46124-2/) **Published:** May 18, 2026 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Stearns*, No. 103908-5 (Mar. 26, 2026)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/1039085.pdf), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that evidence of a defendant’s prior bad acts may be admissible under [ER 404(b)](http://chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/ER/GA_ER_04_04_00.pdf) to show “common scheme or plan” if the prior bad acts were markedly similar to the charged crimes. Also, the victims in the prior bad acts do not need to be markedly similar to each other for the prior bad acts to be admissible to show common scheme or plan. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** In 1998, Crystal Williams, a 33-year-old Black woman, was found dead in Lavizzo Park in Seattle’s Central District. Ms. Williams worked as a sex worker. Six years later, the Defendant Mr. Stearns’ DNA matched the DNA in the semen found at the crime scene. Police interviewed Mr. Stearns, who was then serving time in prison for another crime. The prosecutor determined there was probable cause to charge Mr. Stearns with Ms. Williams’ murder but failed to bring charges until 12 years later. The State charged Mr. Stearns with felony murder in the first degree, based on first- and second-degree rape, with sexual motivation. At trial, the State offered, and the court admitted over Mr. Stearns’ objection, evidence of two of Mr. Stearns’ prior rape convictions. The State sought to admit these prior acts under the common scheme or plan exception to ER 404(b) to establish forcible compulsion and to rebut the defense of consent. Defense counsel objected, arguing that the other wrongful acts were not part of a common scheme or plan and that the evidence was unfairly prejudicial. The trial court overruled the objection, concluding that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudice and that the court would give a limiting instruction to the jury about the purpose of the admitted evidence. The trial court stated that the ER 404(b) evidence’s relevance to prove forcible compulsion and rebut Mr. Stearns’ claim of consent was “critical” to its ruling. The trial resulted in a hung jury. After numerous appeals and reversals, the WA Supreme Court granted certiori to decide the isue of The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the prior rapes under ER 404(b) to establish forcible compulsion and to rebut the defense of consent. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The WA Supreme Court discussed the parameters of Evidence Rule (ER) 404(b). Under this evidence rule, a trial court may admit the defendant’s other wrongful acts to show a common plan or scheme if the other wrongful acts are **(1)** proved by a preponderance of the evidence, **(2)** admitted for the purpose of proving a common plan or scheme, **(3)** relevant to prove an element of the crime charged or to rebut a defense, and **(4)** more probative than prejudicial. However, the WA Supreme Court also said a court may not admit evidence of a defendant’s other wrongful acts to show that the defendant has a propensity for criminal behavior. ER 404(b). The reason for this prohibition is the risk that the jury will simply punish a defendant for their other wrongful acts or will assume they committed the current alleged criminal act. Next, the WA Supreme Court reasoned that when analyzing a defendant’s “common scheme or plan,” courts must consider the acts, the victims and the circumstances of the crimes. On this, the Court reasoned that evidence may be admitted under this exception when a person uses one plan to repeatedly commit separate but very similar crimes. The separate crimes do not have to be identical, but they must be markedly similar acts of misconduct against similar victims under similar circumstances. Further, the acts must have such a concurrence of common features that they are naturally explained as being part of a common plan. Against that backdrop, the WA Supreme Court ruled that because Mr. stearns’ other acts of sexual assault were sufficiently similar to the present case, it was within the trial court’s discretion to admit that evidence under ER 404(b). First, the other wrongful acts committed by Mr. Stearns were markedly similar to the acts here: he hit each victim on the head, strangled them, and sexually assaulted them, and there is evidence that all three victims were robbed. This factor weighs strongly toward showing a common plan, said the Court. Second, the dissimilarities between the victims do not weigh heavily in this case. Each woman was a victim of a seemingly random act of violence, who was attacked in Seattle’s Central District in a similar manner. These similarities between the victims are sufficient. Finally, the circumstances of the crimes in this case were similar in that Mr. Stearns was able to attack each victim by tricking them: > “Mr. Stearns entered BG’s home around midnight with a ruse, telling her someone was chasing him. Mr. Stearns attacked DH from behind after appearing to be passed out and lying in the gutter. While many details of Crystal Williams’ death are unknown, based on the circumstances it is likely the killer approached Ms. Williams under the guise of offering drugs or money for sex.” ~Justice Salvador A. Mungia, WA Supreme Court With that, the WA Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated Mr. Stearns’ conviction. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, ER 404(B), Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Whatcom County Approves New Criminal Justice Sales Tax](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/whatcom-county-approves-new-criminal-justice-sales-tax/) **Published:** May 4, 2026 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** WHATCOM — The Whatcom County Council considered and ultimately approved a new 0.1% sales and use tax for criminal justice purposes after a public hearing held on April 14. A preliminary discussion was first held with the county council during the Feb. 24 meeting, with an understanding that the county executive would bring forth an ordinance at a later meeting. According to a [staff memo](http://chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://meetings.cob.org/Documents/DownloadFileBytes/Attachment%20-%20STAFF%20MEMO%20-%20AB_%2024648.pdf?documentType=1&meetingId=3616&itemId=42079&publishId=46519&isSection=False&isAttachment=True), rising costs within the criminal justice system are creating pressures on the 2027-2028 biennium budget. Existing revenue sources are unable to keep up with labor costs and inflation, as revenues sources are projected to grow more slowly. “Further, the county has already initiated critical services — most notably expanded jail medical services — without a designated, sustainable revenue source,” the staff memo states. “This revenue is needed, not to launch new programs, but to sustain obligations already underway and prevent a more rapid deterioration of the general fund trajectory.” The sales tax is expected to bring in about $6.5 million to $7 million and could be used to offset operating obligations, such as jail health and food services, sheriff’s office lease and criminal justice labor costs across several departments. Revenue collection can begin July 1. The public hearing came with mixed feelings, with some saying it should help a broader range of services and that the tax is needed to fund various programs while others said they don’t trust the government to not squander the funds and that it should not be threatening cuts to the sheriff’s department should the tax not pass. After holding public comment, council voted 5-2 to approve the new tax, with council members Mark Stremler and Ben Elenbaas voting against it. Stremler and Elenbaas then voted on a separate ordinance to instead send the tax increase to the voters. That ordinance did not pass, as the five other council members voted against it. However, the county’s attorney advised that the council does not have the authority to put the tax on the ballot in this specific instance. Elenbaas and Stremler said they disagreed with the interpretation. “We want to have the voters of Whatcom County decide if they want to pay this or do they not want to pay this tax,” Stremler said. “That’s the bottom line.” According to a presentation from Deputy Executive Kayla Schott-Bresler, had the tax not passed the county would need to cut millions of dollars across all county departments. Even with the tax, some modest cuts will still need to be made. Here are key takeaways: • What it costs you: The tax adds 10 cents to every $100 purchase, amounting to about $25 to $45 annually for the average Whatcom County family. • When it starts: The tax takes effect July 1 and could raise $6.5 to $7 million annually for the county. • Why the county says it’s needed: County Executive Satpal Sidhu called the tax a “crucial step toward fixing the structural imbalance in the county’s annual budget.” Without it, the county faces a $12 million deficit by 2028 and potential cuts to the Sheriff’s Office, courts and Prosecutor’s Office. • No public vote — for now: A companion advisory referendum failed 2-5. A voter referendum under state law isn’t allowed until 2028, according to Deputy Prosecutor Kimberly Thulin. • Where the money goes: Funds will pay for health and food services at the county jail, a lease on a new Sheriff’s Office building and labor costs. My opinion? Criminal justice sales taxes (often known as public safety sales taxes) are a specialized tax, such as the 0.1% increase recently implemented in several Washington state jurisdictions. Whether they are considered “good” or “bad” depends largely on whether the need for immediate funding outweighs concerns about equity and tax fairness. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Uncategorized **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Marijuana Arrests Decrease](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/marijuana-arrests-decrease/) **Published:** April 27, 2026 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [Marijuana Policy Project](https://www.mpp.org/) just released a new [report](http://mpp.org/ArrestReport) on weed-related arrests in the United States. Based on [FBI Crime Explorer data](https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/home), the report examines cannabis arrest data in all 50 states, including a state-by-state breakdown of arrest data. In short, the [report](http://mpp.org/ArrestReport) shows that states have turned to more pragmatic regulation and legalization of cannabis. The era of mass arrests is decreasing. > “Cannabis legalization across 24 states has driven a historic decline in cannabis arrests nationwide, from a high of nearly 900,000 to over 200,000 annually. That is still an alarmingly high number, with each of those arrests representing an actual person whose current reality and future prospects may well be derailed by a criminal record. Across half of our country, hundreds of thousands of Americans are still being funneled into the criminal justice system every year for a victimless ‘crime’ that is very likely legal in the next state over.” ~Marijuana Policy Project Executive Director Adam J. Smith **THE NUMBERS** The report found that annual cannabis arrests in the United States dropped from a peak of over 870,000 in 2007 to 211,104 in 2025. The findings show that cannabis arrest rates have dropped 85.53%, with possession arrests dropping by an average of 84.61% and sales arrests decreasing by an average of 80.39%. In 2025, law enforcement agencies in states that have legalized marijuana reported 22,357 cannabis arrests, while states that continue to prohibit pot reported 186,581 cannabis arrests. The 24 states with legal cannabis made a total of 222,261 fewer cannabis arrests in 2025 compared to the year prior to their legalization of cannabis. Prohibition states made more than eight times as many cannabis arrests than legalization states in 2025, although they have a smaller total population. My opinion? We’ve come a long way since nearly 900,000 annual arrests. Nevertheless, 200,000 Americans arrested every year for cannabis is still a human rights disaster that must end. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Drug Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, marijuana, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Protection Order Violations & Firearms Surrender](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/protection-order-violations-firearms-surrender/) **Published:** April 20, 2026 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Many clients charged with [Protection Order Violations](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/no-contact-order-violations/) ask why they must surrender their firearms. They see this government act as unreasonable intrusion of their [Second Amendment right to Bear Arms](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment). Under the law, when a protection order is served, the respondent must immediately surrender all firearms, dangerous weapons, and concealed pistol licenses (CPL) to law enforcement. Failure to comply, or possessing firearms while under such an order, is a criminal violation. In [*State v. Bell*, ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/845349.pdf)the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) recently held a protection order requiring an individual to surrender firearms does not violate the [Second Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment) when the court finds the individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another. The threat does not have to be towards a specific identified person. [Due Process](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process) only requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. Here, the defendant had an opportunity to be heard but he chose not to appear for the hearing. Thus, there was no Due Process violation. **BACKGROUND FACTS** In October 2021, a temporary protection order issued under former RCW 26.50 was served on Mr. Bell. It prohibited him from contacting his mother and minor child. The temporary order required Bell to “surrender all firearms and prohibit\[ed\] him from accessing, obtaining, or possessing firearms.” Bell was personally served with a copy of the petition, the temporary protection order, notice of a hearing on November 4, 2021, and an order to surrender weapons. Bell did not appear at the November 4 hearing, nor did he appear at a rescheduled hearing two weeks later. On November 18, 2021, a superior court commissioner entered a final protection order. Along with prohibiting contact with his mother and child, is also required Bell to surrender weapons and prohibited him from accessing, possessing, or obtaining any firearms. The order requiring Bell to surrender weapons was based on the court commissioner’s findings that Bell “had actual notice, represented a credible threat, and was an intimate partner.” The order also found that Bell “presents a serious and imminent threat to public health or safety, or the health and safety of any individual by possessing a firearm or other dangerous weapon.” On January 1, 2022, Bell appeared at a QFC kiosk with an AK-47 assault rifle. Bell asked the clerk for cigarettes. When the clerk asked for payment, Bell pointed the rifle at him. Bell admitted at trial that he knowingly possessed the rifle, which he was still carrying when arrested about an hour later. The AK-47 was later test-fired and determined operable. The State charged Bell with [attempted robbery in the first degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/robbery/) and [unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/) ([UPF-2](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.040)). The trial was bifurcated. A jury convicted Bell of attempted robbery and found that he had been armed with a firearm. Following a bench trial, Bell was convicted of UPF-2. The trial court found that the protection order met the legal requirements to support his conviction. Accordingly, the trial court concluded that Bell was guilty of UPF-2. Bell timely appealed to this court raising a facial challenge to the constitutionality of the [UPF-2 ](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.040)firearms conviction. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals (the Court) began with sweeping descriptions of the Second Amendment. Among other things, it said the U.S. Supreme Court has construed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This right extends to the right to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense as well as an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. In its analysis, the Court also explained that since the founding, the nation’s firearm laws have included regulations to stop individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms. Here, the Court found Mr. Bell’s protection order was consistent with this nation’s tradition of firearm regulation and compatible with the Second Amendment. They also reasoned that Mr. Bell presented a serious and imminent threat to public health or safety, or the health or safety of any individual by possessing a firearm or other dangerous weapon. Next the Court rejected Mr. Bell’s argument that his conviction should be vacated because the “serious and imminent” finding was entered despite never hearing from Bell. Stated differently, Bell argued that receiving notice and an opportunity to attend the hearing was not enough because there was no back up plan if he was not present in court and surety laws required actually hearing from the accused. In response, the Court rejected these arguments because he failed to appear at his court hearings: > “The court did not hear from Bell only because Bell chose not to appear at either of the two hearings on the protection order. The procedural protections were there, but Bell failed to use them.” ~WA Court of Appeals Finally, the Court rejected Mr. Bell’s arguments that Washington’s [UPF-2](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.040) was unconstitutional because it prohibits any and all possession of a firearm, including if done in self-defense of his home: > “Bell was disarmed because he represented a serious and imminent threat to the public. There is no authority that dangerous individuals can retain partial firearm rights even though they are lawfully disarmed.” ~WA Court of Appeals With that, Mr. Bell’s criminal convictions were upheld. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Firearm, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Robbery, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Millionaires Tax Will Not Help Fund Public Defense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/millionaires-tax-will-not-help-fund-public-defense/) **Published:** April 13, 2026 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Last month, Washington state lawmakers rejected a plan to use a [new income tax](https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2026/03/12/washington-income-tax-clears-legislature-faces-challenges) to help pay for lawyers for criminal defendants, despite warnings of a growing public defense crisis. Apparently, the rising public defense costs — driven by new state caseload standards — could push county governments toward bankruptcy and bring the state’s criminal justice system to a standstill, county officials say. **THE NUMBERS** Washington’s counties paid more than $200 million to provide public defense services in 2024, Young’s group estimated. The state picked up less than $6 million of those costs that year. The Legislature has since boosted its contribution to $13.6 million annually. Unfortunately, this is merely a fraction of current costs, especially with the new caseload standards ramping up. **BACKGROUND** [Early versions](https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2026/02/03/washington-state-millionaire-tax-governor-ferguson-spending-tax-relief) of the Legislature’s [new tax](https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2026/03/11/washington-income-tax-millionaires-clears-house) on annual incomes over $1 million – commonly called a “[millionaires tax](https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2026/01/12/washington-state-millionaire-tax-ferguson-democrats-proposal)” – would have directed between 5% and 7% of the revenue to county and city public defense costs. However, that language was stripped out of [the bill](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/?BillNumber=6346&Year=2025&Initiative=false) that ultimately passed last week. Instead, local governments could lose more than $300 million per year due to sales tax breaks in the new income tax plan. Apparently, those losses will make paying for public defense even harder. Washington’s counties have long shouldered most of the cost of providing attorneys to criminal defendants who can’t afford them — a right guaranteed in the state constitution. This problem is ongoing. In 2023, the state Association of Counties [sued the state](https://wsac.org/washingtons-counties-file-suit-against-the-state-of-washington/), accusing the Legislature of shirking its duty to pay for those services. That lawsuit is ongoing. Also, last year the state Supreme Court issued an [order](https://opd.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/000203_SupCrtOrder2026Standards.pdf) last year requiring public defenders to sharply reduce their caseloads. The new standards cut maximum felony and misdemeanor caseloads by roughly two-thirds. Counties have up to 10 years to fully comply, but must steadily reduce caseloads toward the new limits each year. Meeting those standards will more than triple public defense costs statewide, Young estimated. My opinion? Public defenders continue to face funding issues. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [The Right To Counsel Does Not Also Include the Right to Coaching A Defendant Mid-Trial](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/the-right-to-counsel-does-not-also-include-the-right-to-coaching-a-defendant-mid-trial/) **Published:** April 6, 2026 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*Villarreal v. Texas*](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-557_l5gm.pdf), the [U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) held that a trial court, during a brief daytime break in the defendant’s testimony, may entirely prohibit defense counsel from communicating with the defendant. This protects the truth-seeking function of the trial by preventing mid-testimony coaching. However, during more extended overnight breaks in the defendant’s testimony, a trial court may only prohibit defense counsel from influencing or managing the defendant’s testimony, not from discussing other topics with the defendant such as the availability of witnesses, trial tactics, or plea bargaining. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** David Villarreal’s murder trial culminated with his own testimony. That testimony was interrupted by a 24-hour overnight recess, during which the trial judge instructed Villarreal’s attorneys not to “manage his testimony.” The judge clarified, however, that Villarreal was not prohibited from talking to his attorneys. The judge recognized Villarreal’s constitutional right to confer about certain topics, such as possible sentencing issues. Villarreal resumed his testimony 24 hours later and was subsequently convicted of murder. On appeal, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the order was a permissible exercise of the trial court’s discretion. Villarreal appealed on arguments that his 6th Amendment Right to Counsel was violated by the trial court’s rulings. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered the majority opinon of the Court. In short, she affirmed Villarreal’s murder conviction, holding that a qualified conferral order during an overnight recess — one that prohibits only discussion of the defendant’s testimony “for its own sake” while allowing consultation on other protected topics — does not violate the Sixth Amendment. The Court framed the issue as a tension between two principles: the defendant’s fundamental right to counsel and the truth-seeking interest in preventing lawyer-influenced midstream alteration of sworn testimony. It treated the case as a middle ground between [*Geders v. United States*](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/425/80/), (overnight total ban invalid) and [*Perry v. Leeke*](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/488/272/), (brief daytime ban valid), emphasizing that those cases involved unqualified bans on attorney-client communication, whereas this case involved a content-limited restriction. The majority’s rationale was that the line between *Geders* and *Perry* is “substantive, not merely temporal.” In other words, a testifying defendant retains a constitutional right to consult counsel about matters like trial strategy, plea decisions, and other issues beyond the testimony itself, but does not have a constitutional right to discuss ongoing testimony as such while still on the stand: > “The trial judge’s order here prohibited Villarreal’s lawyers from “managing” his “ongoing testimony.” This order permissibly balanced the truth-seeking function of the trial against Villarreal’s right to discuss protected topics with his lawyers—things like trial strategy, whether to consider a guilty plea, and factual information crucial to tactical decisions.” > > “A court cannot prohibit a defendant from obtaining his attorney’s advice on whether and why he should consider a guilty plea, even if the “why” includes the impact of ongoing testimony on the trial’s prospects. But it may, like the court here did, prohibit discussion of testimony as such.” [~Justice Ketanji Jackson, U.S. Supreme Court](https://supremecourthistory.org/supreme-court-justices/associate-justice-ketanji-brown-jackson/) The Court analogized such orders to witness-sequestration principles adapted to the defendant’s special status. In doing so, the Court reasoned that forbidding only “managing” testimony permissibly balances constitutional rights with the trial’s truth-seeking function. In its conclusions, the Court also rejected Villarreal’s request for a bright-line rule barring any overnight restriction, reasoning that a narrow no-testimony-discussion order is not the same as an overbroad prohibition on all attorney-client consultation. With that the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed Mr. Villareal’s murder conviction. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Homicide](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Homicide & Manslaughter, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Governor Signs Bill Prohibiting Law Enforcement Impersonators](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/governor-signs-bill-prohibiting-law-enforcement-impersonators/) **Published:** March 24, 2026 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Governor Bob Ferguson signed a bill preventing individuals from posing as law enforcement with fake badges or other items with law enforcement insignia. The Governor worked with Rep. Edwin Obras (D-Burien) and Sen. Adrian Cortes (D-Battle Ground) to propose the legislation, [House Bill 2165](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2165&Initiative=false&Year=2025&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery). The bill bans individuals who are not law enforcement from wearing, displaying or possessing badges or other law enforcement insignias. [House Bill 2165](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2165&Initiative=false&Year=2025&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery) passed the House in a bipartisan 66-29 vote and passed the Senate 30-18. **WHY IS THIS LAW NECESSARY?** CNN found that there were more ICE impersonation incidents in 2025 than in the past four presidential administrations combined. This bill increases safety and accountability by ensuring that only legitimate officers identify themselves as law enforcement. > “If you’re not a law enforcement officer, it needs to be illegal to wear something that gives the impression that you are. This common-sense change in state law will make Washingtonians safer and hold imposters accountable.” ~Governor Bob Ferguson “It’s just common sense and good community safety policy,” Rep. Obras said. “If you talk to someone you believe is a law enforcement officer, you should be able to trust that they, in fact, are who they say they are. These unprecedented times, in which federal officials are arresting and detaining members of our communities, require us to ensure those creating additional chaos are held accountable. We should all be worried about vigilantism, assault, or property crimes that become easier if someone impersonates a police officer. We are taking steps to prevent these crimes to ensure all communities are safe from harm.” “ICE agents are stoking fear across Washington state and the country, while making us less secure,” Sen. Cortes said. “The FBI has warned of criminals posing as ICE officers and carrying out robberies, kidnappings, and sexual assaults in several states. This is unacceptable and erodes the public’s trust in law enforcement. House Bill 2165 is a critical step in helping us restore that trust so we can keep our communities safe.” HB 2165 will: - Expand the definition of law enforcement to include all federal agents who enforce the laws of the United States and have the authority to detain people — including ICE. - Create the crime of false identification of a peace officer, which means; - Make a violation a gross misdemeanor, in line with [existing law](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.60.045&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery) regulating criminal impersonation; - Limit the possession of items with law enforcement insignias on them, with an exception for items used in works of art, commentary, satire, and parody; and - Ensure legitimate law enforcement officers are clearly identifiable. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [FBI Crime Data Shows Washington Is The Second-Most Dangerous State](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/fbi-crime-data-shows-washington-is-the-second-most-dangerous-state/) **Published:** March 16, 2026 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** ![FBI crime data](https://lynnwoodtimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/image-50.png "Form Submission 51 | Law offices of Alexander Ransom") *Most Dangerous States to Raise a Family. SOURCE: [Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Crime Data Explorer](https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/home)* Washington has landed in the top five of a new list ranking the most dangerous states for neighborhood safety. Oregon came in at number four. The [study](https://www.omegalaw.com/), conducted by the Omega Law Group, placed Washington 5th overall after analyzing crime rates in residential areas and public parks across the country. **THE DATA** The study utilized crime data from the [Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI)](https://www.fbi.gov/investigate) to create two metrics: ‘violent crimes’ and ‘property crimes’. The metrics include data from eight different types of crime: homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, arson, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. In Washington, there were roughly 2,126 home-related crimes for every 100,000 residents. When it comes to parks, the study found about 76 crimes per 100,000 people. Although Washington is 5th overall, it actually has a higher home crime rate than Oregon and Utah, which ranked just above the state on the total index. Meanwhile, in Oregon, there were 1,601 home-related crimes for every 100,000 residents, with a park crime rate of nearly 97, the highest park crime rate of any state in the top ten, according to the research. **HOW DOES WA STATE COMPARE TO THE REST OF THE WEST?** The West Coast and Rocky Mountain regions dominated the top of the list. New Mexico took the number one spot as the most dangerous state by a wide margin, followed by Colorado, Delaware, and Utah. Apparently, the Northeast appears to be the safest region in America. New Jersey was ranked as the safest state for neighborhoods, followed closely by Maine and West Virginia. While the Northeast consistently stays at the bottom of the rankings due to different policing strategies and community investments, states in the West continue to struggle with higher rates of residential and park-related incidents. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Whatcom County Considers Criminal Justice Sales Tax](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/whatcom-county-considers-criminal-justice-sales-tax/) **Published:** March 2, 2026 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Whatcom County may implement a new sales tax of 0.1% to go toward staffing in the sheriff’s office and other criminal justice costs. The county expects the tax would raise roughly $7 million in annual revenue. It comes amid rising costs for many of the county’s criminal justice services, including jail contracts, the Sheriff’s Office lease and general labor costs. **WHY IS A CRIMINAL JUSTICE TAX NECESSARY?** [According to reports](https://komonews.com/news/local/washington-state-police-hiring-bellevue-seattle-police-department-association-of-sheriffs-police-chiefs-statewide-population-bpd-spd-per-capita-dc-50-states), Washington is ranked 50th in the nation for law enforcement officers per capita. The state Legislature in 2025 tried to address that issue by creating a new $100 million grant program to encourage police hiring. The Legislature also authorized a new 0.1% sales tax that cities and counties can put toward public defense, diversion, reentry, domestic violence services and [community assistance](https://www.cascadiadaily.com/2024/aug/03/six-months-in-downtown-medics-balance-overdose-calls-with-dedicated-social-work/). Cost escalation throughout the criminal justice system has led to a general fund budget deficit. Apparently, if the tax is not passed, the county will have to make significant cuts for the 2027–28 biennial budget. The tax does not need voter approval to go into effect. However, jurisdictions seeking to implement it [must prove their eligibility by adhering to a long list of required policies and training](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=82.14.345). Locally, [Lynden](https://www.cascadiadaily.com/2025/oct/13/lynden-passes-public-safety-tax/), [Bellingham](https://www.cascadiadaily.com/2025/oct/06/bellinghams-new-0-1-sales-tax-will-go-into-effect-january/) and [Skagit County](https://www.cascadiadaily.com/2025/nov/11/skagit-county-implements-public-safety-sales-tax/) passed the sales tax last year. **WHATCOM COUNTY’S FEBRUARY 24TH COUNCIL MEETING** During a Whatcom County Council meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 24, Undersheriff Steve Harris requested that the sales tax, if passed, be put toward staffing, particularly patrol and corrections deputies. The sheriff’s office froze nine vacant positions to save $1.25 million in 2026. Harris told the county council that deputies have spent 6,400 hours on training in the last six months to meet the state’s standards. He estimated the sheriff’s office will be fully compliant by March 31, at which point the county will apply for a grant to support hiring officers. Whatcom councilmembers also expressed support for the tax: > “This seems like something that’s really going to help us in the long run continue to provide the current level of service to our community.” ~Whatcom County Council Member Kaylee Galloway Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Happy New Year!](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/happy-new-year/) **Published:** December 31, 2008 **Author:** admin **Content:** ![Alexander Ransom - Criminal Defense Law - Lawyers of Distinction](https://www.thelawyersofdistinction.com/images/alexander-ransom.jpeg) December 31, 2008 Dear Clients, Friends, & Peers: The blog is officially up and running! Looking forward to 2009. Best wishes to you and your families. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. **-Alex** ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Uncategorized **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Law Firm Client Obtains $150,000 Damages Award for Police Negligence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/law-firm-client-obtains-150000-damages-award-for-police-misconduct/) **Published:** February 17, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** Good news. The [Law Offices of Alexander Ransom, PLLC.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/), obtained a $150,000.00 settlement against [Island County](https://www.islandcountywa.gov/Pages/Home.aspx) in a police misconduct lawsuit. As [reported](https://www.southwhidbeyrecord.com/news/island-county-settles-911-case-for-150000/) in the [South Whidbey Record](https://www.southwhidbeyrecord.com/), the 2006 incident was one of the biggest scandals in memory for the Island County Sheriff’s Office. Client Victoria Walker was held against her will and assaulted by a friend at his parent’s cabin. She called 911 from the cabin two times. The sheriff deputy who was dispatched to the 911 call merely knocked on the door, talked to Victoria’s friend and departed the scene without speaking to Victoria at all. In short, the deputy failed to adequately respond. Ms. Walker eventually escaped from the cabin and contacted authorities. The deputy was terminated from employment. Mr. Ransom filed a [public disclosure request](https://www.islandcountywa.gov/Pages/PRR.aspx) seeking all information regarding the case. He obtained police reports, internal investigation reports, an arbitration decision, and a past disciplinary notice given to the deputy for similar failures to respond. Mr. Ransom also filed a [Notice of Claim](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/filing-tort-claim-against-government-washington.html) against Island County claiming police negligence. The case was resolved through out-of-court negotiations with the [Washington Counties Risk Pool](http://www.wcrp.info/). Ms. Walker reports she is “extremely happy with the outcome,” and “hope(s) these circumstances never happen again for anyone else.” Congratulations, Victoria! You were my good friend long before you were my client. I cherish our memories. Ride or die 4-evah! Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** 911 Call, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Police Misconduct, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Change Washington's Marijuana Laws](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/its-time-to-reform-was-marijuana-laws/) **Published:** February 18, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** This month, the [Washington Senate Judiciary Committee](https://leg.wa.gov/Senate/Committees/LAW/Pages/default.aspx) will hold hearings on from a misdemeanor, carrying mandatory jail time, to a civil infraction and a $100 dollar fine. According to the [Washington A.C.L.U.](https://www.aclu-wa.org/), In 2007, enforcement of Washington laws for possession of marijuana resulted in over 11,000 arrests, 3,600 convictions (with an average sentence of four days in jail), and cost an estimated $7.5 million dollars. The A.C.L.U. says it supports [Senate Bill 5615](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/?BillNumber=5615&Year=2009&Initiative=false) sponsored by Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles. > “We don’t believe adults who use small quantities of marijuana for personal use should be treated as criminals.” ~Alison Holcomb, A.C.L.U. Some Washington police officials see it differently. Burien Police Chief Scott Kimerer says he fears, if passed, this could open the door to further legalization and he says he doesn’t want to make the drug more attractive than it may already be. He goes on to says; “People might have a tendency to say well it’s not going to be a criminal offense. It’s not going to affect my job… It’s not going to affect anything else involving what a criminal matter would and so why don’t I try it… And I don’t want to do that.” From my perspective – that of a criminal defense attorney – the legislation is extremely progressive. Far too many of my clients – most of them young people who are gainfully employed or attending college – face criminal charges for violating our archaic marijuana laws. Indeed, alcohol abuse is FAR more debilitating and dangerous. And it’s legal! Some people consume marijuana for medicinal purposes. It’s time for a change. Decriminalization is a step in the right direction. True, $100 civil penalty is still imposed. Perhaps after some success with the proposed legislation (if it passes) the civil penalty will eventually be erased as well. One can only hope. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face a [Drug Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or are charged with any other crimes. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** ACLU, Drug Offenses, felony, Legislation, marijuana, misdemeanor **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Amend Washington's "Three Strikes" Law](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/amend-washingtons-three-strikes-law/) **Published:** February 23, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** Our criminal justice system is based on the concept that the punishment must fit the crime. Stated another way, the sentence imposed for a particular crime should be proportional to the circumstances of the crime. The problem? Under [Washington’s “Three Strikes” law](https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/three-strikes-youre-out-a-review), which imposes a mandatory life sentence without parole on individuals convicted of any of almost two dozen felony offenses, **the crime of [Robbery in the Second Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/robbery/) is one of the listed crimes.** An individual can be charged with second-degree robbery even if no weapon is used or no one is injured! A solution? [The ACLU supports the removal of Robbery Second Degree from the list of strike offenses](https://www.aclu-wa.org/news/reforming-%E2%80%9Cthree-strikes%E2%80%9D-law). The bottom line is this: while serious in and of itself, Robbery Second Degree does not rise to the level of being Strike-worthy. When dealing with a potential life sentence, it is simply unjust to include a crime that sweeps so broadly. Additionally, the “Three Strikes” law does not deter crime, and it disproportionately affects minority offenders. It takes sentencing discretion away from judges, who should be able to consider individual circumstances when imposing sentences. It adds costs to already tight government budgets by incarcerating elderly persons who are not a threat to public safety. Passing the legislation will reduce the number of people who are imprisoned for life out of all proportion to their offenses. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** ACLU, Drug Offenses, Legislation, Race & Law, Robbery, Sentencing, Three Strikes Law **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Report finds inequalities in Washington criminal fines](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/report-finds-inequalities-in-washington-criminal-fines/) **Published:** February 24, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** A [report finds wide disparities in how much Washington’s criminal defendants are required to pay in fines and fees](https://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Report-finds-inequalities-in-Washington-criminal-1300957.php). According to the University of Washington study released Tuesday, Hispanics are charged significantly higher fees and fines than non-Hispanic whites; men are fined more than women; and drug cases bring greater fees and fines than violent crimes do. There were also geographic differences. One man convicted of drug offenses in Pierce County was assessed fees and fines of $600, while one convicted in Lewis County was assessed $6,710. The study examined all superior court cases resolved in the first two months of 2004 — nearly 3,400 cases. The researchers determined that the system is illogical and hinders people from rejoining society, especially because of the high 12 percent interest rate they must pay on the fines. Three years after the defendants were sentenced, about half had made no payments. My opinion? This is disgraceful. The report provides empirical data that our justice system is horribly inconsistent when it comes to administering costs/fees upon defendants. Unbelievable. The lesson? Don’t get caught committing crimes if you’re minority, male, and come from out of town. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Court Fines, Due Process, Race & Law, Studies **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Can't Afford to Hang 'Em Anymore](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/cant-afford-to-hang-em-anymore/) **Published:** March 2, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** Some states are passing legislation to [end the Death Penalty over financial concerns](http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/02/economy.death.penalty/index.html). Kansas is leading the effort. “Because of the downturn in the national economy, we are facing one of the largest budget deficits in our history,” state Sen. Carolyn McGinn, a Republican, said in an opinion piece posted on TheKansan.com Friday. “What is certain is we are all going to have to look at new and creative ways to fund state and community programs and services.” The state would save more than $500,000 per case by not seeking the death penalty, McGinn wrote, money that could be used for “prevention programs, community corrections and other programs to decrease future crimes against society.” Fiscal concerns are just a part of the argument. In addition, a disproportionate rate of minorities are sentenced to death. The legislation would seek to curb the disproportion. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Death Penalty, Legislation **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Increased Numbers On Parole & Probation in WA](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/increased-numbers-on-parole-probation-in-wa/) **Published:** March 11, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** Washington ranks [near the bottom in the country for the number of people it incarcerates](https://www.heraldnet.com/news/state-ranks-44th-in-u-s-for-incarceration-12th-for-probation-and-parole-rates/), but like many states, it’s having to find ways to pay for a steadily growing number of people on probation and parole. According to the above article, one in 30 adults is under correctional control in the state. With more than 165,000 people either incarcerated or on parole or probation, Washington state ranks 17th out of all the states. But Washington ranks 44th for the people it puts behind bars – just over 32,000 are incarcerated in either prison or jail. Consequently, the vast majority are either on probation or parole – more than 133,000, or about one in 37 people, ranking the state 12th in the nation. The numbers of those under community supervision have increased. Unfortunately, so have the costs. For the 2003-2005 budget, about $190 million went toward supervision. For the current budget ending in 2009, it has increased to nearly $307 million. While that’s just a small part of the state’s $1.8 billion two-year corrections budget, in a year where the state is facing a projected $8 billion deficit through 2011, officials are feeling the pinch. Interesting times . . . Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Court Fines, Probation **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Defendants Could Be Free From Probation](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/defendants-could-be-free-from-probation/) **Published:** March 11, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** Lawmakers, facing an $8 billion budget deficit, are looking for ways to save money. [Senate Bill 5288](https://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Criminals-could-be-free-from-probation-1301897.php), which would lower the number of criminal offenders on parole or probation, reflects suggestions made by the governor to reduce the growing budget deficit by making cuts in the Corrections Department. Interestingly enough, police gurus support the bill “with some discomfort,” but feel that if the Legislature must make cuts in the [Department of Corrections](https://www.doc.wa.gov/), supervision of low- to moderate-risk offenders would be the right place. The bill would totally eliminate supervision of low- and moderate-risk offenders unless they were convicted of a violent offense, a crime against a person, or ordered to chemical dependency treatment. Their supervision would be terminated after six months if they have not reoffended. However, those offenders categorized as high risk, or low to moderate risk convicted of a sex offense, would still be supervised. Under the current wording of the bill, gross misdemeanants would not be supervised by parole or probation. The cost-savings would ultimately mean a big job loss for probation officers. My opinion? Pass the legislation! For the most part, my clients are hardworking; law abiding citizens facing criminal charges from an isolated event or circumstance. All of the sudden, they get labelled as criminals. The system painfully grinds them through a process which threatens to take their time, money, dignity, energy, and reputation. For many of my clients, probation is an unnecessary evil. Understand this: in Whatcom County, a first-time [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) offender and/or [Domestic Violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) offender faces up to TWO YEARS of probation at a cost of $75-$100 per month. Do the math. That’s $900 – $1200 per year. This cost, along with the cost of mandatory treatment, jail, and fines, clearly skyrockets the cost of doing justice. And for what? Why? Is it because the police sometimes violate your Constitutional rights when they pull you over and investigate you for DUI? Or is it because the police MUST arrest someone in the wake of a heated argument between spouses? An argument where, in most cases, the victim does not want to pursue prosecution and wants the charges dropped? “Alex, please do something to get me off probation or decrease the amount of time I’m on it.” These words are uttered by many clients who want to avoid trial and negotiate a favorable resolution with the prosecutor. They hire me to get justice. The legislature is finally realizing probation is unnecessary in many circumstances. Either that, or they’re realizing probation is expensive in roughshod economic times. In any event, let’s all realize the obvious and pass this legislation. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Court Fines, Domestic Violence, Drug Offenses, Legislation, misdemeanor, Probation **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Decades of Disparity: Drug Arrests and Race in the United States](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/decades-of-disparity-drug-arrests-and-race-in-the-united-states/) **Published:** March 11, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** New [drug arrest data](http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0309web_1.pdf) shows the persistence and extent of racial disparities in the [“War on Drugs”](https://www.history.com/topics/crime/the-war-on-drugs) in the United States. The report indicates dramatic racial disproportions among incarcerated drug offenders. It states, “Since blacks are more likely to be arrested than whites on drug charges, they are more likely to acquire the convictions that ultimately lead to higher rates of incarceration.” The report also shows that although data indicates that blacks represent about one-third of drug arrests, they constitute 46 percent of persons convicted of drug felonies in state courts. Among black defendants convicted of drug offenses, 71 percent received sentences to incarceration in contrast to 63 percent of convicted white drug offenders. My opinion? The “War on Drugs” should rename itself as the “War on Race.” The data speaks for itself. End the War on Drugs. Legalize marijuana. Stop institutional racism. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Drug Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, felony, Jail, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Race & Law, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Sentencing, Studies **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Retired Judge Says It Is Time To End War On Marijuana](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/retired-judge-says-it-is-time-to-end-war-on-marijuana/) **Published:** March 22, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** Here’s an [excerpt of on Op-Ed by](http://www.november.org/dissentingopinions/Nichols.html) retired [Whatcom County Superior Court](https://www.whatcomcounty.us/413/Superior-Court) Judge David A. Nichols: > “It is my fervent belief that this state and nation must come to recognize that continuing to treat drug users as criminals perpetuates an evil that rewards the drug sellers and corrupts our society. Until we honestly and appropriately deal with the entire drug issue as a health problem analogous to tobacco or liquor, and not as a ‘war’ we cannot win, we will continue to reap the whirlwind of huge world-wide illegal drug profits which are costing us billions, threatening the stability of nations, causing soaring crime rates and diverting money which is sorely needed elsewhere.” ~ Judge David A. Nichols Judge Nichols also says that if we ever want to stop the craziness and futility of our present anti-drug approach, we must de-criminalize possession and use of all drugs. Education, addiction treatment and state regulation need to replace arrests, trials, jail sentences, growth of cartels and drug gangs, corrupt government institutions, and the mindless head-bashing against brick walls that characterize what we are doing now. My opinion? Way to tell the truth, Judge! Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face a [Drug Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crimes. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, felony, marijuana, Race & Law, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Brooks: WA Court Rightfully Dismisses Criminal Charges Because Prosecution Withheld Evidence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/excellent-decision-wa-court-dismisses-criminal-chargess-because-prosecution-withheld-evidence/) **Published:** March 26, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Brooks*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=361710MAJ), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) dismissed a criminal case due to [prosecutorial mismanagement](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/prosecutorial-misconduct-the-rules/) and withholding of evidence. My opinion? It’s about time! The prosecutors, God bless ’em, usually have the upper hand with judges. Typically, judges won’t sanction prosecutors or dismiss cases due to prosecutorial misconduct, mismanagement, or withholding of evidence (trust me, I’ve tried). This opinion opens the door for judges to exercise more discretion in dismissing poorly managed cases. In this case, the prosecutor withheld a a 60-page victim statement from the defense until the *day of trial*. Unbelievable! Imagine this: your attorney has geared up for trial. They agonizingly prepped the case from start to finish. Attorney has their theme, theory, motions in limine, opening statement, closing statement, voir dire questions, direct exam questions, and cross exam questions fully prepared before entering the court. All of the sudden, prosecutor plops a huge pamphlet of papers in front of defense attorney’s face. “Sorry you have no time to review this new statement, but go ahead and cross examine my witness on this.” Unbelievable. We have no idea what the statement contains. If admitted to evidence, this unread statement could, by itself, utterly throw your case theory out the window. The Court of Appeals has boldly decided these “Hide the Ball” shenanigans are going to get cases dismissed. That governmental mismanagement materially affects a defendant’s right to a fair trial. Good. I understand that prosecutors work hard. Their caseloads are huge. But hey, let’s be real, people’s lives and liberty are at stake. Constitutional rights are at risk. Consequently, cases *should* be dismissed when poorly handled and/or mismanaged. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Discovery, Dismissal, Due Process, Evidence, felony, Jury Trial, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Kitsap Jury Acquits Medical Marijuana Defendant](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/kitsap-jury-acquits-medical-marijuana-defendant/) **Published:** March 26, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** A medical marijuana patient being prosecuted in Kitsap County Superior Court for [drug trafficking](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) was [found not guilty on Tuesday morning](http://www.november.org/WAState/Kitsap_vs_Olsen.html), after a jury ruled that his use of the drug was within the law. The jury deliberated for approximately two hours prior to its ruling. The prosecution alleged that the crop was being sold commercially, and that the Olsons were hiding behind medical marijuana laws as cover for a drug operation. Defendant Bruce Olson decided to go to trial as the law had changed and he was advised that he had a better chance of acquittal. The trial was attended by a floating group of medical marijuana activists, from patients to political activists. Several of them noted that it was rare for such cases to go to trial, as defendants usually enter a plea. These activists filled the courtroom throughout the trial, with no visible support for the prosecution’s position. Olson, who turns 55 on Wednesday, maintained a subdued manner throughout the trial, and barely talked when he was in the courtroom. This changed on Tuesday, when he was laughing and joking with his attorney prior to the verdict’s reading. When it was announced Olson blurted “thank you, thank you you guys” to the jury, prompting Superior Court Judge Leila Mills to repeat her admonition to stay quiet until the jury was released. > “As a businessman I am really discouraged at all the money that was spent on this trial . . . It was a waste, and a lot of people who have seen the trial and are in business are wondering why I was prosecuted.” ~Defendant Bruce Olson My opinion? Great job, jury. The government should not tamper in the affairs of defendants who are licensed to possess marijuana. Period. I welcome the day when marijuana will be legalized. Let’s face it: [the “War on Drugs” has failed](https://civilrights.org/edfund/resource/the-war-on-drugs-has-failed-commission-says/#:~:text=The%20global%20war%20on%20drugs,Global%20Commission%20on%20Drug%20Policy.). Marijuana should not be demonized as a Gateway Drug. Legalize it! ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, felony, Jury Trial, Legislation, marijuana, Privacy, Search Warrant **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Drug Courts Huge Success](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/drug-courts-are-huge-success/) **Published:** April 5, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** A [National Study](http://www.sentencingproject.org/Admin%5CDocuments%5Cpublications%5Cdp_drugcourts.pdf) found that Drug Courts are widely successful. Here’s a summary of the study’s findings: **RECIDIVISM** Graduates of drug courts are less likely to be rearrested than persons processed through traditional court mechanics. Findings from drug court evaluations show that participation in drug courts results in fewer rearrests and reconvictions, or longer periods between arrests. **COST SAVINGS** Nationwide, drug courts save taxpayer dollars compared to simple probation and/or incarceration, primarily due to reductions in arrests, case processing, jail occupancy and victimization costs. While not all persons diverted to drug court would have otherwise been sentenced to prison, for those individuals who are incarcerated, the average annual cost is estimated to be $23,000 per inmate, while the average annual cost of drug court participation is estimated to be $4,300 per person. **THE EFFECT OF SANCTIONS** The study showed that Drug Courts which reward/sanction all levels of good/bad behavior recognize there is value in incremental progress toward the goal of abstinence. A participant who faithfully makes all court appearances and meets the obligations of the court may be rewarded with an acknowledgement of accomplishment. On the other hand, developing a flexible, graduated sanction program is a crucial contributor to a successful drug court program, because even those who are eventually successful in drug court tend first to relapse, warrant, and violate other program rules. The study concluded that sanctioning should be seen as an opportunity to adjust treatment to limit subsequent relapse, rather than the first step on the path to an eventual termination of drug court participation and a likely sentence to custody. **ROLE OF THE JUDGE** One of the unique aspects of the drug court model is the frequency with which judges interact with participants. The relationship is less formalistic than in traditional courtrooms and is individualized based on the judge’s supervision of an individual’s progress. The goal is partnership, not sentencing. My opinion? I’m a HUGE fan of drug court! First, it’s a great negotiating alternative for my clients facing drug charges IF the prosecutor’s charges are fairly strong, evidence is unlikely to be suppressed, and a jury would probably find the offender guilty. Second, it’s impossible to treat drug addiction with jail or prison sentences. Period. Once released, the offender may likely continue using drugs. Drug Court strikes at the root of the problem by addressing the drug addiction itself. Finally, the program forces offenders to stay focused on treatment. The State monitors treatment. If offenders fail, they may face heavy consequences and get kicked out of Drug Court. Drug Court should be implemented to a greater degree than it already is. It presents a win/win situation for everyone: the public, courts, prosecutors, and ultimately the offender. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face a [Drug Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Dismissal, Drug Court, Drug Offenses, felony, Jail, Probation, Sentencing, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Dingman: Trial Court Erred in Denying Defendant's Discovery Requests](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/great-court-decision-trial-court-erred-in-denying-defendants-discovery-requests/) **Published:** April 6, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Dingman*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=347199MAJ), the WA Court of Appeals Court held the State is obligated to disclose all tangible objects in its possession which were obtained from or belonged to the defendant at the time of arrest. Here, the authorities seized Mr. Dingman’s computers while investigating him for [Theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/theft/) and [Money Laundering](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.83.020). The State created mirror image copies of the computers’ hard drives using a program called [EnCase](https://security.opentext.com/encase-forensic). Dingman asked for direct access to his computer. The Court refused, and instead ordered copies be provided using Encase, a program the defense neither had not knew how to use. Applying court rules/procedures, the WA Court of Appeals Court held the State is obligated to disclose all tangible objects in its possession which were obtained from or belonged to the defendant. The computer hard drives were tangible objects obtained from the defendant. Defense counsel should be allowed to examine the hard drives. Therefore, it was error not to give the defense access to the hard drives. My Opinion? Great decision. Division II gave an excellent decision regarding the violation of a defendant’s right to review evidence. The defendant should ALWAYS have access to materials the prosecutor wants to use at trial. Indeed, it’s a blatant violation of a defendant’s Constitutional rights to deny access. Providing evidence to the other side is also, quite simply, a professional courtesy. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Discovery, Due Process, felony, Forensics, Jury Trial, Pretrial Investigations, Search and Seizure, Theft, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Ramos: Excellent Separation of Powers Case](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-ramos-excellent-separation-of-powers-case/) **Published:** April 6, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Ramos*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=364913MAJ), the defendant was convicted in 1993 of [sexual exploitation of a minor](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/). At the time, Washington did not require sex offenders to register with the State. The law was changed after Ramos’ release and he registered in 2001. The law changed again to require Level II sex offenders to report in person every 90 days. Ramos failed to do so. he was prosecuted for failing to report. The [WA Court of Appeal](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo)s held that the authority to define crimes and set punishments rests squarely with the legislature. Not the prosecutor, not the sheriffs, but the *legislature*. It reasoned it is unconstitutional for the legislature to transfer its power to others. Because the sex offender reclassification statute does not provide any guidance to local law enforcement agencies, Ramos’ delegation was improper, and his conviction cannot stand. My opinion? Great decision. It reaffirms the debate regarding the wrongful application of newly formed criminal laws. In Washington, defendants can only be charged with violating laws in existence at the time of arrest. Unless a newly formed statute specifically provides for retroactive application, defendants cannot be found to have violated the new statute. It isn’t fair. Unconstitutional. Again, great decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, Legislation, Sex Crimes, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Boom in Gun Sales Fueled by Politics and the Economy](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/boom-in-gun-sales-fueled-by-politics-and-the-economy/) **Published:** April 8, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** Nationwide [gun sales are increasing](http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1889886,00.html?cnn=yes) because (1) people believe they’ll lose gun rights under Obama’s administration, and (2) there’s growing concern the police cannot adequately protect us in the wake of a deepening recession. The recent gun slayings in New York and Washington add to people’s nervousness. My opinion? Well . . . it’s mixed. On the one hand, I’m a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment. However, I’m concerned people’s reasons for purchasing guns stems from unreasonable fears. For example, there’s no proof the Obama administration wants to curtail gun rights. Indeed, I’m sure Obama doesn’t want to make enemies with the NRA. Additionally, there’s no proof violent crime is increasing as a result of the recession. Again, fears. As an attorney, I hope citizens diligently check whether they can lawfully/legally own handguns. I once represented a client who was convicted (adjudicated) for [Residential Burglary](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/) years ago when he was a juvenile. The adjudication barred him from owning or possessing a firearm unless his rights were restored by court order. Client did not know this. He was not orally advised by the juvenile court he was losing his gun rights. Years later, client is shooting guns with friends on a larger piece of property. Nearby neighbors made a noise complaint. Client was arrested for unlawfully discharging a weapon on city property. No big deal, it was only a gross misdemeanor. Unfortunately, the County Prosecutor gets a hold of the case; and charges client with two counts [Unlawful Possession of a Firearm Second Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/). Felony charges. Each felony was punishable up to five years jail and $10,000 fine. Harsh consequences, especially for someone who didn’t know they were prohibited from possessing guns. Fortunately, the case resolved favorably. My advice? Make sure you’re legal if you’re going to own, possess and/or fire guns! Get your Concealed Weapons Permit! It’s worth the trouble. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Burglary, Firearm **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Closing Prisons, Slashing Sentences Eyed to Balance Budget](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/closing-prisons-slashing-sentences-eyed-to-balance-budget/) **Published:** April 11, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** In a sour economy, Washington and other states’ lawmakers are [considering budget cuts that would close prisons, loosen sentencing guidelines and slash probation terms](http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2009010460_criminaljusticecuts09m.html). Lawmakers in Olympia are looking for nearly $4 billion in spending cuts. My opinion? Make lemonade out of lemons. Perceive our budget woes as opportunities to revamp our criminal justice system. Community service helps everyone. Jailing low-level offenders helps no one. Studies show the most expensive and least productive response to drug, mental-health and poverty-driven crime is full confinement. The most effective and most cost-productive response is community-based work, education and retraining. True, there are some very violent and nasty defendants who probably should be incarcerated (even though they STILL deserve the benefits of a system which adamantly preserves their constitutional rights). However, most people in the criminal-justice system are not in that violent category. Most are caught up in generations of a lifestyle where low-level crime is the accepted norm. It is these people who are unnecessarily sanctioned with long jail/prison sentences, parole, probation, etc. My hope is that now, when we are asked to re-evaluate our use of limited resources, we will make the change for a broader, more socially beneficial response to crime. Don’t spend hundreds of millions on penal institutions that give nothing back. Instead, spend tens of millions on people. Schools, community centers and community work programs are cheaper than jails. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Department of Corrections, Jail, Probation, Uncategorized **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Sutherby: Great Case Regarding Improper Prosecution and Ineffective Assistance of Counsel](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-sutherby-great-case-regarding-improper-prosecution-and-ineffective-assistance-of-counsel/) **Published:** April 15, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Sutherby*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=801690MAJ), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) threw out a [Rape of a Child](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.44.073) conviction for improper prosecution and ineffective counsel. Shortly before Christmas 2004, the Sutherby’s five-year-old granddaughter (“L.K.”) stayed with them for two nights at their Grays Harbor home. Based on the girl’s accusations, Mr. Sutherby was arrested and charged with multiple [sex offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/) to include [first degree rape of a child](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.44.073) and [first degree child molestation](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.083#:~:text=(1)%20A%20person%20is%20guilty,six%20months%20older%20than%20the). A subsequent search of his personal computer found child pornography, and he was charged with 10 counts of [possession of depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.68A.070). He was convicted by a jury on all counts and appealed. The Court here considered two issues: “(1) what is the proper unit of prosecution for possession of child pornography under former RCW 9.68A.070 (1990), and (2) did Sutherby receive ineffective assistance of counsel due to his trial attorney’s failure to seek a severance of the child rape and molestation charges from the possession of child pornography charges?” Sutherby argued that he should have been sentenced on only one count of possession of child pornography under the criminal statute, formerly RCW 9.68A.070, rather that separate counts for each image. The court noted that the U.S. and Washington constitutions both protect a defendant from being punished more than once for the same offense. The statute provided “\[a\] person who knowingly possesses visual or printed matter depicting a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct is guilty of a class C felony.” The court said that “any” is vague, and determined defendants who possess multiple images should only be charged with a single count of possession. The court remanded the sentencing of Sutherby for a single count of possession. Sutherby also sought reversal of his convictions for child rape and child molestation based on his trial attorney’s failure to move for severance of the child pornography counts from these charges. As the court noted, severance of charges is important when there is a risk that the jury will use the evidence of one crime to infer the defendant’s guilt for another crime or to infer a general criminal disposition. The case against Sutherby for possession of child pornography was strong, and could have influenced the jury on the rape and molestation charges. The court agreed that Sutherby demonstrated ineffective assistance of counsel based on his trial attorney’s failure to seek severance of the charges. The Supreme Court reversed Sutherby’s convictions for child rape and molestation and remanded for retrial. My opinion? Yes, society HATES sex crimes; especially when children are possibly involved. Here, however, the Supremes correctly looked beyond the nature of the crime and addressed how the case was botched by the Prosecutor and defense attorney alike. Clearly, the Supremes sent a message: stacking charge after charge is, simply, unconstitutional. Multiple images does not = multiple charges! We creep into the realm of unlawful [Double Jeopardy](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/double_jeopardy). Additionally, *State v. Sutherby* teaches defense attorneys about[ ineffective assistance of counsel.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ineffective_assistance_of_counsel) Oftentimes, prosecutors will try adding additional charges on totally unrelated events before trial. This tactic, if successfully done, makes juries suspicious that the defendant “must be a bad person, otherwise they wouldn’t have acquired all these criminal charges.” In other words, the juries become prejudiced toward the defendant, and might decide the cases accordingly. This type of outcome kills justice. Defense attorneys must avoid sloppiness and BE CAREFUL. We cannot allow the State to unfairly prejudice our clients at the 11th hour before trial. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Assault, Constitutional Rights, Ineffective Assistance, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Rape, Sentencing, Sex Crimes, Unit of Prosecution, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [New Findings: Decline in Black Incarceration for Drug Offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/new-findings-decline-in-black-incarceration-for-drug-offenses/) **Published:** April 20, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** For the first time in 25 years, since the inception of the “War on Drugs,” [the number of African Americans incarcerated is state prisons for drug offenses has declined substantially](http://sentencingproject.org/Admin%5CDocuments%5Cpublications%5Cdp_raceanddrugs.pdf.). According to a recent study released by [The Sentencing Project](https://www.sentencingproject.org/), there exists a 21.6% drop in the number of blacks incarcerated for a drug offense. This presents a decline of 31,000 people during the period 1999-2005. Why the decrease? The study shows that many states are softening their approach to crime by reconsidering overly punitive sentencing on defendants. Diversionary programs are also being re-examined. The changing approach is, not surprisingly, inspired by fiscal concerns. Policymakers recognize that skyrocketing corrections costs cut into public support for higher education and other vital services. Second, at the federal level, the U.S. Sentencing Commission has enacted changes in the sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine offenses, and members of Congress are considering proposals to reform the mandatory penalties for crack offenses. My opinion? Ironically, the economic recession has spurred positive changes in the criminal justice system. Many lawmakers realize the foolishness behind incarcerating people for low-level drug offenses. Also, I believe the “War on Drugs” has changed tactics. Nowadays, police are more interested in busting defendants for methamphetamine (meth) than crack cocaine. Meth is considered a much larger risk to public safety and health. Meth is also largely used/possessed by non-minorities. This is partially because most meth labs are found in rural destinations; which have more Caucasians, and not so much in the inner city, where more minorities dwell. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Department of Corrections, Drug Offenses, Jail, Legislation, marijuana, Race & Law, Studies **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Carneh: Why Defense Attorneys Should Seek Dismissals WITH Prejudice](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-carneh-why-defense-attorneys-should-seek-dismissals-with-prejudice/) **Published:** April 22, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Carneh*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=614452MAJ), the WA Court of Appeals decided the Prosecution could refile charges on a defendant after previously dismissing the case without prejudice. Typically, prosecutors dismiss cases in one of two ways: *with* prejudice, or *without* prejudice. Dismissing a case *with* prejudice means prosecutors cannot refile future charges against the defendant. However, dismissing *without* prejudice means the prosecutor may, in the future, refile charges at time if (1) statute of limitations has not expired, (2) jurisdiction still exists, and (3) prosecutors develop substantial probable cause to refile. In this case, the State charged Carneh with[ four counts of aggravated murder](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/) in March 2001. After extensive and periodically successful competency restoration treatment, the trial court ultimately dismissed the case without prejudice because it found Carneh was incompetent to stand trial at that time. The State refiled charges after learning that Carneh had shown signs of improvement. The trial court ordered further competency restoration. RCW 10.77.086 provides that if competency restoration efforts are ultimately unsuccessful, “the charges shall be dismissed without prejudice, and either civil commitment proceedings shall be instituted or the court shall order the release of the defendant.” After a trial court dismisses charges without prejudice pursuant to this statute, it loses the criminal jurisdiction and with it the authority to order competency evaluation or restoration. But the statute reserves the prosecutor’s ability to refile charges and makes clear that the bar against trying incompetent defendants lasts only so long as such incapacity continues. The prosecutor’s ability to refile is not unfettered; rather, the prosecutor must have a good faith basis to believe that competency has or will likely be restored. In this case, the prosecutor received a letter from Western State Hospital indicating that Carneh’s condition had improved. The letter was sufficient good faith basis to refile. The trial court thereby reacquired criminal jurisdiction and with it the authority to order further competency restoration. Ouch!! My opinion? Division II made a painfully reasonable decision. Competent defense attorneys should know that prosecutors may refile charges at any time if a case is dismissed without prejudice. The remedy? Whenever possible, defense attorneys should seek dismissals *with* prejudice. True, our knee-jerk reaction is, quite simply, to take a dismissal in any form or fashion. We’re grateful to get them for our clients, and nobody wants to look a gift horse in the mouth. Still, a dismissal without prejudice obviously comes with strings attached. Indeed, worst-case scenario like *State v. Carneh* could arise. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Dismissal, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [‘How can you defend those people?’](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/how-can-you-defend-those-people/) **Published:** April 27, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** Great article discusses [why defense attorneys continue to zealously defend people accused of crime](http://www.telegram.com/article/20090426/NEWS/904260400/1160/SPECIALSECTIONS04&source=rss). People ask me the above question quite often. My answer? Everyone deserves the right to a fair trial. It’s simply un-American to assume people are guilty, lock them up, and throw away the key. There are times when the Prosecutor’s facts are weak. Witnesses lack credibility. Constitutional rights are tossed aside as police search cars, raid homes, and generally use people’s statements against them at trial. My role is to make sure the process functions correctly. No, it’s not easy work. But it’s incredibly fulfilling. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Jury Trial **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Study: Drug, Driving Charges Sap Nation's Courts](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/study-drug-driving-charges-sap-nations-courts/) **Published:** May 1, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** According to a [Seattle Times](https://www.seattletimes.com/) article,[ low-level drug and driving charges are a financial burden for misdemeanor courts](http://www.seattlepi.com/local/405652_misdemeanor28.html). My opinion? As a former public defender (and proud of it), I was dismayed when defendants were prosecuted and jailed on [Driving While License Suspended](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.342) charges. Indeed, defending these kinds of cases exposed me to some ugly truths about the criminal justice system. Here’s a typical situation: “Speeder” gets pulled over for speeding. Speeder can’t afford to pay the ticket. They miss their court date. Court gives them a “Failure to Appear” for missing said court date. The Department of Licensing catches wind. Speeder’s license gets suspended. He is now Speeder-Turned-Suspended Licensee (STSL). Eventually STSL get pulled over – and possibly arrested – on the suspended license. If STSL is lucky, police officer won’t (1) investigate STSL for [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/), and/or (2) search STSL’s car following the arrest. If unlucky, STSL might have had a couple of drinks before being pulled over. They get investigated for DUI. Or STSL has contraband tucked away in the glove compartment that gets discovered on the search. All of the sudden, “Speeder” is now a criminal. The grinding wheels of justice. Steel jaws gnashing away at people’s rights. Police using a suspended license as probable cause to arrest you and search your car. Unbelievable. Now, more than ever, change is necessary. King County has implemented a program which simultaneously circumvents the criminal justice system and allows people get their licenses back. Legal fees are waived if people successfully complete it. The program is a success. And it costs less than prosecuting/jailing people. There’s more. In 2007, the study’s authors found, 11,553 misdemeanor marijuana cases were filed. Of those, 3,638 convictions were made, which resulted in about $7.6 million in direct costs to the state. Again, unbelievable. Taxpayers subsidize these enormous costs. However, most people believe small-time drug cases should NOT be prosecuted. Remember Seattle Initiative I-75? The measure – which passed successfully in 2003 – directed police officers and prosecutors to treat the personal use of marijuana by adults as the city’s lowest law enforcement priority. It’s time our court system caught up with the will of the people. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Court Fines, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, Due Process, DUI, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Probable Cause, Reckless Driving, Search and Seizure, Studies, Terry Stop, Traffic Infractions **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [DOC: Budget Cuts Will Force Offenders To Go Unsupervised](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/doc-budget-cuts-will-force-offenders-to-go-unsupervised/) **Published:** May 5, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** It appears the [Department of Corrections (DOC)](https://www.doc.wa.gov/) Secretary Eldon Vail says the [DOC will stop supervising 9,000 people due to decreased state budgets](http://www.king5.com/localnews/stories/NW_042809WAB-doc-budget-KS.11e17c7db.html). The group includes property, drug, and non violent offenders. The most violent offenders and high-level sex offenders, however, will not see a change in supervision or management. Additionally, inmate beds will be reduced. One DOC prison will also be closed. Some worry that crime will increase. My opinion? Again, the embattled economy has caught up with the criminal justice system. It’s interesting what happens when we’re forced to tighten our belts, both individually and collectively. On an individual level, we spend less on luxury items. We hope that our sacrifices are enough to pull us through hard times. If not, we consider more drastic measures, and perhaps (gasp) a total retooling of our spending habits. Collectively, our weakened economy makes our lawmakers to realize that jailing low-level crimes is an expensive luxury. I’ve often blogged that incarceration is THE MOST EXPENSIVE solution to crime and punishment. We can’t afford to blindly warehouse people any more. It isn’t the answer. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Department of Corrections, Violent Crime **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Voting Rights Restored!](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/voting-rights-restored/) **Published:** May 7, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** Thank you to all who took action on [HB 1517](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/?BillNumber=1517&Year=2009&Initiative=false)! This important measure will automatically restore the right to vote to citizens who were entangled with the criminal justice system. Governor Chris Gregoire signed the bill into law on Monday, May 4, 2009. The new law will reform Washington’s convoluted and unfair system for restoring voting rights. Washington now becomes the 20th state in the last decade to ease voting restrictions for people with criminal histories who are living, working and raising families in the community. Our victory is part of a nationwide movement to assure that our democracy reflects the voices of American citizens. Let freedom ring. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** ACLU, Constitutional Rights, felony, Legislation, Race & Law, Voting Rights **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [White House Czar Calls for End to 'War on Drugs'](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/white-house-czar-calls-for-end-to-war-on-drugs/) **Published:** May 15, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** Unbelievable. Awesome sign of the times. [Gil Kerlikowske](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gil_Kerlikowske), the new White House drug czar, signaled Wednesday his openness to [rethinking the government’s approach to fighting drug use](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124225891527617397.html). The Obama administration’s new drug czar says he wants to banish the idea that the U.S. is fighting “a war on drugs,” a move that would underscore a shift favoring treatment over incarceration in trying to reduce illicit drug use. “Regardless of how you try to explain to people it’s a ‘war on drugs’ or ‘war on product,’ people see a war as a war on them,” he said. We’re not at war with people in this country. Mr. Kerlikowske’s comments are a signal that the Obama administration is set to follow a more moderate — and likely more controversial — stance on the nation’s drug problems. Prior administrations talked about pushing treatment and reducing demand while continuing to focus primarily on a tough criminal-justice approach. My thoughts? IT’S ABOUT TIME a U.S. drug czar made sense!!! True story on Kerlikowske: I was living in Seattle when a big snow came. Attending law school. Walking around downtown Seattle with a friend. A black SUV rolls by. Stops by a car that was stuck in the snow. Two police officers get out. One looks highly decorated. Both officers push the skidding car off the ice. It drives away, freed from its frozen trap. I immediately recognized the decorated officer as then-Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske. I say, “Yo man, that was cool!” He smiles, salutes, and jumps back into the SUV. Drives away. As far as police officers go, Kerlikowske was a good one. Had his head on straight. Gained respect from Seattle’s black community. He was an advocate, a reasonable guy, and bridged ideological differences. Obama chose right. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Hinshaw: Absent Exigent Circumstances, Cops Can't Enter Your Home Without a Warrant & Arrest for DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-hinshaw-cops-cant-enter-your-home-without-a-warrant-arrest-for-dui/) **Published:** May 19, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** Great opinion. In [*State v. Hinshaw*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=269001MAJ), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held that absent [Exigent Circumstances](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exigent_circumstances), police cannot enter a home without a warrant & arrest for [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). Here, the Moses Lake Police investigated reports of a car unlawfully driving on a bike path. Police search the path. They find Mr. Hinshaw on a bike close to the path. He said he was a passenger in the suspect car, but denies driving. They release him. Later, the police find the suspect car in his driveway. It had a flat tire. They knock on the door. He answers the door, yet refuses to come out. He admits to drinking earlier. Officers grab his arm, go inside of his home, and arrest him for [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). They are concerned his BAC level was dissipating. The Court of Appeals rejected the State’s argument that “exigent circumstances” justified Mr. Hinshaw’s warrantless seizure. The Court saw several errors in the police officer’s conduct. First, the officers failed to establish how quickly the BAC would/could dissipate. Second, the officers could not estimate how long it would take to get a warrant. Third, although the police had probable cause to believe Mr. Hinshaw became intoxicated and drove home, the reckless operation of the car and consequent threat to public safety had ended. Mr. Hinshaw was neither armed nor dangerous. He posed no threat to the public or officers. His car was disabled. Consequently, exigent circumstances did not exist. My opinion? Great opinion! The Court of Appeals saw through the State’s smoke and mirrors. This was not a case about exigent circumstances. An emergency never existed! No, this was a bona-fide; unlawful exercise of “arrest first, ask questions later” on the part of the police. Clearly unlawful. Kudos to the Court of Appeals. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** 911 Call, Constitutional Rights, Corpus Delicti, Due Process, DUI, Exigent Circumstances, Jury Trial, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Threats To Federal Judges, Prosecutors Soaring](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/threats-to-federal-judges-prosecutors-soaring/) **Published:** May 26, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** According to an [article ](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/24/AR2009052402931.html?hpid=topnews&sub=AR)for [Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/), threats against the nation’s judges and prosecutors have sharply increased, prompting hundreds to get 24-hour protection from armed U.S. marshals. Many federal judges are altering their routes to work, installing security systems at home, shielding their addresses by paying bills at the courthouse or refraining from registering to vote. Some even pack weapons on the bench. Much of the concern was fueled by the slaying of U.S. District Judge Joan H. Lefkow’s husband and mother in their Chicago home in 2005 and a rampage 11 days later by an Atlanta rape suspect, who killed a judge, the court stenographer and a deputy. Last year, several pipe bombs exploded outside the federal courthouse in San Diego, and a drug defendant wielding a razor blade briefly choked a federal prosecutor during sentencing in Brooklyn, N.Y. In March, a homicide suspect attacked a judge in a California courtroom and was shot to death by police. Although attacks have not recently increased, threats have. Law enforcement is taking action to prevent these threats from happening. The threats are emerging in cases large and small, on the Internet, by telephone, in letters and in person. Worried federal officials blame disgruntled defendants whose anger is fueled by the Internet; terrorism and gang cases that bring more violent offenders into federal court; frustration at the economic crisis; and the rise of the “sovereign citizen” movement — a loose collection of tax protesters, white supremacists and others who don’t respect federal authority. My opinion? On a nation-wide level, people are scared. They fear losing their jobs in a tough economy. They fear losing their socio-economic standing in a nation undergoing dramatic changes (remember, gun sales have increased since Obama took office). When fear increases, people tend to blame one particular individual or group as the reason for their problems. Unfortunately, in the criminal justice system, judges and prosecutors are often the very individuals who get blamed. Don’t blame judges and prosecutors. They’re just doing their jobs. The solution? Defendants should seek legal representation from attorneys who (1) maintain good relations with judges/prosecutors, and (2) file Affidavits of Prejudice against judges who might hold biases towards the case. Under Washington statute, any party may establish prejudice by filing a motion, supported by affidavit, that the judge before whom the action is pending is prejudiced to the degree that the party cannot, or believes he cannot, have a fair and impartial trial before such judge. Once the Affidavit of Prejudice is entered, that particular judge cannot make any decisions on your case from that point forward. I file Affidavits of Prejudice on a consistent basis. Indeed, I would be ineffective if I didn’t! I took an oath to bring justice to my clients using every tool and technique at our disposal. Your attorney should do the same. If not – or if you don’t know – then talk with them. How well does your attorney know the judges and prosecutors they work with? How willing are they to file Affidavits of Prejudice? Go to [www.avvo.com](http://www.avvo.com) to research attorneys who you may consider hiring. This free online resource will help streamline your decision-making process. Good hunting! Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Studies **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Ex-con's Magazine Focuses on Advocacy, Prison Life](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/ex-cons-magazine-focuses-on-advocacy-prison-life/) **Published:** May 26, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** Paul Wright is a success story: Once a killer, then a prisoner, now a journalist with a cause. He has carved out a niche with his [Prison Legal News (PLN)](https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/), a self-help magazine for convicted felons. PLN is a nonprofit tabloid dedicated to protecting the human rights of incarcerated individuals. It uses lawyers, public policy experts, advocates and prison scribes as correspondents. The publication is stuffed with legal advice, tips on staying healthy behind bars and news about court rulings that involve prison labor, medical treatment in prisons and suicide prevention programs in prisons. Its correspondents have ranged from late civil rights attorney William Kunstler to imprisoned Philadelphia police officer killer Mumia Abu-Jamal. Wright, a former U.S. Army military policeman, started the monthly publication in 1990. Back then, he was inmate No. 930783 at Clallam Bay Correctional Center in Clallam Bay, Wash., where he served 16 years of a 25-year term for killing a cocaine dealer he was trying to rob. In my practice, many defense attorneys chide and ridicule jailhouse lawyers. I hear, ” . . . these defendants are not attorneys trained in the law . . . they have limited access to limited legal resources . . . they don’t know what they’re talking about . . . ” Sure, Mr. Jailhouse Lawyer’s legal analysis may contain flaws. Sure, my clients discuss what Mr. Jailhouse Lawyer told them about their case. Yes, my clients want to compare legal advice between myself and Mr. Jailhouse Lawyer. GREAT! Believe it or not, I enjoy these conversations. I prefer clients who ask me questions. I want clients to be active in their case. It gives me more opportunity to develop a relationship and gain trust. I congratulate Mr. Wright; and others like him, for the work they do. His work is a light in the dark, an advocate, an educator, and a hero to many. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Jail **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Imprisoned Undocumented Immigrants May Soon Face Early Deportation](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/imprisoned-undocumented-immigrants-may-soon-face-deportation/) **Published:** May 26, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** Hundreds of [undocumented immigrants in Washington state prisons will be deported at the end of their sentences](http://www.kuow.org/program.php?id=17596). But state officials want to deport many of them early — *without serving prison sentences* — to save money. One option is the increased enforcement of a statute which allows for the early deportation of undocumented immigrants who’ve committed non–violent crimes. Although this law has been on the books for years, it rarely is applied. Generally, prosecutors do not agree to early deportations without jail because, in their view, it greatly reduces the consequences for committing a crime. Nevertheless, prosecutors may be warming up to these early deportations. The head of the [Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys](http://waprosecutors.org/) testified in support of the earlier legislation. Immigration advocates also favor the plan. Finally, Governor Gregoire has called for a specific agreement between the Department of Corrections and federal immigration authorities which would facilitate such a plan. It also requires approval from prosecutors and judges. However, the statute carries a double-whammy: although deportees avoid jail time, they shall be charged with a federal felony if they return. Additionally, they shall serve the maximum amount of jail which was suspended upon their deportation. Government data show that illegal re–entry after deportation is the most prosecuted federal crime. Arizona prisons use a similar deportation program, however, and the re–offender rate is about 2%. As a side note, illegal immigrants are automatically deported if they commit crimes exposing them to 1+ jail sentence (gross misdemeanors and felonies). In the case of nonviolent crimes and defendants with little or no history, some prosecutors will agree to a maximum exposure of 364 days instead of 365. This solution altogether avoids the deportation of illegal immigrants whom the prosecutors deem worthy to stay in the U.S. Typically, when it comes to the possible deportation of a defendant, prosecutors review the circumstances surrounding the crime, employment history, family ties, immigration status, etc. These factors affect a prosecutor’s willingness to negotiate. My opinion? I support the legislation. With some reservation. My #1 concern is ensuring due process rights are not violated. Defense attorneys MUST ensure the defendant/deportee knows they will serve a HUGE amount of jail — in a federal institution, no doubt — if they return to the U.S. after being deported early. For that very reason, I believe we’ll see more undocumented defendants exercising their rights to jury trial. After all, what do they have to lose when negotiations fail? These defendant already face early deportation, coupled with the threat of prosecutors stacking federal charges if the deportee returns illegally. Force the government to prove the charges! Interesting times . . . Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Immigration, Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE), Jail, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sentencing, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Garvin: WA Supremes Held "Squeeze Search" Unlawful](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-garvin-wa-supremes-held-squeeze-search-unlawful/) **Published:** June 8, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Garvin*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=809411MAJ), the Court held that police officers cannot “squeeze” a defendant’s pockets to determine the nature of objects in the pocket. An officer pulled Anthony Garvin over for a traffic infraction. When he noticed a knife on the seat next to Garvin, the officer ordered Garvin out of the car and conducted a search for additional weapons. In the process he discovered a baggie of methamphetamine. At trial the officer testified, “We don’t really pat anymore. It’s more of a squeeze search.” Garvin moved to suppress the evidence seized, and the trial court denied the motion. He was convicted of [possession of a controlled substance](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/), and Court of Appeals upheld the conviction. The WA Supreme Court granted review. The court reasoned that the officer was not allowed to manipulate objects within the clothing, and his “squeeze method” exceeded the scope of a valid frisk under the “stop and frisk” rule articulated in [*Terry v. Ohio*](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/67), 392 U.S. 1 (1968). The court added, “Without probable cause and a warrant, an officer is limited in what he can do. He cannot arrest a suspect, he cannot conduct a broad search.” My opinion? Yaaaay!! Many clients get arrested because police officers obtain evidence unlawfully. It’s an outrage! This case is beautiful. I can’t wait to argue a *Garvin* motion in my future attempts to suppress unlawfully obtained evidence. 🙂 Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, felony, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, Traffic Infractions, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Waiving or Reducing Interest on Court Fines](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/waiving-or-reducing-interest-costs-on-court-fines/) **Published:** June 8, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** Gotta love the ACLU. The organization just created a [step-by-step guide](http://walawhelp.org/WA/StateChannelResults.cfm/County/%20/City/%20/demoMode/%3D%201/Language/1/State/WA/TextOnly/N/ZipCode/%20/LoggedIn/0/iSubTopicID/2/iProblemCodeID/2040100/sTopicImage/court.gif/iTopicID/1196/ichannelid/7/bAllState/0) which provides information and forms on how to obtain a court order waiving or reducing interest on legal financial obligations (LFOs) in Washington State. Defined by statute RCW 10.82.090, the court may, on motion by the offender, reduce or waive the interest on legal financial obligations ordered as a result of a criminal conviction. In order to move the court to waive or reduce interest, you must prove the following to the court in all cases: 1\) You have already been released from total confinement; 2\) You have made a good faith effort to pay, meaning that you have either (a) paid the principal amount in full, or (b) made 24 consecutive monthly payments excluding any payments mandatorily deducted by DOC; 3\) The interest accrual is causing you significant hardship; 4\) You will not be able to pay the principal and interest in full; 5\) Reduction or waiver of the interest will likely enable you to pay the full principal and any remaining interest thereon; My opinion? So many clients tell me the criminal justice system sucks their money away. It’s bad enough that people get criminal records, jail time, fines, restitution, etc., when convicted of crimes. Paying interest fees on top of criminal fines is adding insult to injury. Unbelievable. Here, the ACLU has provided a great service to criminal defendants and their attorneys. Good stuff. I’m looking forward to applying the guidelines and helping my clients save money. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** ACLU, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Court Fines, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Class Action Lawsuit Challenges "Camera Tickets"](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/class-action-lawsuit-challenges-camera-tickets/) **Published:** June 18, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** [Rosen Law Firm](http://jonrosenlaw.com/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi) in Seattle is currently researching a class action law suit against many Washington cities that operate red light and speed zone cameras in Washington. If you have paid for a photo enforcement ticket in Washington, they may be interested in representing you and trying to get your money back. Apparently, the firm is willing to do so at no cost to you unless they win, and then only a percentage of the amount they recover for you. If you are interested and meet the eligibility requirements of 1) having received a photo enforcement ticket; 2) in Washington; and 3) you paid the ticket, please contact the [Rosen Law Firm:](http://www.rosenlegalfirm.com/contact_us2.php#pe) My opinion? I wish success upon this class action! Red light camera tickets seem like an easy way for cities and counties to fill their coffers. And it is working. For example, the city of Balitmore shortened the yellow light on just one intersection and collected $1000’s in traffic light camera violation fines until one alert victim took them to court. Additionally, I’ve heard complaints (hearsay, I know) that yellow lights times are SHORTENED if a camera is observing the intersection; and that the cameras actually don’t decrease people’s speed. Good luck, RosenLaw Firm. Give ’em Hell! 🙂 Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Due Process, law enforcement, Legislation, Red Light Cameras, Terry Stop, Traffic Infractions **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [US Supremes Rule Convicted Defendants Have No Right To Test DNA](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/238/) **Published:** June 18, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [Yeager v. United States](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-67.pdf), the [U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) ruled that convicts have no constitutional right to test [DNA evidence](https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/what-is-dna-evidence.html) in hopes of proving their innocence long after they were found guilty of a crime. The decision may have limited impact because the federal government and 47 states already have laws that allow convicts some access to genetic evidence. Testing so far has led to the exoneration of 240 people who had been found guilty of [murder](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/), [rape](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/) and other violent crimes, according to the [Innocence Project](https://innocenceproject.org/). The court ruled 5-4, with its conservative justices in the majority, against an Alaska man who was convicted in a brutal attack on a prostitute 16 years ago. William Osborne won a federal appeals court ruling granting him access to a blue condom that was used during the attack. Osborne argued that testing its contents would firmly establish his innocence or guilt. In parole proceedings, however, Osborne has admitted his guilt in a separate bid for release from prison. The high court reversed the ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. States already are dealing with the challenges and opportunities presented by advances in genetic testing, Chief Justice John Roberts said in his majority opinion. “To suddenly constitutionalize this area would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response,” Roberts said. Alaska, Massachusetts and Oklahoma are the only states without DNA testing laws. In some other states, the laws limit testing to capital crimes or rule out after-the-fact tests for people who confess. But Justice John Paul Stevens said in dissent that a simple test would settle the matter. “The court today blesses the state’s arbitrary denial of the evidence Osborne seeks,” Stevens said. My opinion? **HORRIBLE DECISION.** Although the crime in question was heinous, there is no doubt that a small group of innocent people — and it is a small group — will languish in prison because they can’t get access to the evidence. This directly violates a defendant’s 6th Amendment rights. Unbelievable. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Assault, Constitutional Rights, DNA, Due Process, felony, Forensics, Legislation, Race & Law, Rape, Sex Crimes, Uncategorized, United States Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts: Protecting the Right to Confront Witnesses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/melendez-diaz-v-massachusetts-protecting-the-right-to-confront-witnesses/) **Published:** June 29, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts*](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-591.ZS.html), the [U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) held that crime lab reports may not be used against criminal defendants at trial unless the analysts responsible for creating them give testimony and subject themselves to cross-examination. The case arose from the conviction of Luis E. Melendez-Diaz on [cocaine trafficking charges](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) in Massachusetts. Part of the evidence against him was a laboratory report stating that bags of white powder said to have belonged to him contained cocaine. Prosecutors submitted the report with only an analyst’s certificate. The ruling was an extension of the [2004 *Crawford* decision](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2003/02-9410) that breathed new life into the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause, which gives a criminal defendant the [6th Amendment right to confront witnesses](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/right_to_confront_witness#:~:text=The%20Confrontation%20Clause%20found%20in,depositions%20or%20ex%20parte%20affidavits)). The Court reasoned that cross-examination of witnesses is designed to weed out not only the fraudulent analyst, but the incompetent one as well. This reasoning is strong. In February, for example, the National Academy of Sciences issued a sweeping critique of the nation’s crime labs. It concluded, for instance, that forensic scientists for law enforcement agencies “sometimes face pressure to sacrifice appropriate methodology for the sake of expediency. Additionally, the decision came in the wake of a wave of scandals at crime laboratories that included hundreds of tainted cases in Michigan, Texas and West Virginia. Those scandals proved that live testimony from analysts was needed to explore potential shortcomings in laboratory reports. My opinion? Excellent decision! It gives much-needed teeth to the the Supreme Court’s 2004 *Crawford* decision. How this decision applies as a practical matter remains to be seen. Criminal defense lawyers may still stipulate that crime lab reports are accurate, fearing that live testimony will only underscore their clients’ guilt. Others may insist on testimony in the hope that the analyst will be unavailable. Still, others will now be able to prove that an analyst’s conclusion was mistaken or inconclusive. As Justice Kennedy wrote, “The defense bar today gains the formidable power to require the government to transport the analyst to the courtroom at the time of trial.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Forensics, United States Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [From the Glass to the Brain in Six Minutes](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/from-the-glass-to-the-brain-in-six-minutes/) **Published:** July 6, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** Scientists is Heidelberg discovered that [alcohol affects brain cells six minutes after consumption](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090615144339.htm). The “subjects” consumed an amount of alcohol equivalent to three glasses of beer or two glasses of wine, leading to a blood alcohol level of 0.05 to 0.06 percent. The harmful effect also sets in quickly. During the experiment, the concentration of substances such as creatine (energy metabolism), which are attributed with protecting cells, decreases as the concentration of alcohol increases. Choline, a component of cell membranes, was also reduced. “That probably indicates that alcohol triggers changes in the composition of cell membranes,” says Dr. Armin Biller. Is all consumption of alcohol harmful for the brain? “Our follow-ups on the next day showed that the shifts in brain metabolites after moderate consumption of alcohol by healthy persons are completely reversible,” says Dr. Armin Biller. “However, we assume that the brain’s ability to recover from the effect of alcohol decreases or is eliminated as the consumption of alcohol increases.” This study also found no differences between the results of male and female individuals – the brains of female and male subjects reacted to alcohol consumption the same way. My opinion? Well — without getting too personal — I support the study’s findings. Alcohol hits a lightweight like me fairly quick. LOL. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Studies **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Redding: U.S. Supreme Court Declares Strip Search of 13-Year-Old Student Unconstitutional](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-supreme-court-declares-strip-search-of-13-year-old-student-unconstitutional/) **Published:** July 13, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Redding*, the U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/safford-unified-school-district-v-redding-us-supreme-court-ruling) ruled that school officials violated the constitutional rights of Savana Redding, a 13-year-old Arizona girl who was strip searched based on a classmate’s uncorroborated accusation that she previously possessed ibuprofen, a banned medication. This is the biggest victory for students’ rights in the last 20 years. My opinion? I’ll let Savannah speak for herself. Below is a post she wrote for the ACLU’s blog: “People of all ages expect to have the right to privacy in their homes, belongings, and most importantly, their persons. But for far too long, students have been losing these rights the moment they step foot onto public school property — a lesson I learned firsthand when I was strip-searched by school officials just because another student who was in trouble pointed the finger at me. I do not believe that school officials should be allowed to strip-search kids in school, ever. And though the U.S. Supreme Court did not go quite so far, it did rule that my constitutional rights were violated when I was strip-searched based on nothing more than a classmate’s uncorroborated accusation that I had given her ibuprofen. I’m happy for the decision and hope it helps make sure that no other kids will have to experience what I went through. Strip searches are a traumatic intrusion of privacy. Forcing children to remove their clothes for bodily inspection is not a tool that school officials should have at their disposal. Yet, until today, the law was apparently unclear, potentially allowing for the most invasive of searches based on the least of suspicions. Every day, parents caution their children about the importance of not talking to strangers, looking both ways before crossing the street, and following directions at school. But I imagine they never think to warn them that a school official, acting on a hunch, may force them to take their clothes off in the name of safety. And now, thankfully, they won’t have to. Our fundamental rights are only as strong as the next generation believes them to be, and I am humbled to have had a part in preserving and promoting the Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** ACLU, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, United States Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Engel: WA Supreme Court Reversed Overly Broad Burglary Conviction](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-engel-the-court-reversed-overly-broad-burglary-conviction/) **Published:** July 14, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Engel*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=810729MAJ), the [WA Supreme Court ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/)ruled that a man suspected of stealing aluminum auto wheels from a rural business wasn’t guilty of committing [Burglary in the Second Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/) — an extremely serious felony — because the property wasn’t fenced on all sides. Roger Engel was convicted of second-degree burglary after stealing some wheels from a large private yard that was partially enclosed by a fence and partially bordered by sloping terrain. Burglary in the second degree requires entering or remaining in a “building.” RCW 9A.52.030. A “building” is defined to include a “fenced area.” RCW 9A.04.110(5). Engel challenged his conviction, claiming the yard was not a “fenced area” under the statute. The business premises Engel entered covered seven or eight acres and included several buildings and a large yard. The entrance to the property was gated. One-third of the property, including the side fronting the road, was fenced by chain link fence with barbed wire on the top. However, the rest of the property was not fenced, including the edge of the property near the stock piles. Beyond the gravel piles was is a “pretty sizeable drop-off, a hill that goes down.” Two-thirds of the property was encased by ‘banks, high banks, \[and\] sloping banks.” Directly adjacent to the property was a separate business, but no fence or gate separated the two properties. The Supreme Court agreed with Engel’s argument, with Justice James Johnson writing the unanimous opinion. “Upholding an overly broad definition of ‘fenced area’ would extend criminal liability beyond what is warranted by the plain language of the statute, as understood in the context of the common law. Therefore, the Court of Appeals decision affirming Engel’s conviction is reversed and the case is remanded with instructions to vacate the conviction and dismiss the charge.” My opinion? I wholeheartedly agree with the WA Supremes for two reasons. First, under the state’s interpretation of “Burglary,” would-be petty criminals who trespass might be liable for burglary even if the property line at their point of entry were unfenced and unmarked, even if they remained on the property without approaching any buildings or structures, and even if the property were such that they could enter and remain without being aware that it was fenced. These kinds of examples are well outside the category of offenses the legislature intended to punish as burglary. Second, Burglary is a serious crime with serious consequences. An arrest and conviction for a residential burglary, or any other property crime, can be a life-changing event that may result in penalties such as mandatory state prison time. Residential burglaries have reached epidemic proportions in many communities and courts are routinely handing out stiff penalties, even to first time offenders. Again, good opinion. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Burglary, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, Jury Trial, Property Crimes, United States Supreme Court, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [New National Report: 1 in 11 Prisoners Serving a Life Sentence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/new-national-report-1-in-11-prisoners-serving-a-life-sentence/) **Published:** July 28, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** A new report released by [The Sentencing Project](https://www.sentencingproject.org/) finds 140,610 individuals are now serving life sentences in state and federal prisons, 6,807 of whom were juveniles at the commission of the crime. In addition, 29% of persons serving life sentences (41,095) have no possibility of parole, and 1,755 were juveniles at the commission of the crime. [*No Exit: The Expanding Use of Life Sentences in America*](https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/No-Exit-The-Expanding-Use-of-Life-Sentences-in-America.pdf) represents the first nationwide collection of life sentences data documenting race, ethnicity and gender. The report’s findings reveal overwhelming racial and ethnic disparities in the allocation of life sentences: 66% of all persons sentenced to life are non-white, and 77% of juveniles serving life sentences are non-white. The report notes that legislators have expanded the types of offenses that result in a life sentence and established a wide range of habitual offender laws that subject a growing proportion of defendants to potential life terms. The authors note how the politics of fear has largely fueled the increasing use of life without parole (“LWOP”) sentences. This is described as an increasing willingness to impose life sentences on juveniles, an increasing reluctance on the part of parole boards and governors to release parole-eligible life prisoners and how, as a consequence, the population of life prisoners is both growing and aging, with ever-increasing costs to society. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Jail, Race & Law, Sentencing, Studies **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Why Henry Louis Gates Should Sue](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/why-henry-louis-gates-should-sue/) **Published:** August 4, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** Last week in Cambridge, Mass., Sgt. James Crowley arrested Henry Louis Gates Jr., a professor at Harvard, for Disorderly Conduct while responding to a reported break-in at Gates’s home. The charges were subsequently dismissed. Nevertheless, media pundits are asking the question: [should Mr. Gates sue?](http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/why-henry-louis-gates-should-sue/?emc=eta1) Not surprisingly, the article’s author advocates legal action. A lawsuit from Gates could lead to formal examination of the troubled history of police interactions with African-Americans. The suit would also oppose systemic injustice and benefit the larger community. Finally, lawsuits can be an important tool for reform when coupled with advocacy and public education efforts when the circumstances are conducive to change. My opinion? Personally, I also believe Gates should file suit. Some police officers wrongfully become offended when questioned by citizens. These same officers consider it unlawful when citizens exercise their Constitutional rights. In short, citizens have the 4th amendment right to refuse illegal searches/seizures by police. We also have the 5th Amendment right to remain silent upon arrest. In other words, we may legally refuse to provide police with information which may incriminate ourselves. When and why did it become unlawful to exercise our rights? Where is the Disorderly Conduct in that? It could be problematic, however, for Mr. gates to prove damages. In order to prevail, Mr. Gates must show that he was (1) injured before/during/after the arrest, and (2) that his injuries led to quantifiable damages. Admittedly, the damages portion is difficult to quantify. Was Mr. Gates physically injured at any time? Was he incarcerated? If so, did his incarceration cause him any other injuries? Did Mr. Gates undergo mental trauma? The answers to these questions should determine whether his lawsuit has merit or is frivolous. Good luck, Mr. Gates. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Race & Law, Search and Seizure, Studies **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [When Men Are Victims of Domestic Violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/when-men-are-victims-of-domestic-violence/) **Published:** August 5, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** An [article](http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-life/bigger-picture/article.aspx?cp-documentid=20968901>1=32001) on [msn.com](https://www.msn.com/) discusses [Domestic Violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) when the perpetrator is female and the victim is male. According to the article, a recent study showed that 64 percent of the men who called a DV hotline were told that they “only help women,” and only half were referred to programs for male perpetrators. Overall, only 8 percent of the men who called hotlines classified them as “very helpful,” whereas 69 percent found them to be “not at all helpful.” Worse, when an abused man called the police, the police were more likely to arrest him than to arrest his abusive female partner. My opinion? I’ve handled hundreds of domestic violence (DV) cases. Truthfully, female-on-male DV doesn’t happen often. Indeed, I can count ON ONE HAND cases I’ve worked where a female defendant abused her male boyfriend/husband. Either it rarely happens, or doesn’t get reported. Probably both. Still, it’s shameful that female-on-male DV isn’t taken as seriously. Societal norms probably have much to do with it (men are physically stronger, they should have the wherewithal to “handle” an angry/violent female, etc.). You should know this, however: BY WASHINGTON STATUTE, POLICE **MUST** ARREST SOMEONE IF THEY ARE SUMMONED VIA 911 PHONE CALL. There’s no getting around it. No arguing with police. They will arrive, separate you two, investigate the scene, gather evidence, interview witnesses, determine who the primary aggressor is, and arrest them. In addition, a DV perpetrator can be charged with Interfering With a 911 Call – a gross misdemeanor – if the perpetrator attempts to stop the victim from calling the police. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** 911 Call, Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Domestic Violence, felony, misdemeanor, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Bellingham Police Department Launches Anti-Crime Team](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/bellingham-police-department-launches-anti-crime-team/) **Published:** August 9, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** Bellingham’s finest created a [five-person “Anti-Crime Team (ACT) dedicated to warrant arrests](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/onpatrol/story/1018782.html), stakeouts, sting operations, and plainclothes detective work. The team’s goal is to reduce — and follow up on — the number of 911 calls the police department receives. “Our purpose is basically to do what patrol doesn’t have time to do,” Sgt. Keith Johnson said. “If we can spend some quality time and solve problems rather than deal with them every time they flare up, then the community benefits and patrol benefits.” The Anti-Crime Team (ACT) appears to be a proactive sub-unit of the Bellingham Police Department. In short, ACT provides additional investigations/policing of our neighborhoods. These activities include serving bench warrants, police interviews, stakeouts, etc. In other words, ACT is involved in community caretaking. Know this, however: “community caretaking” is, in reality, a legal term; and establishes an exception to rule that officers MUST have a warrant to arrest citizens. ACT’s proactive approach could create a risk of abuse to the community caretaking exception of the warrant requirement. Under WA law, and in light of the risk of abuse, courts must be cautious in applying the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement. n order to avoid abuse of the exception, community caretaking searches/seizures must be strictly divorced from criminal investigations. Also, the community caretaking function exception may not be used as a pretext for a criminal investigation. Given ACT’s proactive approach to neighborhood policing as a “community caretaking” function, we could see an increase in unlawful arrests. The solution? Be aware of your Constitutional rights when approached/questioned by police officers. Be cooperative. Avoid making unnecessary statements. Ask for an attorney. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** 911 Call, Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Bench Warrant, law enforcement, Privacy, Terry Stop, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. McCormick: Sex Offender's Suspended Sentence Remains Revoked](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-mccormick-sex-offenders-suspended-sentence-remains-revoked/) **Published:** August 12, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** In *[State v. McCormick](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=811938MAJ)*, the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held the plain language of [Washington’s SSOSA statute](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.670) does not require proof that a violation was willful before a SSOSA sentence may be revoked. David McCormick was convicted of [first degree rape of a child](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/) for raping his 11-year-old granddaughter. He was sentenced to over 10 years in prison, but given a special sex offender sentencing alternative (SSOSA) that suspended the prison term provided he abide by certain restrictions, including that he “not frequent areas where minor children are known to congregate” Unfortunately, McCormick’s community corrections officer was tipped off that McCormick had been regularly visiting a St. Vincent De Paul Food Bank located in a building used as part of an elementary school. This was not McCormick’s first violation of the SSOSA terms, and the trial court revoked the sentencing alternative. McCormick argued that the State should have been required to prove that his violation was willful, that the state and federal constitutional guarantees of due process require proof that such a violation was willful before revoking a suspended sentence, and that there was insufficient evidence. However, the Court held that the plain language of the SSOSA statutes do not require proof that a violation was willful before a sentence may be revoked, that post-conviction due process requirements do not require proof of willfulness, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s decision. Justice Fairhurst wrote the majority opinion and was joined by seven other justices. Justice Sanders dissented, asserting that “\[t\]he State should at least be constitutionally required to prove McCormick reasonably should have known the food bank was an area where minors are known to congregate.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Due Process, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Rape, Sentencing, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Rivera-Santos: Why Crossing State Lines - Intoxicated - Is Double Trouble](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-rivera-santos-why-crossing-state-lines-intoxicated-is-double-trouble/) **Published:** September 1, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Rivera-Santos*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfmfa=opinions.showOpinionTextOnly&filename=814457MAJ&printOnly=y), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) determined that the defendant, who drove under the influence of alcohol in both Washington and Oregon, could be convicted of a [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) in both states without violating his constitutional rights. Rivera-Santos led police on a chase that started on the Washington side of I-5 and ended on the Oregon side. He was found to have a blood-alcohol content level of .17 percent (more than twice the legal limit), and convicted by an Oregon court of driving under the influence. He was also charged with a DUI in Clark County District Court, but Rivera-Santos argued that it should be dismissed under the constitutional protections against double-jeopardy (i.e. being punished twice for the same crime). Justice Fairhurst wrote that convicting Rivera-Santos in Washington would not be double-jeopardy, as it was a separate crime. He drove while drunk in Oregon, and was punished for that by an Oregon court. He also drove while drunk in Washington, and a Washington court could punish him for that separate crime. My opinion? If it *looks* like a duck, *smells* like a duck, *then it must be a duck.* Said differently, this legal decision *looks* like double jeopardy, *smells* like double jeopardy, therefore *it must be double jeopardy*. For those who don’t know, “Double Jeopardy” happens when defendants are prosecuted twice for the same offense. It’s unconstitutional. The [Double Jeopardy Clause](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/double_jeopardy) protects against three distinct abuses: \[1\] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; \[2\] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and \[3\] multiple punishments for the same offense.’ *U.S. v. Halper*, 490 U.S. 435, 440 (1989). Here, the WA Supremes stated that Mr. Rivera-Santos committed two different crimes in two different states. Fine, I can agree with that. HOWEVER, I disagree with their decision that charging these crimes is not double jeopardy. Why do I disagree? Because these “two crimes” arose from the same facts and circumstances. Mr. Rivera-Santos did not steal candy from a 7-11 in Oregon, cross State lines, and then steal candy from a 7-11 in Washington. The crime of DUI is, essentially, driving while intoxicated. Although Mr. Rivera-Santos drove across State lines while intoxicated, *he was DUI only one time during that crossing.* Therefore, he should only be punished once. Anything more is double jeopardy. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Department of Licensing, Due Process, DUI, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Probable Cause, Reckless Driving, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Traffic Infractions, Washington State Patrol, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Kyllo: When It Makes Sense, Argue Self Defense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-kyllo/) **Published:** September 8, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Kyllo*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=811644MAJ) the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that the jury instruction misstated the law on [Self-Defense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/self-defense/). Moreover, the jury should have been informed that a person is entitled to act in self-defense when he reasonably apprehends that he is about to be injured. On June 12, 2004, while an inmate at the Cowlitz County jail on other charges, Mr. Kyllo was involved in a fist fight with another inmate during the course of which Kyllo bit the other inmate’s ear off. Kyllo was charged with [second degree assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) and he claimed he acted in self-defense. At trial, Defense counsel proposed a self-defense jury instruction that stated: > A person is entitled to act on appearances in defending himself, if that person believes in good faith and on reasonable grounds that he is in actual danger of great bodily harm, although it afterwards might develop that the person was mistaken as to the extent of the danger. Actual danger is not necessary for the use of force to be lawful. Kyllo was convicted on the charge of second degree assault. On appeal, he asserted ineffectual assistance of counsel, arguing that the instruction above improperly lowered the State’s burden of proof. The Supreme Court agreed, with Justice Barbara Madsen writing a unanimous opinion. The Court held that the jury instruction misstated the law, and that the jury should have been informed that a person is entitled to act in self-defense when he reasonably apprehends that he is about to be injured — “One is not required to believe he is about to be grievously harmed or killed.” The Court held that Kyllo was denied effective assistance of counsel, and remanded the case for a new trial. My opinion? Excellent decision. Reminds defense attorneys to stay cognizant of the jury instructions they provide. For those who don’t know, a jury instruction is an instruction given by the court to a jury at the conclusion of presentation of all evidence in a trial, and after the lawyer’s closing arguments, to advise the jury of the law that applies to the facts of the case, and the manner in which they should conduct their deliberations. The attorneys prepare the instructions. Here, the defense attorney gave the “Acting on Appearances” instruction. The instruction presents a good starting point for the circumstances surrounding this particular case (Convict A is mad-dogging Convict B, Convict B attacks Convict A *first* — and acting on Convict A’s appearances — because he believes Convict A will attack and get the advantage of surprise). Unfortunately, the instruction, by itself wasn’t enough. As a matter of practice, I believe both a self defense instruction AND and “Acting on Appearances” instruction work best in combination with each other. Speaking from my own trial experience, everyone on the street embraces self defense. It allows us to fight back when we’re attacked. Simple. However, the soft-spoken pacifists out there (who are INCREDIBLY hard to spot at jury selection) are downright offended by the “Acting on Appearances” instruction. Many juries simply cannot promote violence beyond the context of self defense. Yet even a pacifist will fight to save their own life. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Assault, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, Ineffective Assistance, Jury Trial, Self-Defense, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [True Stories of False Confessions: New Book Explains Why People Confess to Crimes They Didn't Commit.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/true-stories-of-false-confessions-new-book-explains-why-people-confess-to-crimes-they-didnt-commit/) **Published:** September 9, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** Would you confess to a crime you didn’t commit? Plenty of people have. A [new book ](http://falseconfessionsbook.com/) the directors of Bluhm Legal Clinic’s Center on Wrongful Convictions (CWC) at Northwestern University School of Law, is full of articles and book excerpts detailing false confessions made by innocent men and women. “*[True Stories of False Confession](http://falseconfessionsbook.com/)s*” makes clear why false confessions happen all too often. The book details dozens of cases in which men and women of varied ages, races and education levels confessed to crimes they didn’t commit. The accounts are divided into categories bearing such titles as “brainwashing,” “inquisition,” “child abuse” and “exhaustion.” Together, these cases reveal a disturbing phenomenon that the criminal justice system should address. With the variety of people described in the book, it’s clear there is not one type of person susceptible to falsely confessing. “Your common sense might tell you that you don’t want to confess,” Drizin said. “But after hours and hours of intense grilling by police, you’ll say anything to stop the questioning. “There are untold numbers of these cases,” Warden said. “The examples in the book are just a few in which there have been exonerations. Each story was chosen because a talented journalist happened to write a compelling story about it. There are many, many other cases that simply didn’t come to the attention of an interested writer.” Among writers whose works appear in the book are John Grisham, Alex Kotlowitz, Dana L. Priest, Sydney H. Schanberg, Maurice Possley, Steve Mills, John Conroy, Don Terry and Thomas Frisbie. The [Center on Wrongful Convictions](https://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/wrongfulconvictions/) receives approximately 200 credible requests for legal assistance each month, according to Warden, who says that more than a third of the requests are from men and women who confessed but claim that their confessions were false. Founded 10 years ago, the center has been instrumental in 37 exonerations, more than half of which involved confessions that proved to be false. Hate to say it, but in my line of work, false confessions happen all of the time. Police officers obtain unlawful confessions through threats, promises, etc. They place many defendants under duress. They browbeat. For hours and hours. Whatever it takes. The solution? ***Requiring police to electronically record interrogations.*** Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Due Process, Duress Defense, Interrogation, law enforcement, police, Studies **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Eriksen: Tribal Officers Can Pursue Suspects Off the Reservation](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-eriksen-tribal-officers-can-pursue-suspects-off-the-reservation/) **Published:** September 21, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Eriksen*](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1579137.html), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) decided that tribal police officers can pursue motorists beyond the limits of tribal lands after having observed them commit a traffic infraction on the reservation. A Lummi Nation Police Department officer witnessed a motorist on the reservation driving at night with high beams and drifting across the center divider. He began following the vehicle and activated his emergency lights. After traveling a quarter mile the car pulled into a gas station located off the reservation. The police officer witnessed the driver, Loretta Eriksen, hop over the car’s center console and into the passenger’s seat. The officer detained Eriksen until a Whatcom County police deputy arrived, who arrested her for [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). Ms. Eriksen was convicted for DUI. The trial court said Lummi Nation’s inherent sovereign power authorizes tribal police to continue in “fresh pursuit” of offenders who drive off the reservation. The Supreme Court agreed. It reasoned that the Lummi Nation is a sovereign nation with inherent authority to enforce its laws and detain Indians or non-Indians who violate those laws. Courts have long recognized the right of law enforcement officers to cross jurisdictional lines when in hot pursuit of a violator. The court said this doctrine should apply to sovereign tribal nations as well. “The Lummi Nation Police Department has authority under the Lummi Nation’s sovereign authority and under the Washington Mutual Aid Peace Officers Powers Act of 1985, chapter 10.93 RCW, to enforce its laws by continuing the ‘fresh pursuit’ of suspects off the reservation and then detaining these suspects until authorities with jurisdiction arrive.” My opinion? I’m not surprised. Recently, the WA Supremes have deciding other “hot pursuit” cases in similar fashion. Indeed, in *State v. Rivera-Santos*, a recent case which my blog covered earlier this month, the WA Supremes decided that a defendant, who drove under the influence of alcohol in both Washington and Oregon, could be convicted of a DUI in both states without violating his constitutional rights IF law enforcement was engaged in hot pursuit across state lines. Additionally, I’ve found the criminal justice system is extra tough on defendants who “elude” law enforcement with high-speed chases. Eluding is a fairly serious felony, especially if the defendant already has felony convictions on their criminal record. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Due Process, DUI, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Probable Cause, Reckless Driving, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Traffic Infractions, Washington State Patrol, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [X52 Program Leads to Increased DUI Patrols and Arrests](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/x52-program-leads-to-increased-dui-patrols-and-arrests/) **Published:** September 24, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** This past Labor Day Weekend, the [Washington State Patrol](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/) made 296 arrests for suspicion of [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). That’s slightly higher than the 292 arrests WSP made over the same weekend in 2008. In a recent report released by the WSP, there were 44 calls from concerned motorists which led to 20 arrests for suspicion of DUI. The increased arrests — and inevitable prosecutions — are directly attributed to Washington State Patrol’s (WSP) implementation of the X52 anti-DUI campaign. [**X52** stands for extra patrols 52 weeks per year](http://www.wtsc.wa.gov/programs/x52.php). The goal of the X52 program is to reduce speeding and DUI-related traffic fatalities and serious injuries on Washington’s roads. Under the program, [Washington Traffic Safety Commission](https://wtsc.wa.gov/) released $450,000 worth of grants to local law enforcement agencies to help them provide additional impaired driving and speed patrols every week of the year. These sustained enforcement patrols specifically target speed and DUI offenders, as well as look for other traffic violations. The program is being administered statewide through a network of community traffic safety task forces. The X52 program also includes initiatives designed to let the public know that these extra patrols are happening in Washington every week. $450,000 is budgeted for paid radio advertising and alternative messaging. Earned media efforts will be spearheaded by community traffic safety task forces. My opinion? Clearly, the WSP is aggressively campaigning the X52 program. I foresee even greater DUI patrol this holiday season. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Department of Licensing, Due Process, DUI, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Reckless Driving, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, Traffic Infractions, Washington State Patrol, Washington State Traffic Commission, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Seattle v. St. John: Police May Obtain a Search Warrant For a Blood Sample When Motorists Refuse to Give Breath Test.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/seattle-v-st-john-police-may-obtain-a-search-warrant-for-a-blood-sample-when-motorists-refuse-to-give-breath-test/) **Published:** September 24, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*Seattle v. St. John*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=819921MAJ), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that police may obtain a[ search warrant](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/search_warrant) for a blood sample when motorists refuse to give a breath test. After crashing his motorcycle in Seattle, Robert St. John was investigated for [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). A police officer asked St. John to consent to a blood alcohol test. St. John refused. The officer obtained a warrant for the test. The results were suppressed in municipal court based on a broad interpretation of a provision of the [Implied Consent Law](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.308) that prohibits performing the test once consent has been refused. The superior court reversed and the Court of Appeals certified three questions to the Supreme Court: > 1\. Does the implied consent statute allow the State to administer a blood alcohol test pursuant to a warrant after a driver has declined a voluntary blood alcohol test? > > 2\. Does an implied consent warning violate due process if it does not inform drivers that an officer may seek a warrant for a blood alcohol test even if the driver declines the voluntary blood alcohol test? > > 3\. Does the doctrine of equitable estoppel bar the State from seeking a warrant for a blood alcohol test after informing drivers that they may refuse the voluntary blood alcohol test? The WA Supreme Court upheld the superior court and allowed the blood test evidence. They reasoned that the Implied Consent law restricts performing a blood test pursuant to that law, but does not prohibit performing a blood test pursuant to a lawfully issued warrant ([RCW 46.20.308](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.20.308)). Similarly, the officer’s statements about the Implied Consent law did not foreclose his obtaining the warrant. I echo the [dissenting opinion of Justice Charles Sanders](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=819921Di1). Simply put, an officer cannot force a driver to submit to a blood test if the driver refuses consent. However, under the majority opinion’s reasoning, a driver’s refusal to consent to a Breath test is essentially meaningless. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Blood Test, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, DUI, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Traffic Infractions, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington State Patrol, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Too Much Information: Blogging Lawyers Face Ethical and Legal Problems](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/too-much-information-blogging-lawyers-face-ethical-and-legal-problems/) **Published:** September 28, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** Chalk it up to the age of Facebook. [Blogging lawyers and judges have landed in trouble with legal ethics regulators and judges](http://www.abajournal.com/news/too_much_information_blogging_lawyers_face_ethical_and_legal_problems/), while one blogging lawyer ended up as a defendant in a defamation lawsuit. My opinion? I’ve blogged for some time now. Early on, I discovered that my ethical duties under the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC’s) clearly prohibit me from discussing certain things. This is ESPECIALLY true in matters involving judges and clients. For example, [RPC 8.2](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=RPC&ruleid=garpc8.2) prohibits lawyers from making making statements against judges that ” . . . the lawyer knows is false or with reckless disregard as to its truth concerning the qualifications, integrity, or record of the judge.” Indeed, the rule goes on to say that lawyers take an active role in squelching “bad talk” about judges: ” Lawyers . . . should support and continue traditional efforts to defend judges and courts from unjust criticism.” Additionally, [RPC 1.6](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&ruleid=garpc1.06&set=rpc) — which addresses client confidences/secrets — holds that a lawyer SHALL NOT reveal confidences or secrets relating to the representation of a client unless the client consents after consultation. Lawyers, be careful. Treat clients and judges like gold. The internet doesn’t exist in a vacuum . . . Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Rules of Professional Conduct, Social Media, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Kenyon: Courtroom Congestion Is No Reason For Delay](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-kenyon-courtroom-congestion-is-no-reason-for-delay/) **Published:** October 7, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Kenyon*](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1396890.html), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that courtroom congestion is no reason for delaying a trial. On February 15, 2006, Mr. Kenyon was charged with six counts of [unlawful possession of a firearm](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/) and was incarcerated while awaiting. After multiple delays his case eventually went to trial in August—well beyond the time limits provided by the [speedy trial rule (CrR 3.3).](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.3) For those who don’t know, under the speedy trial rule, a defendant who is detained in jail must have a trial set within 60 days of arraignment. If a defendant is not brought to trial within the rule’s time limits, the court must dismiss the charges with prejudice so long as the defendant objects within 10 days after notice of trial date is mailed. Some periods of time are excluded when computing the date for trial. For example, continuances granted by the court are excluded, as well as “unavoidable or unforeseen circumstances” that are beyond the control of the court or of the parties. Kenyon argued his right to a speedy trial was violated as no court was available to hear his case. The State argues the trial court properly followed the scheduled and that his attorney asked for many continuances. The trial court held the delay was “unavoidable” as the judge was presiding over another case and the other judge was on vacation. The Supreme Court however, has said that courtroom congestion—as opposed to scheduling conflicts or trial preparation—is not a valid reason for delay. The Court determined that despite the allowance for “unavoidable or unforeseen circumstances,” the speedy trial rule still requires trial courts to document the details of unavailable judges and courtrooms. The failure to do so in this case violated Kenyon’s right to a speedy trial and the Court dismissed the charges with prejudice. My opinion? Clearly — and rightfully — the Supremes gave teeth back to the Speedy Trial Rule. In short, trials *must* happen within a certain period of time; and if they don’t, and/or if the case is not continued correctly, then the case should be dismissed. It’s that simple. However, for the last few years (decades?) our Appeals courts have taken exception to the general rule; often to the degree where where the exceptions have *swallowed* the rule. Needless to say, I’m extremely happy the WA Supremes decided *Kenyon* in this manner. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, Firearm, Speedy Trial & Continuances, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Stately: Vehicular Homicide By Disregard Is NOT A Violent Offense; Some Defendants Eligible for First Offender Waiver.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-stately-vehicular-homicide-by-disregard-is-not-a-violent-offense-and-is-eligible-for-first-offender-waiver/) **Published:** October 13, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Stately*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=381036MAJ), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/resources/?fa=newsinfo_jury.display&altMenu=Citi&folderID=jury_guide&fileID=appeals) held that [Vehicular Homicide By Disregard](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/vehicular-homicide-vehicular-assault/) is NOT a [Violent Offense](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.030) and that some defendants are eligible for the [First-Time Offender Waiver.](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.650) About a week before her 18th birthday, Ms. Stately drove a car while intoxicated. Unfortunately, she caused an accident that killed her best friend. Stately was charged — and later convicted — of Vehicular Homicide by Disregard under RCW 46.61.520(1)(c). At sentencing, the State recommended 17 months of incarceration. However, Stately argued she was entitled to a first-time offender waiver under former RCW 9.94A.650 because her crime was not defined as a violent offense. The trial court agreed. Stately was sentenced under the first-time offender waiver to 30 days of incarceration, 12 months of community custody, and 4,000 hours of community restitution (community service). For those who don’t know, a “first-time offender” is any person who has no prior felony convictions. At sentencing, the court may waive the imposition of a sentence within the standard sentencing range. The sentence imposed under the first-time offender provision is not an exceptional sentence but is, rather, a waiver of the standard sentence range. On appeal, the Prosecution argued that Stately was not eligible for a first-time offender waiver because she committed a violent offense. However, the Court of Appeals thought different. It reasoned that there are three types of vehicular homicide, all currently class A felonies. Subsection (xiv) lists the first two types, homicide by intoxication and recklessness, but does not include the third type, homicide by disregard. Former RCW 9.94A.030(50)(a)(xiv). The court further reasoned, “If we read the statute to define Vehicular Homicide by Disregard as a violent offense simply because it is a class A felony, then subsection (xiv) would be superfluous. We presume, however, that the legislature does not include superfluous language and we interpret statutes to give meaning to each section. ***Here, it is impossible to harmonize the statute’s terms in subsection (i) with its terms in subsection (xiv). The later subsection, relating specifically to vehicular homicide, is more specific than subsection (i), which relates generally to all class A felonies.*** Applying the specific-general doctrine, the specific terms of subsection (xiv) prevail and Stately’s Vehicular Homicide by Disregard conviction is not a violent offense” (emphasis supplied). My opinion? Again, excellent decision. It’s pleasing when our legal system takes an academic approach to cases by methodically reviewing the **WORDING** and **LEGISLATIVE INTENT** of statutes. Fortunately, that’s exactly what happened here. The court avoided a huge miscarriage of justice by refusing to allow the general rule of “violent offense” swallow legislative exceptions to the rule. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Due Process, DUI, felony, First Time Offender Waiver, Homicide & Manslaughter, Legislation, Sentencing, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Iniguez: How Were the Defendant's Speedy Trial Rights NOT Violated?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-iniguez-how-are-the-defendants-speedy-trial-rights-not-violated/) **Published:** October 13, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** Can’t agree with the Supremes on this one . . . In [*State v. Iniguez*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=817502MAJ), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) decided a defendant’s speedy trial rights were not violated even though a defendant waited in jail 8 months and objected to all continuances. Following his arrest on [First Degree Robbery](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/robbery/), Mr. Iniguez remained in custody pending a joint trial with his codefendant. An **8-month delay** between arraignment and trial took place. During this time, the State moved for a total of four trial continuances, the last of which the State sought because it learned — belatedly — that a key witness was out of town. **Iniguez objected to all continuances.** The trial court denied his objections and pretrial motions. At trial, the jury found Iniguez guilty. He appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed Iniguez’s conviction. The court held the eight-month delay between arrest and trial was prejudicial and violated Iniguez’s [constitutional right to speedy trial](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_Trial_Clause#:~:text=The%20Speedy%20Trial%20Clause%20of,similar%20charging%20instrument%20and%20the). However, the WA Supremes decided the delay did not violate the time-for-trial court rule, CrR 3.2, and did not violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment or Const. art. I, § 22 constitutional right to a speedy trial. The Court reasoned that Article I, Section 22 of the state constitution does not offer greater protections than the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Using the six-part [*Gunwall*](https://casetext.com/case/state-v-gunwall-1) test, the Court determined there was no clear reason to find greater protections in the state constitution, so the two provisions should be applied similarly. Also, under the [four-factor *Blakely* analysis](https://sentencing.umn.edu/content/what-blakely-and-why-it-so-important), the Court also reasoned that although the circumstances of the delay were substantial enough to presume harm to Iniguez, the level of violation of Iniguez’ speedy trial rights wasn’t enough to justify dismissing his case. The Court ruled 5-4 against Iniguez, holding there was no constitutional violation of his right to a speedy trial. My opinion? My thoughts are similar to dissenting Judge Sanders. I agree with the majority opinion that the length of delay in this case — coupled with the fact that Iniguez spent all of it in custody — gave rise to a presumption of prejudice. The defendant’s trial delay was nearly nine months. The delays arose because of the State’s need to interview witnesses, joinder with the co-defendant, scheduling conflicts, and the late discovery of the unavailability of a key witness one week prior to trial. None of the delays were caused by Iniguez himself. Indeed, he objected to continuing his case at every opportunity! Finally, Iniguez was prejudiced because he was in jail during this entire process. This is very substantial. Incarceration carries detrimental effects: loss of job, disruption of family life, idleness, etc. Time spent in jail is simply dead time. How were Iniguez’s Speedy Trial rights NOT violated? Again, bad decision . . . Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Discovery, Due Process, felony, Jail, Speedy Trial & Continuances, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [9th Circuit's Search & Seizure Outline](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/9th-circuits-search-seizure-outline/) **Published:** October 14, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** Interesting. The [9th Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) just [released a Search and Seizure outline](http://circuit9.blogspot.com/2009/10/search-seizure-update.html). This outline is AMMUNITION for pretrial motion practice. If you, a potential defendant, were held in custody by police, arrested, questioned, and/or your property (house & car) were searched; then your attorney should argue pretrial motions to suppress. Pretrial motion practice protects your individual rights while providing the primary defense for your case. Any attorney worth their salt should argue pretrial motions on your behalf. The federal public defenders in Oregon drafted the outline. They appear before the U.S Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. This court carries appellate over many federal district courts along the west coast; Washington included. The outline was updated from two years ago. Among the many new cases, the big news from the Supreme Court is the decision in [*Arizona v. Gant* ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-542.ZO.html)overruling prior decisions that had divorced the scope of vehicle searches incident to arrest from the rationale of officer safety. The Ninth Circuit provided important guidance on computer searches in the en banc decision in *Comprehensive Drug Testing*. Two district court cases from last summer provide a reminder of the practical importance of motion practice for our clients: Judge Jones and Judge Haggerty granted motions to suppress in *Freeman* and *Izguerra-Robles*, litigated by AFPDs Ellen Pitcher and Nancy Bergeson, respectively. Again, great bedtime reading. A “must have” for attorneys arguing pretrial motions. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime involving [Search & Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/). Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Visiting Hours Reduced At Whatcom County Jail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/visiting-hours-reduced-at-whatcom-county-jail/) **Published:** October 17, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** As if being incarcerated wasn’t bad enough. Apparently, [visiting hours are reduced at the Whatcom County Jail](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/102/story/1117479.html?storylink=omni_popular). Budget cuts + jail fights = less visitation. Are Civil Rights being violated? Does reducing hours amount to cruel and unusual punishment? Probably not. There’s no Constitutional right to have visitors. It’s also difficult to label this as cruel/unusual punishment when unfortunate economic circumstances lead the Sheriff’s Office to lay off jail staff who assist visitation. Nevertheless, the situation is loathsome. I represent many clients housed in Whatcom County jail. Many of them cannot make bail. Some of them have family and friends who consistently visit. It’s important. Visitors are the only lifeline to the “free world” these inmates have. And now, these guys — the ones who aren’t fighting — are suffering because of decreased budgets and hotheaded inmates. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Jail **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. King: Out-Of-Jurisdiction Police Cannot Arrest Unless Emergency Exists](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/372/) **Published:** October 17, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** Excellent opinion. In *[State v. King](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=809488MAJ)*, the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that out-of-jurisdiction police cannot arrest unless an emergency exists. Tyler King was riding his motorcycle southbound on Interstate 5 north of Vancouver city limits when he was stopped and issued a criminal citation for [Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/) by Vancouver police officer Jeff Starks. King had stood up on the pegs of his motorcycle, looked at the vehicle he was approaching, and accelerated to pass the vehicle. King and Starks both testified at the trial, offering different interpretations of the facts. Starks offered opinion testimony that King’s driving had been reckless, which King’s attorney did not object to at trial but then raised on appeal. King also challenged that the officer was outside of his jurisdiction without an interlocal agreement and without satisfying the statutory emergency exception. The Supreme Court held that Officer Starks did not have jurisdiction to issue the criminal citation. They reasoned that Stark’s interpretation of King’s actions would not have constituted “an emergency involving an immediate threat to human life or property.” > King did not nearly hit another car, nor run a light, nor weave across traffic lanes. He did not pop a wheelie, cut off another car, nor, for that matter, drive in reverse along the shoulder. At most, King glared at the driver of the large truck, stood on his foot pegs for three to five seconds, and accelerated at high speed past the truck. > > As aforementioned, Starks could not verify that King accelerated away at what he thought was 100 m.p.h. Even so, the officer testified King slowed down as he approached other traffic and pulled over immediately when Starks signaled him to do so. The majority concludes that the trial court was wrong to simply take the definition of reckless driving and assume that it “automatically fit within the emergency exception.” The majority also suggests that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the opinion testimony issue was foreclosed by the lack of an objection at trial. My opinion? Again, good decision. Reckless Driving does not always involve racing, road rage, emergency situations or life-threatening behavior. Let’s be frank: some people simply enjoy horsing around while driving! The Supremes rightfully disagreed with the trial court and saw the situation for what it was: people slightly agitated with each other’s driving, a brief increase in speed, and it’s over. Nobody goes crazy, and/or gets mad, violent or injured. Period. It’d be a miscarriage of justice to allow out-of-jurisdiction officers to arrest people based on those circumstances. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Due Process, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Probable Cause, Reckless Driving, Terry Stop, Washington State Traffic Commission, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Patton: WA Supreme Court Acknowledges Search and Seizure Protections Afforded by Arizona v. Gant.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-patton-wa-improves/) **Published:** October 26, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** In *[State v. Patton](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=805181MAJ)*, the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that an automobile search which happens after arrest is not justified unless the defendant is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of search and the search is necessary for officer safety or to secure evidence of the crime of arrest. Randall Patton was wanted on a felony warrant. A Skamania County Sheriff Deputy spotted him. Patton was on his property and leaning into his own car through the window, rummaging with something on the seat. The Deputy told Patton he was under arrest. Patton fled, but was soon apprehended inside a trailer. Deputies searched the car and found methamphetamine. Patton challenged that the search violated his state and federal constitutional rights because it was not a valid search incident to arrest. The trial court suppressed the evidence but was reversed by the Court of Appeals. The Court found that Patton was arrested when the officer “manifest\[ed\] an intent to take \[him\] into custody” while Patton was standing by his car. Nevertheless, “the search incident to arrest exception is narrow and should be applied only in circumstances anchored to the justifications for its existence.” The court elaborated their reasoning with the following: > The question before us, then, is whether it would stretch the search incident to arrest exception beyond its justifications to apply it where the arrestee is not a driver or recent occupant of the vehicle, the basis for arrest is not related to the use of the vehicle, and the arrestee is physically detained and secured away from the vehicle before the search. We believe it would. Congratulations to Justice Jim Johnson, who found the case identical to [*Arizona v. Gant*](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/07-542), decided earlier this year by the United States Supreme Court. In *Gant*, the U.S. Supremes held that a search conducted by police officers after handcuffing the defendant and securing the scene violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Drug Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crime involving [Search and Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/). Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, felony, Jury Trial, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Police Misconduct, Privacy, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Traffic Infractions, United States Supreme Court, Washington State Patrol, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Seattle v. Winebrenner/Seattle v. Quezada: Court finds Lenity for Defendants In the Face of Statutory Ambiguity](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/seattle-v-winebrennerseattle-v-quezada-court-finds-lenity-for-defendants-in-the-face-of-statutory-ambiguity/) **Published:** November 1, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*Seattle v. Winebrenner/Seattle v. Quezada*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=812799MAJ): the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) found that a “prior offense” applies only to offenses that occurred before the current offense, and does not encompass all offenses the defendant has before sentencing. Both Scott Winebrenner and Jesus Quezada were arrested multiple times for [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). Each had a deferred prosecution agreement from one arrest which they violated with a subsequent arrest. For those who don’t know, a deferred prosecution is a contract entered into with the court. Typically, a defendant obtains an alcohol evaluation which states they suffer from an alcohol problem; agrees to be on probation for five years; enters a grueling treatment regimen, and commits no new law violations. If successful, the DUI gets dismissed. If they fail, however, the court may revoke the entire agreement, find the defendant guilty, and issue a jail sentence. Deferred sentences represent a “grey area” in criminal jurisprudence. They are neither a conviction or a dismissal. The issue was ripe to determine whether a deferred sentence counts as a prior conviction if the defendant violates the terms by garnering new charges. Here, the Court reasoned that [RCW 46.61.5055’s ](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.5055)use of “prior offense” is ambiguous because it is “subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.” The “rule of lenity” requires “that an ambiguous criminal statute cannot be interpreted to increase the penalty imposed.” The Court further reasoned that offenses committed after the original offense are not “prior offenses” and cannot be considered at sentencing for the original offense. My opinion? I’m impressed the WA Supremes supported the Rule of Lenity. The spirit of the rule of lenity – fundamental fairness – lies at the heart of a respectable criminal justice system. See *McBoyle* v. *United States*, 283 U.S. 25, 27 (1931) (the principle of “fair warning” motivates the lenity rule) (Holmes, J.). At a high level of generality, we all agree that ambiguous criminal statutes must be construed in favor of the accused. But the rule of lenity is often not taken seriously. Glad to see the WA Supremes gave teeth back to the rule. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** DUI, Rule of Lenity, Sentencing, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Heroin Use On the Rise in Whatcom County](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/heroin-use-on-the-rise-in-whatcom-county/) **Published:** November 1, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** Unfortunately, [heroin use is increasing in Whatcom County](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/255/story/1137929.html). The evidence? Increased demand for outpatient rehab has more than doubled, needle exchanges increased 36 percent for spring/summer compared to the same time last year at the county [Needle Exchange Program](https://nasen.org/sep/whatcom-county-syringe-exchange-program), the number of jail inmates going through heroin withdrawals has increased 7 to 10 percent, arrests for heroin use and sale have increased, and more people are entering rehab. The theories behind the increase? The drug doesn’t have to be injected anymore, it’s fairly easy to get, addicts are getting younger and, in a recession, it’s cheaper than drugs that offer similar highs. My opinion? The article appears spot-on. I’ve certainly seen a spike in heroin charges filed against defendants. I only hope that abusers get help as soon as possible. The Whatcom County Drug Task Force is VERY experienced at investigating/busting drug rings. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face [Drug Offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Court, Drug Offenses, felony, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Amid Recession Meth Menace Evolves](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/amid-recession-meth-menace-evolves/) **Published:** December 2, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** Apparently, [the meth problem has grown](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34227273/ns/us_news-the_elkhart_project) in the face of dwindling State/County budgets. My opinion? It makes sense. My last blog discussed how heroin use increased in Whatcom County. Similarly, I would expect meth use to increase as well. It’s a sad state of affairs. We’ve all felt the crunch of this economy: people lose their jobs, financial situations seem hopeless, we need to feel better, and, for some, drugs provide the outlet. Know this: meth is a particularly *nasty* drug bringing particularly *nasty* consequences. Under [Washington’s Sentencing Reform Act (SRA)](http://www.cfc.wa.gov/PublicationSentencing/SentencingManual/Adult_Sentencing_Manual_2020.pdf), a person with no criminal history is exposed to 12-20 months PRISON for delivering methamphetamine. RCW 69.50.401(2)(b). Meth charges are also classified as Class B felonies, which are serious felonies under the SRA. Finally, delivery charges automatically prohibit a defendant from entering Drug Court. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Drug Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Court, Drug Offenses, felony, Methamphetamine, Studies **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Winterstein: Parole Officers Cannot Search A Home If Facts Do Not Support the Officer’s Belief That Probationer Lives There.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-winterstein-probation-officers-cannot-search-of-a-home-if-facts-do-not-support-the-officers-belief-that-probationer-lives-there/) **Published:** December 3, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Winterstein*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=807558MAJ), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that parole officers cannot search a home if the facts do not support the officer’s belief that that defendant on probation lives there. Terry Lee Winterstein was convicted of [Unlawful Manufacture of Methamphetamine](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) after his probation officer conducted a warrantless search of his residence. After trial, Winterstein’s counsel discovered that Winterstein had reported a change of address with the Department of Corrections at least three weeks prior to the search. *Neverthless, the probation officer searched Winterstein’s prior residence.* Winterstein argued that the evidence gathered as a result of the warrantless search should be suppressed because his probation officer did not have the authority of law to search a house that was not Winterstein’s documented residence. The trial court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals also held that regardless of the illegal search, the evidence could be admissible under the “inevitable discovery doctrine”—that is, evidence that police would have ultimately or inevitably discovered through other (lawful) means. The case wound its way up to the WA Supreme Court. First, the Court addressed whether the probation officer’s search of the Winterstein’s former residence was proper. They reasoned that, generally speaking, individuals under Department of Corrections supervision have a lesser expectation of privacy, and can be searched on the basis of a reasonable suspicion of a probation violation. However, the Court also said that probation officers must have probable cause—*a higher standard*—to believe that their probationers live at the residences they search: “In this context, probable cause exists when an officer has information that would lead a person of reasonable caution to believe that the probationer lives at the place to be searched. **The information known to the officer must be reasonably trustworthy.** **Only facts and knowledge available to the officer at the time of the search should be considered.”** Second, the Supremes addressed the Inevitable Discovery Doctrine. They reasoned it is well-established that article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution provides greater protection of privacy rights than the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Section 7 says: “No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.” While federal cases have allowed for inevitable discovery, and the state Court of Appeals has applied the doctrine, the Supreme Court said the doctrine is “speculative and does not disregard illegally obtained evidence”—and is therefore incompatible with the state constitution’s expansive protection of privacy. My opinion? Extremely well-articulated and correct decision. The WA Supremes’ handling/dispatching of the Inevitable Discovery Doctrine acknowledges the expanded freedoms under the WA Constitution in comparison to the U.S. Constitution. Admitting evidence under the Inevitable Discovery Doctrine leaves no incentive for the State to comply with the constitution’s requirement that arrests precede searches. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, Knock & Talk, law enforcement, Methamphetamine, police, Privacy, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Saunders: A Court Should Not Grant Continuances Without Valid Reasons](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-saunders-a-court-should-not-grant-continuances-without-valid-reasons/) **Published:** December 4, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Saunders*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=376211MAJ), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held that courts should not grant continuances without valid reasons. The defendant’s trial was continued several times. He objected at every hearing before the court (yes, defense counsel asked for some of them). One continuance was for further negotiations. Another was because the case was pending in the prosecutor’s negotiating unit, even though the court noted there was no good explanation. A third continuance happened because the case was not yet assigned to a trial prosecutor. The Court reasoned that all three continuances were without adequate basis. Since there were no convincing/valid reasons for the continuances, the charges were dismissed for violation of CrR 3.3; which is Washington’s speedy trial rule: > “Absent convincing and valid reasons for the continuances granted on January 8, February 20, or March 18, the trial court’s order granting the three continuances were “manifestly unreasonable, exercised on untenable grounds and for untenable reasons.” *Downing*, 151 Wn.2d at 272 (quoting *Junker*, 79 Wn.2d at 26. The trial court abused its discretion in granting further delays in commencing Saunders’s trial. Under these circumstances, we reverse and remand for entry of an order dismissing the charge against Saunders under CrR 3.3(h).” ~WA Court of Appeals My opinion? Excellent, excellent, excellent! First, I admire defendants who exercise their rights to speedy trial. Whatever outcome that’s going to happen *will inevitably happen faster* because both sides are forced to work the case up. True, there are times when rushing to battle is not always the best strategy. Some cases get better with age. Memories fade. Witnesses recant and/or move away. Prosecutors want to dump old cases when their caseloads get too heavy. Nevertheless, what I deeply despise — and I’ve seen it happen — is when courts lack any good reason to grant the prosecutor’s wishes for continuances. It’s incredibly frustrating. *State v. Saunders* is a great step in the right direction. This case is vastly similar to *State v. Kenyon*, which I discussed in my October 7 blog (Indeed, the *Saunders* court expressly based much of its reasoning from the *Kenyon* decision). Clearly, our courts are giving teeth back to the [Speedy Trial Rule](https://www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/right-to-a-speedy-trial/). Good! I believe the larger reason why this is happening is because shrinking state/judiciary budgets are, consequently, taking away the luxury to continue criminal cases. I, for one, enjoy the change. I’d rather go to trial than make up reasons to keep continuing cases. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Speedy Trial & Continuances, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Police Officer Says Public Safety May Be In Danger If Cuts Continue](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/police-officer-says-public-safety-may-be-in-danger-if-cuts-continue/) **Published:** December 7, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** A Bellingham police officer wrote that [public safety may be endangered if police budget cuts continue.](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/681/story/1187556.html) The writer – who is also a Bellingham police officer – objects to the City’s proposal to lay off police officers in the face of decreased budgets and the economic recession. The article is informative. He discusses increased 911 calls, the “freezing” of more officer positions, understaffing at present levels, the fiscal responsibility of the police department (they cut their own budget by $1M), and the phenomenon of “hit and run law enforcement:” > “If layoffs are to occur, then the Bellingham Police Department will be providing what we in the profession call ‘hit and run law enforcement:’ running from incident to incident without giving each incident the attention it might deserve – going from call to call, always going on to the next crisis before fully solving the one before and not developing relationships with the public, not addressing needs in the community and not protecting the public to the best of our ability simply because we will be doing ‘more with less.'” My opinion? I’ve got mixed reactions. Yes, we should adequately fund public safety. Yes, police should be well-trained and reasonably equipped to handle a myriad of situations. Yes, police must have resources to respond – quickly – when contacted for emergencies. I object, however, when police abuse their authority. I object when police obtain evidence illegally. I object when prosecutors refuse to make reasonable plea offers on weak cases. I object when defendants a grinded through a legal system which unnecessarily costs too much time and money. I *really* object when defendants are issued bench warrants and/or Bail Jumping charges after failing to appear for their hearings on the aforementioned “weak cases,” which should have never been filed or dismissed long ago. I propose a two-part solution: First, discontinue funding for the City’s Anti-Crime Team (I blogged about this waaaay back on August 7). The Anti-Crime Team (ACT) is a proactive sub-unit of the Bellingham Police Department. They provide additional investigations/policing of our neighborhoods by serving bench warrants, conducting police interviews, plotting stakeouts, etc. In other words, ACT is proactively involved with community caretaking functions. I question whether ACT is necessary. Fine lines exists between community caretaking, wasting of resources, and police abuse. Community caretaking wastes resources when police serve bench warrants on low-income defendants accused of low-profile crimes. It also becomes an abuse of power when police conduct unlawful “pretext” investigations (I discuss pretext in my August 7 blog). Second, save resources by convincing City prosecutors to actively dismiss and/or amend their weaker criminal cases. Everybody benefits! Police won’t needlessly testify at witness interviews, pretrial motions, or trials. We keep them on the streets, where they should be. Also, defendants avoid the grinding, unforgiving process of the criminal justice system. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** 911 Call, Bellingham, Bench Warrant, law enforcement, police, Studies, Washington State Patrol **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Jails In Indian Country](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/jails-in-indian-country/) **Published:** December 14, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** The U.S. Department of Justice recently conducted a [survey of jails in Indian Country](http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/jic08.htm). The facilities included a total of 82 jails, confinement facilities, detention centers, and other facilities operated by tribal authorities or the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The report includes data on the number of adults and juveniles held, type of offense, number of persons confined on the last weekday of each month, average daily population, peak population, and admissions in June 2008. It also summarizes rated capacity, facility crowding, and jail staffing. Trend data from 2000 to 2008 on facilities in the surveys are included. Highlights include the following: - The number of inmates admitted into Indian country jails during June 2008 was about 6 times the size of the average daily population; - The number of inmates confined in Indian country jails declined by 1.3% at midyear 2008, dropping to 2,135 inmates; - Inmates held for aggravated and simple assault increased at midyear 2008; and - [Domestic violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) declined. Upon graduating from law school in 2003, my first job was Deputy Prosecutor for the Lummi Nation. Indian defendants were housed with non-Indian defendants at the Whatcom County Jail. I learned the Tribe had a VERY proactive anti-domestic violence unit (ADV Unit). This was considered a hot-button topic (and probably still is). The ADV Unit worked with tribal police, educated the community, and advocated for survivors of domestic violence. That said, the survey showed a decrease in domestic violence (DV) crimes in 2008. That’s good news. DV convictions bring particularly painful consequences: defendants lose gun rights, judges issue no-contact orders against family members, defendants must move from dwellings they share with alleged victims, etc. Very nasty. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Domestic Violence, Jail, Race & Law, Studies **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Harrington: "Progressive Intrusion" = Unlawful Search](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-harrington-progressive-intrusion-unlawful-search/) **Published:** December 14, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [State v. Harrington](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=817197MAJ), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that the “Progressive Intrusion” of the officer during the investigations was an unlawful search. Issue was whether the police unlawfully searched/seized the defendant prior to arrest, in violation of article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution, requiring suppression of drugs found on his person. In short (yes, I’m getting to the good part), the WA Supremes decided the search **WAS** unlawful, and amounted to a “progressive intrusion.” Evidence suppressed, case thrown out of court. The facts: On August 13, 2005, 11:00PM, Officer Reiber of the Richland Police was driving his police car on duty. He noticed soon-to-be defendant, Dustin Harrington, walking down the sidewalk. Officer Reiber made a U-turn, drove past Harrington, and pulled into a driveway. He did not activate his lights or siren. Officer exited his car and made contact with Harrington (this is called a “social contact”). Officer Reiber asked questions. Harrington answered them awkwardly and non-sensically. Officer became nervous because Harrington kept putting his hands in his pockets. The conversation lasted about five minutes. State patrol Trooper William Bryan drove by the scene. He initiated a U-turn, got out of his car, and approached the two men. Similar to Officer Reiber, Trooper Bryan did not activate his emergency lights. Upon contact, Trooper Bryan did not speak to either gentleman. He stood about eight feet away. Officer Reiber asked Mr. Harrington if he could pat down Harrington “for officer safety reasons.” Mr. Harrington said “No.” Officer patted Harrington down anyway, against Harrington’s consent. During the pat-down, Officer Reiber found a glass pipe used for smoking methamphetamine. Reiber arrested Harrington. During the search, officers discovered a pipe and baggie containing methamphetamine on Harrington’s person. Harrigton was charged with [Unlawful Possession of Methamphetamine](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). The WA Supremes articulated why the search/arrest was illegal, and consequently, why the evidence should be suppressed. They discussed what “social contact” between an officer and citizen means: “The phrase’s plain meaning seems somewhat misplaced. ‘Social contact’ suggests idle conversation about, presumably, the weather or last night’s ball game — trivial niceties that have no likelihood of triggering an officer’s suspicion of criminality. The term ‘social contact’ does not suggest an investigative component.” The Court further reasoned that subsequent events quickly dispelled the social contact and escalated the encounter to an unlawful seizure. First, Trooper Bryan’s arrival at the scene escalated the situation away from a mere “social contact” because a reasonable person would think twice about the turn of events. As a result, Trooper Bryan’s presence contributed to the eventual seizure of Harrington. Second, Officer Reiber’s request for Mr. Harrington to remove hands from pockets added to the officer’s unlawfully progressive intrusion. Third, Mr. Harrington did not consent to the search. Officers MUST have a well-founded suspicion to search when they lack a defendant’s consent. Here, these circumstances lacked the foundational basis for a search. Finally, and before Officer Reiber’s request to search, he did not ask for Harrington’s name or address, did not conduct a warrant check, and did not ask if Harrington carried drugs. The court concluded Harrington was unconstitutionally seized because, like him, an objectively reasonable person would not have felt free to leave when officers asked to frisk. Consequently, the seizure violated article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution. My Opinion? Excellent. Beautiful. On point. The WA Supremes got it right. The cumulative effect of these violations — *all three of them* — amounted to an unlawful search. I’m extremely happy the WA Supremes addressed the fine line between a lawful “social contact” and unlawful “progressive intrusion.” I’ve had numerous clients face criminal charges as a result of an officer’s apparently innocent “social contact,” which was, in reality, a progressive intrusion into their privacy. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, felony, Jury Trial, law enforcement, Methamphetamine, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, Washington State Patrol, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [New Statistics From the Bureau of Justice Shows Overall Decrease In Prison Populations](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/437/) **Published:** December 18, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** The [Bureau of Justice just released two bulletins last week](http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1763) which examine the numbers of defendants under probation or parole supervision for 2008. The report discusses related trends, including an overall increase in the number of individuals being released from federal and state prisons. Highlights include the following: - The U.S. prison population grew at the slowest rate (0.8%) since 2000, reaching 1,610,446 sentenced prisoners at year end 2008. - Growth of the prison population since 2000 (1.8% per year on average) was less than a third of the average annual rate during the 1990s (6.5% per year on average). - Between 2000 and 2008 the number of blacks in prison declined by 18,400, lowering the imprisonment rate to 3,161 men and 149 women per 100,000 persons in the U.S. resident black population. My opinion? Politicians are finally acknowledging that (1) incarcerating people is an expensive luxury, and (2) the [“War on Drugs”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs) is not working. Although I don’t know for sure, I’m confident the majority of these “early release” defendants were convicted of low-level drug crimes. Similarly, I’m confident the courts are sending fewer people to prison if they’ve been convicted of drug crimes. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Race & Law, Studies **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Despite More Jobless, Crime Rates Fall](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/despite-more-jobless-crime-rates-fall/) **Published:** December 21, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** Despite more people being jobless, [crime rates continue to fall](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34510483/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts). Experts are scratching their heads over why crime has ebbed during this recession, making it different from other economic downturns of the past half-century. Early guesses include jobless folks at home keeping closer watch for thieves, or extra benefits keeping people from resorting to crime. My opinion? The experts are probably correct. People commit crimes when their present situation seems hopeless. They lose hope when their opportunities become limited, and/or there’s no way out of a bad predicament. Here, the government’s extension of unemployment benefits gives hope to many jobless Americans. They may think, “I’ll get a job when the country’s economic situation improves,” and take shelter with unemployment extensions. These same Americans might otherwise commit crimes if the government didn’t step in and assist. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Jail, Studies **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Prisons Are Still Growing and Racial Disparities Persist, Despite Availability of Cost-Effective Alternatives](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/prisons-are-still-growing-and-racial-disparities-persist-despite-availability-of-cost-effective-alternatives/) **Published:** December 22, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** Last week, the Department of Justice released its [annual survey of prisons](http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/09-12_FAC_Prisoners08_PS.pdf). Reports showed that over 1.6 million people are incarcerated in federal or state penitentiaries. The report shows that although the growth of imprisonment is down, the number of people in prison is still increasing, up more than 12,000 people from last year. *The number continues to grow even as crime goes down, despite lack of evidence that incarcerating people is an effective public safety strategy.* As states continue to grapple with budget crises, its time for policymakers to consider cost-effective alternatives to incarceration. Highlights from the report: - Twenty states reported a reduction in their prison populations since 2007. - Fewer people were admitted to prison in 2008 than previous years. - The number of people released is still less than the number of people admitted. - Decreases in the number of blacks and increases in the number of Hispanics in prison have little effect on the disproportionate impact of the criminal justice system on communities of color. - Black men are 6.5 times more likely to be in prison than white men. - Prisons continue to grow even as crime continues to fall. - More needs to be done to address disproportionate minority contact with the criminal justice system. - Correctional agencies must address re-entry needs long before returning prisoners to the community. - Investing in effective public safety strategies can provide long-term, cost-effective solutions. My opinion? The findings speak for themselves, and galvanize the age-old issue in criminal jurisprudence: whether rehabilitation or punishment more effective deals with criminal defendants. Some background: in the 60’s -70’s, our governments were more open to rehabilitating defendants away from their criminal lifestyles. In the 80’s and 90’s, however, the rehabilitative approach was slowly abandoned. This happened for many reasons. First, it was difficult to quantify recidivism rates for “rehabilitated” defendants. Additionally, *states found ways to make money from the criminal justice system.* In short, more prisons brought increased employment and government funds to states which badly needed the economic injection. Third, it became popular to beat up on criminals. Finally, the [“War on Drugs”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs) catapulted an outcry for more police, stricter drug laws, and a “lock ’em up & throw away the key” mentality. These days are different. We’re seeing the “War on Drugs” failed. We’re noticing that incarcerating people is an expensive luxury. We’re realizing that budget crises in the criminal justice system force us to be more creative. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Jail, Race & Law, Studies **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Buelna Valdez: Search Incident to Arrest is Invalid (Tip of the Hat To Arizona V. Gant)](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-buelna-valdez-search-incident-to-arrest-is-invalid-tips-of-the-hat-to-arizona-v-gant/) **Published:** December 24, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Buelna Valdez*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=800910MAJ), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that a search incident to arrest was invalid under the [4th Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment). Here, a police officer pulled over a vehicle because it had only one working headlight. The officer ran a records search on the driver, Mr. Buelna-Valdez, and discovered there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest. The officer handcuffed and secured the defendant in his patrol car. Officer searched the vehicle. He noticed loose dashboard panels. He calls a K-9 unit. The K-9 uncovered methamphetamine located under a moldy cup holder. The passenger was then also arrested. Both men were charged with [drug offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). The WA Supremes held that the automobile search incident to arrest was unlawful. They reasoned that because the arrestee was handcuffed and secured in the backseat of a patrol car, he no longer had access to any portion of his vehicle. The officer’s search of the vehicle was therefore unconstitutional under both the Fourth Amendment and the WA Constitution. The Court also embraced the U.S. Supreme Court’s [*Arizona v. Gant*](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/07-542) in finding factual similarities between the cases: > “Under the Fourth Amendment, the arrestee was secured and not within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search, so neither officer safety nor preservation of evidence of the crime of arrest warranted the search. See *Gant*, 129 S. Ct. at 1719. Furthermore, the arrestee was arrested based upon an outstanding warrant; the State has not shown that it was reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to the underlying crime might be found in the vehicle. See *Gant*, citing *Thornton*, 541 U.S. at 632 (Scalia, J., concurring).” The Court also reasoned the search was conducted without a warrant, even though the circumstances did not prevent officers from obtaining one prior to the search: “There was no showing that a delay to obtain a warrant would have endangered officers or resulted in evidence related to the crime of arrest being concealed or destroyed. As such . . . the evidence collected from that search should be suppressed, and the resulting convictions reversed.” My opinion? Obviously, I’m happy. The case is great law for defense attorneys. Indeed, it goes even **further** than *Gant.* Although good, *Gant* was slightly problematic because it allowed police to search for evidence of the crime of arrest. In this decision, however, the WA Supremes only allow a search **if there is evidence of destruction**. Therefore, in WA, if the defendant is in the squad car, the police cannot search the defendant’s vehicle. Beautiful. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, felony, law enforcement, Methamphetamine, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Traffic Infractions, Washington State Patrol, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Proposed Law Changes To Prevent Future Police Murders](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/proposed-law-changes-to-prevent-future-police-murders/) **Published:** December 31, 2009 **Author:** admin **Content:** In the wake of the [Lakewood police officer shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Lakewood_shooting) tragedy, [Representative Mike Hope (R-Lake Stevens)](https://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislator.aspx?ID=17894) is [drafting legislation to prevent serial offenders like Maurice Clemmons from having an opportunity to harm others](http://www.snohomishtimes.com/snohomishNEWS.cfm?inc=story&newsID=909). Hope, a Seattle police officer who works patrol when not in session, said this was at the top of his legislative agenda. The three-part legislation will include two proposed changes to the Washington State Constitution and a sentencing enhancement, proposals he says would have prevented the murders of four Lakewood police officers Nov. 29. The first bill would remove bail opportunities for dangerous individuals who have committed two felonies and are charged with a possible “third strike” felony offense. The second bill would prevent defendants from receiving bail if they commit another violent crime in Washington and are proven dangerous to the public. The third bill would require a sentencing enhancement against those who aid and abet criminals who are not bailable. A change to the state constitution requires a two-thirds approval in both the House and the Senate and simple majority approval from voters. My opinion? Like everyone, I’m deeply saddened with the deaths of the four Lakewood Officers. Their murders were completely meaningless and senseless. I’m also disturbed the defendant’s friends/relatives assisted him. That said, I question whether altering the WA Constitution and chipping away at a defendant’s rights is the answer to preventing similar murders from happening in the future. I’m a staunch defender of constitutional rights. Indeed, if I were to wrap an American flag around myself and proclaim my patriotism out loud, then THAT is the platform I stand upon: vigilant, aggressive protection of individual rights against a tyrannical government. The proposed legislation is strong medicine. *Too* strong. At worst, defendants can be held without bail. This is disturbing. Under court rules, judges may hold defendants without bail only if the charge they face is a capital charge; like murder. Additionally, judges must impose the least restrictive release alternatives to defendants. Disallowing bail and indefinitely holding defendants in jail laughs in the face of “least restrictive alternative.” Finally, holding defendants without bail leads to “plea tenderization” by cutting defendants off from work and family. As a result, defendants may plead guilty not because they committed a crime; but simply to get out of jail and move on with their lives. That’s an utterly inhumane result if the defendant is innocent of the charges. We’ll see what happens. The bill needs extremely strong support. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Accomplice, Constitutional Rights, felony, Firearm, Homicide & Manslaughter, law enforcement, Legislation, police, Violent Crime, Washington State Patrol **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [American Law Institute Abandons the Death Penalty](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/the-american-law-institute-abandons-the-death-penalty/) **Published:** January 8, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** Last fall, the [American Law Institute (ALI)](https://www.ali.org/), which created the intellectual framework for the modern capital justice system almost 50 years ago, [pronounced the Death Penalty a failure and walked away from it](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/us/05bar.html?hp). The ALI is made up of about 4,000 judges, lawyers and law professors across the country. It synthesizes and shapes the law in restatements and model codes. Consequently, the ALI provides structure and coherence in a federal legal system that might otherwise consist of 50 different approaches to everything. Here, the ALI’s decision to abandon the death penalty is INCREDIBLY important because they were the only intellectually respectable organization which supported the death penalty system in the United States. In 1962, as part of the Model Penal Code, the institute created the modern framework for the death penalty, one the Supreme Court largely adopted when it reinstituted capital punishment in *Gregg v. Georgia* in 1976. Several justices cited the standards the institute had developed as a model to be emulated by the states. Their reasons for abandoning? A study commissioned by the institute said that decades of experience had proved that the system could not reconcile the twin goals of individualized decisions about who should be executed and systemic fairness. It added that capital punishment was plagued by racial disparities; was enormously expensive even as many defense lawyers were underpaid and some were incompetent; risked executing innocent people; and was undermined by the politics that come with judicial elections. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Death Penalty, Studies **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Washington Supreme Court Statistics: 2009](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/washington-supreme-court-statistics-2009/) **Published:** January 8, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** Veeery interesting information! David Reitz, who co-manages an incredibly impressive blog of the [Washington Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/), [tracked the opinions and votes of each WA Supreme Court justice and provided a spreadsheet with case-by-case breakouts](http://www.wasupremecourtblog.com/). The Supreme Court Washington Blog provides news, information, and analysis of the cases before the Supreme Court of Washington. I consider them an authority on the subject. Here’s some highlights of the 2009 statistics: \* Soon-to-be Chief Justice Barbara Madsen was the most prolific writer this year. She authored 18 majority opinions and 39 total opinions; \* Justice Richard Sanders is the most frequent dissenter, writing nearly three times as many dissents as any other justice; \* The justices with the highest rates of agreement were Madsen and Fairhurst (88%); \* The justices with the lowest rates of agreement were Sanders and Fairhurst (66%); \* Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, which sees many narrow 5-4 decisions, the state Supreme Court enjoys a number of strong majority opinions, with nearly half of its rulings unanimous or 9-0 in the outcome. This information is valuable. Good criminal defense attorneys defend their clients’ constitutional rights at every opportunity. They achieve this goal by (1) educating themselves on new court opinions, and (2) applying these opinions to pretrial motions which suppress illegally obtained evidence or dismiss the State’s case altogether. A major component of educating oneself involves watching the activities of the State Supreme Court. In short, attorneys can predict how a certain justice will rule on *future* cases based on how they ruled in *past* cases (I’m being flippant, but those who play odds on roulette tables understand what I’m saying). Additionally, attorneys can also predict how the State Supremes address controversial opinions handed down from the United States Supreme Court. For example, *Arizona v. Gant* was a recent controversial opinion handed down by the United States Supreme Court. *Gant* is extremely defendant-friendly: the U.S. Supremes ruled that, depending on the circumstances, a vehicle search is unlawful when a defendant is merely arrested for a traffic violation. *Gant* essentially put a stop to unlawful pretextual searches by police. Beautiful. Recently, in *State v. Bueln-Valdez*, the WA Supremes supported *Gant* as good Washington law. (I excitedly blogged this last month). Us defense attorneys who watch the WA Supremes were ecstatic. We saw *State v. Bueln-Valdez* come down the pike and hoped/believed the WA Supremes would use it as a vehicle (no pun intended) to embrace *Gant*. As a result, our pretrial motions to suppress unlawfully obtained evidence are now that much stronger because trial judges must follow the opinions of higher judical authorities when ruling on pretrial motions. Again, these statistics help. Major kudos goes out to David Reitz, Jonathan Bechtle, and Trent England for their blogging efforts. Thank you, gentlemen. 🙂 Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Pugh: WA Supremes Admit "Excited Utterance" Hearsay Evidence of 911 Call; Disregard State v. Crawford](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-pugh/) **Published:** January 8, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Pugh*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=808503MAJ), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) admitted [“Excited Utterance”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excited_utterance) hearsay evidence of a 911 call, thus disregarding [*State v. Crawford*](https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/2002/71683-8-1.html). Defendant Timothy Pugh and his wife Bridgette are married. They had problems. In November 2004, she obtains a no-contact order (NCO) against him. On March 21, 2005, and in violation of the NCO, the Pughs were together at a friend’s apartment. At 3:13 a.m., she calls 911 and states, “My husband was beating me up really bad.” She provided his description. When the operator asked her whether he was still there, Mrs. Pugh said, “He’s just outside.” She again reported being beaten, but this time stated it in the present sense. She also said she needed an ambulance. The call terminated when police officers arrived. Mrs. Pugh had a bruised face and a chipped tooth. The officers soon arrested Mr. Pugh in the parking lot outside the apartment where Bridgette was. Before trial, the State delivered a subpoena to Mrs. Pugh. However she refused to arrive and/or testify at trial. Despite her decision, and in clear violation of *State v. Crawford* (2004 case where WA Supremes upheld the Confrontation Clause and dismissed a case where the State’s victim/witness refused to testify) , the trial court admitted her 911 call as evidence. Pugh was convicted of [felony violation of the court order](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/no-contact-order-violations/), [domestic violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/). The WA Supremes held Mrs. Pugh’s statements to the 911 operator were nontestimonial, and therefore admission of a recording of the 911 call at Mr. Pugh’s trial did not violate his right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment. They reasoned that her statements qualify as res gestae under the res gestae doctrine as it applied at the time the state constitution was adopted. They further argued that statements of this type do not implicate the state confrontation clause. Because the statements are nontestimonial and do not implicate article I, section 22, admission of the 911 recording violated neither the federal nor the state confrontation clause. My opinion? I hold the same disdain as Justice Sanders’ dissenting opinion. Article I, Section 22 of the WA Constitution states, “In criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right . . . to meet the witnesses against him face to face . . .” This is the essence of the Confrontation Clause. And, to quote Justice Sanders, “What is there about face to face that the majority opinion does not understand?” *Crawford* applies – and cases get dismissed – if a victim refuses to testify. Period. Here, the victim refused to testify. Nevertheless, and in total violation of *Crawford*, the majority pulls out some archaic res gestae analysis, breathes life into it, and totally stomps the heck out of *Crawford*. Unbelievable. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** 911 Call, Assault, Constitutional Rights, Domestic Violence, Evidence, felony, Jury Trial, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Program That Gives Suspended Drivers a Second Chance Finds Success](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/program-that-gives-suspended-drivers-a-second-chance-finds-success/) **Published:** January 11, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** Good news! [Suspended drivers can earn a fresh start](http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20091228/NEWS01/712289894), and taxpayers save money in the bargain. A diversion program offered to people caught driving with a suspended license is saving taxpayers thousands of dollars and helping people earn back their driver’s licenses, according to officials with the Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office. It works like this: eligible defendants are sent a letter advising them that they have three months to get their driver’s license reinstated by the state Department of Licensing. If they do, the prosecutor’s office agrees not to file the misdemeanor charge. The program is saving the costs associated with prosecuting the cases. It also generates revenue. According to the article, people are paying thousands of dollars in fines to get their licenses back. Indeed, one man paid more than $10,000 in back child support to get his driver’s license reinstated. My Opinion? It’s about time. Driving While License Suspended (DWLS) charges are a patent WASTE OF TIME to charge. Yes, DWLS charges are a crime. Yes, defendants risk serving jail time if their criminal history substantiates it. But c’mon . . . do we really want to incarcerate people for this? In my experience, the only reasons why people’s licenses get suspended is because they failed to pay traffic tickets, owe child support, were caught driving without insurance or haven’t paid costs associated with a traffic accident. Also, it costs us taxpayers approximately $70 a day to house inmates in county jail. That cost goes up exponentially when the prosecutor’s office gets involved. Again, WASTE OF TIME and WASTE OF MONEY. Congrats to Snohomish County. Perhaps other counties will follow suit. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Department of Licensing, DUI, Jail, misdemeanor, Uncategorized **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Washington State Felons Should Have Voting Rights, Federal Court Rules](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/501/) **Published:** January 18, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** Here’s some good news. On Martin Luther King Jr. day, no less. [A federal appeals court tossed out Washington’s law banning incarcerated felons from voting](http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010708869_felons06m.html), finding the state’s criminal-justice system is “infected” with racial discrimination. Muhammad Shabazz Farrakhan was serving a three-year sentence at the Washington State Penitentiary in Walla Walla for a series of [felony-theft convictions](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/theft/). Ultimately, five other inmates, all members of racial minority groups, joined as plaintiffs. The plaintiffs’ brought studies and social-science data which showed that minorities in Washington are stopped, arrested and convicted in such disproportionate rates that the ban on voting by incarcerated felons is inherently discriminatory. The federal court agreed. The decision, written by [Judge A. Wallace Tashima](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._Wallace_Tashima), said the studies “speak to a durable, sustained indifference in treatment faced by minorities in Washington’s criminal justice system — systemic disparities which cannot be explained by ‘factors independent of race.’ ” Blacks are 70 percent more likely — and Latinos and Native Americans 50 percent more likely — than whites to be searched in traffic stops. The research also showed that blacks are nine times more likely to be incarcerated than whites, despite the fact that the ratio of arrests for violent crime among blacks and whites is less than four-to-one. One result of that: 25 percent of black men in Washington are disenfranchised from voting. My opinion? I’m overjoyed with the decision. Granted, convicted felons should face appropriate consequences if found guilty of committing crimes. However, the Washington law stripping them of voting rights was simply Draconian. Eventually, the convicts will serve their sentence and return to society. Studies show that voting by incarcerated felons is the best tool to re-integrate them into society. Why deny them the right to vote? What good does that do? The decision is a step in the right direction. Let them vote. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, felony, Race & Law, Theft **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Drum: Good Decision Regarding Stipulated Evidence At Drug Court Trials](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-drum-wa-supremes-discuss-stipulated-evidence-drug-court-trials/) **Published:** January 22, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Drum*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=814988MAJ), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held a trial court may find a defendant NOT GUILTY if it determines that the [stipulated evidence](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stipulation#:~:text=1)%20An%20agreement%20between%20the,undisputed%20evidence%20in%20the%20case.) does not establish all of the elements of a crime beyond all reasonable doubt. Patrick Drum entered into a contract to participate in drug court, which provided for the eventual dismissal of a [Residential Burglary](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/) charge if Drum successfully completed a substance abuse treatment program. The contract required Drum to stipulate that the facts set forth in the investigation reports, witness statements, and laboratory tests were true and sufficient to support a finding of guilt. After waiting in custody for 42 days for a bed to open up at a treatment facility, Drum requested to leave the drug court program. He had a bench trial. The judge found him guilty based on the evidence that was stipulated when Mr. Drum entered the contract. Here, the WA Supremes reasoned that by entering a drug court contract, a defendant is NOT giving up his right to an independent finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A trial court still has the authority to find the defendant not guilty if it determines that the stipulated evidence does not establish all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, if a trial court independently reviews the evidence and makes findings, a stipulated drug court agreement is NOT the equivalent of a guilty plea. My opinion? EXCELLENT DECISION. For those who don’t know, Drug Courts are programs that divert nonviolent, drug-related offenders into intensive treatment programs with the goal of encouraging offenders into a productive, drug-free lifestyle. In general, offenders participate in required drug treatment and counseling, find work, meet with corrections officers, attend regular visits with a judge, and meet any other conditions set by the court. Personal involvement by the drug court judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, and treatment providers is cited as the key to the success of drug courts. Drug Court is a privilege. It’s difficult to get into. A defendant must be evaluated and found a good candidate by the evaluator, prosecutor and judge. To gain entry, defendant must also stipulate – essentially, *agree* – to the truth of the evidence alleged against them in the police reports. Worst-case scenario; if defendants either quit or are kicked out of Drug Court, then they have already waived their right to a jury trial, waived their right to challenge the evidence through direct/cross examination of witnesses, and essentially waived their presumption of innocence. Ouch. [*State v. Drum* ](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=814988MAJ)gives judges broad discretion to review the truth and veracity of the “stipulated evidence.” In other words, judges may consider whether the State can prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Best-case scenario for a defendant, it appears they have a chance to get a case acquitted by a judge upon leaving Drug Court. Practically speaking, the likelihood of an acquittal is slim. Drug Courts are highly political venues. Indeed, look at how the WA Supreme Justices voted, it was a SLIM 5-4 majority. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Burglary, Drug Court, Evidence, felony, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Erickson: Probation Officers Have Too Much Power](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-erickson-probation-officers-given-too-much-power/) **Published:** January 26, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Erickson*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=815941MAJ), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) decided a court may issue a bench warrant without a formal finding of probable cause on the underlying allegations after the defendant fails to appear at a [probation violation](https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/probation-violation.html) hearing. Anthony Erickson received probation after he was convicted of [fourth degree assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/). His probation officer alleged Erickson violated the terms of his probation. Erickson was issued a summons ordering him to appear at a probation violation hearing. When Erickson failed to appear, the court issued a bench warrant for his arrest. Erickson was subsequently arrested. A strip search at the jail revealed he possessed cocaine. The WA Supremes reasoned that because Erickson failed to notify the court of any change of address, the judge in the lower court had a “well-founded suspicion” that Erickson had violated that condition of his release. Consequently, the judge had authority to issue the bench warrant based on that alone. My opinion? It’s unbelievable that the allegations – and that’s all they are, mere *allegations* – of a probation officer are upheld as stone-cold truth by judges if a defendant fails to show up for a hearing. It’s unbelievable that judges can now issue bench warrants because a defendant failed to notify their probation officer of an address change. It’s unbelievable that defendants can be taken into custody, strip searched, and arrested because they failed to notify their probation officer of an address change. This case highlights how unfairly the gears of the criminal justice system grind away at individual rights. Let’s hope this gets appealed to a higher court. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Assault, Bench Warrant, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Probable Cause, Probation, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. A.N.J: WA Supremes Withdraw Guilty Plea Due To Ineffective Assistance of Counsel](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-anj-wa-supremes-withdraw-guilty-plea-due-to-ineffective-assistance-of-counsel/) **Published:** February 1, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** In *[State v. A.N.J.](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1594637.html#:~:text=sought%2C%20and%20the%20trial%20judge,State%20v.&text=A.N.J.%20stresses%20that%20he%20moved,the%20rest%20of%20his%20life.)*, the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that Defendant A.N.J’s court appointed counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to do an adequate investigation, failed to consult with experts, failed to fully inform him of the consequences of his plea, and failed to form a confidential relationship with him independent of his parents. In 2004, when A.N.J. was 12 years old, he pleaded guilty to [first degree child molestation](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/). Almost immediately, he moved to withdraw his plea upon realizing (1) his juvenile sex offense criminal history would remain on his record once he was an adult, (2) that he might have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life, (3) that he would have to notify his school, and (4) that he would probably be shadowed by an adult while he was at the school. He argued that under the facts of this case, his plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent, and that he should have been allowed to withdraw it. The court record showed that A.N.J.’s defense counsel spent as little as 55 minutes with A.N.J. before the plea hearing, did no independent investigation, did not carefully review the plea agreement, and consulted with no experts. Consequently, the WA Supremes reasoned that court appointed counsel’s representation fell below the objective standard guaranteed by the constitution. A.N.J. was also misled into believing his criminal record of the sex offense could be expunged in the future. My opinion? Justice Chamber’s introduction in this opinion says it all: > “While the vast majority of public defenders do sterling and impressive work, in some times and places, inadequate funding and troublesome limits on indigent counsel have made the promise of effective assistance of counsel more myth than fact, more illusion than substance. > > Public funds for appointed counsel are sometimes woefully inadequate, and public contracts have imposed statistically impossible case loads on public defenders and require that the costs of experts, investigators, and conflict counsel must come out of the defenders’ own already inadequate compensation.” ~Justice Chambers, *State v. A.N.J.* Public defenders have tough jobs. Period. Many of my colleagues are public defenders. Trust me, they’re on the battlefield every day; in the trenches, trying cases to the best of their abilities. Unfortunately, glutted trial calendars and lack of resources stretch time/energy/resources excruciatingly thin. I only hope this opinion gives all criminal defense attorneys, and not only public defenders, some insights into how to avoid ineffective assistance of counsel. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Ineffective Assistance, Sentencing, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Harris: A Defendant May Argue Gant On Appeal Even Though It Was Not Argued At Trial.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-harris-a-defendant-may-argue-gant-on-appeal-even-though-it-was-not-argued-at-trial/) **Published:** February 2, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** In *[State v. Harris](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=365651MAJ)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/) held that a defendant who did not bring a suppression motion prior to trial, may assert a claim under [*Arizona v. Gant*](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/07-542) for the first time on appeal. Defendant Stuart J. Harris, Jr. appealed his conviction for [First Degree Unlawful Possession of a Firearm](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/). He argued sufficiency of the evidence, additional evidentiary error, and prosecutorial misconduct. While this appeal was pending, the [United States Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) decided *Arizona v. Gant*, which deals with the scope of a car search pursuant to the arrest of its driver. The Court of Appeals Division II allowed the parties to provide supplemental briefs on the *Gant* issue. For those who don’t know, *Gant* rejected the reading of *New York v. Belton*, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S. Ct. 2860, 69 L. Ed. 2d (1981), that predominated in the lower courts, namely, that the Fourth Amendment allows a vehicle search incident to the arrest of a recent occupant even if there is no possibility the arrestee could gain access to the vehicle at the time of the search. In departing from *Belton*, the *Gant* Court held instead that police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest ***only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.*** *Gant*, 129 S. Ct. at 1723.3 Here, the Court of Appeals reasoned the facts in *Gant* were similar to those here. Harris was not within reaching distance of the passenger compartment of the car at the time of its search, and there was no reason to believe that the car contained evidence related to the offense for which he was arrested (driving with a suspended license). Therefore, absent other legal support for the search, the officer’s search of the car was unlawful. Furthermore, Gant applies retroactively because “A party should be allowed to take advantage of a decision rendered during the pendency of his case, even if he had not reserved the point decided, if the decision could not have reasonably been anticipated.” *State v. Harris at* 6-7, quoting Judge Posner of the Seventh Circuit. My opinion? I’m a **HUGE** fan of the *Arizona v. Gant* opinion (please see my Dec. 24, 2009 blog), and by extension, I’m a HUGE fan of this opinion. Generally, United States Supreme Court decisions that announce new constitutional rules governing criminal prosecutions apply retroactively to all criminal cases not yet final on appeal. I’m happy the Court of Appeals stuck to the law; and supported *Gant*, to boot. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, felony, Firearm, Jury Trial, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, United States Supreme Court, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Whatcom County Jail Gets Record Number of Inmates](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/whatcom-county-jail-gets-record-number-of-inmates/) **Published:** February 27, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** [Whatcom County Jail’s population hit a record high](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2010/02/27/1313259/whatcom-county-jail-gets-record.html?storylink=omni_popular) over [Presidents Day](https://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/us/washington-birthday) weekend and since then, law enforcement agencies have been booking fewer people, to ease the crowding. The jail’s population reached 323 inmates – its operational capacity should be 212 inmates -the weekend of Feb. 13-15, causing the jail to run out of temporary beds and come close to running out of clothes, sheets and other resources. From Feb. 1 to Feb. 16, an average of 26 people were booked into the jail each day. Bellingham police have been citing and releasing some people arrested on misdemeanor, and booking and then immediately releasing others. An officer might take some people to jail to have their photos and fingerprints taken, then have the jail release them. My opinion? I’ll state the obvious: the criminal justice system in Whatcom County has reached peaked capacity. Jails are overcrowded. Trial calendars are filled. Trust me, I know. The easy solution? Hire an additional judge, build additional courts, and build another jail. Unfortunately, that’s not going to happen any time soon. Put simply, The County lacks resources to build jails and/or hire more court staff. This is not due to sloppy spending on the part of the County. The [Whatcom Superior Court](https://www.whatcomcounty.us/413/Superior-Court) has already eliminated numerous services due to the decrease in revenues. That said, the likelihood of obtaining more revenue to hire another judge and/or construct another jail is slim to none. The harder solution – and probably the more criticized; yet WORKABLE solution – is for the Prosecutor’s Office to negotiate more cases to a favorable resolution. They’re a trial-happy bunch, and unnecessarily so. Not every case must be brought to trial. Justice happens when all parties leave the courtroom satisfied with the result. At any rate, overcrowded jails are symptomatic of larger problems. The County judiciary is burning the candlestick at both ends. We’re seeing a decrease in judicial revenues and an increase in inmates. The state of affairs certainly is alarming. Why now, and why all of the sudden? A tough nut to crack. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Animal Abuse, Assault, Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Cruel & Unusual Punishment, Domestic Violence, Drug Offenses, Due Process, DUI, felony, Firearm, Homicide & Manslaughter, Jail, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Pretrial Investigations, Probable Cause, Property Crimes, Retail Theft, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Sentencing, Sex Crimes, Speedy Trial & Continuances, Terry Stop, Theft, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Bellingham Police Suffer Cuts To Salaries, Hours](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/bellingham-police-suffer-cuts-to-salaries-hours/) **Published:** March 9, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** [A citywide hiring freeze has spurred Bellingham police to call on the City Council and the mayor](http://westernfrontonline.net/2010030511980/news/bellingham-police-suffer-cuts-to-salaries-hours/), asking them to replenish the number of officers on duty. However, it appears Mayor Pike is not as receptive as the Police Guild hopes. The amount of reported crimes went down 4 percent last year, Pike said. Because the Police Department has 2.5 percent fewer deputies, the overall workload for city police is actually lower now than it was a year ago, he said. Pike also said the city does have money in reserves, but it would not be prudent for the city to go ahead and spend all of it. “No, we don’t have the resources to just, on an ad hoc basis, add costs to the city,” Pike said. “There is a process that has been in play for a long time, which the guild is a part of. This is, in my view, an end-run to that process: to get special treatment, which I don’t think is appropriate.” My opinion? I’m impressed that Mayor Pike sees the reality of the situation. [Crime is down](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/20/facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/). Why hire more police? There’s plenty of police agencies in Whatcom County. Let’s not forget, the Sheriff’s Office and the Border Patrol; along with Everson, Ferndale, Sumas, and Blaine Police Departments. If it ain’t broke, then don’t try to fix it . . . Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, law enforcement, police, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Dow: Corpus Delicti vs. RCW 10.58.03](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-dow-corpus-delicti-vs-rcw-105803/) **Published:** March 11, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Dow*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=812438MAJ), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that [RCW 10.58.035](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=10.58.035) does NOT change the [*corpus delicti*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/corpus_delicti) rule that the State must prove every element of an alleged crime by evidence independent of the defendant’s statement. Defendant Mr. Dow was charged with with [first degree child molestation](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/). The victim was a three year old female, and too young to testify. Consequently, her statements to others about the alleged offense were inadmissible. No persons other than Dow and the child were present at the time of the alleged offense. During a recorded police interview, Dow made statements regarding the events surrounding the alleged molestation. The trial court found these statements to be exculpatory and not an admission. The State sought to introduce Dow’s statements as substantive evidence that he committed the crime charged. Dow moved to exclude these statements, arguing they were inadmissible for lack of [*corpus delicti*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/corpus_delicti). The trial court agreed. Dow’s case was dismissed. The State appealed. The case found its way to the Supreme Court. Some background is necessary: the *corpus delicti* doctrine generally is a principle that tests the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence, other than a defendant’s confession, to corroborate the confession. The purpose of the rule is to ensure that other evidence supports the defendant’s statement and satisfies the elements of the crime. Where no other evidence exists to support the confession, a conviction cannot be supported solely by a confession. The purpose of the *corpus delicti* rule is to prevent defendants from being unjustly convicted based on confessions alone. Historically, courts have grounded the rule in judicial mistrust of confessions. Along comes RCW 10.58.035. It allows a statement to be admitted into evidence if there is substantial independent evidence establishing the trustworthiness of the statement. The following factors determine whether the statement is trustworthy: (a) Whether there is any evidence corroborating or contradicting the facts set out in the statement, including the elements of the offense; (b) The character of the witness reporting the statement and the number of witnesses to the statement; (c) Whether a record of the statement was made and the timing of the making of the record in relation to the making of the statement; and/or (d) The relationship between the witness and the defendant. Here, the WA Supremes reasoned that even if the statements are admissible, no other evidence exists to establish the *corpus delicti* independent of Dow’s statement. Further, *corpus delicti* cases have always required sufficient evidence independent of a defendant’s confession to support a conviction. *RCW 10.58.035 does nothing to change this requirement.* The State concedes it lacked evidence. Indeed, the only evidence the State purported to have is Dow’s statement, which is insufficient under any standard. Consequently, the WA Supremes upheld Dow’s dismissal. My opinion? I like the decision. The WA Supremes dutifully followed *corpus delicti* and held people shouldn’t be charged with crimes unless evidence exists. I fear, however, that even though the Court did not allow RCW 10.58.035 to swallow the *corpus delicti* rule, such decisions may come few and farther in between. The statute was MADE to chip away at *corpus delicti*. Period. Perhaps it didn’t apply to Dow’s case because his statement was the ONLY evidence the State had. Future defendants in future cases, however, might not be so lucky. My prediction? Future courts may find that if a scintilla of evidence beyond the defendant’s statement exists, then the statute kicks into effect and does away with *corpus delicti*. Keep your eyes peeled . . . Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Corpus Delicti, felony, Jury Trial, Rape, Sex Crimes, Uncategorized, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Hammock: Home-Made Guns Are Still Firearms](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-hammock-home-made-guns-are-still-firearms/) **Published:** March 14, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [State v. Hammock](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=373891MAJ), the [WA Court of Appeals Division II](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) decided that a hollowed-out bolt, in which a bullet is inserted, and when used with a hammer to strike the bullet, IS a firearm. After an extended period of using drugs and arguing with Mr. Ford, defendant Hammock handed his girlfriend, Ms. McKee, a .22-caliber bullet, a hollowed-out bolt with a hexagonal head, and a ball peen hammer, and told her to shoot Ford. Hammock had previously used the device to discharge a bullet. Hammock inserted the shell into the head end of the bolt. McKee placed the non-head end of the bolt against Ford’s head, struck the bullet with the ball peen hammer, discharged the bullet into Ford’s head. Ford did not die immediately. The following details are gruesome. About 20 minutes later, Hammock jumped over the bed without warning and repeatedly hit Ford in the head with a hammer. Ford remained conscious for several more hours. Later Hammock exited the room and returned with a metal object similar to a meat cleaver and struck Ford in the head two or three times. Ford remained alive and conscious, so Hammock knotted an extension cord around Ford’s neck and placed a white plastic bag over Ford’s head. Hammock also struck Ford again with the metal object once or twice. Ford ultimately died from a gunshot wound to the head, blunt force impacts to the head, and ligature strangulation due to an extension cord knotted around his neck. The State charged Hammock [First Degree Murder](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/), and numerous [Drug Offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). A forensic scientist with the Washington State Patrol Crime Laboratory testified that the .22-caliber bullet is a “rimfire” cartridge, meaning that its primer, the explosive, is around the rim of the cartridge. The primer ignites the gunpowder that provides the gas that propels the bullet. The scientist was able to discharge a bullet from the bolt by striking the rim of the cartridge with a ball peen hammer. The jury found Hammock guilty of all charges, including possession of a deadly weapon. Court of Appeals reasoned that the bolt, hammer, and bullet, when considered together, constitute an instrument of offensive combat. Hammock inserted the bullet into the bolt, handed it back to McKee, and told her to shoot Ford. McKee put the bolt up to Ford’s head, struck it with a hammer, and discharged the bullet into Ford’s head. Ford died partly from this gunshot wound to the head. This constitutes an “instrument” used to injure or kill someone, reasoned the Court. Additionally, the Court held that the bolt system meets the definition of “device” as well under former [RCW 9.41.010(1)](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.010). Under Webster’s Dictionary, a “device” is “something that is formed or formulated by design and usage. Consequently, the Court upheld Hammocks guilty verdict. My opinion? As I said above, I’m dedicating this post to NRA members, gun enthusiasts, and 2nd Amendment buffs. Although I’m clearly NOT providing legal advice – I cannot do that over the internet – this bit of public information should put gun enthusiasts on pause. Home-made guns are still firearms; even if the moving parts are separated from each other. Period. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Assault, Constitutional Rights, Firearm, Homicide & Manslaughter, Jury Trial, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Break The Law And Your New "Friend" Might Be The FBI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/break-the-law-and-your-new-friend-might-be-the-fbi/) **Published:** March 16, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** [Law enforcement is invading social networking websites](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2010/03/16/1340457/break-the-law-and-your-new-friend.html). The Feds are on [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/). And [Myspace](https://myspace.com/), [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/) and [Twitter](https://twitter.com/?lang=en), too. U.S. law enforcement agents are following the rest of the Internet world into popular social-networking services, going undercover with false online profiles to communicate with suspects and gather private information, according to an internal Justice Department document that offers a tantalizing glimpse of issues related to privacy and crime-fighting. U.S. agents are already logging on surreptitiously to exchange messages with suspects, identify a target’s friends or relatives and browse private information such as postings, personal photographs and video clips. Among other purposes: Investigators can check suspects’ alibis by comparing stories told to police with tweets sent at the same time about their whereabouts. Online photos from a suspicious spending spree – people posing with jewelry, guns or fancy cars – can link suspects or their friends to [robberies](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/robbery/) or [burglaries](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/). According to the article, Facebook, Myspace and Twitter have interacted with federal investigators: Facebook is “often cooperative with emergency requests,” the government said. Myspace preserves information about its users indefinitely and even stores data from deleted accounts for one year. But Twitter’s lawyers tell prosecutors they need a warrant or subpoena before the company turns over customer information, the document says. My opinion? If you put it out there, it’s open to the world. Period. Let’s be frank: it was only a matter a time before the Feds started conducting investigations using social networking sites. Indeed, I’ve had former clients busted for prostitution because they sell their services on Craigslist, and the police acted as “Johns” to set up a sting. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Social Media, Studies **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [WA Changes Execution Method](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/wa-changes-execution-method/) **Published:** March 21, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** Washington state has [changed its method of execution](http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011237467_apusdeathpenalty3rdldwritethru.html) from a three-drug cocktail to a one-drug system, according to paperwork filed Tuesday with the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/). The three-drug method uses sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride. Only sodium thiopental, followed by a saline flush, is used in the one-drug policy. In case the first dose does not kill the inmate, an additional 5 grams of sodium thiopental will be made available at the time of execution. The change in the lethal injection protocol comes despite the fact that a lawsuit challenging the former protocol is before the Washington Supreme Court. The State moved to dismiss that portion of the lawsuit and go forward with executions. My opinion? I’m no proponent of the [Death Penalty](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/). The government should not kill its own citizens. However, until the Death Penalty is abandoned, it seems the one-drug executions are more appropriate and humane. Three injections seems cruel, unusual and Draconian. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Death Penalty, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Eaton: A Defendant's Sentence Cannot Be Enhanced For Involunatry Acts](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-eaton-a-defendants-sentence-cannot-be-enhanced-for-involunatry-acts/) **Published:** March 29, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Eaton*](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1523099.html), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) decided a defendant must act volitionally – with intent – to put himself within a zone that requires an upward sentencing enhancement. An enhancement should not apply for drugs the defendant possessed when arrested and brought to jail. Mr. Eaton was arrested for [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) and taken by police to the Clark County Jail. At the jail, Eaton was searched by staff who discovered a small bag of methamphetamine taped to his sock. The State charged Eaton with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) and [Possession of Methamphetamine](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) and sought a sentencing enhancement for possessing a controlled substance in a jail or prison. A jury convicted Eaton on both charges and found by special verdict that Eaton possessed methamphetamine while in a jail. The trial court imposed an enhanced sentence. The WA Supremes overturned the sentencing enhancement. They reasoned that once Eaton was arrested, he no longer had control over his location. From the time of arrest, his movement from street to jail became involuntary: involuntary not because he did not wish to enter the jail, but because he was forcibly taken there by State authority. He no longer had the ability to choose his own course of action. Nor did he have the ability through some other course of action to avoid entering the area that would increase the penalty for the underlying crime. My opinion? Again, excellent decision. It’d be different if Eaton knew he was going to jail and tried sneaking meth within the facility. However, those circumstances did not exist. He was arrested for DUI – a different matter altogether – and immediately booked into jail. He never voluntarily brought the drugs into the jail itself. He merely happened to possess them when arrested for DUI. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, DUI, felony, Jail, law enforcement, Methamphetamine, police, Search and Seizure, Sentencing, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Berghuis v. Smith: Defining the Hardship of Obtaining an Impartial "Cross Section" of the Jury Community](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/berghuis-v-smith-jury-selection/) **Published:** April 6, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*Berghuis v. Smith*](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1402.pdf), the [U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) held that a Michigan state court did not create an unfair bias in jury selection for a murder trial. case. The defendant was an African-American man charged with [Second Degree Murder](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/) and [Felony Firearm Possession](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/). He goes to trial. At [*voir dire*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/voir_dire), the jury panel was composed of 60 and 100 individuals, only 3 of whom, at most, were African American. At that time, African-Americans constituted 7.28% of the County’s jury-eligible population, and 6% of the pool from which potential jurors were drawn. An all-white jury was selected. The trial court rejected Smith’s objection to the panel’s racial composition. The all-white jury convicted Smith of the crimes. He was sentenced to life in prison. For those who don’t know, the [6th Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) gives criminal defendants the right to be tried by an impartial jury drawn from sources reflecting a fair cross section of the community. The issue was whether, under the circumstances, the defendant’s right was violated by the all-white jury’s conviction. The Court reasoned that a defendant raising a violation of the “fair-cross-section” requirement of the Sixth Amendment must establish that any existing underrepresentation was due to “systematic exclusion” of the group in the jury-selection process. Practices, such as excusing people who merely alleged hardship or simply failed to show up for jury service, reliance on mail notices, a failure to follow up on nonresponses, the use of old addresses, and the refusal of police to enforce court orders for the appearance of prospective jurors, are insufficient to establish “systematic exclusion.” Consequently, the U.S. Supremes upheld Smith’s conviction. My opinion? Pollyannaish as it sounds, this opinion shows why it’s **SO IMPORTANT** for citizens to show up for jury duty. Juries are the last bastion of objective, impartial justice. We all experience moments when we are wrongfully accused; not because we intentionally did something wrong, but merely because we look/think/act outside the norms of the majority. That’s exactly why juries MUST reflect a fair cross section of the community. That “cross section,’ however, can only happen if YOU – the citizen – do your part and answer the call to serve on a jury. Your lone perspective adds depth. Your life experience – which, amazingly, might be similar to the defendant’s/petitioner’s/plaintiff’s – adds insight to their arguments. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, Firearm, Homicide & Manslaughter, Jury Trial, Race & Law, United States Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [How To Protect Your Rights On Facebook](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/how-to-protect-your-rights-on-facebook/) **Published:** April 6, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** Think twice before posting those party pictures on [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/). The [LaCrosse Tribune](https://lacrossetribune.com/) wrote an [article](http://www.lacrossetribune.com/news/local/article_0ff40f7a-d4d1-11de-afb3-001cc4c002e0.html) on a University of Wisconsin-La Crosse student named Mr. Bauer. He was popular with nearly 400 friends on [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/). He got an offer for a new one about a month ago. “She was a good-looking girl. I usually don’t accept friends I don’t know, but I randomly accepted this one for some reason,” the 19-year-old said. He thinks that led to his invitation to come down to the La Crosse police station, where an officer laid out photos from Facebook of Bauer holding a beer — and then ticketed him for underage drinking. He was among at least eight people who said Wednesday they had been cited for underage drinking based on photos on social networking sites. \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* My opinion? First things first, there’s certainly nothing good to be said about these sorts of law-enforcement tactics. Police *always* have better things to do than roam the Internet looking for pictures of naughty college kids and there’s no excuse for invading people’s privacy to make a couple petty arrests. The very notion of officers assuming fake identities on Facebook is just inherently repugnant and serves only to destroy their relationship with the very people they’re supposed to be protecting. That said, it’s also worth keeping in mind that you have a 5th Amendment right **not to post incriminating pictures of yourself on Facebook**. It’s just an unfortunate reality that police do creep around on the web an awful lot for no particularly good reason and you never know where their prying eyes might land. This means you should think about what you’re posting, and keep an eye out for other people incriminating you as well. Simply un-tagging yourself from a couple questionable photos could be all it takes to save you a huge hassle down the road. In my experience, this issue goes beyond what may or may not have taken place in one photo on one particular night. Seriously, I’ve known – and heard of – people who got passed over for a job because their prospective employer found unflattering photos online. Worse, I know of instances in which online photos were used to attack someone’s character in an otherwise unrelated criminal case. *The bottom line is that posting pictures online has much broader implications than simply showing your friends what a kick-ass weekend you had.* Finally, remember that if you’re ever confronted with a photo that shows you in a compromising situation, you don’t have to incriminate yourself. Rarely will the photo itself be sufficient evidence to convict you of anything. What they’re really looking for is the confession that they hope will come spilling out of your mouth after they show you what they’ve got. If you keep your mouth shut and ask for a lawyer, chances are they’ve got nothing. BTW, I’m not offering legal advice by posting this subject matter. It’s offered for educational purposes only. 😉 Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Pretrial Investigations, Privacy, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Social Media **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Justice Stevens Retiring From Supreme Court](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/justice-stevens-retiring-from-supreme-court/) **Published:** April 9, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** Supreme Court Justice [John Paul Stevens the court’s oldest member and leader of its liberal bloc, is retiring](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36317045/ns/politics?gt1=43001). Throughout his tenure, which began after President Gerald Ford nominated him in 1975, Stevens usually sided with the court’s liberal bloc in the most contentious cases — those involving abortion, criminal law, civil rights and church-state relations. He led the dissenters as well in the case of Bush v. Gore that sealed President George W. Bush’s election in 2000. President Barack Obama now has his second high court opening to fill. Justice Stevens, I salute your service to the bench. Thank you for providing years of service and steadfast commitment toward deciding some of the nation’s most controversial legal issues. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** United States Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Padilla v. Kentucky: Noncitizens Entering Guilty Pleas + Bad Legal Advice = DEPORTATION!](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/padilla-v-kentucky-noncitizens-entering-guilty-pleas-bad-legal-advice-deportation/) **Published:** April 9, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*Padilla v. Kentucky*](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-651.pdf), the [U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) held that Defense attorneys representing aliens charged with crimes have a constitutional obligation to tell the client that a guilty plea carries a risk of deportation. Mr. Padilla, a lawful permanent resident of the United States for over 40 years, faced deportation after pleading guilty to [Drug Offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) in Kentucky. He claimed his attorney not only failed to advise him of this consequence before he entered the plea, and also told Padilla not to worry about deportation since he had lived in this country so long. Padilla says he would have avoided pleading guilty and gone to trial had he not received bad advice from his attorney. In deciding the issue, the U.S. Supremes applied the two-part test from *Strickland v. Washington*, 466 U.S. 668. The test analyzes whether (1) counsel’s legal advice fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) there exists a reasonable probablity that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different. Here, Padilla proved his defense attorney gave misleading advice. The Supremes reasoned that defense attorneys MUST inform a client whether his plea carries risk of deportation. Changes to immigration law have dramatically raised the stakes of a noncitizen’s criminal conviction. They further reasoned that, recently, immigration reforms have expanded the class of deportable offenses and limited judges’ authority to alleviate deportation’s harsh consequences. The importance of accurate legal advice for noncitizens has never been more important. My opinion? Good decision. Mr. Padilla was rightfully granted relief for his attorney’s bad legal advice. Under the law, immigrants can be deported if they are convicted of crimes which expose them to serving a year or more jail time. Practically speaking, this applies to all gross misdemeanors and felonies. Simple misdemeanors are exempt because their exposure is typically only 90 days in jail. *Padilla* warns defense attorneys to correctly advise immigrant clients of the consequences of entering guilty pleas. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, felony, Immigration, United States Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Extra Police On The Prowl For Speeders](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/extra-police-on-the-prowl-for-speeders/) **Published:** April 9, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** Be aware. Starting today, [law enforcement agencies statewide will crack down on speeding](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2010/04/09/1376172/washington-state-extra-police.html) with extra patrols on local roads, state highways and interstate freeways, according to a news release. This campaign is aimed at reducing speeding-involved crashes, which account for 40 percent of traffic deaths, according to the Washington Traffic Safety Commission. The emphasis patrols will be from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. Fridays, noon to 8 p.m. Saturdays and noon to 8 p.m. Sundays until May 1. Like I said, keep your eyes peeled for police. Watch your speedometers. 😉 And please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Terry Stop, Traffic Infractions, Washington State Patrol, Washington State Traffic Commission **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Jones: Rape Shield Statute vs. Defendant's Right to Testify](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-jones/) **Published:** April 20, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Jones*](http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/168wn2d/168wn2d0713.htm), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that the [Rape Shield Statute](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.020) does not stop a defendant from offering evidence or cross-examining a victim about the events on the night of the alleged sexual encounter, including the victim’s sexual conduct with other individuals during a wild sex party. Defendant Mr. Jones was charged with [first and second degree rape](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/) after his niece, K.D., claimed that Jones put his hands around her neck and forcibly raped her. At trial, the jury acquitted Jones of first degree rape but could not reach a decision on second degree rape. Jones was tried again for second degree rape along with the aggravating factor of being an individual in a position of trust to the victim. Jones wanted to present evidence that K.D. consented to sex during an all-night sex party. The party included one additional woman and two additional men, cocaine and alcohol. During this party, K.D. consented to sex with all three men (which included Jones). The judge, citing the Rape Shield Law, would not allow Jones to introduce such evidence because it was only being introduced to attack K.D.’s credibility. Furthermore, during the trial, the prosecutor noted that Jones was compelled to give a DNA sample (did not do so voluntarily) and that he refused to clear up matters with the police. At the end of trial, the judge backtracked a little and claimed that it allowed Jones to present evidence that the sex was consensual (but without mentioning the sex party). Jones was convicted and appealed. Jones claimed that the trial court erred when it refused to allow him to present evidence of the sex party and for the prosecutor’s inappropriate comments with respect to speaking with police and giving a DNA sample. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court, but the Washington Supreme Court reversed. First, the court reasoned that the trial court violated Jones’ 6th Amendment rights by refusing to allow Jones testify about the sex party. “Jones’s evidence, if believed, would prove consent and would provide a defense to the charge of second degree rape.” Furthermore, since no State interest can possibly be compelling enough to stop the introduction of evidence of high probative value, the trial court violated Jones’ Sixth Amendment rights when it barred his testimony. Second, the Court held the Rape Shield Statute did not apply. Washington’s rape shield law provides: > Evidence of the victim’s past sexual behavior including but not limited to the victim’s marital history, divorce history, or general reputation for promiscuity, nonchastity, or sexual mores contrary to community standards is inadmissible on the issue of credibility and is inadmissible to prove the victim’s consent except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, but when the perpetrator and the victim have engaged in sexual intercourse with each other in the past, and when the past behavior is material to the issue of consent, evidence concerning the past behavior between the perpetrator and the victim may be admissible on the issue of consent to the offense. Here, the Court decided the Rape Shield Statute protects victims from testifying about *past* sexual behavior. In this case, however, Jones was attempting to introduce evidence of *present* sexual behavior. Thus, to deny such evidence under the rape shield law would be to read out the term *past*. Furthermore, since the evidence that Jones sought to be introduced involved Jones’s defense and version of what occurred the night of the crime, the denial of such evidence was **NOT** harmless error. Jones is entitled to a new trial. My opinion? Under the circumstances, the court made a well-reasoned decision. Their interpretation of the Rape Shield Statute appears correct: although one cannot admit evidence of the victim’s past sexual history, the statute does not prevent present sexual history from being admitted into evidence. This evidence seems especially relevant when the victim is engaged in exploits in the manner described in this case. Good decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Sex Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, Jury Trial, Rape, Sex Crimes, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Hall: WA Supremes Determine The "Unit of Prosecution" For Multiple Charges of Witness Tampering](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-hall-wa-supremes-determine-the-unit-of-prosecution-for-multiple-charges-of-witness-tampering/) **Published:** April 24, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Hall*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=825581MAJ), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) decided that an incarcerated defendant’s numerous phone calls to a witness constituted only one charge of [Witness Tampering](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/tampering-with-a-witness-intimidation-of-witnesses/). Defendant Mr. Hall threatened his girlfriend and her lover with a gun after finding them together in her apartment. He flees the scene and drives away in a car owned by his friend, Desirae Aquiningoc. Police later confront Aquiningoc about lending her car to Hall. She said that Hall was her boyfriend, that he lived with her, that he had borrowed her car on that January 14 to visit his mother. Later, police find Hall at his home and arrest him. Based on what happened at Salazar’s apartment, Hall was charged with Burglary First Degree Burglary and Assault Second Degree and held in jail pending trial. While in jail, Hall attempted to call Aquiningoc over 1,200 times. During those phone calls, some of which were played for the jury, Hall attempted to persuade Aquiningoc that his legal woes were her fault and that she had a moral obligation not to testify or to testify falsely. The phone calls were recorded. The State charged Hall with four counts of Witness Tampering. Hall goes to trial. The trial judge treated each count of Witness Tampering as a separate unit of prosecution. Hall appeals. The case winds its way to the WA Supreme Court. The legal issue was whether [Witness Tampering](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/tampering-with-a-witness-intimidation-of-witnesses/) is a continuing offense or whether it is committed anew with each single act of attempting to persuade a potential witness not to testify or to testify falsely. The WA Supremes reasoned that a “unit of prosecution” can be either a *single act* or a *course of conduct.* Here, the plain language of the statute supports the conclusion that the unit of prosecution is the ongoing attempt to persuade a witness not to testify in a proceeding. They further reasoned that, in the alternative, each conversation is a separate crime and, in this case for example, could lead to as many as 1,200 separate crimes. “Such an interpretation could lead to absurd results, which we are bound to avoid when we can do so without doing violence to the words of the statute,” said the Court. “It seems unlikely the legislature intended that a person could be prosecuted for over a thousand crimes under the circumstances presented here.” Consequently, the Court held, under the facts of this case, Hall committed one crime of Witness Tampering, not three. My opinion? Makes sense. It DOES seem absurd to stack multiple charges in this case. After all, a unit of prosecution can either be a single act or a course of conduct. It seems more realistic to view Halls many calls as a continuing course of conduct. You can’t label the calls as single acts because he didn’t change his plans, motive, or modus operandi. Good decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Assault, Burglary, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, Legislation, Unit of Prosecution, Violent Crime, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Seattle Mayor Vetoes Aggressive Panhandling Bill](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/seattle-mayor-vetoes-aggressive-panhandling-bill/) **Published:** April 27, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** Seattle, be proud. Last week, the Seattle City Council considered an unnecessary and divisive ordinance empowering the police to give out $50 tickets to people who panhandle. Similar measures have been introduced in other cities. While the measure passed by a 5-4 margin, four Council members, Bruce Harrell, Nick Licata, Mike O’Brien, and Tom Rasmussen, recognized this law could be used to improperly target poor people and people of color while doing nothing to improve public safety. [They voted against it, and Mayor Mike McGinn vetoed the measure on Friday. ](http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011687633_veto24m.html?syndication=rss) My opinion? Sure, nobody likes being panhandled. But criminalizing it? C’mon, I’m sure taxpayers don’t want money spent jailing panhandlers!!! Additionally, the civil rights violations and exposure to liability makes this bill extremely undesirable. The Mayor and Seattle Council “got it,” and voted/vetoed intelligently. Let’s thank these champions for taking a courageous stand for civil liberties! Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Race & Law **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Paumier: Court Upholds the Right to Public Trial & Self-Representation](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-paumier-court-upholds-the-right-to-public-trial-self-representation/) **Published:** May 11, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Paumier*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=363461MAJ), the WA Court of Appeals reversed the defendant’s convictions because the trial court improperly **(1)** excluded public citizens from a portion of his trial, and **(2)** denied his right to represent himself. Mr. Paumier was charged with [Burglary ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/)and [Theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/theft/). Jury selection involved questioning jurors in chambers and recording their responses. The public was not allowed to watch jury selection. The trial court stated at the outset that potential jurors who preferred to answer questions privately to avoid possible embarrassment would be taken into the judge’s chambers. Several jurors indicated during the course of [*voir dire*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/voir_dire) that they preferred to answer certain questions in chambers. The judge and the parties questioned five jurors in chambers, recording the jurors’ responses. Jury selection was completed that same day. The following day, the trial court permitted the State to amend the information. Paumier then pleaded not guilty and asked to represent himself, stating: > “I just don’t feel like a — I feel like there’s \[sic\] things about the trial getting this far that it shouldn’t have. And I feel that my attorney should have spoke \[sic\] up for me instead of getting pissed off at me in court. And I just don’t feel like he’s doing his job like he should. I don’t feel it should have gotten this far, and I’d just rather present my, you know, case myself.” His request was denied because the lower court decided that it came too late. The WA Court of Appeals reasoned, however, that Paumier’s right to a public trial was violated when the court allowed the jurors to be questioned privately in chambers. The guaranty of open criminal proceedings extends to *voir dire*. Additionally, the recent U.S. Supreme Court’s [*Presley v. Georgia*](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/209/) makes it clear that court room closures should be rare and the court must consider alternatives prior to closing the court room. The trial court also abused its discretion when it denied the defendant his request to represent himself at trial. Here, there was no request for continuance, and the defendant’s request was clear. There was no evidence that trial would have been delayed, or that granting his request would have impaired the administration of justice. My opinion? Good decision. Kudos to the defendant for stating, on the record, his preference to represent himself after the judge and attorneys conducted voir dire in chambers, and away from the public eye. Mr. Paumier correctly followed his instincts. I hope Mason County learns a lesson. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Burglary, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, Jury Trial, Theft, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Speeders On Strapped Cities' Radar](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/speeders-on-strapped-cities-radar/) **Published:** May 20, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** Forget about traffic safety. In reality, [traffic citations are a revenue-builder for municipalities](http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourCar/speeding-youll-pay-higher-taxes.aspx) undergoing the brunt of a deteriorating economy, budget cuts and layoffs. “We were facing layoffs, and we were trying to think outside the box,” says Police Chief Dean McKimm of Canton County. “I’ll be very blunt about that: It does save jobs. It was kind of a no-brainer.” Other cities & counties know there’s a lot of money to be made in stepped-up traffic enforcement: - In January, Georgia’s new “super-speeder” law kicked in. Get caught going 85 mph or more on a four-lane road in the Peach State and you’ll pay $200 on top of the regular ticket, which is often well more than $100. You’ll do the same if you go 75 mph or more on a two-lane road. Authorities said it filled a niche between regular speeding and reckless-driving violations. In February, super-speeder tickets totaled 1,084. Tennessee is considering a similar law. - A Colorado law that went into effect in 2009 doubled fines for speeding (the supporting information noted it would raise about $12 million annually for the strapped state). Another law has made speed guns mandatory in road-work zones. - In 2009, California added a $35 assessment to all traffic violations to help renovate 41 courthouses statewide. You’ll pay even if the courthouse where you show up to pay the ticket isn’t getting so much as a coat of paint. - The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority said it would collect an additional $1.2 million in fines from speeding tickets in 2008 to make up for lost revenue when troopers from the Massachusetts State Police were transferred the previous year to work around Boston’s “Big Dig” project. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** law enforcement, police, Privacy, Terry Stop, Traffic Infractions, Washington State Patrol **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Graham v. Florida: Court Strikes Down "Cruel & Unusual" Sentencing on Minor](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/graham-v-florida-court-strikes-down-cruel-unusual-sentencing-on-minor/) **Published:** May 24, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*Graham v. Florida*](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-7412.pdf), the [U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) held it unconstitutional to sentence a juvenile offender to life in prison without parole when the crime does not involve [murder](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/), given the [Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual” punishment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/eighth_amendment). Petitioner Graham was 16 when he committed armed burglary and another crime. under a plea agreement, the Florida trial court sentenced Graham to probation and withheld adjudication of guilt. Subsequently, the trial court found that Graham violated the terms of his probation by committing additional crimes. The trial court adjudicated Graham guilty of the earlier charges, revoked his probation, and sentenced him to life in prison for the Burglary. Because Florida abolished its parole system, the life sentences left Graham no possibility of release. He challenged his sentence under the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. The U.S. Supremes sided with Graham, and reasoned the inadequacy of penological theory to justify life without parole sentences for juvenile nonhomicide offenders, the limited culpability of such offenders, and the severity of these sentences all lead the Court to conclude that Graham’s sentence was cruel and unusual. Moreover, defendants who do not kill, or foresee that life will be taken are less deserving of such punishments than are murderers. Finally, the court reasoned that serious nonhomicide crimes may be devastating in their harm, but in terms of moral depravity and the injury to the person and to the public, they cannot be compared to murder in their severity. My opinion? The U.S. Supremes made the right decision. It seems Draconian to impose a life sentence on a minor who committed a non-homicide crime. Period. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Burglary, Constitutional Rights, Cruel & Unusual Punishment, Due Process, felony, Juvenile, United States Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Sublett: Defendant's Right to be Present at Trial DOES NOT Extend to Questions Submitted by Jury and Answered in Judge's Chambers](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-sublett-more-trouble-from-judges-chambers/) **Published:** May 24, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Sublett*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=380340MAJ), the WA Court of Appeals held that an in-chambers conference held by the trial judge in response to a juror’s question did *not* violate the defendant’s his [right to an open and public trial](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-6/right-to-a-speedy-and-public-trial). In general, in-chambers conferences between the court and counsel on legal matters are not critical stages of the proceedings except when the issues involve disputed facts. A jury entered verdicts finding co-defendants Michael Sublett and Christopher Olsen guilty of[ first degree murder](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/). Sublett and Olsen appealed, asserting that the trial court violated their public trial rights and their right to be present by holding an in-chambers conference to address a question submitted by the jury during its deliberations and that the trial court violated their due process rights by refusing to answer the jury’s question. The Court reasoned that the[ Sixth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) guarantees criminal defendants the right to a public trial. However, the court also determined that “\[a\] defendant does not . . . have a right to a public hearing on purely ministerial or legal issues that do not require the resolution of disputed facts.” Here, the trial court’s in-chambers conference addressed a jury question regarding one of the trial court’s instructions. This was a purely legal issue that arose during deliberations, and did not require the resolution of disputed facts. Thus, the defendants’ right to a public trial did not apply in this context. More important, questions from the jury to the trial court regarding the trial court’s instructions are part of jury deliberations and, as such, are not historically a public part of the trial. Because the public trial right does not apply to a trial court’s conference with counsel on how to resolve a purely legal question which the jury submitted during its deliberations, we hold that the trial court did not violate the appellants’ public trial right by responding to the jury’s question in writing. The court further reasoned that because the in-chambers conference held in response to a jury question was not a critical stage of the proceedings, the trial court did not violate the appellants’ right to be present. A “critical stage” is one where the defendant’s presence has a reasonably substantial relationship to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge. But in general, in-chambers conferences between the court and counsel on legal matters are not critical stages of the proceedings except when the issues involve disputed facts. The in-chambers conference here was not a critical stage of the proceedings because it involved only the purely legal issue of how to respond to the jury’s request for a clarification in one of the trial court’s instructions. Accordingly, the appellants’ right to be present did not apply in this context. My opinion? Shady. I’ve tried cases where jurors asks/submits questions to the judge while they deliberate. Typically, the judge reads the question on the record, and in the defendant’s presence. The attorneys and judge either formulate an agreed answer the question or choose to not answer the question. In my mind, this is an important stage of the proceedings. jurors decide guilt and innocence based upon the answer to the question! How is this not important? Why shouldn’t the defendant be present to hear the question and answer(s)? Again, shady. this decision flies in the face of the WA Supreme Court’s *State v. Paumier*, a case which I blogged about earlier this month. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, Homicide & Manslaughter, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Yes, Crime Is Down . . . But For How Long?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/the-reality-of-the-situation-is-crime-is-down/) **Published:** May 25, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** [Crime in the United States dropped dramatically in 2009](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2010/05/24/1446000/fbi-says-violent-crime-rate-down.html), bucking a historical trend that links rising crime rates to economic woes. Property crimes and violent offenses each declined about 5 percent, the FBI said Monday, citing reports from law enforcement coast to coast. It was the third straight year of declines, and this year’s drops were even steeper than those of 2007 and 2008, despite the recession. The FBI collected the crime data from more than 13,000 law enforcement agencies around the country. According to the numbers, all four measured categories of violent crime declined compared with 2008 – robbery, murder, aggravated assault and forcible rape. \* Violent crime declined 4 percent in metropolitan counties and 3 percent elsewhere, the FBI reported. \* Nationwide, the [murder](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/) rate was down 7.2 percent last year. \* The largest decrease in murders – 7.5 percent – took place in cities of half a million to a million in population. The only increase – 5.3 percent – occurred in cities with 25,000 to 50,000 people. \* [Robbery](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/robbery/) dropped 8.1 percent, [aggravated assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) declined 4.2 percent and [forcible rape](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/) was down 3.1 percent. \* Violent crime fell 6.6 percent in the South, 5.6 percent in the West, 4.6 percent in the Midwest and 3.5 percent in the Northeast. My opinion? That’s good news. It debunks any theories that economic recessions leads to increased crime rates. I, for one, haven’t seen a dramatic increase in crime – except for maybe low-level street drugs like heroin – since the recession hit. Still despite the successful efforts of law enforcement’s endeavors, we should not be too quick to pat ourselves on the back. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Assault, Domestic Violence, felony, Homicide & Manslaughter, Rape, Studies, Violent Crime, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Berghuis v. Thompkins: Miranda Applies, BUT Defendants MUST Clearly Invoke Constitutional Rights](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/berghuis-v-thompkins-miranda-applies-but-defendants-must-clearly-invoke-their-rights/) **Published:** June 2, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** In *[Berghuis v. Thompkins](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1470.ZO.html),* the [U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) ruled that a criminal suspect must **specifically invoke** the [right against self-incrimination](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/self-incrimination) in order for constitutional protections to apply. The case centered around the interrogation of Van Chester Thompkins, who was suspected of Homicide. He remained virtually silent for hours in police custody before giving a few brief responses to police questions. Most significantly, Thompkins answered “yes” when asked, “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?” The statement was introduced at trial and Thompkins was convicted. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court held that criminal suspects who do not clearly state their intention to remain silent are presumed to have waived their [5th Amendment rights](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment). Ironically, suspects must literally open their mouths and speak in order for their silence to be legally protected. The new rule will defer to police in cases where the suspect fails to unambiguously assert their right to remain silent. My opinion? Naturally, I’m concerned about any retreat from the basic principle that criminal suspects should not be compelled or coerced into incriminating themselves. The opinion is wrong because it creates additional challenges for suspects who already understand too little about how their constitutional rights apply during police interrogations. Fortunately, however, **the Berghuis decision leaves intact the best strategy for handling any police interrogation: keeping your mouth shut.** Requiring suspects with limited legal knowledge to clearly assert their rights may seem a bit strict, but it’s irrelevant if the suspect never says a word to begin with. The point of the 5th Amendment isn’t to protect you after you’ve foolishly incriminated yourself; it’s to remind you that you’re not obligated to answer police questions in the first place. Ultimately, the burden is on each of us to understand our rights and use that information to make the best decisions. It’s unlikely that any Supreme Court decision will ever change the fact that remaining silent is your best and only strategy if police ask you incriminating questions. I can’t stress this enough: your attorney can suppress unlawfully obtained evidence IF you clearly assert your rights. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Due Process, Duress Defense, felony, Homicide & Manslaughter, Interrogation, law enforcement, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Self-Incrimination, United States Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Domestic Violence Brutality Increasing in Whatcom County](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/domestic-violence-brutality-increasing-in-whatcom-county/) **Published:** June 14, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** It appears [DV cases are increasing in Whatcom County](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2010/06/13/1475420/domestic-violence-brutality-increasing.html). An unprecedented series of domestic-violence slayings in the last 15 months has set off alarms across the county and left community leaders scrambling to gauge the problem’s extent and root causes. The Bellingham Police Department and the Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office handle the majority of domestic-violence assaults in the county. Although both agencies had an overall decrease in the number of such assaults per capita reported to them since 2004, Sheriff Bill Elfo says the severity of the crimes have, in fact, increased. Some other interesting facts: * Whatcom County law enforcement agencies have investigated eight deaths believed to be related to or caused by domestic violence since March 2009. * Workers in victim-care agencies confirmed the trend of increasing violence. * The number of women and children who stayed at least one night in the shelter’s 18 beds increased by 17 percent from 2008 to 2009, according to agency statistics. * Calls to Womencare’s helpline increased 28 percent last year. Why has the problem increased? The article cites the poor economy adding to the problem and hampering criminal-justice and victim-care agencies’ ability to prevent more violence. The economy also hampers efforts to confine abusers as the justice system, from police to jails to courts, struggles under budget cuts. For victims trying to leave abusive relationships, which is when they’re at the highest risk, emergency shelter and long-term transitional housing are getting scarcer as demand for them increases. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DV](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) or and other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Domestic Violence, felony, Jail, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Studies **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Racial Disparities In Jury Selection Still Exist](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/racial-disparities-in-jury-selection-still-exist/) **Published:** June 17, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** Racial exclusion in jury selection is still common, according to a [study of practices in southern states](http://eji.org/eji/files/Race%20and%20Jury%20Selection%20Report.pdf). In courtrooms across the United States, people of color are dramatically underrepresented on juries as a result of racially biased use of peremptory strikes,” the report by the Alabama-based [Equal Justice Initiative (EJI)](https://eji.org/) stated. “This phenomenon is especially prevalent in capital cases and other serious felony cases. Many communities have failed to make juries inclusive and representative of all who have a right to serve.” The staff of the EJI looked closely at jury selection procedures in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee. they uncovered shocking evidence of racial discrimination in jury selection in every state. They identified counties where prosecutors excluded nearly 80% of African Americans qualified for jury service. They discovered majority-black counties where capital defendants nonetheless were tried by all-white juries. And they found evidence that some prosecutors employed by state and local governments were actually trained to exclude people on the basis of race on how to conceal their race bias. In many cases, people of color were not only excluded, but also denigrated and insulted with pretextual reasons intended to conceal race bias. African Americans were excluded because they appeared to have “low intelligence”; wore eyeglasses, were single, married, or separated; or were too old for jury service at age 43 or too young at age 28. They were barred for having relatives who attended historically black colleges; for the way they walk; for chewing gum; and frequently, for living in predominantly black neighborhoods. My opinion? [*Batson v. Kentucky*](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-6263) was supposed to eliminate race-based jury selection. However, it appears the specter still exists. It’s unbelievable to me ho today’s “race-neutral” explanations and the tolerance of racial bias by court officials has made jury selection for people of color a hazardous venture, where the sting of exclusion is accompanied by painful insults and injurious commentary. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Due Process, Jury Trial, Race & Law, Studies **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Nason: "Automatic Jail" Held Unconstitutional](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-nason-automatic-jail-held-unconstitutional/) **Published:** June 22, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Nason*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=823332MAJ), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) decided that imposing “auto jail” on defendants who can’t pay their legal financial obligations violates due process. In July 1999, James Nason pleaded guilty to one count of [second degree burglary](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/). He largely failed probation and neglected paying court fines. At numerous times, he was sentenced to jail for these failures. In July 2006, he was charged and sentenced with another crime. The court ordered Nason to serve 60 days in jail. Additionally, the order included an auto-jail provision; which said that if he failed to pay court fines by a certain date, he had to either request a stay or book himself into jail. The WA Supremes held due process requires that a court inquire into a defendant’s ability to pay legal financial obligations (LFO’s) at the time it incarcerates the defendant for failure to pay. In short, “auto jail” violates due process. The court’s reasoning was simple: Due process prevents the jailing of an offender for failure to pay a fine if the offender’s failure to pay was due to his or her indigence/poverty. However, if an offender is capable of paying but willfully refuses to pay, or if an offender does not “make sufficient bona fide efforts to seek employment or borrow money in order to pay,” the State may imprison the offender for failing to pay his or her LFO. The burden is on the offender to show that his nonpayment is not willful. Although the offender carries the burden, due process still imposes a duty on the court to inquire into the offender’s ability to pay. Inquiry into the offender’s ability to pay comes at “the point of collection and when sanctions are sought for nonpayment.” Here, Because due process requires the court to inquire into Nason’s reason for nonpayment, and because the inquiry must come at the time of the collection action or sanction, ordering Nason to report to jail without a contemporaneous inquiry into his ability to pay violated due process. My opinion? The Supremes exercised sound reasoning. It violates due process to impose immediate jail if defendants cannot pay future court fines. The decision to impose jail is a question which should be decided at a future time. Jail should not be imposed because of some future-retroactive court condition. Period. Good decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Burglary, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, Jail, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Debate Continues Over Putting New Jail Outside of Bellingham](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/debate-continues-over-putting-new-jail-outside-of-bellingham/) **Published:** June 23, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** The [debate continues over the location of the new jail](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2010/06/23/1492859/debate-continues-over-putting.html). The county has been working since 2003 to choose the site of a new jail as the current facility has become dilapidated and overcrowded. The downtown jail was built to handle 147 inmates. Now, due to double bunking, between 250 and 300 inmates are crammed inside. The new sites being considered are outside of city limits near Bellingham International Airport. Voters in 2004 approved a sales tax increase to start saving up for a new facility. Several years ago, costs were estimated to be between $55 million and $60 million. Those estimates are now up to potentially $144.4 million if construction were to begin in 2015. My opinion? Do *something*. We’ve waited too long. Although I’d rather have a downtown jail for ease of access to incarcerated clients (I work downtown), *any* solution at this point is preferable. The present jail is disgusting. Dirty, smelly, old and dangerous in the face of an earthquake. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Jail, law enforcement, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [New Study Shows Immigration Reduces Violent Crime](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/new-study-shows-immigration-reduces-violent-crime/) **Published:** June 28, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** A [new study](https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v91y2010i2p531-553.html) says that cities that experienced higher influxes of foreign-born and new immigrant populations also experienced lower rates of [homicides](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/) and [robberies](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/robbery/). Using data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report and U.S. Census Bureau, Tim Wadsworth, an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Colorado, found fascinating results. Some background: during the 1990s immigration rates reached record levels. Consequently, this led to speculation that increased immigration brought increased crime. Not so, argues, Wadsworth. Specifically, Wadsworth concludes that after considering other factors, growth among immigrants was responsible for roughly 9.3 percent of the decline of Homicides and 22.2 percent of the decrease in Robbery rates. He attributes this to what is referred to as the “healthy immigrant thesis,” which points to protective cultural and neighborhood factors often found in immigrant communities and families. Immigrants tend to be healthy, well-adjusted, motivated individuals and immigrant communities often buffer against the strains of poverty, assimilation and crime. In addition, Wadsworth draws on social disorganization theory. From this view, to the extent that immigrant communities produce protective factors in ethnically diverse neighborhoods, the effects of their presence may spill over to the native population by enhancing overall stability. My opinion? This study is timely in light of [Arizona’s recent anti-immigration legislation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1070#:~:text=The%20law%20barred%20state%20or,hiring%20and%20transporting%20unregistered%20aliens.&text=The%20Act%20was%20signed%20into,Brewer%20on%20April%2023%2C%202010.). For those who can’t remember, this anti-immigrant legislation gives local police the authority to question individuals they suspect are in the country illegally. In short, this research debunks evidence of a connection between immigration and crime. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Immigration, Robbery, Studies **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Harvill: The "Duress" Defense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-harvill-the-duress-defense/) **Published:** July 27, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** In *[State v. Harvill](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=823588MAJ)*, the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that the lower court abused its discretion by disallowing the defendant to argue the defense of [“Duress.”](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Iefa0379be10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?contextData=%28sc.Default%29&transitionType=StatuteNavigator) Defendant Joshua Harvill sold cocaine to Michael Nolte in a controlled buy organized by the Cowlitz County Sheriff’s Office. At trial, Harvill admitted to selling cocaine to Nolte because he feared that, if he did not, Nolte would hurt him or his family. Both men knew each other for several years. Nolte was 5′ 10″ and weighed around 200 pounds. Harvill was 5’5″ and weighed about 140 pounds. Harvill feared Nolte. They worked together, and Nolte bragged about smashing another man’s head with a beer bottle, causing brain damage. Harvill also knew that Nolte grabbed a gun from another man and then stabbed him. Harvell knew that Nolte used steroids and that he feared what Nolte was capable of. Despite their background, the trial court denied Harvill’s jury instruction on the defense of duress. The jury found Harvill guilty. He appealed. The case wound up in the WA Supreme Court. The Court reasoned that a defendant is entitled to the defense of duress if the defendant proves that (a) he participated in the crime under compulsion by another who by threat or use of force created an apprehension in his mind that in case of refusal he or another would be liable to immediate death or immediate grievous bodily injury; and (b) such apprehension was reasonable upon his part; and (c) he would not have participated in the crime except for the duress involved. “The question comes down to whether the duress statute requires an explicit threat or whether an implicit threat that arises from the circumstances.” Here, the Court ruled that defining “threat” to include both explicit and implicit threats serves the purpose of proving duress. This applies with equal force to direct threats, arising from overtly threatening words or physical intimidation, and to indirect threats, arising from other conduct and circumstances. As long as the defendant’s perception of the implicit threat is reasonable under the circumstances, he is put to the choice between two evils through no fault of his own and should be allowed to argue the defense. Additionally, there is no legal authority requiring a threat to be an explicit threat. Ultimately, the Court ruled Harvill presented sufficient evidence of fear arising from an implicit threat, and the jury should have had the opportunity to decide if this fear was reasonable and if Harvill would have sold cocaine to Nolte under the threat. My opinion? Great decision. Although the WA Supremes split hairs and engaged many semantics to get there, but they issued a good opinion all around. We’ve all seen the famous mafia movies. Duress is intimidation, whether implicit or express. “Let’s go for a car ride” usually means “you’ll be dead before dawn.” This is the implicit language of the criminal underground. Things aren’t always nice and clear, especially veiled threats. Kudos to the WA Supremes for knowing this. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Duress Defense, felony, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Tibbles: "Exigent Circumstances" for Warrantless Search = Unlawful Search](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-tibbles-exigent-circumstances-or-unlawful-search/) **Published:** August 10, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** In *[State v. Tibbles](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=803081MAJ)*, the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held the search of a defendant was not justified by [exigent circumstances](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exigent_circumstances) and the marijuana/paraphernalia evidence obtained as a result of the search should have been suppressed. Micah Tibbles was pulled over following a traffic stop. During the stop, Trooper Norman Larsen detected a strong odor of marijuana coming from Tibbles’s car. Though he did not arrest Tibbles or seek a warrant, he searched the car and found the contraband. Trooper Larsen and the prosecutors argued that although they lacked a search warrant, “exigent circumstances” justified the search nonetheless. Tibbles was convicted of for [possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). The case wound up in the WA Supreme Court. The Court reasoned the Trooper had probable cause to arrest Tibbles based on the odor of marijuana alone under the [Plain View Doctrine](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plain_view_doctrine). However, the existence of probable cause, standing alone, does not justify a warrantless search. The Court also reasoned that because Trooper Larsen did not arrest Tibbles, and did not have a warrant when he searched Tibbles’s car, the search must be justified by one of our recognized warrant exceptions; such as *“exigent circumstances.”* Here’s the law on exigent circumstances: basically, the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement applies where obtaining a warrant is not practical because the delay inherent in securing a warrant would compromise officer safety, facilitate escape or permit the destruction of evidence. Under [*State v. Tibbles*](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1534140.html), there are five circumstances types of exigent circumstances: (1) hot pursuit; (2) fleeing suspect; (3) danger to arresting officer or to the public; (4) mobility of the vehicle; and (5) mobility or destruction of the evidence.” A court must look to the totality of the circumstances in determining whether exigent circumstances exist. Here, the WA Supremes decided the State failed to show that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search of Tibbles’s car. Tibbles was outside the vehicle when Trooper Larsen searched it and the State has not established that the destruction of evidence was imminent. Additionally, the State failed to establish that obtaining a warrant was otherwise impracticable. “For example, we do not know whether Larsen could have used a cell phone or radio to procure a telephonic warrant or whether he could have called backup to secure the scene while Larsen went to procure a warrant,” said Justice Debra Stephens of WA Supremes. Additionally, regarding the safety concerns, the facts do not establish that Trooper Larsen felt he or anyone else was in danger as a result of Tibbles’s actions. Tibbles was not stopped on suspicion of impaired driving, but rather for a defective taillight. Tibbles was alone, was compliant with the trooper’s requests, and moreover, was released rather than arrested and allowed to drive away even after Trooper Larsen searched the car and seized the marijuana and drug paraphernalia. For these reasons, the WA Supremes reversed the WA Court of Appeals which upheld Tibbles conviction. My opinion? BEAUTIFUL. The State’s “exigent circumstances” arguments were totally baseless. Let’s boil it down: exigent circumstances should be found only where obtaining a warrant is not practical because the delay inherent in securing a warrant would compromise officer safety, facilitate escape, or permit the destruction of evidence. If these situations do not exist, then neither does exigent circumstances. PERIOD. Well done, WA Supremes. Thank you. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Exigent Circumstances, felony, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Bellingham Wants Red-Light Cameras](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/bellingham-wants-red-light-cameras/) **Published:** August 12, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** The City of Bellingham could [install an enforcement camera at Holly and Forest streets](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2010/08/12/1566754/holly-forest-streets-one-of-four.html#storylink=omni_popular), the worst intersection in terms of T-bone crashes caused by drivers running red lights. Under a proposal by Mayor Dan Pike’s administration, that intersection would be one of four spots where police install automated red-light cameras and issue tickets to violators. From 2004 to 2008, six people were injured in 10 crashes caused by cars going through red lights there. Most crashes occurred when a vehicle ran the light on Holly. The City Council still must decide whether it wants to OK four red-light cameras and two school-zone cameras. An exact date for a decision hasn’t been scheduled yet. If approved, officials hope to install the cameras by the end of the year. **REVENUE GENERATOR** Other cities report different results in terms of revenue generated by the programs. Bellingham is roughly estimating gross revenue of $500,000 a year, but officials aren’t sure what program expenses will be yet. A Bellingham police traffic unit officer will review all violations before any contractor issues a ticket. **CAMERA LAWS** State law, which lets cities install the cameras, sets the following requirements on their use: • They can only be at intersections of two arterials. • They can’t photograph drivers’ faces. • The photos aren’t available to the public and can only be used by law enforcement for purposes of the traffic violation. • The locations of cameras must be clearly marked. • The amount the city pays to the company providing the equipment can be based only on the value of the equipment and services, not a percentage of ticket revenue. • Tickets don’t go on a person’s driving record. • It’s presumed the registered owner was driving at the time. But if people state under oath that somebody else was driving at the time, they can avoid paying the ticket. My opinion? I totally agree with one person’s comment to the news article. ViewofLeadership said the following: *“On a very long list of very stupid things this city has done, this one ranks in the top 10. If you think traffic is bad now, just wait until people start slamming on their brakes to avoid these cameras. If any of you doubt that this about revenue and NOT safety, then go view the red-light camera video KING5 produced for it’s program “Up Front, with Robert Mak”. And consider that the company that leases these cameras enters into a REVENUE sharing agreement with the city and as part of that agreement REQUIRES minimum fines and 3-second duration of the yellow light. **This is a scam upon the citizens by the city!”*** Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Red Light Cameras **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Maddox: Great Decision on Unlawful Vehicle Searches](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-maddox-great-decision-on-unlawful-vehicle-searches/) **Published:** August 19, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Maddox*](http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/08/12/09-30284.pdf), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Evidence found during an inventory search was suppressed, as no statute specifically authorized impounding the vehicle for Reckless driving or DWLS 3, the vehicle was not impeding traffic, it was not abandoned, and the driver offered to have his friend pick up the vehicle. Officer Bonney pulled Neal Maddox over for driving suspiciously. Upon contact, Officer Bonney noticed the vehicle’s tags were expired and Maddox’s license was suspended. Officer Bonney placed Maddox under arrest, handcuffed him, and escorted him to the patrol car. He search Maddox and found $358 cash. Maddox posed no threat to officer safety and there was no danger of evidence destruction. Nevertheless, Officer Bonney returned to Maddox’s vehicle, reached inside, and retrieved a key chain. Hanging on the key chain was a metal vial with a screw top. Officer opened the vial’s top and found methamphetamine. He searched the vehicle, found a computer case, and discovered a handgun and more methamphetamine. The court reasoned the officer’s search of Maddox’s keychain was unlawful. Since Maddox was handcuffed in the backseat of the car, there was no possibility of Maddox concealing or destroying the key chain and the items contained therein. There was also no sighting of weapons or threats to use one. The court also reasoned the vehicle impoundment was unlawful. The police were not performing community caretaking, the vehicle was not abandoned, impeding traffic, or threatening public safety or convenience. Also, because Maddox offered to have his friend move the vehicle, the officer did not rightfully consider any alternatives before impounding it. Consequently, The officer’s impoundment of the vehicle did not qualify as a valid inventory search and violated the Fourth Amendment. My opinion? Obviously, I’m pleased. Some may argue the court wrongfully decided the case because RCW 46.55.113(1) specifically authorizes an impound when a driver is arrested for Driving While License Suspended (DWLS). Nevertheless, there were larger issues at stake transcending a mere DWLS. The officer’s unlawful search of the keychain itself moved this issue beyond statutory obligations imposed on DWLS. Good decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, felony, law enforcement, Methamphetamine, police, Privacy, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, Washington State Patrol, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Afana: ANOTHER Awesome Decision re. Illegal Car Searches](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-afana-another-awesome-decision-re-illegal-car-searches/) **Published:** August 20, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Afana*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/826005.opn.pdf), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held the [warrantless search of a vehicle](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) incident to passenger arrest was unlawful, and there is no “good faith” exception under the Washington Constitution. **BACKGROUND FACTS** At 3:40 a.m., Deputy Miller noticed a car which was legally parked on a city street in Spokane County. He became suspicious, parked his cruiser behind the vehicle, shone his spotlight on it, and made contact. Two people were inside. The driver said they were watching a movie on his portable DVD player. Deputy Miller ran warrant checks on both individuals. He discovered a warrant existed for the passenger, Ms. Bergeron, for the crime of [Criminal Trespass](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/criminal-trespass/). He arrests her. Deputy Miller searched the car and found a black cloth bag behind the driver’s seat. The bag contained a crystalline substance which looked like methamphetamine. He also found a glass marijuana pipe, needles, and plastic scales. Deputy Miller arrested Mr. Alfana, the driver, on [Drug Charges](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). The case wound up for review before the WA Supreme Court. in the meantime, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in [*Arizona v. Gant*, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009)](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/07-542). There, the Court said that police may search a vehicle incident to arrest “only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.” The Court reasoned that, pursuant to *Gant*, nothing justified the search that happened after arrest. Although the warrant for Bergeron’s arrest gave Deputy Miller a basis to arrest her, he had no reason to believe that the vehicle she occupied contained evidence of her underlying crime, namely, Criminal Trespass. The deputy also lacked reason to believe that she posed a safety risk because she was already in custody in the backseat of the patrol vehicle. Furthermore, the fact that the driver, Afana, was unsecured at the time of the search does not justify the search. This is so because he was not under arrest at the time the search was conducted, and *Gant* held that “police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the *arrestee* is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search.” Here, the only arrestee was Bergeron; who was already in the backseat of the police cruiser. The Court addressed the State’s “Good Faith” exception to warrantless searches. Historically, this exception allows an otherwise unconstitutional search or seizure if the police officer believes the search was constitutional/reasonable at the time. Here, the court rejected the State’s “Good Faith” argument because there was no probable cause to conduct the illegal search in the first place. The evidence was suppressed. My opinion? August is a BIG month for handing down post *Gant*-related decisions [(please refer to my blog on *State v. Tibbles*)](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-tibbles-exigent-circumstances-or-unlawful-search/). I’m really impressed with how the WA Supremes are handling *Gant*. They aren’t chipping away at *Gant* with BS opinions. They are, in fact, honoring *Gant*. *Afana* was a unanimous decision, with only one Justice dissenting. Horray! 🙂 Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, DUI, felony, law enforcement, Methamphetamine, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, United States Supreme Court, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Adams: The WA Supremes On a Hot Roll With Yet ANOTHER Decision re. Illegal Car Searches](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-adams-the-wa-supremes-on-a-hot-roll-with-yet-another-decision-re-illegal-car-searches/) **Published:** August 21, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** “1-2-3!” You hear this shouted in fight gyms and boxing matches around the world. It’s a quick, concise statement of one of the deadliest 3-punch combinations in the sport. It’s a left jab, followed by a right cross and ending with a left hook (consider opposite hands if you’re southpaw). The jab opens the opponent’s defense and establishes punching range. The right cross – your power hand – does damage. The *coup de gras* left hook should result in more major pain, a knockdown or knockout; especially if ANY of the punches land flush on the chin or temple. At any rate, somebody is getting hurt. Or put to sleep. For the month of August, the WA Supremes issued a 1-2-3 combination with *State v. Tibbles*, *State v. Afana* and now *State v. Adams*; all three decisions upholding the U.S. Supreme Court’s *Arizona v. Gant* which held that police may search a vehicle incident to arrest “only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.” Lat’s talk about [*State v. Adams*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=822107MAJ). On May 24, 2006, Deputy Volpe observed Coryell Adams sitting in a parked car outside a casino. Volpe checked the license plate number and learned that Adams had an outstanding arrest warrant for driving with a revoked license. Volpe followed Adams as he drove to a Taco Bell parking lot. Volpe drove onto the same lot, activated her emergency lights, and parked about eight feet behind Adams’ car. As she stepped out of her patrol car, Adams stepped out from his car, stood near the driver’s side door and began yelling at Volpe, challenging the stop as racial profiling. After Volpe repeatedly ordered Adams back into his car, Adams “took 4-5 steps away from the car” and stepped into an adjacent parking stall where he continued to yell and wave his arms. At Volpe’s request, another deputy arrived and Adams calmed down. He was then placed under arrest. After Adams failed to identify himself, Volpe frisked Adams and removed his keys and his wallet, which contained documents identifying him as the registered owner of the vehicle. The other deputy unlocked Adams’ car. After Volpe placed Adams in the back of her patrol car and read him his rights, she searched his vehicle and found a small black bag containing cocaine in the center console. He was charged with Possession of Cocaine. The case wound its way into the WA Supreme Court. During that time, the U.S. Supremes decided *Arizona v. Gant*, which was alluded to earlier. Similar to *State v. Afana*, the State argued the officer acted in “good faith” when arresting Adams. However, the WA Supremes made short work of the case: “Our recent decision in *Afana* resolves this case. In *Afana* we rejected the State’s argument that “good faith” reliance on pre-*Gant* case law constitutes an exception to the exclusionary rule under article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution. We explained the distinction between an officer’s “good faith” reliance on statutes that were subsequently declared unconstitutional to establish probable cause to arrest . . . **\[B\]ecause the State concedes that *Gant* applies to the search in this case, and because we have declined to recognize a “good faith” exception based on pre-*Gant* case law in *Afana*, we reverse the conviction in this case.”** My opinion? Criminal defense attorneys have reason to raise a glass and toast the WA Supremes. These decisions are a fitting end to the summer of 2010. Take notice, prosecutors: *Gant* and its Washington progeny are here to stay. These cases won’t be skirted by “exigent circumstances.” They won’t be distinguished by “good faith.” Hurray to a new millennium in cases involving car searches and seizures. 🙂 Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Exigent Circumstances, felony, Jail, law enforcement, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, United States Supreme Court, Washington State Patrol, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Red Light Cameras: The Saga Continues](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/red-light-cameras-the-saga-continues/) **Published:** August 31, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** A new study shows [“license plate sprays” are ineffective](http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/article.aspx?post=1798834). Some “masking” products let us apply a cover or spray to license plates to neutralize the devices. The spray or cover supposedly reflects the camera’s flash and overexposes the photo, rendering it useless. However, a new study shows they don’t work and, in some cases, actually *improve* the image quality. “The countermeasures had no effect on plate legibility under dark conditions,” quoted the study. “All rear plate images were clearly legible, with no significant difference between the test plate images and the control plate image. A citation could have been issued in all cases,” the study said. Washington State law requires license plates to be attached conspicuously at the front and rear of each vehicle. However, the law also allows for an exemption if it is impossible to affix the plate. The Washington state patrol may grant exceptions to this subsection if the body construction of the vehicle makes compliance impossible.” Oh well. Back to the drawing board. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with[ Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/) , [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Study Contends Pot Is Not a Major "Gateway Drug"](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/study-contends-pot-isnt-a-major-gateway-drug/) **Published:** September 3, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** A [new report](http://health.msn.com/health-topics/addiction/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100263015>1=31036) casts doubt on the argument that marijuana is a “gateway drug” that plays a major role in leading people to try other illegal drugs. Researchers found that other factors, such as ethnicity and stress levels, are more likely to predict whether young adults will use other illegal drugs. The researchers based their findings on surveys of 1,286 young adults who attended Miami-area public schools in the 1990s. Ethnicity was the best predictor of future illegal drug use, the study findings indicated, with whites the most likely to use the drugs, followed by Hispanics and then blacks. The study findings are published in the September issue of the [*Journal of Health and Social Behavior*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Health_and_Social_Behavior). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Drug Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Drug Offenses, marijuana, misdemeanor, Race & Law, Search and Seizure **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Whatcom County Cops Bust 63 Drivers In Latest DUI Campaign](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/whatcom-county-cops-bust-63-drivers-in-latest-campaign/) **Published:** September 11, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** Pre-holidays, no less. [Whatcom County law enforcement agencies arrested 63 people](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2010/09/10/1612659/whatcom-county-cops-bust-63-drivers.html) for alleged [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) during the latest enforcement campaign, which started Aug. 12 and ended Sept. 6. Statewide, officers from 176 agencies arrested 2,672 drivers in the “Drive Hammered, Get Nailed” campaign, according to the Washington Traffic Safety Commission. Officers, deputies and troopers from the [Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office](https://www.whatcomcounty.us/200/Sheriff), the Washington State Patrol and the Bellingham, Ferndale and Western Washington University police departments participated in the campaign. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham, DUI, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, Washington State Patrol **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Study Shows How the Innocent Confess to Crimes](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/study-shows-how-the-innocent-confess-to-crimes/) **Published:** September 15, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** [New research](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/us/14confess.html) shows how people who were apparently uninvolved in a crime could provide such a detailed account of what occurred, allowing prosecutors to claim that only the defendant could have committed the crime. An article in the Stanford Law Review written by [Professor Garrett of the Virginia School of Law](https://www.law.virginia.edu/news/2015_sum/garrett-mcfarland-prize.htm) draws on trial transcripts, recorded confessions and other background materials to show how incriminating facts got into those confessions — by police introducing important facts about the case, whether intentionally or unintentionally, during the interrogation. Professor Garrett said he was surprised by the complexity of the confessions he studied. “I expected, and think people intuitively think, that a false confession would look flimsy,” like someone saying simply, “I did it,” he said. Instead, he said, “almost all of these confessions looked uncannily reliable,” rich in telling detail that almost inevitably had to come from the police. “I had known that in a couple of these cases, contamination could have occurred,” he said, using a term in police circles for introducing facts into the interrogation process. “I didn’t expect to see that almost all of them had been contaminated.” My opinion? To defense lawyers, the new research is eye opening. In the past, if somebody confessed, that was the end. You couldn’t imagine going forward. Although the confession is hearsay, which is generally an out-of-court statement made to prove the truth of the matter asserted, there are over 20 exceptions to the hearsay rule. Bottom line, a judge typically allows juries to hear confessions. This new research calls upon defense attorneys to investigate the conditions under which the confession took place. Was the confession recorded? How long was it? Was the defendant rested? Under the influence? Did the defendant request an attorney? Important questions, all of them . . . Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/), [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Interrogation, law enforcement, police, Police Misconduct, Pretrial Investigations, Privacy, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Race & Law, Search and Seizure **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Local Roundabouts Show No Spike in Crashes/Injuries, BUT . . .](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/local-roundabouts-show-no-spike-in-crashes-or-injuries-but/) **Published:** September 19, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** Early data from the state Department of Transportation (DOT) shows[ there hasn’t been a spike in crashes since the new roundabouts in Whatcom County were constructed](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2010/09/19/1624200/data-no-spike-in-crashes-and-no.html). Of the accidents that have occurred, none have resulted in injuries, unlike many of the crashes before when traffic signals controlled some of the intersections. My opinion? Yes, the data appears good. However, I’m concerned that police use roundabouts to conduct unlawful/pretextual pullovers for [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). “Pretext” is the arrest of a person for a minor crime (as a traffic violation) for the real purpose of getting an opportunity to investigate (as through a search) the person’s possible involvement in a more serious crime for which there are no lawful grounds to make an arrest. Pretextual stops are unlawful. Navigating a roundabout is confusing for inexperienced drivers. The four most common mistakes people make are (1) not yielding to traffic already in the roundabout, (2) not using their blinkers, (3) changing lanes in the roundabout, which is not allowed; and (4) treating the yield signs entering roundabouts as stop signs. Any one of these common mistakes can cause a police officer to initiate an unlawful pretextual pullover. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, DUI, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Make New Crack Law Retroactive](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/make-new-crack-law-retroactive/) **Published:** October 2, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** Good stuff. Very [informative article regarding Obama’s move to lighten up on federal crack cocaine laws](http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202472477377&Make_new_crack_law_retroactive&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1), Last month, President Obama signed landmark legislation title the [Fair Sentencing Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Sentencing_Act#:~:text=The%20Commission%20made%20the%20amendment,the%20passage%20of%20the%20bill.). The legislation broadly condemned laws passed in the late 1980s that punished crack cocaine offenses much more harshly than crimes ­involving powder cocaine. The new law raises the minimum amount of crack required to trigger a five-year mandatory minimum sentence from 5 to 28 grams, and the amount of crack required to generate a 10-year mandatory minimum from 50 to 280 grams. Although far from perfect — the new law still maintains an excessive distinction between crack and powder cocaine — the changes could, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, affect as many as 3,000 defendants each year, reducing the average prison term for crack offenses by more than two years. The article’s authors also argue Congress should finish the job by making the new scheme retroactive — a move that would permit thousands of men and women who were sentenced long ago for crimes involving crack to benefit from lawmakers’ new and enlightened perspectives about punishment for those types of offenses. My opinion? I totally agree with the article’s authors. The so-called harmful effects of crack cocaine was largely demonized as the exact reason why the “War on Drugs” became so popular. And here we are, 2-3 decades later, with overcrowded jails and the “harmful effects of crack cocaine” proven largely untrue. Yet the war rages on, stupidly. Congress needs to abandon the archaic drug laws relating to crack cocaine. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Drug Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Drug Offenses, felony, law enforcement, Legislation, police, Race & Law **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Doughty: WA Supremes Limit Scope of Terry Stops](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-doughty-wa-supremes-limit-scope-of-terry-stops/) **Published:** October 5, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Doughty*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=828521MAJ), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that a person’s two-minute visit to a suspected drug house at 3:20 in the morning is insufficient grounds for an investigative seizure. Late one night, defendant Walter Moses Doughty approached a suspected drug house, stayed for two minutes, then drove away. A police officer who observed Doughty’s approach and departure stopped Doughty on suspicion of drug activity. This is typically called a [*Terry* stop under *Terry v. Ohio*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/terry_stop/stop_and_frisk). During this investigative seizure the officer ran a records check and, based on the results, arrested Doughty for driving with a suspended license. Police found methamphetamine during a vehicle search incident to arrest. At trial, he was convicted of [Possession of Methamphetamine](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). The Court of Appeals confirmed the conviction. The case ended up with the WA Supremes. Some explanation of a [*Terry* stop](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/terry_stop/stop_and_frisk) is necessary. In justifying the particular intrusion/investigation, the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. When reviewing the merits of an investigatory stop, a court must evaluate the totality of circumstances presented to the investigating officer. The State must show by clear and convincing evidence that the stop was justified. Under this analysis, the WA Supremes reasoned that a person’s presence in a high-crime area at a “late hour” does not, by itself, give rise to a reasonable suspicion to detain that person. Similarly, a person’s “mere proximity to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not justify the stop.” Although the State argued the circumstances warranted the search, the court reasoned that Police may not seize a person who visits a location — even a suspected drug house — merely because the person was there at 3:20 a.m. for only two minutes. “The *Terry*-stop threshold was created to stop police from this very brand of interference with people’s everyday lives.” Additionally, the United States Supreme Court embraced the *Terry* rule to stop police from acting on mere hunches. Finally, the Court reasoned that Officer Bishop relied only on his own incomplete observations. There was no informant’s tip and no furtive movement. Bishop merely saw Doughty approach and leave a suspected drug house at 3:20 a.m. Bishop had no idea what, if anything, Doughty did at the house. Accordingly, these circumstances does not warrant intrusion into Doughty’s private affairs. The WA Supremes reversed the Court of Appeals, suppress the evidence against Doughty, and vacated his conviction. My opinion? GREAT decision. It’s always nice when our esteemed judges follow the law in undramatic fashion. Clearly, the stop was unlawful and the evidence should have been suppressed by the trial court and court of Appeals. 🙂 Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, felony, Jail, Jury Trial, law enforcement, Methamphetamine, misdemeanor, police, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [City of Aberdeen v. Regan: When Unfound Accusations Violate Probation](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/city-of-aberdeen-v-regan-when-mere-accusations-go-too-far/) **Published:** October 10, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*City of Aberdeen v. Regan*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=824762MAJ), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that a defendant’s probation conditioned on having “no criminal violations of law or alcohol related infractions,” was properly revoked after the defendant was accused, *but found not guilty*, of fourth degree assault and criminal trespass. In this case, Regan was convicted of [fourth degree assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) in Aberdeen Municipal Court and sentenced to 365 days in jail. The court suspended 360 days of Regan’s sentence, issued 5 days jail, and placed him on probation for 24 months. The court conditioned Regan’s probation on his having “no criminal violations of law or alcohol related infractions.” However, while on probation, Regan was charged with fourth degree assault and [criminal trespass](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/criminal-trespass/). Regan was acquitted at a trial. However, the city moved to revoke the suspension of his sentence asserting that he violated the condition of his probation. Regan argued that the municipal court was collaterally estopped from finding he violated his probation condition in light of the not guilty verdict at trial. The municipal court disagreed and issued 5 days of jail based on the criminal trespass charge. Although the Superior Court found in Regan’s favor, the Court of Appeals reversed. Some background is necessary. Under WA law, in order to revoke probation, the judge need only be “reasonably satisfied” that the defendant committed the assault and/or the criminal trespass. The defendant is not entitled to make the City/State prove allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, the WA Supremes reasoned that acquittal on criminal charges stops does not stop (or, more specifically, collaterally estop) a court from revoking parole for the same conduct. The Court looked at the plain language of Regan’s probation conditions and flatly decided the conditions prohibited him from engaging in conduct that is proscribed by the criminal law. “*In no way do the definitions of “violate” or “violation” imply a proof or procedural requirement.”* Therefore, when a court conditions the suspension of a sentence on a probationer not violating the law, the context does not imply that a conviction is required. My opinion? It’s really disturbing when judges revoke a defendant’s probation when s/he obtains criminal charges that haven’t been proven guilty in a court of law. I’ve never understood that. It’s a major flaw of the criminal justice system. It seems more fair that someone who has invested the time and expense of fulfilling their probation requirements – meeting with probation officers, obtaining evaluations, making court payments, obtaining treatment, etc. – falls in danger of getting kicked off probation if police and/or prosecutors file B.S. charges that have not been proven in a court of law under the reasonable doubt standard. Despite WA law, I believe that criminal charges must be proven in order to revoke a defendant’s probation. The status quo simply gives the police and prosecutors too much power. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Assault, Jury Trial, misdemeanor, Probation, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Child Witness Competency](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-sjw-child-witnesses-competency/) **Published:** October 10, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. S.J.W.*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=831777MAJ), the WA Supreme Court held that a party challenging the competency of a child witness must show that the child is of unsound mind, intoxicated at the time of his production for examination, incapable of receiving just impressions of the facts, or incapable of relating facts truly. S.J.W., a minor, was charged with a [sex offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/) against a 14-year-old W.M., a developmentally delayed boy. The State wanted W.M. to testify against S.J.W., and S.J.W. challenged W.M.’s competency to testify. At the competency hearing, the trial judge concluded S.J.W. failed to meet his burden to establish that W.M. was not competent to testify. The trial judge permitted W.M. to testify at the bench trial, and S.J.W. was convicted. S.J.W. appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed S.J.W.’s conviction but held that the party offering a child witness bears the burden to show the witness is competent to testify. The Court of Appeals concluded that, although the trial judge erroneously placed that burden on S.J.W., this error was harmless. The State challenges this holding, arguing that the trial judge properly placed the burden on S.J.W. The WA Supremes agreed. The WA Supremes reasoned that until 1986, former RCW 5.60.050 provided that all persons of suitable age could be witnesses except those of unsound mind, those who were intoxicated at the time of examination, and children under 10 who appeared incapable of receiving just impressions of the facts or of relating them truly. *State v. Allen*, however, changed the notion. The court in *Allen* concluded that the true test of the competency of a “young child” of “tender years” consists of (1) an understanding of the obligation to tell the truth, (2) the mental capacity at the time of the occurrence concerning the testimony, (3) sufficient memory to retain an independent recollection of the occurrence, (4) the capacity to express in words her memory of the occurrence, and (5) the capacity to understand simple questions about the occurrence. In other words, all persons, regardless of age, are now subject to this rule because there is no longer any requirement that a witness be of suitable age or any suggestion that children under 10 may not be suitable witnesses. A child’s competency is now determined by the trial judge within the framework of RCW 5.60.050, while the *Allen* factors serve to inform the judge’s determination. My opinion? I prefer having the 10-year old “cutoff age” when it comes to child testimony. All to often, children are coached by biased adults. I’ve conducted enough jury trials to know that children usually repeat whatever the trusted adult wants them to say. Unfortunately, this court decision places an extra burden on attorneys – defense attorneys, undoubtedly – to show the respective child witness is incompetent to testify. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Child Competence, Constitutional Rights, felony, Jury Trial, Pretrial Investigations, Rape, Sex Crimes, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Prosecutorial Misconduct Is Rarely Punished, Says New Study](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/prosecutorial-misconduct-is-rarely-punished-says-new-study/) **Published:** October 11, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** Interesting. According to a recent report, only a tiny percentage of prosecutors who engaged in misconduct were disciplined by the State Bar of California during a 12-year period. The report, issued by the [Northern California Innocence Project at Santa Clara University School of Law](http://law.scu.edu/ncip/), found 707 cases between 1997 and 2009 in which courts explicitly determined that prosecutors had committed misconduct. It examined more than 4,000 cases. Among the 707 cases, only six prosecutors — 0.8% — were disciplined by the State Bar of California. Only 10 of the 4,741 disciplinary actions by the state bar during the same period involved prosecutors. “Preventable Error: A Report on Prosecutorial Misconduct 1997-2009,” issued by the Innocence Project’s Northern California chapter, was written by Ridolfi and Maurice Possley, a visiting research fellow at the project. Possley won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting at the Chicago Tribune. Ridolfi is a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law. The report included recommendations for reform. It called for district attorneys to adopt internal policies that do not tolerate misconduct. It also called for the state bar to increase disciplinary transparency. My opinion? The study supports what most defense attorneys already know. I’ve worked cases where [prosecutorial misconduct was clear and obvious](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/prosecutorial-misconduct-the-rules/). However, after bringing the misconduct to the attention of judges on pretrial motions, I’ve found my concerns routinely overlooked, tolerated, condoned and/or minimized. Sanctions are rarely given and the matter is swept under the rug. One could argue that elected prosecutors have a level of political influence with the judges hearing criminal cases. Very often, judges are former prosecutors. Prosecutors also exhibit a “halo effect” among voters which defense counsel does not have. Although I don’t fully support those arguments (well, maybe just a little), I fully believe that judges simply want to evade mudslinging contests between prosecutors and defense attorneys altogether. Judges tend to allow the governing Bar Association sort these matters out. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Prosecutorial Misconduct **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Garcia-Salgado: DNA Swab is Unlawful if State Lacks Warrant Supported By Probable Cause](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-garcia-salgado-dna-swab-is-unlawful-if-state-lacks-warrant-supported-by-probable-cause/) **Published:** November 1, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Garcia*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=831564MAJ), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that collecting a DNA swab from a defendant was unlawful search because it was made without a warrant and without probable cause based on oath or affirmation. Petitioner Alejandro Garcia-Salgado was convicted of a [Sex Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/) in King County Superior Court after the results of his D.N.A. test linked him to the victim, and were were admitted into evidence during his trial. He appealed his conviction, saying that the State lacked probable cause to test his D.N.A. and that conducting the test without his consent pursuant to a court order violated his constitutional rights. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed Garcia-Salgado’s conviction, holding that sufficient evidence existed in the record to establish probable cause for a test of Garcia-Salgado’s D.N.A. Garcia-Salgado appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington. The WA Supreme Court reasoned that a cheek swab for DNA is indeed a search that intrudes into the body. A search that intrudes into the body may be made pursuant to an order entered under CrR 4.7(b)(2)(vi) if (1) the order is supported by probable case based on oath or affirmation, (2) is entered by a neutral and detached magistrate, (3) describes the place to be searched and the thing to be seized, and (4) if there is a clear indication that the desired evidence will be found, the test is reasonable, and the test is performed in a reasonable manner. Here, the WA Supremes decided the trial court errored in procuring the DNA swab because the State lacked a warrant supported by probable cause. “Consequently, this court cannot say that there was probable cause to search Garcia-Salgado’s DNA. We reverse the Court of Appeals and remand.” My opinion? Heinous as the crime was, the WA Supremes decided correctly. Defendants have rights, plain and simple. The criminal justice system must conduct investigations in accordance with these rights. If the process is short-cutted or made sloppy, then convictions cannot stand. Here, the State failed to get a warrant for the DNA swab. Consequently, they should not be allowed to present the DNA evidence at trial. Good opinion. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, DNA, felony, Jail, Privacy, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Werner: Who Let The Dogs Out?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-werner-who-let-the-dogs-out/) **Published:** November 14, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Werner*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=843881MAJ), the WA Supreme Court held that a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense in the prosecution for first degree assault after accidentally discharging a firearm when confronted by a neighbor’s pack of dangerous dogs. “Victim” Daniel Barnes moved to the property next door to to defendant Gary Werner. Almost immediately, Werner and Barnes began an ongoing property dispute concerning a shared easement. Barnes kept seven dogs on Barnes’s property, including a Rottweiler and pit bulls. At least three times before the incident giving rise to criminal charges, the dogs came onto Werner’s property and acted menacingly, barking and circling Werner. Werner started carrying a handgun with him on the property because he was afraid of the dogs. The property dispute intensified. On the day of the incident, Werner was on his property in the easement area when one of Barnes’s pit bulls approached him, baring its teeth. Werner noticed six other dogs with the pit bull, including the Rottweiler and other pit bulls. The dogs started circling Werner. He pulled out his pistol, thinking he could scare the dogs, and started yelling for Barnes to call off the dogs. Werner panicked and called 911 on his cell phone, but due to his arthritis, the gun went off, discharging into the ground. The police were contacted. The State charged Werner with [Assault First Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) and [Malicious Harassment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/harassment/). The jury acquitted him of the Malicious Harassment charge but found him guilty of Assault First Degree. He appealed. The case ended up before the WA Supremes. The Court reviewed the law on [self-defense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/self-defense/). “To prove self-defense, there must be evidence that (1) the defendant subjectively feared that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm; (2) this belief was objectively reasonable; \[and\] (3) the defendant exercised no greater force than was reasonably necessary.” Callahan, 87 Wn. App. at 929 (citation omitted). The Court reasoned that here, Werner stated that he was afraid. That fear was arguably reasonable, given that he was facing seven snarling dogs, including several pit bulls and a Rottweiler. Pursuant to *State v. Hoeldt*, 139 Wn. App. 225, 160 P.3d 55 (2007), a pit bull can be a deadly weapon under RCW 9A.04.110(6). There is evidence that Barnes’s friend refused requests to call off the dogs. By that conduct, Werner could reasonably have believed that Barnes’s friend personally posed a threat through the agency of a formidable group of canines that were under his control. As to the firing of the weapon, the WA Supremes believed Werner’s accounting that it was an accident. They found sufficient evidence of both accident and self-defense to warrant instructing the jury on self-defense. “Since the outcome turns on which version of events the jury believed, the failure to give a self-defense instruction prejudiced Werner.” Accordingly, the WA Supremes reversed Werner’s conviction. My opinion? Good decision. A pack of wild dogs surrounding and growling at you definitely warrants self-defense. That’s a no-brainer! The “victim” is lucky none of his dogs were killed. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** 911 Call, Animal Abuse, Assault, Constitutional Rights, felony, Firearm, Jury Trial, Self-Defense, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Bellingham Council Decides To Adopt Cameras Without a Public Hearing](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/bellingham-council-decides-to-adopt-cameras-without-a-public-hearing/) **Published:** November 14, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** City Council members have decided [they want to install red-light and speed-zone cameras, and they won’t hold a public hearing before voting on them](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2010/11/12/1718798/bellingham-council-to-decide-traffic.html#ixzz15O1qE9QV). The decision reverses the council’s 6-0 vote on Sept. 27 to hold a hearing on the topic. The council decided there was no point in going through the “charade” of a public hearing if it was set on approving it anyway, he said. The council’s No. 1 goal is public safety, and members have already heard from the police department, which wants the cameras. A crash recently killed a little girl near a school, and the city has had other crashes in school zones, Knutson said. Red-light running has long been a problem here, he said. “We have not heard a lot about this issue from our citizens,” he said. “We’ve been getting bombarded by Tim Eyman and his crew.” Political personality Tim Eyman is an anti-tax activist who also fights agsint red-light cameras. He blasted the city’s decision to skip a public hearing. “That is so sleazy,” Eyman said. “And they wonder why people distrust government. My gosh. They wonder why our initiatives are so popular. This is just socialistic. This is authoritarian, dictator-type of decision making that doesn’t even give the imaginary illusions of public input,” Eyman said. “You’ve got to admire the audacity of it, it’s just ‘Who cares what the citizens think?'” My opinion? I actually agree with Eyman. True, there is no “on-point” legal precedent stating a public hearing is legally required for decisions like this. However, when a city council has made up its mind, it will usually hold a hearing to at least give the impression it’s being open-minded. There are deeper reasons for the lack of public hearing. First, the recent death of the young girl who was struck by a car near Bellingham High School probably prompted a greater public outcry FOR traffic cameras than AGAINST cameras. Second, the City sees these cameras generating revenue for City coffers. Being a staunch supporter of due process, I nevertheless believe the City Council should have adopted a hearing on the subject. Trust me, Government fails when it skips steps and avoids processes. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Red Light Cameras, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Hirschfelder: Sexual Relations Between a Student and a School Employee](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-hirschfelder-sexual-relations-between-a-student-and-a-school-employee/) **Published:** November 21, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Hirschfelder*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=827443MAJ), the WA Supreme Court held that the term “minor” includes students between the ages of 18 and 21, rather than just those under 18. Here, defendant Mr. Hirschfelder was employed as a choir teacher at a High School. He had sexual intercourse in his office with a member of the high school choir, A.N.T., several days prior to her graduation in 2006. At the time, Hirschfelder was 33 and A.N.T. was 18. Hirschfelder was charged with [sexual misconduct with a minor in the first degree under former RCW 9A.44.093(1)(b)](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.093#:~:text=(1)%20A%20person%20is%20guilty,married%20to%20the%20perpetrator%2C%20if). That statute provided in relevant part: A person is guilty of sexual misconduct with a minor in the first degree when: . . . the person is a school employee who has, or knowingly causes another person under the age of eighteen to have, sexual intercourse with a registered student of the school who is at least sixteen years old and not married to the employee, if the employee is at least sixty months older than the student. The case made its way to the WA Supremes. They reasoned the statute was not ambiguous in its meaning. They also stated that several sexual misconduct laws focus on the special relationship between a perpetrator and a victim, even where the victim is over 18 or even 21. > “For example, we criminalize sex with vulnerable adults or adults over whom the perpetrator has supervisory authority, RCW 9A.44.050, and sex between employees of custodial institutions and those in custody. RCW 9A.44.160. That the legislature saw fit to criminalize sex between school employees and high school students — even those who reach the age of majority while registered as students — is a policy choice that recognizes the special position of trust and authority teachers hold over their students.” ~WA Supreme Court Justice Johnson, is his dissenting opinion, stated the statute “should not criminalize conduct between two consenting adults where the legislature has expressly provided otherwise.” He also stated the former statute did not criminalize sexual intercourse between a school employee and an 18-year-old adult student. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Rape, Sex Crimes, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [The Sentencing Project Releases New Publication on Prison Deterrence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/the-sentencing-project-releases-new-publication-on-prison-deterrence/) **Published:** November 22, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** Good reading! The [Sentencing Project’s](https://www.sentencingproject.org/) report addresses a key concern for policy makers regarding whether deterrence is better achieved by increasing the (1) likelihood of apprehension, or (2) severity of sanctions. The report, titled [**Deterrence in Criminal Justice: Evaluating certainty vs. the Severity of Criminal Punishment**](http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/Deterrence%20Briefing%20.pdf) is written is written by Valerie Wright, PhD. Overall, the report concludes that: • Enhancing the certainty of punishment is far more likely to produce deterrent effects than increasing the severity of punishment. • There is no significant public safety benefit to increasing the severity of sentences by imposing longer prison terms, particularly at high levels of incarceration. • Policies such as “three strikes and you’re out” and mandatory minimum sentences only burden state budgets without increasing public safety. • Evidence-based approaches would require increasing the certainty of punishment by improving the likelihood of detection. My opinion? The report seems accurate. I’ve blogged numerous times on this topic, particularly the need for the criminal justice system to seek rehabilitation instead of incarceration for many crimes, especially [drug offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). At a time when fiscal concerns have propelled policymakers to consider means of controlling corrections budgets, the findings on deterrence suggest that a focus on examining harsh sentencing practices is long overdue. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Jail, Race & Law, Three Strikes Law, Uncategorized **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [It’s a Bad Time For Job Seekers With Criminal Records](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/its-a-bad-time-for-job-seekers-with-criminal-records/) **Published:** December 1, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** The L.A. Times reported on the[ employment challenges faced by people coming out of prison](http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-felon-jobs-20101130,0,1666991.story). “As difficult as the recession has been on people, it’s twice as difficult for people with a felony to make it in this economy.” The information is sobering. As prisons are forced to reduce their inmate populations because of overcrowding and budget shortages, some economists fear that could lead many of them back to a life of crime. Also, experts say **two trends** have dimmed employment prospects even more. One is a severe contraction in industries such as manufacturing and construction that have traditionally been more open to hiring people with checkered pasts. The other is a rise in the number of former inmates looking for work, as state prisons and county jails try to reduce their inmate populations to save money. My opinion? Clients hire me for many reasons: to defend their rights, fight unwarranted criminal charges, and/or reach resolutions which dismiss/reduce criminal charges, and **save their career** from present or future calamities caused by the criminal charges levelled against them**.** Criminal history, and especially FELONY history, is extremely harmful to my clients’ present and future job prospects. Keep this in mind when seeking private counsel. Do you trust them to humanize you? Will they save your job/career? Discuss the different strategies your potential attorney will implement in working your case. In today’s tough job market, your livelihood depends on it. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Bellingham's New Noise Ordinance: A Step In the Right Direction](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/bellinghams-new-noise-ordinance/) **Published:** December 5, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** On December 6, at 7:00 p.m., Bellingham City Council members will vote on the creation of [entertainment districts designed to simultaneously protect musicians/venues from noise complaints and downtown residents from excessive noise](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2010/12/05/1753023/bellingham-noise-ordinance-for.html#ixzz17MnCExvQ). Under the ordinance, the council would officially create entertainment districts downtown and in Fairhaven. It also would make a basic declaration recognizing that music venues “add to the vibrancy and economic vitality” of the city. Then it directs police, in considering noise complaints, to assess the issue using various criteria like (1) time of day the complaint occurs; (2) duration and volume of sound; (3) the nature of the sound; and (4) the character of the business or industry from where the sound originates. Members of the Bellingham Downtown Alliance for Music and Nightlife said the law contains some “very promising elements” and that it was exciting the council would be making an official declaration about the importance of music and nightlife to the city. The group also wants the city to require landlords to disclose to potential tenants in the entertainment districts that they’d be living in an area with higher volumes of noise at later hours. My opinion? I live downtown. There are three noisy nightclubs/bars in my neighborhood. They attract a noisy crowd, especially on the weekends. However, I moved into this area knowing the noise existed. Indeed, I welcomed it (if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em; if you can’t take the heat then get out of the kitchen, yadda yadda . . .). The police and the City have cowed to the complaints of local citizens and businesses who can’t handle urban noise. Indeed, mere months ago, Plan B Lounge closed down due to the excessive complaints of one neighbor (1!) who lived above the lounge and stated he couldn’t sleep because of the noise. The City found in his favor and determined that Plan B must install soundproofing, and/or decrease the music. The owners chose to leave. Another local business bit the dust. What a loss! Throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I’m in favor of the ordinance. Police must now apply specific criteria in determining whether the noise ordinance is violated. They can no longer make arbitrary and capricious decisions (it’s more difficult, anyway). Good. Let’s make standards and apply them fairly. Otherwise, musicians and venues will continue face Disorderly Conduct charges for merely expressing themselves. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, law enforcement, Legislation, police, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [In re. Personal Restraint of Swenson](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/in-re-personal-restraint-of-steven-d-swensen/) **Published:** December 27, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** Interesting case. In *[In re. Personal Restraint of Swenson](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=635654MAJ)*, WA Court of Appeals decided a judge should disqualify themselves from sentencing a defendant’s case if the judge’s impartiality might be reasonably questioned, but absent evidence of actual or potential bias, an appearance of fairness claim is without merit. Mr. Swenson was sentenced for several [sex offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/) by a judge who prosecuted him 20 years earlier on an unrelated juvenile case. Swenson did not ask the judge to recuse herself at the sentencing hearing on the sex offenses. Nothing in the record indicated the judge remembered Swenson. The judge imposed the agreed recommended sentence. Swenson did not appeal the conviction, but he later filed a [Personal Restraint Petition](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=app&set=rap&ruleid=apprap16.04) asking for a new sentencing hearing. he cited the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine and the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Court of Appeals reasoned that a judge should be disqualified if their impartiality is called into question. However, in this case there is no showing of actual or potential bias. The mere fact that a judge prosecuted a defendant in the past does not disqualify the judge from hearing the case today. Moreover, the Court argued there is no basis to reasonably question whether Swenson received a fair, impartial, and neutral hearing. The record shows the judge followed the parties’ agreed sentencing recommendation and the sentencing hearing was fair and impartial. And nothing in the record indicates that the sentencing judge was aware of her involvement as a prosecutor 20 years earlier in an unrelated juvenile case against Swenson. My opinion? Seems fair. In practice, judges typically recuse themselves upon realizing they defended or prosecuted the defendant months/years ago. However, if the judge can’t remember, and has not been reminded by the defendant of their previous involvement, then the judge has no duty to recuse themselves. And as far as disqualifying a judge is concerned, there must be some showing that the judge was biased for or against the defendant. It’s common sense. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Jury Trial, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Representing Veterans](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/representing-veterans/) **Published:** December 29, 2010 **Author:** admin **Content:** Good news. The [Louisiana Public Defender Board](https://lpdb.la.gov/index/index.php), in collaboration with the Louisiana Department of veterans Affairs, has [developed a guide for public defense attorneys who represent veterans](http://www.defensenet.org/news/Resource%20for%20PDs%20representing%20Veteran%20clients%20-%20LPDB%20Nov%202010.pdf). The guide provides information on substance abuse services, PTSD treatment, VA recovery services in mental health, transitional work experience (TWE) and Supported Employment (SE) and Depression Treatment. My opinion? The guide is a great tool that could fairly easily be replicated in every state in the country. Although it’s written for public defenders, the guide also helps private defense attorneys identify the resources available to assist their veteran clients. I’m honored to represent veterans against criminal charges. In my experience, their crimes can be traced back to an underlying PTSD issue from serving in the war. They deserve the highest level of legal representation, and should be treated with dignity from the judges and prosecutors. Our veterans fought for our country. Attorneys representing veterans MUST KNOW their veteran clients may lose pension benefits if they plead to any convictions garnering 60 or more days of incarceration. For more information, please click “Section A: General Information on Payment of Benefits After Incarceration after clicking the link below: [http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/va\_search.jsp?SQ=&TT=1&QT=incarceration](http://) To the veterans, I salute you. 🙂 Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Mass Incarceration In America](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/mass-incarceration-in-america/) **Published:** January 5, 2011 **Author:** admin **Content:** The [American Prospect](https://prospect.org/) magazine has just published the report, [“Mass Incarceration in America”](http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/americanprospect/20110102specialreport/#/4): The issue includes essays from journalists and criminal justice experts who review the policies that have contributed to the nation’s high rate of incarceration and the subsequent impact on youth and low-income communities of color in particular. It also details promising initiatives that seek to change incarceration trends and aid at-risk populations with social services support in order to prevent crime. Kara Gotsch, Director of Advocacy for The Sentencing Project, contributed to the special report. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Jail, Race & Law, Uncategorized **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [The Inquest: A Step Toward Justice or Just a Step?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/the-inquest-a-step-toward-justice-or-just-a-step/) **Published:** January 8, 2011 **Author:** admin **Content:** EXCELLENT [article ](http://aclu-wa.org/blog/inquest-step-toward-justice-or-just-step)from [Jennifer Shaw of the ACLU](https://www.aclu-wa.org/node/10025) discusses the King County inquest process. Her recent posting to the ACLU blog discusses the King County inquest process. There is a lot of confusion about inquests: what are they, who can participate, what findings can the jury make? This short article addresses some of those questions. Shaw approaches the subject by discussing how King County District Court will hold an inquest into the August 30, 2010, fatal shooting of First Nations carver John T. Williams by Seattle Police Officer Ian Birk. She discusses how inquests are just one step in the complicated process that begins when a Seattle police officer fatally shoots someone. “While each step can add some information to the picture, the process is cumbersome and not necessarily satisfying to the public,” says Shaw. The first step after a fatal shooting is the criminal investigation. The next step is to present the case to the Firearms Review Board. The Board reviews the shooting to determine whether it was “justified.” A shooting is considered “justified” if the officer followed the department’s policies and training when he used his weapon. “That doesn’t mean the officer will be found guilty,” says Shaw. “The board’s decision only means that the officer didn’t follow SPD policies or training. Period. It doesn’t declare that the officer committed a crime or would be found civilly liable or could even be fired.” The next step is the inquest. An inquest looks a lot like other trials, with a judge, a jury, lawyers, witnesses, court reporter, and observers. But it is not. After hearing evidence about “when, where and by what means” the person died, and listening to follow-up questions from both sides, the six-person jury simply answers a series of yes-and-no questions. The jurors will not hear evidence about the officer’s training or whether he had alternatives to firing his gun. The attorneys cannot argue their opinions of the evidence to the jury. They cannot ask the jury to find the officer guilty or not guilty. The jury is not permitted to answer whether any person or agency is civilly or criminally liable. Shaw says the inquest process offers the public an interesting early view of the evidence, but the value of process is limited. The jury cannot determine whether the officer acted reasonably or whether he had alternatives to using his weapon. The jury cannot determine whether the department’s policies or the officer’s training was flawed. Because of these limitations, the inquest process has been frequently criticized by surviving families and advocates, including the ACLU. After the criminal investigation is complete, the Seattle Police Department’s Office of Professional Accountability will investigate the shooting to determine whether the officer violated department policies and may recommend discipline. The OPA and the OPA Auditor may also recommend policy and training changes. “Let’s hope that along the way justice is finally served and that significant changes are put in place so that an incident like this never happens again,” says Shaw. My opinion? I agree with Shaw’s concerns. The inquest process needs significant retooling. It violates the appearance of fairness to have a prosecutor – who shares a naturally symbiotic relationship with police officers – conduct an inquest. It’s unfair that an attorney cannot represent the family of the victim at these proceedings. It’s unfair that the jury cannot determine whether the officer acted reasonably or whether he had alternatives to using his weapon. It’s unfair that the jury cannot determine whether the department’s policies or the officer’s training was flawed. Clearly, the scope of the inquest must be broadened. Otherwise, it will continue to be a mere formality offering the mere appearance of justice. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** ACLU, Police Misconduct **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Patrol Car Video in Fatal Shooting of Woodcarver Released](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/patrol-car-video-in-fatal-shooting-of-woodcarver-released/) **Published:** January 8, 2011 **Author:** admin **Content:** [Patrol car video released](http://www.seattlepi.com/local/432014_williams18.html) from an officer’s fatal meeting with John T. Williams does not show the shooting, but includes audio of their interaction. Officer Ian Birk, 27, shot Williams Aug. 30 at Boren Avenue and Howell Street. Williams died at the scene. Birk yells “Hey!” three times to Williams, then yells three times to “Put the knife down.” The first shot appears to be fired five seconds from when Birk first told Williams to put the knife down. Court documents show the knife was closed when photographed by investigators. Less than a minute after the shooting, before backup officers arrive, Birk’s heard telling a woman Williams had a knife and wouldn’t drop it. He tells backup officers Williams had the knife open and was carving. Williams’ knife had a 3-inch blade — one that is legal under the Seattle Municipal Code. Hundreds of people protested the shooting in September. Critics have said Williams was deaf in one ear and was not presenting a threat to Birk. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Firearm, Homicide & Manslaughter, Uncategorized **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Red Light Cameras Arrive in Spring 2011](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/red-light-cameras-arrive-in-spring-2011/) **Published:** January 8, 2011 **Author:** admin **Content:** Here they come. Beginning April 1, motorists in [Bellingham can expect to see traffic cameras at six locations](http://www.whatcomwatch.org/php/WW_open.php?id=1248) that have been pinpointed as areas with high instances of speeding in school zones or vehicles running red lights. The first 30 days is an amnesty period where violators will receive warning tickets. When the City Council voted on the camera ordinance on Nov. 23, Councilman Seth Fleetwood was the lone opposer saying it was a “tough decision.” Ultimately, Fleetwood voted against it saying, “Do we want to live in a place with cameras?” Fleetwood also disagreed with the City Council’s decision to cancel a public hearing on the subject. The City Council never rescheduled the meeting. He called the cancellation “A bad move.” Based on traffic studies in conjunction with the Bellingham Public Works Department, the Police Department came up with four locations for traffic cameras to detect red-light running: westbound on Holly Street at N. Forest Street; northbound on Ellis Street at Lakeway Drive; northbound on Meridian Street and Telegraph Road; and southbound on Samish Way at 36th Street, near Sehome Village. Here’s how they work: when a vehicle runs a red light or is detected speeding at one of the intersections, the video equipment is triggered capturing about 12 seconds of footage including the vehicle’s license plate. State law stipulates that the camera may take pictures only from the rear of the vehicle and never the faces of the driver or passengers. Electronic images may not be used for any other purpose and must not be retained longer than necessary to enforce the violation. The cameras are always in operation but capturing footage only when they are triggered by a vehicle in violation. Images and video are reviewed by ATS and then a Bellingham Police officer trained on the equipment affirms each violation. If you receive a notice, you can make the payment to ATS or appeal. If you were not the driver of the vehicle, you can contest it in writing. A ticket generated by the traffic cameras is processed as a “civil infraction” similar to a parking ticket. This is different from a notice of infraction, which occurs when a police officer pulls over a driver accused of running a red light or speeding in a school zone. The notice of infraction is reported to the driver’s auto insurance; the civil infraction is not. Studies conducted by ATS and other private companies show that camera installation creates safer streets. However, independent studies and those done by news organizations have shown an increase in accidents at intersections where cameras have been installed. Meantime, at least seven states have banned red-light cameras, including Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, West Virginia and Wisconsin, according to Anne Teigen, a transportation specialist at the National Conference of State Legislatures. My opinion? Bad idea. I’ll tell you a secret: yellow lights are timed MUCH shorter at intersections with traffic cameras. Quite literally, you must be already driving through the intersection when the light turns yellow. Otherwise, you’ll be caught, pictured, and ticketed. These traffic lights are not proven to decrease bad driving behavior. They are, however, proven to increase revenue for municipalities. THAT’S what this is about. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, law enforcement, police, Police Misconduct, Red Light Cameras **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Latest DUI Emphasis Patrol Nets 151 Whatcom County Drivers](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/latest-dui-emphasis-patrol-nets-151-whatcom-county-drivers/) **Published:** January 9, 2011 **Author:** admin **Content:** The latest “Drive Hammered, Get Nailed” campaign put more officers on patrol during the holiday season and resulted in [151 Whatcom County drivers being arrested on suspicion of drunken driving](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/01/07/1805473/latest-dui-emphasis-patrol-nets.html). The campaign began Nov. 25 and ended Jan. 2. The Washington State Patrol, the Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office and the Bellingham, Ferndale and Western Washington University police departments participated. Statewide, more than 3,500 people were arrested for [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) during the campaign. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Blood Test, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Terry Stop, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Irby: Jury Selection Gone Wrong](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/847/) **Published:** February 6, 2011 **Author:** admin **Content:** Very interesting case. In [*State v. Irby*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=826650MAJ), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that a defendant’s right to be present during jury selection was violated when the trial judge emailed the attorneys and said he was inclined to release ten prospective jurors for hardship. The defendant, Terrance Irby, was charged with [first degree murder](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/). During jury selection, several members of the jury were disqualified by the judge and attorneys through email exchanges. The communications occurred without the defendant being present. Consequently, the Court of Appeals overturned Irby’s conviction. The WA Supremes reasoned, “In criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to appear and defend person, or by counsel” under the due process clause of 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article I, section 22 of the WA Constitution. Here, the State failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the removal of several potential jurors in Irby’s absence had no effect on the verdict. My opinion? Good decision. The rule is clear as day. Perhaps one of the jurors who was struck via email would have found Irby not guilty. We’ll never know. At any rate, Mr. Irby’s rights were clearly violated. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, felony, Homicide & Manslaughter, Jury Trial, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Schultz: Warrantless Search of Home](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-schultz-warrantless-search-of-home/) **Published:** February 6, 2011 **Author:** admin **Content:** Excellent opinion. In [*State v. Schulz*](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1373311.html), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that the [Exigent Circumstances](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exigent_circumstances) exception to the Search Warrant requirement was inapplicable when police unlawfully searched the Defendant’s home. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Officers received a 911 call about a couple was yelling inside their apartment. Officers drove to the scene. The woman, Ms. Schultz, consented to the officer’s request to enter the apartment. Officers found a marijuana pipe. Upon their find, they also conducted a more intrusive – and warrantless – search of the apartment. Methamphetamine was found. Ms. Schultz was charged with [Possession of Methamphetamine](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). **COURT’S REASONING AND CONCLUSIONS** The WA Supremes reasoned the test for an emergency aid exception (also called Exigent Circumstances) entry has been expanded to include the following elements: **(1)** The police officer subjectively believed that someone likely needed assistance for health or safety concerns; **(2)** a reasonable **person in the same situation would similarly believe that there was need for assistance; (3)** there was a reasonable basis to associate the need for assistance with the place being searched; **(4)** there is an imminent threat of substantial injury to persons or property; **(5)** state agents must believe a specific person or persons or property are in need of immediate help for health or safety reasons; and (6) the claimed emergency is not a mere pretext for an evidentiary search. They further reasoned that here, the mere acquiescence to an officer’s entry is not consent to search. It is also not an exception to our state’s constitutional protection of the privacy of the home. Finally, while the likelihood of domestic violence may be considered by courts when evaluating whether the requirements of the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement have been satisfied, the warrantless entry in this case was unnecessary. Officers merely heard raised voices from outside the home. The agitated and flustered woman who answered the door indicated that no one else was present in the home. No emergency existed. My opinion? Good decision. Granting a police officer’s request to enter the home is not, by itself, consent to search the home. Period. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** 911 Call, Constitutional Rights, Domestic Violence, Drug Offenses, Exigent Circumstances, felony, Knock & Talk, law enforcement, marijuana, Methamphetamine, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Grier: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-grier-ineffective-assistance-of-counsel/) **Published:** February 17, 2011 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Grier*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=834521MAJ), WA Supremes held that a defense attorney’s “all or nothing” approach, in which “lesser included” jury instructions were rejected, was a legitimate trial tactic and did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) under the state or federal constitutions. Trial courts are not required to provide lesser included instructions in the absence of a request for such instructions. Defendant Kristina Grier was charged with [Murder in the Second Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/) following a fight she had with the victim Gregory Owen. earlier, they were drinking with a group of people at Grier’s home. Owen was alleged to have stolen several items from Grier, during the course of the evening. Some of these items included three guns. Grier and her son confronted Owen. A fight broke out. Unfortunately, a gun went off, killing Owen. At trial, Grier’s defense attorney withdrew his earlier request for a jury instruction on the lesser offense of Assault. As a result, the jury was not instructed on those offenses. The jury convicted Grier of murder. The case went up for appeal on the issue of whether Grier’s defense attorney was ineffective. The Court of Appeals reversed Grier’s conviction. They believed Grier’s attorney was ineffective because he failed to request instructions on the lesser included offenses. For those unfamiliar with criminal law practice, a “lesser included” offense shares some, but not all, of the elements of a greater criminal offense. Therefore, the greater offense cannot be committed without also committing the lesser offense. For example, Manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder, assault is a lesser included offense of rape, and unlawful entry is a lesser included offense of Burglary. The WA Supremes ruled Grier’s attorney’s decision to withdraw the lesser included offense instructions did not prevent her from raising an ineffective assistance claim. The court also held that defense counsel’s “all or nothing” approach was a legitimate trial tactic and was not IAC. The court vacated the Court of Appeals decision. My opinion? Interesting decision. It’s difficult to play “Monday Morning Quarterback” and call a defense attorney’s trial tactics ineffective simply because the defendant lost at trial. What if the defense attorney wanted the jury instruction and Grier was convicted? Would she appeal the case anyway, and call her attorney ineffective because she was convicted on the lesser charge? Good decision, WA Supremes. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Burglary, Ineffective Assistance, Jury Trial, Uncategorized, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [DUI Emphasis Patrol Begin June 24](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/dui-emphasis-patrol-begin-june-24/) **Published:** June 22, 2011 **Author:** admin **Content:** Be careful . . . [Extra DUI patrols will be enforced throughout Whatcom County](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/06/22/2071389/dui-emphasis-patrols-begin-in.html) from June 24 to July 4. The patrols are part of an annual statewide emphasis on [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) enforcement. More than 20 percent of deaths related to drunk driving happen in June and July, according to the Washington Traffic Safety Commission, which is funding the increased patrols through a grant. During last year’s summer patrol emphasis, police arrested 91 motorists in Whatcom County for driving under the influence. Drunk driving is involved in about half of all deaths on state roads, according to the commission. In 2010, there were 229 deaths involving a driver under the influence of alcohol or drugs in Washington. That’s 17 percent below the previous five-year average. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Blood Test, Constitutional Rights, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, felony, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Washington State Patrol **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Sheriff's Office Patrolling the Waters](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/sheriffs-office-patrolling-the-waters/) **Published:** June 24, 2011 **Author:** admin **Content:** On land, sea and air . . . Boaters hitting the water for the first weekend of summer should have a designated captain, as the [Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office will be launching extra patrols on county waters](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/06/23/2073245/sheriffs-office-launches-extra.html) starting Friday, June 24. The patrols will look for people who are boating under the influence of drugs or alcohol through Sunday. The effort is part of a nationwide weekend of enforcement aimed at reducing the number of alcohol-related accidents on the water. As part of the extra patrols, deputies will be making contact with boaters, doing safety checks and performing enforcement. Regular enforcement patrols will take place throughout the 2011 boating season. My opinion? Watch your drinking! BUI (Boating Under the Influence) is the same as [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) (Driving Under the Influence) and carries similar penalties: jail, court fines, loss of license, alcohol evaluations, probation, etc. It’s tempting to drink out there in the open water, but BE SAFE. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Blood Test, Boating Under the Influence, Drug Offenses, DUI, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Washington State Patrol **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Holiday Season Brings Extra DUI Patrols](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/holiday-season-brings-extra-patrol-to-holiday-season/) **Published:** November 22, 2011 **Author:** admin **Content:** Revelers should keep an eye on their cocktail consumption, as [law enforcement will be putting extra time into finding drunk drivers this holiday season](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/11/21/2281026/holiday-season-brings-extra-dui.html), starting Thursday, Nov. 24. State Patrol troopers, police officers and sheriff’s deputies are conducting extra DUI patrols from Thanksgiving to Jan. 2, in an effort to reduce injuries and deaths caused by drunken driving. Officers in Whatcom County arrested 151 people for driving under the influence during the same period of increased patrols last year. The enforcement is part of Washington’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan to eliminate traffic fatalities by 2030. My advice? Take a taxi! Paying $10-$50 for a ride home is MUCH cheaper than $5K in attorney fees, fines, suspended license costs, evaluations, and treatment. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Blood Test, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, felony, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Washington State Patrol **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["New Approach" to Legalizing Marijuana](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/a-new-approach-to-legalizing-marijuana/) **Published:** June 24, 2011 **Author:** admin **Content:** Maybe this time it’ll stick . . . The group [New Approach Washington](https://www.idealist.org/en/nonprofit/d07b28f6d6ce4ec3aafb11695c166ef2-new-approach-washington-seattle) announced the filing of an initiative to the legislature to legalize and regulate the production and sale of marijuana. The initiative’s sponsors include Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes, former federal district attorney John McKay, and ACLU-WA’s Alison Holcomb, as well as experts in medicine, drug treatment and prevention, law and business. The initiative calls for Washington to treat marijuana essentially the way we currently treat hard alcohol – with clear distribution and use restrictions – and will earmark a portion of the state’s revenues for drug education and prevention programs. The group is united in the belief that Washington should neither treat the adult use of marijuana as a crime nor promote its unrestricted use. The ACLU of Washington is in full support of New Approach Washington. They argue our current marijuana laws are ineffective, unreasonable and unfairly enforced. The initiative addresses many issues at the heart of the ACLU’s work: racial justice, overreaching government, privacy, and over-incarceration. The ACLU-WA is providing strategic support to New Approach Washington, and, as an in-kind donation, our Drug Policy Director Alison Holcomb is serving as campaign director. Under the initiative, marijuana that is grown by licensed Washington facilities and sold through licensed stores will be made legal for people age 21 and over. Clear restrictions, age-limits, regulations and taxing are established – measures that will increase safety, undercut the black market and provide state and local tax revenue. In addition, the laws that allow authorized patients and providers to grow medical marijuana will continue in place. The initiative is the most comprehensive and carefully drawn of any marijuana legalization initiative. It is likely to become a national model for other state marijuana law reform, which is a prerequisite for change at the federal level. My opinion? The time has come for marijuana legalization. It is widely accepted that the War on Drugs has been an utter failure, and has caused far more harm than good. It is time for Washington to address this reality and to take a new approach. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** ACLU, Legislation, marijuana **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Mount Vernon and Burlington Sued for Allegedly Violating Constitutional Rights of Indigent Defendants](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/mount-vernon-and-burlington-sued-for-allegedly-violating-constitutional-rights-of-indigent-defendants/) **Published:** July 1, 2011 **Author:** admin **Content:** On June 10, [three inmates in Skagit County jail filed a class action lawsuit against the cities of Mount Vernon and Burlington](http://www.defensenet.org/news/Press%20Release%20for%20Class%20Action%20Against%20Mount%20Vernon%20and%20Burlington.pdf). Allegedly, the cities are systematically failing to provide assistance of counsel to low‐income persons who face criminal charges in municipal court. According to papers filed in Skagit County Superior Court, the plaintiffs are seeking an injunction that will stop the cities from violating the constitutional rights of low‐income individuals. They are not requesting monetary damages. Documents obtained from the cities show that Mount Vernon and Burlington jointly contract with two attorneys to provide all of the public defense services in those jurisdictions. In 2010, these two attorneys were responsible for handling more than 2,100 public defense misdemeanor cases. Under the Standards for Indigent Defense Services adopted by the Washington State Bar Association, *a full‐time public defender should not have more than 400 such cases per year.* The limit is even lower for attorneys working on a part-time basis. According to the plaintiffs, the attorneys who contract with Mount Vernon and Burlington spend no more than a third of their time on public defense work, which allows for a maximum of 267 misdemeanor cases per year between the two of them. The plaintiffs allege that excessive caseloads and inadequate monitoring by the cities have resulted in a public defense system that deprives indigent persons of their constitutional rights. Among other things, plaintiffs claim the attorneys do not investigate the charges filed against indigent persons, do not respond to communications from indigent persons, do not meet with indigent persons in advance of court, and do not stand with or represent indigent persons during court hearings. The plaintiffs cite numerous complaints with the cities of Mount Vernon and Burlington. In December 2008, for example, the Skagit County Office of Assigned Counsel emailed city officials to inform them that indigent persons in Mount Vernon and Burlington will “go to court, come to our office, and \[go\] again to court with no attorney there to represent them even though counsel has been appointed.” One low‐income person charged in Mount Vernon wrote: “I have not been fairly represented by either \[attorney\]. They have neglected to help my case at all. I would like a new public defender appointed to my cases please. Someone who will go over my case w/ me, discuss my options, meet w/ me before court, \[etc.\].” City officials have even received emails from Mount Vernon police officers who complain about the “difficulty” they have “contacting Public Defenders,” adding “we are not getting the service that is their obligation to perform.” Despite these complaints, Mount Vernon and Burlington recently agreed to extend their contract with the attorneys for an additional two years. Records obtained from Mount Vernon show the city council voted unanimously in favor of this extension. Toby Marshall, one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs, says: “When you are arrested and charged with a crime, the right to counsel is the most fundamental and important right that you have. This is true regardless of your economic status.” The plaintiffs claim that in Mount Vernon and Burlington, low income individuals who are charged with a crime are being appointed counsel in name only. Matt Zuchetto, another lead attorney in the case, says: “We intend to present extensive evidence that will show the public defense system in Mount Vernon and Burlington is broken. At the end of the day, our clients are simply asking for one thing: to fix the system.” My opinion? I’ve got to agree with attorneys Marshall and Zuchetto. The right to counsel is a civil right that is guaranteed by the constitutions of the United States and Washington. This is especially true for low income defendants, who tend to face more criminal charges anyway. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Increased DUI Patrols in Whatcom County](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/increased-dui-patrols-in-whatcom-county/) **Published:** December 16, 2011 **Author:** admin **Content:** Be careful. [Extra troopers, deputies and police officers will be on patrol this weekend](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/12/15/2313094/extra-dui-patrols-begin-friday.html) in Whatcom County and around the state in an effort to get impaired drivers off the roads. About 1,000 law officers will be on duty in Washington the nights of Friday, Dec. 16, and Saturday, Dec. 17, for the 21st annual “Night of 1,000 Stars.” The name refers to the badges worn by officers who will be watching for traffic violations, especially drunken driving, aggressive driving, speeding, and failure to wear a seatbelt. “Every single year that we go through this we arrest people who made a bad choice,” said Washington State Patrol Trooper Keith Leary. “We want people to take our message seriously.” A State Patrol airplane will also patrol Northwest Washington both nights. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Blood Test, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, felony, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Uncategorized, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Extra DUI Patrols Nab 1,600 Washington Drivers](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/extra-dui-patrols-nab-1600-washington-drivers/) **Published:** September 10, 2012 **Author:** admin **Content:** Police across Washington state arrested more than 1,600 people during a recent drunken-driving enforcement campaign. According to [statistics from the Washington Traffic Safety Commission](http://is.gd/v7OCx4), 1,603 drivers got busted during this summer’s “Drive Hammered, Get Nailed” anti-[DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) campaign, which ran from Aug. 17 to Sept. 3. A grant from the Traffic Safety Commission paid for the extra patrols. The commission says August is typically one of the deadliest months on Washington’s roads. My opinion? Obviously, it’s important to know your Constitutional rights – and respectfully exercise them – during a DUI investigation. Being stopped for DUI brings many legal issues to the forefront which a competent attorney can address. Hopefully, your attorney can suppress the evidence and/or get the DUI charges reduced/dismissed. Was the stop legal? Was there enough evidence to establish probable cause to arrest? Were you informed of the implied consent warnings? Were you advised of your right to an attorney? Did you provide a portable breath test reading? Did you perform field sobriety tests? Did you refuse the Blood Alcohol test at the jail? If not, was your test result above .08? Is there an administrative action from the Department of Licensing to suspend or revoke your driver’s license? These questions, and a host of others, affect how an attorney represents you case. Although it’s best to avoid a DUI in the first place, it’s equally important to hire competent counsel if you’re charged with DUI. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Blood Test, Constitutional Rights, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Uncategorized, Washington State Patrol **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [How Washington's New Marijuana Law Affects DUI Investigations?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/washingtons-new-marijuana-law-how-it-affects-dui-investigations/) **Published:** November 15, 2012 **Author:** admin **Content:** So it passed. Pot, at least certain amounts of it, will soon be legal under state laws in Washington. So it begs the question – how will law enforcement investigate [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) charges where the suspect appears under the influence of marijuana? First, Washington’s law does change DUI provisions by setting a new blood-test limit for marijuana – a limit police are training to enforce. Know this: they’re proactively going to arrest drivers who drive impaired, whether it be drugs or alcohol. Drugged driving is illegal, and nothing in the measures that Washington voters passed this month to tax and regulate the sale of pot for recreational use by adults over 21 changes that. Statistics gathered for the [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration](https://www.nhtsa.gov/) showed that in 2009, a third of fatally injured drivers with known drug test results were positive for drugs other than alcohol. Among randomly stopped weekend nighttime drivers in 2007, more than 16 percent were positive for drugs. Studies also show that Marijuana can cause dizziness and slowed reaction time, and drivers are more likely to drift and swerve while they’re high. Most convictions for drugged driving currently are based on police observations, followed later by a blood test. Unlike portable breath tests for alcohol, there’s no easily available way to determine whether someone is impaired from recent marijuana use. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, peak THC concentrations are reached during the act of smoking. However, within three hours, they generally fall to **less than 5 nanograms per milliliter of blood** – the same standard in Washington’s law, one supporters describe as roughly equivalent to the .08 limit for alcohol. In Washington, police still have to observe signs of impaired driving before pulling someone over. The blood would be drawn by a medical professional, and tests above 5 nanograms would automatically subject the driver to a DUI conviction. My opinion? Simply put, people arrested for DUI should ready themselves to get transported to the hospital for blood testing. I believe officers will take defendants to the hospital if they appear *AT ALL* impaired; whether it be drugs or alcohol. I also predict that law enforcement is going to be concerned about people consuming a *combination* of alcohol and marijuana. Perhaps people will believe they can consume one or two drinks – enough to stay under the .08 limit – and follow it up with smoking marijuana to maintain the “high” of being under the influence. The slight combination, some may believe; may mask any signs they are under the influence of alcohol, especially if the alcohol consumptions signs are minimal. Don’t think you can fool ’em. Believe me, the hospitals will become more crowded with drug-DUI investigations. And if people refuse the blood test, it’s just like refusing a BAC test: raised penalties and heavier DOL consequences. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Blood Test, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, felony, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, Legislation, marijuana, misdemeanor, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Federal Government Mum on Washington & Denver Legalizing Marijuana](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/federal-government-mum-on-washington-denver-legalizing-marijuana/) **Published:** December 20, 2012 **Author:** admin **Content:** The Feds are silent on [Colorado Legalizing Marijuana](http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2019900150_apusobamalegalizingmarijuana.html). “We’ve got bigger fish to fry,” said [President Barack Obama](https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/barack-obama/), during an interview with Barbara Walters of ABC News. In short, it’s not a major concern in his administration to continue prosecuting citizens for possessing small amounts of marijuana in states that have legalized the drug. “This is a tough problem, because Congress has not yet changed the law,” Obama told Walters of the legalization in Colorado and Washington. “I head up the executive branch; we’re supposed to be carrying out laws. And so what we’re going to need to have is a conversation about, how do you reconcile a federal law that still says marijuana is a federal offense and state laws that say that it’s legal?” Backers of new laws that legalized marijuana in Washington and Colorado were cautiously optimistic after President Barack Obama said Uncle Sam wouldn’t pursue pot users in those states. Following the November votes in Washington and Colorado the Justice Department reiterated that marijuana remains illegal under federal law, but had been vague about what its specific response would be. Marijuana activists were relieved at Obama’s comments, but had questions about how regulation will work. They said even if individual users aren’t charged with crimes, marijuana producers and sellers could be subject to prosecution. My opinion? Although it appears there’s a cautious green light for citizens in “now-legal” states to possess small amounts of marijuana, don’t light up a joint in the streets any time soon. The new law comes with many strings, bells and whistles attached making it illegal to display and/or possess marijuana in certain situations. For example, it’s not legal to smoke marijuana while walking around in public places, before driving a vehicle, etc. And the DUI implications are even more staggering. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Legislation, marijuana, misdemeanor, Uncategorized **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Drug DUI: The Brass Tacks](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/drug-dui-the-brass-tacks/) **Published:** December 20, 2012 **Author:** admin **Content:** Yes, I’ve blogged on this before – the passage of [Washington Initiative 502 (I-502)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Washington_Initiative_502#:~:text=Initiative%20502%20defined%20and%20legalized,As%20noted%20at%20RCW%2069.50.) and its impacts on DUI investigations. Consider this Part II of an ongoing discussion. Under I-502, it is now legal to possess marijuana in small amounts. Undeniably, this opens many legal issues for motorists suspected of Driving Under the Influence of Marijuana, typically called “Drug DUI,” “stoned driving” and/or “DUI-D.” What are the legal limits of THC consumption? How do officers obtain proof of Drug DUI? How does I-502 affect minors charged with Drug DUI? What are the consequences of refusing an officer’s attempts to obtain proof of DUI-D? Under I-502, the legal limit for THC is **5.00 nanograms**. Officers obtain THC readings from blood tests administered in hospitals. Consequently, I-502 gives law enforcement officers more incentive to transport citizens to a hospital and seek a blood test if the officer suspects Drug DUI. Citizens refusing the blood test shall be charged with an upper level “Refusal” DUI for violating RCW 46.20.308, which is Washington’s Implied Consent Law. Worse, an officer now has discretion to immediately seek a warrant for a citizen’s blood. With warrant in hand, the officer may obtain a blood test from the citizen anyway, despite the citizen’s prior refusal. Under RCW 46.20.308, which is Washington’s Implied Consent statute, the citizen’s license, permit, or privilege to drive will be *revoked or denied for at least one year*. Refusal of the blood test is also admissible in a criminal trial. In the case of minors, I-502 imposes zero tolerance. In short, the impacts of I-502 are extremely egregious. Fortunately, there’s also a lot of room for error on the part of law enforcement officers charging citizens with Drug DUI. Some of these issues – in the form of defenses – are as follows: (1) Why did the officer initiate the pullover? (2) Was the officer trained as a Drug Recognition Expert? (3) What is the officer’s probable cause for arresting someone for Drug DUI? (4) Was the citizen informed of the Implied Consent Law? (5) What constitutes a Refusal? (6) How did the officer obtain a warrant for a blood test? (7) Did a licensed medical professional draw the blood? (8) Can the Prosecutor establish the chain of custody showing who took the blood, who sealed it, and who tested it? And more, are these individuals available to testify? (9) How does being charged with DUI-D affect citizens who are licensed to smoke marijuana; citizens who probably have elevated levels of THC in their blood anyway? These issues, and more, affect the outcome of your case. Immediately consult an experienced criminal law attorney like myself if you’re facing Drug DUI charges. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Blood Test, Constitutional Rights, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, felony, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, Legislation, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Guevara: Stopping Schoolboys and Searching Them for Marijuana is Unlawful Without Probabale Cause.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-guevara/) **Published:** December 27, 2012 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Guevara*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/296717.opn.doc.pdf), the WA Court of Appeals held that a Interesting search involving a “school resource officer” who stopped the defendant and his friends for suspected drug use was NOT a social contact and NOT a community caretaking function. Guevara and his friends were walking near school one morning before class. A uniformed school resource officer stopped the group and inquired what they were doing. He told them he suspected they were skipping class to smoke marijuana. The officer found drugs on Mr. Guevara. At trial, the judge denied Guevara’s motion to suppress the evidence. The trial court denied the motion on the basis that the stop was a social contact within the scope of the officer’s authority. In suppressing the evidence, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the stop became a seizure when the officer told the boys he believed they were using drugs and sought their consent to search them. This, ruled the court, was neither a social contact nor a community caretaking function. My opinion? Good decision. Although they may have skipped school, the boys were otherwise behaving in a lawful manner. They were not under the influence of marijuana, alcohol or any other illegal drugs. They weren’t operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, drugs or marijuana. Consequently, the officer appeared to lack probable cause to search them for possessing marijuana or any other drugs. At worst, the officer should have merely escorted them back to school. Good decision. Please review my [Search and Seizure Legal Guide](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, law enforcement, marijuana, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Can My Boss Fire Me For Smoking Marijuana?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/can-my-boss-fire-me-for-smoking-marijuana/) **Published:** December 31, 2012 **Author:** admin **Content:** Yes. Numerous clients have asked me that very question since the [passage of I-502](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Washington_Initiative_502#:~:text=Washington%20Initiative%20502%20(I%2D502,approximately%2056%20to%2044%20percent.). Under this law, citizens may possess and use small amounts of marijuana. Can employers terminate employment? Yes. Employers may choose to not hire potential employees who use marijuana. Under[ *Roe v. Teletech*, 171 Wn.2d 736 (2011)](http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/171wn2d/171wn2d0736.htm), the [Washington Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) recently ruled that even though medical marijuana use is legal, employers may still terminate employees for using it. Employers are free to treat marijuana as alcohol. In other words, employees must NOT be under the influence while in the workplace, driving vehicles, or while performing tasks for their employer. My opinion? More than ever, it’s important to consult an attorney experienced with these matters if you’re facing criminal charges and trying to protect your job. A conviction for possession of marijuana – and possibly [Drug DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/drug-dui/) – can get you fired. Reducing and/or dismissing marijuana-related charges is your safest option. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** marijuana, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [New DUI Law: Ignition Interlock Devices Now Take Pictures of Driver](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/new-dui-law-ignition-interlock-devices-now-take-pictures-of-driver/) **Published:** January 1, 2013 **Author:** admin **Content:** Starting January 1, 2013, people charged with DUI and having their driver’s licenses suspended or revoked by the Department of Licensing (DOL) will undergo more monitoring.[ Starting January 1, a camera will snap a picture every time their Ignition Interlock Device is used](http://www.king5.com/news/local/Photo-now-part-of-WA-drivers-breath-test-185084051.html), verifying that the driver is the person who took the test. Interlocks are required on the vehicles whose drivers have been caught driving impaired. They allow those drivers to continue to use their cars, but only after making sure they are sober. Anyone caught trying to fool the machine will get recorded and that information will go to [Washington State Patrol](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/). Drivers can lose their Ignition Interlock License as a result. Apparently, impaired drivers often ask passengers, friends or even children to take the test for them, said Washington State Patrol Lt. Rob Sharpe. “We’ve even heard stories of people trying to use portable air compressors to take the test,” he said. My opinion? I respect the implied need for increased safety, however, this new law seems invasive and unnecessary. I haven’t heard of any traffic accidents where someone faked blowing into their Ignition Interlock Device in some way, shape or form. Why is there a need for increased monitoring of people convicted of DUI if something horrible hasn’t yet happened? The passage of this law is another reminder to hire a competent defense attorney if you’re charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). Good representation might save your license from getting suspended/revoked and an Ignition Interlock Device installed on your vehicle. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, Ignition Interlock Device, Legislation, marijuana, misdemeanor, Search Warrant, Terry Stop **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [DOL Fees Increase for Those Challenging Their Driver's License Suspensions Resulting From DUI Charges](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/dol-fees-increase-for-challenging-license-suspensions-resulting-from-dui-charges/) **Published:** January 1, 2013 **Author:** admin **Content:** Look out – it’s now *much* more expensive to challenge the [Washington State Department of Licensing’s (DOL) suspension of your license](https://www.dol.wa.gov/driverslicense/suspended.html) if you’re charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). The DOL recently raised the cost of an administrative hearing from $200 to $375. Some background is necessary: in the past, defendants charged with alcohol-related driving crimes such as Driving Under the Influence (DUI), Physical Control, or Minor Driving After Consuming Alcohol (Minor DUI) had a reasonable opportunity to save their driver’s licenses from getting suspended. This “opportunity” was given by applying for a DOL hearing before a Hearing Examiner within 20 days of being arrested. The Hearing Examiner looks at (1) whether the stop was lawful, (2) whether there was enough evidence to arrest for DUI, (3) whether the defendant was given their Implied Consent Warnings under RCW 46.20.308, and (4) whether the defendant BAC’d at over .08 or refused the breath test. Competent attorneys representing DUI defendants at these hearings stood the chance of stopping the automatic suspension/revocation of the client’s driver’s license (there’s LOTS of caselaw and WAC provisions surrounding this area of law). The hearing used to cost only $200. Now it’s $375. This is almost DOUBLE the cost. My opinion? The DOL appears to be discouraging people from seeking an administrative hearing. This law is a veiled attempt to prohibit the due process rights of people charged – and *not* *yet* convicted – of DUI. In other words, the DOL simply wants defendants to forego their right to a DOL hearing and install an IID. Also, if we look at the passage of this law in conjunction with the increased monitoring of Ignition Interlock Devices IID’s (starting January 1, 2013, IID’s now require cameras), we can safely opine the WA Legislature is cracking down on DUI defendants. Indeed, a recent informal survey of National DUI attorneys confirmed that Washington State has the highest administrative costs for a DOL hearing and at least one state grants these hearings for FREE. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Blood Test, Department of Licensing, DUI, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Jury Nullification Bill Gaining Momentum](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/jury-nullification-bill-gaining-momentum/) **Published:** January 21, 2013 **Author:** admin **Content:** Interesting. There’s pending legislation from Georgia on jury nullification. Titled, **[The Fully Informed Jury Act of 2013](http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/state-bill-calls-for-jurors-to-be-informed-of-jury-nullification/question-3462687/),** this bill would ensure jurors are informed of their rights, including the right to acquit defendants because the law was seen as unjust and/or unconstitutional. For those who don’t know, jury nullification in a criminal trial is what happens when a jury effectively nullifies the law in that specific case by acquitting the defendant, regardless of the weight of evidence against them. My opinion? I hope the law passes. As a juror, it is your duty to protect our citizens by sending criminals to jail; however, if you believe the defendant is being prosecuted under an unjust law, you have the right, and the constitutional and moral obligation to protect the defendant from tyrannical government and acquit. Does nullification happen often during trial? No. Although I’ve been instructed via the Prosecutor’s pretrial motions to NOT argue for nullification – and I’ve conducted numerous criminal jury trials for DUI, drug possession, assault, sex crimes, property crimes, etc. – I’ve never blatantly asked a jury to nullify anyway. First, I’ve always thought jurors would consider nullifying under their own volition, and without my behest. Second, I’ve always feared that prosecutors and judges would probably frown upon my asking jurors to nullify. In short, jury nullification encourages jurors to *not* follow the law. This is big. After all, jury trials are a very expensive use of the Prosecutor’s and court’s time. And at the end of the day, these parties do not want to encourage citizens to acquit people on the basis that the law itself is unjust. Still, and as the article illustrates, during the first century of the U.S. it was common practice for judges to inform jurors of this right as part of their instructions. Prior to the Civil War and thanks to jury nullification, many abolitionists and slaves were safeguarded and set free by juries when prosecuted for participating in the Underground Railroad in violation of the Fugitive Slave Act. Jury nullification was also successful in acquitting defendants whoe were prosecuted during the alcohol prohibition era. And when you think about it, a juror’s right to nullification, to be judge of both the facts and the application of the law, is enumerated in many State Constitution’s Right to trial by jury; which outline the number of jurors; selection and compensation of jurors. Most constitutions state, “In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be the judges of the law and the facts.” Let’s see where this goes . . . Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Jury Trial, Legislation **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Legislature Considers Adding a Fourth Whatcom County Superior Court Judge](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legislature-considers-adding-a-fourth-whatcom-county-superior-court-judge/) **Published:** January 24, 2013 **Author:** admin **Content:** Good news: [local lawmakers are sponsoring a bill to bring another judge to Whatcom County Superior Court](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/01/23/2849732/legislature-to-consider-fourth.html). This good news is long overdue. As the article states, Whatcom County hasn’t added a Superior Court judge since 1972. Skagit County, with 58 percent of Whatcom’s population, already has four judges. Backlogs in criminal and especially civil cases have been a problem for more than a decade. My clients want their day in court. They want me to argue pretrial motions, suppress evidence and/or dismiss cases. Some clients remain in custody because they can’t afford the high bail amounts. Others want immediate jury trials. In all cases, judges are needed to make decisions. Unfortunately, today’s backlog makes it very difficult to simply *access* a judge. I’m competing for time with other criminal attorneys, civil attorneys, judicial training, vacations, holidays, etc. Obtaining a fourth judge allows us to set more jury trial dates and clean out the backlog on civil cases. Being an active trial attorney, I welcome more opportunities to advocate on behalf of clients facing DUI, assault, property crimes, drug crimes, etc. Again obtaining a fourth judge is a step in the right direction. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Supreme Court Wary of Warrantless Blood Tests in DUI Cases](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/us-supreme-court-wary-of-warrantless-blood-tests-in-dui-cases/) **Published:** January 24, 2013 **Author:** admin **Content:** Good stuff. The Supreme Court is considering [requiring police to get a search warrant before forcing drunken-driving suspects to have blood draws](http://seattletimes.com/avantgo/2020097394.html). In [*State of Missouri v. McNeely*](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/11-1425), the defendant was pulled over for speeding. He failed field sobriety tests and refused to take a breath test. The officer then took McNeely to a nearby hospital, where a technician drew blood over the handcuffed suspect’s objection. The legal issue is whether blood draws taken under these circumstances violate a defendant’s Constitutional rights. If so, the blood test is suppressed and inadmissible to a jury if the case proceeds to jury trial. The prosecution argues that getting a nighttime warrant takes an average of two hours, by which point a person’s blood-alcohol level may have dropped below the legal limit. Alcohol typically dissipates in the bloodstream at a rate of 0.015 to 0.020 percentage points an hour. The limit in Missouri is 0.08 percent. McNeely’s defense attorney argues that Missouri’s Implied Consent law allows drivers the right to refuse a blood test. All 50 states have implied-consent laws in some form. In short, Implied Consent law says drivers who refuse a blood or breath test automatically lose their license for a year. My opinion? Police should get warrants. Period. Getting a warrant is the proper remedy when defendants exercise their Constitutional rights. Also, it doesn’t take long to get one. Police can call a judge while driving a defendant to the jail. Judges typically issue warrants over the phone. Due to the passage of I-502, this issue is especially relevant in WA. I-502 allows for citizens to possess small amounts of marijuana. Unfortunately, when it comes to DUI arrests, I-502 set the legal limit for THC is the bloodstream at only 5 nanograms. This is a very low amount, especially for citizens who are licensed to smoke marijuana. In other blogs I predicted that the passage of I-502 would probably convince law enforcement to immediately transport citizens investigated for DUI straight to the hospital to undergo blood tests. Blood draws are necessary to determine nanogram levels (they also detect alcohol levels). I also predicted that unlawfully obtained blood tests would soon become the subject matter of intense pretrial litigation. Was the officer trained in drug DUI detection? Was the blood draw performed by someone who is medically licensed? Was it performed within 2 hours of the defendant being pulled over? Was the blood test tampered with? Can the prosecution properly establish the chain of custody of all persons who handled the blood sample? And now, according to the above case, can law enforcement simply circumvent the warrant requirement and obtain blood draws if the defendant refuses? All of these issues are the subject matter of intense legal arguments. A good trial attorney will argue pretrial motions to suppress unlawfully obtained and/or tainted evidence. Yes, this pending case is a big deal. We’ll see what happens. . . Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Blood Test, Constitutional Rights, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, felony, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, United States Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Toxicologist Says, "No Spike YET In Marijuana DUI Arrests"](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/toxicologist-says-no-spike-yet-in-marijuana-dui-arrests/) **Published:** February 7, 2013 **Author:** admin **Content:** The [state toxicologist hasn’t seen a spike in positive blood tests for marijuana since pot became legal under Washington law](http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020302783_apwalegalizingmarijuanadui.html). Voters last fall passed Initiative 502, allowing adults over 21 to possess up to an ounce of marijuana. The measure, which took effect Dec. 6, set a [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) limit designed to be similar to the .08 blood-alcohol content for drunken driving – 5 nanograms of active THC per milliliter of blood. State toxicologist Fiona Couper told a legislative hearing in Olympia on Wednesday that the Washington State Patrol’s toxicology lab has completed tests on all blood samples taken from drivers in December, and has started on samples from last month. She says there’s no spike, but notes the law has only just taken effect. Couper says that every year, about 6,000 blood samples from drivers are submitted to the lab. About 1,000 to 1,100 of those come back positive for active THC, with the average being about 6 nanograms. My opinion? This could be the proverbial calm before the storm. Who knows, perhaps law enforcement officers are being trained and retrained on becoming Drug Recognition Experts on marijuana DUI detection. Progressive laws are slow to get enacted, and the government’s response to progressive legislation even slower; especially if it costs money to train/retrain officers. Yes, there’s no spike *yet.* But don’t get too comfy . . . Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Blood Test, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, DUI, felony, Jail, law enforcement, Legislation, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Terry Stop, Uncategorized, Washington State Patrol **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Proposed Changes in DUI Laws: Draconian or Timely?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/proposed-changes-in-dui-laws-draconian-or-timely/) **Published:** May 29, 2013 **Author:** admin **Content:** The state Legislature shall consider [strengthening DUI consequences in Washington](http://newstalk870.am/new-stricter-wa-dui-bill-calls-for-stiffer-penalties-mandatory-arrest/). It makes sense, in a way. News reports indicate that [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) accidents have increased, or at least, a recent string of crashes in Washington leads us to believe so. While these tragedies are awful, it is important to remember that these results are not typical. It’s no secret that DUI penalties are already harsh. Mandatory minimum penalties start at 24 consecutive hours in jail (convertible to 15 days of electronic home monitoring); $941 fine/court assessment; a 90-day license suspension; court-ordered alcohol evaluation, treatment, and victim impact panel; a one-year ignition interlock device (IID) requirement; five years of probation; and mandatory 12- hour impoundment of the vehicle immediately following arrest. The mandatory minimum penalties [get stiffer](http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/duigrid/duiGrid_20120801.pdf) with subsequent convictions within seven years or higher BAC levels. Even worse, defendants convicted of DUI cannot vacate or expunge their conviction. The DUI remains on their criminal history forever. The Legislature has amended DUI penalties 11 times in the past 10 years. It’s a subject of intense debate among lawmakers. Nowadays, legislatures are looking at different ways to, once again, enhance the penalties of DUI drivers. The proposals could be seen as Draconian. They include making someone’s third DUI a felony; requiring impounded vehicles have Ignition Interlock Devices be installed before releasing the vehicle; random sobriety checkpoints; increasing jail sentences; a 10- year prohibition on the consumption or purchase of alcohol following the third DUI conviction; faster filing of charges and mandatory jail booking following arrest. My opinion? The proposals are Draconian. Requiring installation of IID devices on impounded vehicles is potentially unconstitutional. What if the defendant borrowed the vehicle from a family member or friend? Additionally, the Washington Supreme Court has already ruled random sobriety checkpoints unconstitutional. Finally, mandatory incarceration following arrest will cause a massive need for more jail space and money to pay for it. Yes, increasing DUI penalties to stop repeat offenders – or even first-time offenders – is a worthwhile goal. However, careful measures must be taken by our lawmakers to draft laws and policies that address the problem while keeping in mind that everyone is entitled to make mistakes. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Blood Test, Constitutional Rights, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, felony, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, Legislation, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Terry Stop **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Summer DUI Patrols Seek Prevention of "100 Deadliest Days."](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/new-dui-patrols-emphasize/) **Published:** June 21, 2013 **Author:** admin **Content:** It’s that time of year again. [Law enforcement agencies across the state are stepping up DUI patrols](http://mynorthwest.com/11/2298979/Washington-stepping-up-DUI-patrols-for-100-Deadliest-Days) to help get impaired drivers off the road. This weekend, Washington’s law enforcement agencies are launching a two-week statewide campaign to crack down on DUI’s. It’s made to coincide with “The 100 Deadliest Days” of Washington’s roads, streets and highways as far as DUI-related accidents are concerned. Statistics show that 30 percent of our traffic deaths across Washington state actually happen between Memorial Day and Labor Day. In the last six years, 961 people have died on Washington’s roadways during the summer season from alcohol related accidents and other factors. Add this to the fact that 2013 has brought an increase in the number of high-profile DUI related traffic deaths in Western Washington. Meanwhile, a new measure to strengthen Washington’s DUI laws is being argued in the state legislature as lawmakers continue their stalemate over the budget. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Blood Test, Drug Offenses, DUI, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Terry Stop, Uncategorized, Washington State Patrol **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Whatcom DUI Patrols Nab 60 People](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/whatcom-dui-patrols-nab-60-people/) **Published:** July 16, 2013 **Author:** admin **Content:** Just so we know the score . . . [Sixty people were arrested](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/07/15/3094089/whatcom-county-dui-patrols-nab.html) for [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) during county-wide emphasis patrols earlier this summer, according to the Whatcom County Traffic Safety Task Force. The patrols ran from June 21 through July 7, during which time Washington State Patrol troopers, police officers from local cities and Whatcom County Sheriff’s deputies focused on catching impaired drivers. A grant from the [Washington Traffic Safety Commission](https://wtsc.wa.gov/) helped pay for any officers on overtime for the patrols. Read more here: Let’s crunch the number: in approximately 17-18 days, the Washington State Patrol arrested 60 people for DUI. That’s about 3-4 people per night, on average. Quite a bit. On the one hand, the news is good if the police are pulling over dangerously inebriated drivers. On the other hand, pulling non-dangerous drivers over an a mere suspicion of drunk driving – and unsupported by probable cause – is illegal and intrusive. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Blood Test, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Terry Stop, Washington State Patrol **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Are Washington's New Proposed DUI Laws Unconstitutional?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/governer-inslee-gets-tougher-on-dui-laws/) **Published:** July 18, 2013 **Author:** admin **Content:** Gov. Jay Inslee shall sign into law a [measure to increase monitoring of motorists who repeatedly drive under the influence](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/07/18/3097752/inslee-to-sign-law-to-toughen.html). Under the revised bill to be signed this morning in Tacoma, drivers charged with a second impaired driving offense would face mandatory arrest AND booking in jail AND have an interlock device installed on their vehicles within five days of being charged. The state would also begin a pilot program to conduct daily alcohol monitoring on a person convicted twice under the [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) law. Finally, the State will give counties and cities more money to prosecute and punish DUI offenders quicker. The law, sparked by tragic accidents earlier this year, is a scaled back version of an initial plan that would have increased minimum jail times for offenders. My opinion? More and more, we are witnessing the erosion of our rights when it comes to DUI legislation and enforcement. There are four basic legal issues when it comes to DUI: (1) whether the stop conducted by the police was lawful, (2) whether the officer had enough evidence to arrest for DUI, (3) whether the defendant was informed of the Implied Consent law, and (4) whether the defendant’s breath test was over .08 and/or whether the defendant refused the test. These four basic issues bring LOTS of sub-issues; which is the stuff of good lawyering and effective pretrial motions to suppress and/or dismiss the case. Most people don’t know that DUI charges bring separate actions from both the Department of Licensing (DOL) and the City/State Prosecutor. The DOL will try revoking or suspending your license. Following that, they’ll order defendants to obtain an Ignition Interlock Device (IID) and an Ignition Interlock Device License (IIDL) if the defendant wants to continue driving. To combat this, defendants are entitled to a DOL hearing if they want to stop the DOL from suspending/revoking the license. The hearing costs $375.00. A good attorney will brief the legal issues and request a hearing before the DOL’s Hearing Examiner in order to persuade the Hearing Examiner to NOT suspend/revoke the defendant’s license. Problematically, it appears Inslee’s new DUI legislation circumvents the DOL process altogether. It appears a defendant’s car will be automatically installed with an IID 5 days after arrest. Defendants will be closely monitored while their case is pending. In all likelihood, they’ll be forced to take time out of their day to appear before their probation officer and succumb to UA and/or portable breath testing. All of these actions assume the defendant is guilty. They violate the “innocent until proven guilty” standard. Also, the bill’s enforcement of pretrial orders for IIDs violates *State v. Rose*, 146 Wn.App. 439 (2008). That case held government programs which require the defendant to pay fees/costs before conviction are unconstitutional. Additionally, these provisions may violate Art. 1 Section 22 of the WA Constitution by requiring advancement of money before conviction. Now, more than ever, it’s imperative to find a competent defense attorney to help maneuver the pitfalls of our increasing anti-DUI legislation. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Blood Test, Constitutional Rights, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, felony, Firearm, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, Legislation, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Washington State Patrol **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Seafair 2013 Brought Less Arrests for Boating Under the Influence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/decreased-arrests-for-boating-under-the-influence-bui-at-seafair/) **Published:** August 6, 2013 **Author:** admin **Content:** The numbers are out: [34 people were cited for boating under the influence of drugs or alcohol (BUI) during the Seafair events](http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2013/08/seafair-sees-drop-in-impaired-boaters/) on Lake Washington this weekend. This shows a drop of more than 40 percent from last year’s Seafair BUI total, which was 61. Matching the decrease, however, was the fact that Seafair’s ticket sales also decreased dramatically. Seafair officials said that since it’s an open festival, exact numbers weren’t available, but ticket sales at the log boom were down 20 percent. Police contacted 473 boats, down 32 percent from last year’s event, and doled out 42 citations for speeding or unsafe lane changes, among other infractions. Medical assistance was called for four boaters. Of those contacted, 15 refused breath tests. Nowadays, refusing a breath test carries a fine of $2,050. Of the 34 people charged with BUIs, four were booked and taken to jail. Others were pulled over and told to have someone come pick them up. Four search warrants were served for blood samples and one for search of a vessel resulted in a drug arrest. [RCW 79A.60.040 is Washington’s Boating Under the Influence Statute](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=79A.60.040). In short, It prevents people from operating a boat while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug. A person is considered to be under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person has 0.08 grams or more of alcohol. This can be proven by breath tests of a blood test. Drugs and/or the combination of drugs and alcohol may also constitute Boating Under the Influence. Unlike DUI, Boating Under the Influence is a simple misdemeanor. It isn’t viewed as seriously as DUI, and carries less punishment as far as court fines and jail time is concerned. Still, the court may still order the defendant to pay restitution for any damages or injuries resulting from the offense. Additionally, a BUI charge/conviction can negatively impact a Skipper’s license to operate their vessel. And it only gets worse. If someone is seriously injured at the hands of an intoxicated boat operator, that operator can be charged under RCW 79A.60.60, a Class B felony. And if someone dies as a result as a proximate cause of the operation of any vessel by an intoxicated person, that person will be charged with a Class A felony under RCW 79A.60.50. Finally, any operator of a boat who willfully fails to stop when requested or signaled to do so by a law enforcement officer is guilty of a gross misdemeanor under RCW 79A.60.080. Hire an attorney if you find yourself charged with any of the above-referenced water related crimes. You’ll need all the help you can get. Nowadays, consuming two beers while enjoying your vessel can easily get you in trouble. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Blood Test, Boating Under the Influence, Drug Offenses, DUI, felony, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Washington State Patrol **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Drug Recognition Experts: The Newly Trained Weapon In Detecting Drug DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/drug-recognition-experts-the-newly-trained-weapon-in-detecting-drug-dui/) **Published:** August 8, 2013 **Author:** admin **Content:** Think you can fool the cops? Don’t even try. Nowadays, [Drug-Recognition Experts – nicknamed, “DRE’s” – are law enforcement’s answer to Initiative 502](http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021561671_drugrecognitionxml.html) and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that officers must have a warrant for a drug test. They are trained to identify symptoms of impairment from alcohol and a variety of drugs. Although [Initiative 502](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Washington_Initiative_502) legalized recreational marijuana use in Washington last year, drivers still face a [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) charge if they’re too high to drive. State law limits a person’s BAC levels to 5 nanograms of THC, marijuana’s active ingredient, per milliliter of whole blood. A blood test is the quickest way to indicate whether someone has these levels. Recently, however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in April that officers must have a warrant to obtain blood samples. And since most DUI stops happen late at night, when judges aren’t available, officers must determine on the scene whether the driver is intoxicated and/or impaired. This is where the DRE come in. These are police officers who receive two weeks of training on detecting impaired drivers and analyzing their behavior for the presence of alcohol or drugs. Typically, a DRE is called to investigate major collisions, especially those involving fatalities, and any in which police officers suspect drug impairment beyond alcohol. Their observations help prosecutors in “Drug DUI” cases. The two-week course is rigorous. It includes lectures, quizzes and comprehensive tests. Training officers must also perform six field-sobriety tests and observe another six by their colleagues. They’ll write reports for all 12 tests, which are reviewed and signed by an observing instructor. After the course is completed, each officer must perform four evaluations in front of an instructor every two years to maintain DRE status. Calculating the standard filed sobriety tests performed on intoxicated drivers is nothing new to the majority of police officers. Most often, an impaired driver’s eyes are the giveaway. In one part of the test – called the “Horizontal gaze Nystagmus Test” – a driver must follow a pen-sized light left and right without turning his or her head. If the driver is impaired, the eyes often have trouble tracking the light, or don’t dilate properly. A subsequent recital of the alphabet isn’t just a memory test: It can give way to slurring the letters “L-M-N-O-P” if the speaker has been drinking or doing drugs. And most people say the letters quickly, all in one or two big exhaled breaths that can carry the telltale scents of alcohol or marijuana. The walk-and-turn, counting backward, standing on one leg, and other tests give officers a clear picture of the person’s motor skills. The test ends with a Breathalyzer. DREs focus on the more “subtle” signs in drivers while on patrol. They look for a wide turn, crossing the line, taking an extra second or two to realize the light is green, etc. My opinion? Contact an attorney if you’re pulled over. Just as the DRE’s are trained to observe whether someone is high on drugs when driving, a competent attorney can analyze whether the stop was lawful, whether there was enough evidence to arrest for Drug DUI, whether the nanogram levels were active or inactive, etc. Don’t allow the State’s “experts” to convince judges and prosecutors that you were high when, in fact, you may not have been. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Blood Test, DUI, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Terry Stop, Washington State Patrol **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Saintcalle: The WA Supreme Court's Recent Ruling on Race Discrimination in Our Criminal Justice System](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-saintcalle-the-wa-supreme-courts-recent-ruling-on-race-discrimination-in-our-criminal-justice-system/) **Published:** August 15, 2013 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Saintcalle*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/index.cfm?fa=controller.managefiles&filePath=Opinions&fileName=862575.pdf), the WA Supreme Court addressed an interesting case regarding peremptory strikes against potential black jurors. The defendant Kirk Saintcalle, a black man, was charged with [Felony Murder in the First Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/). At trial, the State’s prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to strike the only black person in the jury pool. He was found guilty by a jury. On appeal, Saintcalle claimed the strike was racially motivated in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s [*Batson v. Kentucky*, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-6263) The WA Supreme Court disagreed *and* agreed with Saintcalle. They disagreed with Saintcalle to the extent that the Prosecutor’s peremptory striking of the only African-American juror in this case did not give rise to a *Batson* violation. However, the majority agreed that Washington’s *Batson* procedures were not strong enough to effectively combat race discrimination in the selection of juries. Justice Wiggins also stated our *Batson* procedures must change so as to deal with unconscious, institutional, or unintentional racism, however, “\[T\]his is not the case in which to announce a new standard.” Saintcalle’s conviction was upheld. Chief Justice Madsen’s concurrence, which was signed by Justice Jim Johnson, also expressed her concern about racial discrimination during jury selection. She would not adjust *Batson* or do away with peremptory challenges in an attempt to address nonpurposeful discrimination based on race during jury selection. Chief Justice Madsen also took issue with Justice Wiggins’ charts and graphs that compared the prosecutor’s questioning of the African-American juror to the prosecutor’s questioning of other jurors. Justice Stephens’ concurrence, which was signed by Justices Fairhurst and Charles Johnson, “sound\[s\] a note of restraint amidst the enthusiasm to craft a new solution to the problem of the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges during jury selection.” Justice González’s concurrence calls for the immediate abolishment of peremptory challenges. Justice Chambers dissented. My opinion? I’ve heard that getting attorneys to agree to something – and judges, for that matter – is akin to trying to herd cats. Clearly, *State v. Saintcalle* captures the “herding cats” imagery. The smattering of different opinions by our justices captures the complexity of racism in our judicial system. Some see it. Some don’t. Others call it something else. Although I’m saddened the WA Supremes passed on an opportunity to capture a racist act and make an example of it, I’m happy they said Washington needs to have stronger procedures and standards in place to stop these situations from happening again. Perhaps jury pools should intentionally include more minority jurors. Who knows? The solution, it seems, is potentially as multi-layered as the problem itself. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Homicide & Manslaughter, Race & Law, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [The Brass Tacks: A Look at How Courts Are Automatically Imposing Ignition Interlock Devices ASAP](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/the-brass-tacks-a-look-at-how-courts-are-automatically-imposing-ignition-interlock-devices-asap/) **Published:** November 8, 2013 **Author:** admin **Content:** Recently, a client hired me to represent him on a new [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) charge. Unfortunately, this client already has a prior [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) conviction within 7 years. We met at my office. He showed me his paperwork – arraignment dates, property seizures, BAC ticket, etc. – and also showed me a document I haven’t yet seen in my years of practice. It was a Court Order signed by the judge titled, [“IGNITION INTERLOCK RULES.”](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/driver/duiimpaired-driving/ignition-interlock/#:~:text=threshold%20requirement%20reduced%3F-,No.,on%20providing%20a%20breath%20sample.) I knew I’d eventually see this document, sooner or later. Under the recent passage of RCW 46.20.740 and RCW 46.20.385 the COURTS – and NOT the DOL – shall order any person convicted of an alcohol-related violation to apply for an ignition interlock driver’s license and to have a functioning ignition interlock device installed on all motor vehicles operated by the person. The court may also order the installation of an interlock device for a driver that is convicted of [Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/) or [Negligent Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/negligent-driving/) within 7 years of an alcohol related driving offense. An ignition interlock may be required for [Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/) or [Negligent Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/negligent-driving/) without a prior DUI conviction. Finally, under the law, an ignition interlock device will be required for any driver convicted of vehicular homicide while driving under the influence. This document was proof that the Courts are diligently following the passage of these laws. It read the following, ver batim: \* The defendant shall not operate a motor vehicle unless the defendant has a valid driver’s license and insurance; \* Once the defendant has a valid driver’s license and insurance, the defendant shall only operate a motor vehicle equipped with a functioning ignition interlock breath alcohol device while on pretrial; \* The defendant shall have an ignition interlock breath alcohol device installed by a Washington State Patrol certified ignition interlock breath alcohol device vendor on **any** motor vehicle the defendant will operate; \* The defendant shall bear the cost of installation and maintenance of the ignition interlock breath alcohol device and show proof of installation of the ignition interlock to the court; \* Any ignition interlock breath alcohol device installed pursuant to this order shall be monitored by the installer, and a report filed with the court every sixty (60) days; \* The defendant shall not adjust, tamper with, remove, or circumvent – (1) any ignition interlock breath alcohol device, (2) the wiring of any ignition interlock breath alcohol device, or (3) the ignition system of any vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock breath alcohol device. Any violation or tampering must be reported to the court by the ignition interlock breath alcohol device vendor, and; \* The ignition interlock breath alcohol device shall have certain minimum settings. My opinion? Although I understand the need for community safety, it appears these new requirements are unconstitutional and overbearing in some cases. The government assumes people are guilty before they even go to trial. Indeed, this particular client showed NO signs of alcohol intoxication in his police reports. Police contacted him because someone complained of his driving. After pulling him over, the police had no proof whatsoever that he was under the influence of alcohol, and instead believed he was under the influence of drugs. It’s going to take WEEKS to get his blood test back. In the meantime, he must drive around with an Ignition Interlock Device on his vehicle. Unfair. If you’re facing a similar situation please contact a qualified attorney. I, for one, look forward to fighting this case tooth and nail and removing the Ignition Interlock Device from my client’s vehicle! Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, Ignition Interlock Device, Legislation, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Uncategorized, Washington State Patrol **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [The Brass Tacks Part II: Increased Penalties for DUI if Child Under 16 In Vehicle](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/the-brass-tacks-part-ii/) **Published:** November 12, 2013 **Author:** admin **Content:** Here’s a summary of more changes that went into effect on September 28, 2013 regarding our ever-increasing and ever-punitive [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) laws. The changes included changes to RCW 46.61.5055 that increase DUI penalties if there was a passenger under 16 in the car. There’s also an increase in mandatory jail for repeat offenders. Here is what is NOW subsection 6 of RCW 46.61.5055: (6) If a person who is convicted of a violation of RCW 46.61.502 or 46.61.504 committed the offense **while a passenger under the age of sixteen was in the vehicle, the court shall:** (a) **Order the use of an ignition interlock or other device for an additional six months**; (b) In any case in which the person has no prior offenses within seven years, and except as provided in RCW 46.61.502(6) or 46.61.504(6), **order an additional twenty-four hours of imprisonment** and a fine of not less than one thousand dollars and not more than five thousand dollars. One thousand dollars of the fine may not be suspended unless the court finds the offender to be indigent; (c) In any case in which the person has one prior offense within seven years, and except as provided in RCW 46.61.502(6) or 46.61.504(6), **order an additional five days of imprisonment** and a fine of not less than two thousand dollars and not more than five thousand dollars. One thousand dollars of the fine may not be suspended unless the court finds the offender to be indigent; (d) In any case in which the person has two or three prior offenses within seven years, and except as provided in RCW 46.61.502(6) or 46.61.504(6), **order an additional ten days of imprisonment** and a fine of not less than three thousand dollars and not more than ten thousand dollars. One thousand dollars of the fine may not be suspended unless the court finds the offender to be indigent. RCW § 46.61.5055 (6). My opinion? The passage of [I-502](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Washington_Initiative_502) has simultaneously loosened Washington’s Drug Laws and enhanced Washington’s DUI laws. Period. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Department of Licensing, DUI, Ignition Interlock Device, Legislation, Pretrial Investigations, Washington State Patrol **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Quaale: Mistrials Happen When Police Officers Offer Opinion Testimony](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-quaale-mistrials-happen-when-police-officers-offer-opinion-testimony/) **Published:** November 15, 2013 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Quaale*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/309339.opn.pdf), the WA Court of Appeals wrote an excellent opinion on the issue of whether a defendant’s right to a fair trial was violated when the Prosecutor invited objectionable testimony from the officer. The defendant was charged with [Eluding Police](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/eluding/) and [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). At trial, the Trooper was asked to describe the extent of his experience, explain the [Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus](https://www.ncdd.com/dui-defenses-that-work/horizontal-gaze-nystagmus) and the procedure for testing it, and tell the jury about his administration of the test to the defendant. The prosecutor also asked, “In this case, based on the HGN test alone, did you form an opinion based on your training and experience as to whether or not the defendant’s ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired?” Rightfully, the defendant’s lawyer immediately objected that the Trooper was being asked to provide an opinion on the ultimate issue determining guilt. The objection was overruled. The Trooper answered, “Absolutely. There was no doubt he was impaired.” The Court of Appeals reasoned that impermissible testimony regarding the defendant’s guilt may be reversible error because such evidence violates the defendant’s constitutional right to a jury trial, which includes independent determination of the facts by the jury. Here, and even where expert testimony is helpful to the jury, it is unnecessary for a witness to express belief that certain facts or findings lead to a conclusion of guilt. Opinion testimony should be avoided if the information can be presented in such a way that the jury can draw its own conclusions. My opinion? The defense attorney was very smart to object to the Officer’s opinion testimony and preserve the issue for appeal. Opinion testimony should NEVER be allowed at trial. The State’s witnesses – *including officers* – may only testify to their observations. They are not expert witnesses who can offer opinions. Before trial, I routinely draft and argue motions *in limine* expressly requesting the judge to instruct the Prosecutor to not ask questions instructing witnesses/officers to provide opinion testimony. These motions strengthen a standing objection and help preserve legal issues for appeal when they are violated. Great opinion. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, DUI, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [More DUI Drivers Are Testing Positive for Marijuana](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/more-dui-drivers-are-testing-positive-for-marijuana/) **Published:** November 24, 2013 **Author:** admin **Content:** According to [new data released from the Washington State Patrol](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/11/22/3331209/more-drivers-testing-positive.html), more drivers have been testing positive for marijuana since Washington legalized the drug last year. In the first six months of 2013, 745 people tested positive for marijuana. Typically, there are about 1,000 positive pot tests on drivers in a full year. But this doesn’t necessarily mean there’s been a rash of people driving high, says patrol spokesman Bob Calkins. Well, then what’s the reason? “We’re testing blood we didn’t test before,” he said. In addition, the overall number of impaired-driving cases handled by the patrol doesn’t appear to have risen this year, and should be on track to hit the rough annual average of 20,000 – which could mean some people are using marijuana instead of alcohol before getting behind the wheel, Calkins said. Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/11/22/3331209/more-drivers-testing-positive.html#storylink=cpy Last year, Washington and Colorado voters legalized the recreational use of marijuana by adults over 21. Both states have set a legal limit of 5 nanograms of active THC per milliliter of blood for drivers; anything above that is a per se violation of impaired driving laws, similar to blowing 0.08 or above on an alcohol breath test. The violation is generally a gross misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail — and at least one day in custody for a first offense. Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/11/22/3331209/more-drivers-testing-positive.html#storylink=cpy Of the 745 people who tested positive for marijuana in the first half of this year, the State Patrol says a slight majority tested above the legal limit. The exact number: 420. It’s a curious coincidence, since “420” is an old slang term for marijuana. Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/11/22/3331209/more-drivers-testing-positive.html#storylink=cpy My opinion? If they can, they will. Meaning, if the police *can* test your for blood for marijuana, they *will*. As I predicted in earlier blogs, the passage of I-502 gives police more search authority. If police think you’re high, they’ll request a blood test. If you refuse, they’ll get a warrant for your blood and/or enter a [“Refusal” DUI.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/felony-dui/) The data is predictable. What I’m seeing happen, unfortunately, is the police seeking blood tests on my clients who are not smoking marijuana. Making matters worse, I’m seeing judges impose Ignition Interlock Devices as a condition of pretrial release, and before clients are convicted of ANYTHING! There’s something wrong with that. Just saying. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Blood Test, Department of Licensing, DUI, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Uncategorized, Washington State Patrol **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Winter DUI Emphasis Patrols to Begin Again](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/winter-dui-emphasis-patrols-to-begin-again/) **Published:** November 25, 2013 **Author:** admin **Content:** Be aware, all . . . All along the I-5 corridor from Canada to Mexico, [law enforcement agencies begin emphasis enforcement](http://duienforcers.camp7.org/Default.aspx?pageId=1142680&mode=PostView&bmi=1444365) beginning on Wednesday November 27, 2013. The goal is to prevent even a single death on I-5 during the Thanksgiving weekend. To that end, Washington, Oregon, and California law enforcement are combining forces this week to keep the road safe from impaired drivers. Spread the word! Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Department of Licensing, DUI, Ignition Interlock Device, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Green: When Inventory Searches Become Overbroad](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-green-when-inventory-searches-become-overbroad/) **Published:** December 11, 2013 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Green*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/684442.pdf), the WA Court of Appeals decided that evidence of [Identity Theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/identity-theft/) was not admissible when the officer obtained the evidence after searching the defendant’s car during a [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) and [Hit & Run](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/hit-run/) investigation. Mr. Green was arrested for DUI after his vehicle struck a pedestrian who later died. After arrest, police searched Mr. Green’s car. They found a paper bag containing numerous receipts. After more investigating, it was later determined the receipts were evidence of purchases using stolen credit cards. The car was later towed to a police impound lot. The officer began investigating the defendant for theft/fraud charges in addition to the Vehicular Homicide charge. However, the officer’s search warrant was only specific to the Vehicular Homicide charge. A few days later, the officer obtained a second search warrant to search the car for evidence of fraud and identity theft. [Mr. Green moved to suppress the receipts](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6). The state argued the receipts were properly seized pursuant to an inventory search and were admissible pursuant to the independent source doctrine. Some background is necessary. Under the 4th Amendment to the U.S Constitution and article I section 7 of the Washington Constitution, warrantless searches and seizures are unconstitutional. However one exception to the warrant requirement are Inventory Searches accompanying a lawful vehicle impound. The purpose of an inventory search is to (1) protect the vehicle owner’s property; (2) protect the police against false claims of theft by the owner, and (3) protect the police from potential danger. The direction and scope of an inventory search must be limited to the purpose of justifying the exception. Under the [Independent Source Exception](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_source_doctrine#:~:text=In%20US%20law%2C%20the%20independent,untainted%20by%20the%20initial%20illegality.), evidence obtained by unlawful governmental action is not suppressed under the exclusionary rule if the evidence was obtained pursuant to a valid search warrant or other lawful means independent of the unlawful action. In this case, the officer did not find the receipts as part of an inventory search. Stated different, the officer looked in the paper bag but did not consider the receipts to be relevant to the inventory search. Therefore, there was no evidence that he inventoried them. The officer seized the receipts for investigatory purposes on a different matter altogether, namely, the soon-to-be-pending Identity Theft charges. The Court further reasoned the receipts were not admissible under the Independent Source doctrine because the officer neither found the receipts nor had knowledge of them through an independent source. My opinion? This was a reasonable, practical approach. In this case, it makes no sense to allow the police to conduct investigations of different crimes other than the one they are already working on, especially if they lack independent evidence to begin with. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, DUI, felony, law enforcement, police, Pretrial Investigations, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Theft, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington State Patrol **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Ollivier: What Happens When the Defense Attorney Wants a Continuance and the Defendant Doesn't?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-ollivier-what-happens-when-the-defense-attorney-wants-a-continuance-and-the-defendant-doesnt/) **Published:** December 26, 2013 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Ollivier*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/866333.pdf), the WA Supremes held that a defendant’s speedy trial rights were NOT violated when a defendant’s attorney requested the continuance over the objection of his client. The facts were such that the defendant, Ollivier, was charged with [Possession of Depictions of Minors Engaged in Sexual Activity](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.68A.070#:~:text=(1)(a)%20Except%20as,sexually%20explicit%20conduct%20as%20defined). The depictions involved the use of the defendant’s computer. Ollivier was arraigned on April 18, 2007. His case went pending for 5 years before finally going to trial. There were, in total, 22 continuances. The reasons for the continuances varied: defense counsel sought most of the continuances to allow time for investigation, obtain expert review of computer content, obtain discovery material from the Washington State Department of Corrections and the King County Sheriff’s Office, and because of a new investigator on the case. Some of the requested continuances mentioned circumstances involving the State and some motions were joined by the State. At one point, an arresting officer resigned. Consequently, a continuance was requested to allow time to investigate her misconducts. The Court reasoned that, in order to establish that multiple continuances of Ollivier’s trial dates violated his constitutional right to trial, a defendant must establish actual prejudice to the ability to prepare a defense. Further, prejudice will only be presumed in extremely unusual cases in which the post-indictment delay lasted at least five years or the government was responsible for the delay by virtue of something beyond simple negligence. Finally, the Court stated the following: “Nearly all of the continuances were sought so that defense counsel could be prepared to defend. This is an extremely important aspect of the balancing and leads us to conclude that the length of delay was reasonably necessary for defense preparation and weighs against the defendant.” My opinion? I agree with the WA Supremes. I’ve conducted MANY jury trials in my career, and shall probably conduct many more. Although few, my trial losses typically happen when clients insist on going to trial too early, and usually against my advice. It’s important for clients and attorneys to have frank discussions of how long it will take to resolve the case. This decision usually depends on whether the client wants to resolve the case or go to trial. And THAT decision usually rests on the evidence contained within witnesses, police reports, forensics, etc. These decisions are not easy. It takes an exorbitant amount of time, preparation and patience for all parties to fashion and execute a successful trial defense. But as the old saying goes, “Cooler heads will prevail.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Discovery, Pretrial Investigations, Speedy Trial & Continuances, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Washington's New DUI Pilot Program: "Plea Tenderizing" Gains Momentum](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/washingtons-new-dui-pilot-program/) **Published:** January 2, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** Apparently, the [legislative movement to heavily monitor defendants charged with DUI](http://www.king5.com/news/local/DUI-Pilot-Program-Starts-January-1-237857871.html) is gaining momentum. Starting January 1, intoxicated drivers charged with their second [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) in Chelan County, Spokane County, and Thurston County may face much tougher punishment after their second offense. The “24/7 DUI Monitoring Program” requires daily monitoring of any substance use. Defendants – who are still innocent until proven guilty, mind you – must either report to jail twice a day to give a breath test or pay more for an ankle monitor. Offenders pay $4 a day for the breath test and up to $12 a day for the ankle monitor. “If they pass the test, they’re out the door. If they fail the test, they’re incarcerated,” explained Program Manager Bruce Bjork. Repeat offenders are a major frustration for law enforcement officers. Many complain the current laws puts people back out on the street with lesser penalties than what they should have. My opinion? The monitoring is another way of “plea tenderizing” defendants into pleading guilty to alcohol-related offenses. Daily monitoring is a significant inconvenience in time and money. As a result, defendants beleaguered with the time and expense of this excessive pretrial monitoring will want to plead guilty to DUI or a lesser alcohol related charge simply to stop the monitoring rather than fight the case on its merits. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** DUI, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Washington State Patrol **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Whatcom County Domestic Violence Filings Increase](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/whatcom-county-domestic-violence-filings-increase/) **Published:** January 13, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** The Bellingham Herald reported that [in 2012, more protection orders were filed in Whatcom County. ](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2014/01/12/3414146/number-of-domestic-violence-protection.html)Also, more people were booked into jail for [Domestic Violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/). This information was found in the [10th Annual Report About Domestic Violence. ](http://media.bellinghamherald.com/smedia/2014/01/03/10/43/1uXJ8j.So.39.pdf)Report highlights for 2012 included the following: \* Law enforcement reported 1,387 domestic violence offenses in Whatcom County, down slightly from 1,422 in 2011. Nearly 55 percent were assaults and 30 percent were violations of protection or no-contact orders. \* The number of domestic violence protection orders filed in Whatcom County courts went up in 2012. At 427, it was the highest since 2004. \* Domestic violence made up 20 percent of Whatcom County Jail bookings in 2012, an increase from previous years and double the 10 percent of all jail bookings in 2011. My opinion? Domestic violence is an AWFUL dynamic to have in a relationship. The effects of domestic violence wreak havoc on relationships, reputations and families. However, most couples are not involved in ongoing domestic violence relationships. The vast majority of these situations involve a couple who argued a little too passionately, perhaps under the influence, and police are contacted. Unfortunately, when the criminal justice system gets involved, the wheels are very hard to stop. For example, most people are unaware that under RCW 10.99, officers MUST arrest a primary aggressor and immediately take them to jail. Additionally, most defendants MUST move out of their own homes while the case is pending. This is a substantial hardship. And defendants who are convicted of domestic violence crimes risk being incarcerated, paying court fines and restitution, obtaining domestic violence evaluations, undergoing treatment, being monitored by probation, losing their gun rights, and obeying court orders preventing them from communicating with family members. Finally, a domestic violence conviction carries a negative stigma which may deter employment opportunities. Take my word, these types of charges probably won’t get reduced or dismissed quickly. Most prosecutors and judges want to continue these cases out to see if people will violate no-contact orders. Indeed, many defendants end up facing *more* criminal charges if they accidentally or intentionally violate a no-contact order. A vindictive and/or vengeful “victim” may invite communication and persuade a defendant to violate the court’s no-contact order. I’ve seen this happen many times. And once a victim has proof that a contact happened, they can – and most *will* – contact the police and pursue additional charges of [Violating a No-Contact Order (NCOV)](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/no-contact-order-violations/). These are particularly nasty charges which are very difficult to defend against. An NCOV charge damages the defendant’s bargaining position in reducing and/or dismissing the underlying domestic violence charge that got them in trouble in the first place! Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Assault, Domestic Violence, felony, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Barry: Whether a Defendant's Demeanor Spells Trouble During Trial](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-barry-whether-a-defendants-demeanor-spells-trouble-during-trial/) **Published:** February 6, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Barry*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2043438-5-II%20%20Part-Published%20Opinion.pdf), the WA Court of Appeals decided it does NOT violate a defendant’s Constitutional rights to allow a jury to consider the defendant’s in-court demeanor during trial. The State charged Barry with [first degree child molestation (DV)](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.083). The case proceeded to trial. Important to note, *Barry* *chose not to testify.* During deliberations, the jury sent a note asking the court, “Can we use as ‘evidence for deliberation,’ our observations of the defendants actions and demeanor during the court case?” The trial court instructed the jury, “Evidence is what you witness in the courtroom.” Barry objected to the jury instruction. The jury found Barry guilty as charged. Barry appealed. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the trial judge misstated the law in giving that instruction because the defendant did not testify; and therefore, his demeanor was not evidence presented during trial. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals rejected arguments that Barry’s [5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment) were violated. It stated, “Here, neither the State nor the trial court forced Barry to do anything with regards to his demeanor. He had full control over how he acted in the courtroom. Other than citing the Fifth Amendment, Barry does not explain how he was compelled to give evidence against himself. We hold that allowing the jury to consider the defendant’s demeanor as evidence does not violate the Fifth Amendment.” Finally, the Court of Appeals discussed the absence of any discussion on the record regarding Barry’s demeanor. In other words, there was a lack of record on how Barry behaved. The Court said the following: “Without any information identifying what demeanor the jury may have considered, it is impossible to know whether that consideration was favorable or unfavorable to Barry. In the abstract, a defendant’s behavior is neutral. Depending on the demeanor, a jury could draw a negative inference or a positive inference from how the defendant acts during trial. As a result, merely stating that a jury may have considered a defendant’s demeanor without any information about that demeanor cannot establish prejudice because that consideration may have favored the defendant.” My opinion? This case is tough. I’ll agree with the Court of Appeals in saying that *what we don’t know* is the pink elephant in this room. I’ve had many jury trials. During preparations, I thoroughly inform defendants how to properly behave in court. And yes, it’s extremely difficult for many defendants to stay calm and stoic during trial. Most defendants are very emotional about the case, especially if they believe the State’s witnesses are lying and/or exaggerating during testimony. Consequently, the decision on whether to testify is a strategic one. And this decision – whatever it may be – can backfire for many reasons. Typically, jurors want to hear defendants testify. However, if a defendant does not testify, then human nature dictates that juries perceive how the defendants *acts* during trial. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, felony, Self-Incrimination, Sex Crimes, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Roden: Text Messages Are Protected by Washington's Privacy Act](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-roden-text-messages-are-protected-by-washingtons-privacy-act/) **Published:** March 24, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** Good opinion. In [*State v. Roden*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/876690.pdf), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) ruled that [Washington’s Privacy Act](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.73) is violated by an officer’s warrantless opening, reviewing, and responding to text messages sent to a suspect’s phone, before the suspect viewed the message. In *State v. Roden*, Daniel Lee was arrested for possession of heroin. After the arrest, a police detective spent 5 to 10 minutes browsing through Lee’s cell phone. The detective noticed several text messages from Jonathan Roden. The detective arranged a drug deal with Roden via text messages. Roden was arrested for[ Attempted Possession of Heroin](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). The trial court denied Roden’s motion to suppress and found Roden guilty. On appeal, Roden argued that the detective’s conduct violated Washington’s Privacy Act. The Washington Supreme Court agreed with Roden. It reviewed the Privacy Act act and analyzed the following excerpt in pertinent part: “\[I\]t shall be unlawful for … the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any: (a) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication.” Furthermore, [RCW 9.73.050](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.73.050) declares that evidence obtained in violation of the act is inadmissible for any purpose at trial. Against this backdrop, the court gave the four-part analysis under *State v. Christensen* to be considered when analyzing alleged violations of the privacy act. There must have been (1) a private communication transmitted by a device, which was (2) intercepted or recorded by use of (3) a device designed to record and/or transmit ( 4) without the consent of all parties to the private. Roden stated the communications in the text message were intended to be private when intercepted by the detective posing as Lee. Applying those factors, the Court reasoned that Washington’s privacy act was violated because the detective intercepted private communications without Lee’s or Roden’s consent or a warrant. My opinion? Good decision. In my experience, this type of situation happens quite often. It’s entrapment, plain and simple. And it violates a defendant’s rights in the process. Contact an experienced criminal defense attorney if you’re facing similar circumstances. Your privacy matters! Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, felony, law enforcement, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [How High Is Too High to Drive?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/how-high-is-too-high-to-drive/) **Published:** May 7, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** An interesting [news article](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2014/05/06/3626959/how-high-is-too-high-to-drive.html) from the[ Bellingham Herald](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/) discusses how high is too high to drive after smoking marijuana. As usual, the answers to this question were widespread: “Pretty damned stoned is not as dangerous as drunk,” said Mark Kleiman, professor of public policy at the University of California, Los Angeles, who served as Washington state’s top pot consultant. He said Washington state has a law that’s far too strict and could lead to convictions of sober drivers, with many not even knowing whether they’re abiding by the law. Washington state and Colorado, the only two states to fully legalize marijuana, have set a limit of five nanograms of active THC per milliliter of blood. In Washington state, legalization proponents included the language in the ballot initiative approved by voters in 2012. While police can use breathalyzers to easily measure the amount of alcohol in one’s bloodstream, the best way to determine marijuana intoxication is by examining a blood sample. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court complicated the situation for states by ruling that police must get a warrant before testing blood for a DUI. As the debate heats up, both sides can point to competing research. In February, researchers from Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health reported that fatal crashes involving marijuana use had tripled over the past decade, with one of every nine drivers now involved in a deadly accident testing positive for pot. My opinion? The bad news is at the moment we don’t have have anything sensible to do about stoned driving. The good news is that it’s only a moderate-sized problem. I, for one, have not seen a dramatic increase in marijuana DUI’s and/or drug DUI’s. It simply hasn’t been an issue. The best solution, it seems, is to wait for the science to improve. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Blood Test, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Search Warrant, Washington State Patrol **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Lindsay: When Attorneys Act Unprofessionally](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-lindsay-when-attorneys-act-poorly/) **Published:** May 13, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** In *[State v. Lindsay](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/884374.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) reversed a defendant’s conviction because the lawyers engaged in unprofessional behavior, trading verbal jabs and snide remarks throughout the proceedings in this case. The defendants were charged with [Robbery](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/robbery/), [Burglary](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/), [Kidnapping](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/kidnapping-unlawful-imprisonment/), [Assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) and [Theft of a Firearm](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/). The jury convicted them of some, but not all counts. The WA Supreme Court reasoned that although the trial court attempted to maintain civility, the magnitude of the problem, which spilled into the prosecutor’s closing argument, requires reversal. In short, a prosecutorial misconduct involves a two-part inquiry: (1) whether the prosecutor’s comments were improper, and (2) whether tjhe improper comments caused prejudice. The court noted that although the conflict from both the Prosecutor and Defense Counsel seemed mutual and both attorneys were at fault, Prosecutors are held to a higher standard of conduct. Additionally, some of the Prosecutor’s hijinks at Closing Argument required reversal of the conviction. For example, the Court noted that Prosecutors may not refer to defense counsel’s closing argument as a “crock.” These comments impugn Defense Counsel, and imply deception and dishonesty. The Prosecutor also said that the defendant Holmes’s testimony was “funny,” “disgusting,” “comical,” and “the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.” Additionally, the Prosecutor’s attempts at coupling the jigsaw puzzle analogy with a percentage of missing pieces in the defense attorney’s case was also reversible error. Moreover, comparing the reasonable doubt standard to the decision made at a cross-walk is error. In addition, telling the jury that its job is to ‘speak the truth,’ or some variation thereof, misstates the burden of proof and is also improper. A prosecutor’s stating that a witnesses’ testimony is “the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard” is an improper expression of personal opinion as to credibility. Finally, a prosecutor’s behavior in whispering to the jury is improper, highly unprofessional and potentially damaging to the fairness of the proceedings. My opinion? The WA Supremes made a good decision. Practicing law is hard. Conducting jury trials is *very* hard. Now imagine dealing with another attorney’s unprofessional conduct during trial. Unbelievable! Yes, these instances of misconduct happen. I speak from experience when I say it’s easy to get sucked into malicious and negative behavior, especially when attorney’s advocate in the heat of battle. Nevertheless, [Section 3.4 of Washington’s Rules of Professional Conduct](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/RPC/GA_RPC_03_04_00.pdf) require that attorneys be civil toward one another and the tribunal. It’s incredibly difficult for judges to analyze the legal issues over the furor of shouting attorneys. And it hurts the credibility of the entire legal institution when our citizens see us behaving badly. My heart goes out to the lawyers involved in the case. Hopefully, they worked out their differences. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Assault, Burglary, Firearm, Kidnapping, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Robbery, Rules of Professional Conduct, Theft, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Finch: Can Defendants Force Victims to Get Polygraph Tests?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-polygraph-tests/) **Published:** June 2, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v.* ](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2044637-5-II%20%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*Finch,* the WA Supreme Court ruled that a rape victim’s [polygraph test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph) is inadmissible at trial. The defendant was accused of [raping a juvenile](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/). Defense counsel obtained a court order commanding the alleged victim to obtain a polygraph test. The polygraph questions centered around what exactly happened on the day of the alleged rape incident. The WA Supreme Court held that the trial court wrongfully granted the Defendant’s request to order the victim to take a polygraph test. The court reasoned there is no factual basis under CrR 4.7 – basically, the discovery rule – making it reasonably likely that the disputed polygraph test results would provide information material to the defense. The Court based its decision on three grounds. First, polygraph tests are inadmissible at trial unless all parties agree. Here, the State did not want to stipulate to admitting the victim’s polygraph. Second, the State would not dismiss the charges against the defendant even if the victim failed the polygraph because there would be a “disputed issue of material fact” regarding the polygraph’s reliability (CrR 8.3). Third, the polygraph test results would only provide the defendant with highly unreliable information. The Court concluded that the negative emotions that accompany being a sex crime victim, such as stress, anxiety, and fear, can further compromise the reliability of an already unreliable polygraph test by distorting the results and creating false positives. My opinion? Good decision. The biggest problem with polygraph tests is that there are no known physiological responses that directly correspond with deception. An examinees physiological responses is often governed by whether the examinee believes the test is accurate, and from the atmosphere created by the examiner. Furthermore, external stimuli may cause a change in physiological responses, such as a surprising question or a noise outside the room. Likewise, stress, anxiety and fear – all controlled by the autonomic nervous system – cause changes in the physiological responses of an examinee. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Assault, Discovery, Polygraph, Pretrial Investigations, Rape, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [When Prosecutors Violate the Advocate-Witness Rule: United States v. Rangel-Guzman](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/when-prosecutors-violate-the-advocate-witness-rule-united-states-v-rangel-guzman/) **Published:** June 9, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [U.S. v. Rangel-Guzman](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/05/28/13-50059.pdf), the 9th Circuit holds that a prosecutor commits error by phrasing cross-examination questions regarding a witnesses’ prior inconsistent statements as “but you told us” and “I asked you and you said.” Such questions violate the advocate-witness rule. The defendant was arrested at the border while trying to transport 91.4 kilos of marijuana into the U.S. The marijuana was hidden in a compartment behind his backseat. The defendant was arrested and charged with the federal offenses of [Unlawful Possession With intent to Distribute](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). While the case was pending, the Federal prosecutor interviewed the defendant. Eventually, the case went to trial. At trial, and during cross-examination, the Assistant United States Attorney repeatedly attempted to impeach Rangel-Guzman by referring to a meeting between herself, Homeland Security Agent Baxter, Rangel-Guzman and Rangel-Guzman’s attorney. In doing so, the Prosecutor made it clear that she had questioned Rangel-Guzman and that he had made certain statements inconsistent with his current testimony: “You told us that you and your mother ran into Martha . . . You told us that four or five months before . . . That’s what you told us last week . . . Don’t you remember that I was shocked that you were saying it was four to five months before you got arrested?” The court reasoned that the Prosecutor engaged in improper vouching by effectively acting as a witness. Vouching occurs when a prosecutor “places the prestige of the government behind the witness or indicates that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.” *United States* v. *Roberts*, 618 F.2d 530, 533 (9th Cir. 1980). The [***Advocate-Witness Rule***](https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/advocate-witness-rule/) prohibits attorneys from testifying in a trial they’re litigating; the rule “expresses an institutional concern, especially pronounced when the government is a litigant, that public confidence in our criminal justice system not be eroded by even the appearance of impropriety.” *United States* v. *Prantil*, 764 F.2d 548, 553 (9th Cir. 1985). Here, the prosecutor made a number of statements that used variations on “but you told us” and “I asked you and you said,” as well as assertions of fact about what had occurred during the meeting: “Well, we went over and over it, Mr. Rangel,” “Do you remember last week I specifically asked you multiple times who accompanied you to the Quinceanera?” And she left no doubt about her personal feelings during the meeting: “Don’t you remember that I was shocked that you were saying that it was four to five months before you got arrested that you met Martha?” When a prosecutor interviews a suspect prior to trial, the “correct procedure” is to do so “in the presence of a third person so that the third person can testify about the interview.” The court concluded that undoubtedly, the Prosecutor was asking the jury to choose whether to believe her or the defendant. This was highly improper and unfair to the defendant. Despite the error, the court affirmed the conviction because the case against the defendant was so strong. In other words, the defendant failed to show that the outcome of the trial would have been different, had the error not occurred. For these reasons, the 9th Circuit affirmed the conviction. My opinion? Interesting ruling. I’m satisfied the 9th Circuit actually took the case on appeal. It’s also pleasing they recognize when Prosecutors violate the Advocate-Witness Rule. It’s an *important* rule. Too often, Prosecutors lean on their own credibility when trying cases. This is a very subtle and damaging strategy because jurors have a tendency to want to believe everything a Prosecutor says! This is very dangerous, however, when Prosecutors unlawfully insert themselves into proceedings and testify as witnesses. The Court was correct in saying that the Prosecutor should have called Agent Baxter to testify. Good opinion. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, felony, law enforcement, marijuana, police, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Search and Seizure **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Unlawful Frisking Violates Constitutional Rights](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/unlawful-frisking-state-v-russell/) **Published:** July 30, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** Good case. In [*State v. Russell*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/892539.pdf), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) held that the warrantless search of a small container found on the defendant’s body exceeded the proper scope of a pat-down search under the guise of a “protective frisk for weapons” during a [*Terry* Stop](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/terry_stop/stop_and_frisk). The defendant Mr. Russell was stopped for violating several minor traffic laws. The officer recognized Russell from a prior stop. Although the Mr. Russell told officers he was not armed, he did, in fact, have a small pistol in his pocket. The officer frisked Mr. Russell for weapons. The officer felt a small box in Russell’s pants. The box was did not weigh any significant amount, and the officer had no idea whether the box contained a weapon. The officer opened the box. It contained a syringe filled with methamphetamine. The defendant was arrested for [Possession of Meth](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). The trial court granted Mr. Russell’s motion to suppress the evidence and dismiss the case. However, the WA Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision on appeal. Eventually, the case found its way to the WA Supreme Court. The WA Supreme Court ruled that although the initial protective frisk was permissible, the officer violated Russell’s constitutional rights when he removed a small container from his pocket and searched it without a warrant. The officer admitted that the container’s contents weighed only a fraction of what a pistol weighs. Because the officer did not have a reasonable belief that the container housed a gun, the warrantless search was not justified. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that any threat to the officer’s safety ended when he took control of the container. He did not have authority to search it while investigating traffic infractions. Finally, the WA Supreme Court held that the search was not justified on the basis of consent because the State did not show that Russell consented to the search. For these reasons, the WA Supremes reversed the Court of Appeals. My opinion? Great decision. Under the law, officers can only search for “hard and sharp” objects which might be used as weapons. Anything else they find is “fruit of the poisonous tree” under an unlawful search. Again, good decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, felony, Firearm, law enforcement, Methamphetamine, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, Uncategorized, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. McNeely: U.S. Supreme Court Says Blood Draws Require a Warrant](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-mcneely-us-supreme-court-says-blood-draws-require-a-warrant/) **Published:** August 13, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*Missouri v. McNeely*](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf), the United States Supreme Court held that police officers investigating [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) must obtain search warrants for blood draws if emergency circumstances – in legal language, [*exigent circumstances*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exigent_circumstances) – do not exist. The issue decided by the U.S. Supreme Court was whether the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream presents a *per se* exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement for blood testing in all drunk-driving cases. The facts were such that the defendant McNeely was stopped by Missouri police for speeding and crossing the centerline. After declining to take a breath test to measure his blood and alcohol concentration (BAC), he was arrested and taken to a nearby hospital for blood testing. The officer never attempted to secure a search warrant. McNeely refused to consent to the blood test, but the officer directed a lab technician to take a blood sample anyway. McNeely’s BAC sample was well above the legal limit. He was charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI). The U.S. Supreme Court held that rather than applying a blanket *per se* exigency due to the dissipation of BAC in a person’s body, an exigency must also be based upon “special facts” under a case-by-case analysis. The Supremes reviewed prior caselaw on this subject. In *State v. McNeely,* the Court pointed out that a diminishing BAC result upon the passage of time that happens during a DUI investigation is only one factor that must be considered in determining whether a warrant is required. The Court in *McNeely* further stated that other factors, such as the procedures in place for obtaining a warrant or the availability of a magistrate judge, may affect whether the police can establish whether an exigency exists. In other words, a warrantless blood draw can still be conducted provided there are other factors articulated by the officer. My opinion? *McNeely* is a good, straightforward decision. In short, *McNeely* holds that when a person refuses to voluntarily submit to a chemical test for BAC, if time permits, a warrant should be obtained. If an officer cannot get a search warrant in a reasonable time, the officer should explain in great detail why a search warrant could not be obtained. The officer must be able to articulate what factors were present that created an exigent circumstance. Also, and importantly, “exigent circumstance” cannot be a result of the officer’s conduct. There must be objective, independent facts articulating why exigent circumstances exist to get a warrant. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Blood Test, Constitutional Rights, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, Exigent Circumstances, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Uncategorized, United States Supreme Court, Washington State Patrol **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Martines: More Good Caselaw on Blood Tests Taken After DUI Arrests](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-martines-more-good-caselaw-on-blood-tests/) **Published:** August 14, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** In *[State v. Martines](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/696637.pdf)*, the WA Court of Appeals held that after police investigate and arrest a suspect for suspicion of [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/), the State may not conduct tests on lawfully procured blood samples without first obtaining a warrant that authorizes testing and specifying the types of evidence for which the sample may be tested. The defendant was seen driving his SUV erratically. He veered into another car, careened across the highway, bounced off the barrier, and rolled over. A Washington State Trooper arrived and took Mr. Martines into custody. Martines smelled of intoxicants, had bloodshot watery eyes, and stumbled while walking. Trooper Tardiff sought a warrant to extract blood samples from Martines. His affidavit of probable cause stated that a blood sample “may be tested to determine his/her current blood alcohol level and to detect the presence of any drugs that may have impaired his/her ability to drive.” He obtained a warrant that authorized a competent health care authority to extract a blood sample and ensure its safekeeping. **The warrant did not say anything about testing the blood sample.** Martines’ blood was taken at a local hospital. Then it was tested for the presence of drugs and alcohol. The test results indicated that Martines had a blood alcohol level of .121 within an hour after the accident, and that the drug diazepam (Valium) was also present. Martines had a prior conviction for vehicular assault while driving under the influence. The State charged him with [Felony DUI](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/felony-dui/). The trial court denied Martines’ motion to suppress. He was found guilty at trial. The case went up on appeal. The primary issue on appeal was that testing a blood sample for any purpose is a search for which a search warrant is required. Because the warrant authorizing the extraction of blood did not specifically authorize blood testing of any kind, Martines argued that the results should have been suppressed as the fruit of an illegal search. The court held that (1) the extraction of the blood was one search while (2) the testing of the blood constituted another: “The extraction of blood from a drunk driving suspect is a search. Testing the blood sample is a second search. It is distinct from the initial extraction because its purpose is to examine the personal information blood contains. We hold that the State may not conduct tests on a lawfully procured blood sample without first obtaining a warrant that authorizes testing and specifies the types of evidence for which the sample may be tested.” In short, the court held that extracting someone’s blood is a *first* search, and testing the blood is a *second* search. The *first* search – the initial extraction – is totally different than the *second* search, which is analyzing the blood. Because the *second* search is so intrusive (blood contains someone’s personal DNA code, pregnancy results, information on diseases, etc.), a *second warrant* is needed. Consequently, the State may NOT test blood samples without first obtaining a warrant that authorizes testing. The warrant must specifically state the types of evidence they’re looking for. My opinion? State v. Martines is an interesting decision. I admire the Court of Appeals for making a decision which is consistent with [*Missouri v. McNeely*](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/11-1425) (discussed in another blog) and going one step further favoring a defendant’s constitutional rights under the 4th Amendment. The opinion prevents police officers from getting a boilerplate search warrant and going on fishing expeditions when they pull people over on suspicion of DUI. The officers must be trained to determine what exactly they’re looking for; be it drugs, alcohol or both. Saying someone has bloodshot/watery eyes, slurred speech and smells of intoxicants does not, by itself, cut it anymore. Good job, Court of Appeals. I’m impressed. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Blood Test, Constitutional Rights, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington State Patrol **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [DUI Patrols To Run Through Sept. 1 in Whatcom County](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/dui-emphasis-patrols-to-run-through-sept-1-in-whatcom-county/) **Published:** August 15, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** They’re back. According to the Bellingham Herald, people out partaking in recently legalized marijuana or drinking at end-of-summer barbecues should plan a safe way to get home, as emphasis patrols are looking for intoxicated drivers in Whatcom and Skagit counties. Officers from local police departments, sheriff’s deputies from Whatcom and Skagit counties and Washington State Patrol troopers will have extra patrols to catch drivers under the influence as part of the [Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over](https://www.nhtsa.gov/campaign/drive-sober) campaign. The emphasis patrols will run through Sept. 1st. “Specifically, we want people to know that marijuana doubles the risk of a fatal crash,” [Traffic Safety Commission Director Darrin Grondel](https://wtsc.wa.gov/overview/meet-the-director/) said in a news release. “With new retail marijuana stores in the mix, we want to remind the public that prescription and over-the-counter drugs, as well as illegal and recreational drugs, can impair driving ability.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Washington State Patrol **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Saggers: When Officers Exceed the Scope of Searches Under Terry v. Ohio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-saggers-when-officers-exceed-the-scope-of-searches-under-terry-v-ohio/) **Published:** August 29, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Saggers*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/698524.pdf), the WQA Court of Appeals held that police officers exceed the scope of a [*Terry* Stop](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/terry_stop/stop_and_frisk) when an informant’s tip is questionably (un)reliable and the exigency of the alleged serious offense has dissipated. Police arrived at the home of defendant Andrew Saggers because a 911 call indicated an altercation occurred outside his home involving a shotgun. The 911 call was placed from a payphone. Although the caller provided his name, he was unknown to the police. When police went to the payphone, the caller was gone and the phone was hanging from the cord. The police contacted Mr. Saggers. Although the present situation was neither dangerous nor life-threatening, the police inquired whether Mr. Saggers had a shotgun in the house. He admitted, “Yes.” The police searched his home and found the gun. Mr. Saggers was subsequently charged with [Unlawful Possession of a Firearm](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/). At trial, he was found guilty of the charges. The case went up on appeal. The Court of Appeals held the police officers exceeded the scope of a search under *Terry v. Ohio* because the informant tip was unreliable and the emergency of any life-threatening situation was already passed. For those who don’t know, [*Terry v. Ohio*](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17773604035873288886) is a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person “may be armed and presently dangerous. Here, however, the Court of Appeals ruled that although it is understandable that officers faced with a 911 call like this one would rightfully pursue an investigation, the 911 Call itself was unreliable. Additionally, the danger had already passed by the time officers arrived at Sagger’s house. Consequently, the officer exceeded the scope of a valid search under Terry v. Ohio. Based on these findings, the Court of Appeals reversed Saggers’ conviction. Good opinion. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** 911 Call, Assault, Constitutional Rights, felony, Firearm, law enforcement, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington State Patrol **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Brock: The "Time for Arrest" Doctrine](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-brock-the-time-for-arrest-doctrine/) **Published:** September 5, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Brock*](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1674885.html), the WA Court of Appeals held that police officers cannot search someone’s backpack and arrest them for [Drug Offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) 10 minutes after contacting a suspect on a [*Terry* stop](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/terry_stop/stop_and_frisk). “NO,” said the Court of Appeals in a recent decision. the facts were such that during a *Terry* stop, an officer separated Mr. Brock from his backpack. The officer subsequently arrested Brock and searched his backpack, but not until nearly 10 minutes after separating Brock from the bag. Officer Olson told Brock that he was not under arrest. Officer Olson asked Brock to put down his backpack, and Brock complied. Officer Olson did not find any weapons or any other items during his pat down of Brock. He did not pat down or search the backpack at that time. At trial, the trial court denied Brock’s motion to suppress, finding that this was a valid search incident to arrest under article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision. Some explanation is necessary. A “*Terry* stop” is a brief detention of a person by police on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest. The name derives from a famous United States Supreme Court decision titled, *Terry v. Ohio.* Also, under the “time of arrest” rule, an officer may search personal articles in an arrestee’s actual and exclusive possession at or ***immediately preceding*** the time of arrest. Here, the search of the defendant’s bag did not happen immediately after he was arrested. Officer Olson searched the bag roughly 10 minutes after seizing it from Brock. The bag was secured in Officer Olson’s truck from the time of seizure through the time of the search. Brock was 12 to 15 feet away from the vehicle and the backpack at the time of arrest and during the search of the backpack. Brock had actual possession of the backpack when Officer Olson initiated the *Terry* stop and when he seized it. However, Brock did not have actual possession of the backpack at the time of his arrest. Brock’s backpack was neither on his person nor within his area of control at the time of his arrest. While Officer Olson had probable cause to arrest Brock when he seized the backpack, it is the arrest itself—not probable cause—that constitutes the necessary authority of law to search under article I, section 7. Therefore, to find that this was a valid search incident to arrest, the Court said it must be convinced that, for the purposes of what is in an arrestee’s possession, “immediately prior to arrest” includes either the time between a valid *Terry* stop and the actual resulting arrest or the time between seizure of the backpack during the *Terry* stop and the resulting arrest. The Court concluded in saying that Washington Supreme Court’s opinions have not gone this far, and “We decline to do so here.” My opinion? Good decision. It’s pleasing to know our courts are upholding the WA Constitution and following the stringent search and seizure caselaw. Kudos. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, felony, Jail, law enforcement, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. McDonald: Prior Misdemeanor DV Convictions Count Toward Pointable "Offender Score" in Present Felony DV Charges & Convictions.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-mcdonald-prtior-misdemeanor-dv-convictions-count-toward-pointable-offender-score-in-present-felony-dv-charges-convictions/) **Published:** September 9, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. McDonald*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/720376.pdf) The Court ruled that violations of a [Domestic Violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) No-Contact Order are included in an offender score for felony DV convictions. In this case, the defendant Christopher McDonald was charged with [Assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) of his girlfriend Julianne Vanas during a car ride. The court entered No-contact Orders prohibiting contact between the defendant and his girlfriend. The defendant contacted Vanas via phone numerous times while he was in custody. The jail recorded the phone calls. At one point, the defendant told Vanas she needed to be persistent about calling the Prosecutor and saying she would not follow through with the charges. At trial, the defendant was convicted of [Felony Tampering With a Witness](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/tampering-with-a-witness-intimidation-of-witnesses/) and six gross misdemeanor violations of a [No-Contact Order](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/no-contact-order-violations/). Regarding the charge of [Assault in the Second Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/), the jury returned a guilty verdict on the lesser offense of Assault in the Fourth Degree, also a gross misdemeanor. By special verdicts, the jury found each count was domestic violence. The jury returned not guilty verdicts on [Unlawful Imprisonment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/kidnapping-unlawful-imprisonment/) and [Assault Fourth Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/). At sentencing, the court calculated McDonald’s offender score as “7” based on prior convictions. Because McDonald’s current conviction was a domestic violence offense, the court added 1 additional point for each of the current domestic violence gross misdemeanors, yielding a total offender score of 14 points (this is HIGH). The court sentenced McDonald to 51 months prison for Tampering With a Witness and imposed consecutive sentences for the Assault Fourth Degree and No-Contact Order convictions. The defendant appealed, saying the trial court miscalculated. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s calculations of the defendant’s felony score pursuant to RCW 9.94A.525(21). For those who don’t know, RCW 9.94A.525 provides: “If the present conviction is for a felony domestic violence offense where domestic violence as defined in RCW 9.94A.030 was plead and proven . . . count points as follows: (c) Count one point for each prior conviction for a repetitive domestic violence offense as defined in RCW 9.94A.030, where domestic violence as defined in RCW 9.94A.030, was plead and proven after August 1, 2011.” Here, the defendant argued (1) the statute does not apply, (2) the court gave erroneous jury instructions, (3) he was given ineffective assistance of counsel, and (4) the trial court improperly included his six current convictions for violating a domestic violence No-Contact order in calculating his offender score for Tampering With a Witness – a domestic violence conviction. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments. It reviewed the legislative intent of the statute from the plain language enacted by the legislature, considering the text of the provision in question, the context of the statute in which the provision is found, related provisions, and the statutory scheme as a whole. The Court also stated, “We must avoid constructions that yield unlikely, strange or absurd consequences.” And here, apparently the defendant’s interpretation of the law was unpersuasive. My opinion? . . . it doesn’t seem fair. Yes, domestic violence is an awful situation. It has horrible effects on people’s lives, including the families and children of those involved. Still, it doesn’t seem fair or equitable that a person with minor domestic violence convictions have those convictions count toward a felony score. Let’s assume these “minor convictions” for domestic violence included a Malicious Mischief Third Degree conviction for breaking a vase while arguing with a girlfriend, or a minor Assault Fourth Degree domestic violence conviction involving a “push & shove” with no injuries, mutual combat and drugs/alcohol ingested by the defendant and victim prior to the argument. It seems over-the-top that these types of domestic violence convictions can count toward a felony offender score and expose a defendant to substantially more months, if not years, in prison should they face a pending felony domestic violence charge. This type of math inevitably kills negotiations between defendants and prosecutors. It forces defendants to go to trial. Is that justice? Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Assault, Domestic Violence, felony, Jail, law enforcement, Unlawful Imprisonment, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Foster: When Detainments for "Officer Safety" Violate People's Rights](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-foster/) **Published:** September 22, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Foster*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/322947.unp.pdf), the WA Court of Appeals held that a police officer cannot seize someone for “officer safety” reasons and keep them handcuffed indefinitely. Here, the police officer’s decision to keep the defendant handcuffed indefinitely instead of checking for weapons turned an otherwise lawful seizure into an unlawful one. The facts were such that defendant Samuel Foster was accused of Burglary; more specifically, stealing a tent from the home of the alleged victim. In an effort to gain more information about the stolen tent, Officer Anderson made contact with Mr. Foster. The officer became concerned for her safety because Mr. Foster refused to take his hand out of his pocket. Officer Anderson grabbed Mr. Foster’s hand and placed him in handcuffs as a safety precaution. Sergeant Renschler happened upon the scene. He questioned Mr. Foster – who was still in handcuffs – about drugs. Sergeant Renschler searched Mr. Foster and found a small bag of meth inside a cigaratte container in Mr. Foster’s pocket. Naturally, Mr. Foster was charged with [Unlawful Possession of Meth](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). At trial, the judge denied Mr. Foster’s Motion to Suppress based on an unlawful search and seizure. In short, Mr. Foster argued the seizure under *Terry v. Ohio* was unlawful because the officer exceeded what was supposed to be a brief seizure for officer safety. The judge found Mr. Foster guilty of Possession of Meth. The case went up on appeal to Division III of the WA Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reasoned that police can conduct a [*Terry* investigative stop](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/terry_stop/stop_and_frisk) if they don’t have a warrant. A *Terry* stop allows officers to briefly seize a person in specific and articulable facts, in light of the officer’s training and experience, if the facts give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the person was engaged in unlawful activity. In evaluating the lawfulness of a *Terry* stop, the court must inquire whether the temporary seizure was justified at its inception, and whether the stop was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the initial interference. Here, the basis for the stop was insufficient. Simply because a person is in a high crime area does not establish a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the person is engaging in criminal activity. Also, the simple fact that Mr. Foster had his hand in his pocket when approached by Officer Anderson does not support a reasonable, articulable suspicion that Mr. Foster was engaged in criminal activity. Consequently, the Court of Appeals ruled the seizure of Mr. Foster under these circumstances was not a valid *Terry* stop. The court reasoned that the true nature of the stop was for officer safety. Still, however, Officer Anderson did NOT frisk Mr. Foster for weapons. The court said, ” . . . because the only legal basis to seize Mr. Foster was for officer safety, we are constrained to hold that the officer’s decision to forego frisking Mr. Foster amounts to ***continued detainment without a legal basis***.” The court concluded that Mr. Foster’s consent to search was obtained by exploitations of his prior illegal seizure, and as a result, the evidence obtained as a result of his consent to search must be suppressed. Good decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Burglary, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, felony, law enforcement, police, Search and Seizure, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington State Patrol **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Pinson: When Prosecutors Violate a Defendant's 5th Amendment Right](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-pinson-when-prosecutors-violate-a-defendants-5th-amendment-right-against-self-incrimination/) **Published:** September 27, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Pinson*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2044259-1-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf), the WA Court of Appeals held that a Prosecutor violated a defendant’s 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination by arguing that the defendant was guilty because he chose to not talk to police when arrested. Mason County Sheriff Deputy Nault responded to a reported domestic violence call. He contacted Stacey Campbell, who was in a parking lot across the street from her home. She said the defendant Jarad Pinson, her boyfriend, violently assaulted her. Deputy Nault saw red marks on her neck. Deputy Nault went into the home and arrested Mr. Pinson. During the arrest, Mr. Pinson was cooperative. He said he was drinking with his friends. When asked by officers if the situation became violent with Ms. Campbell, however, Mr. Pinson did not respond. he was arrested for [Assault Second Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) [Domestic Violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/). At trial, the judge granted the defense attorney’s motion in limine to suppress the Prosecutor from asking whether the fight was physical. However, defense counsel asked that question during cross-examination. Because of this, the judge ruled that Pinson’s defense attorney “opened the door” and gave the Prosecutor opportunity to cross examine the defendant on whether the fight was physical. In closing argument, the Prosecutor said Mr. Pinson’s silence during arrest was substantive evidence of guilt. Although Ms. Campbell recanted her earlier accusations of assault while testifying on the witness stand, the jury nevertheless returned a guilty verdict on the Assault Second Degree charges. The case went up on appeal. The law on prosecutorial misconduct is straightforward. To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, a defendant must show that “in the context of the records and the circumstances of trial, the prosecutor’s conduct was both improper and prejudicial. However, when the defendant fails to object to the challenged portions of the prosecutor’s argument, he is deemed to have waived any error unless the prosecutor’s conduct was so flagrant and ill intentioned that an instruction could not “cure” the resulting prejudice to the defendant. The 5th Amendment in the U.S Constitution states, “no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” Similarly, Article I, section 9 of the WA State Constitution follows this language. Both Constitutions guarantee a defendant the right to be free from self-incrimination, including the right silence. A defendant has the right to remain silent both prearrest and post-arrest; i.e., both before and after a defendant is given *Miranda* warnings. Here, the Court of Appeals held that the Prosecutor’s statement was improper because in violated Mr. Pinson’s 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. More specifically, it was improper for the State to make closing arguments that infer guilt from the defendant’s silence. Even though defense counsel did not object, his failure to object did not waive the claim of prosecutorial misconduct because the conduct was so flagrant and ill-intentioned that an instruction would not have cured the prejudice. The case was reversed and remanded for a new trial. My opinion? Great decision. It’s a long-standing, basic principle that Prosecutors cannot infer a defendant’s silence as evidence of guilt. I’m pleased the Court acknowledged this basic principle. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Domestic Violence, felony, Jail, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Search and Seizure, Self-Incrimination, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Bellingham Police Want to Increase DUI Arrests By 50%](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/bellingham-police-department-expected-to-increase-dui-arrests-by-50/) **Published:** October 1, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** Drunk drivers will be targeted *en force* over the next year as Bellingham puts extra officers on the streets with state grant money. [Bellingham Police Department](https://cob.org/gov/dept/police) received a grant from the [Washington State Traffic Safety Commission](https://wtsc.wa.gov/) for extra [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) patrols starting Wednesday, Oct. 1 and lasting through Sept. 30, 2015. **The department will try to increase its DUI arrest rate by more than 50 percent.** To do so, each enforcement officer will try to arrest one impaired driver every four hours, and crack down on other crash-related behavior. The grant goals follow statewide “Target Zero” goals to reduce and eventually eliminate fatal and serious injury crashes. Statewide, the yearly goal is to have 24 fewer deaths from crashes and 120 fewer serious injuries. To kick off the program, Bellingham police will work with the Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office to conduct a high visibility DUI enforcement patrol Friday, Oct. 3. Officers will focus on city and county streets with the highest number of injury and fatal crashes. My opinion? Unbelievable. “The department will to try to increase its DUI arrest rate by more than 50 percent.” Wow. In other words, if you’re driving downtown Bellingham during certain hours, expect to get pulled over. Period. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Washington State Patrol **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Merrill: Victim's Rights to Deny a Defense Attorney's Interview](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-merrill/) **Published:** October 18, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** Interesting opinion. In [*State v. Merrill*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/317226.cor.pdf), the WA Court of Appeals decided that an attorney may be sanctioned for directly contacting a crime victim after the crime victim has exercised her rights under RCW 7.69.030(1) to have an advocate present at any prosecution or defense interview. The facts were such that defense attorney Mr. Harget was representing the defendant, Lucas Merrill, who was charged with assaulting members of the Gertlar family. The Gertlar family signed a “Notice of Victim’s Intent to Rely on RCW 7.69.030(10). Through the document, the Gertlars exercised their right to have a victim’s advocate present at any prosecution or defense interviews and demanded that any conduct, interview, or correspondence be arranged through the victim/witness office of the Spokane County Prosecutor’s Office. Despite the family’s wishes to have a DV advocate present, Mr. Harget nevertheless contacted the victim’s family in an attempt to discuss the case. This happened not once, but twice. The victim’s family brought this to the attention of the Prosecutor; who in turn informed the court. Ultimately, Mr. Harget was sanctioned by the trial court. He appealed the sanctions. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s sanctions. It reasoned that a trial court has the inherent authroity to sanction lawyers for improper conduct during the course of litigation, but that generally requires a showing of “bad faith.” Furthermore, the court is encouraged to make an explicit finding of bad faith before imposing such sanctions. Finally, sanctions may be appropriate if an act affects the integrity of the court, and if left unchecked, would encourage future abuses. The court further reasoned that, when invoked, victims of violent crimes have the right to have a victim advocate present during an interview by defense counsel or the prosecution under RCW 7.69.030(10). However, the right given by the statute “applies if practical, and if the presence of the crime victim advocate or support person does not cause any unnecessary delay in the investigation or prosecution of the case.” Here, the Court of Appeals found Mr. Harget’s actions supported the sanctions against him. My opinion? This is a very tricky case to dissect. I’ve interviewed dozens of crime victims – the good, the bad and the ugly – during my career. Some victims do not want to be interviewed. When this happens, I’ll usually argue a legal brief that states the necessity of conducting witness interviews for the matter at hand. I’ll couch my arguments in the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and also cite helpful statutes and cases from Washington State. It’s highly necessary to interview victims. Sometimes, victims change their minds about the incident in question after thinking about it. Sometimes, they recant. Sometimes, they want the case dismissed and the No-Contact Orders to be rescinded. Sometimes, victims have ulterior motives; or their version of the facts is inconsistent with other evidence, or they don’t have much opportunity to witness/observe the totality of the incident. A defense attorney *must* know these things before proceeding to trial. After all, a defense attorney can be found to be ineffective if they *don’t* interview witnesses and victims! So yes, I fully understand Mr. Hagley’s dilemma. On this same note, I understand the concerns of the victim’s family’s as well. I’m sure they simply wanted to be left alone, and not contacted by Mr. Hagley at all. Interesting case. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Assault, Constitutional Rights, Domestic Violence, felony, misdemeanor, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Westvang: Ferrier Warnings, Arrest Warrants & Questionable Searches of a Home.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-westvang-ferrier-warnings-arrest-warrants-questionable-searches-of-a-home/) **Published:** October 23, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Westvang*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2042777-0-II%20%20Published%20Opinion%20After%20Remand.pdf), the WA Court of Appeals just decided that *Ferrier* Warnings (discussed below) are **NOT** necessary when police officers obtain consent to enter a home in order to execute an arrest warrant on a fugitive. Police were searching for a fugitive named Scott Miller, who had a warrant for his arrest. Officers received a tip that Miller was at Ms. Westvang’s home. They arrived at her home. The officers informed Ms. Westvang that they were looking for Miller. She said he was not there. Officer Sawyer asked permission to search her home and look for Miller. Although Officer Sawyer did not give full Ferrier Warnings, he informed Westvang that she did not have to consent to the search. Westvang consented to the search and led officers through her living room, kitchen and bedroom. They did not find Miller. However, after returning to the living room, the officers saw a desk upon which were substances recognized as meth and marijuana, as well as small plastic baggies; a digital scale with a white crystalline substance, and $105 in U.S. currency. Ms. Westvang was arrested for [Possession of a Controlled Substance With Intent To Deliver](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). Although Westvang’s attorney argued a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence because the officers failed to provide *Ferrier* warnings, the judge denied her motion. At trial, Westvang was convicted. She appealed. Some background is necessary. In [*State v. Ferrier*](https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/1998/64930-8-1.html), the WA Supreme Court announced a rule to protect occupants who may not be aware of the right to refuse consent to a search or to limit its scope and duration. The court stated the following: “When police officers conduct a “knock and talk” for the purposes of obtaining consent to search a home, and thereby avoid the necessity of obtaining a warrant, they must, prior to entering the home, inform the person from whom consent is sought that he or she maylawfully refuse to consent to the search and that they can revoke, at any time, the consent that they give, and can limit the scope of the consent to certain areas of the home. The failure to provide these warnings, prior to entering the home, vitiates any consent given thereafter.” Importantly, and after *Ferrier* was decided, the WA Supreme Court has since ruled under *State v. Ruem* that *Ferrier* warnings are not required when law enforcement officers seek consent to enter a home and execute an arrest warrant. Instead, *Ferrier* warnings are required only when law enforcement officers are conducting a “knock and talk”: entering the home without a search warrant to search for contraband or evidence of a crime. Here, the officers were not required to give Ms. Westvang any Ferrier warnings because they were not requesting entry to her home to search for contraband or evidence of a crime pursuant to a “knock and talk.” The officers observed Westvang’s consent to enter her home to execute and arrest warrant. Therefore, no *Ferrier* warnings were required. Based on this reasoning, the WA Court of Appeals affirmed Westvang’s conviction. My opinion? Cases like this are never easy. Consent walks hand-in-hand with duress. It’s very difficult for the average citizen to say “No” to law enforcement. Instinctively, we believe that refusing to cooperate with an officers request to search will only hinder their duties and bring harsher consequences for failing to cooperate. In these cases, and as soon as possible, it’s always wise to respectfully deny their questions and contact an attorney regarding your legal rights. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Evidence, Knock & Talk, law enforcement, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. W.R.: Defendants Do NOT Need to Prove Consent in Rape Cases](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-wr-defendants-do-not-need-to-prove-consent-in-rape-cases/) **Published:** November 2, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. W.R, J.R.*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/883416.pdf), the WA Supreme Court held that it violates due process to make the defendant prove the alleged sexual act in question was consensual when the crime charged is [Rape in the Second Degree by Forcible Compulsion](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/). The defendant, a minor named W.R., was found guilty at his bench trial of Rape in the Second Degree by Forcible Compulsion. The event in question was a sexual encounter between W.R. and J.P. that occurred on January 2, 2011, while J.P. was visiting her aunt, who resided with W.R. and his sister. J.P. was also a minor at the time. Throughout trial, the juvenile court judge found W.R. lacked credibility. Consequently, the court explained that the State had proved rape in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt and that W.R. had failed to prove the defense of consent by a preponderance of the evidence. W.R. appealed, arguing the juvenile court erred in allocating to him the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the act was consensual. The WA Supreme Court granted review of the case on this one issue: When the State charges the defendant under a rape statute that includes “forcible compulsion” as a necessary element of the crime, does due process forbid requiring a criminal defendant to prove consent by a preponderance of the evidence? The court reasoned that once a defendant asserts a consent defense and provides sufficient evidence to support the defense, the State bears the burden of proving lack of consent as part of its proof of the element of forcible compulsion. It analyzed the decision in *State v. Camara* and other cases which applied a “negates” analysis. In short, the Court held that when a defense necessarily negates an element of the crime, it violates due process to place the burden of proof on the defendant. It stated, “The key to whether a defense necessarily negates an element is whether the completed crime and the defense can coexist.” Furthermore, the court said other courts have recognized that when a person consents to sexual intercourse, such consent negates forcible compulsion. In addition, the defendant cannot be burdened with proving consent by a preponderance of the evidence, as the burden must remain on the State to prove forcible compulsion beyond reasonable doubt. We hold that consent necessarily negates forcible compulsion. For this reason, due process prohibits shifting the burden to the defendant to prove consent by a preponderance of the evidence. While the defendant may be tasked with producing evidence to put consent in issue, such evidence need only create reasonable doubt as to the victim’s consent. Our prior decisions in *Camara* and *Gregory* are inconsistent with this holding; we thus must explain why these cases must be overruled. My opinion? Good decision, on many levels. It’s satisfying that the WA Supremes overruled bad caselaw and reasoned their way back to the one of the oldest standards in American jury trial jurisprudence: it is the State, and not the defendant, who carries the burden. Making the defendant carry this burden violates due process. Although it appears *Camara* and *Gregory* tried to carve out an exception to this general rule in much the same way a defendant must prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence if charged with Assault, making a defendant prove consent in rape and sex cases is far too difficult to prove. This is especially true when the Rape-Shield statute suppresses information about a victim’s past sexual history. Good decision, WA Supremes. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Assault, Constitutional Rights, Evidence, felony, Rape, Self-Defense, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Reeves: Retail Theft Charges Dismissed With Knapstad Motion](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-reeves-retail-theft-charges-dismissed-with-knapstad-motion/) **Published:** November 10, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** Good case. In *[State v. Reeves](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2044811-4-II%20%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, the WA Court of Appeals upheld a trial court’s decision to grant a defendant’s *Knapstad* motion to dismiss a charge of [Retail Theft With Extenuating Circumstances](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/theft/). The Defendant was accused of using a pair of ordinary pliers to remove an anti-theft security device at a store. He was caught and charged with Retail Theft With Extenuating Circumstances. His attorney argued a *Knapstad* motion to dismiss on the basis that ordinary pliers were not “an item, article, implement or device designed to overcome security systems including, but not limited to, lined bags or tag removers. The judge granted the motion and reasoned that including common tools into the definition of devices designed to overcome security systems would render every act of removing a security device an extenuating circumstance. The State appealed. Some background on *Knapstad* motions is necessary. In *State v. Knapstad*, 107 Wash.2d 346 (1986), the Supreme Court created a procedure similar to summary judgment in a civil case, under which a criminal defendant can, by way of pre-trial motion, challenge the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence. In essence, if the prosecution cannot show by competent affidavit that it has a prima facie case of guilt on all elements, the court must dismiss the charge. In evaluating sufficiency of evidence, the court looks at the undisputed material facts already in the court record from the finding of probable cause, and ascertains whether as a matter of law, the prosecution has established a prima facie showing of guilt. For more information on Knapstad Motions, please read my Legal Guide titled, [Dismissing Cases Through *Knapstad* Motions.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/dismissing-cases-through-knapstad-motions/) Likewise, some background on the felony charge of Retail Theft With Extenuating Circumstances. Under former RCW 9A.5.360(1)(b), an extenuating circumstance for retail Theft charges includes being in possession of an item, article, implement, or device designed to overcome security systems including, but not limited to, lined bags or tag removers. Here, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal pursuant to the defendant’s *Knapstad* motion. They reasoned the criminal statute was ambiguous about the definition of the class of “tools” which created the aggravating factor of “Retail Theft.” Also, the “Rule of Lenity” made another basis for upholding the trial court’s decision: “Because the language of former RCW 9A.56.360(1)(b) is ambiguous, we first turn to the principles of statutory construction, the legislative history and the statutory scheme to determine the legislature’s intent. If this analysis still does not clearly show the legislature’s intent, the Rule of Lenity requires us to interpret the statute in Reeve’s favor.” Here, the Court ruled that the principles of statutory construction and an analysis of the legislative history and statutory scheme do not resolve the ambiguity of the statute in the State’s favor. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision. My opinion? Good decision. Both the trial court and the court of Appeals got it right. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Evidence, felony, Knapstad Motion, misdemeanor, Retail Theft, Theft, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Bellingham Police Start Using Body Cameras](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/bellingham-police-start-using-body-cameras/) **Published:** November 24, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** Finally, a step in the right direction. In an effort to reduce use-of-force complaints, [Bellingham Police officers are now wearing Body-Worn Cameras](https://komonews.com/news/local/bellingham-police-now-equipped-with-body-cameras) to record audio and video of their interactions with the public. The department is among the first to use the new equipment that now allows citizens to see crimes from an officer’s perspective. Officers are wearing two cameras — one on their chests and another mounted on collars, glasses or hats. The Bellingham Police Department has provided officers with guidelines for when they should activate the cameras. Some include traffic stops, arrests, or situations involving aggressive suspects. Police don’t need to ask for permission to record if they’re in public but they will tell you if the camera is on. However, if an officer is in a private residence he or she is required to get the homeowner’s permission to record. My opinion? Excellent decision. My hat is off to the Bellingham Police for making a pro-active decision toward this effort. I strongly believe having body cameras makes EVERYONE — both cops and citizens — behave better. even better, the cameras should provide evidence of whether police misconduct happens in some cases. Very good. My only concern is the privacy issues. Will police will secretly turn these cameras on when searching people’s houses? And if so, can the police attempt to use the surveillance video captured by the cameras as evidence of possession of contraband/weapons? As long as police are informing citizens that conversations and searches are being recorded (and as long as the police get the citizen’s consent to search ON CAMERA) then the searches are probably not intrusive and/or violations of a citizen’s constitutional rights. We’ll see. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Body camera, Evidence, law enforcement, police, Search and Seizure **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [WA Attorney General Says Police Do NOT Need Consent to Record Citizen Activities With Body Cameras](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/wa-attorney-general-says-police-do-not-need-consent-to-record-with-body-cameras/) **Published:** November 24, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** Bad decision. Conversations between law enforcement and members of the public may be recorded on police body cameras without citizen consent, according to an opinion issued today by Washington State Attorney General’s Office. Here’s the [opinion](http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=32439#.VHNwUPnF-CY) is linked below, as well as news articles describing the recent decision: The AG’s opinion said conversations between law enforcement and the public are generally considered public, *even if they take place inside a private residence.* Washington law requires two-party consent to record private conversations, but that standard does NOT apply to public ones. Legal precedent is less clear about an officer recording a conversation between two members of the public, since no case law addresses the subject directly. But the AGO said the Washington State Supreme Court has “strongly indicated” conversations between two people are not private when they know a police officer is present. Recently, [Bellingham Police officers are being outfitted with body cameras](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/bellingham-police-start-using-body-cameras/), which would record all official interactions with citizens, even inside private residences. The main issues of the AG’s opinion are stated below: 1. **The Washington Privacy Act, RCW 9.73, does not require the consent of a law enforcement officer to use body cameras attached to police uniforms. A local collective bargaining agreement, however, might limit or prohibit such use.** 2. **Conversations between law enforcement officers and members of the public are not generally considered private for purposes of the Privacy Act.** 3. **As a general matter, the Privacy Act does not require a law enforcement officer to cease recording a conversation at the request of a citizen, because such conversations are not private to begin with.** 4. **In order to use a recording as evidence in a criminal or civil case, the recording would be subject to the same laws and rules governing all evidence, including the requirement that the chain of custody be established to prove no tampering has occurred. Laws relating to the retention and disclosure of public records, including records retention schedules, would govern retention and disclosure of recordings.** 5. **RCW 9.73.090 does not limit the use of body cameras to the use of such cameras in conjunction with vehicle-mounted cameras.** My opinion? I was on board with the body cameras until the AG’s Office basically gave police officers permission to circumvent the privacy rights of citizens. Look, the average citizen on the street does NOT assert their Constitutional right to refuse to speak to police officers. Nor does the average citizen refuse to grant an officer’s request to search the citizen’s home or car. Police can be very persuasive in exercising their authority. So this AG opinion said conversations between law enforcement and the public are generally considered public? Even if the conversations are NOT consensual and take place inside a private residence? Bad decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Body camera, Evidence, felony, law enforcement, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Washington State Patrol Upgrades its DUI Breath-Test Machines](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/washington-state-patrol-upgrades-its-dui-breath-test-machines/) **Published:** December 1, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** The [Washington State Patrol](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/) is replacing its old breath-test machines (BAC Machines) with sleek, fast, new $9,500 devices that are used to test drivers arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. While both BAC machines can measure the alcohol in a person’s system by analyzing a breath sample, the much smaller and sleeker replacement features a touch screen and Microsoft Windows software and can process information faster. The State Patrol will place 83 of the new Dräger Alcotest 9510 machines in police and sheriff’s stations, jails and State Patrol divisions in northeast and southeast Washington before enough are available to use statewide. The machines will be used to test drivers arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. Whatcom County, Skagit County, Island County and San Juan County’s present BAC machines shall be replaced by the newer models. Like the old devices, the new one measures alcohol in the lungs by analyzing exhaled breath. However, the new machines utilize a dry gas standard instead of a liquid solution to verify that the instrument is working properly. For years, liquid solutions have had to be mixed locally by scientists, monitored for temperature, and checked regularly by technicians. The Dräger’s dry gas contains a known concentration of alcohol, allowing the instrument to verify that a suspect’s breath alcohol is being measured accurately and reliably, the State Patrol says. Only troopers, sheriff’s deputies and police officers certified in the Alcotest will be allowed to use the machines. My opinion? Competent defense attorneys should investigate whether the police officers who arrest our clients for DUI and later operate these machines on our clients are, in fact, certified to operate these machines. If they’re not, then perhaps the BAC result can be suppressed. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crimes. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Blood Test, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, Washington State Patrol **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Button: Public Shaming Sentence Struck](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-button-public-shaming-sentence-struck/) **Published:** December 5, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** VERY interesting opinion. In *[State v. Button](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2044036-9-II%20%20Order%20Publishing%20Opinion.pdf)*, the WA Court of Appeals says that a “shaming” sentence for a defendant convicted of is unlawful. More specifically, the Sentencing Reform Act does NOT support a sentencing court’s requirement that a defendant convicted of Theft First Degree must stand on a street corner holding a sign that states, “I stole from kids. Charlotte Button.” The defendant Charlotte Button was convicted for First Degree Theft for embezzling funds from a high school club. The trial court sentenced her to two months in jail and imposed an additional condition which intended to “send a message to the community.” The court explained the sentencing condition: “Before you begin your jail time, you are going to spend 40 hours standing at the corner of Wishkah and Broadway with a sign that says, ‘I Stole Money From Kida. Charlotte Burton.’ You’re going to do it two hours at a time twice a day from 7:00 to 9:00 in the morning and 4:00 to 6:00 in the afternoon.” Along with the “public shaming condition, the judge also imposed 60 days jail. Ms. Button appealed the “public shaming” portion of her sentence on the grounds that it violated her Constitutional Rights under the First Amendment and 8th Amendment of the Constitution. In other words, her Free Speech rights were violated and the judge’s sentence was arguably Cruel & Unusual Punishment. The Court of Appeals decided that although Washington’s Sentencing Reform Act allows a number of sentencing alternatives – including drug treatment for drug offenders and sexual deviance treatment for sex offenders – “public shaming” is not a designated sentencing alternative. “Nor does any other Sentencing Reform Act provision independently authorize the sign-holding condition, which clearly requires Button to affirmatively engage in some conduct. Thus, there is no statutory authority allowing the imposition of a sign-holding condition in the first instance.” The Court did not address Ms. Button’s Constitutional arguments. My opinion? Good decision. It’s well-grounded in statutory authority (and lack thereof). Sure, the defendant’s actions leading to the conviction were bad. Nevertheless, she paid her debt to society by serving a significant amount of jail (60 days). And I’m sure the court imposed restitution and court fines, as well. Good decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Cruel & Unusual Punishment, Due Process, felony, Jail, Sentencing, Shaming, Theft, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Gunderson: Court Decides Prior "Bad Acts" of Domestic Violence Are Inadmissible](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-gunderson-court-decides-prior-bad-acts-of-domestic-violence-are-inadmissible/) **Published:** December 11, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** Good opinion. In [*State v. Gunderson*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/892971.pdf), the Court of Appeals decided a trial judge improperly allowed evidence of the defendant’s “prior bad acts” of [Domestic Violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) under [Evidence Rule (ER) 404(b)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=ER&ruleid=gaer0404) at the defendant’s jury trial. Here, the State charged defendant Daniel Scott Gunderson with Domestic Violence Felony Violation of a Court Order for a September 2010 altercation between himself and Christina Moore, his ex-girlfriend. At trial, Ms. Moore testified that no assault occurred. Although she made no prior statements about the incident, let alone an inconsistent statement, the State sought to introduce evidence of a 911 Call to police and also Gunderson’s prior domestic violence against Ms. Moore to impeach her credibility and show that she was a “recanting” domestic violence victim who was unduly influenced by the defendant. The trial judge admitted this evidence over Gunderson’s ER 404(b) objection. Gunderson argued that the trial court should have excluded evidence of his prior bad acts under ER 404(b). Some background is necessary. Under ER 404(b), evidence of a defendant’s “Prior Bad Acts” is inadmissible for the purpose of proving a person’s character and showing that the person acted in conformity with that character. The same evidence may, however, be admissible for any other purpose, depending on its relevance and the balancing of its probative value and danger of unfair prejudice. For evidence of prior bad acts to be admissible, a trial judge must ( 1) find by a preponderance of the evidence that the misconduct occurred, (2) identify the purpose for which the evidence is sought to be introduced, (3) determine whether the evidence is relevant to prove an element of the crime charged, and (4) weigh the probative value against the prejudicial effect. Here, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the probative value of the prior DV evidence was outweighed by its significant prejudicial effect. It stated the following: > “Much like in cases involving sexual crimes, courts must be careful and methodical in weighing the probative value against the prejudicial effect of prior acts in domestic violence cases because the risk of unfair prejudice is very high. To guard against this heightened prejudicial effect, we confine the admissibility of prior acts of domestic violence to cases where the State has established their overriding probative value, such as to explain a witness’s otherwise inexplicable recantation or conflicting account of events. Otherwise, the jury may well put too great a weight on a past conviction and use the evidence for an improper purpose.” The Court of Appeals further reasoned that the trial court’s error was not harmless, and that it is reasonably probable that the admission of the two domestic violence convictions materially affected the outcome of the trial. Consequently, and given the above analysis the Court of Appeals revered the defendant’s conviction and remanded the case to a new trial. My opinion? This decision was very reasonable, even-handed opinion which was effectively based on the law. The logic makes sense. Because the victim did not make conflicting statements and did not recant and the State did not articulate some other compelling justification, the probative value of this evidence is limited in comparison to its significant prejudicial effect. Not only was it manifestly unreasonable for the trial court to admit this evidence, it was also reasonably probable that the jury would have reached a different outcome. Good opinion. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** 911 Call, Assault, Domestic Violence, Evidence, Jury Trial, law enforcement, police, Prior Bad Acts, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Jardinez: Parole Officer Conducts Overbroad Search of Defendant's iPod](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-jardinez-parole-officer-conducts-overbroad-search-of-defendants-ipod/) **Published:** December 13, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** Good decision. In *[State v. Jardinez](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/313085.pub.pdf)*, the Court of Appeals held that a community corrections officer’s (CCO) review of video on a parolee’s iPod Nano violated the parolee’s constitutional rights because the CCO did not have a reasonable suspicion based on articulated facts that the iPod Nano contained evidence of past, present or future criminal conduct or violations of the parolee’s conditions of release. The defendant Felipe Jardinez was an parole for [Drive-By Shooting](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drive-by-shooting/) and [Unlawful Possession of a Firearm Second Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/). He served prison time followed by 18 months of community supervision. The conditions of community custody included requirements to report to his CCO, refrain from possessing controlled substances and refrain from possessing firearms. On November 3,2011, Felipe lardinez missed a scheduled meeting with his CCO. The CCO called Jardinez. The two scheduled to meet the next day. During the appointment, Martinez asked Jardinez to submit to a urinalysis test. Jardinez admitted that the test would show marijuana use. The CCO instructed Jardinez to empty his pockets. Jardinez placed an iPod Nano onto a desk. The CCO was interested in the iPod because parolees occasionally take pictures of themselves with other gang members or “doing something they shouldn’t be doing.” When the CCO handled the iPod, Jardinez appeared nervous. Nevertheless, the CCO lacked facts that the iPod video player would show evidence of a crime or violation of the conditions of the defendant’s community custody. The CCO accessed the iPod. He found a video recorded earlier that morning. The CCO played the video. It showed Jardinez pumping a shotgun in his bedroom. Jardinez was arrested. Police searched his home and found the shotgun seen in Jardinez’s iPod video. Jardinez was charged with Unlawful Possession of a Firearm First Degree. Jardinez moved to suppress the evidence obtained through the CCO’s search of his iPod, and all evidence seized as a result of law enforcement officers searching his home as the spoiled fruit of the unlawful viewing of the video on his iPod. The trial court granted Felipe Jardinez’s motion to suppress. The court concluded that a warrantless search of the iPod would be justified only if the CCO had a reasonable suspicion based on articulated facts that the device contained evidence of past, present or future criminal conduct or violations of the defendant’s conditions of community custody. The case went up on appeal. At issue was whether the CCO had legal authority to search the content of Jardinez’s iPod when the CCO did not expect the search to yield evidence related to either of the known parole violations, Jardinez’s failure to appear, or his marijuana use. The Court of Appeals reasoned that unless an exception is present, a warrantless search is impermissible under both article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A trial court may suppress evidence seized from an illegal search under the Exclusionary Rule or the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine. The Court further reasoned that Washington law recognizes that probationers and parolees have a diminished right of privacy that permits a warrantless search based on probable cause. Parolees and probationers have diminished privacy rights because they are persons whom a court has sentenced to confinement but who are serving their time outside the prison walls. Therefore, the State may supervise and scrutinize a probationer or parolee closely. Nevertheless, this diminished expectation of privacy is constitutionally permissible only to the extent necessitated by the legitimate demands of the operation of the parole process. RCW 9.94A.631 provides exceptions to the warrant requirement. RCW 9.94A.631(1) reads: > If an offender violates any condition or requirement of a sentence, a community corrections officer may arrest or cause the arrest of the offender without a warrant, pending a determination by the court or by the department. *If there is reasonable cause to believe that an offender has violated a condition or requirement of the sentence, a community corrections officer may require an offender to submit to a search and seizure of the offender’s person, residence, automobile, or other personal property.* Also, the Court based its decision principally upon the Sentencing Guidelines Commission’s comment about RCW 9.94A.631(1). The Commission wrote as its official comment behind the statute: > The Commission intends that Community Corrections Officers exercise their arrest powers sparingly, with due consideration for the seriousness of the violation alleged and the impact of confinement on jail population. Violations may be charged by the Community Corrections Officer upon notice of violation and summons, without arrest. *The search and seizure authorized by this section should relate to the violation which the Community Corrections Officer believes to have occurred.* Based on the court’s reading of the statute and its counterpart comment, it found RCW 9.94A.631 did not authorize the CCO’s warrantless search of the contents of Jardinez’s iPod. It affirmed the trial court’s suppression of the evidence of Felipe Jardinez’s unlawful possession of a firearm. My opinion? Good decision. I’ve posted similar blogs stating that CCO’s and probation officers exercise too much power over defendants. This certainly is one of those cases. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Department of Corrections, Evidence, Exigent Circumstances, felony, Firearm, Privacy, Probable Cause, Probation, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Miller: Judge Eliminates Prospective Juror Who Overheard Pretrial Motions](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-miller-judge-eliminates-prospective-juror-who-overheard-pretrial-motions/) **Published:** December 16, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** In *[State v. Miller](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2044837-8-II%20%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, the WA Court of Appeals decided that the pretrial dismissal of a potential juror who wandered into the courtroom and heard the attorneys arguing pretrial motions did NOT violate public trial right or defendant’s right to be present. The defendant was charged with [Conspiracy to Commit Murder](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/) and [Murder in the First Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/). Before jury selection, a juror from the jury pool entered the courtroom while pretrial issues were discussed between the attorneys and the judge. The trial court dismissed the juror from participating in the defendant’s trial before beginning voir dire. At any rate, the defendant was found guilty of the charges. He appeals his conviction on the grounds that dismissing the potential juror from the jury pool violated his right to a public trial and his right to be present at critical trial stages. The Court of Appeals decided ( 1) the trial court’ s pre -voir dire dismissal of the prospective juror did not violate Miller’ s public trial right, and 2) even if dismissal of the prospective juror during a recess violated Miller’ s right to be present at critical trial stages, the violation was harmless error. The court reasoned that the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article 1, section 22 of the WA Constitution guarantees the right to a public trial. In general, this right requires that certain proceedings be held in open court unless a [“*Bone-Club*” analysis](https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/1995/62844-1-1.html) set forth in *State v. Bone-Club*, 128 Wn.2d 254 (1995) supports closure of the courtroom. The threshold determination when addressing an alleged violation of the public trial right is whether the proceeding at issue even implicates the right. Not every interaction between the court, counsel, and defendants will implicate the right to a public trial or constitute a closure if closed to the public. Here, the Court reasoned that the trial court’s dismissal of the juror did not occur during voir dire itself, and therefore did not fall within the “category of proceedings that our Supreme Court has already acknowledged implicates a defendant’s public trial right.” Finally, the Court held that even if Miller’ s right to be present was violated, this violation was harmless error. My opinion? Good decision. I’ll take a wild guess and assume the attorneys were arguing Motions in Limine when the potential juror wandered into court and listened. Motions in Limine are a very critical phase in the jury trial process, and happen before jury selection actually begins. Among other things, motions in limine practice allow attorneys to establish the rules of engagement (what you can and can’t say during trial). More important, they address whether certain controversial evidence is going to be suppressed from the jury; and/or the manner/purpose for which said evidence is going to be admitted (if it is). Worst-case scenario, a potential juror who overhears a conversation about Motions in Limine take place between the attorneys and judges can inform the jury about all the evidence which the jury *doesn’t* know about — all the evidence which was suppressed, scrubbed up; deemed irrelevant; prejudicial, cumulative, distracting, etc. Watching attorneys practice Motions in Limine is like watching a butcher making sausage. It gets to the ugly, brutal and bloody aspects of the case; some of which are purposefully sealed away from the eyes and ears of the jury. Besides, jurors are only supposed to judge cases with the facts they know about and the law as it applies. Again, good decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Due Process, Evidence, felony, Homicide & Manslaughter, Jury Trial, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Espey: Prosecutor's Improper Comments During Trial Reverses Defendant's Convictions](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-espey-prosecutors-improper-comments-during-trial-reverses-defendants-convictions/) **Published:** December 17, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** Good opinion. In *[State v. Espey](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2043737-6-II%20Part%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, The Court of Appeals ruled that a Prosecutor’s improper comments during a jury trial required reversal of the defendant’s convictions. Mr. Espey was charged with [Robbery First Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/robbery/), [Burglary First Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/), [Unlawful Possession of a Firearm First Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/), [Possession of a Stolen Firearm](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/) and [Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Substance](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). He had three separate jury trials. During closing argument at the second trial, the prosecutor argued the jury should consider Espey’s statement to police in light of the time he had spent consulting with attorneys prior to making the statement. The prosecutor said the following: > “Where I suggest you start is, start with his own recorded statement that he gave to the police. Keep in mind that he had been on the run for approximately six weeks. Keep in mind that he had already consulted with two attorneys, Chip Mosley and Gary Clower. He had lots of time to figure out what story he was going to tell the police. > > If you have ever dealt with somebody who is a good liar, they have a pattern. What they do is this: admit everything you can’t admit without getting into trouble and only deny the stuff that you have to . . . You heard Tom Espey’s story in there. ‘I’m not guilty of robbery because i personally didn’t take anything. I’m free. Okay, I did everything else, but guess what? You can’t touch me.’ And he is wrong. He is wrong because he doesn’t understand what it means to be an accomplice. He doesn’t understand what accomplice liability means.” Defense counsel did not object to these highly inflammatory and prejudicial statements. The jury convicted Espey of 3 of the 5 felonies. In overturning the convictions, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the Prosecutor’s comments were so flagrant and ill-intentioned that no curative instruction could have stopped their prejudicial effect from swaying the jury. Therefore, defense counsel’s failure to object at trial did not waive the issue. The court further reasoned that a defendant has a right to counsel under the state and federal constitutions under the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article 1, subsection 22 of the Washington Constitution. Under these laws, several courts have held that a prosecutor violates these rights by using “an accused’s decision to meet with counsel, even shortly after the incident giving rise to a criminal indictment,” to imply guilt or suggest that the defendant hired an attorney to concoct an alibi. **No prosecutor may employ language which denigrates the right of a criminal defendant to retain counsel of his choice, or otherwise limits the fundamental due process right of an accused to present a vigorous defense.** Finally, the court reasoned that the Prosecutor strikes at the core of the 6th Amendment right to counsel when it seeks to create an inference of guilt out of a defendant’s decision to *meet* with defense counsel. “That is precisely what the state did here and reversal is required as a result. The State thereby improperly commented on and penalized Espey’ s exercise of the right to counsel, a right guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions.” The Court of Appeals reversed the convictions. My opinion? Great decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Assault, Burglary, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, felony, Firearm, Jury Trial, Privacy, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Robbery, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Quaale: WA Supreme Court Upholds WA Court of Appeals & Grants Mistrial Due To Trooper's Opinion Testimony](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-quaale-wa-supreme-court-upholds-wa-court-of-appeals-grants-mistrial-due-to-troopers-opinion-testimony/) **Published:** December 19, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** Excellent opinion from the WA Supreme Court. In *[State v. Quaale](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/896666.pdf)*, the WA Supreme Court decided that a Washington State Trooper’s opinion testimony regarding the defendant’s sobriety violated the defendant’s rights at trial. Trooper Stone pulled the defendant Ryan Quaale over for [Eluding](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/eluding/) and [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). Trooper Stone then performed the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test (HGN test) on Quaale. Some explanation of the HGN test is necessary. The HGN test is a routinely used field sobriety test in which the administrator tells the subject to follow a pen or fingertip with his or her eyes as the administrator moves the stimulus from side to side. After consuming alcohol, a person will have difficulty smoothly following the stimulus; the person’s eyes will jerk or bounce as they move from side to side. For those who don’t know, “Nystagmus” is this very involuntary oscillation of the eyeballs – the jerking – which results from the body’s attempt to maintain orientation and balance. HGN is the inability of the eyes to maintain visual fixation as they turn from side to side or move from center focus to the point of maximum deviation at the side. Here, Trooper Stone testified that in his opinion, the HGN test is very important to determining impairment because, unlike the walk the line test, which a person can practice, the HGN test measures an involuntary reflex. Trooper Stone did not perform any other sobriety tests on Quaale in the field. During the HGN test, Trooper Stone observed Quaale’s eyes bounce and have difficulty tracking the stimulus. Trooper Stone placed Quaale under arrest for DUI, Reckless Driving, and Attempting to Elude. At the station, Trooper Stone informed Quaale of the implied consent warnings for a breath test. Quaale refused to take the test. Quaale was charged with Attempting to Elude a police vehicle and with Felony DUI. The DUI was charged as a felony because Quaale had been previously convicted of Vehicular Homicide While Under the Influence. RCW 46.61.502(6)(b)(i). Quaale was tried twice. At the first trial, the jury convicted him of attempting to elude but could not agree on a verdict for the DUI charge. During a second trial on the DUI charge, the State concluded its direct examination of Trooper Stone with the following questions: > Q. In this case, based on the HGN test alone, did you form an opinion based on your training and experience as to whether or not Mr. Quaale’s ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired? \[Defendant’s objection that the question goes to the ultimate issue is overruled\] > Q …. Did you form an opinion? > A. Absolutely. There was no doubt he was impaired. The WA Supremes reasoned that Trooper Stone’s testimony that he had “no doubt” the defendant was impaired was an improper opinion on the defendant’s guilt and therefore inadmissible. Trooper Stone based his opinion solely on a HGN test, which can indicate physical signs consistent with alcohol consumption. ***The test, however, cannot establish impairment by itself***, and testimony to the contrary violates the limitations imposed by the Supreme Court’s decision in *State v. Baity*. An explanation of *State v. Baity* is necessary. In *Baity*, the WA Supreme Court considered whether drug recognition protocol employed by police officers to detect behavior associated with certain drugs constituted novel scientific evidence generally accepted in the scientific community, satisfying the *Frye* test for admissibility of expert testimony. Police officers trained to use this protocol are often referred to as Drug Recognition Experts (DREs). DREs use a 12-step procedure to classify behavioral patterns associated with seven categories of drugs. Officers employ the HGN test as one ofthe 12 steps. In *Baity*, the Court analyzed whether the HGN test satisfied *Frye* when used for drug detection. The Court held that it did. It reasoned that the underlying scientific basis of the test-an intoxicated person will exhibit nystagmus was undisputed. T he Court also noted that officers perform the test in the same way whether the officer tests for alcohol or drug impairment and that the officer also looks for the same result: involuntary jerking in the driver’s eyes. Thus, the Court’s analysis of the HGN test in the DUI drug detection context, as discussed in *Baity*, applies equally to the DUI alcohol detection context in this case. Although the *Baity* Court heard testimony on the HGN test admissible as evidence that a person was intoxicated on drugs, the Court also placed limits on that testimony because the HGN test merely shows physical signs consistent with ingestion of intoxicants. The Court said that an officer may not testify in a manner that casts an “aura of scientific certainty to the testimony.” The officer also cannot predict the specific level of drugs present in a suspect. Furthermore, the *Baity* court held that a DRE officer, properly qualified, could express an opinion that a suspect’s behavior and physical attributes are consistent or inconsistent with those behaviors and physical signs associated with certain categories of drugs. With that background, the *Quaale* Court reasoned that the Trooper’s testimony that Quaale was “impaired” parroted the legal standard contained in the jury instruction definition for “under the influence.” The word “impair” means to “diminish in quantity, value, excellence, or strength.” WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1131 (2002). Thus, the trooper concluded that alcohol diminished Quaale in such an appreciable degree that the HGN test could detect Quaale’s impairment. Because the Trooper’s inadmissible testimony went to the ultimate factual issue-the core issue of Quaale’s impairment to drive-the testimony amounted to an improper opinion on guilt. With that, the WA Supremes affirmed the Court of Appeals, reversed the judgment and sentence, and remanded Mr. Quaale’s case for a new trial. Great decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Drug Recognition Expert, Due Process, DUI, Evidence, Jury Trial, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Terry Stop, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington State Patrol, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Fedoruk: Ineffective Assistance AND Prosecutorial Misconduct](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-fedoruk-ineffective-assistance-and-prosecutorial-misconduct/) **Published:** December 27, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [State v. Fedoruk](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2043693-1-II%20%20Part-Published%20Opinion.pdf "State v. Fedoruk"), Division II overturned the conviction of a defendant charged with Murder in the Second Degree. The court ruled (1) Mr. Fedoruk received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to timely pursue a mental health defense and did not object to alleged prosecutorial misconduct; and (2) the prosecutor committed flagrant and ill-intentioned misconduct in closing argument by undermining the presumption of innocence, encouraging the jury to decide the case on grounds other than reasoned evaluation of the evidence, expressing personal opinions as to Fedoruk’ s guilt, and presenting evidence not admitted at trial. Mr. Fedoruk was charged with Murder in the Second Degree of a relative named Ischenko, whom Fedoruk had accused of raping a family member. Apparently, Mr. Fedoruk had a long history of serious mental illness. He suffered a head injury in a motorcycle accident at the age of 18, was diagnosed with schizophrenia, and was twice admitted to a psychiatric hospital. Doctors have prescribed numerous psychotropic and antipsychotic medications, but Fedoruk had a history of poor compliance with the medication regimens. During a 2007 competency evaluation, doctors at Western State Hospital diagnosed Fedoruk with bipolar disorder, most recent episode manic, with psychotic features. Fedoruk underwent another mental health evaluation after the State charged him with Robbery, Assault, Theft, and Criminal Trespass in 2008, and a court ultimately found Fedoruk not guilty by reason of insanity. Despite the above background of mental health issues, Fedoruk’ s defense counsel stated at a pretrial hearing that “the Defense has no intention of putting forward an affirmative defense of diminished capacity or arguing that … Fedoruk was incapable of forming intent at the time.” And although defense counsel later requested a 60-day continuance to pursue an Insanity defense, the trial judge denied the motion and ruled defense counsel failed to lay the foundation for the defense, and that diligence was not shown. Fedoruk’s case proceeded to trial. At trial, the medical examiner testified that Ischenko died from blunt force trauma, and possibly also strangulation. A crime laboratory analyst testified that the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) profile obtained from bloodstains on Fedoruk’ s clothing matched Ischenko’ s. DNA from numerous bloodstains at the end of the driveway also matched Ischenko’ s profile, as did DNA in blood obtained from under Fedoruk’ s fingernails. The trial proceeded to Closing Argument. The Prosecutor had a lengthy closing argument on PowerPoint. Among other improper statement, the Prosecutor concluded the presentation by showing a large image of Ischenko’ s body in a ravine under the heading “Murder 2.” On the final PowerPoint slide, under an enlarged ” Murder 2″ heading, the word “GUILTY” flashes, written with all capitals in a 96 -point red font. As these words and images appeared on the screen, the prosecutor delivered the following summation: > Serhiy Ishchenko. He’ s a brother. He was an uncle. He was a father. He was a tidy man, a hard worker and considerate. He was beaten to death, stomped to death, strangled to death. His body was left in a ravine and he was left for dead by the Defendant. Murder two. The Defendant is guilty, guilty, guilty. Thank you. Fedoruk’s attorney did not object to any portion of the State’ s closing argument, or to the PowerPoint presentation. First, the Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether Fedoruk received ineffective assistance of counsel. It launched into an in-depth analysis of [*State v. A.N.J.*](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17930848016932242191&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr "State v. A.N.J."), which is a recent case regarding ineffective assistance of counsel by defense attorneys. The court reasoned that pursuant to *State v. A.N.J.*, the extensive history of Fedoruk’s mental illness, all of which was available to the defense from the beginning of the case, indicates that the decision to not seek an expert to evaluate Fedoruk until it was too late fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. “With that, Fedoruk was prejudiced by the failure to investigate a mental health defense. Accordingly, Fedoruk received ineffective assistance of counsel, and we reverse his conviction.” Second, the Court addressed the issue of whether the Prosecutor’s closing argument was improper. To prevail on a prosecutorial misconduct claim, a defendant must show that the Prosecutor’ s conduct was both improper and prejudicial. To establish prejudice, the defendant must show a substantial likelihood that the misconduct affected the jury verdict. Additionally, a Prosecutor who throws the prestige of her public office and the expression of her own belief of guilt into the scales against the accused deprives the defendant of the constitutional right to a fair trial. Finally, a Prosecutor enjoys wide latitude to argue reasonable inferences from the evidence, but must seek convictions based only on probative evidence and sound reason. The court also reasoned that a prosecutor should not use arguments calculated to inflame the passions or prejudices of the jury. Although a Prosecutor may point out a lack of evidentiary support for the defendant’ s theory of the case or state that certain testimony is not denied, the general rule is that the State cannot comment on the lack of defense evidence because the defense has no duty to present evidence. Here, the Court concluded that the Prosecutor’s closing argument was improper. First, the Prosecutor did not couch her assertions of guilt in terms of the evidence in the case, and she reinforced those assertions with inflammatory images. The Prosecutor conveyed to the jury her personal opinion that Fedoruk was guilty. This argument was improper. Second, the Prosecutor asked the jury to infer guilt from the intuition of other witnesses who testified. Indeed, this served as the theme of her prepared remarks during closing argument. Therefore, this argument was improper. Finally, the prosecutor improperly commented on the lack of defense evidence by arguing that because Fedoruk did not present contrary evidence, Fedoruk agreed with the State’ s position. This, also, was improper. In sum, the court found the Prosecutor’s conduct was improper, reversed the defendant’s conviction and remanded for a new trial. My opinion? Although my heart goes out to the victim’s family, I’m happy with the Court of Appeals decision. Prosecutorial misconduct violates a defendant’s rights to a fair trial. It creates prejudices against the defendant which overwhelm a juror’s clear and rational thinking. And ultimately, it’s unnecessary. If a Prosecutor’s case is strong, then there is no need for misconduct. And the Court of Appeals said it best at the end of the opinion: > In legal doctrines, some distinctions seem cut with a jeweller’ s eye. Others seem more a work of watercolor, with one shade blurred into another. Although the line between zealous advocacy and improper argument may seem drawn in part in watercolor, the conduct at issue here fell outside its blurred zones. The prosecutor’ s actions described above constituted misconduct. Exactly. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, DNA, Due Process, Evidence, felony, Homicide & Manslaughter, Ineffective Assistance, Jury Trial, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Witherrite: Ferrier Warnings Do Not Apply to Car Searches](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-witherrite-ferrier-warnings-do-not-apply-to-car-searches/) **Published:** December 27, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** Interesting. In *[State v. Witherrite](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/317561.pub.pdf "State v. Witherrite")*, the Court of Appeals decided that law enforcement officers need not give *Ferrier* warnings for car searches because an automobile should not be treated in the same manner as a home. A deputy sheriff stopped Ms. Witherrite for a traffic violation and had her perform field sobriety tests. The deputy then received permission to search Ms. Witherrite’s car after advising her that at any time she could stop or limit the scope of the search. The deputy did not tell her that she had the right to refuse consent. The vehicle search turned up marijuana, methamphetamine, and drug paraphernalia. The prosecutor ultimately charged [Drug Offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) for each of those items. She moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that her consent was invalid due to the absence of the warnings required by *State v. Ferrier*, 136 Wn.2d 103,960 P.2d 927 (1998). The trial court disagreed, concluding that *Ferrier* did not extend to vehicles and that Ms. Witherrite had consented to the search. The court found her guilty as charged. Ms. Witherrite timely appealed. The issuel presented on appeal was whether the Court would extend *Ferrier* warnings to vehicle searches. Some background on *Ferrier* is necessary. In *Ferrier*, the Washington Supreme Court faced a situation where officers wanted to get inside a house to see if they could smell growing marijuana which they suspected was present on the basis of an unsupported tip. The officers did not tell the occupant that she had the ability to refuse consent. After being invited into the home, the officers asked for consent to search the residence. A detective explained that this “knock and talk” procedure was used in order to avoid seeking a search warrant. The defendant consented to the search and was convicted of the charges. The Washington Supreme Court reversed the conviction, ruling that because the woman had a heightened right of privacy in her home. Under article I, section 7 of the WA Constitution, officers could not enter a home to seek voluntary consent to search the dwelling without first informing her that she did not need to consent to the entry. The court’s analysis repeatedly emphasized the heightened protection given the home under our constitution. The court then adopted the following rule: > When police officers conduct a knock and talk for the purpose of obtaining consent to search a home, and thereby avoid the necessity of obtaining a warrant, they must, prior to entering the home, inform the person from whom consent is sought that he or she may lawfully refuse to consent to the search and that they can revoke, at any time, the consent that they give, and can limit the scope of the consent to certain areas of the home. Despite the above rule, the WA Court of Appeals in this case decided *Ferrier* warnings are NOT applicable outside of the home because the Washington Supreme Court has long distinguished houses from vehicles in the search and seizure context. One particularly instructive case the court examined was *State v. Vrieling*, 144 Wn.2d 489,28 P.3d 762 (2000). There, a deputy sheriff stopped a motor home and arrested the driver, Ms. Vrieling. A search of the motor home was conducted incident to the arrest. The question before the court was whether the then-existing vehicle search doctrine applied to the search of the motor home, which is essentially a house-like vehicle. The court ultimately concluded that when a motor home is used as a vehicle, the vehicle search doctrine applied and apparently, *Ferrier* warnings do not. The treatment of the home as most deserving of heightened protection under the WA constitution led the court to conclude that *Ferrier* warnings need not be given prior to obtaining consent to search a vehicle. My opinion? Sad as it seems, this opinion makes sense. There certainly are differences between a car and a home. Simply put, homes have more privacy protections than cars. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, Evidence, felony, Knock & Talk, law enforcement, police, Privacy, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Goggin: Implied Consent Warnings for Blood Test & Crawford Issues](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-goggin-implied-consent-warnings-for-blood-test-crawford-issues/) **Published:** December 29, 2014 **Author:** admin **Content:** In *[State v. Goggin](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/315151.OrderPubl.pdf "State v. Goggin")*, Division II of the Court of Appeals held that when a blood test is collected pursuant to a search warrant, the officer is not required to advise the defendant that the defendant has a right to additional tests. Also, proof of the defendant’s prior [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) conviction from Idaho was admissible; and the admission did not violate the confrontation clause. Mr. Goggin was arrested for DUI. After taking Mr. Goggin in for a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) test, Officer Marcus read Mr. Goggin his implied consent warnings, including his right to have additional tests performed by a person of his own choosing. Mr. Goggin indicated he understood his rights and signed the implied consent form. Officer Marcus obtained a search warrant to draw a sample of Mr. Goggin’s blood. It was taken about three hours after his arrest and *without any further independent-testing advisement.* Mr. Goggin was charged with [Felony DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/felony-dui/) because he allegedly had four prior DUI convictions. At trial, Goggin moved to suppress the results of the blood test based on the officer’s failure to advise him of his right to an additional test after obtaining the warrant. The trial court said, “This was a blood draw authorized by a search warrant. The trooper did not have to advise the defendant of the right to additional tests.” Later, Goggin was found guilty. He appealed. During cross-examination, defense counsel asked Trooper Marcus whether he re-read the implied consent warnings to Mr. Goggin after obtaining the search warrant: > Defense counsel: Did you at any time advise him as part of any warnings related to the blood test that he could get an additional blood test? > > Trooper Marcus: That was in part of the implied consent warnings for breath. It states in there that you have the right to additional tests administered by a qualified person of your own choosing. > > Defense counsel: You have separate warnings for blood; do you not? > > Trooper Marcus: We do, but implied consent warnings for blood weren’t read in this case. Later in trial, the Prosecutor admitted evidence of the defendant’s prior DUI from Idaho. Although no witnesses actually testified that Mr. Goggin actually had a prior DUI from Idaho, the prosecutor successfully admitted into evidence the Judgment and Sentence conviction data from the Idaho court. Mr. Goggin tried dismissing the case based on the State’s failure to produce a witness from Idaho who could provide evidence that he had been arrested in Idaho. The court denied the motion, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence to go to the jury. The jury found Mr. Goggin guilty of felony OUI. He appealed. The Court of Appeals held that the arresting officer was not required to advise Mr. Goggin of the right to additional tests because the blood draw was authorized by a search warrant, not the implied consent statute. The Court reasoned that *[City of Seattle v. Robert St. John](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1204819.html "City of Seattle v. Robert St. John"),* and [RCW 46:20.308(1)](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.308 "RCW 46.20.308(1)") allows officers to *“obtain* a *search warrant for blood alcohol tests regardless of the implied consent statute.”* In *St. John,* the motorcyclist refused to take the voluntary test; but, the evidence that the motorcyclist was driving under the influence constituted sufficient probable cause to justify a warrant. Similarly here, the search warrant and subsequent blood alcohol test were the result of evidence showing Mr. Goggin was driving under the influence. Thus, the State was not required to re-advise Mr. Goggin of his right to additional tests after issuance of the search warrant. The Court also held that Goggin’s constitutional right to confront a witness under *[Crawford v. Washington](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-9410 "Crawford v. Washington")*[ ](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-9410 "Crawford v. Washington")were not violated when the State failed to produce a witness who could testify about Goggin’s prior DUI from Idaho. Here, the State met its burden of proving Mr. Goggin was the same Joseph Goggin convicted of the 2009 DUI in Idaho by submitting Mr. Goggin’s 2007 to 2011 Washington State Identification card. his photographic identification card included Mr. Goggin’s height and weight, hair and eye color, and his address. This information matched the identifying information in the 2009 Idaho judgment and sentence. The identification card was issued in 2007 and was valid until 2011; thus, it corresponded with the date of the Idaho conviction. Accordingly, the State provided sufficient evidence of this fourth DUI to support the conviction for felony DUI. Also, Mr. Goggin’s Idaho judgment and sentence was inherently trustworthy. It was not created in anticipation of litigation or to prove a fact at trial; therefore, it was not necessary to cross-examine the clerk who certified the document. A certified record not prepared for use in a criminal proceeding but created for the administration of an entity’s affairs is not testimonial evidence under *Crawford v. Washington*. Accordingly, the admission of the Idaho judgment and sentence did not violate Mr. Goggin’s confrontation rights. The Court of Appeals upheld Mr. Goggin’s conviction. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Blood Test, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, DUI, Evidence, felony, law enforcement, police, Terry Stop, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Lawson: Burglary & Voyeurism](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-lawson-burglary-voyeurism/) **Published:** January 9, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Lawson*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2044744-4-II%20Part%20Published%20Opinion.pdf "State v. Lawson"), the WA Court of Appeals supported the defendant’s convictions for both Voyeurism and Burglary. Here, the defendant was prosecuted for sneaking inside the women’s restrooms at Harrison Medical Center and Barnes & Noble and spying on different females from bathroom stalls as they entered and used the restroom facilities. The Prosecution charged the defendant with one count of [Burglary First Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/), two counts of [Burglary Second Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/), one count of [Assault Second Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/), one count of [Voyeurism](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.115 "Voyeurism"), and two counts of [Criminal Attempt ](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.28.020 "Criminal Attempt")of Voyeurism. The jury returned guilty verdicts on each charge except for Assault Second Degree. The defendant appealed the jury verdicts on the argument that the State failed to introduce sufficient evidence to prove the Barnes and Noble voyeurism charge and each of the Burglary charges. However, the Court of Appeals disagreed. Under statute, a person commits the crime of Voyeurism if he knowingly views another person in a place where that person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Here, a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy inside a restroom. The Court reasoned it is undisputed that the defendant viewed women by peeking over the restroom stall door in a place that was clearly delineated for use by women only. It stated, “Although the women’ s restroom was inside an otherwise public building and while a person might not usually disrobe inside the common area, one expects privacy in a restroom.” The Court also rejected the defendant’s argument that the evidence is insufficient to support Burglary convictions because voyeurism is not “a crime against person or property,” which is a prerequisite to a Burglary conviction. Instead, the Court reasoned that voyeurism *is* a crime against a person and, therefore, can serve as the predicate crime for Burglary Second Degree. The Court further reasoned there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the defendant was guilty of the Burglaries because he entered the women’ s restroom with the intent to commit a crime against a person or property. With that, the Court affirmed the defendant’s convictions. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Assault, Burglary, Constitutional Rights, Evidence, felony, Privacy, Probable Cause, Uncategorized, voyeurism, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Nicholas: Court Rejects "Jury Nullification" Arguments](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-nicholas-jury-nullification/) **Published:** January 9, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** VERY interesting opinion from the WA Court of Appeals raises and dismisses the issue of whether jury nullification has any place in jury deliberations. In [*State v. Nicholas*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/312186.pub.pdf "State v. Nicholas"), a jury found defendant Scott Nelson guilty of [Possession with Intent to Deliver Methamphetamine](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.401 "Possession With Intent to Deliver Methamphetamine"), [Possession of Marijuana ](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.4013 "Possession of Marijuana")and [Use of Drug Paraphernalia](http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/richland/html/Richland09/Richland0911.html "Use of Drug Paraphernalia"). Nicholas appealed the verdict and argued that the trial court errored when it allowed the Prosecutor’s jury instruction saying, it was the jury’s “duty to return a verdict of guilty.” Some background on jury nullification is necessary. Basically, it occurs in a trial when a jury acquits a defendant, even though the jury believes the defendant is guilty of the charges. This happens when members of the jury disagree with the law the defendant has been charged with breaking, or believe that the law should *not* be applied in that particular case. Nullification is a juror’s knowing and deliberate rejection of the evidence or refusal to apply the law because the result dictated by law is contrary to the juror’s sense of justice, morality, or fairness. Here, the defendant took issue with the notion that the “To Acquit” instruction from the Prosecutor states that jurors have a **duty** to acquit if they found the defendant guilty of the charges. This “duty” language, said the defendant, violates his right to have the jury acquit him if they disagreed with the law itself. However, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the State of Washington’s 1874 case *Hartigan v. Territory of Washington* disassembles the defendant’s argument: The *Hartigan* court wrote, “A juryman is just as much bound by the laws of this territory as any other citizen. He acquires no right to disregard that law simply because he has taken an oath as juryman to aid in its administration.” The court also reasoned, “Judges must declare the law, while jurors must swear to faithfully apply that law.” Their oath to faithfully apply the law is under RCW 4.44.260, which states the following: > When the jury has been selected, an oath or affirmation shall be administered to the jurors, in substance that they and each ofthem, will well, and truly try, the matter in issue between the plaintiff and defendant, and*a true verdict give, according to the law* and evidence as given them on the trial. Consequently, the Court reasoned that the use of the word “duty” is consistent with the oath requirement that the jury give a true verdict, and that it does so according to the law and evidence. Finally, the Court discussed the horrors surrounding the verdicts of defendants accused of killing and maiming individuals because of racial hatred, and that these jurors exercised jury nullification even though the evidence against the defendants was strong. The court describes how the murder trials involving the death of African American Emmett Till and NAACP leader Medgar Evers were horrible examples of jury nullification gone wrong. The Court of Appeals concluded with a strong, scathing remark on jury nullification: > A fundamental value of America is the rule of law rather than rule by men. The Washington populace justifiably does not want activist judges who base decisions upon political views or moral judgments. The same should hold true for jurors. Jury nullification destroys the rule of law upon which America is based. As the 1992 Los Angeles riots evidence, nullification engenders anarchy. My opinion? I see the pros and cons of this decision. On the one hand, I agree with the court that jury nullification can lead to horrible results and miscarriages of justice. On the other hand, although jury nullification is by no means a Constitutional right, it *is* an inherent feature of the use of jury trial verdicts. Sometimes, the law is simply unjust, misapplied by Prosecutors or simply out-of-touch with today’s reality. For the most part, jury nullification is sometimes applied by juries yet rarely spoken about in open court. It is certainly not supported by judges. 99.9% of all judges will refuse to formally instruct juries that the may “nullify” and acquit a defendant based on their disagreements with the law itself. Indeed, judges constantly tell juries they must *apply* the law, not disagree with it! Judges know that the power to acquit a defendant does not require any instruction from the judge telling the jury that it may do so. In other words, although courts recognize that jury nullification occurs in practice, they will *not* promote it nor educate jurors about nullification. Again, interesting opinion. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, felony, Jury Nullification, Jury Trial, marijuana, Methamphetamine, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Huffman: Crossing the Centerline = DUI Arrest](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-huffman/) **Published:** January 11, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** Division I of the WA Court of Appeals decided that a single crossing of the centerline is sufficient to justify a traffic stop for a violation of [RCW 46.61.100 Keep Right Except When Passing](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.100 "RCW 46.61.100 Keep Right Except When Passing"). In [*State v. Huffman*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/689291.pdf "State v. Huffman"), defendant Sarah Huffman was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) after being pulled over for weaving in her lane, jerking back from the centerline and crossing the centerline on State Route 9. The two-mile section of the roadway is relatively straight, with a painted yellow line in the center that is at times a double solid line. Police reports indicate the Trooper Eberle saw Huffman’s vehicle touch the centerline three times, each time immediately jerking back to the right side of the road. On the fourth occasion, the vehicle crossed the centerline by approximately one full tire width. Trooper Eberle did not recall any oncoming traffic at the time the vehicle crossed over the centerline. He stopped the vehicle and subsequently arrested the driver, appellant Sarah Huffman, for driving under the influence. Huffman claimed the stop was unlawful because her single crossing of the centerline did not give rise to reasonable, articulable suspicion that she committed a traffic infraction under RCW 46.61.100. The district court agreed and granted her motion to suppress all evidence obtained after the stop. On appeal, the superior court reversed, concluding the stop was valid because Huffman committed a traffic infraction by crossing the centerline in violation of RCW 46.61.100. Huffman appealed her case to Division I of the WA Court of Appeals. She argued that under [*State v. Prado*](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1237022.html "State v. Prado"), and its interpretation of [RCW 46.61.140 Driving on Roadways Laned For Traffic](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.140 "RCW 46.61.140 Driving On Roadways Laned For Traffic"), her momentary crossing of the centerline was not a traffic infraction and thus, there was no lawful basis for the stop. Some background on RCW 46.61.140 and *State v. Prado* is necessary. In *Prado*, a law enforcement officer witnessed Mr. Tonelli-Prado’s vehicle cross an eight-inch white dividing the exit lane from the adjacent lane by two tire widths for one second. The Trooper pulled over Prado’s vehicle for violating RCW 46.61.140. This traffic statute addresses the safe changing of lanes (right or left or turn) and the use of a center lane, but does not mention a centerline. RCW 46.61.140(1) states: > Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic the following rules in addition to all others consistent herewith shall apply: (1) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety. The trial court found that that Prado’s motion to suppress was not appropriate because the vehicle actually crossed the lane line, rather than merely touching the lane line. Upon review, however, the Superior Court found that under a totality of the circumstances argument, that a brief incursion not resulting in a “safety problem” was not sufficient grounds to pull over the vehicle. The Prosecutor appealed the ruling of the Superior Court to Division I Court of Appeals. On appeal, Division I upheld the Superior Court and ruled that a vehicle crossing over the line for one second by two tire widths on an exit lane does not justify a belief that the vehicle was operated unlawfully under RCW 46.61.140(1). In light of this background, Division I granted Huffman’s appeal to decide whether (1) *State v. Prado* applies and (2) whether the “as nearly as practicable” language of RCW 46.61.140 also applies to RCW 46.61.100. The Court decided “No,” and “No.” The plain reading of the two statutes and their different objectives leads one to believe that the “nearly as practicable” qualifying language from RCW 46.61.140(1) does NOT apply to RCW 46.61.100. “Our decision in *Prado* is limited to its facts which involved only a violation of RCW 46.61.140, not RCW 46.61.100. Because it is undisputed that Huffman crossed the centerline, the officer was justified in stopping her to investigate a violation of RCW 46.61.100.” Based on that, the Court of Appeals vacated and reversed the trial court’s orders suppressing all evidence and dismissing the prosecution. The Court also reinstated the charges against Huffman and remanded this matter back to the district court for trial. My opinion? The *Huffman* opinion is an attempt to limit the scope and applicability of *Prado’s* reasoning to RCW 46.61.140. Ever since *Prado* was decided 7 years ago, the Prosecutors and Judges in district courts have rallied against it. *Prado* took too much discretionary power out of the hands of police officers who follow and pull over motorists suspected of DUI. Here, the Court of Appeals “stopped the insanity” of *Prado* and limit its reasoning to violations of RCW 46.61.140 only. Unfortunately, a pendular swing in one direction often gives momentum to a pendular swing in the opposite direction. More specifically, I fear that the reasoning of *Huffman* might be applicable to violations of [RCW 46.61.670 Driving With Wheels Off Roadway](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.670 "RCW 46.61.670 Driving With Wheels Off Roadway"). The statute says the following: > It shall be unlawful to operate or drive any vehicle or combination of vehicles over or along any pavement or gravel or crushed rock surface on a public highway with one wheel or all of the wheels off the roadway thereof, except as permitted by RCW 46.61.428 or for the purpose of stopping off such roadway, or having stopped thereat, for proceeding back onto the pavement, gravel or crushed rock surface thereof. Therefore – and worst-case scenario – under *Huffman*, a motorist who briefly/unlawfully drives on a road with one or more wheels off the roadway can be pulled over and investigated for [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). Is this fair? Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Due Process, DUI, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Terry Stop, Traffic Infractions, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington State Patrol **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Davis: Unlawful Possession of Firearms, Rendering Criminal Assistance and Exceptional Sentences.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-davis-unlawful-possession-of-firearms-rendering-criminal-assistance-and-exceptional-sentences/) **Published:** January 12, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** WA Supremes gave an interesting opinion touching upon the defendants who were allegedly involved in the Lakewood police officer shootings from last year. In short, the Supreme Court could not reach a 5-4 majority opinion on the issue of whether the State lacked evidence to support the defendant’s convictions for [Possession of a Stolen Firearm](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/). However, the State reached a majority “No” decision on the issue of whether Exceptional Sentence applied to this case. The underlying facts of [*State v. Davis*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/894485.pdf "State v. Davis") are notorious and undisputed. On Sunday, November 29, 2009, Clemmons entered a coffee shop just before 8:00 a.m. with two handguns and began shooting at four Lakewood police officers, fatally wounding three. The fourth officer struggled with Clemmons and shot Clemmons once in the side, but Clemmons wrested the fourth officer’s gun from him, fatally shot him, and left with the stolen gun. While on the run, Clemmons contacted defendants Eddie Lee Davis and Letrecia Nelson shortly after the murders. Clemmons went to Davis’ home, requested a ride to a house in Auburn, and said he had been shot while killing four police officers. Davis drove Clemmons to Nelson’s home. Nelson let Clemmons and Davis inside. Clemmons told Nelson he had killed four police officers, been shot in the process, and stolen one officer’s gun. At Clemmons’ request, he was given fresh clothing and help treating his gunshot wound. Nelson put some clothes and the stolen gun in a shopping bag that was left on a counter. Just before leaving, Clemmons asked where the gun was. Davis replied that it was in the bag on the counter and gave the bag to Clemmons. He left the home with the gun, and remained a fugitive from justice. On December 1, 2009, 2-3 days after the incident, Clemmons was gunned down by a Seattle Police Officer who pulled his car over. Based on their actions following that contact, Davis and Nelson were charged by the Prosecutor and convicted at jury trial of Rendering Criminal Assistance and Possession of a Stolen Firearm. Davis was also convicted of Unlawful Possession of that self-same firearm. The conviction was appealed, and found its way to the WA Supreme Court. The Court addressed the issues of whether (1) sufficient evidence supported Davis’ and Nelson’s convictions relating to possession of a firearm, and (2) whether the exceptional sentences for rendering criminal assistance factually were legally justified. **1. UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM** The 4-person “majority” Court answered “Yes” to the question of whether sufficient evidence existed to support the convictions. The court reasoned there are two types of control: actual and constructive. A person actually possesses something that is in his or her physical custody, and constructively possesses something that is not in his or her physical custody but is still within his or her “dominion and control.” For either type, to establish possession the prosecution must prove more than a passing control; it must prove actual control. The length of time in itself does not determine whether control is actual or passing, and whether one has actual control over the item at issue depends on the totality of the circumstances presented. In light of the totality of the circumstances, the Court was convinced that the State presented sufficient evidence to support a finding that Clemmons temporarily relinquished control over the stolen gun to Davis and Nelson while his wound was treated and he changed clothes. There was no testimony that Clemmons made any specific requests or orders as to what should be done with the stolen gun while he was at Nelson’s home, and he did not even know where the gun was until he was ready to leave about 15 minutes later. t is reasonable to infer that someone else decided what to do with the gun and that the decision-makers were Nelson and Davis because Nelson retrieved the shopping bag and put the gun inside it and Davis immediately responded when Clemmons asked where the gun was. Furthermore, both Nelson and Davis retained the ability to take further actions as to the gun until the time Davis gave it back to Clemmons because they knew where it was and Clemmons did not. Therefore, the court believed there was actual control sufficient to establish constructive possession. **2. EXCEPTIONAL SENTENCES** The Court answered “No” to the issue of whether the defendants should receive an exceptional upward sentence for their convictions. The Court said Exceptional Sentences are intended to impose additional punishment where the particular offense at issue causes more damage than that contemplated by the statute defining the offense. In that situation, the standard penalty for the offense is insufficient and an exceptional sentence based on an “aggravating factor” found by the jury remedies that insufficiency. Here, the Court reasoned that, as a matter of law, the “aggravating factor” at issue cannot apply to Rendering Criminal Assistance charges. Here, the “victim” was the public at large. However, Exceptional Sentences apply where there is “a destructive and foreseeable impact on persons *other than* the victim.” Because Rendering Criminal Assistance victimizes the general public, every member of the public is part of the victim class. There is no “other.” Therefore, the exceptional sentences imposed on Davis and Nelson were not legally justified. The WA Supreme Court was highly divided on this issue. Justice Wiggins appeared to be the swaying vote. He concurred with the dissenting opinion that the evidence was insufficient to sustain Davis’s and Nelson’s firearm possession convictions. However, Justice Wiggins concurred with the majority opinion as far as the decision that the Exceptional Sentences imposed for Eddie Davis’s and Letricia Nelson’s convictions for Rendering Criminal Assistance were not legally justified. Ultimately, the WA Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remand for further proceedings. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, Evidence, Exceptional Sentencing, felony, Firearm, Homicide & Manslaughter, Jury Trial, law enforcement, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Probable Cause, Rendering Criminal Assistance, Sentencing, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Allen: Prosecutor Commits Misconduct With Phrase, "Should Have Known."](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-allen-prosecutor-commits-misconduct-with-phrase-should-have-known/) **Published:** January 15, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Allen*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/899177.pdf "State v. Allen"), the WA Supremes ruled that the Prosecuting Attorney committed prejudicial misconduct by misstating the standard upon which the jury may convict an accomplice. This case involves the [Lakewood police officer shootings](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakewood,_Washington_police_officer_shooting "Lakewood police officer shootings"). The defendant Mr. Allen was friend and co-worker of Maurice Clemmons, who fatally shot four police officers in a coffee shop on November 29, 2009. Mr. Allen’s involvement transpired on the days leading up to the shooting. This tragic story began in May 2009 when officers responded to reports that Clemmons was throwing rocks through his neighbors’ windows. Clemmons responded violently when officers arrived at the scene, and he was arrested for punching officers. He posted bail in November 2009, the month of the shootings. Shortly after his release, Clemmons attended Thanksgiving dinner at his aunt’s house, where he expressed animosity toward the police. Specifically, he announced that if the police arrived to look for him, he would kill them and then go across the street to the elementary school and commit further acts of violence. Clemmons brandished a handgun while he described these acts. Allen, who was a friend and employee of Clemmons, was present at that dinner. Three days later, Clemmons contacted Allen and told him they were going to wash the company truck. With Allen driving, Clemmons directed him to a car wash near a coffee shop in Lakewood. Upon arriving at the car wash, Allen parked the truck, got out, and walked across the street to a minimart. During that time, Clemmons also left the car wash and entered the coffee shop, where the shootings occurred. When Allen returned to the truck, Clemmons appeared and told Allen that they had to leave. Allen claimed he drove only a few blocks until he left the truck upon discovering Clemmons was wounded. Allen also claimed that he did not know Clemmons was going to commit the murders. Clemmons eventually ended up at his aunt’s house, and the truck was abandoned in a nearby parking lot. A few days later, Clemmons was killed by a Seattle police officer. Allen was arrested shortly afterward. Allen was charged with four counts of Aggravated Murder in the first Degree. During trial, several spectators wore T -shirts that said, “‘You will not be forgotten, Lakewood Police,”‘ followed by the names of the four murdered officers. Allen objected to these T-shirts and asked that the shirts be covered. The trial court denied Allen’s motion. At closing argument, the State was required to prove that Allen had actual knowledge that Clemmons would commit the murders. During closing argument, the prosecuting attorney initially stated the correct definition of “knowledge” as it was used in the jury instruction. However, immediately afterward, the prosecuting attorney stated that “for shorthand we’re going to call that **‘should have known**.'” Also, the prosecuting attorney went on to repeatedly and improperly use the phrase “should have known” when describing the definition of “knowledge.” The prosecuting attorney also presented a slide show simultaneously with his closing argument. This slide show repeatedly referred to the incorrect “should have known” standard. One slide even stated, “You are an accomplice if: … you know **or should have known,”** with the words “should have known” in bold. The prosecuting attorney made several more “should have known” comments in rebuttal argument. The jury received instructions that correctly stated the law regarding “knowledge.” Particularly, instruction 9 said the following: > A person knows or acts knowingly or with knowledge with respect to a fact or circumstance when he or she is aware of that fact or circumstance. If a person has information that would lead a reasonable person in the same situation to believe that a fact exists, the jury is permitted but not required to find that he or she acted with knowledge of that fact. Allen was convicted of four counts of Murder in the First Degree. Based on the aggravating circumstance, the trial court imposed an exceptional sentence of 400 years. **ISSUES ON APPEAL** The Court granted review on three issues: (1) Did the prosecuting attorney commit prejudicial misconduct by misstating the standard upon which the jury could convict Allen? (2) Does the “aggravator” found in RCW 9.94A.535(3)(v) apply to a defendant charged as an accomplice? (3) Was Allen prejudiced when spectators at trial wore T -shirts bearing the names of the murdered officers? **1. DID THE PROSECUTOR COMMIT MISCONDUCT?** The court ruled the Prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct by misstating the standard upon which the jury could find Allen guilty. Here, the prosecuting attorney repeatedly misstated that the jury could convict Allen if it found that he *should have known* Clemmons was going to murder the four police officers. The Court reasoned that, for example, the prosecuting attorney stated that “under the law, even if he *doesn’t actually know,* if a reasonable person would have known, he’s guilty.” As noted above, the “should have known” standard is incorrect; the jury must find that Allen *actually knew* Clemmons was going to murder the four police officers. Consequently, the Court concluded that the remarks were improper. Furthermore, the improper comments prejudiced the defendant. First, the Prosecutor misstated a key issue of the case – knowledge. Second, the misstatement of law was repeated multiple times. Repetitive misconduct can have a “cumulative effect.” Third, the trial court twice overruled Allen’s timely objections in the jury’s presence, potentially leading the jury to believe that the “should have known” standard was a proper interpretation of law. Fourth, and perhaps most important, the record reveals that the jury was influenced by the improper statement of law during deliberations. Finally, the misconduct by the State was particularly egregious. Based on the foregoing factors, the Court found that there was a substantial likelihood that the Prosecutor’s misconduct affected the jury verdict and thus prejudiced Allen. **2. DOES THE “AGGRAVATOR” SENTENCING ENHANCEMENT APPLY TO AN ACCOMPLICE?** The Court answered “Yes” to this question. Here, the court sentenced Allen to an exceptional sentence based on the sentencing aggravator found in RCW 9.94A.535(3)(v). That statute contains no express triggering language automatically authorizing an exceptional sentence for accomplices. Therefore, Allen’s own misconduct must form the basis upon which the exceptional sentence applies. The operative language of the statute here allows the court to sentence Allen above the standard range if the offense was committed against a law enforcement officer who was performing his or her official duties at the time of the offense, the offender knew that the victim was a law enforcement officer, and the victim’s status as a law enforcement officer is not an element of the offense.” Consequently, an exceptional sentence under RCW 9.94A.535(3)(v) may be imposed on remand if the jury finds the required elements based on Allen’s own misconduct. **3. DID THE SPECTATORS WEARING T-SHIRTS IN THE COURTROOM PREJUDICE ALLEN’S CASE?** The court decided that, based on the limited information in the record, it was unlikely that the t-shirts were inherently prejudicial. The T-shirts bore a message that said, “‘You will not be forgotten, Lakewood Police”‘ followed by a list of the victims’ names. The court said this message does not advocate for a message of guilt or innocence. Rather, the shirts were merely a silent showing of sympathy for the victims. Contrary to Allen’s arguments, the mere presence of words does not make a spectator display inherently prejudicial. In conclusion, the prosecuting attorney committed prejudicial misconduct by misstating the proper standard upon which the jury could find Allen acted with knowledge. Based on that, the WA Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for a new trial. My opinion? The shootings were exceptionally tragic. These officers left friends and family in the wake of their senseless death. That said, the Prosecutor in this case clearly committed misconduct. I’ve been in jury trials where Prosecutors will bend and stretch the the law when it comes to whether a defendant had knowledge they were committing a crime. Similar to the Prosecutor in this case, they’ll say “Well, the defendant *should have known* they were committing a crime.” This is an ABSOLUTE misstatement of the law. “*Knowing*” and “*Should Have Known*” are two very, very different levels of understanding. Here, saying Mr. Allen “*Should Have Known*” that Clemmons would commit murder implies that Mr. Allen had a legal duty to know what Clemmons was thinking about before committing the heinous murders he committed. That’s wrong, and an improper statement of the law. Again, I extend my deepest condolences to the families and friends of the police officers who lost their lives. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Accomplice, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, Evidence, Exceptional Sentencing, felony, Firearm, Homicide & Manslaughter, Jury Trial, law enforcement, police, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Sentencing, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Attorney Alexander F. Ransom Makes "Top 100" List National Black Lawyers](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/attorney-alexander-f-ransom-makes-top-100-list-national-black-lawyers/) **Published:** January 20, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** Good news. Bellingham Criminal Defense attorney [Alexander Ransom ](http://www.nbltop100.org/search/?search_key=alexander+ransom "Alexander Ransom")was selected for membership within the prestigious [National Black Lawyers ](http://www.nbltop100.org/ "National Black Lawyers")organization. The National Black Lawyers- “Top 100” is an invitation-only professional honorary organization composed of the Top 100 Black Lawyers from each state who serve individuals, families and businesses needing attorneys to represent them in the American legal system. Members of The National Black Lawyers- Top 100 exemplify superior qualifications of leadership, reputation, influence and performance in their area of legal practice. This exclusive organization provides superior networking opportunities, continuing legal education and the highest quality advocacy training for lawyers across the nation. This organization is focused on highlighting & elevating the accomplished black attorney to provide the best way for the public & other attorneys to find theTop Black Attorneys for their legal needs & source for case referrals. “I’m extremely pleased to practice criminal defense here in Whatcom County and the City of Bellingham,” says Alex. “What motivates me is my passion for justice and making sure my clients get a fair shake in the legal system. I’ll continue to fight hard for my clients. I wouldn’t be here without them.” ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Walker: WA Supreme Court Decides Prosecutor's Powerpoint Presentation Violates Defendant's Right to Fair Trial](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-walker-wa-supreme-court-decides-prosecutors-powerpoint-presentation-violates-defendants-right-to-fair-trial/) **Published:** January 22, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** EXCELLENT opinion. In [*State v. Walker*, the Washington Supreme Court ](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/898308.pdf "State v. Walker, the Washington Supreme Court")decided the Prosecutor improperly used a PowerPoint presentation during closing argument to convey egrigious misstatements which violated the defendant’s right to a fair trial. At his jury trial, defendant Odies Delandus Walker was convicted as an accomplice to Murder in the First Degree, Assault in the First Degree, Robbery in the First Degree Solicitation and Conspiracy. The WA Supreme Court addressed the issue as whether those convictions must be reversed in light of the Power Point presentation the prosecuting attorney used during closing argument. The Prosecutor’s presentation repeatedly expressed the prosecutor’s personal opinion on guilt-over 100 of its approximately 250 slides were headed with the words **“DEFENDANT WALKER GUILTY OF PREMEDITATED MURDER**,” and one slide showed Walker’s booking photograph altered with the words **“GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT,”** which were superimposed over his face in bold red letters. The prosecutor also appealed to passion and prejudice by juxtaposing photographs of the victim with photographs of Walker and his family, some altered with the addition of inflammatory captions and superimposed text (please click the above link to the *Walker* opinion for a look at the specific Powerpoint slides and images). In reaching its decision, the court reasoned that while the prosecutor is entitled to draw the jury’s attention to admitted evidence, those slides, as presented, served no legitimate purpose. Their prejudicial effect could not have been cured by a timely objection, and we cannot conclude with any confidence that Walker’s convictions were the result of a fair trial. Consistent with both long-standing precedent and our recent holding in *In re Personal Restraint of Glasmann*, 175 Wn.2d 696, 286 P.3d 673 (2012), the court reversed Walker’s convictions and remanded for a new trial. The Court also gave some powerful language regarding how the prosecution committed serious misconduct in the portions of the PowerPoint presentation discussed above: > “We have no difficulty in holding the prosecutor’s conduct in this case was improper. Closing argument provides an opportunity to draw the jury’s attention to the evidence presented, but it does not give a prosecutor the right to present altered version of admitted evidence to support the State’s theory of the case, to present derogatory depictions of the defendant, or to express personal opinions on the defendant’s guilt. Furthermore, [RPC3.4(e)](http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=rpc&ruleid=garpc3.4 "RPC 3.4(e)") expressly prohibits a lawyer from vouching for any witness’s credibility or stating a personal opinion ‘on the guilt or innocence of the accused.’” My opinion? Good decision. It’s very encouraging for trial attorneys to learn from these opinions. For example, we can argue Motions in Limine asking that the State’s PowerPoint presentations are disclosed in advance of closing arguments. The *Walker* opinion expressly endorses this approach. Furthermore, this is the second opinion this month handed down by the WA Supremes regarding Prosecutorial Misconduct during closing arguments (please read my blog on [*State v. Allen*](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/blog/?p=1644 "State v. Allen")). It appears the WA Supremes are on a roll. Good opinion! Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Accomplice, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, Firearm, Homicide & Manslaughter, Jury Trial, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Robbery, Uncategorized, Violent Crime, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Attorney Alexander Ransom Accepted Into National College of DUI Defense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/attorney-alexander-ransom-accepted-into-national-college-of-dui-defense/) **Published:** January 29, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** Attorney Alexander Ransom became a General Member of the [National College for DUI Defense, Inc.](https://www.ncdd.com/ "National College for DUI Defense, Inc.") The National College for DUI Defense (NCDD) is a professional, non-profit corporation dedicated to the improvement of the criminal defense bar, and to the dissemination of information to the public about DUI Defense Law as a specialty area of law practice. The National College is headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama. It consists of a governing Board of Regents, a Founding Membership, a Sustaining Membership and a General Membership. College members represent the most experienced DUI defense attorneys in the country. Members are among the top DUI practitioners in the United States. The NCDD recognizes defense lawyers who have demonstrated the skill and experience of the original Founding Members, as well as the generosity to financially sustain the growth of the NCDD. General Members are the backbone of the college—capable, experienced attorneys who dedicate a portion of their practice to the defense of DUI cases throughout the country. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Blood Test, Boating Under the Influence, Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, DUI, Terry Stop **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Rubio: "Exigent Circumstances" Found in Arrest for Possession of Methamphetamine](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-rubio-exigent-circumstances-found-in-arrest-for-possession-of-methamphetamine/) **Published:** February 19, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [State v. Rubio](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/319881.pub.pdf "State v. Rubio"), the WA Court of Appeals Division III upheld the defendant’s conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine because exigent circumstances existed to seize and search the defendant after it was discovered he had open warrants for his arrest and possibly witnessed a domestic violence incident. Officers from the Spokane police department responded to a domestic disturbance call and found Ricardo J. Rubio inside the apartment at the reported address. Police ran a check on Mr. Rubio and discovered three outstanding warrants for his arrest. He was subsequently arrested and booked into jail. While being booked, police discovered methamphetamine in Mr. Rubio’s sock. He was convicted of possession of a controlled substance. The judge denied Rubio’s pretrial motion to suppress the evidence. He was later convicted at a bench trial. Rubio appealed on the argument that he was unlawfully seized because he was merely witnessed the reported DV disturbance. The Court of Appeals, however, disagreed. They reasoned the seizure was lawful under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. Some background is necessary. Generally, warrantless searches are unreasonable per se under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, courts recognize a few carefully drawn exceptions to this rule. The State carries the burden of proving that a warrantless seizure falls into one of these exceptions. A recognized exception to the warrant requirement allows police to seize and search a person without a warrant when justified by “exigent circumstances.” **EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES** An officer is allowed to stop a witness under exigent circumstances when (1) the officer has reasonable cause to believe that a misdemeanor or felony involving danger or forcible injury to persons has just been committed near the place where he finds such person, (2) the officer has reasonable cause to believe that such person has knowledge of material aid in the investigation of such crime, and (3) such action is reasonably necessary to obtain or verify the identification of such person, or to obtain an account of such crime. The rationale behind the exigent circumstances exception is to permit a warrantless search where the circumstances are such that obtaining a warrant would compromise officer safety, facilitate escape or permit the destruction of evidence. Here, the court reasoned Mr. Rubio was lawfully seized even though the officer had no search warrant. The officer’s detention of Mr. Rubio was reasonable due to exigent circumstances because it was imperative that the officer quickly locate the injured woman and her assailant. The court also reasoned the seizure under exigent circumstances was lawful for three reasons. First, the police officer had reason to believe that a crime was just committed at the address involving injury to a person. Second, the officer had reason to believe that each person who was in the apartment, including Mr. Rubio, had knowledge which would aid in the investigation of the crime. Third, the officer’s request for Mr. Rubio’s identification was necessary to determine the true identity of Mr. Rubio. Running the warrant check was needed to verify that Mr. Rubio was the person he claimed to be. Consequently, Officer Kirby’s seizure of Mr. Rubio was lawful under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. My opinion? This is a difficult case to swallow. Sure, Mr. Rubio had warrants for his arrest. And yes, the police can lawfully arrest and incarcerate people for that reason alone. And yes, the authorities regularly find illegal contraband during inventory searches and/or when defendants are booked into jail on warrants. Still, it’s difficult to accept the notion that citizens can become criminal defendants by merely being at the wrong place at the wrong time; and that merely witnessing an alleged incident can lead one to be seized, searched and charged for a totally different crime than the one police responded to in the first place. Interesting. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, Evidence, Exigent Circumstances, felony, law enforcement, Methamphetamine, police, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Attorney Alexander F. Ransom Awarded Client Distinction Award From Martindale-Hubbell](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/attorney-alexander-f-ransom-awarded-client-distinction-award-from-martindale-hubbell/) **Published:** February 24, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** Good news! Attorney Alexander F. Ransom has received the Martindale-Hubbell Client Distinction Award. Martindale-Hubbell is the premier lawyer rating service in the country. Martindale-Hubbell gives the Martindale-Hubbell Client Distinction Award to those lawyers whose clients give the lawyer a 4.5 average rating (out of 5.0) in the following areas: (1) Communications Ability; (2) Responsiveness; (3) Quality of Service; and (4) Value for Money. Less than one percent (1%) of the more than 900,000 attorneys listed by Martindale-Hubbell on its martindale.com and lawyers.com websites receive the Martindale-Hubbell Client Distinction Award. Congratulations, Alexander! Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Weller: Community Caretaking](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-weller-community-caretaking/) **Published:** February 24, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [State v. Weller](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2044726-6-II%20%20Part-Published%20Opinion.pdf "State v. Weller"), the WA Court of Appeals decided an officers’ entry into a garage to privately interview children about their allegations of abuse was lawful under the health and safety check community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement. Also, the seizure of the board the children stated was used by the parents while beating the children, was lawful under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. Sandra and Jeffrey Weller had six children in their care. In 2011, CPS became suspicious that the Wellers were abusing the children. Eventually, CPS conducted a welfare check of the family home with the assistance of numerous police officers. The officers did not have a search warrant. Officer Aldridge asked if they could come inside and speak with Sandra and the children. Sandra stepped back from the door and the officers entered the house. The officers attempted to talk privately with the twins. Officer Jensen and CW talked in one room. Officer Aldridge and CG talked in another room, and ultimately moved into the garage for greater privacy. Both children described being beaten repeatedly with a board. Officer Aldridge was standing in the same place as when she entered the garage when she looked around and saw a board leaning against the garage wall in plain view. She asked the children if that was the board used to beat them, and they replied that it was. Officers saw what appeared to be bloodstains on the board. Based on her observations, Officer Aldridge decided to remove the twins and the other children from the Weller residence. After speaking with the children, the State filed multiple charges against the Wellers, including several charges of second, third, and fourth degree assault, and several counts of unlawful imprisonment. At trial, the Wellers tried to suppress the evidence and dismiss the case on theories The Wellers moved to suppress the board, arguing that it was seized during an unlawful search of their residence without a warrant. They argued that the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement was inapplicable because there was no immediate threat of injury to any persons and that entry into the house was a pretext for a search for evidence of a crime. However, the trial court denied the motion to suppress, concluding in a detailed oral ruling that the officers lawfully were in the garage under the community caretaking exception and that they were authorized to seize the board because it was in plain view. The case proceeded to a jury trial. The jury found Jeffrey guilty on most counts and the trial court sentenced him for five counts of[ Assault Second Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/), one count of [Unlawful Imprisonment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/kidnapping-unlawful-imprisonment/), one count of [Assault Third Degree of a Child](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/), and two counts of [Assault Fourth Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/). The jury also found Sandra guilty on most counts and the trial court sentenced her for four counts of Assault Second Degree and one count of Unlawful Imprisonment. The defendants appealed. The Wellers argue that the officers seized the board used to beat CW and CG in an unlawful warrantless search of their garage, and therefore that the trial court erred in denying their CrR 3. 6 motion to suppress the board. The Court disagreed, and held that the trial court did not err when it concluded that ( 1) the officers’ entry into the garage to privately interview the children was lawful under the **community caretaking** function exception to the warrant requirement, and (2) the seizure of the board was lawful under the **plain view** exception to the warrant requirement. Some background on these legal principles is necessary. **WARRANTLESS SEARCHES** Both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution prohibit warrantless searches and seizures unless one of the narrow exceptions to the warrant requirement applies. The State bears the burden of demonstrating that a warrantless search or seizure falls within an exception to the warrant requirement. **COMMUNITY CARETAKING** The community caretaking function exception to the warrant requirement arises from law enforcement officers’ community caretaking function and involves two aspects: officers rendering aid or assistance ( emergency aid exception) or making routine checks on health and safety (health and safety exception). Another exception to the warrant requirement is the plain view exception, which allows officers to seize an object if they are lawfully present in a constitutionally protected area and the object is in plain view. A search pursuant to the community caretaking function exception must be totally divorced from a criminal investigation. The exception does not apply where an officer’ s primary motivation is to search for evidence or make an arrest. Here, the Court reasoned that the officers entered the garage because they were trying to find a private place to interview the children in conjunction with their welfare check. Nothing in the record suggests that the officers were searching the garage or looking for evidence. **HEALTH AND SAFETY CHECK INSPECTION** To invoke the health and safety check exception, the State must show that ( 1) the officer subjectively believed someone needed health or safety assistance, and (2) a reasonable person in the same situation would believe that there was a need for assistance, and ( 3) there was a reasonable basis to associate the need for assistance with the place searched. Next, the State must show that the encounter under this exception was reasonable, which depends upon a balancing of the individual’ s interest in freedom from police interference against the public’ s interest in having the police perform a community caretaking function. Here, the Court reasoned that the three requirements for application of the health and safety check exception clearly were satisfied. The officers subjectively and reasonably believed that the Weller children needed health or safety assistance. A trained CPS investigator relayed to the officers her professional opinion that the Weller children were not safe and were expressing severe fear. **PLAIN VIEW** The ” plain view” exception to the warrant requirement applies when officers ( 1) have a valid justification for being in a constitutionally protected area, and ( 2) are immediately able to realize that an item they can see in plain view is associated with criminal activity. The test for determining when an item is immediately apparent for purposes of a plain view seizure is whether, considering the surrounding circumstances, the police can reasonably conclude that the item is incriminating evidence. Officers do not need to be certain that the item is associated with criminal activity – probable cause is sufficient. Here, the Court decided the officers were lawfully present in the Wellers’ garage. Further, the surrounding facts and circumstances led the officers to believe that the board was evidence of a crime. As the welfare check progressed, the children said Mr. Weller periodically beat them with a board. Further, when the officers were in the garage, the children began to look for the board. And the children immediately confirmed that the board in the garage was in fact the board used to beat them. As a result, the Court held that the plain view exception to the warrant requirement applied to the officers’ seizure of the board. The Court of Appeals upheld the convictions. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Assault, Community Caretaking, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, Evidence, felony, law enforcement, Plain View, police, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Larson: Retail Theft With Extenuating Circumstances](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-larson-retail-theft-with-extenuating-circumstances/) **Published:** February 24, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** In *[State v. Larson ](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/712381.pdf "State v. Larson")*wire cutters, which were used to sever the wire that attached a department store security device to a pair of Nike shoes, are a “device designed to overcome security systems” for purposes of convicting the defendant of [Retail Theft with Extenuating Circumstances.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/theft/) Defendant Zachary Larson attempted to steal a pair of shoes from a retail store. The shoes were equipped with a security device that was attached to the shoes by wire. Yet, Larson, using wire cutters that he had brought into the store, severed the wire and removed the security device. When Larson tried to leave the store, he was stopped by security employees and, subsequently, was charged with one count of Retail Theft with Extenuating Circumstances under RCW 9A.56.360(1)(b), which criminalizes the commission of retail theft while in possession of a “device designed to overcome security systems.” While the case was pending, he argued a *Knapstad* motion seeking dismissal of the charge. Therein, he argued that, as a matter of law, wire cutters do not constitute a “device designed to overcome security systems.” The trial court denied his *Knapstad* motion. On December 18, the trial court found Larson guilty as charged. He was sentenced to 60 days of confinement. Larson appealed on the argument that the trial court improperly denied his *Knapstad* motion and that wire cutters do, in fact, constitute a device designed to overcome security systems. The court disagreed with Larson and stated the following: > “The plain meaning of the statute reveals the legislature’s intent to punish thieves who, anticipating that the possession ofa device which may be able to foil a store’s security system will be expedient to their cause, commit retail theft while in possession of such a device. In recognition of the fact that wire cutters are designed to cut wire, which is a common feature ofsecurity systems, we hold that, within the meaning of former RCW 9A.56.360(1 )(b), wire cutters constitute a ‘device designed to overcome security systems.'” The Court also reasoned that the Division II Court of Appeals decision in *[State v. Reeves](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2044811-4-II%20%20Published%20Opinion.pdf "State v. Reeves")*, \_\_\_ Wn. App. \_\_\_, 336 P.3d 105 (2014) – a recent opinion which held that “ordinary pliers” do not constitute a device designed to overcome security systems – was wrongfully decided : > “To exclude wire cutters from the statute’s reach on the basis that wire cutters may be used in other settings to achieve different ends would frustrate the legislature’s intent, while providing those inclined to commit retail theft with an unmistakable incentive to employ “ordinary devices,” as characterized by the *Reeves* court, to pursue their nefarious ends. Surely, the legislature did not intend such a result.” With that, the Court upheld Larson’s conviction. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Due Process, felony, Knapstad Motion, Retail Theft, Theft, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [What Caused the Decline In Crime?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/what-caused-the-decline-in-crime/) **Published:** February 27, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** A new report examines the dramatic drop in crime nationwide over the past two decades — and analyzes various theories for why it occurred. In [*What Caused the Crime Decline?* ](https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/what-caused-crime-decline "What Caused The Crime Decline?")a team of economic and criminal justice researchers examined over 40 years of data, gathered from 50 states and the 50 largest cities. Their work examines one of the nation’s least understood recent phenomena – the dramatic decline in crime nationwide over the past two decades – and analyzes various theories for why it occurred. It concludes that over-harsh criminal justice policies, particularly increased incarceration, which rose even more dramatically over the same period, were not the main drivers of the crime decline. In fact, the report finds that increased incarceration has been declining in its effectiveness as a crime control tactic for more than 30 years. Its effect on crime rates since 1990 has been limited, and has been non-existent since 2000. More important were various social, economic, and environmental factors, such as growth in income and an aging population. The introduction of CompStat, a data-driven policing technique, also played a significant role in reducing crime in cities that introduced it. The report concludes that considering the immense social, fiscal, and economic costs of mass incarceration, programs that improve economic opportunities, modernize policing practices, and expand treatment and rehabilitation programs, all could be a better public safety investment. Nobel laureate Dr. Joseph E. Stiglitz called the report “groundbreaking” in a foreword. This is interesting reading. Also, their research contained information on how/why [specific states’ ](https://www.brennancenter.org/what-caused-crime-decline "specific states'")drop-off in crime happened. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Department of Corrections, Jail, Studies **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. McPherson: Residential Burglary Involving A Dwelling/Business.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-mcpherson-residential-burglary-involving-a-dwellingbusiness/) **Published:** March 2, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** In *[State v. McPherson](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2045056-9-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf "State v. McPherson")*, the Court of Appeals Division II decided the legal issue of whether a jewelry store and attached apartment is a “dwelling” under the definition of Residential Burglary. In short, the Court decided this was an issue of fact for a jury to decide; and that there was sufficient evidence for the conviction. On the morning of March 20, 2013, someone broke into Frederick William Salewsky’ s jewelry store by entering the unoccupied store next door and making a hole in the adjoining wall. Frederick Salewsky, who worked in the jewelry store and lived in an apartment above the store, was awoken by a noise, went downstairs to investigate, and interrupted the burglary. He shot the intruder, who fled. The police later identified McPherson as a suspect after he checked into a Tacoma hospital with a gunshot wound. The State charged McPherson with [Burglary Second Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/) of the vacant store ( count I), [Residential Burglary](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/) of the jewelry store (count II) and [Malicious Mischief Second Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/malicious-mischief/). The jury found McPherson guilty as charged and found that he had committed the Residential Burglary while the victim was present in the building or residence. Under [RCW 9A.52.025(1)](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.52.025 "RCW 9A.52.025(1)"), a person is guilty of Residential Burglary if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or proerty therein, the person enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling other than a vehicle. “Dwelling” means any building or structure, or a portion thereof, which is used or ordinarily used by a person for lodging. The Court reasoned that whether a building is a “dwelling” cannot always be determined as a matter of law. Because the specific living arrangements in houses and businesses are so different, this issue was more appropriately a question of fact for the jury to decide. Here, the evidence support’s the jury’s determination that the building was a “dwelling” as the apartment was directly above the jewelry store because the apartment and jewelry store were within a single structure, the only access to the apartment was through the jewelry store, and the doors that separated the store from the apartment could not be locked or secured. The court concluded that altogether, this evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that the apartment was not separable from the jewelry store and, therefore, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’ s finding that the jewelry constituted a dwelling. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Burglary, Constitutional Rights, felony, Jury Trial, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Marijuana / THC Breathalyzer Available Soon.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/marijuana-thc-breathalyzer-available-soon/) **Published:** March 4, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** Technology appears to be catching up. Since Colorado and Washington legalized the recreational use of marijuana in 2014, and the growing trend to legalize pot in some capacity across the nation, there is an increased interest in addressing drugged driving. However, today’s standardized testing marijuana intoxication is not as simple as detecting alcohol. More science and research are required. It the meantime, technology will be coming to market, such as the marijuana breathalyzer being developed by [Cannabix Technologies, Inc.](http://www.cannabixtechnologies.com/ "Cannabix Technologies, Inc.") to give police officers an on-site tool to enhance detection of THC, the psychotropic metabolite in marijuana. In the future, devices of this type will likely be dialed in by the forensic community and become an integral element in identifying marijuana-intoxicated drivers and in other settings, including workplaces and general consumer use, just as the alcohol breathalyzer is today. My opinion? We saw this coming. It’s almost humorous. Typically, the *law* lags behind technological advances. Here, *technology* appears to be lagging behind the evolution of marijuana legalization! Interesting development, no? This device is another tool in the hands of law enforcement – along with [Drug Recognition Experts](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/blog/?p=1051 "Drug Recognition Experts"), and [search warrants for the testing of blood](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/blog/?p=1180 "Search Warrants for Blood") – for investigating DUI charges. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Blood Test, Boating Under the Influence, Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, DUI, marijuana, police, Search Warrant, Uncategorized, Washington State Patrol **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Washington Legislature Passes Bill Supporting DNA Testing of Rape Kits.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/washington-legislature-passes-bill-supporting-dna-testing-of-rape-kits/) **Published:** March 4, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** On March 2, 2015, the Washington House Appropriations committee voted “Yes” on [House Bill 1068](http://washingtonvotes.org/2015-HB-1068 "House Bill 1068"); which supports DNA testing of [rape kits](https://www.rainn.org/get-information/sexual-assault-recovery/rape-kit "rape kits") sitting in evidence rooms across Washington Counties. The bill passed 82-15. Essentially, numerous Washington counties – including Whatcom County – could help find serial rapists. House Bill 1068 arrives on the heels of recent controversy that [rape kit evidence containing DNA evidence has been ignored by police departments statewide](http://www.king5.com/story/news/local/investigations/2015/01/14/rape-evidence-ignored-by-police-departments-statewide/21725431/ "rape kit evidence containing DNA evidence ignored by police departments statewide"). The [Bellingham Herald ](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/ "Bellingham Herald")ran two articles on this news. One story, titled [Prosecutor: Testing Evidence Kits Can Lead to Finding Repeat Rapists](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2015/03/01/4156842/prosecutor-testing-evidence-kits.html "Prosecutor: Testing Evidence Kits Can Lead to Repeat Rapists") discussed people’s responses to House Bill 1068. The article mentions that Prosecutors like Rick Bell of Ohio support House Bill 1068. He claims that out of 6,000 kits tested, 2,244 received a hit to a known offender in a national database. Additionally, of the rapists indicted by his his office in Cuyahoga County, 30 percent are serial rapists. “Those serial offenders were going undetected, in part because labs couldn’t process all cases, so kits involving acquaintance rapes weren’t tested,” said Bell. Also according to the article, Western Washington University college students like Heather Heffelmire, who is working in Olympia as the Legislative Liaison for Western Washington University’s Associated Students, testified in favor of House Bill 1068 during a public hearing in January. She said one of the main legislative priorities for WWU’s student body this year is to support survivors of sexual violence. “If you think about assault on campuses, it’s not like a predator does one assault — it’s usually a pattern of behavior,” Heffelmire said. “If you’re not having these kits tested, you can’t find that out.” Additionally, Leah Gehri, the Director of Emergency Services at St. Joseph hospital in Bellingham WA, said she thinks HB 1068 is timely. “When you think about how long DNA evidence has been around, … at one point there weren’t a lot of DNA profiles hanging out there, they just didn’t have a lot of them,” Gehri said. “Now however, 20 years later, when profiles are quite common, the likelihood that an untested kit would now match up against a perpetrator in the system is more likely than it ever has been.” Another article from the Bellingham Herald titled, [Washington Lawmaker Tries to Tackle Thousands of Untested Rape Kits in State](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2015/03/01/4156820/washington-lawmaker-tries-to-tackle.html "Washington Lawmaker Tries to Tackle Thousands of Untested Rape Kits in State") discusses the efforts of Rep. Tina Orwall, D-Des Moines toward having House Bill 1068 passed. The specific language House Bill 1068 is as follows: > Substitute offered in the House on January 23, 2015, requires a law enforcement agency to submit a request for laboratory examination within 30 days of receiving a sexual assault examination kit, provided that the victim or the victim’s legal guardian has consented to analysis of the kit as part of a sexual assault investigation. Specifies that failure to comply with the 30-day deadline does not create a private right of action against the law enforcement agency and is not a basis to exclude evidence in a court proceeding or to set aside a conviction or sentence. Creates a work group to study the issue of untested sexual assault examination kits in Washington, which must file an annual report through June 30, 2018. My opinion? As a defense attorney, I support the notion that evidence garnered from the DNA testing of rape kits could be probative, relevant and cumulative in proving that the the perpetrator had a pattern of rape. Nevertheless, I have two concerns: First, while I understand and agree with intent to have kits processed as quickly as possible, the timelines set forth in this proposal are probably unattainable with existing resources and do not take into account the complexities of processing kits. The 30-day timeline is very problematic for crime labs and is not feasible without a huge influx of resources (equipment, personnel, and possibly larger facilities). Second, House Bill 1068 does not take into account the multitude of legal circumstances surrounding these kits. For example, in a number of rape cases, the identity of the involved parties is not in question and both parties affirmatively indicate a sexual act occurred. Here, the issue is consent, not identity. Consequently, DNA analysis would only confirm what is already known. In all likelihood, the latter issue will rest on the shoulders of jury trial judges who decide pretrial motions to admit or suppress DNA evidence in rape cases. In other words, we’ll see what happens . . . Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, DNA, Domestic Violence, felony, Jury Trial, Legislation, Prior Bad Acts, Rape, Sex Crimes, Violent Crime **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Bill Seeks Prison Time for Drone Crimes](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/bill-adds-prison-time-for-drone-crimes/) **Published:** March 5, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** Interesting news article from the [Skagit Valley Herald](http://www.goskagit.com/ "Skagit Valley Herald"). In an article titled, “[Senate OKs Bill That Would Add Prison Time For Drone Crimes](http://www.goskagit.com/news/state/senate-oks-bill-that-would-add-prison-time-for-drone/article_27822bec-fc41-54d1-8d2a-91be8e77e9b4.html "Senate OKs Bill That Would Add Prison Time For Drone Crimes"),” The WA Senate passed a bill that would allow prosecutors to seek an extra year in prison for offenders who use a drone aircraft while committing a crime. [Senate Bill 5499](http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5499.pdf "Senate Bill 5499") passed on a 34-15 vote Tuesday and now heads to the House forconsideration. It adds the allegation of a “nefarious drone enterprise” to Washington criminal law. The state currently has no restrictions on the use of drones, although 20 other states have enacted laws on drone-related issues. The bill adds a year to the sentencing range that dictates how judges can punish an offense. The measure was one a handful of other bills concerning drones that were filed in the Legislature this session in the wake of Gov. Jay Inslee’s veto of a bill last year that would have restricted how state and local government agencies use the unmanned aircraft. My opinion? Although sad, Senate Bill 5499 was foreseeable. For example, under [RCW 46.20.285](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.285 "RCW 46.20.285"), defendants convicted of felonies get their driver’s licenses revoked for 1 year if a vehicle was used during the commission of a crime. It makes sense, therefore, that Prosecutors would get aggressive toward defendants if drones were used to further the commission of a crime. Sad but true. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Department of Corrections, Drones, felony, Legislation, Sentencing **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Vanness: Unlawful Search of a Lockbox Inside a Backpack](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-vanness-unlawful-search-of-a-lockbox-inside-a-backpack/) **Published:** March 9, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Vanness*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/708392.pdf "State v. Vanness"), the WA Court of Appeals Division I decided that the warrantless search of a locked box found inside a backpack that the defendant was wearing at the time of arrest violated both the Fourth Amendment and Washington Const. art. I, § 7. Defendant VanNess was arrested for having outstanding warrants in Everett, WA. When arrested, VanNess was wearing a backpack and carrying a bag. A police officer removed the backpack and asked permission to search it. VanNess did not respond. Everett Police Department had a policy requiring officers to search backpacks for dangerous items. Following that policy, officers searched VanNess’s backpack and found knives. They also found a small box with a combination lock. The police officer used a flathead screwdriver to pry open the box. He looked inside. Although he did not see any dangerous items, he saw a scale and small plastic “baggies” and smelled vinegar, which he associated with heroin. The box was delivered to the Everett Police Department’s property room. Police obtained a warrant to search the box. They found suspected methamphetamine and heroin, a digital scale, a glass pipe, and several plastic baggies. The Prosecutor charged VanNess with [Possession of Heroin with Intent to Deliver](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=69.50.401 "Possession of Heroin With Intent to Deliver") and [Possession of Methamphetamine with Intent to Deliver](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=69.50.401 "Possession of Methamphetamine With Intent to Deliver"). Both crimes are Class B felonies. The trial court denied VanNess’s motion to suppress. At trial, the court admitted the evidence. A jury found VanNess guilty of all charges. VanNess appealed. A warrantless search is per se unreasonable, unless the State can prove a “carefully drawn and jealously guarded exception” applies. These exceptions include a search incident to arrest and an inventory search. If an exception does not apply, a warrantless search is illegal and the exclusionary rule prevents the State from presenting the illegally seized evidence. Here, the defendant argued that the inventory search of his lockbox violated his Constitutional rights. The Court of Appeals agreed. It reasoned that although [*State v. Stroud* ](http://courts.mrsc.org/mc/courts/zsupreme/106wn2d/106wn2d0144.htm "State v. Stroud")and [*State v. Valdez* ](http://courts.mrsc.org/mc/courts/zsupreme/167wn2d/167wn2d0761.htm "State v. Valdez")each involved a locked container found in an automobile, the court’s consideration of the [*Chimel v. California* ](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=395&invol=752 "Chimel v. California")applies just as well to the facts of our case: > “Where a container is locked and officers have the opportunity to prevent the individual’s access to the contents of that container so that officer safety or the preservation of evidence of the crime of arrest is not at risk, there is no justification under the search incident to arrest exception to permit a warrantless search of the locked container.” Under *Chimel*, the Court reasoned that police officers may conduct a warrantless inventory search (1) to protect the arrestee’s property, (2) to protect the government from false claims of theft, and (3) to protect police officers and the public from potential danger. Courts generally uphold inventory searches conducted according to standardized procedures which do not afford police officers excessive discretion and when they serve a purpose other than discovery of evidence. The Court of Appeals decided that here, an officer’s compliance with an established police procedure does *not* constitutionalize an illegal search. Similarly, the court rejected the claim that the possibility of a bomb or dangerous firearm in the locked box established a “manifest necessity” to search the box. They reasoned that without exigent circumstances, a legitimate inventory search only calls for noting such an item as a sealed unit. With that the court concluded that neither the search incident to arrest nor the inventory search exception applies to the officer’s initial search of VanNess’s locked box. Therefore, the police unconstitutionally searched the locked box. My opinion? Good decision. It appears the Court of Appeals announced a new balancing test for some items found on an arrested person at the time of arrest. Basically, if the item to be searched falls within a category that implicates an arrestee’s significant privacy interests, the court must balance the government interests against those individual privacy interests. Only when government interests in officer safety and evidence preservation exceed an arrestee’s privacy interest in the category of item to be searched may it be searched incident to arrest without a warrant. Good decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, Evidence, Exigent Circumstances, felony, law enforcement, Methamphetamine, police, Privacy, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Washington Court of Appeals --- ### [Tribes Free To Prosecute Non-Indians for Certain Crimes](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/tribes-free-to-prosecute-non-indians-for-certain-crimes/) **Published:** March 10, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** The [Skagit County Herald ](http://www.goskagit.com/ "Skagit County Herald")reported that American Indian tribes that meet certain criteria now have the [authority to prosecute non-Indians](http://www.goskagit.com/news/state/tribes-now-free-to-prosecute-non-indians-for-certain-crimes/article_a29f6c87-bd7e-5222-8af7-21dbcd004b9f.html "authority to prosecute non-Indians") for a limited set of domestic violence crimes, a shift supporters hope will reduce the high rate of violence on reservations. Apparently, three tribes in Arizona, Oregon and Washington state have exercised that power for more than a year under a pilot project approved by the U.S. Department of Justice. Together, the tribes have brought more than two dozen domestic violence cases against non-Indians who live or work on their reservations, according to the National Congress of American Indians. In Washington, the [Tulalip Tribe ](http://www.tulaliptribes-nsn.gov/ "Tulalip Tribes")was approved as part of the pilot project in February 2014. A 1978 U.S. Supreme Court ruling stripped tribes of any criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians on their reservations. However, the [Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 ](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s47/text "Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013")allowed tribes to charge non-Indians who are married to or in a partnership with a tribal member for domestic violence crimes and violations of protection orders. The Justice Department has said that American Indian women suffer from domestic violence at rates more than double national averages. To ease concerns from some members of Congress, tribes have to ensure that jury pools include non-Indians and that their court systems afford defendants the same rights as state and federal courts do. The changes to the Violence Against Women Act also allow defendants to seek review of a tribal court decision in federal court. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Domestic Violence, Due Process, Jury Trial, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Race & Law, Search and Seizure, Tribal Courts, Violent Crime **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Samalia: Search of Abandoned Cell Phone is Lawful](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-samalia-cell-phone-search-is-lawful/) **Published:** March 11, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Samalia*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/316912.pub.pdf "State v. Samalia"), the WA Court of Appeals upheld the defendant’s conviction for [Possession of a Stolen Motor Vehicle under RCW 9A.56.068](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/possession-theft-of-stolen-motor-vehicle/) because the police used evidence from the defendant’s cell phone found in the abandoned stolen vehicle after he fled from the vehicle and evaded pursuit. Yakima Police Officer Ryan Yates was on patrol when his vehicle license plate reader indicated he had passed a stolen vehicle. The officer followed the stolen vehicle. The driver got out of the vehicle and faced towards Officer Yates. The driver would not obey Officer Yates’ command to get back in the vehicle and fled. Officer Yates pursued the male driver but he got away. Officer Yates searched the car and found a cell phone in the center console. Officer Yates conducted some investigations and discovered that the phone belonged to the defendant Mr. Samilia. Later, Officer Yates located Mr. Samalia’s picture in a police database. Officer Yates then identified Mr. Samalia from the database picture as the fleeing man who had been driving the stolen vehicle. The State charged Mr. Samalia with possession of a stolen motor vehicle. He moved unsuccessfully to suppress the cell phone evidence under [ER 3.6. ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6 "ER 3.6")From the above facts, the trial court concluded the cell phone was abandoned, therefore, Mr. Samalia no longer had an expectation of privacy in it. Following a bench trial, the court found Mr. Sam alia guilty as charged. He appealed. The court reasoned that a warrantless search and/or seizure violates the WA Constitution unless it falls under one of ”’a few jealously guarded exceptions” to the warrant requirement. Searching voluntarily abandoned property is an exception to the warrant requirement. In other words, law enforcement may retrieve and search voluntarily abandoned property without a warrant or probable cause. The court also considered the status of the area where the cell phone was located. Here, the search area was an unattended stolen vehicle that Mr. Samalia had been driving and had fled from when a police officer approached and directed him to return to the vehicle. Consequently, the court found that a suspect’s hasty flight under these circumstances is sufficient evidence of an intent to abandon the vehicle. In conclusion, because the cell phone was abandoned; used in pursuit of the fleeing suspect, and not directly used to identify Mr. Samalia, the court held that the trial court did not err in denying suppression of Mr. Samalia’s identification from a police database. My opinion? I disagree with the court’s decision. This decision is too great a leap in the wrong direction; and fails to follow Washington’s current jurisprudence. Despite the Court’s reasoning, there is NO reported Washington decision which has directly addressed whether a citizen relinquishes his reasonable expectation of privacy in the data on his cell phone by leaving the phone behind at the scene of a crime. Our jurisprudence says police must generally secure a warrant before conducting a search of data on a cell phone – even one that has been left behind in a place where its owner has no privacy interest. Requiring a search warrant will assure that there is probable cause to believe that the defendant is involved in criminal activity and that evidence of the criminal activity can be found in the data on the cell phone. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Cell Phone, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, Evidence, felony, Forensics, law enforcement, police, Possession of Stolen Motor Vehicle, Pretrial Investigations, Privacy, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Budd: Ferrier Warnings Improperly Given](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-budd-ferrier-warnings-improperly-given/) **Published:** March 11, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** Good decision. In *[State v. Budd](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/316386.pub.pdf "State v. Budd")*, the WA Court of Appeals decided a law enforcement officer must properly deliver all three parts of the *Ferrier* warnings before entering a residence. Some background on *Ferrier* warnings is necessary. In [*State v. Ferrier*](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3517335598829285484&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr "State v. Ferrier"), 136 Wn.2d 103, 960 P.2d 927 (1998) the WA Supreme Court held that, before entering a citizen’s home without a warrant, a law enforcement officer must **(1)** ask the citizen for consent, **(2)** inform the citizen that he can revoke consent at any time and **(3)** notify the citizen that he can limit the scope of the entry into the home. If an officer fails to provide these *Ferrier* rights/warnings, then any evidence obtained from the search is “fruits of the poisonous search” and also subject to being suppressed. Appellant Michael Allen Budd was convicted of [Possession of Depictions of Minors Engaged in Sexually Explicit Conduct](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/) under RCW 9.68A.070. He contends that the trial court erred in its denial of his [ER 3.6](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6 "ER 3.6") motion to suppress evidence obtained in a warrantless search of his residence by the officers investigating the case. He argued the *Ferrier* warnings were insufficient. [Washington State Patrol’s Missing and Exploited Children Task Force ](http://www.wsp.wa.gov/crime/mectf.htm "Washington State Patrol's Missing and Exploited Children task Force") received an anonymous “cybertip” from the [National Center for Missing and Exploited Children](http://www.missingkids.com/home "National Center for Missing and Exploited Children"). The anonymous source declared that Michael Allen Budd communicated with young girls on Yahoo! Messenger and Windows Live Messenger, both free online chat services. The anonymous source stated that he or she had seen child pornography on Budd’s computer. On March 11,2009, Detective Kim Holmes travelled to Ephrata to Mr. Budd’s home. In law enforcement, a “knock and talk” is an investigative technique where one or more police officers approaches a private residence, knocks on the door, and requests consent from the owner to search the residence. Law enforcement performs the “knock and talk” when criminal activity is suspected, but officers lack probable cause to obtain a search warrant. Detective Kim and other officers made contact with Holmes at his home. Although many of the facts are in dispute, it appeared that Detective Kim did not properly discuss *Ferrier* warnings with Mr. Holmes. The court reasoned that Detective Holmes’ police report lacked any mention of Holmes’ informing Budd that he had a right to decline consent to enter the home, limit the scope of the search, and revoke consent at any time. Finally, the report implied that Holmes misrepresented that a court would authorize a search warrant. Based on this, the Court of Appeals ruled that the detective did not voice all *Ferrier* warnings before entering the home, and that law enforcement officers MUST deliver all cautions before entering the residence. Consequently, the Court reversed the conviction and dismissed the case. My opinion? I agree with this excerpt from the Court of Appeals: > Viewing child pornography is a hideous crime that robs children of innocence and scars them for life. Those who watch child pornography obsessively gamer gratification through violent acts on defenseless children. Catching one at the crime takes diligence since the viewer indulges in the privacy of his home, often by elaborate security measures on his computer. Thus, we reluctantly reverse the trial court. > > Nevertheless, as judges, we pledged to uphold the constitution and the endearing rights protected by the constitution. Those engaged in hideous conduct are entitled to the protections afforded under our state and federal constitution including the right to be free of unlawful searches and seizures. Well said. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Dismissal, Due Process, Evidence, felony, Ferrier Warnings, Knock & Talk, law enforcement, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Prosecutor Jailed for Bad Conviction](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/prosecutor-jailed-for-wrongful-conviction/) **Published:** March 24, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** For the first time ever, a [Prosecutor will go to jail for wrongfully convicting an innocent man. ](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-godsey/for-the-first-time-ever-a_b_4221000.html "Prosecutor will go to jail for wrongfully convicting an innocent man")In Texas, former prosecutor and judge Ken Anderson pled guilty to intentionally failing to disclose evidence in a case that sent an innocent man, Michael Morton, to prison for the murder of his wife. When trying the case as a prosecutor, Anderson possessed evidence that may have cleared Morton, including statements from the crime’s only eyewitness that Morton was NOT the culprit. Anderson sat on this evidence, and then watched Morton get convicted. While Morton remained in prison for the next 25 years, Anderson’s career flourished, and he eventually became a judge. Anderson pled to criminal contempt. He will have to give up his law license, perform 500 hours of community service, and spend 10 days in jail. Anderson had already resigned in September from his position on the Texas bench. What makes today’s plea newsworthy is not that Anderson engaged in misconduct that sent an innocent man to prison. Indeed, while most prosecutors and police officers are ethical and take their constitutional obligations seriously, government misconduct–including disclosure breaches known as *Brady* violations–occurs so frequently that it has become one of the chief causes of wrongful conviction. What’s newsworthy and novel about today’s plea is that a prosecutor was *actually punished* in a meaningful way for his transgressions. Rogue cops and prosecutors going unpunished is the rule rather than the exception. My opinion? Ken Anderson’s conviction and incarceration is an anomaly in a society where police and prosecutorial misconduct goes largely unpunished. But it is a step in the right direction. Hopefully, today’s result will deter rogue cops and prosecutors in the future from engaging in similar misconduct. But this will happen only if judges across the country do what the judge did more than 25 years ago in the Morton case: issue an order requiring that proper disclosure to the defense, or risk criminal contempt proceedings. For defense attorneys, the best way to prevent similar miscarriages of justice from happening is to explicitly write in the Demand for Discovery, “Any evidence which tends to negate the guilt of the accused as to the offense charged or which would tend to mitigate the accused’s punishment.” According to court rule and statute, the Prosecutor *must* disclose this evidence. Also, entering an [Omnibus Order ](http://definitions.uslegal.com/o/omnibus-hearing/ "Omnibus Order")signed by the judge tends to put attorneys on their best behavior. An omnibus hearing is a criminal pretrial hearing. Typically, disclosure of evidentiary matters, procedural, and constitutional issues are attempted to be resolved. In my Omnibus Motions/Orders I (again) request all evidence from the Prosecutor which tends to negate the defendant’s guilt. Creating a court record like the one described above puts all parties on notice that discovery violations will NOT be tolerated. In some cases, I’ve sought sanctions against Prosecutors when I later discover they withheld evidence that they later tried to get admitted at trial. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Discovery, Pretrial Investigations, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Ignition Devices In All New Cars?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/sobriety-tests-in-all-new-cars/) **Published:** March 20, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** There’s developing technology exploring the possibility that a fingerprint-based ignition interlock device system may someday be installed in new vehicles in the hopes of stopping impaired drivers from operating their vehicles. In other words, [sobriety tests in all new cars might prevent most drunk driving deaths.](http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/19/us-public-health-drunk-driving-idUSKBN0MF2J920150319 "Sobriety tests In All New Cars May Help Prevent Drunk Driving Deaths") Installing devices in new cars to prevent drunk drivers from starting the engine could prevent 85 percent of alcohol-related deaths on U.S. roads, saving tens of thousands of lives and billions of dollars from injury-related costs, according to a new analysis. “Alcohol interlocks are used very effectively in all 50 states as a component of sentencing or as a condition for having a license reinstated after DUIs, but this only works for the drunk drivers caught by police and it doesn’t catch the people who choose to drive without a license to avoid having the interlock installed,” said lead author Dr. Patrick Carter, an emergency physician with the University of Michigan Health System in Ann Arbor. Most drunk drivers make about 80 trips under the influence before they are stopped for a DUI, Carter said. “If we decided that every new car should have an alcohol ignition interlock that’s seamless to use for the driver and doesn’t take any time or effort, we suddenly have a way to significantly reduce fatalities and injuries that doesn’t rely solely on police.” Carter and colleagues used U.S. records of traffic accidents and fatalities to determine how many involved drunk driving and then estimated how many of these incidents could be avoided in the future by fitting new cars with alcohol-interlock devices, which detect blood-alcohol levels and prevent drivers above a certain threshold from starting the car. Then, they estimated the numbers of deaths and injuries that could be prevented in the first year that all new cars sold had screening systems, and assumed it would take 15 years for older models to be replaced with new vehicles. Over the 15-year implementation period, interlocks may eliminate about $343 billion in costs from fatalities and injuries related to drunk driving, the researchers estimate. Assuming the device costs $400 per vehicle and is 100 percent accurate, the interlock would pay for itself after three years by way of avoided injury costs. Getting DADSS into all vehicles can eliminate the element of chance involved in catching drunk drivers under our current system that relies on police, said Adrian Lund, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Unlike the alcohol ignition interlocks which require you to blow into a devise and are used for convicted drunk drivers, DADSS is a driver assist system that would be seamless, take less than half a second, and use infrared light to measure a driver’s blood alcohol content in the breath or through the fingertips, which is believed to be far more reliable. My opinion? Although noble, these devices may cause legal problems and litigation than they’re worth. How accurate are the devices? Are they calibrated regularly? Do they store information which can be used against a defendant accused of DUI? Would the devices also test for the presence of drugs? If so, what if the driver has a prescription for the drugs? Only time will tell . . . Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** DUI, Forensics, Ignition Interlock Device, marijuana, Search and Seizure **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Henderson: Lesser Included Jury Instructions](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-henderson-lesser-included-jury-instructions/) **Published:** March 16, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** In *[State v. Henderson](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/901546.pdf "State v. Henderson")*, the [Washington Supreme Court](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/ "Washington Supreme Court") decided that the jury of a defendant charged with first degree murder by extreme indifference should have been instructed on the lesser included offense of [first degree manslaughter](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/). Some background on “Lesser Included” Crime is necessary. In short it is a *lesser* crime whose elements are encompassed by a *greater* crime. A lesser included offense shares some, but not all, of the elements of a greater criminal offense. Therefore, the greater offense cannot be committed without also committing the lesser offense. For example, *Manslaughter* is a lesser included offense of *Murder*, *Assault* is a lesser included offense of *Rape*, and *Unlawful Entry* is a lesser included offense of *Burglary*. Here, the defendant Marsele Henderson fired gunshots at a house party on November 16, 2008. One of the most important – and disputed – facts in this case is how many people were in the area in front of the house at this time just prior to shots being fired toward the house. Was it a small group of people or a large group? Witness testimony on this point varied significantly. This question mattered because whether Henderson shot into a large crowd of people or whether he shot toward an area with very few people determined the nature of the crime. A month after the shooting, prosecutors charged Henderson with [Murder in the First Degree by Extreme Indifference under RCW 9A.32.030(1)(b).](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.32.030 "Murder in the First Degree by Extreme Indifference under RCW 9A.32.030(1)(b)") At trial, Henderson asked that the jury be instructed on the lesser included charge of [Manslaughter in the First Degree under RCW 9A.32.060.](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.32.060 "Manslaughter in the First Degree under RCW 9A.32.060") Initially, the Prosecutor agreed. However, the Prosecutor later changed its position. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion for a lesser included jury instruction. The jury convicted Henderson of Murder in the First Degree by Extreme Indifference. Henderson appealed, contending that the trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury on Manslaughter in the First Degree. The Court of Appeals decided that Henderson should have been granted the lesser-included jury instruction. The state appealed. Ultimately, the Washington Supreme Court decided the issue of whether Henderson was entitled to a jury instruction on Manslaughter First Degree as a lesser included charge to Murder in the First Degree by Extreme Indifference. The WA Supremes upheld the Court of Appeals and decided that Henderson should have been granted the lesser-included jury instruction. It affirmed the Court of Appeals and reversed Henderson’s conviction. In reaching this decision, the court reasoned that under [*State v. Workman*](http://www.leagle.com/decision/197853390Wn2d443_1484.xml/STATE%20v.%20WORKMAN "State v. Workman"), a defendant is entitled to an instruction on a lesser included offense when (1) each of the elements of the lesser offense is a necessary element of the charged offense and (2) the evidence in the case supports an inference that the lesser crime was committed. Under this framework, the court based their conclusion on two unique aspects of the case. First, this crime involved a shooting outside a house party and the evidence consisted largely of eyewitness testimony that varied widely and was often conflicting. Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant results in a much more significant shift than it would in cases with uncontroverted evidence. Second, the definitions of the lesser crime (disregarding a substantial risk that a homicide may occur) and the greater crime (creating a grave risk of death) are very close to each other-much closer than is typical. As a result, the WA Supremes could not say that no jury could have rationally found that the defendant committed the lesser crime rather than the greater crime. Thus, the court held that the jury should have been allowed to determine whether Henderson committed the greater or lesser crime. My opinion? Good decision. In criminal trials, juries are given the option of convicting defendants of lesser included offenses when warranted by the evidence. Giving juries this option is crucial helps our criminal justice system because when defendants are charged with only one crime, juries must either convict them of that crime or let them go free. In some cases, that will create a risk that the jury will convict the defendant despite having reasonable doubts. To minimize that risk, courts prefer to err on the side of instructing juries on lesser included offenses. Under State v. Fernandez-Medina, a jury must be allowed to consider a lesser included offense if the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, raises an inference that the defendant committed the lesser crime instead of the greater crime. If a jury could rationally find a defendant guilty of the lesser offense and not the greater offense, the jury MUST be instructed on the lesser offense. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Firearm, Homicide & Manslaughter, Jury Trial, Lesser Included Jury Instruction, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Attorney Alexander Joins the National Association Distinguished Counsel](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/attorney-alexander-joins-the-national-association-distinguished-counsel/) **Published:** March 23, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** The [National Association of Distinguished Counsel](https://www.distinguishedcounsel.org/ "National Association of Distinguished Counsel") selected attorney [Alexander F. Ransom ](http://www.distinguishedcounsel.org/members/alexander-ransom/25114/ "Alexander F. Ransom")for membership among the nation’s top attorneys. The National Association of Distinguished Counsel is an organization dedicated to promoting the highest standards of legal excellence. The mission of the NADC is to objectively recognize the attorneys who elevate the standards of the Bar and provide a benchmark for other lawyers to emulate. By virtue of the incredible selectivity of their research process, only the elite few are invited to join the ranks of the NADC. Specifically, less than 1% of practicing attorneys in the United States are afforded the opportunity to be named “Nation’s Top Attorneys.” The recipients of this prestigious award have demonstrated the highest ideals of the legal profession. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, misdemeanor **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Manlove: "Deliberate Cruelty" Enhancements Apply to Property Crimes.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-manlove-deliberate-cruelty-enhancements-apply-to-property-crimes/) **Published:** March 25, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** In *[State v. Manlove](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/322327.pub.pdf "State v. Manlove")*, the [Division III Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo "Division III Court of Appeals") held that a upward sentencing enhancement applies to [Residential Burglary](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.52.025 "Residential Burglary") and other property crimes if a jury finds the defendant’s conduct during the commission of crime manifested deliberate cruelty to the victim. In 2005, Paula Parker and her then-husband purchased a remote cabin on forty acres in Stevens County, Washington. The couple became acquainted with their neighbor, David Manlove, whose home lay a half mile from Parker’s cabin. Paula Parker divorced in 2011, and she retained sole custody of the cabin. Parker and Manlove occasionally joined one another at each other’s homes for dinner. The two enjoyed a pastoral, idyllic, and platonic relationship, until . . . Paula Parker went on vacation from June 19 to July 2, 2013 and returned to her cabin the morning of July 3. Once inside her home, Parker discovered her cabin was ransacked. Property was destroyed. The intruder left a hand-rolled cigarette. Paula realized her neighbor, David Manlove, smoked similar cigarettes. Parker contacted police and informed them she believed the culprit was Manlove. She avoided her home for a few days. On July 7, she returned home. Again, her house was ransacked. The damage was even more extensive this time. The intruder shredded Paula Parker’s medical records, high school diploma, and college degree. Parker kept her mother’s ashes in an urn, and the prowler dumped the ashes onto the floor. After surveying the damage at Paula Parker’s cabin on July 8, 2013, Stevens County sheriff deputies traveled to David Manlove’s home. When asked why he damaged Paula Parker’s home, Manlove responded, “It’s my mountain.” When arrested, Manlove repeated several times: “It’s my mountain so there’s no crime.” Law enforcement obtained two search warrants for David Manlove’s home. Officers seized many items that belonged to Paula Parker, including a hatchet, a chainsaw, a veil for a belly dancing costume, a mortar and pestle, journals, and jewelry. Officers also found marijuana plants and a rifle. David Manlove was charged with [Residential Burglary](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.52.025 "Residential Burglary"), [Unlawful Possession of a Firearm in the Second Degree](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.040 "Unlawful Possession of a Firearm Second Degree"), [Possession of more than Forty Grams of Marijuana](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50&full=true#69.50.4013 "Possession of More than 40 Grams Marijuana"), [Possession of Stolen Property in the Third Degree](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.170 "Possessing Stolen Property Third Degree"), and [Malicious Mischief in the First Degree](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.48.070 "Malicious Mischief First Degree"). The State further alleged that Manlove committed Residential Burglary with deliberate cruelty in violation of [RCW 9.94A.535(3)(a)](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.535 "RCW 9.94A.535"). The trial court found Manlove competent to stand trial after an evaluation by Eastern State Hospital. At the close of trial, the trial court instructed the jury that: “Deliberate cruelty” means gratuitous violence ,or other conduct which inflicts physical, psychological, or emotional pain as an end in itself, and which goes beyond what is inherent in the elements of the crime or is normally associated with the commission of the crime. Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 177. The jury found David Manlove guilty as charged. On appeal, the issue was whether the aggravating factor of deliberate cruelty under RCW 9.94A.535(3)(a) applies to Residential Burglary. The Court of Appeals decided, “Yes.” They gave two reasons why, under appropriate circumstances, the deliberate cruelty aggravating factor may apply to a property crimes. First, when the legislature desired to limit the application of an aggravating factor to certain offenses, it expressly provided that limitation in the statute. Second, the statute allows a sentence enhancement when the current offense is a burglary and the victim ofthe burglary was present in the building or residence when the crime was committed. The Court affirmed Manlove’s convictions and sentence, including the enhancement for deliberate cruelty. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Burglary, Exceptional Sentencing, felony, Firearm, Jury Trial, law enforcement, Legislation, Property Crimes, Search Warrant, Sentencing, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Whatcom County Jail: An Inmate's Perspective](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/whatcom-county-jail-an-inmates-perspective/) **Published:** March 30, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** The [Bellingham Herald](http://www.bellinghamherald.com) discussed Whatcom County Jail’s deplorable and dangerous conditions. In the article [Staff & Inmates Say It’s Time For A New Whatcom County Jail](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2015/03/29/4210989/staff-inmates-say-its-time-for.html#storylink=cpy "Staff 7 Inmates Say It's Time For A new Whatcom CountY Jail"), Sheriff Bill Elfo is reported as saying the current Whatcom County Jail is consistently packed beyond its designed capacity, with conditions that pose safety issues for guards and inmates. On March 18, Elfo sat down with Bellingham City Council during a special meeting to discuss the need for a new county jail and request the city’s financial support. The jail’s current legal capacity is somewhere between 298 and 362 inmates, but the average daily population in 2014 was 403 people. Inmates have broken out the windows in their cells onto the street below and picked away at the grout in their cinder block walls, creating small pass-throughs from cell to cell; sewer lines have backed up into the sheriff’s office; nearly every space – shower rooms, indoor recreation areas – has been used to house inmates at one time or another as the population has fluctuated well beyond capacity. The video above captures commentary from jail staff, inmates and administration weighing in on the issue. My opinion? Sure, certain aspects of the criminal justice system are punitive. They’re made to have inmates consider their surroundings and force them to take accountability for the crimes they’re committed. Nevertheless, the old and overcrowded jail creates significant Human Rights issues and potentially extraordinary liability costs if a worst-case-scenario tragedy happened. According to the National Institute of Corrections recent evaluation of the jail, it was determined that if a fire or other emergency were to happen, such as an earthquake, the loss of life at the jail would be “catastrophic.’ Though the building is largely cinder block, mortar and concrete, if mattresses, clothing and/or other items were set on fire, smoke could easily fill a room or floor of the building and suffocate those inside. It’s time for a new jail with better living conditions. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Jail, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Rich: No Reckless Endangerment Found in DUI Case](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-rich-no-reckless-endangerment-found-in-dui-case/) **Published:** March 30, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** In *[State v. Rich](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/707116.pdf "State v. Rich")*, the WA Court of Appeals ruled there is no ‘per se’ liability for [Reckless Endangerment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-endangerment/) based on proof of [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). Here the defendant was pulled over for driving a stolen vehicle. She was arrested for DUI because she exhibited the effects of having consumed alcohol and her BAC test was over .15. She also had a 9-year-old child in the front seat. The Prosecutor charged the defendant with [Possession of a Stolen Vehicle](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/possession-theft-of-stolen-motor-vehicle/), DUI and Reckless Endangerment. During trial, the Prosecutor argued that because Rich operated a vehicle while legally intoxicated in violation of the DUI statute, her conduct also satisfies the elements of reckless endangerment. The State also points to the following pieces of “additional evidence” that would support a finding that Rich’s conduct created a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury: (1) Rich endangered a passenger and motorists on a “major public roadway,” (2) she was heavily intoxicated, and (3) she exceeded the speed limit. The jury found Rich guilty of both Reckless Endangerment and DUI. The case went up on appeal on the issue of whether a jury can find rich guilty on both crimes when the overwhelming evidence suggested she was only guilty of DUI. Some background is necessary. The Reckless Endangerment statute, [RCW 9A.36.050](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9a.36.050 "RCW 9A.36.050"), provides as follows: > A person is guilty of reckless endangerment when he or she recklessly engages in conduct not amounting to drive-by shooting but that creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person. Another provision in the criminal code, [RCW 9A.08.010](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.08.010 "RCW 9A.08.010"), defines levels of culpability, including recklessness. RCW 9A.08.010 provides, in relevant part: > RECKLESSNESS. A person is reckless or acts recklessly when he or she knows of and disregards a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his or her disregard of such substantial risk is a gross deviation from conduct that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation. Here, the Court reasoned that the Prosecutor offered no evidence whatsoever about the presence of other vehicles, motorists, or pedestrians, nor any evidence about the type of road or traffic conditions. Additionally, the police officer who observed Rich drive did not indicate that Rich’s manner of driving posed any danger or caused him to suspect that Rich was impaired. And even if the jury could infer from an officer’s testimony that Rich was speeding 15 miles per hour faster than the speed limit, the deputy followed Rich because he believed the car was stolen, not because of speeding or for any reason related to the manner in which the car was being operated. This evidence would not, therefore, allow a trier of fact to conclude that Rich’s speed created a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury. Because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rich recklessly engaged in conduct that created a substantial risk of death or serious injury to another person, the Reckless Endangerment conviction must be vacated. My opinion? Good decision. there is no “per se” liability for Reckless Endangerment based on proof of violation of the DUI statute. If the penalties for DUI are thought of as too lenient then the legislature can increase them. If there should be additional offenses tied to DUI, say DUI with a passenger, then they likewise can be implemented by the legislature through the democratic process. However, courts should remain unwilling to impose such value judgments upon the citizens by shoehorning conduct into the somewhat broad definitions of certain criminal offenses. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, DUI, Jury Trial, law enforcement, police, Reckless Endangerment, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [WA Legislature Considers Banning "Palcohol"](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/wa-legislature-considers-banning-palcohol/) **Published:** March 30, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** According to the [Bellingham Herald](http://www.bellinghamherald.com "Bellingham Herald"), Washington is one of a growing number of states to try banning a new powdered alcohol product before it reaches liquor-store shelves. [Palcohol](http://www.palcohol.com/home.html "Palcohol") is a new powdered version of alcohol. Palcohol will be made in two different formulations, a Beverage Formulation and an Industrial Formulation. Like other powdered beverages, it must be first dissolved in water prior to consumption. One package weighs about an ounce. Powdered alcohol, it claims, could lighten the loads of hikers and airlines, as well as other consumers and sellers for whom the bulk and weight of booze are burdensome, such as refreshment-sellers who operate on islands. Several Washington legislators, however, say Palcohol is a dangerously sneaky mechanism for getting drunk and have proposed legislation to ban it before it arrives. The House Committee on Commerce and Gaming unanimously endorsed amendments to turn [SB 5292](http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2015&bill=5292 "SB 5292"), a regulatory measure that passed the Senate unopposed, into a ban on powdered alcohol for all purposes except research. “This is not a crafted bourbon, or a scotch, or a tequila or something that’s special,” said Rep. Jeff Holy, R-Cheney, at a public hearing this week. “Powdered alcohol is simply for the purpose of intoxication, period. You’re not crafting the finer liquors.” If the bill becomes law, Washington would join at least six other states that have prohibited powdered alcohol, including the announcement this week by Maryland officials that alcohol distributors there have agreed to a voluntary ban on the substance. More than two dozen other states have introduced bills this year to ban powdered alcohol, which was first patented in 1972 by General Foods but has not seen widespread retail sales in the U.S. My opinion? It seems inappropriate to speculate that *snorting alcohol* is going to become a raging epidemic. There’s no evidence. It also seems hypocritical to ban powdered alcohol without banning alcohol itself. Remember how Prohibition worked? Was that a great success? Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, DUI, Legislation, Uncategorized **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Didlake v. DOL: Fees for DOL Hearings Held Constitutional](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/didlake-v-dol-fees-for-dol-hearings/) **Published:** April 3, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** Here’s an interesting opinion on the ever-increasing financial costs of fighting DUI crimes and the Department of Licencing’s (DOL) automatic suspension of a DUI defendant’s driver’s license. In *[Didlake v. Department of Licensing](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/716336.pdf "Didlake v. Department of Licensing")*, the Court of Appeals held that Washington’s Implied Consent Statute, [RCW 46.20.308](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.308 "RCW 46.20.308"), which requires drivers arrested for DUI to pay a $200-$375 statutory fee in order to have an administrative hearing on license suspension, does NOT violate due process because of the driving privilege is not a fundamental right and DOL waives the fee for indigent drivers. In 2010 – 2011 police arrested James Didlake and other defendants for DUI. Washington’s Implied Consent Statute, RCW 46.20.308, requires that a driver arrested for Driving Under the Influence of an Intoxicant (DUI) pay a filing fee to obtain an administrative review hearing to prevent a driver’s license suspension or revocation. And as required by Washington’s implied consent law, the Department initiated license suspension proceedings against them. Each defendant paid a $200 fee for an administrative review hearing. After they prevailed at their hearings, the Department rescinded their license suspensions. Didlake filed a class action lawsuit against the DOL, asking for injunctive and declaratory relief, plus a refund and damages. He alleged that the $200 statutory fee for an administrative hearing violates due process. Didlake filed a motion for class certification under [CR 23](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CR&ruleid=supcr23 "CR 23"). After filing its answer, the DOL filed a motion to dismiss Didlake’s lawsuit under [CR 12(b)(6).](http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=cr&ruleid=supcr12 "CR 12(b)(6)") On April 5, 2013, the trial court granted the DOL’s motion to dismiss. Didlake asked the Washington Supreme Court for direct review. On March 5, 2014, the Supreme Court transferred the case to the Court of Appeals. In rendering its decision, the Court of Appeals gave lots of background on the procedural aspects of challeging DOL license suspensions. The court reasoned that the implied consent law provides certain procedural protections to drivers. The DOL must give the driver written notice that it intends to suspend or revoke the driver’s license. The DOL must also notify the driver of the right to a hearing and specify the steps to obtain one. Within 20 days of this notice, the driver may request in writing a formal hearing before the DOL. As part of the request, the driver must pay a mandatory fee. The DOL may waive the fee, however, for drivers who are indigent. At the hearing, the driver may have assistance of counsel, question witnesses, present evidence, and testify. The hearing officer determines if the officer had reasonable grounds to believe the driver was driving under the influence and if the driver refused to take a test or took a test that revealed a BAC of 0.08 or higher. After the hearing, the DOL “shall order that the suspension, revocation, or denial either be rescinded or sustained.” Here, the Court reasoned that Washington courts have almost always have upheld the constitutionality of filing fees. Courts have consistently distinguished between fundamental interests and interests that are “solely monetary,” involving “economics and social welfare,” or even “important” or “substantial.” If the interest involved is fundamental, due process requires access for all. Here, the court reasoned, a fee waiver for indigent litigants accomplishes this mandate. If the interest is not fundamental, “a monetary prerequisite to an appeal is thus permissible, even for indigent appellants. Additionally, Courts have identified the driving privilege as an “important” and “substantial” but not *fundamental* right. Consequently, the court reasoned, this contradicts Didlake’s assertion that the filing fee has a “chilling effect” on drivers’ exercise of their due process rights. Thus, he fails to establish a facial challenge on due process grounds. And because he paid the fee and received a hearing that complied with due process, he does not show that the fee requirement is unconstitutional as applied to him. “Whether facial or as-applied, Didlake’s due process challenges fail.” The Court concluded that because Didlake failed to establish that the implied consent statute’s fee requirement violates procedural due process, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order dismissing Didlake’s class action claim. My opinion? Speaking as a DUI attorney, DOL hearings and license suspensions are just another way for the State to profit from defendants charged with DUI. These days, a DOL hearing costs $375. Additionally, a defendant’s window of time to apply for these hearings is small – only 20 days after the DUI incident happened. Finally, DOL hearings are very difficult to win. There must be some glaring legal weakness in the case regarding (1) the pullover of the defendant’s vehicle, (2) the evidence of DUI, (3) whether the officer read the Implied Consent Warnings, and/or (4) whether the defendant tested over .08 BAC or refused the BAC machine. Unfortunately, given the Court’s analysis above, it appears the wheels of justice shall continue to financially grind upon defendants facing license suspensions from DUI charges. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Blood Test, Boating Under the Influence, Constitutional Rights, Court Fines, Department of Licensing, Due Process, DUI, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, misdemeanor, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Ellison: No Right to Allocution](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-ellison-no-right-to-allocution/) **Published:** April 6, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** In *[State v. Ellison](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2044951-0-II%20%20Part-Published%20Opinion.pdf "State v. Ellison")*, the WA Court of Appeals decided a defendant lost his right to give a statement at his sentencing because his lengthy presentation changed from religious songs and unrelated topics to protests of his innocence and an accusation that his attorney was lying to the court. At a bench trial, Mr Ellison was convicted of [Rape in the Second Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/) and [Child Molestation in the Second Degree](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.086 "Child Molestation in the Second Degree"). At his sentencing, the court invited Ellison to allocute. For those who don’t know, “Allocution” is defined as the right of a criminal defendant to make a personal argument or statement to the court before the pronouncement of sentence. It is the defendant’ s opportunity to plead for mercy and present any information to try mitigating the sentence. Here, Ellison sang a short religious song and spoke about various topics not clearly related to the sentencing proceeding. After making extensive remarks, Ellison began to protest his innocence and accuse his trial attorney of lying to the court. At that point, the court cut Ellison off, explained that the matters he related were irrelevant to the issues at hand, and pronounced the sentence. Ellison asked for permission to finish his remarks, but the court declined. The court imposed life imprisonment without the possibility of release. Ellison appealed. The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction and denied Ellison’s appeal. it reasoned that the sentencing court allowed Ellison to speak for some time, cutting him off only when he began using the opportunity to testify about the facts of the case and complain about the conduct of his trial attorney. Unfortunately, those were not legitimate purposes for allocution. Because the court let Ellison speak without interruption until it was clear he was using the allocution for improper purposes, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in cutting short Ellison’ s allocution. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, Sex Crimes, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. MacDonald: Police Cannot Testify for Victims at Sentencing](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-macdonald-police-cannot-testify-for-victims-at-sentencing/) **Published:** April 21, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** In a close opinion, the WA Supreme Court ruled in [*State v. MacDonald*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/899126.pdf "State v. MacDonald") that an investigating officer may not request the judge for a sentence greater than that in the State’s plea agreement. Even when the investigating officer claims to be speaking on the victim’s behalf, statements that are contrary to the plea agreement will constitute a breach of the agreement. In 1978, Arlene Roberts was found dead in her home. The police collected several latent fingerprints from bank statements and traveler’s checks within her trailer but never identified a suspect. The case went inactive. In 2010, detective Scott Tompkins reviewed the case files and matched the fingerprints to MacDonald. The Prosecutor charged MacDonald with [Murder in the First Degree](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.32.030 "Murder in the First Degree"). After the trial began, the parties entered into plea negotiations. The State agreed that the prosecutor would change the charge from first degree felony murder to second degree manslaughter and recommend a five-year [suspended sentence ](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Suspended+Sentence "suspended sentence")in exchange for an [*Alford* plea](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alford_plea "Alford plea"). MacDonald accepted the plea agreement. At sentencing, Deputy Prosecutor Kristin Richardson informed the court that detective Tompkins wished to speak on behalf of the victim pursuant to [RCW 9.94A.500](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.500 "RCW 9.94A.500"). Though detective Tompkins was involved throughout the plea negotiations and Richardson intended for Tompkins to sit at counsel’s table pursuant to [Evidence Rule 615](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.rulesPDF&ruleId=gaer0615&pdf=1 "Evidence Rule 615") in order to assist her, Prosecutor Richardson asserted that she did not know what Tompkins wanted to say. MacDonald objected, but the trial court permitted Tompkins to testify as a victim advocate over MacDonald’s objection. Tompkins immediately asked the court to impose the maximum sentence. He described what happened to the victim and gave the court marked photographs of the victim’s body as police found her. Tompkins informed the court that the medical examiner’s report contained 18 paragraphs detailing her injuries and then asserted that Roberts “died a horrific death.” The trial court imposed the maximum sentence, giving MacDonald 60 months in prison with a minimum sentence of 55 months and credit for time served. Macdonald moved to withdraw his plea. The Court of Appeals denied MacDonald’s motion. The WA Supremes decided to reverse the Court of Appeals and permit MacDonald to decide whether to withdraw his guilty plea or to seek specific performance. The court agreed with the reasoning in *[State v. Sanchez ](http://courts.mrsc.org/mc/courts/zsupreme/146wn2d/146wn2d0339.htm "State v. Sanchez")*that investigating officers cannot make sentence recommendations contrary to a plea agreement. The Court also reasoned that the same due process concerns stopping an investigating officer from undermining a plea agreement also stop that officer from making unsolicited remarks on a victim’s behalf to the court at sentencing that are contrary to the plea agreement. Washington’s crime victims’ rights laws do not permit the State to breach a plea agreement. My opinion? Although I offer my deepest condolences to the family of the victim, I must agree with the WA Supremes on this. A plea agreement is a contract between the State and the defendant. The Prosecutor thus has a contractual duty of good faith. Prosecutor cannot undercut the terms of the agreement, either explicitly or implicitly, or by conduct showing intent to circumvent the terms of the plea agreement. In Washington, the statutory relationship between prosecutors and investigating officers binds investigating officers to plea agreements in a criminal case. That said, detective Tompkins was acting in the role of substantially assisting the prosecution. This is unlawful. It violates procedural due process. Apparently, the WA Supremes agreed. Good opinion. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, DNA, Due Process, Evidence, felony, Homicide & Manslaughter, law enforcement, Sentencing, Violent Crime, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Dehydrated Drivers As Bad On The Road As Drunk Drivers, Study Suggests](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/dehydrated-drivers-as-bad-on-the-road-as-drunk-drivers-study-suggests/) **Published:** April 21, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** New research suggests that driving while dehydrated is equally as destructive as driving while drunk. Drivers who had consumed alcohol over the legal limit as well as drivers who were dehydrated made twice as many driving mistakes as those who were hydrated. [*The Telegraph*](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11547199/Not-drinking-enough-water-has-same-effect-as-drink-driving.html "The Telegraph") reports that not drinking enough water can cause drivers to make more mistakes, increasing their chances of a collision. The study revealed that drivers who had only had 25ml of water an hour made more than double the number of mistakes on the road than those who were hydrated – the same amount as those who have been drink driving. Professor Ron Maughan, Emeritus Professor of Sport and Exercise Nutrition, who led the [study ](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031938415002358 "study")at Loughborough University, said: “We all deplore drink driving, but we don’t usually think about the effects of other things that affect our driving skills, and one of those is not drinking and dehydration. “There is no question that driving while incapable through drink or drugs increases the risk of accidents, but our findings highlight an unrecognised danger and suggest that drivers should be encouraged to make sure they are properly hydrated. Dehydration can also result in impaired mental functioning, changes in mood, and reductions in concentration, alertness and short-term memory, say the researchers who carried out the first study into dehydration, driving errors and accident risk. My opinion? Although I don’t want to minimize the impact that DUI has on its victims and society, let’s keep our information in perspective. Along with the above study, numerous other studies performed by the the [National Highway Traffic Safety Institute](http://www.nhtsa.gov/Research/Crash+Avoidance/Distraction "National Highway Traffic Safety Institute") suggest that eating, talking on a cellphone and/or texting while driving is just as distracting – if not *more* distracting – than driving while under the influence of intoxicants. Now, research suggests that dehydration – being *thirsty* – creates the same physiological symptoms among drivers that intoxicants do. Interesting. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Studies **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Dehydrated Driving, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Study: Marijuana and Alcohol Doubles Odds for DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/study-marijuana-and-alcohol-doubles-odds-for-dui/) **Published:** April 21, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** Marijuana is becoming increasingly legalized in the US for medical and recreational use. A new [study ](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acer.2015.39.issue-5/issuetoc "study")analyzes the simultaneous use of alcohol and marijuana. In short, simultaneous users had **double** the odds of drunk driving, social consequences, and harm to self and others. The researchers analyzed data from the 2005 and 2010 National Alcohol Survey (n=8,626; 4,522 females, 4,104 males). This was a Random Digit Dial, Computer Assisted Telephone Interview survey of individuals aged 18 and older from all 50 states and DC. Blacks and Hispanics were over-sampled. The study authors assessed differences in demographics, alcohol-related social consequences, harms to self, and drunk driving across simultaneous, concurrent, and alcohol-only using groups. “We looked at three groups of adults,” explained Meenakshi S. Subbaraman, a corresponding author for the study and associate scientist at the Alcohol Research Group, a program of the Public Health Institute. “One, those who used only alcohol in the previous 12 months; two, those who used both alcohol and cannabis but always separately, or concurrently; and three, those who used both alcohol and cannabis and usually together, or simultaneously. According to the study, simultaneous users did not necessarily always use cannabis while they drank; the groups were based on how often they drank when using cannabis, and not vice versa. The study authors found that, compared to adults who solely used alcohol, simultaneous users had double the odds of drunk driving, social consequences, and harms to self. Compared to concurrent users, simultaneous users had double the odds of drunk driving. Simultaneous users also had the heaviest drinking patterns in terms of quantity and frequency. The research brought interesting conclusions. “If cannabis use becomes more prevalent as U.S. states and other countries continue to legalize it, then we need to be prepared to advise people appropriately,” cautioned Subbaraman. “If you use both substances together, your risk of drunk driving, and possibly other consequences, may be higher than if you stick to using one at a time.” The [study ](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acer.2015.39.issue-5/issuetoc "study")appears in the May 2015 online issue of the journal *Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research*. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Blood Test, Boating Under the Influence, Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, DUI, marijuana, Race & Law, Reckless Driving, Studies, Traffic Infractions, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Rodriguez v. United States: Nonconsensual Dog Sniff of Car Held Unconstitutional](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/rodriguez-v-united-states-dog-sniffs-held-unconstitutional/) **Published:** April 25, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** In [*State v. Rodriguez*,](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf) the United States Supreme Court held that absent reasonable suspicion, police extending a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures. In summary, the Supreme Court ruled that (1) the [4th Amendment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) does Fourth Amendment does not tolerate a dog sniff conducted after completion of a traffic stop, (2) a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violated the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures, (3) a seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation becomes unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete the issuing of a ticket for the violation, and (4) a stop may, however, be prolonged for a dog sniff when there is independent information giving rise to an individualized suspicion that the occupants of the car are involved in a drug offense. The 6-3 ruling is indeed a big win for the [4th Amendment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution). In this case, Officer Struble, a K-9 officer, stopped the defendant Rodriguez for driving on a highway shoulder. After issuing a warning for the traffic offense Officer Strubble asked Rodriguez for permission to walk his dog around the vehicle. Rodriguez refused. Struble detained him until another police officer arrived. Struble’s dog performed a search and alerted to the presence of drugs in the vehicle. The dog found methamphetamine. Seven or eight minutes elapsed between the time Struble issued the warning and the dog alerting to the presence of contraband. Rodriguez faced several federal drug charges. Although he moved to suppress evidence seized from the vehicle on the basis that Officer Struble prolonged the traffic stop without reasonable suspicion in order to conduct the dog sniff search, the lower court denied Rodriguez’s motion. Eventually, the United States Supreme Court weighed in on the search and seizure issues. The Court reasoned that a routine traffic stop is more like a brief stop under [*Terry v. Ohio* ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1)than an arrest. Its duration is determined by the seizure’s “mission,” which is to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop and attend to related safety concerns. Beyond determining whether to issue a traffic ticket, an officer’s investigation during a traffic stop typically includes checking the driver’s license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile’s registration and proof of insurance. These checks serve the same objective as enforcement of the traffic code: ensuring that vehicles on the road are operated safely and responsibly. The court further reasoned that a dog sniff is not fairly characterized as part of the officer’s traffic mission. Also, the Court was concerned that seizing citizens for traffic stops and holding them to conduct a more intrusive search with no evidence of criminal activity beyond the mere traffic stop is unlawful: “The critical question is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket, but whether conducting the sniff adds time to the stop. My opinion? Great ruling! It’s rare that the Supreme Court upholds the 4th Amendment these days. Fortunately, this favorable outcome happened because the suspect asserted his rights by refusing the dog sniff. Past rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court limit 4th Amendment protections where suspects DID NOT assert their rights. See [*Florida v. Bostick*](http://www.flexyourrights.org/florida_v_bostick/?mc_cid=fabc79dd7c&mc_eid=0d236a7483). Yet here’s a case where the suspect *did* flex their rights. Look at the outcome! It’s a testament – a reminder, if you will – that asserting your rights makes a difference. Great case. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, Evidence, felony, law enforcement, Methamphetamine, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, Uncategorized, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Jones: Slight Lane Travel = Unlawful Search](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-jones-court-of-appeals-supports-prado/) **Published:** April 25, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** Good case. In [*State v. Jones*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/706209.pdf), The WA Court of Appeals decided a police officer does not have reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle that crosses the fog line three times in a mile for violating the safe lane travel statute, RCW 46.61.140(1). Anacortes Police Officer Jacqueline Richter saw Donald Jones driving within the city limits of Anacortes, Washington. As she followed Jones in her patrol car for about a mile, she observed Jones’s vehicle “pass over the fog line approximately an inch” three times, each time “correcting its position with a slow drift.” She stopped Jones and told him that she had stopped his vehicle “due to erratic lane travel.” There were no other vehicles on the roadway at the time. Jones agreed to perform field sobriety tests. There was no indication of intoxication. Officer Sam King arrived to assist Richter. King saw a rifle in the backseat of Jones’s truck. Jones consented to a vehicle search “for the sole purpose of recovering the rifle.” A records check revealed that Jones did not have a valid driver’s license. In the course of their conversation, Jones told King that he had a felony conviction in Idaho for possession of a controlled substance. The State charged Jones with one count of [Unlawful Possession of a Firearm in the Second Degree.](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.040) Jones moved to suppress the fruits of the vehicle search. Citing *[State v. Prado](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4411244186880644624&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)*, Jones challenged the lawfulness of the stop. The trial court denied Jones’s motion. At trial he was found guilty. He appealed. The Court of Appeals held that stopping Jones’s vehicle was unlawful under [RCW 46.61.040(1)](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.440) and *State v. Prado*. the trial court erred by not suppressing the evidence of the firearm. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded the case back to the trial court. The Court reasoned that a traffic stop is a seizure. The [Fourth Amendment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) to the United States Constitution guaranties against unreasonable searches and seizures, and requires either a warrant or proof that the seizure qualifies under one of the few “‘jealously and carefully drawn'” exceptions to the warrant requirement. Here, said the Court, there was no evidence of “reasonable suspicion of criminal activity” to support a stop and search of Jones’s vehicle. The State presented no evidence about Officer Richter’s training and experience in identifying impaired drivers. Officer Richter did not testify that she suspected Jones was impaired or that she stopped him for this reason. The State presented no evidence of dangerous driving or any other traffic infraction. Finally, the trial court did not find that Officer Richter stopped Jones because of a reasonable suspicion that he was [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). Because the State failed to justify its warrantless seizure of Jones, the trial court should have suppressed the evidence discovered because of that seizure. My opinion? Good decision. I’m happy that the Court of Appeals is finally supporting its decision in *State v. Prado*. In that case, a police officer stopped a car that had crossed a lane divider line in an exit lane by approximately two tire widths for one second. The State charged the driver with driving under the influence of an intoxicant. The district court denied Prado’s motion to suppress, and Prado was convicted. He appealed. Ultimately, in deciding *Prado* the Court of Appeals held that “minor incursions over a lane line” do not, by themselves, constitute a sufficient basis for an investigatory stop. Also, “a vehicle crossing over a lane once for one second by two tire widths does not, without more, constitute a traffic violation justifying a stop by a police officer.” *Prado* was an excellent decision in 2008. Unfortunately, *Prado* hasn’t been well-supported by other court decisions. Indeed, in my own practice, judges deciding suppression issues seem to have turned a blind eye to *Prado* decision. Hopefully, *State v. Jones* shall reinforce *Prado* and give it the respect it deserves. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, DUI, felony, Firearm, law enforcement, police, Search and Seizure, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Peppin: No Privacy for Public File Sharing](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-peppin-no-privacy-for-public-file-sharing/) **Published:** April 26, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** In *[State v. Peppin](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/320588.pub.pdf)*, the WA Court of Appeals ruled law enforcement’s warrantless use of enhanced peer to peer file sharing software to remotely access shared files on an individual’s computer does not violate either the [Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) or [article I, sec. 7 of the Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx). In other words, an individual does not have a constitutionally protected privacy right in image files he shares with the public. Here, defendant Casey Peppin was found guilty of three counts of [Possession of Depictions of Minors Engaged in Sexually Explicit Conduct in the First Degree under RCW 9.68A.670](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.68A.070). On December 29,2011, Spokane Detective Brian Cestnik conducted an online investigation of the Gnutella network to identify persons possessing and sharing child pornography. Using peer to peer software called “Round Up” version 1.5.3, Detective Cestnik found child pornography on Mr. Peppin’s computer in a shared folder. He obtained a warrant, searched he defendant’s home and recovered the computer(s) allegedly used to view and share images of minors engaged in sexual conduct. **BACKGROUND ON “PEER TO PEER FILE SHARING”** For those who don’t know, “peer to peer file sharing” is a method of Internet communication that allows users to share digital files. User computers link together to form a network; the network allows direct transfer of shared files from one user to another. Peer to peer software applications allow users to set up and share files on the network with others using compatible peer to peer software. For instance, LimeWire and Shareaza are software applications that allow users to share files over the Gnutella network. To gain access to shared files, a user must first download peer to peer software, which can be found on the Internet. Then, the user opens the peer to peer software on his or her computer and conducts a keyword search for files that are currently being shared on the network. The results are displayed and the user selects a file for download. The downloaded file is transferred through a direct connection between the computer wishing to share the file and the user’s computer requesting the file. The Gnutella network gives users the ability to see a list of all files that are available for sharing on a particular computer. F or example, a person interested in obtaining child pornographic images opens the peer to peer software application on his or her computer and conducts a file search using keyword terms such as “preteen sex.” The search is sent out over the network of computers to those using compatible peer to peer software. The results of the search are returned and displayed on the user’s computer. The user selects the file he or she wishes to download. The file is then downloaded directly from the host computer onto the user’s computer. The downloaded file is stored on the user’s computer until moved or deleted. A peer to peer file transfer is assisted by reference to an Internet Protocol (IP) address. In general, the numeric IP address is unique to a particular computer during an online Internet session. The IP address provides a location, making it possible for data to be transferred between computers. This is where the police work comes in: investigators can search public records on the Internet to determine which Internet provider is assigned the IP address. Investigators can contact the Internet provider and gain information about the user based on the IP address assigned to the computer. **THE INVESTIGATIONS** Here, Detective Cestnik searched the Gnutella network for “pthc,” the commonly used term for preteen hard core Internet pornography. Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 17. The results indicated that images matching the search terms could be found on a host computer with an IP address linked to Spokane. Detective Cestnik’s check of the IP address through two different Internet search engines confirmed that the IP address was in Spokane and that Qwest Communications was the provider. Next, Detective Cestnik presented Qwest Communications with a search warrant requesting information on the IP address for the host computer. Qwest Communications advised Detective Cestnik that the IP address was connected to Mr. Peppin and provided Mr. Peppin’s address. Detective Cestnik then obtained a search warrant for Mr. Peppin’s computer. A complete forensic investigation uncovered over 100 videos of what appeared to be minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. **TRIAL OUTCOME** Mr. Peppin moved to suppress the computer files downloaded by Detective Cestnik during his Internet search. He maintained that law enforcement’s access and download of his computer files via the Internet was an intrusion into his private affairs and an unlawful warrantless search. The court denied Peppin’s motions to suppress. At trial, he was found guilty on all 3 counts. **COURT OF APPEALS DECISION** The legal issue addressed by the court was whether Mr. Peppin had a constitutionally protected privacy right in the image files he shared with the public. In short, the Court said, “No.” First, federal circuit courts have consistently held that a person who installs and uses file sharing software does not have a reasonable expectation ofprivacy in the files to be shared on his or her computer. Second, even the broader protection of the Washington State Constitution also does not offer any relief to Mr. Peppin. It stated, “What is voluntarily exposed to the general public and observable without the use of enhancement devices from an unprotected area is not considered part of a person’s private affairs.” The court emphasized that here, Mr. Peppin voluntarily offered public access to the computer files obtained by Detective Cestnik. Mr. Peppin used peer to peer software to make these shared files available without restriction. Anyone wanting to view or download the files could do so. Law enforcement’s access of these files was not an intrusion into Mr. Peppin’s private affairs. The court summed it up: > Additionally, this is not the type of information that a citizen of this state is entitled to hold as private. The inherent nature of peer to peer software is the public sharing of digital computer files. Individuals using file sharing software cannot expect a privacy interest in files they hold open to the public. Again, Mr. Peppin’s use of peer to peer file sharing voluntarily opened this information to the public for anyone to access, including law enforcement. There is no disturbance of a person’s private affairs when law enforcement accesses shared computer files that the person holds publically available for viewing and download. Thus, there is no violation within the context of article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution. My opinion? Although I understand the logic – as well as the government’s desire to criminalize the sexual exploitation of minors – at what point does “private” communications end and “public” communications begin? How intrusive is the government’s technology? How often do they use the internet to spy on citizens for public safety reasons? I suppose we’ll see . . . Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, felony, Forensics, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Sex Crimes, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Police Body Cameras: Privacy & Costs](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/police-body-cameras-privacy-costs/) **Published:** April 28, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** A recent article from the [New York Times ](http://www.nytimes.com/)titled, [Downside of Police Body Cameras: Your Arrest Hits Youtube](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/us/downside-of-police-body-cameras-your-arrest-hits-youtube.html) has reignited the discussion of whether police body cameras are worth the trouble. Recently, law enforcement agencies from around the country have been moving with unusual speed to equip officers with body cameras to film their encounters with the public. But the adoption of these cameras has created a new conflict over who has the right to view the recordings. In Seattle, where some officers started wearing body cameras, the department has set up its own [YouTube channel](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIhl3wl7wr7fAMYL7fQeP_A/videos), broadcasting a stream of blurred images to protect the privacy of people filmed. Much of this footage is uncontroversial; one scene shows a woman jogging past a group of people and an officer watching her, then having a muted conversation with people whose faces have been obscured. Interestingly enough, very intense public discussion of the issue is happening here in Washington State. Under [RCW 42.56](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=42.56), which is Washington State’s Public Disclosure Law, anyone may file a public records request to obtain body camera recordings. In Bremerton, Chief Strachan tested body cameras last fall before deciding NOT to purchase them. He said the demands the department had received for video during the testing period had been too burdensome. “We got a request for any and all video shot by a police officer,” he said. “It’s pretty much impossible.” In nearby King County, Sheriff John Urquhart said he would not equip his deputies with cameras until lawmakers reworked disclosure rules. “I’d do it in a heartbeat,” he said, “but if the public wants body cameras, they’re going to have to give something up on public disclosure.” My opinion? Some of the concerns mentioned above appear warranted, however, others do not. True, it’s concerning for a DV victim’s likeness and images to appear on YouTube. It might even violate their privacy. [RCW 42.56.050 ](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=42.56.050)states, “A person’s ‘right to privacy,’ ‘right of privacy,’ ‘privacy,’ or ‘personal privacy,’ as these terms are used in this chapter, is invaded or violated only if disclosure of information about the person: (1) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (2) is not of legitimate concern to the public.” Under this, body camera evidence which violates people’s privacy rights might form the basis to support a civil lawsuit against police agencies which readily release that information without redacting people’s likeness and images. Indeed, under [RCW 42.56.240](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=42.56.240), that information is exempt from Public Disclosure. In addressing this problem, it’s comforting that the Seattle The department broadcasts its footage on its own YouTube channel with people’s faces obscured and conversations muted to protect the privacy of people being filmed. However, I disagree with the Bremerton police chief’s decision to refuse a body camera program altogether because it costs his agency too much money/resources to properly grant people’s public disclosure requests. Under [RCW 42.56.120](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=42.56.120), a reasonable charge may be imposed for providing copies of public records. That makes sense. Police agencies *should* charge fees when they use their resources to inspect and copy requested material. Here, the key is what a “reasonable” fee implies. Although law enforcement agencies should charge comparable costs to the consumer for using their resources to inspecting and copy requested materials, the charges should not be overly expensive. For example, in Florida, the Sarasota Police Department has temporarily halted its body camera program after an ACLU Florida lawyer sued over the costs of obtaining footage. The city said it would charge $18,000 for 84 hours of video to be placed on DVDs — about $214 per hour of video. Police body cameras are an excellent idea. They put everyone on their best behavior. Let’s work through the bugs and restrain ourselves from throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** ACLU, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Body camera, Constitutional Rights, Evidence, law enforcement, police **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Case v. Montana: U.S. Supreme Court Addresses "Community Caretaking" Exception To The Warrant Requirement](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/case-v-montana-u-s-supreme-court-addresses-community-caretaking-exception-to-the-warrant-requirement/) **Published:** February 22, 2026 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*Case v. Montana*, No. 24-624 (January 14, 2026)](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-624_b07d.pdf), the [U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) unanimously (!) decided an interesting criminal case regarding the limits of the Community Caretaking Exception to warrant requirement. In short, *[Case v. Montana](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-624_b07d.pdf)* held that a police officer does not need [Probable Cause](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause) or [Reasonable Suspicio](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_suspicion)n to believe an occupant is in need of emergency aid to enter a home without a warrant to render assistance. Those standards are related to criminal investigations. An officer need only have an “objectively reasonable basis” to believe that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such an injury to justify a warrantless intrusion. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** In this case, Montana police officers responded to the home of William Case after his ex-girlfriend called 911 to report that he was threatening suicide and may have shot himself. The officers knocked on the doors and yelled into an open window, but got no response. They could see an empty handgun holster and something that looked like a suicide note inside, and they ultimately decided to enter the home to render emergency aid. When one officer approached a bedroom closet in which Case was hiding, Case threw open the closet curtain while hold ing an object that looked like a gun. Fearing that he was about to be shot, the officer shot and injured Case. An ambulance was called to take Case to the hospital, and officers found a handgun next to where Case had stood. Mr. Case was charged with assaulting a police officer. Case moved to suppress all evidence obtained from the home entry. He argued that the police violated the Fourth Amendment by entering without a warrant. The trial court denied the motion, and a jury found Case guilty. A divided Montana Supreme Court upheld the officers’ entry as lawful under Montana’s Community Caretaker Doctrine, rejecting the contention that an officer must have probable cause to believe that an occupant needs emergency aid. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The United States Supreme Court (hereinafter, “The Court”) began with a [stare decisis analysis](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis) of [*Brigham City v. Stuart.*](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/398/) In that case, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment allows police officers to enter a home without a warrant if they have an “objectively reasonable basis for believing” that someone inside needs emergency assistance. Applied here, the U.S. Supreme Court reasoned that *Brigham City’s* standard of review was satisfied in this case. Next, the Court reasoned that although searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable, that requirement is subject to certain exceptions. Among those exceptions includes the need to render emergency assistance. Additionally, the Court raised and dismissed Mr. Case’s arguments that the Court should understand *Brigham City* as requiring police officers as requiring probable cause to enter a home in emergency situations. However, the Court declined to put a new probable cause spin onto the emergency-aid standard: “Probable cause is peculiarly related to criminal investigations, and that body of law would fit awkwardly, if at all, in the non-criminal, non-investigatory setting at issue here,” said the Court. It reasoned that rather *Brigham City* asked simply whether an officer had an objectively reasonable basis for believing that entry was direly needed to prevent or deal with serious harm. “Courts should assess the reasonableness of an emergency-aid entry on its own terms, rather than through the lens generally used to consider investigative activity,” said the Court. Finally, the Court reasoned that the officers here had an objectively reasonable basis for believing that their entry was needed to prevent Case from ending his life: > “The information the officers obtained from Case’s ex-girlfriend, combined with their observations at the scene, suggested that Case may already have shot himself or would do so absent intervention. The officers’ decision to enter his home to prevent that result was reasonable.” ~U.S. Supreme Court Accordingly, the Court affirms the judgment of the Montana Supreme Court. My opinion? Essentially, this opinion rejects the defendant’s attempt to narrow the Court’s decision in *Brigham City*. Nevertheless, it’s nice to see the Court unanimously agree, even if the subject matter is not terribly complicated. Similar to Montana, Washington State has its own Community Caretaking Exception (CCE) to the Warrant Requirement. Under [*State v. Harris*](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/wa-court-of-appeals/2011484.html), Washington’s CCE allows police to conduct warrantless searches or seizures when performing non-criminal, health, and safety functions, provided it is not a pretext for criminal investigation. This exception requires that officers have a reasonable, objective belief that assistance is needed, balancing privacy against public interest. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime involving[ Search & Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/). Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Community Caretaking, Fourth Amendment, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Irby: A Juror's Bias Reverses Conviction](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-irby-a-jurors-bias-reverses-conviction/) **Published:** April 28, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** In *[State v. Irby](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/704184.pdf)*, The WA Court of Appeals reversed the murder conviction of a defendant because a juror’s remarks during jury selection indicated her express bias against the defendant. In reaching their decision, the court reasoned that when a juror makes an unqualified statement expressing actual bias, seating the juror is a manifest constitutional error that may be raised on appeal. Also, a juror’s statement during voir dire that she “would like to say he’s guilty” requires a new trial because no inquiry was made from the Prosecution that would have neutralized the statement. In 2005, James Rock was murdered at his home in rural Skagit County. The investigations led to Terrance Irby, a known associate of Rock. Rock’s neighbors had seen Irby in the neighborhood on March 8. Irby was soon located in custody in Marysville. He had been arrested there on March 8, after running a red light and attempting to elude police. In Irby’s truck, officers found Rock’s weapons and boots splashed with Rock’s blood. Irby was arrested and charged with [Aggravated Murder in the First Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/), [Burglary in the First Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/), and [Felony Murder](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/). Oddly enough, in 2011, the WA Supreme Court had already [reversed Irby’s convictions ](http://courts.mrsc.org/mc/courts/zsupreme/170wn2d/170wn2d0874.htm)because of a violation of his right to a public trial. The violation occurred when the court and the attorneys agreed by e-mail, without Irby’s participation, to dismiss some of the potential jurors before voir dire began. The State recharged the case. He awaited trial. Irby had three different standby counselors while his case was pending. Irby fired all of them before the second trial began. As a consequence, the trial court granted Irby’s request to proceed pro se; or in other words, by himself without defense counsel. On March 5, 2013—the first day scheduled for jury selection —Irby voluntarily absented himself from the proceedings. Irby said he did not believe he could get a fair trial in Skagit County. Trial became somewhat of a circus. *By Irby’s choice, the trial proceeded before a jury that had been picked without any participation by Irby*. Every day before trial resumed, the trial court had Irby brought from the jail into the courtroom so that the court could verify that he still wanted to remain absent. The jury convicted Irby as charged on March 12, 2013. The primary issue on appeal was whether juror bias – specifically, the bias of the juror who said she “would like to say he’s guilty” – violated Irby’s right to a fair and impartial jury. In reaching its decision the Court of Appeals reasoned that under [RAP 2.5(a)(3)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=app&set=RAP&ruleid=apprap02.5), a party may raise for the first time on appeal a “manifest error affecting a constitutional right.” Here, criminal defendants have a federal and state constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury. Criminal defendants have a federal and state constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury. The error alleged here, seating a biased juror, violates this right. Furthermore, the court reasoned that seating that particular juror manifested actual bias. Under [RCW 4.44.170(2)](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=4.44.170) actual bias is “the existence of a state of mind on the part of the juror in reference to the action, or to either party, which satisfies the court that the challenged person cannot try the issue impartially and without prejudice to the substantial rights of the party challenging.” The Court of Appeals said both thetrial judge and the Prosecutor failed to elicit any assurances from that juror that she had an open mind on the issue of guilt. This was wrong. The Court of Appeals concluded that the juror at question demonstrated actual bias and that seating her was manifest constitutional error requiring reversal of all convictions and remand for a new trial. My opinion? It’s awful and tragic that Mr. Rock died a violent and painful death. My condolences go to his family and everyone who cared for him. Anyone in their circumstance would want the murderer brought to justice and convicted for these horrible crimes. However, gaining convictions is meaningless if the courts and prosecutors violate a defendant’s rights in the process. It devalues the entire criminal justice system. It loses credibility and coherence. Perhaps the Judge and Prosecutor failed to make a record of “rehabilitating” that particular juror of her biases – a process which happens at EVERY jury trial I’ve conducted – because neither Mr. Irby nor a criminal defense attorney was at jury selection to attempt to [strike that particular juror for cause](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_for_cause). Neverthless, all of us now have a greater understanding of why it’s necessary for attorneys to engage the colloquy of ensuring that jurors are NOT biased – even when they most certainly are. Eliminating biased jurors from trial not only ensures a fair trial for the defendant. It also creates a court record for ensuring that jury verdicts are not overturned on appeal. As this one was. Good decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Burglary, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, Homicide & Manslaughter, Jury Selection, Jury Trial, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. A.A.: Unlawful Search of Juvenile](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-a-a-unlawful-search-of-juvenile/) **Published:** May 29, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** In *[State v. AA](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/315878.pub.pdf)*, the Washington Court of Appeals decided an officer who detained a runaway juvenile under [RCW 13.32A](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=13.32a), the Family Reconciliation Act, unlawfully removed methamphetamine and marijuana from the youth’s pocket. The court reversed his conviction. In *State v. AA*, the juvenile defendant A.A. was reported as a runaway. Officer Escamilla found A.A. walking down an alley a few blocks north of his mother’s house. The Officer detains AA and conducts a search before taking AA to the Crisis Residential Center (CRC), a detention center for minors. Officer Escamilla searched A.A. near his patrol car. During the search, the officer found methamphetamine in a coin pocket of A.A.’s pants and marijuana in another pocket. The officer then transported A.A. to a juvenile detention center, rather than the CRC. The State charged A.A. with two counts of [Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Substance](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). The trial court denied AA’s motion to suppress the evidence. At the [CrR 3.6 ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6)hearing, Officer Escamilla testified that A.A. was “just walking down an alley” and appeared “upset,” but that he was not engaged in criminal activity and did not appear dangerous to himself or others. At a bench trial, A.A .was found guilty on both drug charges. He appealed. The Court of Appeals took the case. The sole issue on appeal was whether the trial court mistakenly concluded Officer Escamilla’s search of A.A. was reasonable under the Family Reconciliation Act (the Act) because A.A. was going to be transported to the CRC, a secure facility for juveniles, which requires a search of juveniles before admission. The Court of Appeals decided that while an officer may lawfully conduct a pat-down search for weapons prior to transporting the youth, the officer may not conduct a full search. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court reasoned that [Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment)and [article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution ](http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Washington_State_Constitution#Article_I_-_Declaration_of_Rights) prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. Under these provisions, warrantless searches are “per se” unreasonable. However, a search incident to a lawful arrest is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. The exception allows an officer to search an arrestee for weapons as a measure to protect the officer or to search for evidence that may be destroyed. The community caretaking function, which allows for limited searches when it is necessary for police officers to render emergency aid or assistance, is also a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. These types of searches are “divorced” from a criminal investigation. Finally, the State has the burden of proving the search was lawful. The Court reasoned that here, the particular circumstances did not justify the search of A.A.’s pockets. Once the officer conducted the pat-down search and determined that A.A. did not have a weapon, the search should have stopped. A.A. had not committed a crime and, therefore, there was no need to preserve evidence of a crime. A.A. did not exhibit signs of dangerousness to himself or others. The only concern was for officer safety. Finally, the Court reasoned that although A.A. would be transported to a detention facility with other minors, this facility “was a noncriminal protective custody situation, which requires us to accord maximum weight to A.A.’s privacy interest in evaluating the reasonableness of the search.” The Court of Appeals reversed A.A.’s conviction. My opinion? Excellent decision. The law was simple, and simply applied. The State failed to establish an exception to the warrant requirement. Period. Good decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Community Caretaking, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, Evidence, Exigent Circumstances, felony, Juvenile, Methamphetamine, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. I.B.: Shaking Your Head Means "No" Under Miranda](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-i-b-shaking-your-head-means-no-under-miranda/) **Published:** May 29, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** In *[State v. I.B.](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/317366.pub.pdf)*, the WA Court of Appeals decided a juvenile suspect’s shaking of his head in the negative after police asked him, post *[Miranda](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona)*, if he was willing to talk was an unequivocal assertion of his [Fifth Amendment ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment)rights. Here, 15-year-old defendant I.B. was taken into custody as a suspect in a [Residential Burglary](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/) crime. While being interrogated, I.B. shook his head in the negative after police asked him if he was willing to talk. Nevertheless, police continued their questioning and I.B. made inculpatory statements against his best interests. The trial court suppressed I.B.’s statements at his [3.5 Hearing ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.5)and concluded that I.B’s shake of the head signaled an assertion of his right to remain silent. Later, I’B’s case was dismissed. The State appealed the trial court’s suppression. The issue before the Court of Appeals was whether I.B.’s shaking his head in the negative after being asked if he was willing to talk was an unequivocal assertion of the right to remain silent. The court decided it was. The court reasoned that the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “\[n\]o person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” To counteract the inherent compulsion of custodial interrogation, police must administer *Miranda* warnings. [*Miranda*, ](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/case.html)[384 U.S. at 479](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/case.html). *Miranda* requires that the defendant “be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.” Once a suspect invokes his right to remain silent, police may not continue the interrogation or make repeated efforts to wear down the suspect. Furthermore, the court reasoned a suspect need not verbally invoke his right to remain silent. In fact, *Miranda* sets a low bar for invocation of the right: “If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 473-74 (emphasis added). However, suspects must “unambiguously” express their desire to be silent. The test as to whether a suspect’s invocation of his right to remain silent was unequivocal is an objective one, asking whether'” a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement'” to be an invocation of *Miranda* rights. Once a suspect has clearly invoked the right to remain silent, police questioning must immediately cease. Here, I.B. unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent. Nothing in the circumstances leading up to I.B.’s invocation rendered his head movement ambiguous. The police officers read I.B. his Miranda rights and I.B. understood his rights. Both officers testified they understand shaking the head side to side to communicate the word ‘No.’ This affirmative conduct unambiguously signaled LB.’s desire for the questioning to cease. Consequently, the trial court properly suppressed LB.’s custodial statements. My opinion? Good decision. In the context of interrogations, shaking one’s head side to side means no. There’s no other reasonable interpretation. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Burglary, Constitutional Rights, Dismissal, Due Process, felony, Interrogation, Juvenile, law enforcement, Miranda, police, Property Crimes, Self-Incrimination, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Fuentes & Sandoz: Are Terry Stops Legal in High-Crime Areas?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-fuentes-sandoz-are-terry-stops-legal-in-high-crime-areas/) **Published:** May 30, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** The WA Supreme Court consolidated two search & seizure cases with very similar facts. Both cases involve [*Terry* stops](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/terry_stop/stop_and_frisk) of a defendants who entered a high-crime areas and visited homes occupied by suspected drug dealers. ***TERRY* STOPS** Generally, under the [Fourth Amendment ](http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does-0)to the United States Constitution and [article I, section 7 of Washington’s constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/pages/constitution.aspx), an officer may not seize a person without a warrant. However, exceptions exist. A *Terry* investigative stop is one of the exceptions. For those who don’t know, a “*Terry* stop” is a brief detention of a person by police on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest. Picture an officer walking up to you and asking for your I.D. The name derives from *[Terry v. Ohio](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1)*, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that police may briefly detain a person who they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity. Also, police may conduct a limited search of the suspect’s outer garments for weapons if they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be “armed and dangerous”. When a search for weapons is authorized, the procedure is known as a “stop and frisk.” To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to “specific and articulable facts” that would indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed. Reasonable suspicion depends on the “totality of the circumstances”, and can result from a combination of facts, each of which is by itself innocuous. **State v. Fuentes** In this case, police officers were conducting a stakeout of a known drug house. They saw Marisa Fuentes park her car across the street from the apartment. She walked up to the apartment, entered, stayed for about five minutes, and returned to her car. She opened the trunk of her car and removed a small plastic bag. The bag contained something about the size of a small football. Then Fuentes reentered the apartment, stayed for about five minutes, and returned to her car with a bag that had noticeably less content than when she entered the apartment. Based on what officers observed, police stopped Fuentes’ car on suspicion of narcotics activity. An officer advised Fuentes that he needed to talk with her. For safety reasons, the officer requested that Fuentes come to the police vehicle, which she did. The officer read Fuentes her *Miranda* rights. Fuentas waived those rights and admitted she delivered marijuana to Fenton’s apartment. The State charged Fuentes with [Delivery of Marijuana](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50&full=true). Fuentes moved to suppress evidence uncovered from the investigative stop of her car, including her statement about delivering marijuana, arguing that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to justify the *Terry* stop of her vehicle. The trial court concluded that officers had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle and therefore denied the motion to suppress. Fuentes was subsequently convicted of delivery of marijuana at a stipulated facts trial. She appealed. The WA Supreme Court decided the police had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity particularized to Fuentes before the stop occurred. The officers in this case. They knew about past drug activity at Fenton’s apartment. Police made controlled buys from Fenton and conducted a search of the apartment 11 months before and found drugs. The officers also testified they had recent information from individuals arrested on drug-related charges that Fenton was still dealing drugs. Additionally, officers observed foot traffic that morning (10 visits between 10 p.m. and midnight) that suggested ongoing drug transactions. Additionally, officers could reasonably infer that Fuentes participated in the ongoing drug transactions: Fuentes entered the apartment briefly, then returned to her car. She then carried a plastic bag into the apartment, and she left with a bag that had noticeably less content. Her stay lasted approximately five minutes. From these observations, officers could form a reasonable suspicion that Fuentes made a delivery at the apartment. The WA Supremes affirmed the Court of Appeals in *Fuentes* because, under the totality of circumstances, the officers had individualized reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. **State v. Sandoz** In this case, around 11:30 p.m., Officer Chris Pryzgocld drove his patrol car past a six-unit apartment building in SeaTac. A high number of documented criminal incidents occurred in the area of this apartment building, including drug-related activity. He saw a white vehicle parked illegally. The driver of the Jeep slumped down, as if to hide from the officer’s view, as the officer drove by. The officer parked his marked patrol car about 20 yards away. After waiting, he made contact with the slumped-over driver. The officer observed Steven Sandoz leaving the apartment. The officer asked Sandoz what was going on. Sandoz replied that his friend gave him a ride to collect $20 from a friend. After more conversation, Sandoz admitted that he had a drug problem and said that he had a crack pipe in his pocket. Sandoz took out the pipe, and the officer arrested Sandoz for possession of drug paraphernalia. During a search incident to arrest, the officer felt something in Sandoz’s groin area. The officer read Sandoz his [*Miranda* ](http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-miranda-v-arizona)rights, and Sandoz admitted that he had two small envelopes of cocaine in his underwear. Sandoz was arrested and charged with[ Possession of Cocaine](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). Although he tried suppressing the evidence at pretrial, the Judge denied the motion for the following reasons: (1) the officer knew the area had extremely high drug activity based on 911 calls and drug dealing investigations, (2) the officer knew that the apartment Sandoz exited belonged to Ms. Meadows, who had numerous drug-related convictions, including possession with intent to deliver, (3) the officer had express authority from the complex owner to trespass nonoccupants for “loitering” at the complex, (4) the Jeep did not belong to any of the tenants at the complex, (5) the driver of the Jeep slouched down when the officer drove past, (6) the driver and Sandoz had conflicting stories for why they were in the area, (7) Sandoz looked surprised when he saw the officer, and (8) Sandoz visibly shook and looked pale when the officer talked to him. Sandoz was found guilty at a bench trial he appealed. The WA Supreme Court granted certiorari. Under the totality of the circumstances, the WA Supreme Court ruled that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity individualized to Sandoz to justify his *Terry* stop. First, Sandoz’s surprise at seeing the officer did not suggest criminal behavior. Next, the driver’s story did not conflict with Sandoz’s story. The driver said that his friend called him for a ride, and Sandoz said his friend gave him a ride to the apartment to collect $20. Rather than conflict, the stories confirmed one another. Furthermore, as to Sandoz’s physical appearance, the officer did not attribute Sandoz’s pallor or shaking to drugs or to any illicit conduct. Thus, this fact does not add to circumstances that suggest criminal activity. The fact that the officer did not recognize the Jeep might justify the officer’s contact with the driver, but the oflicer did not connect this fact with anything the officer observed about Sandoz. Additionally, Sandoz did not loiter or trespass. “Loiter” means “to remain in or near a place in an idle or apparently idle manner.” Sandoz did not remain idle: he left the apartment and walked immediately to the Jeep without stopping. Although the individuals in the Jeep may have loitered, that issue is not before the court. Similarly, Sandoz did not appear to trespass: he entered a tenant’s apartment, stayed inside at least 15 minutes without any known discord, and left directly to the Jeep. The facts suggest that Sandoz was an invited guest of Ms. Meadows, and as the officer stated, simply going into an apartment does not equal wrongdoing. Finally, the Court reasoned that although Sandoz was visiting the apartment of a suspected drug dealer late at night in a high-crime area, this fact by itself does not justify a *Terry* stop. Other facts must exist to suggest criminal behavior. An officer’s hunch does not justify a stop. The totality of the circumstances in this case do not justify a *Terry* stop. The WA Supremes concluded officers did not have reasonable suspicion that Sandoz engaged in criminal activity and reversed the Court of Appeals decision affirming his guilt. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, Evidence, felony, law enforcement, marijuana, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Reis: Search & Seizure in Medical Marijuana Case](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-reis-search-seizure-in-medical-marijuana-case/) **Published:** May 30, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** In *[State v. Reis](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/902810.pdf)*, the WA Supreme Court decided that although medical marijuana use is a defense, police officers can still obtain search warrants and search people’s homes if sufficient probable cause of criminal activity exists. In 2012, Detective Thomas Calabrese received an anonymous tip from an individual living in the Shorewood area of Burien, informing him that a man named “William” was actively growing marijuana in a house in that neighborhood. The informant, who feared retaliation by Reis, declined to provide any additional information. Detective Calabrese began investigating. He conducted stakeout surveillance of the home and watched the defendant William Reis tending to numerous marijuana plants growing in the backyard. The detective also heard a distinct humming sound coming from the northwest side of the target home and observed black plastic covering the daylight basement window. Detective Calabrese also noticed condensation on this window. Detective Calabrese also discovered Mr. Reis had a prior DV conviction and, during that arrest, officers discovered significant evidence of a marijuana grow operation, as well as a rifle and $18,000 cash hidden in the attic. Additional searches of Reis’s financial records in 2005 connected him to a large marijuana grow operation in California. Detective Calabrese also learned that Reis had been arrested in 2011 for possession of 1.3 grams of marijuana. Based on this information, Detective Calabrese put all of this information in an affidavit of probable cause to support a search warrant of Reis’s home. Judge Eide granted a search warrant, finding probable cause to believe that Reis was violating [Washington’s Uniform Controlled Substances Act, RCW 69.50](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50). A search of Reis’s home pursuant to the search warrant revealed plants, scales, ledgers, sales receipts, and tools indicative of a marijuana grow operation. The search also revealed 37 plants and 210.72 ounces of cannabis. Reis moved to suppress the evidence on the basis that officers lacked probable cause to search his home. The trial court denied his motion. The WA Court of Appeals granted review. They decided the authorized use of medical marijuana under [RCW 69.51A.040 ](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.51A.040)does not stop an officer from searching a home for criminal activity. Although compliant use of medical marijuana under the statute is an affirmative defense, it does not negate probable cause required for a search warrant. *[State v. Reis](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1700359.html)*, 180 Wn.App. 438, 322 P.3d 1238 (2014). The WA Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The WA Supremes reasoned that RCW 69.51A.040, as passed, does not decriminalize the medical use of marijuana. Instead, the plain language of the statute establishes a limited exception to the general prohibition against marijuana that existed at the time that the search warrant in this case issued. The Court summarized it best here: > The legislature may have intended to create heightened protections for qualifying patients who registered. However, because registration is currently impossible, the statute provides qualifying patients with only an affirmative defense until the legislature is able to establish a registry. Therefore, we reject Reis’s argument and affirm the Court of Appeals. The Court describes how the “Medical Marijuana Defense” works under RCW 69.51A.040. There are six required “terms and conditions” contained within RCW 69.51A.040. Subsection (1) places limits on the quantity of cannabis that a qualifying patient or designated provider may possess. Subsections (2) and (3) require registration with the Department of Health-now impossible in light of the governor’s veto-and require that the patient keep their registration within their home and present it to inquiring investigating officers. Subsections (4 ), (5), and (6) require that the investigating officer not possess evidence that the qualifying patient or designated provider is converting marijuana for their own use or benefit, or otherwise violating distribution requirements or registration requirements. *If a qualifying patient or designated provider complies with all of these requirements, including registration, the use of marijuana does not constitute a crime.* Here, the search was valid because the plain language of the statute and the legislative intent lead to the conclusion that a user or possessor of cannabis may raise only an affirmative defense. My opinion? Hate to say, but the reasoning makes sense. After all, assaulting people in the street is still a crime. One must prove a defense – hypothetically speaking, *self-defense* – by a preponderance of the evidence in order to be found not guilty of the crime of assault. The same reasoning applies here. The medical use of marijuana does not decriminalize marijuana use – it only provides a defense if one is charged with marihuana-related crimes. Police officers can still investigate citizens and apply for search warrants if probable cause exists that a crime is being committed. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, felony, law enforcement, Legislation, marijuana, Plain View, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Howerton: Citizen 911 Call Supports Terry Stop](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-howerton-citizen-911-call-supports-terry-stop/) **Published:** May 30, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** In *[State v. Howerton](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/718371.pdf)*, the WA Court of Appeals held that a citizen informant’s 911 call was reliable enough to support a *Terry* stop. The citizen informant provided her name, address, and telephone number to the dispatch, included a statement that she had just witnessed the crime, objective facts that indicated criminal rather than legal activity, and an offer to speak with the police if they needed to contact her. On September 29, 2013, at 2:00 a.m., Laura Parks called 911 from her cell phone to report that she just witnessed someone break into a van parked across the street from her house. She provided her name, address, and telephone number to the dispatcher. Parks described the suspect as a black male, average build, five feet seven inches tall, wearing a baggy black leather jacket and baggy pants. She stated he left the area on foot and was heading south on Second Avenue in Burien, Washington. Police responded to the call and began searching the area for the subject. They contacted a man identified as Delante Howerton matching the description. Howerton was handcuffed. Police noticed a blade sticking out of Howerton’s sleeve. When searched Howerton for weapons, police officers found a foot-long bread knife and a screwdriver on Howerton’s person. Ms. Parks confirmed that Howerton was the individual she saw break into the van earlier. Howerton was charged with attempted [Theft of a Motor Vehicle](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/possession-theft-of-stolen-motor-vehicle/), [Making or Possessing Vehicle Theft Tools](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.063), and [Intimidating a Public Servant](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.76.180). The trial court later dismissed the charge of intimidating a public servant. Howerton moved to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the investigatory detention. Specifically, Howerton argued Hutchinson lacked reasonable articulable suspicion to detain him when Hutchinson’s only source of information was from a named but unknown telephone informant. After a [CrR 3.5](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.5) and [CrR 3.6](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) hearing, the trial court denied Howerton’s motion to suppress. A jury convicted Howerton of misdemeanor second degree attempted taking of a motor vehicle without permission and making or having vehicle theft tools. He appealed. The Court of Appeals upheld Howerton’s conviction and ruled his stop/arrest was lawful under *[Terry v. Ohio](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1)*. They reasoned that an investigatory *Terry* stop is permissible if he investigating officer has a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal activity. A reasonable suspicion is the substantial possibility that criminal conduct has occurred or is about to occur. A reasonable suspicion can arise from information that is less reliable than that required to establish probable cause. The Court further reasoned that an informant’s tip can provide police with reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory *Terry* stop if the tip possesses sufficient “‘indicia of reliability.'” Courts employ the totality of the circumstances test to determine whether an informant’s tip possessed sufficient indicia of reliability to support reasonable suspicion. When deciding whether this indicia of reliability exists, the courts will generally consider several factors, primarily “(1) whether the informant is reliable, (2) whether the information was obtained in a reliable fashion, and (3) whether the officers can corroborate any details of the informant’s tip.” Known citizen informants are presumptively reliable. Here, the Court further reasoned that Parks’s 911 call demonstrated a sufficient factual basis to provide reasonable suspicion for the seizure: > Here, Parks unequivocally indicated to the 911 dispatcher that she was an eyewitness. When she called 911, she told the dispatcher, “I just saw a robbery.” She provided her full name, her address, and her telephone number. She indicated that she was willing to speak with police if they needed to contact her. She told the dispatcher the incident occurred “directly across the street” from her house and that it “just now happened.” She stated that an individual “broke into a car.” She said she actually saw him enter the car. > > She gave a detailed description of the suspect—black male, average build, short hair, five feet seven inches tall, wearing a baggy black leather jacket and baggy pants. The dispatcher immediately broadcast this description via radio to officers. Parks stated that the suspect just left the scene heading south on Second Avenue. She also accurately described the street location. Further, Parks reported objective facts that indicated criminal rather than legal activity. The court further elaborated that Ms. Parks reinforced her factual basis for these allegations by stating that the incident “just now happened” and that the car was directly across the street from her house. Parks reported facts she personally observed. The Court decided the information was reliably obtained and that the police corroborated the information from Ms. Parks’ tip. Consequently, the totality of the circumstances supported Howerton’s *Terry* stop. The Court of Appeals upheld his conviction. Please review my [Search and Seizure Legal Guide](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** 911 Call, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, Jury Trial, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Property Crimes, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, Theft of Motor Vehicle, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Wisdom: Unlawful Search of Zipped Shaving Kit Bag](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-wisdom-unlawful-search-of-zipped-shaving-kit-bag/) **Published:** May 30, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** Interesting opinion. In *[State v. Wisdom](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/318320.pub.pdf)*, the WA Court of Appeals Division III decided the removal and warrantless inspection of a zipped shut shaving kit bag found in the front seat of a stolen vehicle the defendant was driving was not a lawful search incident to arrest because the defendant sat handcuffed in the patrol car at the time of the seizure and search of the toiletry bag. The methamphetamine found in the zipped shut shaving kit is not lawful pursuant to the impound inventory doctrine, as unzipping the kit exceeded the lawful scope of an impound. Defendant Heath Wisdom drove a Chevrolet pickup truck with an ATV in its back. Someone earlier reported both vehicles as stolen. Yakima County Sheriff Deputy Nate Boyer, while on patrol, passed the pickup, and Boyer’s automated license plate reader identified the pickup as stolen. Officer Boyer pulled Wisdom over and arrested him for possession of a stolen vehicle. Boyer handcuffed Wisdom, searched his body, and escorted him to the patrol vehicle. Officer Boyer found on Wisdom’s body a pipe that Wisdom admitted he used for smoking methamphetamine. Deputy Nate Boyer advised Heath Wisdom of his [*Miranda* ](http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/supreme-court-landmarks/miranda-v-arizona-podcast)rights. Officer Boyer asked if there were drugs in the truck, and Wisdom replied that methamphetamine lay on the front seat. Officer Boyer looked inside the cab of the truck and saw filters, some cleaner, and a black “shaving kit type” bag. Officer Boyer concluded that the bag contained the methamphetamine. The toiletry bag was closed, but Boyer spied money through the mesh side of the bag. After photographing the truck, Deputy Boyer removed the bag from the vehicle, opened it, and found methamphetamine, cocaine, ecstasy, heroin, drug paraphernalia, and two thousand seven hundred dollars in cash. Heath Wisdom told Deputy Boyer that he owned the black bag. Deputy Boyer had not asked Wisdom if he owned the black bag before searching inside the bag. Deputy Boyer never obtained a warrant for his search, nor did he request Heath Wisdom’s consent before opening the black bag. Law enforcement impounded the truck and ATV, since the legal owner could not be located. The State of Washington charged Heath Wisdom with three counts of [Possession of a Controlled Substance](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) in violation of [RCW 69.50.4013(1) ](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.4013)(cocaine, ecstasy, and heroin) and one count of [Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) under [RCW 69.50.401(1)](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.401) (methamphetamine). Wisdom moved under [CrR 3.6](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) to suppress all evidence found in the black toiletry bag. However, the trial court denied Heath Wisdom’s motion to suppress. The WA Court of Appeals accepted review of this case. First, the Court reasoned that the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement did NOT excuse police from obtaining a search warrant before unzipping and perusing the inside of the shaving kit bag. The court’s opinion was quite lengthy in explaining the need for society to trust police, and that doing so required officers to obtain search warrants in cases like this, and that failure to do so violates a defendants rights under [article I, section 7 of the WA Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/pages/constitution.aspx) as well as the [Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment). The Court emphasized how the caselaw treats “luggage and other closed packages, bags, and containers” as unique for purposes of police searches. Washington courts recognize an individual’s privacy interest in his closed luggage, whether locked or unlocked. Indeed, the Court gave a very colorful analyses on this subject: > A person does not rummage through a woman’s purse, because ofsecrets obtained therein. A man’s shaving kit bag can be likened to a woman’s purse. The kit bag could obtain prescription drugs, condoms or other items the owner wishes shielded from the public. The bag is intended to safeguard the privacy of personal effects. Literature, medicines, and other things found inside a bag may reveal much about a person’s activities, associations and beliefs. The Court further reasoned that Washington allows a few jealously and carefully drawn exceptions to the warrant requirement, which include exigent circumstances, searches incident to an arrest, inventory searches, plain view searches, and [*Terry* ](http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/terry-stop/)stops. Furthermore, under *[Arizona v. Gant](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-542)*, a warrantless vehicle search incident to arrest is authorized when the arrestee would be able to obtain a weapon from the vehicle or reach evidence ofthe crime of arrest to conceal or destroy it. Here, Heath Wisdom sat handcuffed in the patrol car at the time of the seizure and search of the toiletry bag. He lacked access to the bag. Furthermore, under *[State v. Snapp](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1598109.html)*, the Court reasoned the WA Constitution disapproves expansive application of the search-incident-to arrest exception to the period of time after the arrestee is secured and attendant risks to officers have passed. When a search can be delayed without running afoul of concerns for officer safety or to preserve evidence of the crime of arrest from concealment or destruction by the arrestee, and does not fall within another applicable exception, the warrant must be obtained. The police officer can prevent destruction of evidence by holding the bag as a sealed unit until obtaining a warrant. Finally, the Court ruled that the police officer’s inventorying of the pickup’s contents did NOT excuse the need to obtain a search warrant. Inventory searches, unlike other searches, are not conducted to discover evidence of crime. Although a routine inventory search does not require a warrant, a police department policy should not, however, justify an unconstitutional search. The permitted extent of an inventory search pursuant to police department policy must be restricted to effectuating the purposes that justify the exception warrant clause. In conclusion, the Court of Appeals held the warrantless search inside of Mr. Wisdom’s black bag was not justified by either a search incident to arrest or an inventory search. The court reversed the trial court’s denial of Mr. Wisdom’s motion to suppress evidence, reversed his four convictions, and dismissed all charges filed against him. Good opinion. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Dismissal, Drug Offenses, Due Process, Evidence, Exigent Circumstances, felony, law enforcement, Miranda, police, Possession of Stolen Motor Vehicle, Privacy, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Hardtke: Court Limits Costs of Pretrial Monitoring](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-hardtke-court-limits-costs-of-pretrial-monitoring/) **Published:** June 22, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** In *[State v. Hardtke](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/908125.pdf)*, the WA Supreme Court decided that although a trial court has the authority under [RCW 10.01.160](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=10.01.160) and [CrR 3.2](http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.2) to impose the cost of pretrial electronic alcohol monitoring, the amount is capped at **$150.00.** Here, Mr. Hardtke was charged with two counts of [Rape in the Second Degree](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.44.050), one count of [Assault Second Degree](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.021), two counts of [Assault Fourth Degree](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.041), and [Malicious Mischief Third Degree](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.48.090). All were alleged to be acts of domestic violence that took place while Hardtke claimed he was blacked out from alcohol abuse. At arraignment, the trial court imposed conditions that Hardtke not consume alcohol. To ensure his compliance with this condition, Hardtke was required to wear a transdermal alcohol detection (TAD) electronic alcohol monitoring bracelet while awaiting trial. Hardtke objected multiple times to paying for the cost of the bracelet, but he nevertheless wore the bracelet as a condition of his release. Eventually, Hardtke pleaded guilty to amended charges, and as part of his sentence he was ordered to reimburse the county for the cost of the alcohol monitoring; which totaled **$3,972.00.** Hardtke objected and appealed the court’s ruling. The case ended up in the WA Supreme Court. In reaching its decision, the WA Supreme Court reasoned that RCW 10.01.160 authorizes courts to impose “pretrial supervision” costs on both convicted and non-convicted defendants; however, it expressly limits pretrial supervision costs to $150. The court further reasoned that paying the costs was unreasonable: > Hardtke himself did not arrange for the TAD monitoring and did not agree to pay a third-party company for the service. On the record before us, the sentencing court imposed a *cost* on Hardtke for pretrial electronic alcohol monitoring in order ensure compliance with the release condition that he not consume alcohol. We find no support for the State’s argument under CrR 3.2. The court further reasoned that TAD monitoring falls under the plain meaning of “pretrial supervision.” This includes work release, day monitoring, or electronic monitoring. The court emphasized that TAD monitoring operates like other monitoring devices, such as GPS (global positioning system) monitoring. It ensures compliance with the pretrial release conditions by supervising Hardtke’s conduct and reporting his blood alcohol levels. This monitoring, the court said, is functionally analogous to requiring a defendant awaiting trial to physically check in with the court or county probation officer to demonstrate that pretrial release conditions have been complied with. The court concluded that RCW 10.01.160 limits the court’s authority to impose costs for pretrial supervision to $150. “Because we hold that the TAD monitoring costs imposed on Hardtke were for pretrial supervision, and because those costs were greater than $150, the trial court exceeded its statutory authority by imposing nearly $4,000 for Hardtke’s pretrial supervision.” The Court remanded Hardtke’s case back to the trial court with instructions that costs for pretrial supervision in this matter not exceed $150.00. My opinion? Good decision. Defendants should not pay an arm and a leg simply to be monitored by courts, ESPECIALLY if there’s statutory authority stating that pretrial supervision shall not exceed $150. Getting access to justice is difficult enough. Good, straightforward opinion. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Court Fines, Domestic Violence, Due Process, felony, Pretrial Investigations, Probation, Property Crimes, Rape, Sex Crimes, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Barry: Defendant's In-Court Demeanor Leads to Conviction](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-barry-defendants-in-court-demeanor-leads-to-conviction/) **Published:** June 22, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** In *[State v. Barry](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/899762.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court ](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/)held that a lower trial court properly answered a jury’s question regarding whether it may consider observations of the defendant’s actions and demeanor during the court case as “evidence” by stating, “Evidence includes what you witness in the courtroom.” Here, defendant Robert Barry went to jury trial facing two counts of [Child Molestation in the First Degree](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.083). He did not testify. After the parties rested their cases, the jury deliberated. During deliberations, the jury asked the court whether it may consider “observations of the defendant’s actions-demeanor during the court case” as “evidence.” In response, the trial court instructed the jury that “evidence includes what you witness in the courtroom.” The court record, however, contained no references whatsoever to Barry’s in-court demeanor. The jury convicted Barry of both counts of child molestation. He appealed, claiming that the trial court’s instruction in response to a jury question violated his [Fifth Amendment ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment)and [Sixth Amendment ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment)rights under the [United States Constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=United_States_Constitution). The WA Supreme Court reasoned that the Fifth Amendment does not extend to the jury’s generic reference to “actions-demeanor,” and the Sixth Amendment does not transform all evidentiary errors into errors of constitutional magnitude. Consequently, no constitutional error occurred. Additionally, the Court said that the “silence” on Barry’s demeanor makes it impossible to determine that Barry was prejudiced. Thus, neither party can “prove” one way or another whether the error was prejudicial. The court also emphasized the following: > “The trial court instructed the jury that ‘the fact that the defendant has not testified cannot be used to infer guilt or prejudice against him in any way,’ and that its instructions are to be taken as a whole. A jury is presumed to follow the court’s instructions, and the record presents no indication that the jury failed to heed the court’s instruction regarding the defendant’s failure to testify in this case.” With that, the WA Supreme Court upheld the trial court and found Mr. Barry guilty. My opinion? I agree with Justice Johnson’s dissent. Although there’s no record of Barry’s demeanor during trial, we do know that before trial began, the court advised Barry that he should refrain from any display of emotion. It advised that everyone in the courtroom remain stone-faced throughout the trial and that no one should show any reaction to the children’s testimony. The court explained to Barry that such a showing of emotion could ”backfire” on his case. Justice Johnson reasoned that assuming Barry complied with that instruction, his observable lack of remorse throughout trial likely prompted the question from the jury. > “By then instructing that the jury could consider Barry’s demeanor throughout trial as evidence of his guilt, the court put him in the constitutionally intolerable position of either waiving his constitutional right to refuse to testify, so that he could explain his remorseless attitude throughout trial or leave the jurors to formulate their own inferences about his behavior.” I agree. The defendant was placed between a rock and a hard place. His unenviable posititon probably may have affected the quality of his defense. Unfortunately, we don’t know because the court record says nothing about his demeanor. More than anything, it’s THIS – the lack of court record regarding the defendant’s demeanor – which is so disturbing. Justice Johnson articulated this same belief: > After the defense has rested its case, and after closing arguments, the trial court cannot instruct that those observations may be treated as “evidence” bearing on the determination of guilt or innocence when the defendant has had no opportunity to challenge or explain that evidence. This is akin to allowing a prosecutor to argue evidence not presented at trial or allowing a witness to testify privately without cross-examination, to the jury during its deliberations. ***It deprives the defendant his right to confront the evidence, and at the very least, it deprives Barry an opportunity to challenge the propriety of the use of this “evidence” in the determination of guilt.*** Exactly. At best, this is a murky opinion. At worst, it violates the defendant’s rights at trial. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, Evidence, felony, Jury Trial, Self-Incrimination, Sex Crimes, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Happy Hour in the USA: Not All States Are Created Equal](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/happy-hour-in-the-usa-not-all-states-are-created-equal/) **Published:** June 22, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** Believe it or not, many U.S. States have banned Happy Hours. A recent article from [http:www.cityab.com ](http://www.citylab.com/navigator/2015/06/the-definitive-guide-to-your-citys-happy-hour/395696/)reviewed the 25 biggest metropolises in the U.S. to map where you can grab a cheap post-work brew and where you can’t. Some information is provided in the photo above. According to CityLab, the reason why the laws are so different in many cities is because many bans were implemented in the 1980s when citizen groups led by [Mothers Against Drunk Driving teamed](http://www.madd.org) up with the [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)](http://www.nhtsa.gov) and presented state legislatures with [Statistical Analysis of Alcohol-Related Driving Trends from 1982-2005](http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810942.pdf). The statistics show that in 1982, for instance, more than half of the country’s fatal crashes involved at least one driver with a blood alcohol level of .08—the legal limit. Additionally, in 1984, the same year Massachusetts [passed its anti-happy hour law](http://www.nytimes.com/1984/12/11/us/happy-hour-ban-starts-in-massachusetts-bars.html), President Ronald Reagan declared the first National Drunk and Drugged Driving Awareness Week, and Congress passed the [National Minimum Drinking Age Act](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/23/158), which effectively set the federal drinking age to 21. These stories share a common truth: basically, the variability in cities’ happy hour laws can be chalked up to local politics and general sentiments about drinking. The “No Happy Hour Restrictions” states are marked in green. Cities include Denver Colorado, Washington D.C. and Jacksonville, Florida. The “Happy Hour Restricted” states are marked in red. They include Boston, Minneapolis and Charlotte, South Carolina. Some interesting states bear mention. Purple states allow happy hours to happen, but with restrictions: they can only take place at certain times of day, at certain price levels, and in certain quantities. In Austin, for instance, purveyors are compelled to close up happy hour shop at 11 p.m. California establishments can’t sell two drinks for the price of one. In New York, bars can’t offer beers at less than half their normal price. In Pennsylvania, you can only have two hours of happiness per day, and not between midnight and closing time. Interesting. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [New Technology Could End DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/new-technology-could-end-dui/) **Published:** June 22, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** The [Washington Post ](http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/new-technology-could-put-an-end-to-drunk-driving-federal-officials-say/2015/06/04/1cd31176-0a5b-11e5-9e39-0db921c47b93_story.html)reported that recent technological breakthroughs could virtually eliminate DUI’s which kill thousands of Americans each year. The technology could begin appearing in cars in five years. Unlike ignition interlock devices, the new equipment won’t require a driver to blow into a tube. Instead, either a passive set of breath sensors or touch-sensitive contact points on a starter button or gear shift would immediately register the level of alcohol in the bloodstream. Drivers testing above the legal limit wouldn’t be able to start the car. “The message today is “Can we do this?” but “How soon can we do this?” said Mark Rosekind, administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Though no cost-per-car estimate has been made, once the sensors go into general production it’s anticipated the cost will be equal to that of seat belts or air bags, about $150-$200 per vehicle. The article said that the goal is to produce a device that will react in less than a second and function without maintenance for at least 10 years or 157,000 miles. Sensors that detect alcohol levels in the air can react in less than a second after a driver gets into the vehicle. The technology is an offshoot of advances in sensory detection since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. With sudden demand for bomb detection sensors, the ability of machines to scan people, packages and luggage for tiny trace elements has expanded exponentially. The [American Beverage Institute](https://abionline.org), a restaurant trade association, opposes the alcohol detection system. [Data from the NHTSA ](http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812102.pdf)shows that in 2013, 10,076 people were killed in car crashes involving drunk drivers. That was less than half the number of alcohol-related traffic deaths recorded in 1982, when 21,113 people were killed. In the past 30 years, 401,404 people have died in drunken-driving crashes. My opinion? It’ll be interesting to see how various lobby groups fight or support this new technology. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [States With the Highest DUI Arrests](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/states-with-the-highest-dui-arrests/) **Published:** June 25, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** Today, a [national study on DUI arrests was released by Project Know, ](http://www.projectknow.com/discover/arrests-across-america-dui/)a drug addiction resource center that combats substance addiction and the societal issues that stem from it. In it, they sifted through data from federal agencies to figure out where you are most likely to get arrested for a DUI, per capita. For example, Seattle had 2,861 DUI incidents in 2013, which puts its [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) arrest rate at 43.8 per 10,000 residents—slightly lower than Washington’s 2013 rate of 49.8. There were more DUIs in Seattle in 2013 than in 2012 or 2011 and, so far this year (up to November 16th), there have been 2,588, which should put the end-of-year total at about the same level as 2013’s. My opinion? Interesting projections. Let’s see data showing the lobbying efforts and financial contributions of different anti-drinking-&-driving groups like [Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)](http://www.madd.org/?referrer=https://www.google.com/) . I wonder if their efforts have anything to do with the projections and proactive enforcement of DUI laws in Washington? Just a thought. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Blood Test, Constitutional Rights, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, DUI, law enforcement, Legislation, marijuana, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, police, Search and Seizure, Studies, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. E.J.J.: Exercising Freedom of Speech is NOT Obstructing](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-e-j-j-exercising-freedom-of-speech-is-not-obstructing/) **Published:** July 3, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** Excellent opinion. In *[State v. E.J.J.](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/886946.pdf)*, the [Washington Supreme Court ](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) held that a juvenile offender, who called the officers abusive names, yelled, and used profanity toward the officers while the officers were engaged in a criminal investigation, **CANNOT** be convicted of [Obstructing a Law Enforcement Officer](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/obstructing/). The words the juvenile directed at the officers are protected by the [First Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution). The obstruction statute is also not violated by a citizen’s presence at a scene, provided the citizen does not physically interfere with police. Here, juvenile defendant E.J.J. was charged with Obstructing a Law Enforcement Officer under [RCW 9A.76.020(1)](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.76.020). Under this law, a person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer if the person willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties. Obstructing is a gross misdemeanor punishable up to 1 year in jail and a $5,000.00 fine. This case began as a call for police assistance to E.J.J. ‘s house to help with his intoxicated, out-of-control sister, R.J. (a juvenile at the time). The police responded and began their intervention by escorting R.J. out of the house 10 to 15 feet away from the front door, where the officers attempted to calm her down. E.J.J. grew concerned when he saw an officer reach for what he perceived to be a nightstick. E.J.J. exited the house and stood on the porch, telling the officers that R.J. was his sister and that they should not use the nightstick. The officers advised him that they were in the middle of their investigation and instructed him multiple times to leave the scene and return to the house. Initially, E.J.J. did not comply, questioning why he had to return to the house. When, eventually, he did return to his home, he stood in the open doorway and continued his verbal interaction with the officers. The house had double doors: a wrought iron screen door, through which someone could see out and communicate through, and a second, solid wood door. The officers directed E.J.J. multiple times to close the solid wood door and to withdraw further into the home, but E.J.J. refused, stating that he wanted to supervise the scene from the doorway ( 10 to 15 feet away from the other officers and R.J.) to make sure that R.J. was not harmed. E.J.J. continued to stand behind the closed wrought iron door. Multiple times, an officer reached into the home to close the solid door. E.J.J. would immediately reopen it. At this point, E.J.J. was irate, yelling profanities and calling the officers abusive names. An officer warned E.J.J. that he could be arrested for obstruction. After E.J.J. continued to reopen the solid door, an officer put him under arrest for obstruction of a law enforcement officer. The entire interaction lasted approximately 10 to 15 minutes. E.J.J. was found guilty at trial. he appealed his conviction to the [WA Court of Appeals](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/). Unfortunately, the Court of Appeals upheld E.J.J.’s conviction. The case was again appealed, only this time to the WA Supreme Court. The WA Supreme Court reasoned that many court cases have consistently and strongly held that people cannot be held liable when exercising their right to speak. “While E.J.J. ‘s words may have been disrespectful, discourteous, and annoying, they are nonetheless constitutionally protected.” The Court further reasoned that our cases have consistently required *conduct* in order to establish obstruction of an officer. *“*In other words, a conviction for obstruction may not be based solely on an individual’s speech because the speech itself is constitutionally protected. This review is also consistent with the approach established by the United States Supreme Court’s *[See Street v. New York](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_v._New_York)*.” The WA Supreme Court had many reasons for disagreeing with the WA Court of Appeals. First, the WA Supremes disagreed that E.J .J.’ s physical approach toward the officers was sufficient evidence of conduct to support his conviction: “E.J.J. did not physically interfere with or touch either the police or his sister. Furthermore, the trial court’s findings of fact provide that E.J.J. did not make any threatening movements toward the officers at any time.” Second, the WA Supremes disagreed that E.J.J.’s presence at the scene escalated the situation: “E.J.J. ‘s mere presence at the scene cannot constitute conduct. E.J.J. had every right to stand on his own property, provided he did not physically interfere with police.” Third, the WA Supremes disagreed that E.J.J.’s refusal to obey the officers’ repeated requests to leave the scene was sufficient evidence of conduct: “This exchange is so intertwined with E.J.J.’s protected speech that we find insufficient evidence of E.J.J. ‘s conduct to support his conviction on this basis.” Finally, the WA Supremes disagreed there was evidence of obstruction because an officer was eventually required to escort E.J.J. back to the home, thus delaying officers: “Inconvenience cannot, taken alone, justify an arrest for obstruction.” The Court concluded with the following: > “Where individuals exercise their constitutional rights to criticize how the police are handling a situation, they cannot be concerned about risking a criminal conviction for obstruction. Such a conviction is not permitted under the First Amendment. After a comprehensive review of the record and the trial court’s findings, the decision of the trial court is reversed and charges are dismissed.” My opinion? EXCELLENT decision. I’ve had many, many clients charged with Obstructing simply because they voiced a heated opinion with law enforcement officers during an investigation. Although it’s never okay to be disrespectful toward law enforcement, obstructing requires *conduct* – plain and simple. I’m pleased our Washington Supreme Court made the right decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Dismissal, Due Process, Jury Trial, Juvenile, law enforcement, misdemeanor, Obstructing, police, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Flores: WA Court of Appeals Decides Frisk for Gun Was Unconstitutional](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/wa-court-of-appeals-decides-frisk-for-gun-was-unconstitutional/) **Published:** July 4, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** In *[State v. Flores](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/322335.ord%20pub.pdf)*, [Division III of the WA Court of Appeals](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) UPHELD the suppression of a gun that officers found on an individual who was walking with a known-gang member and fugitive who had just threatened another person with a firearm. The reason for the suppression? There were no grounds to frisk the defendant because he made no furtive movements, had no known violent propensities, and was compliant with all of the officer’s directions. Here, Moses Lake police were responded to an anonymous report that Giovanni Powell held a gun to somebody’s head. Dispatch also reported an outstanding warrant for the arrest of Powell. He was a known gang member and a fugitive. The defendant, Cody Flores, was with Powell. Although Flores had no warrants for his arrest and did not point a firearm at anyone, Flores did, in fact, possess a firearm on his person. Unfortunately, he possessed the firearm unlawfully because a prior felony conviction barred his possession. Police apprehended both Powell and Flores. Although Flores complied with officers, had no known violent propensities and was compliant with all of the officer’s directions, Flores was nevertheless frisked. Officers found his firearm. [He was charged with Unlawful Possession of a Firearm in the First Degree in violation of](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/) [RCW 9.41.040(1)(a)](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.040). However, Flores’ his defense attorney prevailed in a [3.6 Motion](http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) to suppress the firearm due to an unlawful search. Among other findings, the trial court found that the officers lacked individualized articulable suspicion to suspect Cody Flores of criminal activity. The trial court granted Cody Flores’ motion to suppress evidence of the gun found on his person and dismissed the charge against him. The State filed an appeal. The WA Court of Appeals sided with the trial court’s suppression. It reasoned that the [Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/pages/constitution.aspx), not the [Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment), is the controlling law. [Article I, section 7 of the WA Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Documents/12-2010-WAStateConstitution.PDF) provides that “No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.” The Court reasoned that WA’s protection encompasses and exceeds the protection guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Court further reasoned that, as a general rule, warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable, in violation of the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution. There are five exceptions to the warrant requirement. They include (1) exigent circumstances, (2) searches incident to a valid arrest, (3) inventory searches, (4) plain view searches, and (5) [*Terry* investigative stops](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio). The State bears the burden of demonstrating that a warrantless seizure falls into a narrow exception to the rule. “This is a strict rule.” said the Court. “Exceptions to the warrant requirement are limited and narrowly drawn. “Merely associating with a person suspected of criminal activity does not strip away the protections of the constitution,” said the Court. “In order for police to lawfully seize an otherwise innocent individual present with an arrestee, the arresting officer must articulate an ‘objective rationale’ predicated specifically on safety concerns.” Finally, the court reasoned that automatically authorizing the search of non-arrested individuals because those individuals happen to be associated with the arrestee, or within the vicinity of the arrest, would distort the narrow limits of the warrant exceptions and offend fundamental constitutional principles. Because the privacy interest of a non arrested individual remains largely undiminished, full blown evidentiary searches of non-arrested individuals are constitutionally invalid even when officers may legitimately fear for their safety. “A generalized concern for officer safety has never justified a full search of a non-arrested person,” said the court. With that, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s suppression of evidence and dismissal of charges against Cody Flores. My opinion? This is a well-reasoned case. It’d be different if the defendant was doing something unlawful, being uncooperative and/or raising safety concerns with the police. Here, the situation was purely mathematics. Again, *there can search incident to arrest if there is no arrest.* And there can be no arrest without probable cause. Here, there was no probable cause to arrest and search Mr. Flores. Period. Good opinion! Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Dismissal, Evidence, felony, Firearm, law enforcement, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Ohio v. Clark: Child Victim Hearsay Statements Are Admissible](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/ohio-v-clark-child-victim-hearsay-statements-are-admissible/) **Published:** July 5, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** In *[Ohio v. Clark](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1352_ed9l.pdf)*, the [United States Supreme Court](http://www.supremecourt.gov/) ruled that statements made by the 3-year-old victim to his preschool teacher were properly admitted at trial, despite the fact that the 3-year-old did not testify. Here, defendant Darius Clark sent his girlfriend away to engage in prostitution while he cared for her 3-year-old son L. P. and 18-month-old daughter A. T. When L. P.’s preschool teachers noticed marks on his body, he identified Clark as his abuser. Clark was subsequently tried on multiple counts related to the abuse of both children. At trial, the State introduced L. P.’s statements to his teachers as evidence of Clark’s guilt, but L. P. did not testify. The trial court denied Clark’s motion to exclude the statements under the [Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause](http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/the-6th-amendment-s-confrontation-clause.html). A jury convicted Clark on all but one count. The state appellate court reversed the conviction on Confrontation Clause grounds, and the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court stepped in to resolve the matter once and for all. For those who don’t know, The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the [United States Constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) provides that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Generally, the right is to have a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses who are offering testimonial evidence against the accused in the form of cross-examination during a trial. The [Fourteenth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv) makes the right to confrontation applicable to the states and not just the federal government. The right only applies to criminal prosecutions. Here, the U.S. Supreme Court reasoned that L. P.’s statements at trial – which were introduced as hearsay evidence through the testimony of a school counselor – did not violate the Confrontation Clause. In reaching its decision, the Court said it’s prior decision in *[Crawford v. Washington](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-9410.ZO.html)* held that the Confrontation Clause generally prohibits the introduction of “testimonial” statements by a non-testifying witness, unless the witness is “unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” Additionally, a statement qualifies as testimonial if the “primary purpose” of the conversation was to “create an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony.” The Court addressed why L.P.’s statements were not “testimonial:” > “L. P.’s statements were not made with the primary purpose of creating evidence for Clark’s prosecution. They occurred in the context of an ongoing emergency involving suspected child abuse. L. P.’s teachers asked questions aimed at identifying and ending a threat. They did not inform the child that his answers would be used to arrest or punish his abuser. L. P. never hinted that he intended his statements to be used by the police or prosecutors. And the conversation was informal and spontaneous. L. P.’s age further confirms that the statements in question were not testimonial because statements by very young children will rarely, if ever, implicate the Confrontation Clause” > > “Finally, although statements to individuals other than law enforcement officers are not categorically outside the Sixth Amendment’s reach, the fact that L. P. was speaking to his teachers is highly relevant. Statements to individuals who are not principally charged with uncovering and prosecuting criminal behavior are significantly less likely to be testimonialthan those given to law enforcement officers.” Furthermore, the Court found it irrelevant that the teachers’ questions and their duty to report the matter had the natural tendency to result in Clark’s prosecution. “Mandatory reporting obligations do not convert a conversation between a concerned teacher and her student into a law enforcement mission aimed at gathering evidence for prosecution.” My opinion? I fear a slippery slope. Child victims are notoriously difficult. The first challenge is *getting* an interview. If defense counsel succeeds, they must be prepared to interview the child victim with a legion of DV advocates, investigating officers, parents, family friends and the Prosecutor attending the interview. And by this time, the matter has been discussed ad nauseum between the child and the aforementioned. Consequently, by the time the interview happens, the child has essentially been trained and coached to memorize a script and stick with it. Now, with this opinion, it seems that school counselors can testify to statements made by the child victim., and that the child not even be made available to testify. Under the [Washington Rules of Evidence](http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.list&group=ga&set=ER) – which strictly follow the [Federal Rules of Evidence](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre) – [ER 801](http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=er&ruleid=gaer0801) says, “Hearsay” is an out-of-court statement made to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Statements made by another are hearsay. Also, Hearsay is generally inadmissible. But now, under these circumstances, hearsay is *admissible; and made worse by the fact that the defendant cannot confront the child witness at trial*. This violates the essence of the 6th Amendment’s Confrontation clause. Period. Bad decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Child Competence, Constitutional Rights, Domestic Violence, Due Process, Evidence, felony, Sixth Amendment, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Elkins: Officers Need Not Re-Advise Miranda in All Cases](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-elkins-officers-need-not-re-advise-miranda-in-all-cases/) **Published:** July 7, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** In *[State v. Elkins](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2044968-4-II%20%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, the WA Court of Appeals decided that whether the officers have scrupulously honored the defendant’ s right to silence and right to counsel under *Miranda* must be determined on a case -by -case basis, and that there is no bright-line rule requiring police officers to fully re-advise previously *Mirandized* suspects when reinitiating interrogation. Yakima County deputies received a tip that defendant Eugene Elkins had killed his girlfriend Kornelia Engelmann. Yakima County deputies arrived and arrested him. He was advised of his *[Miranda](http://www.mirandawarning.org/whatareyourmirandarights.html)* rights. For those who don’t know, police officers must inform defendants of their *Miranda* rights once police place a defendant in custody and/or conduct investigations via questioning the defendant. The *Miranda* rights are stated as follows: > “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?” *Miranda* protects a defendant’s [Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination](http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/fifth-amendment-right-against-self-incrimination.html), and may incline defendants to stop talking and/or immediately seek the advice of an attorney. Once a defendant asserts their *Miranda* rights, the police MUST stop questioning the defendant. And, generally speaking, police must repeat and re-inform defendants of their *Miranda* rights if questioning continues at a later time; and/or defendants change their minds and want to speak to the police. Here, at around 3;30 p.m., Yakima County deputies advised Elkins of his *Miranda* rights before arresting him. Elkins declined to make a statement, and the Yakima County deputies did not question him further. They took him into custody. Later, the police again attempted to interview Elkins at about 8: 30 PM. Although they did not re-advise Elkins of his *Miranda* rights, police asked Elkins if he had been advised of these rights, if he remembered them, and if he understood those rights were still in effect. After Elkins confirmed that he recalled being advised of his *Miranda* rights and that he understood those rights were still in effect, Elkins agreed to talk to the deputies. In short, he informed the police that he and Ms. Engelmann had a verbal argument which led to a physical altercation. When the deputies commented on the extensive bruising on Engelmann’ s body and asked Elkins if he had kicked her, hit her with something, or hit her with a closed fist, Elkins said that he did not want to talk to the deputies any longer and requested an attorney. The deputies ended the interview. On June 7, the very next day, Elkins gave a full written statement to police after they re-advised him of his *Miranda* rights. In the statement, he admitted to killing Engelmann. Elkins was subsequently charged with [Murder in the Second Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/). The case proceeded to a jury trial. Before trial, Elkins moved under [CrR 3.5](http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.5) to suppress the statements he made to the police on June 6 and June 7. However, the trial court admitted all of Elkins’ statements. At trial, Elkins was found guilty of Murder in the Second Degree. He appealed his conviction to the [WA Court of Appeals Division II.](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) In rendering its decision, the Court acknowledged that fully re-advising a suspect of his *Miranda* rights is clearly the best practice when resuming questioning of a suspect who has asserted his right to silence. However, the Court also said there is no bright-line rule that law enforcement officers must always fully re-advise a defendant of his or her *Miranda* rights. In addition, they said that the issue of whether a defendant’ s rights have been scrupulously honored must be determined on a case-by-case basis. The Court further reasoned that under the totality of the circumstances, Elkins statements were not coercively obtained by police. The facts show that ( 1) the Yakima deputies ceased questioning Elkins immediately when he asserted his right to silence, (2) no law enforcement officer attempted to interrogate Elkins for a significant period of time, five hours, before his subsequent contact with the police, ( 3) no law enforcement officer engaged in any coercive tactics, and (4) the police did not interrogate Elkins until after they confirmed that he had been read his rights, that he recalled those rights, and that he understood those rights were still in effect. The court also said the following: > “\[T\]he subsequent interrogation is proper if the State has shown that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived those rights given the totality of the circumstances, not whether the subsequent contact was preceded by law enforcement fully re-advising the defendant of his or her *Miranda* rights. **When this and the other factors . . . are met, the officers have scrupulously honored the defendant’ s rights.”** Finally, the Court of Appeals reasoned that Elkins’ June 6 waiver was knowing and voluntary under the circumstances. They also reasoned that his statements made during transport and June 7, 2014 statements were also admissible because Elkins initiated the relevant conversation following his assertion of his right to counsel and then knowingly and voluntarily waived his *Miranda* rights. The Court of Appeals upheld his conviction. My opinion? My heart goes out to the victim’s friends and family. I sincerely hope they find comfort in the Court of Appeals’ decision. However, I disagree with the decision. When it comes to protecting people’s constitutional rights, bright-line rules work best. And its always been a time-tested rule that police MUST re-advise suspects of their *Miranda* rights, especially under circumstances like this. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Domestic Violence, Due Process, Evidence, felony, Homicide & Manslaughter, Jury Trial, law enforcement, Miranda, police, Self-Incrimination, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Abitia: Sexual Assault Advocate's Testimony Was Improper](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-abitia-sexual-assault-advocates-testimony-was-improper/) **Published:** July 8, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** In *[State v. Abitia](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/694529.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals Division I](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) decided that it was improper testimony and reversible error that an expert witness for the State – a Sexual Assault Advocate, no less – testified that people who molest children often do not tell the truth and when subjected to polygraph testing and often admit to committing more sexual abuse than the child victim reported. The facts were such that defendant Raymond Abitia went to trial on one count of [Rape of a Child in the Second Degree](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.44.076) and one count of [Distribution of a Controlled Substance to a Minor](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.406). The alleged victim was Abitia’s daughter, KM. At trial, KM disclosed the abuse after an incident in Skagit County that occurred shortly after she turned 14 years old. One of the State’s witnesses was Joan Gaasland-Smith, the sexual assault case specialist – also called a Sexual Assault Victim Advocate – for the Whatcom County Prosecutor’s Office. Gaasland-Smith was qualified as an expert to discuss child sex abuse in general. For those who don’t know, “Sexual Assault Victim Advocates” are professionals trained to support victims of sex crimes. Advocates offer victims information, emotional support, and help finding resources. Sometimes, advocates attend court and pretrial interviews with victims. Advocates may also contact organizations, such as criminal justice or social service agencies, to get help or information for victims. Some advocates staff crisis hotlines, run support groups, or provide in-person counseling. Gaasland- Smith testified that it is not unusual for children to delay disclosure. She said while there is no single reason that applies in every case, there are many reasons a child may not immediately disclose. A perpetrator may have offered the child rewards, money, or special attention in exchange for silence. The child may value the relationship with the perpetrator, fear being seen as abnormal, or think that the sexual contact feels good. Up to this point, there was nothing particularly objectionable about Gaasland-Smith’s testimony. KM did not disclose abuse until the Skagit County incident and even then she resisted disclosing it to the police. Abitia’s defense strategy was to challenge KM’s credibility. It is generally permissible for a jury to hear expert testimony explaining why delayed disclosure does not necessarily mean the victim lacks credibility. But in response to the prosecutor’s next question, Gaasland-Smith began to veer toward generalities about perpetrators. She said, “Kids can be told by perpetrators that, urn, that other adults believe adults, they won’t necessarily believe a child.” Abitia objected to “this whole line of questioning as to what do other sexual predators do. Abitia’s attorney objected to the testimony. The court overruled the objection, stating that “what kids can be told by perpetrators … is appropriate testimony for an expert witness.” The court warned the prosecutor to “be very cautious so that generalization does not directly or indirectly suggest to the jury that that is what has happened” in this case. Gaasland-Smith went on to discuss reasons why children may be afraid to disclose. She testified that most of the time, children do not disclose everything all at once. When asked about the basis of her knowledge, she answered that sexual deviancy evaluations show it is common to discover that “more happened than the child ever told.” In the course of this answer, Gaasland-Smith testified that a sexual deviancy evaluation includes a lie detector test because “oftentimes people who do this kind of thing don’t tell the truth.” The jury convicted Abitia as charged. The case was appealed on the issue of whether the expert witness’s testimony was improper. The Court of Appeals reasoned “Perpetrator Profile Testimony” is improper because it “clearly carries with it the implied opinion that the defendant is the sort of person who would engage in the alleged act, and therefore did it in this case too.” Gaasland-Smith’s line of testimony about what perpetrators do should have been cut off when the objection was first raised. Her opinion that sex offenders lie about their conduct implied that Abitia was lying when he denied having sexual contact with KM. No witness may testify as to an opinion on the veracity of the defendant, either directly or inferentially. The Court also reasoned that Gaasland-Smith’s testimony that offenders can be trusted to tell the truth only when they are subject to lie detector tests was also unduly prejudicial. Ordinarily, polygraph evidence is inadmissible absent stipulation by both parties because the polygraph has not attained general scientific acceptability. Therefore, Gaasland-Smith’s improper reference to lie detectors bolstered her opinion that sexual offenders, as a class, are liars. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction. My opinion? Excellent decision. It indeed invades the providence of the jury for experts to discuss “Perpetrator Profile Testimony” in the context of jury trials. It sways jurors far too much, and leads to unfair jury trials like the one above. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, felony, Jury Trial, Perpetrator Profile Testimony, Rape, Sex Crimes, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [In re Detention of H.N.: Screenshots of Text Messages Are Admissible Evidence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/in-re-detention-of-h-n-screenshots-of-text-messages-are-admissible-evidence-at-trial/) **Published:** July 15, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** In *[In re Detention of H.N.](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/720031.pdf)*, [Division I of the WA Court of Appeals](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) decided that E-mailed screenshots of text messages that a medical expert used as part of her testimony were properly admitted as substantive evidence at trial. H.N. is a college student who was less than 21 years of age at the time of the events leading to this case. She worked at part time jobs, and she had two roommates who worked with her at one of her jobs. After midnight on a night in May 2014, H.N.’s two roommates returned home to discover her unconscious on the floor and lying in a pool of her own vomit. Nearby there was an empty bottle of wine, an empty bottle of Nyquil, and a partially empty bottle of vodka. H.N. briefly awoke but then passed out again. One roommate called 911, and medics responded to the scene. Afterward, H.N. was involuntarily detained for mental health treatment. Thereafter, the State petitioned for up to 14 days of additional inpatient treatment, pursuant to the involuntary treatment act, [RCW 71.05. ](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=71.05)For those who don’t know, detainees like H.N. may petition their local superior courts to be released from detention and observation. However, courts won’t release detainees if the detainee is likely to gravely injure themselves or someone else upon release. On May 7, 2014, the court conducted a hearing on H.N.’s petition for release. At the hearing, the State presented the testimony of a psychologist who evaluated H.N. at the hospital. The psychologist testified as an expert. Part of her testimony was based on what purported to be e-mailed screenshots of text messages between H.N. and her boyfriend, “A.” These messages were exchanged on the night her roommates found her unconscious on the floor, lying in a pool of her vomit. The psychologist read several of these text messages into the record. Over H.N.’s objection on the basis of [lack of foundation](http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-are-some-examples-of-commonly-used-objections/), the court admitted this evidence. For those who don’t know, the “lack of foundation” objection most often applies to exhibits or pieces of evidence other than testimony that are brought into court without an explanation of where they came from or what they represent. Foundation is usually laid by having a witness testify as to what the object is. At any rate, and after the hearing, the trial court found that H.N. suffered from a mental disorder and presented a likelihood of serious harm to herself. The court entered an order committing H.N. for involuntary treatment for a period of 14 days. H.N. appealed the court’s decision to detain her. The WA Court of Appeals took the case and decided the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted as substantive evidence e-mailed screenshots of text messages that the State’s expert witness used during her testimony. The Court decided that the text message evidence was properly authenticated pursuant to [ER 901(b)](http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=er&ruleid=gaer0901). For those who don’t know ER 901(b) is an evidence rule which allows or disallows evidence depending on whether the evidence is properly “authenticated” (or not). Here, the Court of Appeals gave many reasons why H.N.’s text messages were, in fact, authentic. She gave out-of-court acknowledgments that she sent the messages, the identifying information at the top of the text messages showed that she was the sender of the messages, her phone number matched the contact information in her medical chart, the messages consistently reference names of people in her life, the messages were consistent with certain events in H.N.’s life, and the timing of the text messages were consistent with her hospitalization on the night of the incident. Consequently, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s detention of H.N. and concluded that text message evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that H.N. posed a likelihood of serious harm to herself. My opinion? The Court’s logic appears sound. Although the text messages are inadmissible Hearsay under [Evidence Rule (ER) 801](http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=er&ruleid=gaer0801), hearsay is, in fact, admissible under certain circumstances. Also, courts may consider evidence that might otherwise be objectionable under other rules of evidence. They can rely upon such information as lay opinions, *hearsay*, or the proffered evidence itself in making its determination. Such information must be reliable. Here, ER 901 allowed the State to authenticate the text message evidence. It was reliable. Therefore, it was admissible. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Cell Phone, Constitutional Rights, Detention, Due Process, Evidence, Social Media, Text Messages, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [NY Politician Wants Ignition Interlock Devices in All New Vehicles](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/politician-introduces-legislation-seeking-installation-of-ignition-interlock-devices-in-all-new-vehicles/) **Published:** July 17, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** Today, [U.S. Representative Kathleen Rice ](https://kathleenrice.house.gov/)announced that she will introduce legislation requiring all American automakers to equip new cars with ignition interlock device (IID) technology which detects a driver’s blood alcohol content (BAC) and prevents the engine from starting if the driver’s BAC is above the legal limit. While laws vary across the states, ignition interlock devices are widely required for individuals who are convicted of [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). A [recent study ](http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302445)conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan found that requiring interlock technology in all new vehicles would, over a 15 year implementation period, prevent an estimated 85 percent of drunk driving-related deaths and 84-89 percent of drunk driving-related nonfatal injuries. The study says that preventing deaths and injuries resulting from DUI and other alcohol/drug related accidents would save an estimated $343 billion over 15 years. Additionally, the cost of installing the IID technology would be recovered in first 3 years of implementing the devices into cars. Finally, the study found that young drivers would benefit the most. Representative Rice said the following about her legislation: > “Advancing the progress we’ve made combating drunk driving demands bold action. It demands that we take a stand and say we refuse to keep letting drunk drivers take 10,000 lives each year. We refuse to keep seeing families torn apart when we know we can do more to prevent it. Strict enforcement is important, holding drunk drivers accountable is important, but we can and must do more to stop drunk drivers from ever hitting the road in the first place. That’s why I’m working on legislation to require ignition interlock devices in all new cars. This technology saves lives, it saves money, and I’m going to fight to make it standard equipment in American cars.” Representative Rice previously served as a Prosecutor of Nassau County, NY, where she received national acclaim for her efforts to combat drunk driving, securing [Long Island’s first DWI-related murder convictions](http://7online.com/traffic/man-convicted-in-dwi-crash-that-killed-li-teen-receives-maximum-sentence/461968/) and helping to lead a statewide overhaul of [New York’s DWI laws](http://dmv.ny.gov/tickets/penalties-alcohol-or-drug-related-violations). Rice was dubbed by the [New York Daily News ](http://www.nydailynews.com/)as “the state’s toughest DWI prosecutor,” and recently received a Lifetime Achievement Award from [Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)](http://www.madd.org). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, DUI, Ignition Interlock Device, Legislation, marijuana, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Z.U.E.: Terry Stop Based on Unreliable Informant Tip Was Unlawful](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-z-u-e-terry-stop-based-on-unreliable-informant-tip-was-unlawful/) **Published:** July 18, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** Good decision. In *[State v. Z.U.E](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/898944.pdf).*, the [Washington Supreme Court](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) decided that when police stop an individual based on an informant’s tip, there must be some “indicia of reliability” based on the totality of the circumstances. Here, there wasn’t. The facts show that Z.U.E. was a juvenile passenger in a car stopped by police after several 911 callers reported a bald shirtless man seen carrying a gun. Another caller reported a 17 year old female gave the gun to the shirtless man. Based on these tips, police stopped a car believing that the female was in the car. They ordered Z.U.E out of the vehicle, searched him, and found marijuana on his person. The officers did not find any guns, nor did they find the bald, shirtless subject. The state prosecuted Z.U.E for [Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Substance](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) and [Obstructing a Law Enforcement Officer](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/obstructing/). At his trial, Z.U.E. argued a [CrR 3.6 Motion to Suppress](http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) and essentially challenged the [*Terry* stop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop) and subsequent search incident to arrest. The police who stopped ZUE did not know how many 911 callers there were or the identities of the callers and did not corroborate the report regarding the female with a gun. The trial court denied the motion. Z.U.E. was found guilty of the drug charge and acquitted on the Obstructing charge. Z.U.E. appealed. The WA Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the 911 calls lacked sufficient “indicia of reliability” to justify the stop. Again, the case went up on appeal – this time, by the State – to the WA Supreme Court. The WA Supremes affirmed the WA Court of Appeals and suppressed the evidence. In reaching their decision, the Court discussed *Terry* stops. In challenging the validity of a *Terry* stop, [article I, section 7 of the WA Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/pages/constitution.aspx) generally tracks the U.S. Constitution’s [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) analysis. That said, warrantless seizures are presumed unreasonable, and the State bears the burden of establishing that the seizure falls within one of the carefully drawn exceptions to the warrant requirement. One such exception is a brief investigatory detention of a person, known as a *Terry* stop. For a *Terry* stop to be permissible, the State must show that the officer had a “reasonable suspicion” that the detained person was, or was about to be, involved in a crime. They court further reasoned that when police stop an individual based on an informant’s tip, there must be some “indicia of reliability” based on the totality of the circumstances. There must be either (1) circumstances establishing the informant’s reliability or (2) some corroborative observation by the officers that shows the presence of criminal activity or the informer’s information was obtained in a reliable fashion. Here, the police did not have any articulable reason to suspect any of the passengers in the car of criminal activity. The seizure of Z.U.E was unlawful and the evidence obtained as a result of that seizure should have been suppressed. My opinion? Good decision. This was a straightforward application of the law. The informant tips were unreliable. Also, Z.U.E.’s involvement on the 911 calls and firearms was so attenuated that it was virtually irrelevant. Well done, WA Supremes! Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/58bcba6f162e24ca0d69c837b9464ab34470c1e40f26da2c6fa59439e459efb0?s=300&d=mm&r=g) admin [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/admin/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, Evidence, felony, Firearm, Informant, Juvenile, law enforcement, marijuana, Obstructing, police, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [New Smartphone App Warns You When You’re Too Stoned To Drive](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/new-smartphone-app-warns-you-when-youre-too-stoned-to-drive/) **Published:** July 31, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Technology. Gotta love it. [Canary](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/my-canary/id997031082?mt=8) has created a smartphone app which checks your mental and physical performance levels after ingesting marijuana and before driving. The app has gained widespread popularity and is sanctioned by [NORML](http://norml.org/), an organization whose mission is to move public opinion to legalize the responsible use of marijuana by adults. The app is straightforward: after logging in, it quickly subjects users to four basic tests: (1) a memory challenge where you have to recall six numbers that briefly appear on screen, (2) a reaction-time game where you have to quickly identify a particular icon from a series of images that pop up, (3) a time-perception assessment where you have to count off 20 seconds in your head as accurately as possible, and (4) a balance test that uses your phone’s accelerometer to gauge your ability to stand motionless on one foot. After taking the tests, the app compares your results to a personalized performance baseline based on your past attempts at the app or norms built into the program. Canary then determines whether your performance is impaired. At the end of the three-minute session, a green light means you’re not impaired, a yellow light means you should reconsider driving, and a blinking red light means you are impaired. “This tool ideally allows cannabis consumers to take control and identify when they present a traffic-safety risk or when they may be under the influence,” says Paul Armentano, deputy director of NORML. “I believe this is information that all responsible marijuana users will want to know.” The secret to Canary is that it doesn’t focus on potential markers of impaired performance, like levels of THC in your breath, but instead on *performance itself*. And since it launched weeks ago, Canary has been downloaded more than 10,000 times and is attracting attention from major marijuana players. My opinion? Canary moves in the right direction. When it comes to marijuana use, drug tests such as urinalyses or blood tests are highly retrospective. The best those tests can do is assess lifestyle and acknowledge that the perpetrator consumed pot at some time recently. However, these tests have absolutely no impact on whether you can perform. It’s unfair to prosecute someone who might have smoked a joint on Thursday and tested positive on Monday. So yes, testing someone’s performance before driving is absolutely critical to discovering if they’re too stoned to drive. There’s a social justice incentive behind accurate marijuana impairment tests as well: Since [African-Americans are far more likely to be pulled over and arrested for marijuana](http://www.thenation.com/article/scandal-racist-marijuana-arrests-and-what-do-about-it/) offenses than whites, an objective way to determine who’s high and who’s not could help level the playing field. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Blood Test, Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, DUI, Evidence, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Race & Law, Search and Seizure, Technology, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Is Texting While Driving the New DUI?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/is-texting-while-driving-the-new-dui/) **Published:** August 4, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Recently, Marietta Police dressed up as a construction workers at a busy intersection to catch distracted drivers who were text messaging while driving. The police go as far as busting drivers who are texting while stopped at red lights. It appears that going undercover is an effective way to bust drivers texting, tweeting or checking emails behind the wheel. “What we’ve done here is we’re able to put officers in the roads so we’re able to get close enough almost inside their cars so we can look down and see exactly what they’re doing on their phones,” said Marietta police Officer Nick Serkedakis. “I really think this is the DUI of the future. Impairment is still a problem, but this distracted driving is killing as many people as drunk drivers.” The tickets are $150 and one point on your license. Can a program like this – one where WA police officers pose as construction workers at certain locations to observe texting drivers – be implemented in Washington State? Probably not. This program is very similar to DUI checkpoints, which were basically outlawed in 2008. For those who don’t know, sobriety checkpoints (also called DUI checkpoints) are locations where law enforcment officers are stationed to check drivers for signs of intoxication and impairment. Many jurisdictions utilize sobriety checkpoints as part of their larger drunk driving deterrance program. Due to legal issues surrounding their use, not all states conduct sobriety checkpoints. Some states have laws authorizing their use. Others forbid them or are silent on the issue. According to the [Government’s Highway Safety Association (GHSA)](http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/checkpoint_laws.html), Washington State is one of only 12 states which do *not* conduct DUI checkpoints. The story is interesting. In 2008, then-Governor Christine Gregoire wanted the state Legislature to authorize police to set up sobriety spot checks, a practice unseen in Washington since the state Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in 1988 under *[City of Seattle v. Messiani](http://www.leagle.com/decision/1988564110Wn2d454_1531/CITY%20OF%20SEATTLE%20v.%20MESIANI).* Some background is necessary. In *Messiani*, the [Washington State Supreme Court](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) decided that the Seattle Police Department’s sobriety checkpoint program was constitutional. In short, police officers set up roadblocks where all oncoming motorists were stopped. The police lacked warrants and any particular suspicion of criminal activity. The City of Seattle argued that the State’s interest in the legal operation of vehicles outweighs any privacy interest under [Article I, Section 7 of the WA Constitution. ](http://leg.wa.gov/LAWSANDAGENCYRULES/Pages/constitution.aspx)Ultimately, the Washington State Supreme Court concluded that the City of Seattle’s position was unlawful, and held that sobriety checkpoints were unconstitutional. At any rate, [Governor Gregoire’s proposed DUI Checkpoint legislation failed.](http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/01/gov_gregoires_pitch_for_drunke.html) The [ACLU even got involved. ](http://www.opb.org/news/article/aclu-opposes-proposed-sobriety-checkpoints/)In the end, Legislators simply lacked the political will overturn the WA Supreme Court’s *City of Seattle v. Messiani.* Unlike Washington, however, [Georgia has actively *legalized* DUI checkpoints.](http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/bystate/ga.html) They are conducted weekly and aggressively; and upheld under the State of Georgia’s Constitution. Due to the differences, I can’t see WA police officers successfully pulling off an anti-text messaging campaign like the Georgia police officers can. This campaign is too similar to DUI checkpoints, which are illegal in Washington State. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** ACLU, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, DUI, law enforcement, Legislation, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Technology, Text Messages, Traffic Infractions, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Strange: Was the Jury "Tainted" or Impartial?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-strange-was-the-jury-tainted-or-impartial/) **Published:** August 4, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Strange](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2045607-9-II%20Order%20Publishing%20Opinion.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals Division II](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) decided the defendant’s right to a fair and impartial jury was *not* violated by a prospective jurors’ statements concerning their own prior experiences with child molestation. Here, defendant George Strange was accused of [Child Molestation Second Degree](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.086) and [Voyeurism](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.115). from 2011 to 2013, Strange lived with his wife and his wife’ s children, who are juveniles. Here, juvenile J.M. was 12 years old when Strange allegedly fondled her breasts one night. He explained he was giving her a breast examination. During jury selection, the court and attorneys asked the prospective jurors about their personal experiences with child molestation. Although most of the jurors had no personal experience with child molestation, almost one-third of the jurors knew someone who was either a victim or had been charged with child molestation. In response to the court’ s questioning, juror no. 54 stated, > JUROR: “Um — what I said before, like, I know people that I know. Like it’ s not an easy accusation to make. Like, it is hard for people (inaudible). It’ s like if accusations were made there’ s something behind that . . . I don’ t — like, I don’t have a ton of experience but it has just been my experience people don’ t make that accusation, you know, for no reason. Like, I feel like if an accusation was made there had to be something that had happened.” Juror no. 54 was excused for unrelated hardship reasons. During trial, other witnesses testified to Strange’s odd behavior around J.M. Additionally, the State played a recorded video of Strange being interviewed by a police detective who commented on Strange’s behavior during the interview. Finally, Strange did not call any witnesses nor did he testify. At the end of trial, Strange was found guilty on all counts. On appeal, Strange argued that his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury was violated because of prospective jurors’ statements concerning their own prior experiences with child molestation, either in their families or among friends or acquaintances, which tainted the entire jury venire. The court rejected Strange’s arguments. It reasoned that [article I, § 22 of the Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx) guarantees a criminal defendant the right to a fair trial by unbiased jurors.” Also, the [Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) also guarantees the right to a fair trial by impartial jurors. Here, no prospective juror professed any expertise about sexual abuse cases. Therefore, there is no concern about a prospective juror with more credible, authoritative knowledge tainting the rest of the jury pool. Second, most jurors were merely questioned about their experiences with child molestation and asked if they could remain impartial. Some jurors admitted to a potential bias, most said they could apply the court’ s instructions impartially, and two prospective jurors asked for individual voir dire, preferring not to talk about their experiences in front of the rest of the jury pool. Consequently, the Court of Appeals decided that Strange received a fair trial by an impartial jury. Finally, the court rejected Strange’s argument that his defense attorney was ineffective because he failed to object to the admission of Strange’s recorded interview with police. The court reasoned that because defense counsel’s failure to object was a legitimate trial tactic, it cannot be said that Strange’ s trial counsel’ s performance was deficient. Therefore, his claim for ineffective assistance of counsel fails. The decision of Strange’s attorney to not play the video was a legitimate trial tactic, and did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel. My opinion? Oftentimes, during jury selection, prospective jurors say things out loud which may appear to discredit the defendant, especially when the charges are particularly galvanizing. A defense attorney must be cautious in proceeding with these jurors. A good technique is to ask the juror to extrapolate “what they mean” if the juror says they have difficulty being objective, and/or if the juror says the defendant “must be guilty of something.” The attorney can strike the juror for cause because the juror could be biased against the defendant. Still, it’s difficult to “unring the bell,” so to speak, when a prospective juror says controversial things which may hurt the defendant’s chances at trial if the rest of the jury pool believes that juror’s statements. This is the essence of “tainting the jury,” which is reversible error and should be avoided at all costs. In response, another good tactic is to inquire if other potential jurors feel the same as the juror who aired their grievances. Find someone shaking their head “No.” Ask them why. Chances are, they’ll say something about giving the defendant a fair trial, or presumption of innocence, or something like that. Test the waters. Guide the jurors back toward their oath that they MUST presume the defendant not guilty throughout trial. Remind them that if they serve as jurors, they’re under oath to withhold their personal biases and reserve judgment until after hearing all of the evidence. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Due Process, felony, Ineffective Assistance, Jury Selection, Jury Trial, Juvenile, police, Pretrial Investigations, Sex Crimes, Sixth Amendment, voyeurism, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Bellingham Police Get Software to Map Crime Patterns](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/bellingham-police-get-software-to-map-crime-patterns/) **Published:** August 6, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** According to the [Bellingham Herald](http://www.bellinghamherald.com), the [Bellingham Police Department plans to buy “Predictive Policing Software”](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/crime/article30185709.html) that will map crime patterns in the city and help officers decide where to patrol. For those who don’t know, “Predictive Policing Software” is computer technology which uses advanced mathematics and algorithms to predict the times, locations and “types” of many crimes in any given jurisdiction. Police agencies can use this software to predict property crimes, drug incidents, gang activity, and gun violence, as well as traffic accidents. The software, by [Bair Analytics](http://www.bairanalytics.com/), will help compile reports currently put together by the department’s current crime analyst, who plans to retire soon. According to the Bellingham Herald, officers currently use similarly compiled crime information to help detect criminal patterns and choose where they should focus their efforts. For example, if a series of home break-ins has been reported in a specific neighborhood, and officers see that similar methods were used to get into the homes, they start looking at what days and times those crimes happened to try to prevent another or catch the criminal in the act. “A few years back we had a long series of rooftop burglaries and it took a while to catch the guys that were doing it,” Vander Yacht said. “We had to figure out the best times and places for them to do that.” The software also allows interested citizens to sign up for alerts and [view an interactive map](http://www.raidsonline.com/) of criminal activity in their area. The information included on the map is somewhat limited to protect the privacy of victims. The map, which can be found at [raidsonline.com](http://raidsonline.com/ "http://raidsonline.com"), currently shows information for 15 Washington cities, including Seattle, Richland and Pasco. RAIDS stands for Regional Analysis and Information Data Sharing. My opinion? Interesting technology. I don’t see if it violates people’s Constitutional Rights or infringes on their privacy. There shouldn’t be any problem with the implementation of this technology as long as the information does not target a particular individual. Still, Big Brother only gets better at watching . . . ![Bellingham is buying predictive policing software that will map crime patterns in the city and help officers decide where to patrol. The software, by Blair Analytics, will essentially replace the Bellingham Police Department’s current crime analyst.](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/crime/rtbrae/picture30185703/ALTERNATES/FREE_960/bham-police) Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 911 Call, Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Community Caretaking, Constitutional Rights, Knock & Talk, law enforcement, police, Privacy, Search Warrant, Technology, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Drunk Driving Data Rates By State](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/drunk-driving-data-rates-by-state/) **Published:** August 7, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention](http://www.cdc.gov/) conducted a survey across people in the United States, asking how many times in the last 30 days they drove after admittedly consuming too much alcohol. Apparently, people who live in Hawaii are the likeliest of those of any state to drive drunk. Mid-westerners also have high rates of drunk driving, according to a new report of drunk driving rates in the United States. Age and gender played a role as well. Men were responsible for four out of five of the drunk driving incidents, based on the survey data, and people between ages 21 and 34 were much likelier than other age groups to drive while intoxicated, according to the survey data. In fact, men in that age group, who make up just 11 percent of the U.S. population, accounted for nearly a third of the drunk driving incidents. People who reported driving drunk also reported other types of risky behaviors, such as Binge drinking and not always wearing seat belts. About 85 percent of those who drive drunk also binge drink, and those who didn’t always buckle up reported driving drunk three times as often as those who always wore their seat belts, according to the report. For more information, [see which States have the highest drunk-driving rates](http://www.livescience.com/51774-drunk-driving-by-state.html). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Distracted Driving Crashes Worse Than Previously Suspected](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/distracted-driving-crashes-worse-than-previously-suspected/) **Published:** August 11, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Car crashes are the leading cause of death for American teenagers, but a new study suggests a far bigger problem. The [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)](http://www.nhtsa.gov/), which released a[ 2012 study ](http://www.distraction.gov/downloads/pdfs/812012.pdf)using statistics based on police reports, previously estimated that teen distracted driving constituted 14 percent of all collisions. That study showed that teen drivers were distracted almost a quarter of the time they were behind the wheel. Electronic devices, such as texting, emails, and downloading music, were among the biggest distractions, accounting for 7% of the distractions identified on the study video. However, a study released in March by the [AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety](https://www.aaafoundation.org/distracted-driving) which used live footage instead of police reports. Their [latest study on distracted driving](https://www.aaafoundation.org/using-naturalistic-data-assess-teen-driver-crashes) found a 400 percent increase and concluded that distraction was a factor in nearly 6 out of 10 moderate-to-severe teen crashes. AAA analyzed the six seconds leading up to a crash in nearly 1,700 videos of teen drivers taken from in-vehicle cameras they knew were in their cars. My opinion? Eventually, “Distracted Driving” will be criminalized. It took decades for statistics on fatal drunken driving crashes to translate into tougher DWI laws. I’m sure that advocates for strict laws against cellphone use by drivers encounter the same detached attitude today. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Distracted Driving, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, police, Reckless Driving, Reckless Endangerment, Technology, Washington State Patrol, Washington State Traffic Commission, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Rhoden: Illegal 2-Step Confession Violates Miranda](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-rhoden-illegal-2-step-confession-violates-miranda/) **Published:** August 15, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Rhoden](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2045702-4-II%20%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals Division II](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held that the trial court failed to suppress Mr. Rhoden’s statements made to police during an improper two- step interrogation procedure. The facts were such that on February 26, 2013, the Pierce County Sheriff’ s Department served a search warrant on a residence in Puyallup. Five occupants of the residence, including Rhoden, were handcuffed. Two interrogations happened. The ***first*** interview happened when Deputy Olesen questioned the handcuffed occupants in the living room of the home. Importantly, he failed to advise the suspects of their constitutional rights under [*Miranda v. Arizona*, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 ( 1966)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona). For those who don’t know *Miranda* warnings (often abbreviated to “*Miranda*“, or “*Mirandizing*” a suspect) is the name of the formal warning that is required to be given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial situation) before they are interrogated, in accordance with the *Miranda* ruling. Its purpose is to ensure the accused are aware of, and reminded of, various rights under the U.S. Constitution, and that they know they can invoke them at any time during the interview. At any rate, Mr. Rhoden told Deputy Olesen there were drugs and a gun in the bedroom. At that point, Deputy Olesen then escorted Rhoden to the kitchen and questioned him a ***second*** time and ***after*** finally advising Rhoden of his *Miranda* rights. During the post –*Miranda* second interview, Deputy Olesen asked Rhoden the same questions that he had asked Rhoden in the living room **before** giving the *Miranda* warnings. Mr. Rhoden said there was about a gram of methamphetamine located in the dresser on the left side of his bed and that he had been smoking methamphetamine for approximately the last two to three months. During a search, officers found several items in a dresser, including ( 1) small baggies containing a substance later tested and confirmed to contain methamphetamine, (2) an electronic scale, ( 3) glass smoking devices, and (4) documents containing Rhoden’ s name and the address of the residence being searched. Rhoden was charged with one count of [Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Substance (Methamphetamine) under RCW 69.50.401](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.401). Before trial, the trial court conducted a[ CrR 3. 5 hearing](http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.5) to determine the admissibility of Rhoden’ s statements to police. The trial court held that Rhoden’ s pre-*Miranda* statements to police were not admissible at trial and that his post -Miranda statements to police were admissible at trial. At trial, the jury found Rhoden guilty of the charges. Mr. Rhoden appealed his conviction. **The Legal Issue** On appeal, the legal issue was whether the *Miranda* warnings given to Rhoden during the *second* interrogation were effective to inform Mr. Rhoden of his Fifth Amendment right to keep silent when he had just provided the same incriminating information in the *first* interrogation for which he was *not* given *Miranda* warnings. **The Rule: *Missouri v. Seibert*** The court looked to [*Missouri v. Seibert*, 542 U.S. 600, 604- 06, 124 S. Ct. 2601, 159 L. Ed. 2d 643 ( 2004)](http://law.uark.edu/documents/Missouri_v_Seibert.pdf) for guidance. In that case, the United States Supreme Court held that *Miranda* warnings were ineffective to inform the defendant of their right against self-incrimination in circumstances similar to these. As here, the warnings in *Seibert* were given only ***after*** the suspect had confessed during a custodial interrogation without *Miranda* warnings. **The *Seibert* Test** After reviewing *Missouri v. Seibert*, the court discussed the *Seibert* est. First, if a court determines that the use of the two- step interrogation procedure was deliberate, it then must ” determine, based on objective evidence, whether the midstream warning adequately and effectively apprised the suspect that he had a “genuine choice whether to follow up on his earlier admission.” In making this determination, courts may consider whether any curative measures were taken to insure the suspect’ s understanding of his or her *Miranda* rights. Such curative measures may include a significant break in time and place between the pre- and post –*Miranda* questioning or an additional warning that the suspect’ s pre –*Miranda* statements could not be used against the suspect in a subsequent criminal prosecution. The court compared the *Missouri v. Seibert* case to Mr. Rhoden’s facts. It reasoned that similar to Rhoden’s situation, the interrogating officers in *Seibert* questioned the defendant without *Miranda* warnings yet later gave *Miranda* warnings in a second interview before obtaining the suspect’ s confession without a significant break in time or place and without measures to assure the suspect that her non-*Mirandized* statements could not be used against her in a subsequent criminal prosecution. **Applying *Seibert* to the Facts** The Court then applied the two-part *Seibert* test the facts at hand. It reasoned that here, the police deliberately used the two- step interrogation procedure. During the initial interrogation in the living room before giving *Miranda* rights, Olesen asked the five handcuffed suspects whether there were any drugs in the home, and Rhoden admitted that he had a small quantity of methamphetamine in his bedroom. After completing his questioning of the group in the living room, Olesen escorted Rhoden to the kitchen, read Rhoden his *Miranda* rights, and repeated the same questions he had asked in the living room, to which Rhoden answered consistently with his responses given before receiving the *Miranda* warnings. Thus, reasoned the court, the objective evidence of “the timing, setting and completeness of the pre-warning interrogation, the continuity of police personnel and the overlapping content of the pre and post-warning statements” all support the conclusion that the two- step interrogation procedure used here was deliberate. The court applied the second inquiry, which examined the effectiveness of the midstream *Miranda* warnings. In this inquiry, the question was whether any curative measures were present, such as a significant break in time and place between the pre- and post -Miranda questioning or an additional warning that the suspect’ s pre –*Miranda* statements could not be used against the suspect in a subsequent criminal prosecution. Here, the evidence at the CrR 3. 5 hearing showed that there was not a significant break in time or place between the pre- and post -Miranda interrogation. Perhaps more importantly, the evidence also showed that Olesen did not take any additional measures to insure that Rhoden understood his *Miranda* rights, such as advising him that his pre –*Miranda* statements could not be used against him. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred by failing to suppress Rhoden’ s post –*Miranda* statements. **Failure to Suppress Rhoden’s Statements Was Not Harmless Error** Finally, the Court of Appeals decided that the trial court’s decision to not suppress Rhoden’s statements was not harmless error. It reasoned that constitutional error is harmless if the appellate court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that any reasonable jury would have reached the same result in the absence of the error. Here, and under the circumstances, the Court of Appeals reasoned that it could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that any reasonable jury would have reached the same guilty finding absent evidence of Rhoden’ s challenged admissions. My opinion? Excellent decision. The Court of Appeals acknowledged the subtle – and unlawful – “2-Part Inquiry” of the arresting officer in this case. This technique is commonly used by law enforcement to unlawfully obtain statements from defendants and simultaneously circumvent *Miranda*. Good work, Court of Appeals! Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, felony, Interrogation, Jury Trial, law enforcement, Methamphetamine, Miranda, police, Self-Incrimination, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Most Strict & Most Lenient States For DUIs](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/most-strict-most-lenient-states-for-duis/) **Published:** August 21, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Here’s a new and interesting study: Which states are the toughest on DUI? [WalletHub ](http://wallethub.com/edu/strictest-states-on-dui/13549/)compared the enforcement rules in all 50 states and D.C. to find out. ****Most Strict********Most Lenient****1- Arizona1- South Dakota2- Alaska2- District of Columbia3- Connecticut3- Pennsylvania4- West Virginia4- North Dakota5- Kansas5- Maryland6- Nebraska6- Montana7- Utah7- Wisconsin8- Virginia8- Kentucky9- Washington9- Vermont9- Georgia10- Ohio9- Delaware10- New JerseyHere’s more raw data: - First time offenders should expect to spend, on average, a minimum 1 day in jail, while those who are at their second offense should expect at least 21 days in jail. - Arizona has the longest minimum jail term for first time offenders (a minimum of 10 days), while West Virginia has the longest minimum sentence for second time offenders (180 days). - In 37 states, alcohol abuse assessment and/or treatment is mandatory, and in 39, local law enforcement regularly sets up sobriety checkpoints. - On average expect to have your license suspended for at least 3 months after being stopped for a DUI – even before trial – as most states “administratively” suspend licenses after arrest. Georgia will suspend a license for the longest period (up to 12 months), while 7 states do not have administrative license suspensions. - After a first arrest with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .08 or more, an “ignition Interlock device” is mandatory in 24 states. In another 14 states, this device is mandatory after a first offense only if BAC is above .15. In 7 states, these devices are mandatory only after a second offense, and in 6 states the device is never required. - Red states are stricter on DUIs, with an average ranking of 23.0, compared to 28.2 for blue states (1 = Strictest). Washington State ranked #9 among the Top 10. The Methodology used was interesting. WalletHub examined 15 key metrics to evaluate which states are strictest and which are most lenient for DUI offenses. Each variable is weighted so that the toughest ones, like jail sentences, and those shown to have the biggest impact on repeat offenders, like ignition interlock devices, are weighted more heavily. The metrics used and the weight given to them are detailed below: ***Criminal Penalties:*** 1. **A) Minimum jail time (for 1st offense, minimum sentence only)** - 10 days and over (10 points) - 8 – 9 days (8 points) - 6 -7 days (6 points) - 4 – 5 days (4 points) - 2 – 3 days (2 points) - 0 – 1 day (0 points) **B) Minimum jail time (for 2nd offense, minimum sentence only)** - 60 days and over (7 points) - 50 – 59 days (6 points) - 40 – 49 days (5 points) - 30 – 39 days (4 points) - 20 – 29 days (3 points) - 10 – 19 days (1 point) - Under 10 days (0 points) **2. When is DUI automatically considered a felony?** - 2nd offense (5 points) - 3rd offense (4 points) - 4th offense (2 points) - 5th offense (1 point) - Never (0 points) **3. How long does a previous DUI factor into penalties for a new DUI?** - More than 12 years (4 points) - 12 years (3 points) - 10 years (2 points) - 7 years (1 point) - Under 7 years (0 points) **4. Are there additional penalties for high BAC?** - Over 0.10 (3 points) - Over 0.15 (2 points) - Over 0.16 or higher (1 point) - No (0 points) **5. A) Minimum fine (for 1st offense, minimum sentence only)** - $1000 and over (3 points) - $600 – $999 (2 points) - $200 – $599 (1 point) - Under $200 (0 points) **B) Minimum fine (for 2nd offense, minimum sentence only)** - $2000 and over (2 points) - $1200 – $1999 (1 point) - $400 – $1199 (0.5 points) - Under $400 (0 points) **6. Protection against child endangerment** - Yes (1 point) - No (0 points) ***Prevention:*** **7. When is an ignition interlock mandatory?** - 1st conviction with 0.08 BAC (5 points) - 1st conviction with 0.15 BAC (4 points) - 2nd conviction (2 points) - Not mandatory (0 points) **8. Is there an “administrative” license suspension after arrest (and before conviction)?** - 6 months or more (4 points) - 3-6 months (3 points) - Less than 3 months (1 point) - No (0 points) **9. How long is ignition interlock mandatory?** - 6 months or more (3 points) - 3-6 months (2 points) - Ignition Interlock period determined by court (1 point) **10. Is alcohol abuse assessment and/or treatment mandatory?** - Yes (2 points) - No (0 points) **11. Vehicle Impound After Arrest** - Yes (2 points) - No (0 points) **12. Average insurance rate increase after DUI.** - 100% or more increased cost (1 point) - Above 75% increase in cost (0.75 points) - Above 50% increase in cost (0.50 points) - Above 25% increase in cost (0.25 points) - Under 25% increase in cost (0 points) **13. “No-refusal” initiative for rapid search warrants for sobriety testing** - Yes (1 point) - No (0 points) **14. Sobriety checkpoints?** Yes (1 point) No (0 points) **15. Other penalties** - If a state has any other penalties (1 point) - No other penalties (0 points) Total: 55 points. The Overall Rank was determined by how many points each state accumulated. The highest score – for the strictest state, which was Arizona – was ranked 1. The data is interesting to interpret. The study said that since the 1980s, when states first began to crack down on drunk driving, the rate of impaired driving and the number of accidents caused by drunk drivers has dropped considerably. This has meant many saved lives, as drunk driving fatalities declined 52 percent from 1982 to 2013. The study also mentioned some of this change was attributed to evolving social attitudes. Also, new, tougher penalties for those caught driving under the influence have also had an impact, especially in reducing the number of repeat violators. For example, almost half the states now require all convicted DUI offenders to install an [ignition interlock device](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.385) in any vehicles they will be driving. These devices analyze the driver’s breath and won’t permit the car to start if alcohol is detected. The study mentioned that the federal government estimates that these devices have reduced re-arrest rates of DUI offenders by 67 percent. My opinion? The constant lobbying from groups like [Mothers Against Drunk Driving ](http://www.madd.org/)and the [National Highway Traffic Safety Institute](http://www.nhtsa.gov/) have driven legislators to enact tougher laws of the the years. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/)or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, DUI, law enforcement, Legislation, marijuana, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, police, Studies, Terry Stop, Traffic Infractions, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["Drive Sober Or Get Pulled Over" DUI Campaign](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/drive-sober-or-get-pulled-over-dui-campaign/) **Published:** August 21, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Today, the [National Highway Traffic Safety Commission](http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2015/ci.nhtsa-drive-sober-enforcement-crackdown-08212015.print) (NHTSA) launched its annual “***Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over***” law enforcement crackdown on drunk driving. The crackdown involves more than 10,000 law enforcement agencies across the country that will be out in force through Labor Day zeroing in on drunk drivers, with zero tolerance for drivers caught with a BAC of .08 or higher – the legal limit. The crackdown runs from August 21 to September 7, 2015, and is supported by $13.5 million in national advertising funds from NHTSA. “Drunk driving is deadly, it’s against the law, and despite years of progress, it’s still a problem,” said [U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx](https://www.transportation.gov/secretary). “With the help of law enforcement around the country, we’re getting the word out– if you’ve been drinking, don’t drive, because if you do, you will be stopped, you will be arrested and you will be prosecuted.” While the number of drunk drivers on the road has been sharply reduced, motorists are still at risk for encountering someone driving drunk at any time of day. That risk rises exponentially between the hours of 6 p.m. and 5:59 a.m. During the Labor Day period in 2013, half of all the fatalities at night involved drunk drivers, as compared to 14 percent during the day. “Targeted enforcement campaigns are an essential element in our strategy to save lives and reduce crashes, and they have helped sharply reduce the number of drunk drivers on our roads,” said [NHTSA Administrator Mark Rosekind](http://www.nhtsa.gov/Administrator). “But too many drivers continue to risk their lives and the lives of others by getting behind the wheel drunk. Our message is clear: drive sober, or get pulled over.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Uncategorized **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Afeworki: "Band It" Restraint Is Constitutional](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-afeworki-band-it-restraint-is-constitutional/) **Published:** August 26, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Afeworki](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/707621.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals Division I](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held, among other rulings, that a [“Band It” prisoner restraint system](http://www.stuntronics.com/band-it-1.html) worn by the Defendant during trial does not violate the Constitutional right to a fair trial or the [presumption of innocence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence). The Defendant Tomas Afeworki was charged with [Murder in the First Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/). During pretrial proceedings, he experienced significant and ongoing conflict with each of his several attorneys. On the eve of trial, Afeworki repeatedly threatened his attorney, who was permitted to withdraw as a result. Afeworki was, thereafter, required to represent himself. He was found guilty. On appeal, Afeworki contends that this deprived him of his right to counsel. After threatening his attorney, Afeworki was also required to wear a “Band It” physical security restraint, not visible to observers, while in the courtroom. Afeworki argues that wearing the “Band It” violated his right to a fair trial. The court reasoned that under *[State v. Finch](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12032269917251043384&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)*, a defendant in a criminal case is entitled to appear at trial free from all bonds or shackles except in extraordinary circumstances. This is to ensure that the defendant receives a fair and impartial trial as guaranteed by the [Sixth Amendment ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment)and [Fourteenth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv) of the [United States Constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) and the [Washington State Constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Washington).” In short, restraining a defendant during trial infringes upon this right to a fair trial for several reasons: (1)it violates a defendant’s presumption of innocence, (2) it restricts the defendant’s ability to assist his counsel during trial, (3) it interferes with the right to testify in one’s own behalf, and (4) it offends the dignity of the judicial process. Washington case law also says that, given the constitutional implications of using restraints in a criminal trial, shackles or other restraining devices should only be used when necessary to prevent injury to those in the courtroom, to prevent disorderly conduct at trial, or to prevent an escape. That said, a trial court has broad discretion to determine which security measures are necessary to maintain decorum in the courtroom and to protect the safety of its occupants. A trial court may consider the following factors in determining whether the use of restraints is justified: the seriousness of the present charge against the defendant, their temperament and character, age, physical attributes, past record, past escapes or attempted escapes, evidence of a present plan to escape, threats to harm others or cause a disturbance, self-destructive tendencies, the risk of mob violence or of attempted revenge by others, the possibility of rescue by other offenders still at large, the size and the mood of the audience, the nature and physical security of the courtroom and the adequacy and availability of alternative remedies. The court described the “Band-It” restraint system as a device that essentially as a 50,000-volt taser contained in a band that is worn under a sleeve or pant leg. Unlike most restraints, which are either visible to jurors or readily perceived by jurors, the Band-It is not visible when the wearer is clothed. Also, unlike other restraints, the Band-It does not in any way directly constrain the wearer’s movements. In fact, the Band-It can cause a wearer’s movements to be constrained only when it is activated. Here, reasoned the court, the Band-It restraint system does not implicate the presumption of innocence because it is not visible to observers. Moreover, it does not implicate the defendant’s right to the assistance of counsel because it does not physically constrain a defendant’s movements. Finally, the defendant’s antics, aggressive behavior and threats to his defense counsel justified the trail judge’s reasons for making the defendant wear the device: > “The court thereby fashioned a comprehensive order that protected both Afeworki’s constitutional rights and the safety of the people present in the courtroom for his trial. The trial court’s decision was reasonable. There was no error.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, Homicide & Manslaughter, Ineffective Assistance, Sixth Amendment, Technology, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Gauthier: The "Washout" Rule for Felony Convictions](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-gauthier-the-washout-rule-for-felony-convictions/) **Published:** August 28, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Many clients approach me on the question of when prior felony convictions “Washout” from a Defendant’s offender scores. The recent case of *[State v. Gauthier](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/716310.pdf)* is a good place to answer that question. In *[Gauthier](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/716310.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals Division I](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) decided (1) the prosecutor’s closing arguments were fair, (2) Gauthier received effective assistance of counsel, and (3) trial court properly calculated Gauthier’s offender score. At trial, Mr. Gauthier was found guilty of [Rape in the Second Degree](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.44.050). On appeal, he argued that the trial court improperly calculated his offender score by failing to recognize that his prior convictions “washed out” pursuant to [RCW 9.94A.525(2)(c)](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.525). Some background is necessary. Under the “washout” provision, RCW 9.94A.535(2)(c), prior “Class C” felony convictions are excluded in a defendant’s offender score if, since the last date of release from confinement pursuant to a felony conviction or entry of the judgment and sentence, the offender spent **five consecutive years** “in the community” without committing any crime that subsequently results in a conviction. In Gauthier’s case, he had five prior class C felony convictions. His last release date happened in June 2007. However, he did not remain crime free for five years. He was charged with the Rape Second Degree on March 13, 2009, and taken into custody to the King County Correctional Facility on July 23, 2010. There, he remained through his first trial on May 2011 which resulted in a conviction. He was subsequently sentenced on July 8, 2011. Consequently, the sentencing court properly calculated his offender score as a five (5) based on his five prior class C felony convictions. Furthermore, at his sentencing on February 14, 2014, Gauthier argued that his five prior class C felonies should not be included in his offender score because he spent 43 months in custody before he was convicted again on the present offense. He claimed that under the “washout” statute, the “in the community” phrase includes the 43 months he spent in custody on this offense, thus his offender score is zero not five. The sentencing court rejected this argument, calculated his offender score as five, and sentenced him to 120 months with credit for all time served back to July 2010, the date he was first arrested. Here, and similar to the trial court, the WA Court of Appeals rejected Gauthier’s arguments and also rejected Gauthier’s reliance on *[State v. Ervin](http://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/2010/832447-opn.html)*, a somewhat recent case where the [WA Supreme Court](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) decided in favor of the defendant James Erwin’s arguments that his 17 days of custody did not interrupt the requisite 5-year washout period: > “We have found no case, and Gauthier cites to none, where *Ervin’s* limited holding was applied to time spent in confinement while awaiting resolution of a felony charge. That is the precise circumstance present here. As the State correctly points out, Gauthier’s interpretation creates an absurd scenario—a defendant’s offender score will actually go down while he is in custody pending trial or pending sentencing. Indeed, that is an absurd result and a result we are confident the legislature did not intend.” Simply put, if Gauthier had remained in the community for five years after June 2007 and remained crime free for those five years, his prior class C felony convictions would not count in his offender score after June 2012. It would have “washed out” under RCW 9.94A.535(2)(c). However, Gauthier’s 43 months in custody rendered hopeless any arguments that his priors would wash out. The Court of Appeals upheld affirmed the trial court’s Judgment & Sentence and sentenced him to 120 months of prison. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** "Washout" Rule, Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, Jury Trial, Rape, Sentencing, Sex Crimes, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["Studies" Show Pot-Related Accidents Doubled from 2013-2014](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/wtsc-studies-show-pot-related-accidents-doubled-from-2013-2014/) **Published:** August 28, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Newly released data from the [Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC)](http://wtsc.wa.gov/News/marijuana-increased-in-2014-as-a-factor-in-deadly-crashes/) shows that marijuana is increasing as a factor in deadly crashes. The number of marijuana-impaired drivers involved in accidents has nearly **doubled** at a 48% increase from 2013 to 2014. “We have seen marijuana involvement in fatal crashes remain steady over the years, and then it just spiked in 2014,” said Dr. Staci Hoff, WTSC Data and Research Director. Also , [Julie Furlong of the WTSC](http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Julie-Furlong/660860423) said 60% of the drivers involved in fatal or deadly crashes between 2010 and 2014 were tested for drugs. Of those tested, about 20% were positive for pot. These figures match those of previous years, they remained about the same year after year. New testing and new analytics are now allowing the WTSC to determine specific THC levels at the time the driver is tested following an incident or crash. It’s called “active THC,” or enough to impair the driver’s coordination and judgement. According to the WTSC, less than half of drivers who tested positive for pot in 2010 had active TCH. However, that number increased to 65% in 2013, and skyrocketed to 85% in 2014. Dr.Staci Hoff, Data and Research Director for the Commission, says that simply means 85% of the drivers involved in deadly-fatal collisions in 2014 who had pot in their system were actually high at the time of the accident. Young men between the ages of 21-25 have seen the greatest jump, with over a 66% increase. Some argue these facts show that since the[ legalization of marijuana in Washington state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Initiative_502), we now face a potential epidemic of impaired drivers who are high behind the wheel. As a consequence, the [National Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over](http://www.nhtsa.gov/drivesober/) campaign is gaining momentum. From now through Labor Day, extra law enforcement officers are patrolling areas and locations where [DUI ](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.502)is a problem. Over 100 law enforcement agencies including all districts of the Washington State Patrol will be teaming up and participating in the extra patrols all across the state. These extra patrols are all part of [Target Zero](http://www.targetzero.com)—striving to end traffic deaths and serious injuries in Washington by 2030. My opinion? First, only 60% of fatal car crash victims were tested for drugs. Without understanding how this 60% was arrived at, we run the risk of a data selection bias. Second, if 20% of the group tested positive for marijuana then this only reflects the actual percentage of cannabis users in the state; which, by itself, is not a very convincing argument of *anything*. Third, we need more data. You can’t jump to conclusions based on data that’s too new. It needs more time to be compared against other factors. We don’t hear anything else about possible confounding factors to this data, which also raises serious suspicions. However even this admission whittles marijuana as the sole culprit down to maximum of 10% of all fatal crashes. Fourth, the data comes on the heels of new DUI emphasis patrols. Sounds like a media spin to me. Finally, what we really need to know is how many fatal accidents occurred solely for users of marijuana over the limit. This number would be the best indication of a causal relationship if confounding factors were accounted for and the sample size was unbiased. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Drug DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/drug-dui/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Blood Test, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, Evidence, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Reckless Driving, Search and Seizure, Studies, Traffic Infractions, Washington State Traffic Commission, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Brock: WA Supreme Court Reverses Search of Backpack Case](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-brock-wa-supreme-court-reverses-court-of-appeals-upholds-conviction/) **Published:** September 5, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Brock](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/907510.pdf)*, the WA Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision to reverse the Defendant’s convictions for 10 counts of[ Identity Theft in the Second Degree](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.35.020), 3 counts of [Forgery](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.60.020), and violation of the [Uniform Controlled Substances Act.](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50) Last year, in [State v. Brock: The “Time for Arrest” Doctrine](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-brock-the-time-for-arrest-doctrine/), I blogged about how the [Court of Appeals](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) reversed Brock’s conviction, agreeing with Brock that it was not a valid search of his person under [article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx). The court reasoned that under the “Time for Arrest” doctrine, Brock did not have actual, exclusive possession of the backpack “immediately preceding” arrest and reversed Brock’s conviction on that basis. Well, the [WA Supreme Court](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) decided different. The Court reasoned that the “Time for Arrest” doctrine didn’t apply because the Defendant’s backpack was a part of his person at the time of arrest: > “Under these circumstances, the lapse of time had little practical effect on Brock’s relationship to his backpack. Brock wore the backpack at the very moment he was stopped by Officer Olson. The arrest process began the moment Officer Olson told Brock that although he was not under arrest, he was also not free to leave. The officer himself removed the backpack from Brock as a part of his investigation. And, having no other place to safely stow it, Brock would have to bring the backpack along with him into custody. Once the arrest process had begun, the passage of time prior to the arrest did not render it any less a part of Brock’s arrested person.” Based on that the WA Supremes reversed the Court of Appeals and decided the search was a valid search incident to arrest. My opinion? Obviously, I agree with Justice McCloud’s dissenting opinion. He stated that the majority opinion ignores the strict limitations imposed on law enforcement during a [*Terry* ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop)stop, confuses the justifications for a *Terry* frisk with the justifications for a search incident to arrest, and “conflicts with our precedent holding that a full custodial arrest is a prerequisite to any search incident to arrest.” Justice McCloud couldn’t have said it better in the tongue-in-cheek retort in the last sentence of his dissent: > “I fear the majority’s new rule will only invite further expansions of our ‘narrow’ and ‘jealously guarded’ exception to the warrant requirement.” Exactly. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, Evidence, felony, law enforcement, police, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Forgery, Identity Theft, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Martines: WA Supreme Court Finds Defendant Guilty of DUI on Blood Test Case](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-martines-wa-supreme-court-finds-defendant-guilty-of-dui-on-blood-test-case/) **Published:** September 5, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** ![](http://truthinmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/DUI-blood-draw.jpg)Bad news. In *[State v. Martines](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/909261.pdf)*, the Washington Supreme Court reversed the [WA Court of Appeals Division I](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo). I blogged about this case last year in [*State v. Martines*: More Good Caselaw on Blood tests Taken After DUI Arrests.](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-martines-more-good-caselaw-on-blood-tests/) There, the [WA Court of Appeals version of *State v. Martines*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/696637.pdf) held that the blood test performed on Martines was an unlawful warrantless search. The Court of Appeals also reasoned that drawing blood and testing blood constitute separate searches, each of which requires particular authorization, and that the warrant here authorized only a blood draw. The original *Martines* opinion appeared strong. It was rooted in the [United States Supreme Court’s](http://www.supremecourt.gov/) decision in *[Missouri v. McNeely](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf)*; which requires police officers to obtain search warrants for blood draws in DUI cases when exigent circumstances do not otherwise exist. It also followed [Washington State legalizing marijuana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Initiative_502), thus necessitating stronger regulations and monitoring of [blood tests performed during DUI investigations](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/drug-duis-in-washington-the-issues-recent-case-law/). The WA Supreme Court decided differently in a short, scathing opinion signed by all justices. First, the Court held that a warrant authorizing the testing of a blood sample for intoxicants does not require separate findings of probable cause to suspect drug and alcohol use so long as there is probable cause to suspect intoxication that may be caused by alcohol, drugs, or a combination of both. Second, the Court further held that the search warrant lawfully authorized testing Martines’s blood sample for intoxicants because it authorized a blood draw to obtain evidence of DUI. In other words, the search of Martines’s blood did not exceed the bounds of the search warrant when a sample of Martines’s blood was extracted and tested for intoxicants *anyway*. My opinion? Bad decision. I’m amazed the WA Supremes didn’t discuss *Missouri v. McNeely* at all. Not once. *McNeely* profoundly and significantly evolved search and seizure law concerning blood draws in DUI investigations. Indeed, *McNeely* was the underpinnings for Division One Court of Appeals case [State v. Martinez](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/696637.pdf). Yet the WA Supremes ignore *McNeely* as if it didn’t exist. Ignoring case precedents violates *[stare decisis](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis),* plain and simple. Hopefully, this case gets appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for further review. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/)or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Blood Test, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, Evidence, Exigent Circumstances, Forensics, law enforcement, marijuana, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. O'Dell: Court May Consider Defendant's Youth at Sentencing](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-odell-juvenile-brains-still-developing/) **Published:** September 7, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. O’Dell](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/903379.pdf),* the [Washington Supreme Court](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) held that a defendant’s youthfulness can support a lower prison sentence. About 10 days after his 18th birthday, O’Dell had sex with 12-year-old A.N. The two met up on Sunday afternoon, along with a mutual friend, to drink wine and smoke cigars in the woods. Apparently, she, the friend, and O’Dell made plans to meet up again later that night but that the friend did not join them as planned. She and O’Dell sat in the woods to wait for their friend and, after a few minutes of talking, O’Dell forcibly raped her. Sean O’Dell was convicted of [Rape of a Child Second Degree](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.44.076). At O’Dell’s sentencing hearing, the defense requested a lighter sentence because, as he said it, “The defendant’s capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct, or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law, was significantly impaired by youth.” The defense also argued that when O’Dell committed his offense, he “was still in high school, associating with school age persons” and “was not some mid-twenties man hanging out at the local high school or trolling the internet for young people.” Finally, the defense quoted portions of the [United States Supreme Court’s](http://www.supremecourt.gov/) decision in *[Roper v. Simmons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roper_v._Simmons)*, which held that it is unconstitutional to impose the death penalty on a juvenile. *Roper* relied on research, by various medical and psychiatric associations, indicating that juveniles are more susceptible to negative influences and impulsive behavior and therefore less morally culpable for their crimes relative to adults. Despite Defense Counsel’s arguments, the trial court sentenced O’Dell to 95 months of prison and said that it could not consider age as a mitigating circumstance. O’Dell committed this offense 10 days after his 18th birthday. As stated by his defense attorney, “had the incident happened two weeks prior, and assuming the State could not convince the Court to prosecute O’Dell as an adult, he would be facing 15-36 weeks in a well-guarded juvenile detention facility … rather than 78-102 months in an adult prison.” On appeal, O’Dell challenged his 95-month sentence. He argued that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to consider O’Dell’s own relative youth as a basis to depart from the standard sentence range. The WA Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred when it refused to consider O’Dell’s youth as a mitigating factor justifying a lower sentence. First, it reasoned that all defendants 18 and over are, in general, equally culpable for equivalent crimes. But it could not have considered the particular vulnerabilities – for example, impulsivity, poor judgment, and susceptibility to outside influences – of specific individuals. The trial court is in the best position to consider those factors. Second, the WA Legislature defining an adult felony offender as “18 and over” did not have the benefit of psychological and neurological studies showing that the parts of the brain involved in behavior control continue to develop well into a person’s 20’s: > These studies reveal fundamental differences between adolescent and mature brains in the areas of risk and consequence assessment, impulse control, tendency toward antisocial behaviors, and susceptibility to peer pressure. Until full neurological maturity, young people in general have less ability to control their emotions, clearly identify consequences, and make reasoned decisions than they will when they enter their late twenties and beyond. Finally, the Court concluded, in light of what we know today about adolescents’ cognitive and emotional development, the defendant’s youth may, in fact, relate to a defendant’s crime that it is far more likely to diminish a defendant’s culpability; and that youth can, therefore, amount to a substantial and compelling factor justifying a lighter sentence. “For these reasons, a trial court must be allowed to consider youth as a mitigating factor when imposing a sentence on an offender like O’Dell, who committed his offense just a few days after he turned 18.” The WA Supreme Court remanded O’Dell’s case for re-sentencing. My opinion? Good decision. The defense attorney was very intelligent to provide the court with studies showing that young offenders have less ability to control their emotions and impulses. This is very true. Indeed, this reasoning is exactly why the Washington Legislature adopted the [Juvenile Justice Act](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=13.40) in 1977 and treats young offenders differently than adult offenders. Here, although the Defendant was categorically denied Juvenile Court because he was 18 years old, he was barely 18 years old when he committed the offense. He’s much closer to being a child than an adult. And until a young person turns 25, their brains haven’t fully developed. Good decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Cruel & Unusual Punishment, Due Process, Exceptional Sentencing, felony, Juvenile, Legislation, Rape, Sentencing, Sex Crimes, Studies, Violent Crime, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [New DUI Court Helps Native Americans](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/new-dui-court-helps-native-americans/) **Published:** September 8, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** An Albuquerque, New Mexico court is taking bold and progressive steps in stopping Native Americans from committing [DUI](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.502). The newly established [Urban Native American Drug Court](http://www.abqjournal.com/632385/news/native-american-drug-court-about-changing-lives-families.html) uses nine months of treatment and supervision instead of incarceration to deter alcoholism. In order to qualify, each defendant must be Native American and have been convicted of more than two DWIs. “The idea is to try to incorporate some of the traditional beliefs into healing and wellness,” [Judge Maria Dominguez](http://www.nmjpec.org/en/judge-evaluation?election_id=283&year=2014) said. Officials said the biggest challenge is a fear of losing their spirituality. [David Lente](http://www.healthgrades.com/provider/david-lente-yskqw), a Native American substance abuse counselor in Albuquerque, provides the therapeutic component of the program by integrating activities cultural activities, like talking circles and community service projects. The hope is to reconnect Native American defendants with the positive aspects of their culture. Court officials said drug court, as a whole, is a much more effective tool than jail time. They said only 6 percent of those who participate end up getting arrested again for drunken driving. My opinion? This program is an excellent progressive step forward. Typically, alcohol abuse is symptomatic of something much worse taking place within the abuser. They may be suffering with physical, mental, emotional and/or spiritual health issues and using alcohol to self-medicate. Kudos to Judge Dominguez in the continued success of this program. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Blood Test, Drug Court, Drug Offenses, DUI, misdemeanor, Race & Law, Tribal Courts, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Have Plea Bargains Superseded Jury Trials?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/have-plea-bargains-superseded-jury-trials/) **Published:** September 12, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** *“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”* **~Thomas Jefferson** How did the [Sixth Amendment’s ](http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment6.html)guarantee of a public jury trial in all criminal prosecutions become useless and outdated? Seattle criminal defense attorney [Kelly Vomacka](http://vomackalaw.com/) answered these questions during her [presentation ](http://cpa.ds.npr.org/kuow/audio/2015/09/SF_20150909_KellyVomack.mp3)at the [7th Annual Smoke Farm Symposium](http://www.thestranger.com/events/22574545/the-seventh-smoke-farm-symposium) on Aug. 22, 2015. Smoke Farm is a program center and events venue run by the Seattle-based nonprofit organization [Rubicon Foundation](http://rubiconseattle.org/). Titled, “*Plea Nation: Dispelling the Illusion That the US Criminal Justice System Sorts the Guilty from the Innocent*,” Vomacka spoke to the trend that today’s criminal defendants are waiving their right to jury trials and entering plea bargains. Studies show that[ 97% of criminal cases in the U.S. result in plea bargains that do not determine guilt or innocence.](https://www.bja.gov/Publications/PleaBargainingResearchSummary.pdf) Only 3 percent go to trial by jury. Vomacka also discusses incarceration issues, the risks of trial verdicts, the numerous “gaps” (race, communication, socio-economic status, etc. – between defendants and their lawyers, pleading guilty to get out of jail, etc. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, Jury Trial, Race & Law, Sixth Amendment, Studies, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Stingray "Spy" Devices](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/stingray-spy-devices/) **Published:** September 12, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Intimidating, no? This suitcase-sized device, called [Hailstorm ](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/meet-the-machines-that-steal-your-phones-data/2/)or [Stingray](http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-hi-tech-police-surveillance-the-stingray-cell-phone-spying-device/5331165), is a controversial cellular phone surveillance device manufactured by the [Harris Corporation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_Corporation). It is designed to sweep up basic cellphone data from a neighborhood and identify unique subscriber numbers. That data is then transmitted to the police, allowing them to locate a phone without the user even making a call or sending a text message. It’s the newest, most advanced technology in spyware which essentially allows police to observe, record and otherwise pinpoint your cell phone activity. And, of course, a growing number of police departments are purchasing these devices. Stingrays cost as much as $400,000 and acts as a fake cell tower. The system, typically installed in a vehicle so it can be moved into any neighborhood, tricks all nearby phones into connecting to it and feeding data to police. In some states, the devices are available to any local police department via state surveillance units. The federal government funds most of the purchases, via anti-terror grants. These devices are used to spy on people’s words, locations and associations. Stingrays can capture everything from metadata (who called whom, when, and sometimes from where) to the content of calls. A news article from [USA Today](http://www.usatoday.com) titled, *[Cellphone Data Spying: It’s Not Just the NSA](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/08/cellphone-data-spying-nsa-police/3902809/)* describes how numerous police agencies across the country refuse to admit whether they’ve used Stingrays in surveillance. According to the article, most police agencies deny [public records requests](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=42.56), arguing that criminals or terrorists could use the information to thwart important crime-fighting and surveillance techniques. Police maintain that cellphone data can help solve crimes, track fugitives or abducted children or even foil a terror attack. The [American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)](https://www.aclu.org) has investigated the use of Stingrays and has also successfully identified [54 agencies in 21 states and the District of Columbia that own Stingrays](https://www.aclu.org/map/stingray-tracking-devices-whos-got-them#agencies). Many agencies continue to shroud their purchase and use of Stingrays in secrecy. A growing number of courts and legal authorities are increasingly wary on whether Stingrays violate citizen’s rights against unlawful search under the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) to the [U.S. Constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution). For example, in *[FROM SMARTPHONES TO STINGRAYS: CAN THE FOURTH AMENDMENT KEEP UP WITH THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY?](http://www.louisvillelawreview.org/sites/louisvillelawreview.org/files/pdfs/printcontent/51/1/Hampton.pdf)* attorney [Brittany Hampton](http://www.wyattfirm.com/professionals-detail/brittany-hampton) wrote a Note in the [University of Louisville Law Review](http://www.louisvillelawreview.org/) which discussed the questionable use of the Stingray devices by police agencies. In her article, Ms. Hampton argues that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their movements when using their cellphones; therefore, the use of the Stingray constitutes a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. She also discusses the need for the [United States Supreme Court](http://www.supremecourt.gov/) to develop a clear warrant requirement for the monitoring of an individual using the Stingray device. Ultimately, Hampton advocates a warrant requirement for utilizing the Stingray devices for police tracking purposes because the warrantless use of the Stingray is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. My opinion? I wholeheartedly agree with Ms. Hampton, the ACLU and other legal experts on this issues. Using Stingrays is an unlawful search. Quite frankly, the government should not have *carte blanche* secret access to people’s cell phone use and information. It’s overly intrusive and distasteful that the government can, without warning, essentially use people’s cell data as pretextual evidence to investigate our whereabouts, listen to our conversations and ultimately charge us with crimes. Even worse – and speaking as a criminal defense attorney – it’s disturbing that police agencies can use the information obtained from Stingrays as probable cause to obtain search warrants of people’s homes and seize evidence therein. Moreover, if I move to suppress the evidence gained from the search warrant as the fruits of an unlawful search, local police agencies deny and circumvent my [Motions to Compel Evidence](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/arguing-motions-to-compel-pretrial-discovery/) and [Public Disclosure Requests](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=42.56) by simply **having the feds conduct the Stingray** **search.** This is bad. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** ACLU, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Cell Phone, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, Evidence, law enforcement, Pretrial Investigations, Privacy, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Stingray Devices, Technology, Text Messages, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Drugged Driving: A Growing Trend](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/drugged-driving-a-growing-trend/) **Published:** October 4, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** According to a [report ](http://www.ghsa.org/html/files/pubs/GHSA_DruggedDrivingt2015_R5_LoResInteractive.pdf)released by the [Governors Highway Safety Association](http://www.ghsa.org/index.html), the U.S. is facing a dangerous new highway trend: drugged driving. Loosening state marijuana laws and the recent rise in prescription drug abuse may have contributed to a growing number of traffic accidents and fatalities involving drivers found with drugs in their system. Authorities found evidence of drug use in about 40 percent of tested drivers who died in 2013. This shows an increase of about 12% from 2005. That’s nearly the same level as fatally-injured drivers who tested positive for alcohol. In similar fashion, [USA Today reported](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/30/legal-marijuana-complicating-efforts-reduce-fatal-crashes-across-country/73047248/) that one third of the 2013 traffic casualties involved marijuana use. With pot now legalized for some purpose in 23 states, the report’s authors warned that officials need to create better policies, studies and education programs on the issue of drugged driving. “Every state must take steps to reduce drug-impaired driving, regardless of the legal status of marijuana,” [Jonathan Adkins](http://www.ghsa.org/html/media/contacts/adkins_bio.html), the association’s executive director. “This is the first report to provide states and other stakeholders with the information they need. And we encourage the [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration](http://www.nhtsa.gov/) to issue guidance on best practices to prevent marijuana-impaired driving. We look to the federal government to take a leadership role in this issue similar to that of drunk driving and seat belt use.” Though driving while stoned and high is illegal across the country, it’s unclear what impact marijuana actually has on car crashes, if any. The [National Institute on Drug Abuse wrote](http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/does-marijuana-use-affect-driving) on its website that the drug can hurt judgment, decision-making, reaction time and coordination, but some drivers dispute that. Enforcement is complicated by the fact that traces of marijuana can persist for weeks after use. The report noted that some drivers said they thought it was safer to get in the car after ingesting marijuana than after drinking alcohol. [Joanne Thomka](http://www.ndaa.org/ntlc_contact.html), director of the [National Traffic Law Center](http://www.ndaa.org/ntlc_home.html), [told Autoblog](http://www.autoblog.com/2015/09/30/drugged-driving-marijuana-quiet-crisis-/) it was unfair to equate the two substances without better data. “Marijuana, we don’t know what that level should be,” she said. “We cannot and should not try to compare marijuana and alcohol. They are two distinct drugs.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Drug Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, DUI, marijuana, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Cayetano-James: Prohibiting Phone Call Testimony](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-cayetano-james-prohibiting-phone-call-testimony/) **Published:** October 4, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** ![](http://salestores.com/stores/images/images_747/220017910001.jpg)In *[State v. Cayetano-James](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/705474.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals Division I](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) decided the trial court mistakenly denied the defendant’s motion to have a witness testify telephonically from Mexico. The defendant was charged with [Rape of a Child in the First Degree](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.44.073). While the case was pending, he filed a notice of the defense of [alibi](http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/criminal-defenses-alibi.html). The Prosecutor changed the trial dates and amended the charges. In response, Defense Counsel filed and argued a motion to dismiss under [CR 8.3(b)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=SUPCRR8.03). Because of this, Defense Counsel argued a potential witness in Mexico will most likely need to be contacted to refute the amendment to the charges. On March 27, 2013, the trial court heard a defense motion to permit the telephonic testimony of witness Ms. Camacho. Defense counsel argued that because of Camacho’s immigration status, the court should allow her to testify by telephone or, alternatively, order her telephonic deposition. Although Defense Counsel argued that Camacho’s testimony was material, the court denied the motion for telephonic testimony. The court also denied Defense Counsel’s motion for a continuance. Finally, at trial, the court excluded Camacho’s Skype testimony and phone call testimony of other witnesses. Not surprisingly, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. On appeal, the WA Court of Appeals held the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the telephonic testimony of this defense witness. First, the court reasoned that the [Fifth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment) to the [United States Constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) and [article I, section 3 of the Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx) guarantee that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This right to due process includes the right to be heard and to *offer testimony*. The accused’s right to due process is, in essence, the right to a fair opportunity to defend against the State’s accusations. Second, said the court, the right to call witnesses in one’s own behalf has long been recognized as essential to due process. “Just as an accused has the right to confront the prosecution’s witnesses for the purpose of challenging their testimony, he has the right to present his own witnesses to establish a defense.” Additionally, Washington courts have broad authority under [ER 611](http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=ER&ruleid=gaer0611) to control trial proceedings and also have discretion to permit telephonic testimony under [CR 43(a)(1)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CR&ruleid=supcr43). Finally, the trial court abused its discretion when it excluded “essential facts of high probative value whose exclusion effectively barred \[the defendant\] from presenting his defense” without a showing by the State that allowing Camacho to testify by telephone would disrupt the fairness of the fact-finding process. This deprived the Defendant’s witness of the opportunity to present testimony that would have been relevant, material and vital to the defense; and violated his constitutional right to present a complete defense. The court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial. My opinion? Good decision. Obstructing a defendant from presenting witnesses for their defense violates the 6th Amendment. Period. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, Jury Trial, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Sex Crimes, Sixth Amendment, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [States With Weird Liquor Laws](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/states-with-weird-liquor-laws/) **Published:** October 5, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** ![](http://www.motherjones.com/files/imagecache/colorbox-large/photoessays/06-georgia-crop.jpg)A news report from [time.com](http://time.com/money/4048973/states-with-crazy-alcohol-liquor-laws/) discusses how many states have bizarre, outdated and just plain *weird* laws regarding the sale and consumption of alcohol. **Texas** Texas prides itself on its business-friendly, free-market ethos. But when it comes to alcohol, Texas has some pretty elaborate regulations. Wal-Mart is feuding with Texas over the state’s refusal to let it stock liquor in its aisles. The issue? A 1995 law preventing [public companies with more than 35 shareholders](http://www.chron.com/news/article/Walmart-sues-Texas-alleges-violation-of-6079853.php) from selling hard liquor in the state. Walmart, which argues the law is unconstitutional, sued. Earlier this week, [a court date was set](http://setexasrecord.com/stories/510638486-wal-mart-s-suit-over-irrational-liquor-ban-set-for-september-2016-trial) for Sept. 2016. **Pennsylvania** For sheer strangeness alone it’s hard to beat [Pennsylvania v. 2,447 Bottles of Wine](http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-09-17/what-would-scalia-do-with-2-447-bottles-of-wine-). With its [Quaker roots](http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/subdivisions/quakers_1.shtml), Pennsylvania has some of the strictest alcohol rules in the nation, allowing [sales of wine and liquor](http://triblive.com/state/pennsylvania/7835428-74/beer-stores-grocery#axzz3mlyUZ0g9) only through 600 special-state run stores. When a Chester County attorney was recently charged with importing more than 2,400 bottles of wine and selling some without a license, he struck a deal that let him keep about 1,000 bottles. But state law requires the remainder, more than 1,300 bottles, to be destroyed. **Massachusetts** Pennsylvania has Quakers, Massachusetts has Puritans. If that conjures an image of dour finger waving, you’re not far off the mark. Massachusetts law bans happy hours and drink specials, [not to mention drinking games,](http://www.connelllawoffices.com/its-official-beer-pong-and-other-drinking-games-are-not-permitted-in-massachusetts-licensed-establishments/) and severely restricts when supermarkets [can sell beer and wine](http://www.wellesleywinepress.com/2011/10/why-allowing-more-massachusetts-grocery.html). Some think the Bay State may interpreting its heritage too seriously. The *Boston Globe,*citing a colonial historian who noted that early settlers opened plenty of taverns, recently argued “[Drinking Laws in Massachusetts Aren’t Puritanical — They’re Worse](http://www.boston.com/news/2015/04/02/drinking-laws-massachusetts-aren-puritanical-they-worse/5cJhOGX7T8EqFfj3ZJKxWM/story.html).” **Maine** Like many states, Maine restricts the sale of liquor on Sundays, in this case prohibiting it before 9 a.m. There is an important exception, however. In 2013, sharp-eyed Mainers realized St. Patrick’s Day would fall on a Sunday that year. Not to worry: Gov. Paul LePage [signed an emergency law](http://bangordailynews.com/2013/03/14/politics/bill-to-allow-early-st-patricks-day-drink-awaits-lepages-signature/) allowing liquor to be served as early as 6 a.m. when the holiday falls on a Sunday. Crisis averted. **Louisiana** A state also known for its traditions, though not necessarily puritanical ones. Louisiana was the last state to [raise its drinking age to 21 from 18](http://digbatonrouge.com/time-to-change-louisiana-drinking-age/). It has taken certain additional steps to combat drunk driving, including an open-container law, which discourages drinking in a vehicle, at least in theory. The law acknowledges the state’s ubiquitous drive-by daiquiri stands with a provision that considers a container closed so long as the straw hasn’t been put in the opening on the lid of the cup. One recent transplant [describes the apparent logic of this:](http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2015/06/all-hail-the-drive-through-daiquiri.html) > As my friend once said, during my inaugural drive through daiquiri run, “We’re not going to drink it while we’re driving, we’re just going to go get it.” > > “Then what are we going to do with it?” > > “Then we’re going to go stop and drink it,” she said. **Nevada** In Nevada, bars can (and do) stay open 24 hours, and liquor can be sold at supermarkets and convenience stores. Open containers are permitted in [Las Vegas and the nearby Strip](http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/jan/09/las-vegas-drinking-laws-explained/). Also, state law explicitly states that it is not a crime to be drunk in public because drunkenness [is a health problem](http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-458.html#NRS458Sec260)—and obviously what all those people sipping gin and tonics on the patio of the Bellagio’s pool need most is the Nevada State Legislature’s support and sympathy. **New Jersey** Several states, including Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Idaho, set quotas for the number of liquor licenses they issue to bars and restaurants. That can lead to licenses being traded on the secondary market and changing hands for hefty sums. There are [reports of sales](http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/business/the-cost-of-selling-a-drink-liquor-licensing-in-montana/article_32e68427-bf45-5dfa-8d43-bc8302c51723.html) in Montana for as much as $1 million. But no one does a shakedown like New Jersey. One New Jersey license reportedly sold for as much as [$1.6 million](http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/06/america_s_booze_laws_worse_than_you_thought.html). **Idaho** While Idaho’s liquor licenses may not sell as for as much as New Jersey’s, the state’s quota system has drawn attention for a different reason. The quotas, which allow for just one license for every 1,500 people, are designed to be strict: Temperance is written into the state’s constitution, which calls it a “first concern” of good government. But granting exceptions has proved pretty tempting too. The result: a spate of laws that seem to open the door, if only a crack, like this one highlighted by the [Institute for Justice](http://ij.org/idaho-liquor-licensing-reform-long-overdue). > For example, in order to grant an exception to Clark House, a historic bed and breakfast on Hayden Lake, the Legislature [passed an amendment](http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title23/T23CH9SECT23-903.htm) lifting the rural license ban on any hotel that ‘has been in existence for at least 75 years and has been on the historic register for a minimum of 10 years, is situated within 500 yards of a natural lake containing a minimum of 36,000 acre feet of water when full with a minimum of 32 miles of shoreline, and is located in a county with a minimum population of 65,000.’ **Utah** If there’s one thing you know about Mormons it may be that they don’t drink alcohol (or coffee for that matter.) So it’s not a huge surprise that Utah’s attitude toward liquor is more like Pennsylvania’s than that of its next door neighbor Nevada. In fact, Utah’s regulations are so strict, the Salt Lake City tourism board has [a whole page](http://www.visitsaltlake.com/restaurants/utah-drinking/) devoted just to debunking Utah drinking law myths. The “Zion curtain,” in which the bartender mixes drinks out of sight, really exists—although only in restaurants opened after July 2012, not in bars or clubs, we are reassured. You can have more than one drink in front of you at a time, although indeed it is not permitted to order a double. If you order a drink in a restaurant, you also have to order food, at least an appetizer (which can be shared). Sounding not a little defensive, the tourism board concludes: “But let’s be honest: there are lots of weird liquor laws in the world.” Washingtonians, if you think we’ve got it bad, there is worse. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, law enforcement, Legislation, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Bentura-Ozuna: Letter Found in Jail Cell Supports Conviction for Witness Intimidation](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-bentura-ozuna-letter-found-in-jail-cell-supports-conviction-for-witness-intimidation/) **Published:** October 5, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** ![](http://media.philly.com/images/600*450/20131108_inq_prat08-a.JPG)In *[State v. Bentura-Ozuna](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/906661.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) held that the defendant committed the crime of [Intimidating a Witness under RCW 9A.72.110(2)](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.72.110) when a letter found in his jail cell directed a threat to a former witness because of the witness’s role in an official proceeding. The statute defines a “threat” to mean “to communicate, *directly or indirectly*, the intent to harm another.” Here, In June 2010, Ozuna was incarcerated in the Yakima County Department of Corrections (Yakima County Jail). Ozuna was awaiting sentencing for a prior conviction. The conduct underlying that conviction involved Augustine Jaime Avalos, a member of the same gang as Ozuna. Avalos had testified against Ozuna in Ozuna’s underlying trial and was also incarcerated in the Yakima County Jail. On June 8, when Ozuna was moved from one prison cell to another, a corrections officer found two unstamped, unsealed letters in his possession. The deputy opened the letters. One letter was meaningless to this issue. The other letter said the following: > Ey homie, I just got your (unreadable). Well it was a blessing to hear from you. It put’s a smile on my face to know that your ready to ride for me. . .. As you already know, I agreed to a plea deal for 10 years 9 months cause of a pussy that don’t know how to ride or Die. He would rather break weak than to honor our sacred code of silence. He is now marked a rat and a piece of shit in my book He has sealed his fate and now it’s just a matter of time. He rode with me and was given my trust and he decided to dishonor that privaledge …. \[A \]11 I can say for that fool is, you know what time it is. You guys let him live in luxery for way to long already. . . How can you live with a rata like that and still be able to rest in peace in that puto’s presence? I hope and pray for satisfaction before I leave this building and may that fool suffer and Die in his rat hole. Fucken snitch bitch rat! … That puto took 10 years of my life and a fucken leva from my barrio, “my big homie” “Gorge” is living in the same house as him …. Gorge could of did something but just decided to let that puta slide and live under the same roof with him …. Tell that fool he’s a piece of shit just like him. Let’em know that this is Campana Gang! He put’s the crack in our bell. No loyalty, no honor, no heart! … Tell’ em he’s as good as dead to me. > > Let that fool feel the wrath and let’ em know the rata that he is and tell’em that I siad that bad things come to those that snitch. May he rest in piss … So now you know what I want primo, don’t hesitate vato. Take action, reep the rewards later. Don’t think, just act. … Hit me up later after the shit get’s handled. Do it on the 25 cause that’s when I have court, and I want to have a smile on my face that day knowing that … fool’s getting a lil taste of what’s coming to him. The 25 is the day I get sentenced. Good looking out Primo, don’t let me down fucker! … Tell’em that Vanessa’s gonna be the one to set him up for us, mark my words! Show him how set ups are done. There just waiting for him to get out. … Lol. … Satisfaction will be mine! Let’ em know that he fucked up. On July 9, Avalos was assaulted by inmate David Soto while in a courthouse holding room. Avalos received stiches at the hospital for his injuries. The inmates who were present when Avalos was injured were not cooperative. Ozuna was not present during the assault. At trial, the Prosecution produced ample testimony confirming that there was a threat to another person in the letter, however, no evidence established that the letter was delivered to anyone before the officer confiscated it. The State also produced expert testimony about gang culture from a Sunnyside Police Department officer who worked in the Yakima area and was knowledgeable about the local gangs, as well as the individuals at issue here. Similarly, two other officers from the Yakima County Jail discussed the status of being a “shot caller” or “tank boss,” meaning someone who has elevated decision-making authority within a gang or prison. One officer testified that Ozuna was a “shot caller” in the Yakima County Jail. Before trial, Ozuna argued a [*Knapstad* motion to Dismiss](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/dismissing-cases-through-knapstad-motions/) the charge for lack of evidence. Defense counsel argued that “directing a threat at somebody means not keeping it to yourself; it means directing it to somebody, not necessarily … to the intended victim, but to *somebody*. The Court denied the *Knapstad* motion to dismiss. The trial proceeded, and the jury returned a verdict convicting Ozuna of Intimidating a Former Witness. The trial court entered judgment and imposed an exceptional sentence of 10 years based on the jury’s finding of gang-related aggravating factors. Ozuna appealed. The WA Supreme Court reasoned that a communication must be transmitted and received. However, a person may “direct a threat” under the intimidation of a former witness without that threat being communicated to the threat’s target. “The threat may be transmitted to a third party.” Consequently, there was sufficient evidence at trial for a rational jury to find that Ozuna directed a threat to a third party or to Avalos himself. The court further reasoned that Ozuna had the state of mind, motivation, and opportunity to direct a threat regarding Avalos. Avalos had been a longtime gang member with Ozuna, and Avalos testified against Ozuna. They were incarcerated in the same prison. Ozuna had gang allies in the prison. Avalos had enemies. Furthermore, testimony from witnesses established the gang follows a strict “no snitch” code, enforced by violent retaliation. Here, Ozuna’s confiscated letter reveals his state of mind. It said, for example, “Let that fool feel the wrath and let’ em know the rata that he is and tell him that I siad that bad things come to those that snitch. May he rest in piss.” Additionally, the jury could consider the timing of Avalos’s assault by a member of Ozuna’s gang, David Soto. “The evidence is sufficient insofar as it establishes Ozuna’s state of mind, motivation, and opportunity to direct a threat regarding Avalos.” The WA Supreme Court affirmed Ozuna’s conviction. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, Evidence, felony, Intimidating a Witness, Jail, Jury Trial, Knapstad Motion, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Study: Youth Tolerance Of Marijuana May Increase Chances of DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/study-youth-tolerance-of-marijuana-may-increase-chances-of-dui/) **Published:** October 6, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** A new study from the journal [Pediatrics ](http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/current)suggests ways to reduce the risk that children will drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs as teenagers. The study found that 12-year-old children who believed marijuana could help them relax or was otherwise beneficial were more likely to drive under the influence when they were 16. The study also showed these minors were also significantly more likely to ride with someone else who was buzzed, drunk or high behind the wheel. “Youth view marijuana use as less dangerous than drinking,” the study authors wrote. “We must begin to address how changing views of marijuana might increase risk for not only marijuana use, but other behaviors.” Driving under the influence is common among American teenagers. [The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 10% of high school students do so in any given month](http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html), and more than 20% have been passengers of someone driving under the influence. So researchers from [Rand Corp.](http://www.rand.org/) in Santa Monica and Arlington, Va., went looking for risk factors in middle school that could predict these dangerous behaviors in high school. They turned to data from a substance use prevention program called [CHOICE](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3353018/) that was tested in 16 middle schools in greater Los Angeles. The Rand researchers focused on 1,124 students who completed detailed surveys in 2009 (when their average age was 12.2 years old), 2011 (when their average age was 14.3) and 2013 (when their average age was 16.3 and 88% were eligible to drive in California). The majority of these students (57%) were girls, and half were Latino. Using statistical models to control for the students’ age, gender, race and ethnicity, school and whether their mothers had graduated from high school, the researchers identified several factors that seemed to predict unsafe driving at age 16. According to the study, those who held more tolerant ideas about marijuana when they were 12 (in sixth or seventh grade) were 63% more likely than their peers to admit either driving under the influence themselves or to ride with someone who was under the influence Additionally, 12-year-olds who felt most confident that they could resist marijuana use wound up being 89% more likely to mix alcohol and drugs with cars, motorcycles or other vehicles. This finding surprised the researchers, they wrote. By the time the students were 14, some of the risk factors had changed. Those who said they had used alcohol in the last month were more than twice as likely as their peers to drive under the influence or ride with an intoxicated driver two years later. Also, those whose friends used marijuana were 2.4 times more likely to be involved in unsafe driving later, and those whose family members used marijuana were 54% more likely to do the same. And positive beliefs about marijuana still mattered — 14-year-olds who had them were still 67% more likely to mix alcohol, drugs and motor vehicles at age 16. The researchers noted that marijuana has taken on a benign image among middle schoolers “as medical and recreational marijuana legalization increases in our country, adolescents are becoming more accepting of marijuana use,” they wrote. “This highlights the need to address these types of beliefs as early as sixth grade.” My opinion? If these studies are accurate, they merely reveal our need to EDUCATE our youth about drugs, alcohol and vehicles. In short, DRUGS/ALCOHOL AND VEHICLES DON’T MIX. It doesn’t matter what type of drug you’re taking; whether it be prescription, medical marijuana or street drugs. Don’t do drugs and drive. And it doesn’t matter what type of alcohol you’re drinking. Don’t drink and drive. If your doctor informs you that taking your prescription medication may affect your ability to operate a motor vehicle, then please think twice about operating a motor vehicle. I’ve assisted many clients facing DUI charges of varying degrees. However, studies like this show that society is becoming less tolerant and sympathetic toward individuals charged with DUI. It takes a very competent and experienced defense attorney to reveal the science, forensics and idiosyncrasies of DUI litigation in today’s anti-drug climate. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Blood Test, Boating Under the Influence, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, Due Process, DUI, Evidence, Forensics, law enforcement, marijuana, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [FBI DNA Database Error](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/fbi-dna-database-error/) **Published:** October 8, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** [Here is a letter](http://www.defensenet.org/news/FBI%20DNA%20Database%20Amendments.pdf "FBI DNA Database Amendment") from the [WA State Crime Lab ](http://www.wsp.wa.gov/forensics/crimlabs.htm)outlining some errors that have been discovered in the[ FBI DNA database](https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric-analysis/federal-dna-database) that was used by the lab when “estimating the significance of having included an individual as a possible contributor to a forensic DNA typing profile.” The [Federal DNA Database Unit (FDDU) ](https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric-analysis/federal-dna-database)analyzes DNA markers from buccal and blood samples of federal convicted offenders, arrestees facing federal charges, individuals convicted of certain District of Columbia offenses, as well as non-U.S. citizens detained under the authority of the United States of America, for development of DNA profiles that are uploaded to the [National DNA Index System (NDIS)](https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric-analysis/codis/codis-and-ndis-fact-sheet). The FBI does not believe the errors will materially affect any assessment of evidence. Although the WA State Crime Lab agrees, it also acknowledges that **“some probabilities will be slightly stronger while some others will be slightly weaker.”** They have updated the databases as of June 3, 2015 and any case files completed before this scheduled for trial or that are subject to discovery or public disclosure will have the probability estimates recalculated. Only if there is a difference greater than 10-fold will an amended report be issued. My opinion? Many of us believe DNA evidence is SO foolproof. And for the most part, when calculated correctly, it is. However, errors like these to our system of justice. Jurors, victims, defendants, Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys heavily rely on DNA evidence to prove whether the defendant actually committed the alleged crime. The evidence is excruciatingly important to cold-case murders and sex offenses. Please, WA State Crime Lab, test and retest your samples when updating the database! Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DNA, Forensics, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Marijuana DUI Is Hard To Detect](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/marijuana-dui-is-hard-to-detect/) **Published:** October 23, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [Canadian CBC News](http://www.cbc.ca/news) reported in a [recent article](http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/washington-pot-law-measures-nanograms-to-catch-impaired-drivers-1.3281600) that [Washington State Patrol Chief John Batiste](http://www.wsp.wa.gov/about/about.htm) admitted that cracking down on marijuana users who drive while stoned is proving tricky for the state. “We’re still learning, it’s ongoing,” he said. Canadian courts have found drug impairment tests untrustworthy and a poor indicator of impairment. That’s why out of 50,000 charges laid each year for drunk driving in Canada, [fewer than 1,000 are for drug impairments.](http://www.madd.ca/media/docs/MADD-Canada_Drug-Impaired-Driving-Policy_November-2012.pdf) The news article reported that Batiste says while Washington state legalized marijuana nearly a year and a half ago, they have recently seen an increase in the number of people getting behind the wheel while high. “We are addressing that through a variety of ways: through information sharing and teaching our troopers on how to better detect it,” said Batiste. The key to Washington state’s enforcement is a [2013 DUI law](http://www.washingtonvotes.org/2013-SB-5912) that limits the amount of active THC — the element of pot that makes you high — in a driver’s blood. The state has set a maximum of five nanograms per milliliter of blood, which state officials believe is the equivalent of a blood alcohol level of .08. A similar law is also in place in Colorado, which also legalized marijuana use in 2013. To enforce it officers need to order a blood test, which can be very controversial. The states have trained officers to look for signs of marijuana use on the road; distracted driving, light body tremors, different sized pupils, impaired motor skills and the smell of marijuana in the vehicle. However, research has shown measuring impairment based on THC levels is not clear cut. That’s because unlike alcohol, people metabolize THC at different rates, so impairment can vary widely from person to person making it hard to determine if a person is impaired solely based on THC levels. In addition, these tests have been challenged in courts, where people have claimed to have smoked days before their blood test registered the presence of THC. ![542705085](http://i.cbc.ca/1.3123024.1440789762!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_300/542705085.jpg) One researcher has found [most heavy marijuana users](http://www.scribd.com/doc/122833212/Psychomotor-Function-in-Chronic-Daily-Cannabis-Smokers-during-Sustained-Abstinence) would be below the five-nanogram level within hours of last consuming the drug, and virtually all users would be below the mark after 24 hours. But the research also found signs of impairment in heavy, chronic, daily users were still observable after three weeks of abstinence. Batiste says Washington is also looking for technology like breathalyzers that could detect if someone is high, but so far, there’s no hand-held device that police can use to measure the amount a suspected driver has consumed or determine impairment. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Drug DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/drug-dui/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, DUI, marijuana, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Rooney: Unlawful Search of Bedroom, Yet Valid Frisk of Pants](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-rooney/) **Published:** October 24, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Rooney](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/46236-2.15..pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals Division II](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) gave interesting results on a multi-layered search & seizure case. First, an officer who lawfully entered a parolee’s room in order to arrest him, properly conducted a [*Terry* ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stop_and_frisk)frisk of a roommate’s pair of pants before giving them to the roommate. The frisk was justified by the presence of several swords, an axe and multiple knives in the room. However, the officer’s search of a room over the objection of the roommate, who was not on community custody, violated the roommate’s Constitutional rights. Alexandria White, who was serving a term of community custody, began living with the defendant, Norman Rooney, in his home in December 2013 shortly after her release from prison. Her parole officer Chris Napolitano supervised White’s community custody. Napolitano knew that Rooney and White had lived together like a married couple and they had always lived in the same room together. After White moved in with Rooney again that December, Napolitano discovered White had changed her address without notifying him, which violated her community custody conditions. Napolitano obtained an arrest warrant for White and, with a team of law enforcement officers, went to Rooney’s house to arrest her on December 30, 2013. As Napolitano walked into the bedroom, White was standing in the bedroom with Rooney, who appeared to be asleep in bed. Napolitano observed swords and axes hanging on the bedroom wall and a couple of knives laying on the shelves. He observed additional weapons on Rooney’s nightstand. Napolitano advised White that by failing to report her new address and not being available for contact she had violated her community custody. White acknowledged that Napolitano would arrest her for the violation. After Napolitano arrested White and placed her in the living room, Napolitano told White that he was going to search the bedroom. White responded that she lived in the living room, not the bedroom, but Napolitano did not see any sleeping arrangements or anything that appeared to be White’s belongings in the living room. Napolitano ordered Rooney to leave the bedroom so the officers could search it. Rooney objected to the search because he was not currently on community custody, but he began to physically comply. Rooney, who was dressed in what appeared to be boxer shorts, asked to put on pants. Napolitano replied that he would have to search the pants “for safety reasons” before Rooney could put them on and leave the room. Given the other weapons in the room, Napolitano was concerned that Rooney might have a weapon in the pants. Rooney grabbed a pair of pants, and when Napolitano took hold of the pants, he immediately felt a firearm. After Rooney was arrested and placed in the living room, Napolitano and Harvey searched the bedroom and found methamphetamine, heroin, and clonazepam. The State charged Rooney with three counts of [Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Substance](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) (methamphetamine, heroin, and clonazepam) and one count of [First Degree Unlawful Possession of a Firearm](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/). Rooney [moved to suppress evidence ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6)of the controlled substances and the firearm. The trial court denied Rooney’s motion and found him guilty as charged at a bench trial. On appeal, Rooney argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals reasoned that warrantless searches and seizures are generally unreasonable and violate the [Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment)and [article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx). However, *consent* is one well-recognized exception to this rule. The State bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that a warrantless search falls into one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement. The Court further reasoned that, in searches involving a cohabitant who consents to a warrantless search, Washington has adopted the **Common Authority Rule**; which says that a cohabitant may grant consent to search a residential area that each cohabitant has equal authority to control. This rule is based on the Washington Constitution’s guarantee of each individual’s expectation of privacy and the theory that a person assumes risk that his or her cohabitant may allow “outsiders” into a shared space. Finally, the Court reasoned that the consent of only one person with common authority over the place to be searched when multiple cohabitants are present is NOT sufficient to conduct a lawful search of shared space. “We have never held that a cohabitant with common authority can give consent that is binding upon another cohabitant with equal or greater control over the premises when the non-consenting cohabitant is actually present on the premises,” said the Court. “When a cohabitant who has equal or greater authority to control the premises is present, his consent must be obtained and the consent of another of equal or lesser authority is ineffective against the non-consenting cohabitant.” With that, the court held that under application of the common authority rule, because Rooney was present and objected, the officers’ search of Rooney’s room was unlawful. The fact that White was serving a community custody term does not undermine Rooney’s right to object to a warrantless search of his bedroom. Therefore, the officers’ warrantless search of Rooney’s bedroom was unlawful as to Rooney, and the trial court erred in denying Rooney’s motion to suppress the methamphetamine, heroin, and clonazepam evidence found during the unlawful search. Regarding the frisk of Rooney’s pants, the Court of Appeals reached an entirely different decision. They decided the trial court did not error in denying Rooney’s motion to suppress evidence of the firearm found in Rooney’s pants. The Court reasoned that an officer may conduct a non-consensual protective *Terry* frisk for weapons if the officer can articulate specific facts that create an objectively reasonable belief that the person is armed and dangerous. The officer need not be certain that the person is armed before he or she conducts a protective frisk. Here, Napolitano and other law enforcement officers saw “several swords, an axe, and multiple knives” in Rooney’s bedroom. Because he was aware of the number of weapons, Napolitano was concerned for his safety. Also, Rooney’s behavior following Napolitano’s warning that the pants would be searched, together with Napolitano’s observation of the weapons in plain view in his bedroom, gave Napolitano articulable suspicion that the pants Rooney wanted to wear might have contained a weapon. The court concluded that the officers’ warrantless search of Rooney’s bedroom over his objection was unlawful, and therefore, the evidence of the controlled substances must be suppressed. But Napolitano’s frisk of Rooney’s pants was lawful and based on reasonable suspicion. Therefore, the court reversed Rooney’s three convictions for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Substance (methamphetamine, heroin, and clonazepam), and affirmed his conviction for First Degree Unlawful Possession of a Firearm. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Common Authority Rule, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Evidence, felony, Firearm, law enforcement, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Linder: Unwitnessed Search is Unlawful](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-linder-unwitnessed-search-is-unlawful/) **Published:** October 26, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Linder](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/330087.pub.pdf)*, the WA Court of Appeals Division III decided that evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant was properly suppressed because the officer’s inventory of the search was not conducted with at least one witness. Here, Defendant Aaron Linder was arrested by Kalama Police Chief Grant Gibson in March 2013 for [driving with a suspended license](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.342). During the search incident to arrest, Chief Gibson found a small tin box inside the pocket of Mr. Linder’s hoodie. After being informed of his [Miranda rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning), Mr. Linder admitted being a daily user of hard drugs and that the tin box contained drug paraphernalia. But he refused to give his consent for Chief Gibson to open the box initially, and refused a second time at the police station. The police obtained a search warrant. Sergeant Parker, without anyone else present, executed the warrant by opening the metal box and photographing and inventorying its contents. It was typical for the department’s night shift officer to work alone. The Kalama police department has a total of only five sworn officers. Sergeant Parker inventoried the tin box as containing two pieces of aluminum foil, an empty plastic box, two plastic tubes, a hair pin, a safety pin, and a piece of plastic from a cigarette package. The cigarette wrapper contained a crystalline substance that appeared to be methamphetamine. After he finished the inventory and completed the return of service form, Sergeant Parker placed the items, a copy of his report, and a note for Chief Gibson in a temporary evidence locker. The next morning, Chief Gibson, also acting alone, verified that the contents in the box matched Sergeant Parker’s inventory and field tested a small quantity of the cellophane wrapper and its contents, which tested positive for methamphetamine. He packaged the remainder of the crystalline substance for submission to the crime laboratory. Mr. Linder was thereafter charged with one count of [Violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, Chapter 69.50 RCW](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/), for possession of methamphetamine. Before trial, Mr. Linder moved to suppress the evidence found in the tin box on the grounds that it was searched in violation of [CrR 2.3( d)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR2.3). The rule provides that a return of the search warrant shall be made promptly, shall be accompanied by a written inventory of any property taken, and-relevant here-that “the inventory shall be made in the presence of the person from whose possession or premises the property is taken, or in the presence of at least one person other than the officer.” In the suppression hearing that followed, both Sergeant Parker and Chief Gibson testified that they were unaware of the rule’s requirement that the inventory be made in the presence of another person. The trial court granted Mr. Linder’s motion to suppress. The State appealed. In reaching its decision, the WA Court of Appeals looked to the [Exclusionary Rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule) In considering whether the contraband should be suppressed. For those who don’t know, the Exclusionary Rule is a legal principle in the [United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States "United States"), under [constitutional law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_constitutional_law "United States constitutional law"), which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant’s [constitutional rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_right "Constitutional right") is sometimes [inadmissible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admissible_evidence "Admissible evidence") for a [criminal prosecution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_prosecution "Criminal prosecution") in a [court of law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court "Court"). The exclusionary rule may also, in some circumstances at least, be considered to follow directly from the constitutional language, such as the [Fifth Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution "Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution")‘s command that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself” and that no person “shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law”. The Exclusionary Rule is grounded in the [Fourth Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution "Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution") and it is intended to protect citizens from illegal searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule is also designed to provide a legal remedy and disincentive, which is short of criminal prosecution in response to prosecutors and police who illegally gather evidence in violation of the Fifth Amendment in the [Bill of Rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights "United States Bill of Rights") compelled to [self-incrimination](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination "Self-incrimination"). The exclusionary rule also applies to violations of the [Sixth Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution "Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution"), which guarantees the [right to counsel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_counsel "Right to counsel"). The WA Court of Appeals reasoned that Washington’s version of the Exclusionary Rule had three objectives: > First, and most important, to protect privacy interests of individuals against unreasonable governmental intrusions; second, to deter the police from acting unlawfully in obtaining evidence; and third, to preserve the dignity of the judiciary by refusing to consider evidence which has been obtained through illegal means. Here, reasoned the Court, excluding the evidence served the third objective of preserving the dignity of the judiciary by refusing to consider evidence obtained through illegal means. Here, a police officer’s unwitnessed late night execution of a search warrant in this case clearly violated CrR 2.3(d), called the reliability of his inventory into question, and could not be remedied other than by suppression. My opinion? Great decision. Kudos to Division III for following the law. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Dismissal, Drug Offenses, Due Process, Evidence, Exclusionary Rule, felony, Methamphetamine, Miranda, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Sixth Amendment, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Mayer: Officer Gives Confusing Miranda Warnings](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-mayer-officer-gives-confusing-miranda-warnings/) **Published:** October 27, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Mayer](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/908460.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) decided that a deputy sheriff inadequately advised the defendant of his [*Miranda* rights](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/miranda_warning) when he initially told the defendant that a lawyer would be appointed for him prior to questioning if he could not afford one but also said that no lawyer would be appointed for him unless he was arrested, jailed, and taken to court. Here, defendant Nicholas Mayer was suspected of robbing KC Teriyaki, a casual restaurant in Salmon Creek, while the employees were closing the restaurant for the day. The masked gunmen pushed one of the employees inside the restaurant; pointed a gun at the employee; grabbed a bag from inside; and then fled with the bag, which contained cash from the day’s sales. The apparent motive for the robbery was because Mr. Mayer’s sister, Emily Mayer, was a disgruntled ex-employee. Police stopped Mr. Mayer’s vehicle, detained Mayer and the vehicle’s other occupants, and transported them to the police station for questioning regarding the robbery. Deputy Tom Dennison of the Clark County Sheriff’s Office questioned Mayer in an interview room at the police station. Dennison began by reading Mayer his *Miranda* rights and asking if he could record the interview. Mayer initially waived his *Miranda* rights and agreed to the recording.Once recording began, Dennison again advised Mayer of his *Miranda* rights: > “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right at this time to talk to a lawyer and have him present with you while you are being questioned. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before questioning if you wish. You can decide at any time to exercise these rights and not answer any questions or make any statements.” This time, however, Mayer asked Dennison to clarify how he could obtain appointed counsel: > DEPUTY DENNISON: “Do you understand each of these rights as I’ve explained them to you?” > > MR. MAYER: Yes. Um, If I wanted an attorney and I can’t afford one, what — what would — ? > > DEPUTY DENNISON: If you wanted an attorney– you know, if you were charged with a crime and arrested, if you wanted an attorney and couldn’t afford one, the Court would be willing to appoint you one. Do you want me to go over that with you again? > > MR. MAYER: Yeah, but how would that work? Will you be– how it– how I– > > DEPUTY DENNISON: You’re not under arrest at this point, right? > > MR. MAYER: Oh, okay. Okay. > > DEPUTY DENNISON: So, if you were, then you would be taken to jail and then you’d go before a judge and then he would ask you whatever at that point, if you were being charged, you would afforded an attorney if you couldn’t hi — you know, if you weren’t able to afford one. > > MR. MAYER: All right. I understand. > > DEPUTY DENNISON: Understand? > > MR. MAYER: Yeah. > > DEPUTY DENNISON: Okay. So you do understand your rights? > > MR. MAYER: Yes. After this exchange, Mayer waived his *Miranda* rights, agreed to speak with Dennison regarding the robbery, and made incriminating statements. Mayer admitted, among other things, that on the day of the robbery he met with his sister Emily, who drove the getaway car, and John Taylor, the other robber; they drove to the teriyaki restaurant; Mayer entered the restaurant with Taylor; Taylor was armed with a handgun, and Mayer had a knife; Mayer told the employees “give me the money”; Taylor grabbed the deposit bag containing money; Mayer ran from the restaurant with Taylor; they were picked up by Emily; and Mayer split the proceeds of the robbery with Taylor. Based on the confession, Mayer was arrested and charged with 11 criminal counts (later reduced to 10 counts), including [Robbery in the First Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/robbery/). Mayer moved to suppress the incriminating statements he made during his interview with Officer Dennison, but the superior court denied the motion after a [CrR 3.5 hearing](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.5). The jury ultimately convicted Mayer on all 10 pending counts. The trial court sentenced Mayer to 306 months of imprisonment. The Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the conviction and sentence in an unpublished opinion. The WA Supreme Court granted review on his *Miranda* challenge. For those who don’t know, the explanation of *Miranda* rights must be given before any [custodial interrogation](http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/custodial_interrogation), stemming largely from the [Fifth Amendment](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentv) privilege against self-incrimination. The person detained and interrogated must be made aware of the right to remain silent, the right to consult with an attorney and have the attorney present during questioning, and the right to have an attorney appointed if indigent. Without a *Miranda* warning or a valid waiver, statements might be inadmissible at trial under the [exclusionary rule](http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/exclusionary_rule) (e.g., they cannot be used as substantive evidence of guilt in criminal proceedings). *See* [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)](http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex-cgi/wexlink?wexns=USR&wexname=384:436). Here, the WA Supreme Court ruled that Mayer’s confession should have been suppressed. They reasoned that Officer Dennison’s linkage of Mayer’s right to appointed counsel to conditional future events (arrest, jail, charge, and arraignment) contradicted his earlier statements that Mayer could have access to appointed counsel “before questioning” and that he could exercise his rights “at any time.” Critically, Officer Dennison did not tell Mayer that despite the fact that no appointed attorney was immediately available, Mayer’s other *Miranda* rights remained in full effect and he could protect his right to the presence of counsel by remaining silent until he could speak to an attorney. Under these circumstances, ruled the court, Officer Dennison’s explanation of Mayer’s rights was deficient, and the State has failed to meet its burden of establishing that Mayer knowingly and intelligently waived his rights. Mayer’s subsequent confession therefore should have been suppressed. However, the Court further reasoned that because any error in admitting the confession was harmless, the court affirmed Mayer’s conviction. My opinion? Good decision. This *Miranda* advisement from the police officer was contradictory and confusing. The deputy should have clarified that the defendant was not obligated to respond to questions until he had the opportunity to confer with a lawyer. Again, good decision. Unfortunately for the Defendant, however, the WA Supreme Court also decided the error was harmless. In other words, he was still convicted of the charges and must serve his sentence. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, Exclusionary Rule, felony, law enforcement, Miranda, Robbery, Self-Incrimination, Violent Crime, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Thierry: Prosecutor's Improper Closing Argument Reverses Conviction.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-thierry-prosecutors-improper-closing-argument-reverses-conviction/) **Published:** October 28, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** ![](http://www.californiaduihelp.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/dui_dui-defense_court-process_inside-a-jury-trial_prosecutors-closing-argument.jpg)In *[State v. Thierry](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/45379-7.15.pdf)*, the WA Court of Appeals Division II decided that a Prosecutor’s statements during the closing argument of a child sex abuse case was an improper appeal to passion and prejudice. The State charged Alfred James Thierry Jr. with four counts of [Rape of a Child First Degree ](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.44.073)and two counts of [Child Molestation First Degree](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.083), based on conduct against his son, JT. At trial, the Prosecutor’s closing argument discussed direct versus circumstantial evidence. This explanation included the following: > “None of you were present when these acts occurred. No one testified for you that they watched any of these acts happen. That would be direct evidence of the acts themselves, but that is not required and, if it were, **the State could never prosecute any of these types of cases.”** She made a similar argument shortly thereafter, in a discussion of the sufficiency of the State’s evidence: > “Did Thierry rape and molest his son? Yes, he did. The evidence tells you that he did. What’s the evidence? JT is the evidence, and he is all that is required for you to find him guilty of these crimes. If the law required more, if the law required anything, something, anything beyond the testimony of a child, the child’s words, JT’s words, those instructions would tell you that, and there is no instruction that says you need something else. **And, again, if that was required, the State could rarely, if ever, prosecute these types of crimes** because people don’t rape children in front of other people and often because children wait to tell.” She again returned to this argument near the end of her initial closing remarks, in discussing the burden of proof: > “Now I want to talk just briefly about the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. You don’t need to know all of the pieces. You don’t need to have all of the information or have all of the answers. If that were necessary, first of all, the standard would be beyond all doubt possible, **but if that were necessary, once again, the State would not be able to prosecute any of these crimes** or really any crime, actually, because how can you all as jurors who are selected from the community know nothing about any of the people involved, and certainly yourselves were not present for any act or crime that was committed, how can you know with 100 percent certainty?” The prosecutor continued in this vein during rebuttal, returning to her public policy theme: > Defense counsel wants you to basically disregard everything that JT has said between what he told Sayfullah, between what he told Ms. Arnold-Harms, between when he told his primary care provider Ms. Lin and what he told Amber Bradford. ‘Just disregard all of that because he’s a child, because he was 8 when he said these things and because he was 9 when he was on the stand. Nothing he said is credible so just disregard it all.’ **If that argument has any merit, then the State may as well just give up prosecuting these cases, and the law might as well say that “The word of a child is not enough.**” At that point Thierry’s defense attorney objected that the prosecutor was “fueling the passion and prejudice of the jury.” The court overruled the objection and permitted the prosecutor to continue. The jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts. Thierry appealed that several of the remarks the Prosecutor made in closing argument merit reversal. He also argued that the cumulative effect of the improper statements denied him a fair trial. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals agreed with Thierry and decided that the Prosecutor’s arguments were improper and that it had a substantial likelihood of affecting the verdict. The court reasoned that as a general matter, to prevail on a prosecutorial misconduct claim a defendant must show that the prosecutor’s conduct was both improper and prejudicial in the context of the record and all of the circumstances of the trial. To establish prejudice sufficient to require reversal, a defendant who timely objected to the challenged conduct in the trial court must show a substantial likelihood that the misconduct affected the jury verdict. The Court further reasoned that it’s improper for prosecutors to use arguments calculated to inflame the passions or prejudices of the jury. Arguments that compel the jury to send a message to society about the general problem of child sexual abuse qualifies as such an improper emotional appeal. Here, the Prosecutor’s statement that, “If Defense Counsel’s argument concerning JT’s credibility has any merit, . . . the State may as well just give up prosecuting child sex abuse cases, and the law might as well say that ‘the word of a child is not enough’” also qualified as an improper appeal to passion and prejudice. The Court further reasoned that even if the Prosecutor’s argument was deemed purely a response to the defendant’s argument, Defense Counsel never suggested that the jury should not believe JT because of his age. Furthermore, nothing in Defense Counsel’s closing argument, therefore, warranted the prosecutor’s message that the State may as well give up prosecuting child sex abuse cases if JT were not believed and Thierry acquitted. Finally, the court reasoned that the Prosecutor’s arguments had a substantial likelihood of affecting the verdict. The outcome of the case depended entirely on whether the jury chose to believe JT’s accusations or Thierry’s denial. Consequently, the Prosecutor’s remarks created a substantial risk that the jury decided to credit JT’s testimony for improper reasons. The prosecutor’s remarks exacerbated that risk by misrepresenting Defense Counsel’s argument so as to unfairly undermine Thierry’s defense. The Court of Appeals reversed Thierry’s convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings. My opinion? Good decision. Generally, it’s a professional courtesy to not object during opposing counsel’s closing arguments. It’s considered rude. Nevertheless, defense attorneys *must* object *at all times* when appropriate, even if doing so is frowned upon by judges and juries. Prosecutorial misconduct happens all of the time, and ESPECIALLY during closing arguments. Those statements, made again and again, definitely affected the outcome of the case. Again, good decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Jury Trial, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Sex Crimes, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Police Roll Out Mobile DUI Processing Vehicle](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/police-roll-out-mobile-dui-processing-vehicle/) **Published:** November 4, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** They took this show on the road. Law enforcement officials in Rhode Island are rolling out a new tool to combat drunk driving over the holidays. Providence and state police officials unveiled Friday a new [Blood Alcohol Testing Mobile Unit](https://publichealth.nc.gov/chronicdiseaseandinjury/fta/batcheck.htm), which will allow officers to process drunk drivers on the scene rather than bringing them back to the police station. The 40 foot long, approximately $350,000 vehicle is equipped with four computer work stations, two breathalyzer stations, a portable fingerprint and booking station and internal surveillance cameras. Police say having two breathalyzer stations is a luxury not present in most police stations. The vehicle was purchased using a federal grant awarded to Providence police and is expected to be deployed on weekends, holidays and special events across the state starting this weekend. My opinion? These “vehicles” are not worth the money. It doesn’t take long for officers to simply transport DUI suspects *back to the jail* for [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) processing. The amount of times this is used versus the amount of time it would take those cases to go back to the station, I just can’t see justifying the savings. Also, will the breathalyzer (BAC) machines on these mobile units be maintained and tested similar to the BAC machines at jails? Too many questions, too much expense. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Recognition Expert, Due Process, DUI, Evidence, law enforcement, marijuana, police, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Besola: Overbroad Search Warrant](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-besola-overbroad-search-warrant/) **Published:** November 7, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Besola](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/905541.pdf)*, the [Washington Supreme Court ](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/)held that a search warrant was overbroad. Because the warrant failed to meet the Constitution’s “particularity” requirement, the court reversed the Defendant’s convictions for [Possession of Depictions of Minors Engaged in Sexually Explicit Conduct ](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.68A.070)and [Dealing ](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.68A.050)in such depictions. Mark Besola and Jeffrey Swenson lived together in Besola’s house. After a friend of Swenson’s, Kellie Westfall, was arrested, she told police that she had seen drugs and child pornography at Besola’ s house. Based on the information provided by Westfall, a judge issued a search warrant for illegal drugs ***but declined to issue a search warrant related to child pornography at that time.*** At the scene, police saw CDs and DVDs with handwritten titles that implied that they contained child pornography. On the basis of this observation, police requested and obtained an addendum to the search warrant. The language of that amended warrant (and whether it was sufficiently particular) is at the heart of the legal issue in this case. The warrant indicated that the crime under investigation was “Possession of Child Pornography R.C.W. 9.68A.070.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 312 (boldface omitted). The warrant indicated that “the following evidence is material to the investigation or prosecution of the above described felony”: > 1\. Any and all video tapes, CDs, DVDs, or any other visual and or audio recordings; 2. Any and all printed pornographic materials; 3. Any photographs, but particularly of minors; 4. Any and all computer hard drives or laptop computers and any memory storage devices; 5. Any and all documents demonstrating purchase, sale or transfer of pornographic material. Police seized a number of computers, memory storage devices, CDs, and DVDs. They ultimately found child pornography on one computer and on 41 disks with handwritten titles. They also found a DVD duplicating device (also known as a DVD burner) attached to the computer. Some disks contained duplicated copies of the child pornography. A handwriting expert testified that Besola’s handwriting was on at least one of the disks containing child pornography and that indications of both Besola’s and Swenson’s handwriting were on multiple other disks. Both defendants were charged with [Possession of Depictions of Minors Engaged in Sexually Explicit Conduct ](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.68A.070)and [Dealing ](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.68A.050)in such depictions. Although the Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, the WA Supreme Court granted review on the issue of whether the search warrant meet the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement. The Court reasoned that the [Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment)requires warrants to “particularly describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” That requirement is heightened if the warrant authorizes a search for materials protected by the [First Amendment to the United States Constitution.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment) For guidance, the court reviewed a 1992 case, *[State v. Perrone](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1348957/state-v-perrone/)*, that involved similar circumstances. In *Perrone*, the Court decided that the warrant in that case failed to meet the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment, in part because it provided for the seizure of items that were legal to possess, such as adult pornography. Here, the Court decided the decision in *Perrone* is binding in this case. Under *Perrone*, the court concluded that many provisions of this search warrant were similarly overbroad. As in *Perrone*, the descriptions of the items to be seized expressly included materials that were legal to possess, such as adult pornography and photographs that did not depict children engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Similar to *Perrone*, these descriptions could easily have been made more particular by adding the precise statutory language, “depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.” As in Perrone, the police in this case failed to add that language to their search warrant. Therefore, under *Perrone*, these provisions were insufficiently particular and thus invalid. The WA Supreme Court denied the State’s arguments that the warrant in this case is saved by a citation to the child pornography statute at the top of the warrant. The Court reasoned the State was incorrect because the statutory citation does not modify or limit the items listed in the warrant, so it does not save the warrant from being overbroad. More importantly, said the Court, the State’s position conflicts with *Perrone* and would hinder the goals of the warrant particularity requirement. Because the warrant fails to meet the Constitution’s particularity requirement, the WA Supreme Court reversed these convictions. My opinion? Good decision. Yes, possessing child porn is illegal. However, so are illegal searches. Warrants must particularly describe the items believed to found. Otherwise, they become a meaningless ticket allowing police to engage a fishing expedition of our bodies, property, vehicles and homes. Good decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, Evidence, law enforcement, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Mitchell: Bus Fare Officers](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-mitchell-bus-fare-officers/) **Published:** November 7, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Mitchell](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/722212.pdf)* the [WA Court of Appeals Division I](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) decided that a fare enforcement officer (FEO) may detain a passenger for a period of time necessary to identify a bus rider and may also issue a notice of civil infraction when a passenger fails to pay the required fare or produce proof of payment when asked, if the infraction occurs in the officer’s presence. Finally, a “passenger” includes a person that the FEO observes *stepping off* the bus. Here, Mitchell was convicted of [Unlawful Possession of a Firearm in the First Degree.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/) The firearms were discovered when a fare enforcement officer stopped him to check proof of fare payment after he exited a Metro bus. Mitchell argues he was unlawfully detained and the trial court erred by not suppressing evidence of the firearms. The Court of Appeals reasoned that [RCW 35.58.585(1)](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=35.58.585) allows metropolitan municipal corporations to designate individuals to monitor fare payment. These persons have all the powers granted to enforcement officers under [RCW 7.80.050](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=7.80.050) and [7.80.060.](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=7.80.060) This means an FEO can issue a notice of civil infraction when the infraction occurs in the officer’s presence, request identification, and detain a person for a period of time reasonably necessary to identify the person. Also, under [RCW 35.58.585(2)(b)](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=35.58.585) the law specifically grants FEOs the additional authority for the following: > (i) Request proof of payment from passengers; (ii) Request personal identification from a passenger who does not produce proof of payment when requested; (iii) Issue a citation and (iv) Request that a passenger leave the bus or other mode of public transportation when the passenger has not produced proof of payment after being asked to do so by a person designated to monitor fare payment. Here, the defendant challenged the legality of the stop. He argued that the word “passenger” includes only those persons physically present on a mode of public transportation. Under this theory, an FEO may request proof of payment from someone currently traveling on a bus, because that traveler’s freedom of movement is already restricted by his or her presence on a moving vehicle. However, once the person disembarks the bus, additional authority is needed to request proof of payment, because to do so an FEO must first **stop** the person. Unfortunately for Mitchell, the WA Court of Appeals disagreed. They said that here, there is no question Mitchell was a passenger. The FEO witnessed Mitchell disembarking the bus. He asked Mitchell and the other departing passengers for their proof of payment as they stepped off the bus. By using the bus, as a passenger, Mitchell had already incurred the obligation to display proof of payment when asked. Under these facts, the FEO acted within the scope of his statutory authority by requesting proof of payment from Mitchell. Additional authority to detain was unnecessary. Also, because Michell did not have ID on himself, the FEO had the authority to detain Mitchell for the time reasonably necessary to identify him. Accordingly, the FEO radioed for assistance and, within minutes, police arrived and confirmed Mitchell’s identity. At each step of this encounter, the FEO acted within the scope of his statutory authority. The Court of Appeals upheld Mitchell’s conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm First Degree. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Detention, felony, Firearm, law enforcement, Search and Seizure, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Thompson: Disruptive Defendants In Trial](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-thompson-disruptive-defendants-in-trial/) **Published:** November 9, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Thompson](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/46012-2.15..pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals Division II](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held that a Defendant’s right to be present during trial is not violated if they are taken away after being verbally and/or physically disruptive and refuse to promise that such behavior will stop. Here, late one evening, Thompson approached a group of high school students, two of whom were sitting in a car. Thompson pulled out a gun and ordered the students to surrender their possessions. Three of them handed over backpacks and other items, while the two girls in the car closed and locked the doors. After looking through the items, Thompson demanded the car. When one of the boys protested and tried to get the gun, Thompson shot him in the abdomen. The other boys wrestled Thompson to the ground and held him until the police arrived. The State charged Thompson with four counts of [Robbery in the First Degree](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/robbery/) while armed with a firearm and one count [Assault First Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) while armed with a firearm, [Unlawful Possession of a Firearm in the First Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) and [Possession of a Stolen Firearm](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/). When Thompson’s trial began on January 28, 2014, he wore a leg restraint. Before testimony began, jail personnel asked for increased restraints due to a physical altercation at the jail. After a hearing on the matter, the trial court authorized the placement of a stun device under Thompson’s clothing. Later that same day, Thompson pushed over the counsel table at which he was seated, yelled several profanities, and struggled with corrections officers before being subdued and removed from the courtroom. When he returned in handcuffs, shackles, and a belly chain, the trial court ruled that he would be taken to another courtroom where he could attend the trial over a video feed. The trial court informed Thompson that he would have the right to be present in court if he assured the judge that his behavior would improve. Specifically, the judge said the following: > “And, of course, Mr. Thompson has the right to reclaim his ability to be present in court upon a real assurance that his conduct will improve and that he will not be verbally or physically disruptive.” Before the trial recessed for the day, the trial court reminded Thompson that he could return to the courtroom the following day if he agreed to behave. Thompson was instructed to inform his attorney or corrections staff of his decision. The next day, on February 4, trial resumed. Thompson had not decided whether he would behave in court. The judge said he would not further inquire into Thompson’s desire to return to the courtroom because Thompson knew the procedure by which he could return the day before and still refused to comply or reply. After the State rested, Thompson declined to testify, and the jury retired to deliberate at the end of the day. On February 5, the jury found Thompson guilty as charged. On appeal, Thompson raised the legal issue of whether the trial court denied his right to be present at trial by removing him from the courtroom for the final three days of trial without informing him daily that he could return if he conducted himself properly. However, the Court of Appeals disagreed. The Court reasoned that a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to be present in the courtroom at all critical stages of the trial. Also, this right derives from the [6th Amendment’s constitutional right to confront adverse witnesses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause) and the [Washington rules of criminal procedure](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.list&group=sup&set=CrR). The Court also reasoned, however, that the right to be present is not absolute. A defendant’s persistent, disruptive conduct can constitute a voluntary waiver of the right to be present in the courtroom. Once lost, this right can be reclaimed “as soon as the defendant is willing to conduct himself consistently with the decorum and respect inherent in the concept of courts and judicial proceedings.” The Court of Appeals followed basic guidelines under *[State v. Chapple](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1368757.html)* to assist trial courts in exercising their discretion in cases like this. First, the defendant must be warned that his conduct may lead to removal. Second, the defendant’s conduct must be severe enough to justify removal. Third, the trial court should employ the least severe alternative that will prevent the defendant from disrupting the trial. Fourth, the defendant must be allowed to reclaim his right to be present upon assurances that his or her conduct will improve. These guidelines, said the court, are intended to ensure that trial courts exercise their discretion in a manner that affords defendants a fair trial while maintaining the safety and decorum of the proceedings. Here, the trial court clearly informed Thompson of both his right to return and the manner in which he could exercise that right. With that, the Court affirmed Thompson’s convictions. My opinion? In my experience, trial judges are **extremely** sensitive to how defendants behave in court. Decorum MUST be maintained by witnesses, attorneys and defendants at all times. Any disruptions of proceedings are viewed disdainfully, as we see in this opinion. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, Firearm, Jury Trial, Sixth Amendment, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Washington Prosecutors Want Death Penalty Referendum](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/washington-prosecutors-want-death-penalty-referendum/) **Published:** November 13, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Interesting news article from the [Bellingham Herald](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/) says [State prosecutors will ask lawmakers to send a death penalty referendum to voters next year](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/state/article44574138.html). The [Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys](http://70.89.120.146/wapa/index.html) issued a statement Thursday saying that prosecutors “overwhelmingly believe that the people of the state should vote on the question of whether the state should retain the death penalty as an option in cases of aggravated murder.” The death penalty has been on hold in Washington state since last year, when [Gov. Jay Inslee issued a moratorium](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/washington-governor-jay-inslee-suspends-death-penalty.html?_r=0) for as long as he’s in office. Currently, nine men are on death row in Washington state. Death penalty cases in the state are still being tried and continue to work through the system. Inslee’s moratorium means that if a death-penalty case comes to his desk, he will issue a reprieve, which means the inmate would stay in prison rather than face execution. The next legislative session begins in January. My opinion? I’m pleasantly pleased our Prosecutors are putting their proverbial finger on the pulse. And the question is relevant: why waste thousands of attorney hours, expend tons of limited law enforcement resources and spend millions of taxpayer money seeking the death penalty for a handful of Washington inmates when your average, everyday Washingtonian may not even support the death penalty? Good on you, Prosecutors. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Death Penalty, Legislation, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Remorseful Defendants](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/remorseful-defendants/) **Published:** November 21, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In an article titled, [Remorse & the Criminal Justice System](http://files.mail-list.com/a/post-conviction/Remorse_and_Criminal_Justice_11.15.pdf), [Susan A. Bandes](http://law.depaul.edu/faculty-and-staff/faculty-a-z/Pages/susan-bandes.aspx) of [DePaul University College of Law ](http://law.depaul.edu/Pages/default.aspx)argues the need for more studies on whether and how a defendant’s remorse can be accurately evaluated. Picture this: a defendant facing heinous criminal charges silently sits in the courtroom next to his attorney while victim after victim sobs their way through testimony on how their lives are forever ruined by his actions. It happens every day in courts across the United States. We think, “How can he be so cruel? Look at him! He shows no emotion! Why isn’t he remorseful? Law professor Susan A. Bandes examines this very question in her very powerful article. She acknowledges that although a defendant’s failure to show remorse is one of the most powerful factors in criminal sentencing, including capital sentencing, there is currently no evidence that their remorse can be accurately evaluated in a courtroom. “Remorse, if it is to continue to play an influential role in criminal justice, must advance some legally legitimate purpose,” she argues. “It must be capable of being identified with reasonable accuracy.” Furthermore, she argues, if a criteria for measuring remorse cannot be given, remorse should be banished from the deliberative process altogether. At the same time, however, Professor Bandes argues that the notion of banishing remorse from the deliberative process carries its own problems. Professor Bandes concludes that reforms should consist of educating and guiding decision-makers about how to evaluate remorse: > “If it is established that remorse cannot be reliably read via facial expression and body language, judges can so instruct juries, and expert witnesses can testify to that effect. For example, experts could testify about what we know—and do not know—about using facial expression to evaluate various emotions. In addition, experts could testify about particular barriers to evaluating remorse, such as race, ethnicity, cultural assumptions, juvenile status, and mental disability. Judges can also be educated by expert witnesses and in judicial conferences.” Goof article. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Early Release of Drug Felons](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/early-release-of-drug-felons/) **Published:** November 22, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** ![](http://media.graytvinc.com/images/MGN+Prison+Release.jpg)Last month, the [federal prison system](https://www.bop.gov/) released 6,000 individuals convicted for drug offenses — the largest one-time release of federal prisoners — as part of a national effort to reduce the impact of overly harsh sentencing laws. According to the [Associated Press](http://bigstory.ap.org/article/25293bcb4e3f4c1f9413054028af1fea/early-release-who-drug-felons-are-and-where-theyll-go), all released felons are drug offenders who were no longer deemed a danger to the community. According to [The Sentencing Project’s](http://www.sentencingproject.org/template/index.cfm) [Executive Director Marc Mauer](http://www.sentencingproject.org/detail/person.cfm?person_id=3), the early release of individuals convicted for drug offenses is expected to have a very minimal effect on public safety. “It’s not going to release a crime wave, but some number of them are going to recidivate (re-offend), because that’s true of everyone leaving prison,” said Mauer. “The reason we have mass incarceration is not because we don’t have enough research documenting the problem with it, but, politically, policymakers have been fearful of being soft on crime for too many years,” he said. “Now that there’s a greater comfort level, we can discuss what would work better.” **WHO THEY ARE** According to early release petitions obtained by The Associated Press from court records, they include: — Lincoln Steve White, 43, who was caught buying 2 ounces of cocaine for $1,400 in Florida in 2008 and has served more than five years of a seven-year sentence. He plans to live with a girlfriend and put the heating and air conditioning repair skills he learned in prison to work. — Chedrick Crummie, 45, who’s leaving prison after serving 21 years for cocaine trafficking in South Florida, and has a janitorial job lined up through a local minister. — Emilio Flores, 43, whose cocaine trafficking sentence fell from 10 years to six under the new guidelines. Flores believes his mental illness and addiction made him easy prey for manipulative drug dealers. Prison didn’t help the situation, he said. “The treatment is to medicate the mentally ill into zombies,” Flores, of Florida, wrote in his petition. **WHERE THEY’RE GOING** About 2,000 of the 6,000 being released soon are being deported. Many others will be steered to traditional probation programs. Most have already been moved to halfway houses or home confinement over the past year, as their sentences were recalculated. Some will go to public or privately run programs that help prisoners ease back into society. How different states are handling the mass release: — In eastern Pennsylvania, the 45 people being released early are just a blip on a probation department caseload that numbers 2,800 people. — In Georgia, U.S. probation officers expect to see nearly 60 new offenders released the first week of November, 10 times the normal load. But the office has been working with family members and service providers to prioritize the caseload. “We want to make sure we help people get off to a good start, like we would if we had six cases coming out in the course of a week,” said Robert Long, the chief U.S. probation officer for the Middle District, based in Macon. — In Texas, where Volunteers for America operates two federal halfway houses, officials have been moving people out to the community to make beds available for the next wave leaving prison. — In Kansas City, Missouri, retired police commander Ron Smith is program director of Second Chance KC. He said his agency helps about 4,000 released prisoners annually from all jails and prisons. Typically, about 475 of those prisoners come from federal lockup, and he doesn’t expect that number to swell in November. “There will be some increase but we think we’ll be able to handle that,” Smith said. “There’s nothing to worry about.” — The southern district of Ohio, including Cincinnati, Dayton and Columbus, has about 350 inmates in the early-release program, with 80 to 90 scheduled for release Nov. 1, said Phelps Jones, supervising officer for the U.S. Probation Office in Columbus. Between 20 and 30 of those are people in the country without legal permission being turned over to federal immigration authorities, he said. My opinion? Let’s see what happens. Early release is a privilege. Hopefully, they won’t re-offend. Of those who do, let’s hope the re-offenders don’t commit violent crimes or felonies. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Hampton: You Can't Replace Your Attorney at 11th Hour](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-hampton-you-cant-replace-your-attorney-at-11th-hour/) **Published:** November 24, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Hampton](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/908117.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) decided It was not an abuse of discretion for a trial judge to deny a defendant’s request to delay trial to allow him to replace his public defender with a private attorney. Mr. Hampton was charged with [Rape in the Second Degree](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.44.050). On the eve of his trial, Hampton moved to replace his appointed counsel with a new private attorney on the condition that the trial be continued so his new counsel could prepare. The trial court denied the continuance, so Hampton proceeded with his previously appointed counsel. He was ultimately convicted of [Rape in the Third Degree](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.060). The [Court of Appeal](https://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/resources/?fa=newsinfo_jury.display&altMenu=Citi&folderID=jury_guide&fileID=appeals)s reversed his conviction, holding that the trial court’s decision violated Hampton’s constitutional right to his choice of counsel because it considered Hampton’s reasons for wanting a new attorney. The Court of Appeals relied on [United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Gonzalez-Lopez), a [United States Supreme Court](http://www.supremecourt.gov) opinion that held that when a defendant’s right to choice of counsel is erroneously denied, a defendant need not show prejudice in order to obtain relief. Here, the WA Supreme Court overruled the WA Court of Appeals and upheld Mr. Hampton’s conviction. It reasoned that a trial court has wide latitude to grant or deny a motion to delay trial related to a defendant’s request to change counsel. In making such a decision, trial courts should consider the factual context for the motion, which can include among other factors-a defendant’s reasons for dissatisfaction with existing counsel. In this case, reasoned the court, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Hampton’s request to delay trial to allow him to replace his counsel given that (1) he did not make his request until the day his trial was scheduled to start, (2) his trial had already been continued once, (3) the victim/witness opposed the continuance, and (4) he did not explain his dissatisfaction with appointed counsel. The WA Supreme Court also stated that trial courts can consider all relevant information, including the 11 factors described in the most recent edition of the [LaFave Criminal Procedure treatise](http://legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Treatises/Criminal-Procedure-3d-Wests-Criminal-Practice-Series/p/100005791): (1) whether the request came at a point sufficiently in advance of trial to permit the trial court to readily adjust its calendar; (2) the length of the continuance requested; (3) whether the continuance would carry the trial date beyond the period specified in the state speedy trial act; (4) whether the court had granted previous continuances at the defendant’s request; ( 5) whether the continuance would seriously inconvenience the witnesses; (6) whether the continuance request was made promptly after the defendant first became aware of the grounds advanced for discharging his or her counsel; (7) whether the defendant’s own negligence placed him or her in a situation where he or she needed a continuance to obtain new counsel; (8) whether the defendant had some legitimate cause for dissatisfaction with counsel, even though it fell short of likely incompetent representation; (9) whether there was a “rational basis” for believing that the defendant was seeking to change counsel “primarily for the purpose of delay”; (10) whether the current counsel was prepared to go to trial; and ( 11) whether denial of the motion was likely to result in identifiable prejudice to the defendant’s case of a material or substantial nature. Based on that, and under the circumstances, the WA Supreme Court concluded that the trial court in this case did not error by considering the defendant’s reasons for dissatisfaction with his appointed attorney in addition to the other circumstances, such as the lateness of the request, the previous continuance granted by the court, and the victim/witness’s opposition to further delay. Consequently, the WA Supremes reversed the Court of Appeals and held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it considered – among other factors – the defendant’s reasons for his dissatisfaction with his appointed counsel. My opinion? Trial judges are very, very suspicious and pessimistic when defendants try withdrawing/replacing their defense attorney at the 11th hour before trial. Judges know that Prosecutors work hard – and they *do* – to bring witnesses together and prepare for trial. Judges also know want to avoid any witness tampering and/or intimidation on the part of defendants who may have mistakenly believed they could strike a BBD (bigger, better deal) right before trial. That line of thinking on the part of defendants is not always true, in fact, it’s *rarely* true. Believe me, once a competent Prosecutor prepares a trial, they’re rarely convinced of going anywhere but forward with their prosecution. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, felony, Jury Trial, Rape, Sex Crimes, Sixth Amendment, Speedy Trial & Continuances, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [New Vehicle Technolgy Could End DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/new-vehicle-technolgy-could-end-dui/) **Published:** December 8, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** An article from [Vancitybuzz.com](http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2015/12/vehicle-technology-end-drunk-driving-madd/) and [MADD Canada](http://madd.ca/pages/) discussed recent new technology which could effectively end drunk driving as we know it. The technology is called [Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety](http://dadss.org/), or DADSS for short, works in two ways: a breath based system or a touch-based system. Watch the video above for a more in-depth look at how the technology works. The **breath-based system** detects and analyzes the driver’s breath within seconds of entering the vehicle and determines if their blood-alcohol level is within legal driving limits. The **touch-based technology** could be installed in the push button ignition and can detect ethanol (alcohol) levels in the driver’s finger. Apparently, it works like this: if your car starts and it’s later determined that your blood-alcohol is too high for the legal limit, then it will completely disable the vehicle – obviously, an attention grabber for law enforcement. The technology is slated for implementation in around 14 to 20 years. My opinion? Completely disabling a vehicle could be more dangerous than necessary. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crimes. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Technology, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Cherry: Consent & Self-Incrimination](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-cherry-consent-self-incrimination/) **Published:** December 8, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Cherry](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/45396-7.15.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals Division II](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) decided that a police officer’s questions to the passengers of a vehicle – which were intended to determine whether one of the passengers could safely remove the defendant’s car from the scene – were routine booking questions and did not violate the defendant’s [Fifth Amendment rights](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment). Defendant Mathew Cherry was arrested for driving with a suspended license. He was driving two passengers. When the police officer asked Cherry to confirm who was in the car, Cherry identified his two passengers. When asked whether either passenger could take the car, Cherry responded that neither had a license and that he did not know anyone who did. The officer told Cherry that his car would be impounded. Cherry consented to a search of his car. A pipe containing methamphetamine residue was found. When Cherry was booked into jail, he resisted a strip search and apparently swallowed the contents of a small pouch after it was seen between his legs. The State charged Cherry with [Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Substance](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) and [Tampering With Evidence](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.72.150). Cherry filed a [CrR 3.6 motion to suppress the evidence](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) found in his car, arguing that the officers threatened to have his car impounded if he did not consent to its search and that his consent was coerced. The trial court also conducted a [CrR 3.5 hearing ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.5)in which Cherry challenged the admission of his statements to police. At trial, a jury found Cherry guilty as charged. He appealed. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals upheld Cherry’s convictions. Here, the officer’s questions to Cherry’s passengers were not intended to and did not elicit incriminating information. Rather, the questions were intended to determine whether Cherry’s car could be safely removed from the scene. Additionally, the court disagreed with Cherry’s arguments that officers were not permitted to ask for consent to search his car after he invoked his right to remain silent. Here, the officer informed Cherry of his [*Miranda* ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning)rights before requesting Cherry’s consent to search the car. The court reasoned that the request for consent to search was not designed to elicit testimonial evidence and Cherry’s consent was not an incriminating statement. Therefore, law enforcement did not violate Cherry’s constitutional right to remain silent by requesting consent to search his car after Cherry had invoked that right. Moreover, Cherry’s statements to police that he had consumed drugs earlier that day were admissible, and not made in response to any questioning likely to elicit an incriminating response. The court reasoned that even if Cherry’s statements were prompted by watching the police search his car, as Cherry now argues, they were not prompted by unlawful interrogation. There was no violation of Cherry’s right to remain silent. Therefore, his statements were properly admitted. Finally, the court disagreed with Cherry’s arguments that his consent to search was not voluntary, and therefore, it violated the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) and the evidence found during the search is inadmissible. Here, under these facts, Cherry clearly consented. For all of these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirm Cherry’s convictions. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, Evidence, felony, law enforcement, Methamphetamine, Miranda, Search and Seizure, Self-Incrimination, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Fewer Teens Driving After Drinking & Smoking Pot](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/fewer-teens-driving-after-drinking-smoking-pot/) **Published:** December 14, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Good news. New research from the [Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report](http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6448a1.htm?s_cid=mm6448a1_w) shows that fewer teens and young adults are driving under the influence of alcohol or a combination of alcohol and marijuana. The publication is affiliated with the [U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention](http://www.cdc.gov/). From 2002 to 2014, self-reported driving under the influence of alcohol alone dropped by 59 percent among those aged 16 to 20 and by 38 percent among those aged 21 to 25, the study found. “The decline in driving under the influence of alcohol is probably due to a combination of factors,” said lead researcher [Dr. Alejandro Azofeifa](https://www.linkedin.com/in/alejandro-azofeifa-dds-msc-mph-3ab58b92), an epidemiologist at the [U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration](http://www.samhsa.gov/). He also mentioned the decline in binge drinking and the enforcement of underage drinking laws have dropped the numbers significantly. Also, driving under the influence of alcohol and marijuana combined declined by 39 percent across both age groups. However, driving drunk did increase with age, Azofeifa said. Among 16-year-olds, only 1.5 percent drove under the influence of alcohol, but 18 percent of 21-year-olds did, according to the report. And although there were significant drops in the prevalence of driving under the influence of alcohol and alcohol and marijuana combined, there was little decrease in the number of young adults driving under the influence of marijuana alone, Azofeifa said. Though driving under the influence of marijuana alone declined 18 percent, from 3.8 percent in 2002 to 3.1 percent in 2014, this drop was seen only among those aged 16 to 20, researchers found. The reasons why driving under the influence of marijuana alone hasn’t declined among other drivers aren’t clear, Azofeifa said. “Driving under the influence of alcohol and marijuana is a risky behavior, and can result in a fatal car accident,” he said. “Regardless of the encouraging numbers we are seeing in this report, there are still too many people driving under the influence and too many people dying in car accidents.” Car crashes are the leading cause of death among American teens and young people, he noted. J.T. Griffin, chief government affairs officer at Mothers Against Drunk Driving, called it “good news that the prevalence of drunk driving is down among young people. It’s proof that things like the 21 minimum drinking age are working.” But, he added, “alcohol remains the number one drug that is killing people on the road. There are still too many people dying at every age. We are making good progress, but until we get to a place where there are no more fatalities we still have a lot of work to do.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, DUI, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [U.S. Supreme Court to Update DUI Procedures](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/u-s-supreme-court-to-update-dui-procedures/) **Published:** December 23, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [US Supreme Court ](http://www.supremecourt.gov/)plans to update the rules for prosecuting individuals accused of drunk driving by reviewing a trio of cases dealing with “Refusal” statutes. In North Dakota, a [state law](http://dui.drivinglaws.org/resources/dui-refusal-blood-breath-urine-test/north-dakota.htm) makes it a crime for a motorist to refuse to take “any” type of test — blood, alcohol or urine — used to prosecute driving under the influence (DUI) cases. The court will decide the constitutionality of this provision in the context of two cases, *[Birchfield v. North Dakota](http://www.wisconsinappeals.net/on-point-by-the-wisconsin-state-public-defender/birchfield-v-north-dakota-ussc-no-14-1468-cert-granted-121115/)* and *[Beylund v. North Dakota](http://law.justia.com/cases/north-dakota/supreme-court/2015/20140105.html)*, each of which presents the same question from a slightly different angle. In *Beylund*, motorist Steve Michael Beylund agreed to take a blood test after being threatened with criminal penalties if he refused. In *Birchfield*, motorist Danny Birchfield refused to take a breath test. The highest court in North Dakota reviewed the existing legal precedent and found no reason to overturn the refusal law. The drunk-driving cases provide the Court with something of a sequel to its ruling in 2013 in *[Missouri v. McNeely](http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/missouri-v-mcneely/)*, which left the clear impression that, if police have enough time, they should get a warrant before taking a test of a suspected drunk driver. The Court ruled that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not always amount to an emergency situation that permits a DUI test without a warrant. The North Dakota justices wrote, “Birchfield has not drawn our attention to any appellate court decisions striking down criminal refusal statutes, and we have found that since the U.S. [Supreme Court’s ruling in McNeely](http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4080.asp), criminal refusal statutes have continued to withstand Fourth Amendment challenges, particularly in Minnesota.” Last month, however, in *[Hawaii v. Won](http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2015/hi-duiconsent.pdf)*, the [Hawaii Supreme Court ](http://www.courts.state.hi.us/courts/supreme/hawaii_supreme_court.html)cited the US Supreme Court’s reasoning in finding refusal statutes as unconstitutional. In light of *[McNeely](http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4080.asp)*, Hawaii’s justices decided the US Supreme Court had clearly ordered law enforcement to obtain a warrant before compelling a “search” of a person’s blood, as the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) requires. The US Supreme Court will tackle the different rulings from these States in the context of a third case, *[Bernard v. Minnesota](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mn-supreme-court/1692067.html)*, which deals with that state’s law treating a breath test as a “search incident to arrest.” Here, William Robert Bernard Jr used his truck to pull a boat out of the water. Officers believed he was DUI. After Bernard was arrested, he refused a breath test. At any rate, the U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide whether criminalized refusal statutes represent a DUI exception to the Constitution. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, Due Process, DUI, Evidence, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Cruel & Unusual Punishment?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/cruel-unusual-punishment/) **Published:** December 24, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Schmeling](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2046218-4-II%20Part%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, the WA Court of Appeals Division II decided that Felony Possession of a Controlled Substance is constitutional as applied under the [Eighth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/eighth_amendment) and under the [Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv) even though the statute makes possession of very small amounts of a controlled substance a felony without knowledge of possession or intent to possess. Here, as part of a theft investigation, law enforcement officers searched Richard Schmeling’s car and uncovered two small baggies that contained white residue. The residue was tested and turned out to be methamphetamine. The State charged Schmeling with [Felony Possession of a Controlled Substance](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). Schmeling’s first trial ended in a mistrial because of a hung jury. On retrial, the jury convicted Schmeling. He appealed his conviction on the argument that RCW 69.50.4013 violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process because it makes possession of drug residue a felony without requiring any culpable mental state. The Court of appeals reasoned that Eighth Amendment to the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution) prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The basic concept of the Eighth Amendment is that punishment for a crime must be proportionate to the offense. There are two types of Eighth Amendment analysis: (1) determining whether a sentence is disproportionate to the particular crime, and (2) using categorical rules to define constitutional standards for certain classes of crimes or offenders. 1. **WAS SCHMELING’S SENTENCE PROPORTIONATE TO HIS CRIME?** The Court gave historical background showing that many Eighth Amendment cases address whether a particular punishment is disproportionate to the crime. The Eighth Amendment does not require strict proportionality between crime and sentence and forbids only extreme sentences that are ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the crime. Most courts have shown a reluctance to review legislatively mandated sentences. As a result, successful challenges to the proportionality of sentences are exceedingly rare. Here, Schmeling argues that classifying possession of small amounts of a controlled substance as a felony without a knowledge or intent constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the [WA Supreme Court](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) rejected a similar argument in *[State v. Smith](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1212527/state-v-smith/)*. In that case, Smith was convicted of possession of more than 40 grams of marijuana, which was punished as a felony. He argued that the seriousness of the offense did not warrant classifying his crime as a felony. The court rejected Smith’s argument, noting that it was unaware of any authority supporting the proposition that classification alone could constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The court also held that Smith’s actual sentence was not grossly disproportionate to his offense. Consequently, under the [traditional proportionality analysis](http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6191&context=jclc), *Smith* controls. Therefore, classification of a crime as a felony despite the absence of a knowledge or intent requirement does not result in grossly disproportionate punishment. **2. WAS SCHMELING’S SENTENCE UNCONSTITUTIONAL GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSE OR THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENDER?** This analysis involves two steps. First, the reviewing court considers “objective indicia of society’s standards (categorical approach), as expressed in legislative enactments and state practice” to determine whether there is a national consensus against the sentencing practice at issue. Second, the reviewing court considers precedent and its own understanding and interpretation of the Eighth Amendment to determine in the exercise of its own independent judgment whether the punishment is unconstitutional. The Court acknowledged that Schmeling wanted them to apply a categorical approach. However, the Court of Appeals declined to apply the categorical approach to punishment of adult drug offenders like Schmeling. It held that under *State v. Smith*, RCW 69.50.4013 does not violate the Eighth Amendment even though it punishes the possession of small amounts of controlled substances as a felony without imposing a knowledge or intent element. **3. DID SCHMELING’S SENTENCE VIOLATE DUE PROCESS?** In short, the Court held that RCW 69.50.4013 does NOT violate due process even though it makes possession of drug residue a crime without requiring any culpable mental state. The court reasoned that [Strict Liability Crimes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal)) – crimes with no knowledge or intent requirement – do not necessarily violate due process. “We do not go with Blackstone in saying that ‘a vicious will’ is necessary to constitute a crime, for conduct alone without regard to the intent of the doer is often sufficient. There is wide latitude in the lawmakers to declare an offense and to exclude elements of knowledge and diligence from its definition.” The Court of Appeals further reasoned that WA’s Supreme Court repeatedly has stated that the legislature has the authority to create strict liability crimes that do not include a culpable mental state. Also, our Supreme Court twice has directly addressed in two other cases whether the elements of possession of a controlled substance under prior versions of RCW 69.50.4013 contains a knowledge or intent element. Those cases were *[State v. Bradshaw](http://courts.mrsc.org/mc/courts/zsupreme/152wn2d/152wn2d0528.htm)* and *State v. Cleppe*. In both cases, the court held that the legislature deliberately omitted knowledge and intent as elements of the crime and that it would not imply the existence of those elements. Here, Schmeling cites two cases from other jurisdictions holding that a strict liability offense violated due process. However, given our Supreme Court’s repeated approval of the legislature’s authority to adopt strict liability crimes, the Court found Schmelling’s arguments unpersuasive. In sum, the Court of Appeals held that RCW 69.50.4013 does NOT violate due process even though it does not require the State to prove intent or knowledge to convict an offender of possession of a small amount of a controlled substance. It affirmed Schmeling’s conviction and sentence. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Cruel & Unusual Punishment, Drug Offenses, Due Process, Eighth Amendment, felony, Methamphetamine, Search and Seizure, Strict Liability, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Court Reverses Pot Conviction](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/court-reverses-pot-conviction/) **Published:** December 31, 2015 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Rose](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/322823.pub.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals Division III](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) decided to reverse Mr. Rose’s conviction for [Possession of Marijuana](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.4014) because [Washington’s general criminal prosecution saving statute](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=10.01.040) does NOT permit a prosecution for less than 1 ounce of marijuana that was pending when [Initiative 502](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Initiative_502) became effective. On June 26, 2012, defendant Justin Rose was fishing on the [Yakima River](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakima_River) below the [Roza Dam ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roza_Dam)when he and his companions were approached by a [Washington Fish and Wildlife](http://wdfw.wa.gov/) agent interested in checking for their fishing licenses. The Fish and Wildlife agent noticed that Mr. Rose was smoking. Based on the agent’s training and experience, he believed Mr. Rose was smoking marijuana from a bong. When the agent told Mr. Rose what he had seen, Mr. Rose admitted he had been smoking marijuana and handed over the bong, which contained some marijuana, to the agent. Mr. Rose was over age 21 at the time. He was charged with one violation of [RCW 69.50.4014 (possession of less than 40 grams of marijuana)](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.4014) and one violation of former [RCW 69.50.412(1) (2002) (use of drug paraphernalia).](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=69.50.412) In October 2012, Mr. Rose entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the State, staying the prosecution. For those who don’t know, a deferred prosecution is an agreement between someone who is charged with a crime and the State Attorney’s Office. This agreement will require that within a specified period of time, the person charged with a crime will complete all requirements in the agreement. The State agreed that if Mr. Rose complied with the conditions. identified in the agreement for one year, it would move to dismiss both charges. The conditions imposed on Mr. Rose included performing community service, paying a fee and costs, obtaining an alcohol and drug evaluation, and fully complying with any recommendation of alcohol or drug treatment or other services resulting from the evaluation. Initiative 502 came into effect while Mr. Rose’s case was pending. The law unconditionally decriminalized possession of less than one ounce of marijuana by persons 21 and over, and did remove marijuana paraphernalia from the unlawful categories of paraphernalia. Unfortunately, Mr. Rose violated the conditions of his deferral agreement by failing to enter into an intensive outpatient treatment program. The district court revoked the agreement, proceeded to a bench trial, and found Mr. Rose guilty of both counts. Before sentencing, Mr. Rose moved to dismiss the charges based on the decriminalization of his offenses by I-502. The district court denied Mr. Rose’s motion. It recognized that RCW 10.01.040 – which provides that offenders are prosecuted under the laws in effect at the time of their offenses – does *not* apply if intervening legislation conveys a contrary intent. It sentenced Mr. Rose to 180 days confinement. Mr. Rose appealed to the Superior Court, which upheld his convictions. In response, he successfully appealed his case to the WA Court of Appeals. The WA Court of Appeals reversed Mr. Rose’s convictions. It acknowledged that although the common law provides that pending cases be decided according to the law in effect at the time of the decision, the Washington legislature adopted a criminal prosecution saving statute, now codified at RCW 10.01.040, whose saving clause “presumptively ‘save\[s\]’ all offenses already committed and all penalties or forfeitures already incurred from the effects of amendment or repeal,” requiring that they be prosecuted under the law in effect at the time they were committed “unless,” as the statute provides, “a contrary intention is expressly declared in the amendatory or repealing act.” Here, the WA Court of Appeals sought to reconcile these countervailing laws. The Court reasoned that in this case – and unlike actual laws written legislatures – we are dealing with an *initiative* to the legislature: > “While standard rules of statutory construction apply, our concern is with the intent of the voters. The issue is whether an intent by the voters to apply its decriminalization provisions to stop pending prosecutions is fairly conveyed by the initiative.” The Court further reasoned that we look at the language of 1-502 from the perspective of the average informed lay voter rather than from the perspective of the legislature. It acknowledged that average lay voters presented with an initiative that they are told will stop treating adult marijuana use as a crime are more likely to make the assumption that prosecution will be stopped on the effective date. Consequently, and in these rare cases where legislation includes additional language that conveys disapproval or concern about continued prosecution, the Court felt compelled to respect the intent of the voters. My opinion? Good decision. Washington General Criminal Prosecution Saving Statute should *not* allow prosecutors to enforce archaic laws which were ultimately killed by the will of the voters. Period. Kudos to Division III. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Deferred Prosecution, Drug Offenses, I-502, Legislation, marijuana, misdemeanor, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Meza: Freezing Funds Without a Warrant Is Unlawful](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-meza-freezing-funds-without-a-warrant-is-unlawful/) **Published:** January 2, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Meza](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2047315-1-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals Division II](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held that a trial court’s order to freeze the defendant’s bank account was not a search warrant, and therefore did not satisfy the warrant requirement for the seizure of funds. In June 2014, John Armstrong spoke with the Lewis County sheriff’s office and alleged that Rafael Meza had swindled money from him. Deputy Justin Rogers investigated Armstrong’s allegations. Rogers contacted the [Twin Star Credit Union](https://www.twinstarcu.com/) and verified that Meza held an account that had received large wire transfers recently. Rogers also learned from Mansfield that Meza recently had informed him that he was planning to go to Mexico. Rogers served Twin Star Credit Union with a valid search warrant for Meza’s account information. Meza’s bank statements showed a check and four wire transfers from Mansfield totaling $105,000, with the last transfer on June 18. They also showed a single wire transfer from Armstrong in the amount of $15,000 on April 11. Meza’s checking account showed that between October 2013 and June 2014, he withdrew approximately $89,000 in cash in 41 transactions involving between $3,000 and $5,000 each. On June 27, 2014, the State charged Meza with one count of T[heft in the First Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/theft/). On the same day, the State presented an ex parte “Motion for an Order Freezing and Holding Funds” to the judge. The State asserted that the funds in Meza’s credit union accounts were “evidence in a felony offense.” The State’s motion was based on the probable cause affidavit filed with the information and asserted that there was “a high likelihood, based on the affidavit regarding probable cause, that Meza will remove said funds and leave the country.” Importantly, the State did not request a search warrant for the credit union funds or reference [CrR 2.3](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR2.3) in its motion. Nevertheless, the trial court signed an order directing Twin Star Credit Union to “freeze and hold all accounts in the name of . . . Meza . . . as evidence in a criminal proceeding, until further order of this Court.” Also, neither the motion nor the order cited any legal authority for freezing Meza’s accounts. In January 2015, Meza filed a motion to vacate the trial court’s order. Meza argued that there was no legal authority for the order. The trial court denied Meza’s motion to vacate the order, saying there was probable cause to believe that Meza’s account was related to the charged crime. The court concluded that it had the authority to freeze Meza’s funds under CrR 2.3. In addition, the trial court ruled that Meza’s account qualified as both evidence of a crime and the proceeds of a crime. Meza filed a [motion for discretionary review.](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/div1/caseproc/?fa=atc_div1_caseproc.display&display_id=CaseProc_guide-03) The WA Court of Appeals accepted the case. The WA Court of Appeals reasoned that The [Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) provides that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Similarly, [article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx) provides that “no person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.” These provisions generally prohibit warrantless searches and seizures unless one of the narrow exceptions to the warrant requirement applies. Consequently, reasoned the court, a person’s banking records fall within the constitutional protection of private affairs. Although no Washington case has addressed whether funds in a bank account can be seized without a warrant it defies reason to extend constitutional protection to bank account records but not to the funds reflected in those records. The Court emphasized that the seizure of funds is as much a threat to security in a person’s effects and a disturbance of a person’s private affairs as the seizure of the records regarding those funds: > “Here, the State cites no statute, court rule, or other authority allowing the seizure of a defendant’s bank account in these circumstances. Therefore, the seizure was not authorized by law.” Finally, the Court rejected the State’s argument that under *[State v. Garcia-Salgado](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1540824.html)* the trial court’s order is the functional equivalent of a search warrant. > “We hold that the *Garcia-Salgado* holding is limited to cases where the trial court’s order is authorized by law. Allowing a court order to function as a warrant when there is no independent authority for a seizure would render CrR 2.3 meaningless. Limiting the scope of *Garcia-Salgado* preserves the integrity of CrR 2.3. We hold that *Garcia-Salgado* is inapplicable and that the trial court’s order cannot be treated as the functional equivalent of a warrant.” Based on these decision the Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in ordering the seizure of Meza’s credit union account. My opinion? GOOD opinion. Very sensible and reasonable. It’s refreshing that the Court of Appeals followed the law and made the right decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, Freezing Bank Accounts, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Theft, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Ignition Interlock Devices Are Cash Cows for States](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/ignition-interlock-devices-are-cash-cows-for-states/) **Published:** January 6, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** ![](http://bianchilawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/man-taking-ignition-interlock-device.jpg)According to news released from the Blow & Drive Interlock Corporation ([BDIC](http://www.marketwired.com/news_room/Stock?ticker=BDIC)) The Alcohol Ignition Interlock Industry is experiencing tremendous growth as more and more states continue to pass laws requiring Ignition Interlock Devices for DUI/DWI offenders. The [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention](http://www.cdc.gov/) (CDC) reports that requiring or highly incentivizing interlocks for all convicted drunken drivers reduces drunken driving recidivism by 67 percent. The **CDC** recommends ignition interlocks for everyone convicted of DWI, even for first offenders. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (**MADD**) Continues to Push for Tougher DUI Laws. In 2006, there were only **100,000** interlocks installed in the United States. As of July 2013, there were nearly **305,000** interlocks in use. **NEW 2016 IGNITION INTERLOCK LAWS** **Texas**: Gov. Greg Abbott signed **[House Bill 2246](https://www.smartstartinc.com/ignition-interlock-device/blog/texas-governor-greg-abbott-signs-ignition-interlock-bill-house-bill-2246-into-law/)** into law in June 2015, allowing those convicted of DWI with blood alcohol content less than 0.15 percent to be able to drive as long as they have an ignition interlock system installed in their car. **New Hampshire**: **After Jan. 1st** **2016**, anyone convicted in New Hampshire for a first offense of driving while intoxicated can petition a judge for a limited driver’s license that will allow them to drive to work, school or medical appointments, while their license is suspended, the new law comes with a host of restrictions – including installation of an alcohol-detecting automotive interlock device. **Illinois**: **New Ignition Interlock Law** goes into effect January 1st, 2016, requiring anyone convicted of two or more DUIs to install a Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device on their vehicles for **5** years. **South Carolina**: **Governor signed [Emma’s Law](http://thetandd.com/news/opinion/emma-s-law-changes-rules-for-dui-offenses/article_5ed7cfd4-49be-11e4-a6eb-3b97cf22cc71.html)**, which requires all offenders, including first-time offenders, with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .15 or greater mandated installation of an ignition interlock device. Hawaii: New Law Requires Ignition Interlock Users to drive with a Hawaii ID Card. The new law, [Act 40](http://mauinow.com/2015/12/22/new-law-requires-ignition-users-to-drive-with-hawai%CA%BBi-id-card/), goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2016 **PENDING IGNITION INTERLOCK LEGISLATION** **Federal:** Legislation, called [“Alisa’s Law”](http://www.madd.org/blog/2014/july/alisas-law.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/), would require all first time DUI offenders in all 50 states to have an ignition interlock device installed in their vehicle for up to 2 years **Pennsylvania:** Senate unanimously approved [Senate Bill 290](http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billInfo/billInfo.cfm?sYear=2015&sInd=0&body=s&type=b&bn=290), which would require all repeat convicted drunk drivers as well as first-time offenders with a blood-alcohol concentration of .10 or above to use the alcohol ignition interlock devices. **Oregon:** [House Bill 2660](http://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2015/HB2660/) Provides court discretion to order person participating in driving while under influence of intoxicants a diversion agreement to install an ignition interlock device if person submitted to chemical test of person’s breath, blood or urine and test disclosed blood alcohol content below 0.08 percent by weight. **Washington:** [House Bill 1276](http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1276&year=2015) includes many provisions to deal with impaired driving. **Ohio:** Lawmakers introduced a bill, called Annie’s Law, calling for ignition interlocks to be installed on vehicles if the driver has been convicted two or more times for drunk driving. **Indiana:** Lawmakers plan to discuss the problem of repeat drunk drivers this legislative session, including a bill that would improve the ignition interlock system in Indiana. **Wisconsin:** Lawmakers have proposed closing a loophole in state law so people who are required to have an ignition interlock device in their vehicle would face criminal punishment if they get caught driving a vehicle without such a device **Massachusetts:** State Senate proposed a bill that would give drunk drivers a chance to avoid a license suspension, requiring them instead to install an ignition interlock **Maryland: [Governor Larry Hogan](http://governor.maryland.gov/governor-larry-hogan/)** is trying to push through one of his latest initiatives, which would require drivers arrested on drunk-driving charges to install an ignition interlock device inside their vehicle. **[MADD](http://www.madd.org/)** will continue to push for stricter DUI Laws, and they will continue to Ask More States to pass **All-Offender Ignition Interlock Legislation** in an effort to keep the roads safe for sober motorists. From only one state requiring interlocks in 2006 today twenty‐six states require or highly incentivize the use of ignition interlocks for every convicted offender and as a result they have reduced drunk driving deaths by 24% overall. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Ignition Interlock Device, marijuana, misdemeanor, Technology, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Marijuana Legalization is Making Mexican Drug Cartels Poorer](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/marijuana-legalization-is-making-mexican-drug-cartels-poorer/) **Published:** January 6, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** [A report](http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-mexico-marijuana-20151230-story.html) from [Deborah Bonello for the Los Angeles Times](http://muckrack.com/deborah-bonello) shows one way that legalization for recreational and medical purposes is working: > *The loosening of marijuana laws across much of the United States has increased competition from growers north of the border, apparently enough to drive down prices paid to Mexican farmers. Small-scale growers here in the state of Sinaloa, one of the country’s biggest production areas, said that over the last four years the amount they receive per kilogram has fallen from $100 to $30.* > > *The price decline appears to have led to reduced marijuana production in Mexico and a drop in trafficking to the U.S., according to officials on both sides of the border and available data.* This was welcome news. One of the major arguments for legal pot is that it will weaken drug cartels, cutting off a major source of revenue and inhibiting their ability to carry out violent acts — from mass murders to beheadings to extortion — around the world. And cannabis used to make up a significant chunk of cartels’ drug export revenue: as much as 20 to 30 percent, according to previous estimates from the Mexican Institute of Competitiveness (2012) and the RAND Corporation (2010). Will this be enough to completely eliminate drug cartels? Certainly not. These groups deal in far more than pot, including extortion and other drugs like cocaine and heroin. Still, it will hurt. As the numbers above suggest, marijuana used to be a big source of drug cartels’ revenue, and that’s slowly but surely going away. It’s still possible that legalization in America could produce downsides in the U.S., such as more cannabis abuse. But it’s a potentially huge win for Mexico and other Latin American countries. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face [Drug Charges](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, marijuana, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Rich: Evidence of DUI Also Shows Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-rich-evidence-of-dui-also-shows-reckless-driving/) **Published:** January 16, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Rich](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/91623-3%20Opinion.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) ruled that although proof of [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) alone does not necessarily establish proof of [Reckless Endangerment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-endangerment/), here, proof that a driver whose breath alcohol level was more than twice the legal limit and who showed awareness that she had done something wrong once stopped, and who sped past a police car in traffic with a young child in the front seat, was sufficient to allow a reasonable juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the driver created a substantial risk of death or injury to her passenger; which meets the definition of Reckless Endangerment. A jury convicted defendant Andrea Rich of driving under the influence (DUI) and Reckless Endangerment. The evidence showed that Rich was speeding in traffic while highly intoxicated and with a young child in the front passenger seat. But the officer who arrested Rich followed her car because he believed that the car was stolen. Rich’s manner of driving posed no observable danger. The [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/) reversed the Reckless Endangerment conviction, holding that the evidence was insufficient to establish that Rich’s driving created an actual, substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person. It reasoned that proof of a DUI does not necessarily establish proof of Reckless Endangerment. In response, the State Prosecutor appealed to the WA Supreme Court on the issue of whether there was sufficient to support Rich’s Reckless Endangerment conviction. The WA Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that proof of DUI alone does not necessarily establish proof of Reckless Endangerment. The WA Supreme Court also reasoned, however, that the State proved more than just DUI in this case: > It also proved speeding, past a police car, in traffic, by a driver whose breath alcohol level was more than twice the legal limit, who showed awareness that she had done something wrong once stopped, and who had a young child in the front passenger seat. Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a reasonable juror could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Rich created a substantial risk of death or injury to her passenger, that Rich knew of the substantial risk, and that Rich disregarded that risk in gross deviation from the way a reasonable person would act in her situation. With that, the WA Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the conviction. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Reckless Endangerment, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Evans: A Knife is Not a Gun](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-evans-a-knife-is-not-a-gun/) **Published:** January 16, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[City of Seattle v. Evans](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/906084.pdf),* the [WA Supreme Court](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) ruled that [Article I, section 24 of the Washington Constitution ](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/pages/constitution.aspx)and the [Second Amendment to the United States Constitution’s](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment) protection of the right to bear “arms” does not extend to a paring knife. Seattle Police Officer Michael Conners stopped a vehicle driven by Wayne Anthony Evans for speeding in the Central District of Seattle. As Conners approached Evans’s vehicle, he observed furtive movements from Evans and his passenger, and he smelled marijuana. Conners directed Evans to exit the vehicle and asked him whether he had any weapons. Evans responded that there was a knife in his pocket. Conners instructed Evans not to reach for the knife; Conners then reached into Evans’s front right pocket, retrieved a fixed-blade knife with a black handle, and placed Evans under arrest for possession of a fixed-blade knife. The City of Seattle (City) charged Evans with the unlawful use of weapons in violation of [SMC 12A.14.080](https://www.municode.com/library/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT12ACRCO_SUBTITLE_ICRCO_CH12A.14WECO_12A.14.080UNUSWE), which reads, “It is unlawful for a person knowingly to . . . carry concealed or unconcealed on his or her person any dangerous knife, or carry concealed on his or her person any deadly weapon other than a firearm.” The case proceeded to trial. The City’s Prosecutor introduced the knife into evidence and presented testimony from Officer Conners. Conners identified the knife that he recovered from Evans at trial and the State entered that knife into evidence. When asked, Officer Conners described the knife as having a “black handle with a metal colored blade” that was “about-about this long,” apparently gesturing with his hands. Officer Conners admitted that he was concerned that the knife had a fixed blade-that is, it had a blade that would not fold into the handle-and alternately described the blade as resembling a “kitchen knife” or a “paring knife.” The jury returned a general verdict of guilty, and Evans’s conviction was affirmed by the [King County Superior Court](http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/SuperiorCourt.aspx) and the [Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo). The WA Supreme Court reviewed the case on the specific issue of whether Mr. Evans’ fixed-blade knife is a protected arm under the Washington or federal constitution. Apparently, ruled the court, a knife is NOT protected as an “Arm” under the Constitution(s): > . . . we hold that not all knives are constitutionally protected arms and that Evans does not demonstrate that his paring knife is an “arm” as defined under our state or federal constitution. Therefore, Evans cannot establish that SMC 12A.14.080(B) is unconstitutional as applied to him and we reject his as-applied challenge. The court reasoned that although it is true that some weapons may be used for culinary purposes, as it is also true that many culinary utensils may be used when necessary for self-defense; but it does not follow that all weapons are culinary utensils or that all culinary utensils are weapons: > Were we to adopt Evans’s analysis and hold that a kitchen knife was a protected arm because it could be used for self-defense, there would be no end to the extent of utensils arguably constitutionally protected as arms. If a kitchen knife is a protected arm, what about a rolling pin, which might be effectively wielded for protection or attack? Or a frying pan? Or a heavy candlestick? “Admittedly, any hard object can be used as a weapon, but it would be absurd to give every knife, pitchfork, rake, brick or other object conceivably employable for personal defense constitutional protection as ‘arms.’ With that, the WA Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and held that Evans’s paring knife was not an arm entitled to constitutional protection. Therefore, Evans cannot establish that SMC 12A.14.080 is unconstitutional as applied to him. My opinion? I hate to say, but I somewhat agree. There’s a huge difference between a gun and a knife. The right to bear arms was made to protect guns, not knives. Period. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Due Process, Jury Trial, law enforcement, misdemeanor, Search and Seizure, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Lower Legal Alcohol Limit?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/lower-legal-alcohol-limit/) **Published:** January 19, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [National Transportation Safety Board](http://www.ntsb.gov/Pages/default.aspx) wants the nationwide legal limit of .08 cut almost in half to .05, in an effort to save more lives. Oddly, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), the nation’s most prominent advocacy group against drunk driving, does not support the legislation. MADD says there’s not enough [data](http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2016/01/15/ntsb-wants-to-lower-legal-alcohol-limit/#) to show it would make much of a difference. “Until we know that and can compare that and have an intellectual conversation on that, we want to focus on what we know is effective,” said [Jason Derscheid](https://www.linkedin.com/in/jasonderscheid), the Executive Director of MADD North Texas. The organization most recently helped pass an [interlock ignition law in Texas](http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/headlines/20150624-new-state-law-allows-drunk-drivers-option-of-ignition-interlock-devices.ece), allowing DWI offenders to have a device installed on their car. MADD has found that the alternative, suspending an offender’s license, doesn’t prevent them from continuing to drink and drive. It’s advocating for similar laws to be passed in all 50 states. Despite its lack of support for lowering the legal limit, MADD says it does not condone *any* level of drinking of driving. “The only safe way to get home is to have a non-drinking, designated driver,” said Derscheid. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crimes. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Boating Under the Influence, Deferred Prosecution, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, Due Process, DUI, Evidence, Ignition Interlock Device, marijuana, misdemeanor, Studies, Terry Stop, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Wire Cutters Are NOT Theft Tools](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/wire-cutters-are-not-theft-tools/) **Published:** January 20, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Larson](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/914575.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court ](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/)overruled the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/) and decided that the crime of [Retail Theft With Special Circumstances under RCW 9A.56.360(1)(b)](http://app.leg.wa.gov/Rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.360), which elevates theft to a more serious offense when the defendant is in possession of “an item, article, implement or device designed to overcome security systems,” only applies to an item that is created – whether by the manufacturer or the defendant – with the specific purpose of disabling or evading security systems. Defendant Zachary Larson attempted to steal a $32 pair of shoes from a Marshall’s store in Bellingham, WA. The shoes were equipped with a security device that was attached to the shoes by wire. Yet, Larson, using wire cutters that he had brought into the store, severed the wire and removed the security device. When Larson tried to leave the store, he was stopped by security employees and, subsequently, was charged with one count of Retail Theft with Special circumstances, which criminalizes the commission of retail theft while in possession of a “device designed to overcome security systems.” While the case was pending, Larson argued a [*Knapstad* ](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/dismissing-cases-through-knapstad-motions/)motion to dismiss. The trial court denied the motion and found Larson guilty as charged. He was sentenced to 60 days of confinement. Larson appealed. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals [confirmed Larson’s conviction](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-larson-retail-theft-with-extenuating-circumstances/). Larson appealed again to the WA Supreme Court. The WA Supreme Court addressed the specific issue of whether ordinary wire cutters are “designed to overcome security systems” within the context of retail theft. The Court reasoned that whenever it must interpret the meaning and scope of a statute, “our fundamental objective is to determine and give effect to the intent of the legislature.” Furthermore, lined bags and tag removers – of which the Defendant did not possess – are highly specialized tools with little to no utility outside of the commission of retail theft. “From this fact, it can be reasonably inferred that there is no reason a person would be in possession of these items except to facilitate retail theft.” Furthermore, reasoned the court we must interpret statutes to avoid absurd results: > For example, where a person slips a stolen item into his pocket to hide it from a store’s security camera, the pocket has arguably become a “device designed to overcome security systems.” Similarly, a person who happens to have in her pocket a pair of nail clippers, a Leatherman multi tool, or any other tool that people commonly carry with them, at the time she shoplifts would be guilty of retail theft with extenuating circumstances. As these practical examples demonstrate, the State’s over-inclusive approach belies the statute’s primary purpose of capturing retail theft that occurs under certain aggravating circumstances. The Court concluded that the plain language of the Retail Theft statute indicates that the legislature intended the statute to have a *narrow* scope: > We hold that “designed to overcome security systems” for the purposes of retail theft . . . is limited to those items, articles, implements, or devices created-whether by the defendant or manufacturer-with the specialized purpose of overcoming security systems. Ordinary tools, such as pliers or the wire cutters used by Larson, do not fall within the scope . . . The evidence is insufficient to support Larson’s conviction for third degree retail theft with extenuating circumstances, and we reverse the Court of Appeals. My opinion? Good decision. In interpreting the statute, the WA Supreme Court correctly applied a narrow scope because, quite frankly, *any* household tool found in the pockets of an alleged thief can be viewed as a tool “designed to overcome security systems.” This is unjust. Retail Theft With Special Circumstances is a Class C felony exposing defendants up to 5 years prison and a $10,000 fine. That’s quite serious. Do we want to punish thieves with Class C felonies for stealing shoes from Marshall’s store while carrying a Swiss Army knife in their pocket? Do these circumstances warrant sending people to prison? No. The WA Supreme Court got this one right. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Evidence, Knapstad Motion, Retail Theft, Theft, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Keodara: Overbroad Search Warrant for Cell Phone](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-keodara-overbroad-search-warrant/) **Published:** January 20, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Keodara](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/705181.pdf)*, the WA Court of Appeals ruled that a search warrant was overbroad in violation of the particularity requirement because it allowed police to search a cell phone “for items that had no association with any criminal activity and for which there was no probable cause whatsoever.” In 2011, the defendant Say Keodara was involved in a shooting at a bus stop. Several weeks later, police arrested him for an unrelated incident. They searched his backpack and found his cell phone. Outside the backpack police found drugs, drug packaging and drug paraphernalia. An officer submitted an affidavit in support of a search warrant for the contents of the cell phone. The affidavit made several generalizations about drug dealers and gang members in support of the officer’s conclusion that there was evidence of crime on the cell phone. The judge issue the warrant pursuant to the affidavit, which ultimately allowed police to search Keodara’s entire phone without any limitations. Police searched the phone and found evidence that the State used when trying Mr. Keodara for the shooting at the bus stop. Keodara was charged with [Murder in the First Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/), three counts of [Assault in the First Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) (each with a separate firearm enhancement), and [Unlawful Possession of a Firearm in the First Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/). He was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 831 months of prison (69.25 years). On appeal, Keodara argued that the evidence from his phone should have been suppressed because the search warrant violated the [Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) and[ art. I, §7 of the Washington State Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/pages/constitution.aspx). He also argued that his substantial prison sentence violated the [Eighth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/eighth_amendment). Ultimately, the court held that although the search of Keodara’s phone violated the federal constitution, the failure to suppress the evidence was harmless. It also held that Keodara’s sentence violated the 8th Amendment because the court failed to Keodara’s youth and other age-related factors into account. Accordingly, the court affirmed Keodara’s conviction but remanded for a new sentencing hearing. In reaching its decision, the court reasoned that a warrant is overbroad if it fails to describe with particularity items for which probable cause exists to search. In this case, the affidavit for the warrant for Keodara’s phone contained blanket statements about what certain groups of offenders tend to do and what information they tend to store in particular places. Furthermore, the warrant’s language also allowed Keodara’s phone to be searched for items that had no association with any criminal activity and for which there was no probable cause whatsoever. The court also said the following: > Here, no evidence was seized that would have linked Keodara’s phone to the crimes listed in the warrant-unlawful possession of firearms, possession with intent to deliver or sell narcotics, or assault. Nothing in the record suggests that anyone saw Keodara use the phone to make calls or take photos. In addition, the phone was found in a backpack, separate from the drug paraphernalia or the pistol. There was no indication that evidence of firearms or drugs were found with the phone. We conclude that the warrant was overbroad and failed to satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals also held that the trial court committed harmless error in admitting evidence police found on the phone: > Here, the untainted evidence of Keodara’s guilt was strong. Cellular phone tower records placed him near the location of the shooting, two eyewitnesses identified him, and another witness testified that Keodara contacted him and told him about the shooting. We find that the trial court’s denial of Keodara’s motion to suppress does not warrant reversal and, accordingly, we affirm his convictions. The Court of Appeals also addressed the issue of whether Keodara’s sentence violated the Eighth Amendment. In short, the court said, “Yes.” It reasoned that the trial court did not take into account that Keodara was a juvenile at the time he committed the crimes or consider other age related factors that weigh on culpability or his capacity for rehabilitation. Based on that, the Court concluded that the sentence imposed in this case violated Keodar’s constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals vacated the sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing. My opinion? Good decision. It appears that, more and more, our courts are rightfully acknowledging a Defendant’s youth at sentencing. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Cruel & Unusual Punishment, Due Process, Eighth Amendment, Evidence, felony, Homicide & Manslaughter, Ineffective Assistance, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Sentencing, Technology, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Stoned Drivers Hit Test Course To Evaluate Marijuana DUI Limits](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/stoned-drivers-hit-test-course-to-evaluate-marijuana-dui-limits/) **Published:** February 6, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** An [article ](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/with-pot-legal-police-wor_n_2136034.html)from the [Denver Huffington Post](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/denver/) addressed an interesting question regarding the regulation of legal marijuana: [how high is too high to drive](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/with-pot-legal-police-wor_n_2136034.html)? Given the lack of precedent, [Washington TV station KIRO](http://www.kiro7.com/) opted to observe actions over words. The station assembled a group of volunteers, had them smoke pot (appropriately, the strain was called “blueberry train wreck”), and set them loose on a driving test course. Here’s the [video](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/18/stoned-drivers-test-course-marijuana-dui_n_2711358.html). A handful of police officers stood nearby, watching any telltale signs of stoned driving. Also, a driving school instructor sat in the passenger’s seat, ready to take the wheel or stomp the brake pedal at a moment’s notice. Unfortunately, the results (while entertaining) don’t add much clarity to the question at all. A regular smoker of marijuana tested above the legal limit to begin with, yet drove without much of a problem (at least initially). Two casual smokers also navigated the course without incident. (Spoiler alert: after smoking more marijuana, things devolve quickly). In 2012, Colorado legislators declined to pass a law that would have [limited drivers to 5 nanograms of THC](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/15/marijuana-dui-bill-dies-s_n_1518617.html), the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, per milliliter of blood. “This is a bit of unprecedented territory, so trying to find the right approach has proven difficult and cumbersome,” explained [Rep. Dan Pabon](http://cohousedems.com/Colorado_House_Democrats/Representative_Dan_Pabon.html), a lawmaker on Colorado’s marijuana-legalizing task force, [to CBS News in 2012](http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57558615/colorado-lawmakers-struggle-to-define-whats-too-high-to-drive/). Washington lawmakers, meanwhile, passed a law in 2012 setting the threshold for[ legal impairment at 5 nanograms of THC](http://www.npr.org/2012/12/05/166531388/pots-legal-in-washington-state-but-dont-drive-high), reports NPR. Ultimately, though, it comes down to common sense. Explains Bob Calkins, a Washington State Patrol spokesman, to The Oregonian, “We don’t just pull people over and draw blood… If you’re driving OK, we’re not going pull you over. But [driving impaired is still driving impaired](http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2012/12/washingtons_new_driving_high_d.html).” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Drug DUI](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/drug-dui/). Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, DUI, Evidence, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Uncategorized, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Wrongful Incarceration](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/wrongful-incarceration/) **Published:** February 10, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[Garcia v. County of Riverside](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/02/03/13-56857.pdf)*, the [9th Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) held that an individual’s lawsuit against police may proceed when the jail did not engage in readily available identity checks to ensure that they were not detaining the wrong person. Plaintiff was arrested for [DUI ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/)in Riverside County, California, on November 26, 2012. He was booked in a [Riverside County jail](http://www.riversidesheriff.org/corrections/). A booked individual is electronically fingerprinted through a system called “[Livescan](http://www.dataworksplus.com/lsp.html).” The Livescan image is then sent to the [California Department of Justice](https://oag.ca.gov/). When Riverside County Sheriff’s Department (RCSD) officers searched for Plaintiff “Mario Garcia,” they found a felony warrant for *Mario L. Garcia* issued by the Los Angeles Superior Court in 1994. The warrant described Mario L. Garcia using only his first and last name, date of birth, height, and weight. **The first and last name and birth date matched Plaintiff’s own. However, the authorities did not forward information on Mario L. Garcia’s biometric identifiers, middle name, or criminal record, all of which were different from Plaintiff’s.** AS a result, RCSD matched Plaintiff to the warrant and told him that he would be detained, despite Plaintiff’s protests that he was not Mario L. Garcia and that he had been mistakenly detained before based on the same warrant. The next day Plaintiff was transferred to an LA County jail, where he alleges that he repeated his complaints to LASD officers. Plaintiff contends that LASD knew or should have known that he was not Mario L. Garcia for several reasons: (1) their middle names do not match; (2) their height and weight differ considerably (Mario L. Garcia is listed as 5’1″, 130 lbs. Plaintiff is 5’10”, 170 lbs.); (3) Plaintiff’s biometric identifiers, including fingerprints and CII number, did not match the subject’s; and (4) Plaintiff’s criminal history, which was linked in the system to his fingerprints, did not match the subject’s. Plaintiff sued under [42 U.S.C. § 1983](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983), alleging violations of the [Fourth Amendment ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment)and [Fourteenth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv) by LASD, LA County, and several other defendants. He also brought state-law claims against LASD and LA County. He claimed that it is the policy of LASD to ignore identification processes, to ignore prisoners’ complaints of misidentification, and to accept an outside agency’s determination that an arrestee is the subject of a warrant rather than conduct an independent identity check upon booking in LA County. The LASD and LA County’s defense was “Qualified Immunity.” For those who don’t know, “Qualified Immunity” protects government officials from lawsuits alleging that they violated plaintiffs’ rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right. When determining whether or not a right was “clearly established,” courts consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendant’s conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights. Courts conducting this analysis apply the law that was in force at the time of the alleged violation, not the law in effect when the court considers the case. The “Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” Here, the 9th Circuit decided that law enforcement’s failed to investigate his claim of mistaken identity after he was arrested. There was an obvious physical discrepancy between the warrant subject and Mr. Garcia, the most obvious which consisted of a nine-inch difference in height. That, accompanied by a detainee’s complaints of misidentification, should prompt officers to engage in readily available and resource-efficient identity checks, such as a fingerprint comparison, to ensure that they are not detaining the wrong person. My opinion? Excellent decision. Civil rights violations do not always involve incidents of police shootings or beatings. Wrongful incarceration is covered, too. I’m happy the 9th Circuit understands this. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, DUI, Jail, Misidentification, Qualified Immunity, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Record Number of False Convictions Overturned in 2015](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/record-number-of-false-convictions-overturned-in-2015/) **Published:** February 13, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** According to an article written by [Pearl Gabel](http://www.pearlgabel.com/) for the [New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/), a [report from the National Registry of Exonerations](http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Exonerations_in_2015.pdf) reveals that 2015 was a record-breaking year for exonerations in the United States. The bulk of the exonerations in 2015 came from just two states: Texas, where 54 people were cleared, and New York, with 17. The registry linked that trend to efforts by individual district attorneys in Brooklyn and in Harris County, Tex., to review questionable convictions, says Gabel. Official misconduct played a role in 65 of the exonerations in 2015, the registry said, and false confessions were seen in 27. The most common reason inmates were cleared, in 75 of the cases, was that no crime had even *occurred*. Gabel reveals that, In one such case, [three men were cleared](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/17/nyregion/3-men-imprisoned-in-1980-brooklyn-arson-case-are-exonerated.html "Times article.") of setting a fire in 1980 in Brooklyn that caused the death of a mother and her five children. The sole witness in the case was deemed unreliable, and advances in arson science showed that the fire was most likely an accident. Two of the men, William Vasquez and Amaury Villalobos, spent almost 33 years each in prison on arson and murder charges. The third defendant, Raymond Mora, died in prison. The exonerations in Harris County, which includes Houston, largely involved drug offenses. Last year, 42 people who had pleaded guilty to possession were cleared after retesting found that the substances were not, in fact, drugs. The registry showed that many of the defendants might have chosen to plead guilty because they were stuck behind bars, unable to make bail, and feared risking years in prison at trial. It also found that more than two-thirds of those exonerated in 2015 were minorities, and half were African-American. Five defendants had death sentences. Public interest in exoneration cases has [risen in recent weeks](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/us/making-a-murderer-prosecutor-on-critics-questions.html "Times article.") as a result of the popular Netflix documentary “[Making a Murderer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_a_Murderer),” which raised doubts about a murder case in Wisconsin. My opinion? Advances in DNA and surveillance technology have opened the floodgates to the phenomenon that “justice” is not nearly as blind and unbiased as we like to think. Some Prosecutors have agendas, some police officers are corrupt and some defendants have ineffective defense attorneys. The list goes on. Fortunately, this report shows some of the weaknesses in our system of justice and could provide solutions toward improvements. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Race & Law, Studies, Technology, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["Good Time" Early Release](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/good-time-release/) **Published:** February 14, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** A recent news article from [The News Tribune](http://www.thenewstribune.com/) and the [Bellingham Herald](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/state/washington/article56134815.html) discussed how [inmates earn time off their sentences](http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/politics-government/article55517495.html). Also, earned release time is at the heart of [the mistaken early release of inmates that is roiling the state prison system.](http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/politics-government/article51118855.html) The scandal has shown just how complicated the calculations involved can be, requiring software whose programming errors freed as many as 3,200 inmates early yet went undetected for a decade. At least two of the inmates prematurely released were later charged with deaths that happened while they should have been in prison. These recent developments inspired this blog. Although I’m highly successful at resolving serious criminal cases in a manner which avoids prison sentences, if prison is unavoidable then I do my best to reduce and/or amend their criminal charges in a manner which allows for early release through “Good Time.” It’s time to clarify some misunderstandings about what “Good Time” really is. **THE BASICS** “Good Time” is governed by [RCW 9.94A.728](http://app.leg.wa.gov/Rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.728) and [RCW 9.94A.729](http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=9.94A.729). [Washington’s Department of Corrections](http://www.doc.wa.gov/) does not allow Good Time to individuals serving life without parole or sentenced to death. Also, Good Time cannot reduce a mandatory [minimum prison sentences](http://app.leg.wa.gov/Rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.540). There is no good time awarded on deadly weapon or firearm enhancement time. DOC does not award good time for sexual motivation enhancements. There is no good time awarded when confinement is imposed on conviction of a sex offense under Washington’s Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative (SSOSA). DOC uses specific terms for what we call good time: DOC calculates “earned release time” (ERT) as a combination of “good conduct time” and “earned time credit.” “Good conduct time” is time awarded for good behavior and “earned time credit” is time awarded for participating in DOC approved programming such as work and school. A person who earns early release time and who shall be supervised by DOC will be transferred to community custody in lieu of earned early release. A comprehensive guide to good time and other related issues can be found at the [DOC web site](http://www.doc.wa.gov/family/offenderlife/default.asp). **CAN OFFENDERS GET 50% OFF?** No. Under [state law](http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=9.94A.729), the 50% good time rule expired on July 2, 2010, and has not been reinstated. **WHAT CALCULATES POTENTIAL “GOOD TIME?”** The chart below lists the potential good time that an inmate can receive. Individuals may not be released on their early release date if they do not have a [Release Plan](/Users/Owner/Downloads/350200a5.pdf), even if they have earned the time. [](#_ftnref1) **Crime type/classification****Eligible Good Time****Notes**Serious Violent or Class A Sex OffenseUp to 10% if sentenced on or after 7/1/2003 Up to 15% for individuals sentenced from 7/1/90-7/1/2003All other offensesUp to 33% For all individuals sentenced July 2, 2010 and after, unless they are sentenced as a persistent offender. Previously – up to 50% for certain offenses, depending upon risk level and other factors, **if sentenced July 1, 2010 and before.**[](#_ftnref1) For the most part, offenders may receive 10% – 33% off for “Good Time.” **RISK ASSESSMENT TOOL** In 2009, the DOC implemented a [standardized assessment](http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1554/Wsipp_Predicting-Criminal-Recidivism-A-Systematic-Review-of-Offender-Risk-Assessments-in-Washington-State_Final-Report.pdf) which conducts an offender’s risk assessment upon arrival. That assessment determines the offender’s classification. Factors include criminal history (including in other states), current crime, and history and type of infractions. The “tool” is supposed to be more effective at determining risk. From DOC’s standpoint, this approach is supposed to be more effective at determining risk. However, the Defense Bar has criticized DOC’s standardized assessment criteria as being “static” and “inflexible.” Before 2009, individuals could see their classifications change for the better. Now, however, it doesn’t *ever* improve for the better– the risk category stays the same or gets worse. **ARE IN-CUSTODY PROGRAMS AVAILABLE?** Washington’s prisons house [more than 16,000 people](http://www.doc.wa.gov/aboutdoc/docs/msFactCard.pdf). More than 2,000 of them work for Correctional Industries, which is one way inmates can qualify for earned release time. Another 1,000 are on the waiting list, [according to the job-training program](http://www.washingtonci.com/skin/frontend/WACI/primary/docs/content/about-ci/ci-fact-sheet.pdf). About 9,000 are involved in some kind of education program, according to the community-college system that runs the programs. Hundreds more are on waiting lists for classes. The college system offers high-school level education, vocational training, and other programs such as job-search, parenting and anger-management courses. State law doesn’t allow state money to be used to award associate degrees. Keeping all of this in mind, it’s imperative for defense attorneys to properly advise clients facing prison sentences of their eligibility for earned release and opportunity for rehabilitative programs. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Department of Corrections, Prison, Sentencing, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Harsher DUI Penalties Pass Washington House](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/harsher-dui-penalties-pass-washington-house/) **Published:** February 19, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** ![](http://31h6pf21ql3fi2bit3bfvchj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Four-strikes-Colorado-DUI-Felony-Law.jpg)According to [Q13 Fox News](http://q13fox.com/2016/02/15/harsher-dui-penalties-pass-washington-house/), a bill that would require harsher penalties for people convicted of felony-level offenses for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol has unanimously passed the House. [House Bill 2280](https://legiscan.com/WA/research/HB2280/2015), approved Monday, would make a driver’s fourth [DUI ](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.502)conviction within 10 years a Class B felony, rather than a Class C felony. According to [Mothers Against Drunk Drivers of Washington State](https://www.madd.org/), in 2015, 149 people died from crashes related to drunk driving. That makes up more than 34-percent of all traffic deaths in the state of Washington. And MADD says that 2015 number increased by more than four-percent from 2014. The bill will now be considered by the [Senate](http://leg.wa.gov/Pages/default.aspx). A [Class C felony](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9a.20.021) has a maximum of five years in prison, a $10,000 fine or both. A [Class B felony](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9a.20.021) has a maximum of 10 years in prison, $20,000 fine or both. A DUI is a gross misdemeanor in existing law. A DUI for someone convicted of [vehicular homicide](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.520) or [vehicular assault](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.522) while intoxicated would also be a Class B felony under the bill. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, felony, Ignition Interlock Device, Legislation, marijuana, misdemeanor, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Kohonen: No Proof of Cyberstalking](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-kohonen-no-proof-of-cyberstalking/) **Published:** February 19, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Kohonen](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/733397.pdf)*, [Division I of the WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) decided the State failed to prove that a defendant’s tweets constituted “true threats” sufficient to support a conviction for Cyberstalking. When the defendant J.K. was in eighth grade, a classmate, S.G., informed a teacher that another student was behaving oddly. As a result, the other student and J.K. were both suspended from school. J.K. and S.G. had no other interaction until the incident at the center of this case. Two years later, when J.K. and S.G. were sophomores in high school, they shared a first period class. One morning, J.K. saw S.G. in class and was reminded of the incident two years before. She quickly posted two short messages, known as tweets, via the web site [Twitter](https://twitter.com/?lang=en). The first read, *“Tbh (to be honest), I still want to punch you in the throat even tho it was 2 years ago.”* The second read, *“#\[S.G.\]mustdie.”* Eventually, J.K. was taken from class to the school administration office, where she was confronted her with the tweets. J.K. immediately admitted that she had written and posted the tweets but stated that she had not intended for her actions to harm S.G. Later, J.K. also explained that she posted tweets frequently. She used Twitter as a “virtual diary,” posting her thoughts, reactions, feelings, and more. She testified that she sent the messages quickly and without thinking, as a fleeting expression of her agitation at the memory from middle school. Although she was aware that the posts were public, and that she had approximately 100 people who followed her, she testified that she did not consider the potential impact her tweets might have on S.G. J.K. was charged with one count of [Cyberstalking](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/cyberstalking/). After trial, the juvenile commissioner adjudicated J.K. guilty as charged, finding that J.K. had acted with the intent to embarrass, harass, and torment S.G. and that she was not credible on the question of whether she had considered the effect the tweets could have before posting them. The court also concluded that the tweets constituted a true threat. J.K. was sentenced to six months of probation and 30 hours of community service. The superior court denied J.K.’s motion to revise. Division I accepted her appeal. The Court of Appeals held there was insufficient evidence that the tweets in question constituted “true threats,” as required by the federal and state constitutions. The Court reasoned that [due process clauses](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process) of the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution) and [WA Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Documents/12-2010-WAStateConstitution.PDF) require that the government prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The critical inquiry on review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction must be to determine whether the evidence could reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court further reasoned that in order to convict J.K. of Cyberstalking, the State was required to prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that J.K. made an electronic communication to another person, (2) that, at the time J.K. made the electronic communication, she specifically intended to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass another person, and (3) that J.K. threatened to inflict injury on the person to whom the electronic communication was made. Under the circumstances, the Tweets were not true threats: > “J.K.’s tweets bear the signs of—admittedly mean-spirited—hyperbolic expressions of frustration, and that is precisely how they were received. A reasonable person in J.K.’s position would not have anticipated a different reception. Therefore, insufficient evidence was presented that the tweets constituted true threats.” On that, the Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and dismissed the case. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Cyberstalking, Due Process, Evidence, Juvenile, misdemeanor, Social Media, Technology, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Robison: Implied Consent & Pot DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-robison-implied-consent-pot-dui/) **Published:** February 23, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Robison](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/722603.pdf),* the WA Court of Appeals Division I held that a BAC test requires suppression when the officer giving the breath to a driver suspected of marijuana DUI fails to provide that driver with Implied Consent warnings required by that statute. On June 29, 2013, [Washington State Patrol](http://www.wsp.wa.gov/) Trooper B.S. Hyatt stopped Darren J. Robison for traffic violations. Trooper Hyatt smelled intoxicants and marijuana. Trooper Hyatt asked how long it had been since Robison had smoked marijuana. Robison responded that it had been a couple of hours. Trooper Hyatt arrested Robison. At the [Tulalip Police Department](http://www.tulaliptribes-nsn.gov/Home/Government/Departments/PoliceDepartment.aspx), officers read Robison an “[Implied Consent Warning for Breath](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.308)” form, which Robison stated he understood and signed. The form included warnings only about alcohol and ***did not include any marijuana-related warnings.*** The two breath tests given Robison both produced results over the legal limit. The State charged Robison with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). Robison asked the district court to [suppress evidence](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) based on an illegal stop and to suppress the breath test because Robison did not receive all required implied consent warnings. The district court denied the motion. It concluded that Trooper Hyatt had probable cause to stop Robison. The district court also took[ judicial notice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_notice) that the breath test used cannot detect THC, and that its purpose was to determine the *alcohol* concentration in Robison’s breath. The district court decided that the implied consent warnings given accurately informed Robison of the consequences of the breath tests, which “were all the warnings that were legally required on the date of violation given the decision facing the defendant.” The district court found Robison guilty but stayed his sentence pending his appeal. Robison appealed to the superior court. The superior court reversed the district court. It found that the marijuana-related warnings were a significant part of the required implied consent warnings and the failure to give these warnings under the circumstances made the warnings given incomplete and misleading. The superior court suppressed the test results and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its decision. Ultimately, the WA Court of Appeals granted the State’s request for [discretionary review](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discretionary_review) of the superior court’s decision. First, the Court of Appeals gave background on how police officers apply Washington’s Implied Consent Laws in DUI investigations. Before giving a breath test to a person reasonably believed to be driving under the influence, an officer must provide that person with certain warnings required by statute. Specifically, an officer must inform the driver of his right to refuse the test or to have additional tests done. The Court reasoned that the officer’s warning must also state that refusal to take the test will result in license revocation, that the refusal may be used at a criminal trial, and that the driver may be eligible for an ignition interlock license. Pertinent to this case, the officer must also warn about the consequences of certain test results. This warning has changed several times in recent years. The court further explained that in 2012, Washington voters enacted [Initiative 502](http://www.newapproachwa.org/content/initiative), which legalized some uses of marijuana. This initiative also amended Washington’s Implied Consent laws **by adding a warning about marijuana test results.** In this case, Trooper Hyatt warned Robison about the consequences of test results showing an *alcohol* concentration in his breath. However, Trooper Hyatt failed to warn Robison of the consequences of test results showing a prohibited level of *THC concentration* in his blood. Consequently, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the BAC test was properly suppressed because of this omission. Additionally, the Court rejected the State’s argument that (1) an arresting officer has discretion to edit implied consent warnings as he deems appropriate to the facts of a case, and (2) the officer’s incomplete warning was harmless. Here, Robison smelled of marijuana when arrested and admitted smoking marijuana to the arresting officer. “Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Robison would have agreed to take the breath test had he received the THC warning.” The Court of Appeals concluded that because the State cannot show that an officer gave Robison all the statutorily required warnings, it cannot establish the foundation required for admission of the breath tests given to him. “While cases have characterized this result as suppression, when the State cannot show that it complied with the implied consent statute, the State has failed to meet its burden of proof for admission of evidence it offers to prove guilt. The defendant does not have to show prejudice in this circumstance.” With that, the Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court’s decision to suppress Robison’s BAC test. My opinion? Good decision. DUI investigations involving Implied Consent Warnings must keep up with today’s legislative amendments. The law is the law. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Blood Test, Drug Offenses, Due Process, DUI, Evidence, Implied Consent, Legislation, marijuana, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Proposed Law Would Require Bartenders to Cut Drunk People Off](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/proposed-law-would-require-bartenders-to-cut-drunk-people-off/) **Published:** February 29, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** ![](https://www.edgarsnyder.com/images/large-550/blog/shots-wedding-bartender.jpg)A [news article](http://www.care2.com/causes/proposed-law-would-require-bartenders-to-cut-drunk-people-off.html) written by [S.E. Smith](http://www.care2.com/causes/author/sesmith) of [www.care2.com](http://www.care2.com) reveals that a new bill was introduced into the [California State Assembly](http://assembly.ca.gov) that would require bartending personnel and managers to undergo training in how to handle alcohol and cut off intoxicated customers. [Under the ](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/asm/ab_2101-2150/ab_2121_bill_20160217_introduced.pdf)[Responsible Interventions for Beverage Servers Training Act of 2016](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/asm/ab_2101-2150/ab_2121_bill_20160217_introduced.pdf)[ (RIBS), Assembly Bill 2121](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/asm/ab_2101-2150/ab_2121_bill_20160217_introduced.pdf) would require bartenders to intervene when a bar customer has had too much to drink. The law, which if passed would go into effect in 2020, hopes to save lives decrease [DUI](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.502), and curb drunk drivers. Bartenders would be required to complete a minimum of four training hours on subjects like recognizing intoxication and understanding the physical and social effects of alcohol. The course would also examine state laws surrounding beverage service. Every three years, participants would need to renew their certifications. Although the [California Business & Professions Code](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.html/bpc_table_of_contents.html) reveals that bartenders have always practiced some [discretion in this area](http://law.justia.com/codes/california/2011/bpc/division-9/25600-25622/25602), the bill would create a more robust legal framework and provide bars with specific training requirements for staff. Furthermore, the legislation would ensure that bartenders across the state follow the same curriculum when they learn how to interact with customers. According to S.E. Smith, one of the most frustrating parts of the job can involve making judgement calls about when someone has had too much to drink and needs to go home. Some states – including Washington State – have “cut off” laws requiring bartenders to stop serving intoxicated customers. Most have laws barring service to people who are already drunk. Individual bars also have their own policies and procedures for handling customers. Drunk drivers are the main concern here. Intoxicated people who hurt themselves — an uninsured person who requires care for a broken limb, for instance — may create public health nuisances and expenses. However, when intoxicated people get in cars, the decision can be fatal. S.E. Smith emphasizes that [30 people die](http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html) as a result of drunk driving every day in the United States, including sober drivers in other vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. One third of traffic deaths can be attributed to intoxicated driving. My opinion? Similar to Ms. Smith, this bill is a step in the right direction. Many of my [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) clients tell me they were over-served at the bars they frequented before being pulled over for DUI. It helps to have backup — like policies a bartender can apply — to remind a customer that they’re breaking the law if they kept serving. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Blood Test, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, DUI, Legislation, marijuana, misdemeanor, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Feely: Endangering Other Officers During Pursuit Brings Enhanced Penalties](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/3016-2/) **Published:** February 29, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Here’s an interesting case out of Whatcom County. In *[State v. Feely](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/724509.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that a defendant convicted of [Attempting to Elude](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/eluding/) a Police Vehicle also faces sentencing enhancements under [RCW 9.94A.834](http://app.leg.wa.gov/Rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.834) when an officer who deploys spike strips is endangered. Shortly after midnight, Trooper Travis Lipton was parked in an unmarked vehicle on the shoulder of the northbound on ramp to Interstate 5. A pickup truck driven by defendant Thomas Feely passed very close to Trooper Lipton’s car while merging onto the freeway. Trooper Lipton saw the truck drift into the left lane before returning to the right lane. He followed Feely. Once Trooper Lipton caught up to Feely, he started his car’s audio and video recording system. He observed Feely drift “back and forth within the right lane continuously,” and cross the fog line and the “center skip line” dividing the two lanes. After Feely failed to signal a lane change, Trooper Lipton activated his siren and emergency lights. Feely continued northbound. Trooper Lipton advised dispatch of Feely’s failure to stop. Feely took the next exit and ran the stop sign at the top of the exit ramp. Feely continued on the two-lane road, greatly exceeding the speed limit and drifting “over onto the oncoming lane frequently.” He bypassed two cars that slowed or stopped as a result. Trooper Lipton requested dispatch contact other troopers to deploy spike strips. Police set up a spike strip, but Feely went around it. Sergeant Larry Flynn set up another spike strip. Feely attempted to drive around it but “immediately locked up” his brakes. He “slid almost the whole way” towards Sergeant Flynn and stopped just short of where Sergeant Flynn was standing. Feely then “started to jerk forward” towards Sergeant Flynn by the side of the road. Sergeant Flynn released some slack on the spike strips so he could get farther off the road. Feely ran over one of the spike strips with his front left tire and sped away. Trooper Lipton maintained his pursuit. After turning down a private driveway, Feely drove his truck into a swamp. He ran into the woods, leaving one shoe behind in the mud. More police officers shortly arrived, and after searching with two police dogs, they found Feely hiding in a tree. He had no shoes on and his clothes were wet. The officers took Feely into custody and smelled alcohol on his breath. Trooper Lipton took Feely to a hospital. About an hour later, Trooper Lipton collected Feely’s blood, which registered a blood alcohol level of 0.13. The State initially charged Feely with one count of [Felony Driving Under the Influence (DUI)](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.502) and one count of [Attempting to Elude a Pursuing Police Vehicle](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.024) with an endangerment sentencing enhancement. The State later amended the information to allege an aggravating circumstance under [RCW 9.94A.535(2)(c)](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.535) because Feely had committed multiple current offenses and his high offender score results in some of the current offenses going unpunished. At trial, Feely stipulated that he had four prior qualifying convictions, elevating the DUI to a felony. The jury found Feely guilty as charged. In a special verdict, the jury also found that a “person, other than \[Feely\] or a pursuing law enforcement officer, was endangered by Feely’s actions during his commission of the crime of Attempting to Elude a Police Vehicle.” The trial court sentenced Feely to 60 months for the felony DUI. The court sentenced him to 29 months for attempting to elude, plus 12 months and one day for the endangerment enhancement. The court ordered “all counts shall be served [consecutively](http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-s-the-difference-between-consecutive-concurrent-sentencing.html), including the portion of those counts for which there is an enhancement.” The court imposed this upward exceptional sentence after expressly finding that Mr. Feely committed multiple current offenses and the defendant’s high offender score resulted in some of the current offenses going unpunished. Feely appealed. One of his arguments was that the prosecutor misstated the law when he argued the jury “could find Feely endangered someone other than himself or a pursuing police officer if it found he endangered the officers who deployed the spike strips.” However, the Court of Appeals disagreed. It reasoned that the prosecutor did *not* misstate the law in arguing that the jury could consider Feely’s endangerment of the spike strip officers for the sentencing enhancement. The Court also reasoned that multiple, corroborating facts identified Feely as the driver of the truck, consequently, compelling evidence supports his convictions: > Moreover, Feely’s crime was captured on Trooper Lipton’s vehicle’s video recording system and admitted at trial. This video showed one driver driving a truck registered to Feely’s parents. The officers testified that they followed Feely down the private driveway, where they found his truck stuck in a swamp with the driver side window partially rolled down and the driver side door ajar. The passenger side door was closed and an expired Washington State identification card belonging to Feely was in the center console. The officers also testified that they heard what “sounded like one person” “making his way through the brush and the sticks,” and that they did not hear any sounds coming from any other direction. Moreover, police dogs, who arrived within five minutes of finding Feely’s truck, were able to locate him hiding nearby in a tree. These dogs led the officers to the same tree. Feely smelled of alcohol, and several hours after the incident, had a blood alcohol level of 0.13. Additionally, the Court of Appeals rejected Feely’s argument that the Prosecutor’s minimization of the State’s burden of proof here was improper. It reasoned that the prosecutor here never implied the jury had a duty to convict without a reason to do so or ever suggested that the burden of proof shifted to Feely. “In context of the total closing argument, we conclude the prosecutor did not trivialize the State’s burden.” Consequently, and because Feely did not object at trial and fails to establish any resulting prejudice, the Court decided Feely’s claim fails. Finally, the Court of Appeals concluded the trial court properly imposed an exceptional sentence based on Feely’s high offender score: “Under the [Sentencing Reform Act of 1981, chapter 9.94A RCW](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94a&full=true), the sentencing range increases based on the defendant’s offender score, up to a score of 9.59. Based on Feely’s offender score of 14 for each count, he faced a 60–month sentence for the felony DUI conviction alone.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Eluding, felony, law enforcement, police, Sentencing, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Drowsy Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/drowsy-driving/) **Published:** March 2, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** ![](https://prodwpids-idrivesafely.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Drowsy-Driving1.jpg)An recent [news article](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/two-states-drowsy-driving-laws_us_56ce236fe4b03260bf755df5) by [Krithika Varagur](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/krithika-varagur/) of the [Huffington Post](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/) discusses the oft-ignored epidemic of how sleep deprivation has severe effects on performance. Staying awake for 24 hours is [equivalent to having a BAC of 0.08 percent](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1739867/), which is legally drunk. The evidence exists. For example, the [National Sleep Foundation](https://sleepfoundation.org/) suggests that drowsy driving is linked to [about 100,000 car crashes](http://drowsydriving.org/about/detection-and-prevention/) every year. Also, the [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration](http://www.nhtsa.gov/) determined the average number of accidents linked to sleep deprivation between 2005 and 2009 to be about [83,000 per year](http://www.nhtsa.gov/Driving+Safety/Drowsy+Driving). Finally, studies by the [American Automobile Association](https://www.aaafoundation.org/drowsy-driving) estimate that more than 300,000 accidents each year involve a drowsy driver, with 6,400 resulting in someone’s death. Varagur says that despite these staggering numbers, [only two states](http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/summaries-of-current-drowsy-driving-laws.aspx) in the U.S. have any laws against “drowsy driving,” and even these are largely symbolic and tough to enforce. Problematically, it’s difficult to prove that drowsy drivers were, in fact, asleep at the wheel while driving. “The burden of proof in drowsy driving cases falls almost totally on police officers,” [Jeff Evans](https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffreysamuelevans), program manager of the National Sleep Foundation, told Varagur of The Huffington Post. “Barring a confession from the accused driver, it is very difficult to prove that someone was sleep-deprived.” New Jersey became the first state to pass drowsy driving legislation in 2003 with “[Maggie’s Law](http://www.safemotorist.com/NewJersey/Driving/drowsy_driving.aspx),” which says that if a driver kills someone after not sleeping for more than 24 hours, the driver can be charged with vehicular homicide. “Maggie’s Law” was the result of a campaign by Carole McDonnell, whose daughter Maggie was killed in a 1997 car crash by a van driver who had smoked crack and hadn’t slept in 30 hours. The driver’s case resolved with him [paying a $200 fine](http://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/index.ssf/2014/06/washington_township_resident_and_maggies_law_founder_speaks_out_on_tracy_morgan_crash.html) because the jury could not consider driver fatigue as a factor of guilt. Again, however, the law is difficult to enforce because it requires the driver to admit sleeplessness in court. Also, there’s no test yet to prove someone is sleep-deprived. In the decade since the law’s passage, [only one person has been prosecuted](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sleepless-in-america/200811/maggies-law) under it for driving while fatigued. In 2013, Arkansas passed [a similar law](http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southcentral/2013/04/10/287639.htm) that allows the state to charge a driver with “negligent homicide” in a fatal crash if the driver hasn’t slept in 24 hours. At the moment, the issue of drowsy driving lacks the strong political will that drunk driving had. [Mothers Against Drunk Driving](http://www.madd.org/?referrer=https://www.google.com/) helped reduce alcohol-related accidents dramatically in the 1980s, and in the 1990s, Harvard public health professor [Jay Winsten](http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/jay-winsten/) led a [national “designated driver” campaign](http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/harvard-center-helped-to-popularize-solution-to-a-national-problem/) to popularize one possible solution for the drunk driving crisis. Both these efforts elevated the problem of drunk driving in the American public consciousness. My opinion? It’s terrible to say, but I don’t know if criminalizing this behavior through legislation is the proper solution. Again, “drowsy driving” is very hard to prove unless a police officer or witness actually *saw* the driver asleep. And although police might get the driver to admit they were sleeping, these incriminating statements can be suppressed, explained away or justified at trial. There’s a range of opinions on how best to address the problem, and not all of them include legislation. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drowsy Driving, Legislation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Bellingham's New & Innovative Jail Alternatives Program](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/bellinghams-new-innovative-jail-alternatives-program/) **Published:** March 4, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Recently, the [Bellingham City Council](http://www.cob.org/gov/council) approved a new and innovative program to expand alternatives to incarceration and help reduce [Whatcom County Jail ]()overcrowding issues. The Bellingham Reduced Incarceration Challenge (BRIC) program allows eligible defendants to serve their incarceration through a private, non-profit agency, [Friendship Diversion Services](http://www.friendshipdiversion.org/) (FDS). **ELECTRONIC HOME MONITORING UNDER THE BRIC PROGRAM** Here, FDS provides jail alternatives such as [Electronic Home Detention](http://www.whatcomcountysheriff.org/2011/04/13/alternatives-to-incarceration/) (EHD) and monitoring through such devices as [SCRAM](http://ehmonitoring.com/alcohol-monitoring/scram-alcohol-monitoring-bellingham-washington/) once the defendant is screened and deemed eligible. [GPS technology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System) allows 24-hour monitoring. Participants on EHD must remain in their residence unless the Court permits them to leave for a specific purpose. However, they may leave the home for certain verified periods for approved activities to include school, work, treatment, counselling, probation/parole, medical/ dental appointments, scheduled court hearings, attorney appointments and child care provisions. While there are fees associated with this jail alternative, the costs are significantly lower than traditional jail and/or jail alternatives. Even more attractive, this alternative sentencing program is especially helpful for those with medical issues that prevent them from serving traditional jail or alternatives since they can serve their sentence at home and continue their prescribed medical treatment. **ELIGIBILITY** Anyone serving through FDS must meet statutory eligibility criteria, a screening assessment and have a sentence of more than one day. The present costs associated with FDS commitment is as follows: **\*$50 hook-up fee (for ankle bracelet)** **\*$14.50 per day (GPS)** **\*$25.00 per day (GPS and SCRAM)** All defendants will be eligible to apply for financial assistance if FDS finds that they qualify as low income during the intake screening process. **HOW IT WORKS** At sentencing, the Court enters a Home Detention Order (HDOR) authorizing the defendant to serve his/her sentence through FDS, if eligible. Any request for [credit for time served](http://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=2128) (CFTS) should be presented with verification at the time of sentencing. The defendant is then initially screened to determine eligibility. If deemed eligible, the defendant must comply by first contacting FDS by phone within 1 business day to set an intake appointment. At sentencing, the defendant signs a promise to appear for a Jail Review scheduled approximately 2 weeks after sentencing. That review hearing is stricken once the Court receives confirmation from FDS that the defendant has complied. A sample copy of this HDOR is attached. If requesting credit for time served (CFTS) towards any jail recommendation, the attorneys should come prepared at sentencing with documentation verifying any jail already served since the Court cannot obtain that information. Any violations of the HDOR are reviewed by the Court to determine appropriate sanctions including removing the defendant from the FDS program and withholding jail alternatives for the balance of the sentence. The Court intends to expand the BRIC program to encourage rehabilitation and reintegration. These programs benefit both the individual and the community. Programs being considered, among other things include re-licensing, theft awareness classes and even the possibility of work crews. My opinion? I’m impressed. The BRIC program is a new and innovative way to facilitate EHM without having to get Whatcom County Jail Alternatives or a private home monitoring company involved. Good stuff. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Jail, misdemeanor, Sentencing, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Mugshot Shaming & Facebook](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/facebook-shaming-of-mugshots/) **Published:** March 7, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** ![](https://cbssacramento.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/jeremy-meeks-facebook.jpg?w=625&h=352&crop=1)A [news article](http://wtvr.com/2016/03/04/chesterfield-dui-arrest-pics-put-on-facebook-to-deter-drinkers/) from [CBS 6 News](http://wtvr.com/category/news/) reports that the [Chesterfield County Sheriff’s Office](http://www.chesterfieldsheriff.org/) in Virginia has decided to post weekly mugshots of people arrested on [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) charges on their [Facebook page](https://www.facebook.com/chesterfieldvasheriff/). Every Thursday they put the mugshots together into a [video ](https://video-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hvideo-xfp1/v/t43.1792-2/12749162_1060804803983009_1315237929_n.mp4?efg=eyJ2ZW5jb2RlX3RhZyI6InN2ZV9oZCJ9&rl=1500&vabr=173&oh=dcf749d6f5b80449682574a536958e74&oe=56DE2AA4)that gets thousands of views. The sheriff told CBS 6 that while deputies aren’t making the arrests, they’re hoping the videos will make a difference. “It’s a community issue,” he said, and pointed out that DUI infractions are on the rise. Over the past seven days, 22 people in Chesterfield were charged with DUI. “So we wanted to do our part, in conjunction with the police department, who do a good job making the arrests, and seeing if we couldn’t help deter somebody from getting in that car when they’ve had too much to drink,” said [Sheriff Karl Leonard](http://www.chesterfield.gov/sheriff/). Additionally, the Chesterfield Sheriff’s Office wants to remind viewers that everyone you see here is innocent until proven guilty in court. My opinion? Often, clients facing criminal charges ask me whether they can sue the [Bellingham Herald](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/) – or anyone else, for that matter – on claims of slander and/or libel for posting their arrest on the Herald’s [weekly jail reports](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/crime/article64563357.html). Unfortunately, the typical answer is “No.” Under the common law, proving slander and libel require a finding that the information distributed to the public is untrue. Here, the fact that someone was arrested is, in fact, *true*. Therefore, that information can be reported. Additionally, news media outlets reporting this information provide the caveat to viewers that arrested individuals are innocent until proven guilty in court. Chesterfield County Sheriff’s Office has done this as well. Still, social media is used by *everyone*. Who among us wants their arrest information posted on Facebook? The information is a [scarlet letter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scarlet_Letter). It’s embarrassing. Worst-case scenario, people may lose employment opportunities and come under scrutiny from their peers, family and friends from the posting of this highly personal information on Facebook. On a positive note, posting people’s mugshots on Facebook could reveal whether police are racially profiling DUI defendants. Watch the video. Notice how 99.9% of Chesterfield County’s DUI offenders are Hispanic or African American? This, in a county where [census data information](http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/51041) reveals that 70% of Chesterfield County’s population is 70% Caucasian? Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Due Process, DUI, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Race & Law, Search and Seizure, Shaming, Social Media, Technology, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Police Brutality Bill in WA Senate](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/police-brutality-bill-in-wa-senate/) **Published:** March 10, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** [Seattle Times](http://www.seattletimes.com/) reporter [Steve Miletich](https://twitter.com/stevemiletich) wrote an [article ](http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/bill-would-make-it-easier-to-prosecute-police-over-deadly-force/)discussing a bill, introduced in the [WA State Legislature](http://leg.wa.gov/), which would make it easier to bring criminal charges against officers over the use of deadly force. [House Bill 2907](http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2907.pdf), sponsored by 12 Democrats in the House, would remove language in state law [RCW 9A.16.040](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.040) barring police officers from being prosecuted for killing someone in the line of duty as long as they acted in good faith and without malice, or what is defined as “evil intent.” Miletich reports that RCW 9A.16.040 was the subject of a [Seattle Times Special Report](http://projects.seattletimes.com/2015/killed-by-police/) and virtually precludes murder or manslaughter charges against police officers even if prosecutors concluded that an officer committed a wrongful killing. House Bill 2907 comes at a time of national scrutiny of killings by police, marked by the [Black Lives Matter ](http://blacklivesmatter.com/)movement. Miletich reports that it “faces a steep hurdle” to attract enough votes in the House, which is narrowly controlled by Democrats, some from conservative rural districts, and to win passage in the Republican-controlled Senate. In addition to striking the “malice” and “good-faith wording,” [House Bill 2907](http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2907.pdf) eliminates language outlining some scenarios in which officers may use deadly force. It’s replaced requirements stating that an officer must “reasonably” believe that there is an “imminent threat” of death or serious injury to the officer or a third party, and that lethal action is necessary to prevent it. What is reasonable, imminent and necessary is likely to be hotly debated. Supporters believe the proposed changes would be beneficial. “This legislation provides much-needed guidance to law enforcement officers statewide on the use of deadly force,” [Kathleen Taylor](https://aclu-wa.org/aclu-washington-leadership), executive director of the [ACLU of Washington](https://aclu-wa.org/), said in a statement. “It rightly allows officers to use deadly force only if they reasonably believe that there is an imminent threat of serious harm to themselves or other persons.” She argues that current laws have made it nearly impossible for the public to hold officers accountable for the wrongful use of deadly force and has hindered our ability to ensure justice for all. The bill has been [referred](http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2907&year=2015) to the [House Committee on Public Safety](http://leg.wa.gov/House/Committees/PS/Pages/default.aspx). It grew from legislation prepared by the [Black Alliance of Thurston County](http://www.blackalliancethurston.org/home.html), formed in the aftermath of the [shooting](http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/cop-wont-face-charges-in-shooting-of-2-alleged-shoplifters-in-olympia-5/) of two young black men in Olympia last year by a white police officer. My opinion? The legislation is timely, for sure. Statistics suggest that shootings from police are increasing. Modern technology by way of dash-cams, cell phone cameras and police body cameras has exposed the phenomenon. Archaic laws should not continue to protect police officers who unnecessarily shoot people. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** ACLU, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, law enforcement, Legislation, police, Race & Law, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Pearson: DUI Blood Draw Held Unlawful](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/3052-2/) **Published:** March 10, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Pearson](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/722301.pdf)* the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/) [Division I](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that (1) exigent circumstances did not support a warrantless blood draw for marijuana, (2) it’s reversible error to discuss the .05 THC limit in a DUI case that arose *prior* to the passage of I-502. Defendant Tamisha Pearson was a medicinal marijuana patient due to numerous health problems. She struck a pedestrian with her car, pulled over and called 911. Seattle Police Officers arrived. Officer Jongma was a [drug recognition expert](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Recognition_Expert). Pearson initially denied consuming any drugs or alcohol that day. She agreed to perform [field sobriety tests](http://www.fieldsobrietytests.org/). Some of Pearson’s behavior during the sobriety tests indicated she was impaired. Pearson told Officer Jongma that she is authorized to consume medicinal marijuana and that she had smoked earlier in the day. Based on that, Officer Jongma arrested Pearson for suspicion of [Vehicular Assault ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/vehicular-homicide-vehicular-assault/)and [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). Officer Jongma transported Pearson to [Harborview Medical Center ](http://www.uwmedicine.org/harborview)for a blood draw. They arrived at the hospital at approximately 5:26 pm—2 hours after the initial collision and 1 hour and 20 minutes after Officer Jongma arrived on the scene. At approximately 5:50 pm, a nurse drew Pearson’s blood without her consent and without a warrant. A toxicologist analyzed Pearson’s blood sample for cannabinoids on February 21, 2012. The analysis determined Pearson’s THC concentration was approximately 20 nanograms. On August 18, 2012, the [City of Seattle](http://www.seattle.gov/cityattorney/about-us/criminal-division) charged Pearson in [Seattle Municipal Court](http://www.seattle.gov/courts/) on one count of driving while under the influence of an intoxicating drug. The court initially granted Pearson’s [motion to suppress](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) the blood evidence. **TRIAL** At trial, the City introduced testimony of [forensic toxicologist Justin Knoy](http://www.wsp.wa.gov/forensics/docs/toxicology/Toxicology_Curriculum_Vitae/Knoy,%20Justin%20Curriculum%20Vitae%2001-06-2014.pdf) of the [Washington State Toxicology Laboratory](http://www.wsp.wa.gov/forensics/toxicology.htm). Over Pearson’s objection, the City elicited testimony from Knoy that the per se legal limit of THC concentration under Washington law was 5 nanograms. At the time, however, no per se limit for THC concentration in Washington existed when the accident occurred. The jury found Pearson guilty of DUI. **ISSUES ON APPEAL** The Court of Appeals addressed four issues: **(1)** whether exigent circumstances existed to justify the warrantless extraction of Pearson’s blood, **(2)** whether exigent circumstances existed to justify the warrantless testing of Pearson’s blood, **(3)** whether the trial court erred when it failed to include Pearson’s proposed jury instruction, and **(4)** whether the trial court erred when it permitted Knoy to testify that the per se legal limit for THC concentration was 5 nanograms. *1.Exigent Circumstances did **NOT** Exist to Justify Extracting & Testing Pearson’s Blood.* First, the Court of Appeals decided the City failed to show that obtaining a warrant would have significantly delayed collecting a blood sample. It reasoned that the natural dissipation of THC in Pearson’s bloodstream alone did not constitute an exigency sufficient to bypass the warrant requirement. *2. Trial Court Mistakenly Admitted Testimony From Toxicologist.* Second, the Court of Appeals decided the trial mistakenly admitted testimony from the toxicologist regarding THC limits. At the time, evidence of the .05 legal THC limit was **NOT** in effect when the offense occurred and was irrelevant to the central question at trial—whether Pearson’s ability to drive was lessened in any appreciable degree by her use of marijuana. The court reasoned the evidence was highly prejudicial because the blood test showed that Pearson had a THC concentration of 20 nanograms. Consequently, evidence of the current per se legal THC limit of 5 nanograms invited the jury to retroactively apply law that was not in effect at the time of the alleged offense and conclude that the blood evidence alone was sufficient to prove guilt. 3\. *The Defendant’s Jury Instruction Was Properly Denied.* At trial, the lower court denied the Defendant’s proposed jury instruction: > It is not unlawful for a person to consume a drug and drive. The law recognizes that a person may have consumed a drug and yet not be under the influence of it. It is not enough to prove merely that a driver had consumed a drug. The Court of Appeals held that, under these circumstances, the trial court did *not* abuse its discretion when it refused to include Pearson’s proposed jury instruction because she was able to argue her theory of the case based on the instructions given. In conclusion, the Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant’s conviction and remanded it back to the lower court. My opinion? Good rulings; especially the one regarding the mistakenly-admitted testimony from the Toxicologist. I-502’s legal limits regarding THC was *not* in effect at that time. Having a witness testify to limits was, therefore, a mistake. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, DUI, Evidence, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, Search Warrant, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Castillo-Lopez: Substituting Counsel & Continuances](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-castillo-lopez-substituting-counsel-continuances/) **Published:** March 13, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Castillo-Lopez](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2046717-8-II%20Order%20Publishing%20Opinion.pdf)*, [Division II ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo)of the [WA Court of Appeals ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/)upheld that the trial court’s decision to deny a motion to continue a trial on five counts of [Rape of a Child in the Second Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/) to allow the defendant’s retained attorney to replace the defendant’s court appointed attorney. Mr. Castillo-Lopez was charged with having sexual intercourse with his step-daughter “T.S.” on five separate occasions between January 2012 and February 2013. T.S. turned 12 years old in 2012. The court set the case for trial on July 7, 2014. On June 19, 2014, Castillo-Lopez argued [motions for substitution of counsel](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/substitution+of+counsel) and for a continuance of the trial date. Castillo-Lopez argued the case should be continued because his new attorney needed time to prepare and the parties were still awaiting DNA evidence. Although the trial court ruled it would grant the substitution, the court denied the continuance. The Court referenced “a statute that says the court has to consider also the impact of this on the child . . . ([RCW 10.46.085).](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=10.46.085) On July 3, a different judge presided over a trial confirmation hearing. And again, the trial court made it clear that it would allow the substitution, but would not grant the continuance. The matter proceeded to trial. The jury found Castillo-Lopez guilty of five counts of rape of a child in the second degree. The trial court sentenced Castillo-Lopez to a minimum of 500 months’ confinement. Castillo-Lopez appealed on the argument that the trial court denied him his counsel of choice and abused its discretion when it denied his motions to substitute counsel that were dependent upon the court granting his motions to continue the trial date. The Court of Appeals, however, disagreed. It decided the trial court did *not* abuse its discretion because the denial of the continuance was based on tenable grounds. In considering these types of motions, a trial court should consider all relevant information because “these situations are highly fact dependent and there are no mechanical tests that can be used.” *[State v. Hampton](http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20WACO%2020151123C76/STATE%20v.%20HAMPTON).* Finally, it reasoned that trial courts should consider all relevant information including the 11 factors described in the most recent version of LaFave’s Criminal Procedure treatise: > (1) whether the request came at a point sufficiently in advance of trial to permit the trial court to readily adjust its calendar; > > (2) the length of the continuance requested; > > (3) whether the continuance would carry the trial date beyond the period specified in the state speedy trial act; > > (4) whether the court had granted previous continuances at the defendant’s request; > > (5) whether the continuance would seriously inconvenience the witnesses; > > (6) whether the continuance request was made promptly after the defendant first became aware of the grounds advanced for discharging his or her counsel; > > (7) whether the defendant’s own negligence placed him or her in a situation where he or she needed a continuance to obtain new counsel; > > (8) whether the defendant had some legitimate cause for dissatisfaction with counsel, even though it fell short of likely incompetent representation; > > (9) whether there was a “rational basis” for believing that the defendant was seeking to change counsel “primarily for the purpose of delay”; > > (10) whether the current counsel was prepared to go to trial; > > (11) whether denial of the motion was likely to result in identifiable prejudice to the defendant’s case of a material or substantial nature. Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the denial of the continuance was based on tenable grounds. It considered relevant information and applied a number of the above-listed factors in making its decision. It also reasoned Castillo-Lopez never expressed dissatisfaction with his appointed counsel. Castillo-Lopez did not want a continuance. Again, the trial court made it clear it would grant the motion for substitution of counsel, but without a continuance. Thus, the denial of the motion for a continuance on July 3, 2014 was not an abuse of discretion because there were no substantial or compelling reasons to continue the trial date and the benefit to Castillo-Lopez was outweighed by the detriment of a continuance on the child victim. My opinion? The Court should have granted at least one continuance. Although the crimes were heinous, that’s not the point. Under the 6th Amendment, all defendants deserve a fair trial and to be represented by counsel of their choosing. It takes a lot of time to prepare for jury trial in a multi-count sex case involving Class A felonies. At least *one* continuance is warranted. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Continuance, Due Process, felony, Jury Trial, Rape, Sex Crimes, Sixth Amendment, Speedy Trial & Continuances, Substitution of Counsel, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Some Bellingham Inmates Transported Out Of County](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/some-bellingham-inmates-transported-out-of-county/) **Published:** March 23, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** ![](https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5001/5196284693_7a6a2bbd8c_b.jpg)Today, the [Bellingham Herald](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/) [reported ](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article67569197.html#storylink=cpy)that the [City of Bellingham](https://www.cob.org/) shall transport inmates to a [King County jail](http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/detention/adult_detention/KCCF.aspx) if the [Whatcom ](http://www.whatcomcounty.us/258/Inmate-Databases)and [Yakima County jail ](http://www.yakimacounty.us/592/Visiting-the-Jail)don’t have room available. Recently, council members approved a contract with the [South Correctional Entity regional jail](http://www.scorejail.org/) (SCORE) located in King County. It was reported that because the City did not promise to send a certain number of inmates to the facility per year, the cost to house someone there would be charged at higher rate of **$157 per day.** The City has moved inmates to Yakima County Jail on a weekly basis since mid-January, in response to Whatcom County Sheriff Bill Elfo’s [policy shift in the new year](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article62808067.html) to keep the population in the main Whatcom County Jail at or below about 212 inmates. The daily cost to house inmates in Yakima is about $54. Under the agreement, the City shall transfer inmates who only have misdemeanor charges in Bellingham. The county is still responsible for all people being held on felony charges, regardless of which agency books them into jail. It was reported that since the beginning of the year, there have been on average about seven inmates with Bellingham-only charges in the main jail on any given day. Consequently, the City’s inmates are a relatively small percentage of the total jail population. As of Friday, March 18, the City had eight people in the main jail, 13 in the work center on Division Street, and seven people on [electronic home monitoring](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article58784383.html) through the City’s contract with [Friendship Diversion Services](http://www.friendshipdiversion.org/). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Jail, law enforcement, misdemeanor, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["Car Key" Breathalyzer](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/car-key-breathalyzer/) **Published:** April 1, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** According to an [article ](http://blog.caranddriver.com/honda-hitachi-develop-breathalyzer-that-knows-its-being-fed-human-breath/)by caranddriver.com, auto maker [Honda ](http://www.honda.com/)and electronics company [Hitachi](http://www.hitachi.com/) developed a compact and tamper-proof portable breathalyzer. The breathalyzer is able to detect non-human gases by way of “saturated water vapor sensor.” Hitachi was able to shrink this sensor so that it could fit in the prototype breathalyzer, **which is roughly the size of an average car’s smart key**. The sensor itself incorporates a pair of electrodes that sandwich an oxide insulator. When humid human breath passes over the insulator, the moisture in it is absorbed. This allows a “current” to pass between the electrodes. The technology combines the breathalyzer with a car’s “smart key.” In other words, the device could be programmed to disallow the user to start the car. This built-in ignition interlock is much slicker and far less embarrassing than the retrofitted versions required by municipalities here in the U.S. for drivers previously convicted of a [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or on probation for a similar offense. Furthermore, the breathalyzer can take a reading of the blower’s blood-alcohol content (BAC) within three seconds. Problematically, the device cannot tell *who* is blowing for a reading. An intoxicated driver could still, theoretically, pass the device to a sober bystander to fool the system. While neat and certainly welcome, the device isn’t as high-tech as, say, the anti-drunk-driving solutions [NHTSA is chasing](http://blog.caranddriver.com/take-a-shot-of-this-in-car-drunkness-detection-systems-being-tested-by-nhtsa/) with breathalyzers built into cars—which are capable of determining between drunk car occupants and drunk drivers. Still, the device is a fairly novel step in the right direction. It’s too intrusive upon drivers, doesn’t violate constitutional rights, it appears affordable and it protects public safety. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, DUI, Ignition Interlock Device, misdemeanor, Technology, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Second Amendment Protects Stun Guns](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/second-amendment-protects-stun-guns/) **Published:** April 1, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [Cadtano v. Massachusetts](http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/032116zor_h3ci.pdf#page=15), the [U.S. Supreme Court](http://www.supremecourt.gov/) ruled that the [Second Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment) presumably extends to stun guns. After a “bad altercation” with an abusive boyfriend put her in the hospital, Jaime Caetano found herself homeless and in fear for her life. She obtained multiple restraining orders against her abuser, but they proved futile. So when a friend offered her a stun gun “for self-defense against her former boy friend, Caetano accepted the weapon. It is a good thing she did. One night after leaving work, Caetano found her ex-boyfriend waiting for her outside. He “started screaming” that she was “not gonna \[expletive deleted\] work at this place” any more because she “should be home with the kids” they had together. Caetano’s abuser towered over her by nearly a foot and outweighed her by close to 100 pounds. But she didn’t need physical strength to protect herself. She stood her ground, displayed the stun gun, and announced: “I’m not gonna take this anymore. . . . I don’t wanna have to use the stun gun on you, but if you don’t leave me alone, I’m gonna have to.” The gambit worked. The ex-boyfriend “got scared and he left her alone.” Under [Massachusetts law](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section131J), however, stun guns are illegal. When police later discovered the weapon, Ms. Caetano was arrested, tried, and convicted for violating the law. The [Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court](http://www.mass.gov/courts/court-info/sjc/) affirmed the conviction, holding that a stun gun “is not the type of weapon that is eligible for Second Amendment protection” because it was “not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Her case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s conclusion that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use. It reasoned that law enforcement and correctional officers carry stun guns and Tasers, presumably for such purposes as nonlethal crowd control. Also, subduing members of a mob is little different from suppressing insurrections, a traditional role of the militia. Finally, several branches of the U. S. armed services equip troops with electrical stun weapons to “incapacitate a target without permanent injury or known side effects.” The Court also reasoned that “hundreds of thousands of Tasers and stun guns have been sold to private citizens,” who may lawfully possess them in 45 States. Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded with powerful language stated below: > A State’s most basic responsibility is to keep its people safe. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was either unable or unwilling to do what was necessary to protect Jaime Caetano, so she was forced to protect herself. To make matters worse, the Commonwealth chose to deploy its prosecutorial resources to prosecute and convict her of a criminal offense for arming herself with a nonlethal weapon that may well have saved her life. The Supreme Judicial Court then affirmed her conviction on the flimsiest of grounds. This Court’s grudging per curiam now sends the case back to that same court. And the consequences for Caetano may prove more tragic still, as her conviction likely bars her from ever bearing arms for self-defense. If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe. With that, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Massachusetts Supreme Court and remanded the case for further proceedings. My opinion? Good decision. Stun guns are non-lethal use of self-defense. They shouldn’t be outlawed or classified as a dangerous weapon. FYI, stun guns are (mostly) legal in WA State. State law only prohibits the possession of a stun gun on school property under [RCW 9.41.280](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.280). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, Firearm, Search and Seizure, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Police Dog "Bite & Hold"](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/police-dog-bite-hold/) **Published:** April 9, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** ![](http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8543/8653256936_dcc2677de6.jpg)In *[Lowry v. City of San Diego](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/04/01/13-56141.pdf)*, the Ninth Circuit held that [City of San Diego’s](https://www.sandiego.gov/) policy of training its police dogs to “bite and hold” individuals resulted in a violation of plaintiff’s [Fourth Amendment ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment)rights. After a night of drinking with her friends, Sara Lowry returned to her workplace and fell asleep on her office couch. She awoke a short while later and went to the bathroom, before returning to her couch and going back to sleep. Unfortunately for Lowry, during her trip to the bathroom, she accidentally triggered the building’s burglar alarm. Several officers from the San Diego Police Department (“SDPD”) responded, accompanied by a police service dog named Bak. After searching the area and giving several warnings, the officers released Bak into Lowry’s office. Bak found Lowry and pounced on her, tearing open her upper lip. Lowry filed suit against the City of San Diego (the “City”) under [42 U.S.C. § 1983](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983), alleging that the City’s policy of training its police dogs to “bite and hold” individuals resulted in a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. The district court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment, concluding both that Lowry did not suffer constitutional harm and that, even if she did, the City was not liable for her injuries. The Ninth Circuit decided that a reasonable jury could find that the police officers responding to the alarm used excessive force when they deliberately unleashed a police dog that they knew might well “rip the face off” any individual who might be present in the office. They also decided that the force used was excessive and that the City was liable. The Court reasoned that the SDPD trains its police dogs to enter a building, find a person, bite them, and hold that bite until a police officer arrives and removes the dog. However, police dogs are not trained to differentiate between “a young child asleep or . . . a burglar standing in the kitchen with a butcher knife,” and will simply bite the first person they find. Generally, the decision of whether to conduct a canine search on or off its leash is left to the officer’s discretion. However, the SDPD’s Canine Unit Operations Manual provides that residential searches “should normally be conducted on-lead unless the handler can reasonably determine there are no residents or animals in the home.” The Court further reasoned that objectively unreasonable uses of force violate the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable seizures. Our excessive force analysis under *[Graham v. Connor](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/)* involves three steps. First, we must assess the severity of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment rights by evaluating the type and amount of force inflicted. Second, we evaluate the government’s interest in the use of force. Finally, we balance the gravity of the intrusion on the individual against the government’s need for that intrusion. Here, under these circumstances, the Ninth Circuit found that a reasonable juror could conclude that releasing Bak into the suite posed a high risk of severe harm to any individual present. Additionally, the officers would not have been justified in believing that Lowry posed a threat to their safety or to others. Throughout the entire encounter, until she was bitten by Bak, Lowry remained fast asleep on the couch. Lowry did not engage in any threatening behavior, nor do anything other than lie quietly before she was bit in the face. Finally, a non-residential burglary is not an inherently dangerous crime, and the fact that an unarmed suspect has broken into a dwelling at night does not automatically mean she is physically dangerous. Given that there is no dispute that the City’s “bite and hold policy” was the moving force behind Lowry’s constitutional injuries, the City was not entitled to dismissal under summary judgment. With that, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded this case for further proceedings. Good decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, law enforcement, police, Police Dogs, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Frisks & DV Investigations](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/domestic-violence-frisks/) **Published:** April 9, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[Thomas v. Dillard](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/04/05/13-55889.pdf)*, the [9th Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) held that although the [domestic violence (DV)](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) nature of a police investigation is relevant in assessing whether a suspect is armed and dangerous, it is not alone sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion to search. Palomar College Police Officer Christopher Dillard responded to a call to investigate a man pushing a woman in a public area on the college’s campus. There he found Correll Thomas, a student at the college who had been hanging out with and kissing his girlfriend, Amy Husky. Although Thomas was unarmed and in fact had committed no act of domestic violence, Dillard demanded Thomas submit to a search for weapons, believing police officers are free to conduct a [*Terry* frisk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio) whenever they are investigating a potential “domestic violence” incident, regardless of the specific circumstances of the call or the facts encountered at the scene. When Thomas refused to be searched, Dillard tased him. Thomas sued Dillard under [42 U.S.C. § 1983](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983), asserting unlawful seizure and excessive force under the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment). The 9th Circuit held that although the domestic violence nature of a police investigation is a relevant consideration in assessing whether there is reason to believe a suspect is armed and dangerous, it is not alone sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion: > “Because domestic violence encompasses too many criminal acts of varying degrees of seriousness for an officer to form reasonable suspicion a suspect is armed from that label alone, we hold domestic violence is not a crime such as bank robbery or trafficking in large quantities of drugs that is, as a general matter, likely to involve the use of weapons.” Therefore, officer Dillard violated plaintiff’s [Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizure ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment)by detaining him for the purpose of performing a *Terry* frisk. However, the 9th Circuit held that Dillard was entitled to protection from the lawsuit under [qualified immunity ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity)because it was not clearly established at the time that the initial demand for a frisk was unlawful. The court further held that it was not clearly established at the time that continuing to detain a noncompliant domestic violence suspect for the purpose of executing a frisk and tasing him when he refused to comply were unlawful. My opinion? On the one hand, it’s refreshing that the Court understood the 4th Amendment issues presented in this case. Forcing a *Terry* search is unlawful under these circumstances. However, I disagree with the court that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Domestic Violence, law enforcement, Obstructing, police, Police Misconduct, Qualified Immunity, Race & Law, Search and Seizure, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Bellingham Police Department Body Cameras Now Mandatory](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/bellingham-police-department-body-cameras-now-mandatory/) **Published:** April 20, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** A news article by [Samantha Wohlfiel](http://swohlfeil@bhamherald.com) from of the [Bellingham Herald](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/) reports that starting this July, [Bellingham Police Department](https://www.cob.org/gov/dept/police) (BPD) will require all uniformed patrol officers to wear and use body cameras. In 2014, the BPD started a voluntary program, allowing officers to use a body camera if they were willing. Now, [Police Chief Cliff Cook ](https://www.cob.org/gov/dept/police/about/Pages/command-staff.aspx)has decided all uniformed patrol officers will need to wear the cameras while on duty: > “I think the original pilot and then the past year and a half … has shown us that having the videos is not only beneficial in cases of prosecution of individuals for crimes, as evidence of the actions of our officers, especially when they’re appropriate . . . It also generally helps us resolve disputes or disagreements about what may have transpired between an officer and a citizen much more quickly and in a more definitive way.” > > ~Police Chief Cliff Cook Initially, 18 officers volunteered for Bellingham’s program, and currently 34 officers are using the cameras, Cook said. He also mentioned that his police officers have noted that people often change their behavior for the better when they’re told they’re being filmed. One of the main concerns for officers and community members has been privacy, Cook said: > “One of the concerns we talked about was the overriding concern about creating video of individuals in pretty personally trying situations that involve personal privacy, such as mental illness, or a domestic violence call in a private residence, or interviewing the victim of a crime. So there are provisions within the policy where officers are given discretion on whether they want to turn that camera on or not.” > > ~Police Chief Cliff Cook Basically, the “policy” requires that officers turn on the cameras for any enforcement activity, an arrest, use of force or where they believe there will be the need to use force. The department has a mix of cameras, some that are clipped on a lapel, others that are worn on glasses, but both have easily been knocked off in situations where officers were restraining someone, Cook said, so the department may shift toward other models. Between 2014 and 2016, the total program cost has been $315,250, which includes things such as all hardware (the cameras, clips, glasses they sit on, etc.), software and docking stations, Cook told the council. According to the article, the projected costs moving forward are about $35,000 to $56,000 per year each of the next two years for renewed data storage management. Another concern was, of course, privacy: > “One of the concerns we talked about was the overriding concern about creating video of individuals in pretty personally trying situations that involve personal privacy, such as mental illness, or a domestic violence call in a private residence, or interviewing the victim of a crime. So there are provisions within the policy where officers are given discretion on whether they want to turn that camera on or not.” > > ~Police Chief Cliff Cook The current policy requires that officers turn on the cameras for any enforcement activity, an arrest, use of force or where they believe there will be the need to use force. My opinion? This is a step in the right direction. Body cameras make everyone behave better. They also catch evidence of what really transpired. Good move, BPD. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Body camera, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, Evidence, felony, law enforcement, Miranda, misdemeanor, Obstructing, police, Police Dogs, Police Misconduct, Privacy, Probable Cause, Qualified Immunity, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Technology, Terry Stop, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Prisoners on Strike](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/prisoners-on-strike/) **Published:** April 24, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Reporter [Alice Sperry](https://theintercept.com/staff/alicesperi/) of [theintercept.com](https://theintercept.com/) wrote [an article](https://theintercept.com/2016/04/04/prisoners-in-multiple-states-call-for-strikes-to-protest-forced-labor/) describing how prisoners around the country have called for a series of strikes against forced labor and demanded reforms of parole systems and prison policies; as well as more humane living conditions, a reduced use of solitary confinement, and better health care. Apparently, Texas prisons are a hotbed for the controversy. Weeks ago, inmates at five Texas prisons pledged to refuse to leave their cells because of the strike. The organizers even drafted a [letter](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2783473-PrisonStrike.html) articulating the reasons for the strike. Their demands range from the specific, such as a “good-time” credit toward sentence reduction and an end to $100 medical co-pays, to the systemic, namely a drastic downsizing of the state’s incarcerated population. The [13th Amendment to the United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiii) bans “involuntary servitude” in addition to slavery, “except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted . . .” Today, however, the prison industrial complex is $2 billion a year industry, according to the [Prison Policy Initiative](http://www.prisonpolicy.org/prisonindex/prisonlabor.html), a nonprofit research institute. Sperry article describes how a majority of prisoners work for the prisons themselves, making well below the minimum wage in some states, and as little as [17 cents](http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-united-states-big-business-or-a-new-form-of-slavery/8289) per hour in privately run facilities. In Texas and a few other states, mostly in the South, prisoners are not paid at all, said Erica Gammill, director of the Prison Justice League, an organization that works with inmates in 109 Texas prisons*.* “They get paid nothing, zero; it’s essentially forced labor,” she told *The Intercept*. *“*They rationalize not paying prison laborers by saying that money goes toward room and board, to offset the cost of incarcerating them.” In Texas, prisoners have traditionally worked on farms, raising hogs and picking cotton, especially in East Texas, where many prisons occupy former plantations. Although they comprise nearly half the incarcerated population nationwide — about 870,000 as of 2014 — prison workers are not counted in official labor statistics; they get no disability compensation in case of injury, no social security benefits, and no overtime. The Texas action is not an isolated one. Prisoners in nearby Alabama and Mississippi, and as far away as Oregon, have also been alerted to the Texas strike through an underground network of communication between prisons. In March, protests erupted at [Holman Correctional Facility](http://www.doc.state.al.us/facility.aspx?loc=33), a maximum security state prison in Alabama, where two riots broke out over four days. At least 100 prisoners gained control of part of the prison and stabbed a guard and the warden. Those protests were unplanned, but prisoners there had also been organizing coordinated actions that they say will go ahead as planned. “We have to strain the economics of the criminal justice system, because if we don’t, we can’t force them to downsize,” an activist serving a life sentence at Holman told *The Intercept.* “Setting fires and stuff like that gets the attention of the media,” he said. “But I want us to organize something that’s not violent. If we refuse to offer free labor, it will force the institution to downsize.” “Slavery has always been a legal institution,” he added. “And it never ended. It still exists today through the criminal justice system.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Cruel & Unusual Punishment, Department of Corrections, Prison, Race & Law, Sentencing, Studies, Thirteenth Amendment, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Attorney Alexander Ransom Selected Among Top 1% Percent](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/attorney-alexander-ransom-selected-among-top-1-percent/) **Published:** April 27, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** [Alexander Ransom](https://www.distinguishedcounsel.org/members/alexander-ransom/25114/), of [Law Office Alexander F. Ransom](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/), has been selected to the 2016 list as a member of the Nation’s Top One Percent by the [National Association of Distinguished Counsel](https://www.distinguishedcounsel.org/). NADC is an organization dedicated to promoting the highest standards of legal excellence. Its mission is to objectively recognize the attorneys who elevate the standards of the Bar and provide a benchmark for other lawyers to emulate. Members are thoroughly vetted by a research team, selected by a blue ribbon panel of attorneys with podium status from independently neutral organizations, and approved by a judicial review board as exhibiting virtue in the practice of law. Due to the incredible selectivity of the appointment process, only the top one percent of attorneys in the United States are awarded membership in NADC. This elite class of advocates consists of the finest leaders of the legal profession from across the nation. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [The "Textalyzer" Battles Distracted Driving & Works Like A Breathalyzer](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/the-textalyzer-battles-distracted-driving-works-like-a-breathalyzer/) **Published:** April 28, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** A very interesting and well-written [news article](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/science/driving-texting-safety-textalyzer.html) by reporter [Matt Richtel ](http://www.nytimes.com/topic/person/matt-richtel?action=click&contentCollection=Science&module=Byline®ion=Header&pgtype=article)of the [New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/?action=click&contentCollection=undefined®ion=TopBar&module=HomePage-Title&pgtype=undefined) discussed how lawmakers from New York want to treat distracted driving like drunken driving. The newest idea is to give police officers a new device that is the digital equivalent of the Breathalyzer — a roadside test called the Textalyzer. The idea certainly carries momentum. Richtel wrote that over the last seven years, most states have banned texting by drivers, and public service campaigns have tried many tactics — “[It can wait](http://www.itcanwait.com/all),” among them — to persuade people to ignore their phones when driving their cars. Nevertheless, the problem appears to be getting worse. Americans confess in surveys that they are still texting while driving, as well as [using Facebook and Snapchat and taking selfies](http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/19/some-people-do-more-than-text-while-driving/). Richtel’s article emphasized that road fatalities, which had fallen for years, are now rising sharply, up roughly 8 percent in 2015 over the previous year, according[ to preliminary ](http://www.nsc.org/Connect/NSCNewsReleases/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=103)[estimates](http://www.nsc.org/Connect/NSCNewsReleases/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=103). That is partly because people are driving more, but Mark Rosekind, the chief of the [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration](http://www.nhtsa.gov/), said distracted driving was “only increasing, unfortunately.” In response, legislators and public health experts want to treat distracted driving like drunken driving. The most provocative idea is to give police officers a new device that is the digital equivalent of the Breathalyzer — a roadside test called the Textalyzer. Richtel explained it would work like this: an officer arriving at the scene of a crash could ask for the phones of any drivers involved and use the Textalyzer to tap into the operating system to check for recent activity. The technology could determine whether a driver had used the phone to text, email or do anything else that is forbidden under New York’s hands-free driving laws, which prohibit drivers from holding phones to their ear. Failure to hand over a phone could lead to the suspension of a driver’s license, similar to the consequences for refusing a Breathalyzer. Richtel described how the [proposed legislation](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2015/s6325/amendment/a) faces hurdles to becoming a law, including privacy concerns. But [Félix W. Ortiz](http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/Felix-W-Ortiz), a Democratic assemblyman who was a sponsor of the bipartisan Textalyzer bill, said it would not give the police access to the contents of any emails or texts. It would simply give them a way to catch multitasking drivers, he said. If the legislation passed in New York, it could be adopted by other states in the same way that the hands-free rules did after New York adopted them. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Cell Phone, Constitutional Rights, Distracted Driving, law enforcement, Legislation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, police, Privacy, Reckless Driving, Reckless Endangerment, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Technology, Text Messages, Traffic Infractions, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["Community Caretaking" Search Upheld as Lawful](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/3122-2/) **Published:** April 30, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Duncan*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/901881.pdf), the [WA Supreme Court](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) decided police officers may make a limited sweep of a vehicle under the [community caretaking exception](http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/searching-pursuant-the-community-caretaking-exception.html) to the warrant requirement when **(1)** there is reasonable suspicion that an unsecured weapon is in the vehicle and **(2)** the vehicle has or shortly will be impounded and will be towed from the scene. However, this exception may not be used as a pre-text for an investigative search. A little after midnight in Yakima one summer night in 2009, someone in a car shot into a home, grazing Kyle Mullins’ head. Other people in the home called 911 for medical assistance and to report the shooting. Callers described the car as white and possibly a Subaru or Impala. Officers were dispatched and stopped Duncan’s white Ford Taurus. Officers removed Duncan and his two passengers from the car at gunpoint, ordered them to the ground, handcuffed them, and put them in separate police cars. Without a warrant, officers opened the doors and found shell casings on the floor and a gun between the front passenger seat and the door. One officer removed the gun and placed it into an evidence bag in his own patrol car. The passengers told the police that Duncan had fired from the car and tossed the gun on the front floorboards. After the car was towed to a police annex, police obtained a warrant and made a more thorough search. Duncan was charged with six counts of [first degree assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) and one count of [unlawful possession of a firearm](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/). Duncan moved to suppress the evidence under [CrR 3.6](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) and confessions under [CrR 3.5](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.5) that flowed from the traffic stop on several grounds, including that the police had insufficient grounds to stop him and that their initial warrantless search of his car was improper. At the pretrial suppression hearing, held a year and a half after the events of that summer night, the judge found that the stop was justified and that the search was reasonable, and denied the motions. The jury returned guilty verdicts on all charges and found by special verdicts that Duncan was armed with a firearm. The judge sentenced Duncan to 1,159 months of incarceration, the top of the standard range. Duncan’s projected release date is March 26, 2099. The case was appealed to the WA Supreme Court to decide the issue of whether the warrantless search of Duncan’s vehicle was lawful. The Court decided it was. The Court reasoned that generally, warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable. Nonetheless, there are a few jealously and carefully drawn exceptions to the warrant requirement which provide for those cases where the societal costs of obtaining a warrant, such as danger to law officers of the risk of loss or destruction of evidence, outweigh the reasons for prior recourse to a neutral magistrate. The State bears the burden of showing that the search and seizure was supported by a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement. The fruits of an unconstitutional search and seizure must be suppressed. The Court reasoned that the search was *not* lawful under *[Arizona v. Gant](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-542.ZO.html)* for “officer safety” reasons because the vehicles’ occupants are detained in police cars. Also the search was not lawful under the [Plain View Doctrine ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plain_view_doctrine)because the officers could see the gun from outside the vehicle. Finally, the search was also not a valid inventory search because the car was not impounded. However, the court found the search was lawful under the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement. Under that exception, officers may make a limited sweep of a vehicle when (1) there is reasonable suspicion that an unsecured weapon is in the vehicle and (2) the vehicle has or shortly will be impounded and will be towed from the scene. We caution, however, that the community caretaking exception is a strictly limited exception to the warrant requirement. It may not, however, be used as a pretext for an investigatory search: > “It will only rarely justify intrusion into a private place or vehicle after an arrest. However, given the facts of this case and the fact that the sweep of the vehicle occurred before our opinion in *Snapp*, 174 Wn.2d 177, was announced, we are confident that the desire to remove an unsecured gun from the vehicle was not here used as a pretext for an otherwise unlawful search.” With that, the Court concluded that the limited search of the vehicle was lawful and affirmed Duncan’s conviction. My opinion? For those who don’t know, pretextual searches are unlawful. They usually describes false reasons that hide the true intentions or motivations for a legal action. If a party trying to admit the evidence can establish good reasons, the opposing party – usually, the defense – must prove that the these reasons were “pretextual,” or false, and move to suppress the “fruits” of the search. Here, I understand the Court’s logic. I’m glad the Court appreciates the unlawfulness of pretextual searches and makes distinctions in the case at hand. Unfortunately, until now, unlawful pretext searches have been mitigated and/or simply ignored by our courts for many years. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Community Caretaking, Constitutional Rights, Evidence, felony, Firearm, law enforcement, Plain View, police, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Wielding Inoperable Firearm During Crime is Still Unlawful](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/3130-2/) **Published:** May 1, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Tasker*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/328261.pub.pdf), the WA Court of Appeals Division III held that although the State must prove to the jury that the defendant possessed a real firearm at the time of the crime, the State is not required to prove that the firearm was operable. On June 13, 2013, Gloria Campos-White was sitting in her parked car outside of her daughter’s middle school waiting for her daughter’s basketball practice to finish. A man walked up to her open driver’s side window, pointed a gun in her face, and demanded she give him her purse. She complied, telling him as she handed him the purse that she did not have any money. After the man had her purse, he got into the back seat and ordered Ms. Campos-White to drive. He still had the gun when he entered the car, and that although she did not see it again, at one point when they were actually driving she thought she heard the clicking of something behind her head. The man gave directions as she drove, but he did not tell her where they were going. She did not know where they were. Not knowing his intentions, Ms. Campos-White felt desperate to get away. Without slowing her car, she waited for a gap in oncoming traffic, unbuckled her seatbelt, opened the car door, and jumped out of the moving vehicle. Her car soon struck a bank on the side of the road and flipped on its side. People nearby heard the crash. They stopped traffic and attended to Ms. Campos-White. They saw a man climb out of a passenger side door of her car and run off. Ms. Campos-White sustained a severe concussion that led to the loss of her ability to taste or smell. Ultimately, based on video surveillance recorded by the middle school, Ms. Campos-White’s identification, and physical evidence recovered from the scene of the crash, Christopher Tasker was arrested and charged with [first degree kidnapping](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/kidnapping-unlawful-imprisonment/), [attempted first degree robbery](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/robbery/), and [first degree unlawful possession of a firearm](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/). The State sought [firearm enhancements](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.533) in connection with both the first degree kidnapping and the attempted first degree robbery charges. At trial, Ms. Campos-White identified Mr. Tasker as the man who kidnapped and attempted to rob her. She described the gun that Mr. Tasker used, explaining it was a dark color and small enough to be held with one hand. She admitted during the State’s examination that she did not know much about guns or firearms, and testified that she had “never seen a gun in real life.” She also admitted that she would not know the difference between a revolver and semiautomatic handgun by name, but knew that they looked different. She never wavered from her testimony that Mr. Tasker had been armed with a gun, however. Asked on cross-examination whether there was any chance it could’ve been anything besides a handgun, she answered, “No.” The defense devoted its entire closing argument to urging the jury that there was reasonable doubt whether Mr. Tasker had been armed with a real firearm. It emphasized Ms. Campos-White’s nonspecific description of the gun, her inexperience with firearms, and an asserted hesitancy in her testimony. Nevertheless, the jury found Mr. Tasker guilty of all charges and imposed the deadly weapon sentencing enhancements. Defense Counsel brought a post-trial motion to set aside the jury’s verdict on the firearm possession findings. The trial court informed the parties that it had concluded after reading cases cited by the parties that Division Two of the Court of Appeals “seems to focus more on the question of has the prosecution proven that the gun was operable,” while Division One “appears to focus more on the question of was the gun real,” a “slightly different question.” The court denied Defense Counsel’s motion, “recognizing that it’s a razor thin issue and it could go either way on appeal.” Mr. Tasker’s sentences on his three convictions run concurrently, with the longest being his 144 month sentence on the first degree kidnapping count. The firearm enhancement terms (60 months for the kidnapping and 36 months for the attempted robbery) run consecutive to his base sentence, increasing his sentence by eight years. Mr. Tasker appealed on the argument that the State failed to prove he wielded an operable firearm during the crimes. In other words, the question was whether evidence of operability at the time of the crime is required because the statutory definition of “firearm” includes language that it is a weapon or device “from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired.” Again, he argued, the firearm was inoperable. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals was not persuaded. Instead, it found that a reasonable juror would have found sufficient evidence that Mr. Tasker wielded a firearm. Here, the State presented sufficient evidence of what it was required to prove: that the gun Mr. Tasker used in the assault was a gun “in fact,” rather than “a gunlike but nondeadly object. Mr. Tasker pointed the gun at Ms. Campos-White’s face in demanding her purse and used it to advance a kidnapping. Visibility was good; the crime occurred in daylight on a June afternoon. Ms. Campos-White saw the gun at close range and was unwavering in her testimony that it was a gun. While she forthrightly admitted to little experience with guns “in real life,” she was old enough, as the mother of a middle schooler, to have seen guns in photographs, on the news, in television programs and in movies. The clicking noise she described hearing behind her head was consistent with Mr. Tasker’s use of a real gun. Collectively, the evidence was sufficient to establish the gun met the definition of a “firearm” under [RCW 9.41.010(9)](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.010). Consequently, the Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Firearm, Jury Trial, Kidnapping, Robbery, Sentencing, Uncategorized, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Jailhouse Snitches](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/jailhouse-snitches/) **Published:** May 14, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [Legislative Advocacy Clinic](http://www.law.washington.edu/Clinics/LegAdv/) at the [University of Washington Law School](https://www.law.uw.edu/) is working on passing legislation which would require a pre-trial reliability hearing for “incentivized informants,” i.e., jailhouse rats. The law school put together [a survey](http://cts.vresp.com/c/?WashingtonDefenderAs/d8e5e95ced/1285d4cb20/547455f546) for defense attorneys in the state that they hope will better provide them with hard data on how and when informants are being used. Some explanation is necessary. In some criminal cases involving wrongful convictions, the main evidence against the defendant is testimony by a jailhouse informant, who is commonly referred to as a “snitch.” Unfortunately, in weighing this evidence, a jury may be unaware that the snitch has received favorable treatment or a reduced sentence in exchange for his testimony, or that he regularly has acted as a jailhouse snitch by testifying in multiple criminal cases. In this respect, the snitch’s testimony could be unreliable because it’s motivated by something other than the truth. As a result, a snitch’s testimony has proven to be false in some cases, which in turn leads to wrongful convictions. When an inmate has little recourse in his own criminal case, and is facing stiff penalties as a result of his crime, the temptation and desperation may prove too much, thus resulting in voluntary testimony that negatively implicates a fellow inmate. At that point, the snitch has nothing to lose; at worst, he will not get the incentive he has been promised, and, at best, he might receive a lighter sentence, reduced charges, and/or more pleasant accommodations while incarcerated, such as placement near family members. This all-too-common phenomenon of incentives in exchange for testimony can result in false testimony, and wrongful convictions. Even worse, a jury considering “snitch evidence” in a criminal case is likely to be totally unaware of any incentives that the snitch was given by the prosecution in exchange for his or her testimony. Therefore, if the snitch otherwise appears to be credible during his or her testimony, the jury will have no reason to suspect that the snitch may have an alternate motive to testify. The implications of wrongful convictions due to false testimony by snitches is highlighted in a [2005 report by the Center on Wrongful Convictions](http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/death_penalty_reform/jailhouse20snitch20testimony20policy20briefpdf.pdf), [Northwestern University of Law](http://www.law.northwestern.edu/), Chicago, which profiles 38 death row defendants, convicted on the basis of false testimony by snitches, whose convictions were later overturned. *According to the Center’s report, snitch testimony is the leading cause of wrongful conviction in capital cases. O*bviously, this can have devastating results for the criminal justice system as a whole, not to mention its potentially irreversible impact on the innocent defendant, who loses years of his or her life to incarceration, or even life altogether. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Informant, Studies, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Deleon: Court Strikes Evidence of "Gang Affiliation" Due To Defendant's Music Preferences](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-deleon-courts-strikes-evidence-of-gang-affiliation-due-to-defendants-music-preferences/) **Published:** May 14, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Deleon*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/911851.pdf), the [WA Supreme Court](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that (1) a defendant’s musical preference does not establish gang membership, and their admittance to gang affiliation during jail booking may not be used at trial. The State prosecuted Mr. Deleon and two others for multiple counts of [Assault in the First Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) with [deadly weapon enhancements](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.533) and with [gang aggravators](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.535). If convicted, these upward enhancements substantially increased Deleon’s prison sentence. At trial, the court admitted as evidence of gang affiliation statements the defendant made at booking about his gang affiliation and evidence of the type of music on his cell phone. Also, the trial court allowed a police officer to testify as a gang expert regarding generalized information of gang affiliation. Mr. Deleon was found guilty and sentenced to 1,002 months. He appealed on the issue of (1) whether the trial court violated his [Fifth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment) right against self incrimination improperly admitted the aforementioned evidence, and (2) whether the gang expert testimony regarding gang culture and behavior was irrelevant and thus improperly admitted. The WA Supreme Court reasoned that the gang information from the jail intake forms was not gathered voluntarily, and thus should not have been admitted as evidence. In short, it reasoned that when a defendant’s self-incriminating statements are made in exchange for protection from credible threats of violence while incarcerated, the statements are coerced and involuntary: > “We do not see how statements made under these circumstances could be considered voluntary. The admission of these statements was a violation of the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights.” The WA Supreme Court also ruled that the trial court mistakenly allowed evidence of the type of music on the defendant’s phone as evidence of gang affiliation. “[Los Tigres del Norte](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Tigres_del_Norte) is a prominent and popular Latin band and there is no evidence in the record to support that enjoying their music is evidence of gang affiliation . . . We take this opportunity to remind courts to be far more cautious when drawing conclusions from a defendant’s musical preferences.” This scathing wisdom reminded courts to be careful when admitting generalized evidence about gang affiliation. “Such evidence is often highly prejudicial and must be tightly constrained to comply with the rules of evidence.” Finally, the Court ruled that much of the generalized “gang evidence” was irrelevant and prejudicial, and thus should not have been admitted. The court reasoned that, under [ER 402](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=ER&ruleid=gaer0402), evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. Here, the gang evidence produced by the State’s gang expert witness was highly prejudicial: > “We agree and urge courts to use caution when considering generalized gang evidence. Such evidence is often highly prejudicial, and must be tightly constrained to comply with the rules of evidence.” With that, the WA Supreme Court held the defendant was entitled to a new trial. Therefore, the Court reversed the convictions and gang aggravators. My opinion? I really enjoyed the rulings in this case. Sometimes, mainstream culture and music can be misconstrued as “gang evidence” when said music/culture is heard/exhibited by minorities. The Court attacked this veiled racism. Good on them. Also, they made good rulings on the 5th Amendment issues. A defendant’s gang affiliation when being booked into jail is a matter of personal security. The information should not be admitted at trial. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Duress Defense, Evidence, felony, Prison, Race & Law, Search and Seizure, Self-Incrimination, Sentencing, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [The Neurology of Risky Driving Behavior](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/the-neurology-of-risky-driving-behavior/) **Published:** May 20, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** A very interesting [article ](http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/motr/repeat-drunk-drivers-and-the-neurobiology-of-risk.html#comment-7684015)from the [Association for Psychological Science](http://www.psychologicalscience.org/) discusses how a team of Canadian psychological scientists is looking at the personality, cognitive, and neurobiological factors that contribute to reckless driving behavior. By better understanding the patterns of emotional processing and risk perception shown by repeat offenders, the researchers hope to design interventions that more effectively target these subgroups of dangerous drivers. The evidence certainly exists. According to the article, drunk driving accounts for 35-40% of all driver fatalities in Canada and the United States, and drunk driving crashes [kill more than 10,000 Americans every year](http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/812013.pdf). Amazingly, an estimated 30% of [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) offenders will continue to drink and drive, even after being arrested and punished. “Surprisingly, these drivers usually don’t consider themselves as risk takers,” lead author [Thomas G. Brown ](http://www.douglas.qc.ca/researcher/thomas-brown?locale=en)of [McGill University](https://www.mcgill.ca/) said. “If drivers don’t believe they are risky, they will not accept the need to change. On the other hand, if we and they don’t understand their behavior, how can they be expected to change it effectively?” The study began when Brown and his colleagues recruited four groups of male drivers who had different criminal histories: 36 men with at least two convictions for drunk driving (DUI group); 28 reckless drivers with at least three speeding violations in the past two years (speeders); 27 men with arrests for both DUI and speeding (DWI-speeders); and 47 low-risk drivers with no history of serious traffic offenses (control group). According to the article, participants completed a battery of personality and impulsivity assessments, ranging from a [Big Five personality measure](http://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/) to an executive control task that assessed their sensitivity to punishment and reward. Participants’ [cortisol ](http://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-cortisol-definition-function-deficiency-symptoms.html)response, a hormonal reaction to stress, was measured by collecting saliva samples *before* and *after* they completed a timed mental arithmetic task previously shown to elicit stress. Even more interesting, participants also completed a session of simulated driving that included driving on virtual highways, merging lanes, turning at intersections, and avoiding pedestrians. The researchers found that different subgroups of risky drivers had distinctive neurobiological profiles. Compared to the low-risk control group, **speeders were prone to making decisions based on thrill-seeking and a need for high levels of stimulation. Repeat DUI offenders, in contrast, had the lowest level of risk-taking behavior while sober.** “One possibility in line with the present results is that once heavy drinking has occurred, more impulsive drivers are more vulnerable to alcohol’s disruptive effects on the behavioral control mechanisms required to avoid DWI,” the researchers explain. All of the dangerous driving groups exhibited significant blunting in their cortisol stress response compared with the control group. Cortisol, along with other stress hormones, influences cognitive processes that range from risk assessment to encoding emotional memories. These results suggest that dysregulation of the body’s cortisol response could act as a neurobiological marker for risky driving behavior. “Relative to the other \[risky driving\] profiles considered here, the profile exhibited by group DUI may be the most amenable to interventions that aim to augment recall of the negative consequences of DUI behavior and pre-emptively decouple alcohol use from driving,” the researchers conclude. Stated differently, interventions designed to improve drivers’ recall of the negative consequences of drinking and driving are effective for preventing drunk driving. This explains the findings why repeat DUI offenders had the lowest level of risk-taking behavior while sober. My opinion? The study is interesting, for sure. Not surprisingly, the criminal justice system uses many of these these psychological deterrents to “decouple alcohol use from driving.” When it comes to DUI cases, gaining a worthwhile reduction of the charges often means the defendant obtaining an alcohol/drug evaluation, attending mandatory treatment, attending [AA meetings](http://www.aa.org/pages/en_US/find-local-aa) and attending a [Victim Impact Panel](http://www.whatcomcounty.us/806/Victim-Impact-Panel). Additionally, the financial costs of [DUI fines ](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.5055)and mandatory [ignition interlock devices](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.385) are constant reminders to DUI offenders that future risky behavior is simply not worth it. That said, hiring a competent DUI attorney to fight DUI charges might be a worthy endeavor. The basic legal issues surrounding a DUI arrest are (1) whether the stop was lawful, (2) whether there was enough evidence to arrest, (3) whether the officer informed the defendant of [Implied Consent Warnings](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.308), and (4) whether the defendant either (a) refused the BAC breathalyzer machine or (b) blew over .08 and/or had .05 nanograms of *active* THC in their blood when pulled over. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Boating Under the Influence, Cell Phone, Department of Licensing, Distracted Driving, Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, DUI, Eluding, felony, Ignition Interlock Device, Implied Consent, marijuana, Miranda, misdemeanor, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Reckless Driving, Studies, Traffic Infractions, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [High Court Strikes Racism in Jury Selection](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/high-court-strikes-racism-in-jury-selection/) **Published:** May 24, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The U.S. Supreme Court just sent a strong message about racism in the justice system. In [*Foster v. Chatman*](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-8349_6k47.pdf), the Court reversed a defendant’s murder conviction after discovering that the Prosecutor systematically eliminated African American jurors from serving on Mr. Foster’s jury because of their race. Petitioner Timothy Foster was convicted of [capital murder](http://statelaws.findlaw.com/georgia-law/georgia-murder-laws.html) and sentenced to death in a Georgia court. During jury selection at his trial, the State used [peremptory challenges](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/peremptory_challenge) to strike all four black prospective jurors qualified to serve on the jury. Foster argued that the State’s use of those strikes was racially motivated, in violation of [*Batson v. Kentucky*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/476/79). The trial court rejected that claim, and the [Georgia Supreme Court](http://www.gasupreme.us/) affirmed. Foster then renewed his *Batson* claim in a state habeas corpus proceeding. While that proceeding was pending, Mr. Foster’s defense attorneys used the [Georgia Open Records Act](http://law.ga.gov/sites/law.ga.gov/files/imported/vgn/images/portal/cit_1210/62/51/186385699r1.pdf) to obtained the Prosecutor’s file used during trial. In notes, prosecutors had highlighted the African Americans on several different lists of potential jurors. On one list, under the heading “Definite NOs,” prosecutors listed six potential jurors, all but one of whom were black. Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review of the case on the issue of whether the Georgia courts erred in failing to recognize race discrimination under *[Batson v. Kentucky](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=476&invol=79)* in the extraordinary circumstances of this death penalty case. The Court reasoned that the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision that Foster failed to show purposeful discrimination was clearly erroneous. They started with *Batson’s* three-step process for adjudicating claims such as Foster’s. First, a defendant must make a prima facie showing that a preemptory challenge has been exercised on the basis of race. Second, if that showing has been made, the prosecution must offer a race-neutral basis for striking the juror in question. Third, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown purposeful discrimination.” Here, and in sum, the Court reasoned that Foster established purposeful discrimination in the State’s strikes of two black prospective jurors: > ” . . . along with the prosecution’s shifting explanations, misrepresentations of the record, and persistent focus on race, leads to the conclusion that the striking of those prospective jurors was motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent . . . the focus on race in the prosecution’s file plainly demonstrates a concerted effort to keep black prospective jurors off the jury.” My opinion? Good decision. The decision is a forceful blow against racism in the courts. Although the *Foster* decision won’t end racial discrimination in jury selection, it is certainly vindication for the potential jurors who weren’t allowed to fulfill their civic duty all those years ago because of their race. As for Foster, his future is still in limbo. The Supreme Court’s decision entitles him to a new trial before a jury of his peers that hasn’t been tainted by racial discrimination. Still, that mere fact doesn’t guarantee a different outcome. The new jury may come to the same conclusion as the old one. But if nothing else, Mr. Foster’s death penalty has likely been put off for many years to come. And in the world of death penalty litigation, that counts as a win. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Death Penalty, Discovery, Due Process, Evidence, felony, Jury Selection, Jury Trial, Prison, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Race & Law, Sentencing, United States Supreme Court, Violent Crime, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Prosecutors Must Reveal Toxicologist Identities in DUI Trials](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/prosecutors-must-reveal-toxicologist-identities-in-dui-trials/) **Published:** May 25, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Salgado-Mendoza*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2046062-9-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals Division II](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) reversed a defendant’s [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) conviction because the Prosecutor failed to give Defense Counsel the name of their Toxicologist expert witness before trial. On the evening of August 11, 2012, a [Washington State Patrol](http://www.wsp.wa.gov/) trooper observed Mr. Salgado-Mendoza driving his vehicle and struggling to stay in his lane of travel. The trooper stopped the vehicle. Salgado-Mendoza was investigated and arrested for DUI. His [BAC test](http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/bac-test%20/) showed a blood alcohol concentration of 0.103 and 0.104; which is over the .o8 limit. Several months before his trial date on the DUI charge, Salgado-Mendoza requested that the Prosecutor disclose information about any and all expert witnesses the Prosecutor intended to call at trial. This regularly happens when defense attorneys argue [motions to compel](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/arguing-motions-to-compel-pretrial-discovery/). The Prosecutor attempted to contact the toxicology lab by phone to narrow the list of possible toxicology witnesses, but was unsuccessful. Three days before trial, Salgado-Mendoza filed a motion requesting that the court dismiss the case or exclude the toxicologist’s evidence based on governmental misconduct. On the afternoon before trial, the State received a list of three toxicologists, one of whom might testify the next day. The State provided this list to Salgado-Mendoza. When the parties appeared for trial on May 9, Salgado-Mendoza re-argued his motion to exclude the toxicologist’s testimony or to dismiss the DUI charge because the State had still not disclosed which toxicologist would testify. The Court denied the motion. Salgado-Mendoza was found guilty at trial. Salgado-Mendoza appealed his conviction to the superior court. Finding that the district court had abused its discretion by (1) not excluding the toxicologist’s testimony due to the State’s violation of the discovery rules and mismanagement of the case in failing to disclose its witness prior to trial, and (2) excluding the defense expert’s testimony about the breath-alcohol testing machine, the superior court *reversed* the DUI conviction and remanded the matter for a new trial. The State appealed to the WA Court of Appeals. Ultimately, the WA Court of Appeals held that the Prosecutor violated the discovery rules under [CrRLJ 4.7(d)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=clj&set=CrRLJ&ruleid=cljcrrlj4.07) by failing to take reasonable steps to obtain the name of its witness in a timely manner. It reasoned that the Prosecutor had an obligation to attempt to acquire and then disclose that information from the toxicology lab. Consequently, the Prosecutor’s failure to provide the defense with a specific witness’s name before trial is not reasonable. This, in turn, amounted to governmental misconduct under [CrRLJ 8.3(b)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.rulesPDF&ruleId=cljcrrlj8.03&pdf=1). Furthermore, the Court held that Prosecutor’s misconduct was prejudicial and that the exclusion of the toxicologist’s testimony was the proper remedy. The Court emphasized this remedy was necessary because the issue was an issue of public importance: > “On retrial, the State should ensure that it provides the name and address of the person or persons it intends to call at trial or comply with CrRLJ 4.7(d) when preparing for the new trial.” My opinion? Good decision. It is extremely difficult to provide a competent and adequate defense when Prosecutors do not follow the rules of discovery. For those who don’t know, a Prosecutor must follow many procedures when trying cases. The following procedures expedite a fair trial and protect the constitutional rights of the defendant: (i) promote a fair and expeditious disposition of the charges, whether by diversion, plea, or trial; (ii) provide the defendant with sufficient information to make an informed plea; (iii) **permit thorough preparation for trial and minimize surprise at trial**; (iv) reduce interruptions and complications during trial and avoid unnecessary and repetitious trials by identifying and resolving prior to trial any procedural, collateral, or constitutional issues; (v) minimize the procedural and substantive inequities among similarly situated defendants; (vi) effect economies in time, money, judicial resources, and professional skills by minimizing paperwork, avoiding repetitious assertions of issues, and reducing the number of separate hearing; and (vii) minimize the burden upon victims and witnesses. Here, knowing the names of the Prosecutor’s witnesses before trial is simply *fair*. Period. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Blood Test, Constitutional Rights, Discovery, Drug Offenses, Due Process, DUI, Evidence, Jury Trial, misdemeanor, Pretrial Investigations, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Sixth Amendment, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Budd: WA Supreme Court Acknowledges Unlawful Search of Home](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-budd-wa-supreme-court-acknowledges-unlawful-search-of-home/) **Published:** May 25, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Budd*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/915296.pdf), the [WA Supreme Court](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) decided law enforcement officers must properly give [*Ferrier* ](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3517335598829285484&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)warnings before entering a residence. Good decision. Last year, I discussed how the WA Court of Appeals decided this matter in my blog titled, [*State v. Budd*: Ferrier Warnings Improperly Given](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-budd-ferrier-warnings-improperly-given/). Fortunately, the WA Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision. Police arrived at his door on a “[cybertip](https://definedterm.com/cyber_tip)” that Mr. Budd was talking to underage girls through online chatting and that he possessed child pornography on his computer. Officers arrived at Budd’s home and performed a “[knock & talk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock_and_talk)“, however, they lacked probable cause for a search warrant. Also, the detectives did not properly discuss *Ferrier* warnings with Mr. Holmes before he allowed them entry. They seized his computer, found child porn and charged him with [Possession of Depictions of Minors Engaged in Sexually Explicit Conduct under RCW 9.68A.070](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.68A.070 "Possession of Depictions of Minors Engaged in Sexually Explicit Conduct"). He was convicted. Some background on *Ferrier* warnings is necessary in order to understand this “search & seizure of a home” case. In [*State v. Ferrier*](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3517335598829285484&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr "State v. Ferrier"), the WA Supreme Court held that, before entering a citizen’s home without a warrant, a law enforcement officer must **(1)** ask the citizen for consent, **(2)** inform the citizen that he can revoke consent at any time and **(3)** notify the citizen that he can limit the scope of the entry into the home. If an officer fails to provide these *Ferrier* rights/warnings, then any evidence obtained from the search is “fruits of the poisonous search” and can be suppressed. On appeal, Budd argued that the trial court wrongfully denied his motion to suppress evidence because the *Ferrier* warnings given by police were insufficient. The Court of Appeals agreed with Mr. Budd and suppressed the evidence. In response, the State took the issue up on appeal to the WA Supreme Court. In this new opinion, however, the WA Supremes ultimately decided the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that Budd’s consent was invalid. The WA Supreme Court reasoned that since *Ferrier*, the Court has consistently limited the *Ferrier* warnings to knock and talk procedures. “In this case, the officers conducted a knock and talk because they sought Budd’s consent to enter his home to search for and seize suspected contraband. Therefore, the officers were required to give Budd the *Ferrier* warnings before entering his home.” Furthermore, the Court discussed the similarities between Mr. Budd’s case at hand and the defendant in *Ferrier*: > “Indeed, the officers’ conduct in this case paralleled the conduct of the officers in Ferrier. In both cases, the officers arrived without announcement, surprising the resident. In both cases, the resident was not given time to reflect on the officers’ presence before being asked to give his or her consent for the officers to enter the home and search for evidence of a crime. In both cases, the resident reacted to the knock and talk procedure as expected by being polite and cooperative, and allowing the officers inside the residence.” Finally, the WA Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the officers did not give Budd the *Ferrier* warnings before entering his home and hold that Budd’s consent was therefore involuntary. And with that ,the WA Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and dismissed the charges against Mr. Budd. Again, good decision. Although Mr. Budd’s actions leading up to his charges were certainly concerning, the WA Supremes got it right in deciding that our individual rights trump unlawful government searches of our homes. I’m glad they didn’t decide differently and chip away at the *Ferrier* decision. In *Ferrier*, the WA Supreme Court specifically highlighted the fact that when confronted with a surprise show of government force and authority, **most residents believe they have no choice but to consent to the search.** This is absolutely true. The *Ferrier* court also noted that it was not surprised by an officer’s testimony that virtually everyone confronted by a knock and talk accedes to the request to permit a search of their home. Please read my [Search and Seizure Legal Guide](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, Evidence, felony, Knock & Talk, law enforcement, Search and Seizure, Sex Crimes, Technology, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Youth as Mitigating Factor](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/3183-2/) **Published:** May 30, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Solis-Diaz*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2046002-5-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals Division II ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo)held that a juvenile defendant who was tried as an adult for numerous violent felony crimes involving firearms is entitled to a sentencing at which the judge must conduct a meaningful, individualized inquiry into whether the defendant’s youth should mitigate his sentence. Solis-Diaz was 16 years old in 2007, when he participated in a gang related drive-by shooting in Centralia. He was charged with six counts of [Assault in the First Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/), each with a [firearm sentencing enhancement](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94a.533); one count of [Drive-by Shooting](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drive-by-shooting/); and one count of [Unlawful Possession of a Firearm in the Second Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/). He was tried as an adult. The jury found him guilty on all counts, and the trial court imposed a sentence of 1,111 months in prison. Solis-Diaz requested an [exceptional downward sentence](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.535) on grounds that the multiple offense policy of the [Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 (SRA)](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A) operated to impose a clearly excessive sentence and that Solis-Diaz’s age indicated diminished capacity to understand the wrongfulness and consequences of his actions. The judge denied the request and again imposed a standard-range sentence of 1,111 months in prison. Solis Diaz appealed. The Court of Appeals held that under the SRA, a sentencing court must generally sentence a defendant within the standard range. Pursuant to the SRA’s multiple offense policy, standard range sentences for multiple serious violent offenses are to be served *consecutively* and not *concurrently*. This is important. For those who don’t know, a **consecutive sentence** is when a defendant has been convicted of more than one crime, usually at the same trial, and the sentences for each crime are “tacked” together, so that sentences are served one after the other. In contrast, a **concurrent sentence** is when sentences on more than one crime “run” or are served at the same time, rather than one after the other. For instance, if a defendant’s three crimes carry sentences of five, three, and two years, the maximum time he’ll spend in jail is five years. The Court of Appeals further reasoned that a court may impose an exceptional sentence below the standard range if it finds that mitigating circumstances are established by a preponderance of the evidence. One such mitigating circumstance exists if the operation of the multiple offense policy results in a presumptive sentence that is clearly excessive. When the resulting set of consecutive sentences is so clearly excessive under the circumstances that it provides “‘substantial and compelling reasons’” for an exceptional sentence below the standard range, the sentencing court may grant that exceptional downward sentence. Additionally, the Court of Appeals relied on the [WA Supreme Court’s](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) recent decision in [*State v. O’Dell*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/903379.pdf). In that decision, and similar to the defendant here, O’Dell was a juvenile who was also tried and sentenced as an adult to a very serious felony crime (rape, in O’Dell’s case). At O’Dell’s sentencing, the trial court ruled that it could *not* consider O’Dell’s age as a mitigating circumstance and imposed a standard range sentence of 95 months. The Supreme Court disagreed with O’Dell’s trial court: “\[I\]n light of what we know today about adolescents’ cognitive and emotional development, we conclude that youth may, in fact, “relate to a defendant’s crime.” The Court of Appeals followed O’Dell and said the following: > “The same logic and policy that led the Supreme Court to require the consideration of the youth of a young adult offender would apply with magnified force to require the same of Solis-Diaz, who committed his crimes while a juvenile. As did the trial court in *O’Dell*, the trial court here decided that under [*Ha’mim*](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1213780.html) it could not consider the defendant’s youth as a mitigating factor in sentencing. As did the trial court in *O’Dell*, the trial court here abused its discretion in refusing that consideration. Our Supreme Court’s analysis in *O’Dell* compels the same result: reversal of Solis-Diaz’s sentence and remand for a new sentencing hearing to meaningfully consider whether youth diminished his culpability.” The WA Court of Appeals even offered a litmus test in making these determinations: > “In short, a sentencing court must take into account the observations underlying *Miller*, *Graham*, *Roper*, and *O’Dell* that generally show among juveniles a reduced sense of responsibility, increased impetuousness, increased susceptibility to outside pressures, including peer pressure, and a greater claim to forgiveness and time for amendment of life. Against this background, the sentencing court must consider whether youth diminished Soliz-Diaz’s culpability and make an individualized determination whether his “capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform that conduct to the requirements of the law” was meaningfully impaired.” The WA Court of Appeals concluded that the sentencing court erred in failing to consider whether the operation of the SRA and Solis-Diaz’s youth at the time he committed the crimes should mitigate his standard range sentence and warrant an exceptional downward sentence. Consequently, the Court of Appeals vacated Solis-Diaz’s sentence and remanded for re-sentencing back to the trial court. The Court of Appeals also noted that Solis-Diaz may move to disqualify the prior sentencing judge. My opinion? I’m very pleased Division II is embracing *O’Dell*, an opinion which I’ve discussed in my blog titled, [“State v. O’Dell: Court May Consider Defendant’s Youth at Sentencing.”](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-odell-juvenile-brains-still-developing/) Furthermore, I’m pleased that Division II also offered a workable litmus test in determining these issues juvenile sentencing for adult crimes. Very good. It not only shows the Courts are following *O’Dell*, they are also supporting it and offering guidelines for future decisions involving juvenile justice. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, Eighth Amendment, Exceptional Sentencing, felony, Firearm, Jail, Sentencing, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [AAA Questions Marijuana DUI Laws](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/aaa-questions-marijuana-dui-laws/) **Published:** May 31, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** According to a [news article from the Chicago Tribune](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-marijuana-driving-study-aaa-20160509-story.html), recent studies conducted by car insurer [AAA ](http://www.aaawa.com/membership/index.asp?zip=98225&devicecd=PC&gclid=Cj0KEQjw7LS6BRDo2Iz23au25OQBEiQAQa6hwBY1xktSz2r7mujTBiaIIbdsj36qANhRLiCQ5hOfl90aAj-A8P8HAQ&referer=www.aaa.com&$P=)find that blood tests given to drivers suspected of[ Marijuana DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/drug-dui/) have no scientific basis. A handful of [studies ](https://www.aaafoundation.org/impaired-driving-and-cannabis)released by the [AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety](https://www.aaafoundation.org/) found that drivers can have a low level of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, in their blood and be unsafe behind the wheel, while others with relatively high levels may not be a hazard. Below are the individual studies accompanied by capsule summaries comprising the effort: - [Prevalence of Marijuana Use among Drivers in Washington State](https://www.aaafoundation.org/prevalence-marijuana-use-among-drivers-fatal-crashes-washington-2010-2014 "Prevalence of Marijuana Use Among Drivers in Fatal Crashes: Washington, 2010-2014") - [An Evaluation of Data from Drivers Arrested for Driving Under the Influence in Relation to Per se Limits for Cannabis](https://www.aaafoundation.org/evaluation-data-drivers-arrested-driving-under-influence-relation-se-limits-cannabis "An Evaluation of Data from Drivers Arrested for Driving Under the Influence in Relation to Per se Limits for Cannabis") - [Cannabis Use among Drivers Suspected of Driving Under the Influence or Involved in Collisions: Analysis of Washington State Patrol Data](https://www.aaafoundation.org/cannabis-use-among-drivers-suspected-driving-under-influence-or-involved-collisions-analysis "Cannabis Use among Drivers Suspected of Driving Under the Influence or Involved in Collisions: Analysis of Washington State Patrol Data") - [Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and Marijuana: Beliefs and Behaviors, United States, 2013-2015](https://www.aaafoundation.org/driving-under-influence-alcohol-and-marijuana-beliefs-and-behaviors-united-states-2013-2015 "Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and Marijuana: Beliefs and Behaviors, United States, 2013-2015") - [Overview of Major Issues Regarding the Impacts of Alcohol and Marijuana on Driving](https://www.aaafoundation.org/overview-major-issues-regarding-impacts-alcohol-and-marijuana-driving-0) - [Advancing Drugged Driving Data at the State Level](https://www.aaafoundation.org/advancing-drugged-driving-data-state-level-0) “If you’ve had marijuana whether it’s medicinal or otherwise, don’t drive,” said [AAA Chicago spokeswoman Beth Mosher](https://www.linkedin.com/in/bethmosher), “It’s really that simple.” The studies examined the results of more than 5,300 people nationwide who were arrested for driving under the influence of marijuana, 600 of whom tested positive for THC only, while the others had THC and other substances. This is because marijuana isn’t metabolized by the body in the same way as alcohol. The researchers compared the [Drug Recognition Expert (DRE)](http://www.decp.org/experts/) exam results of 602 drivers that only had THC present in their blood at the time of arrest to those of 349 volunteers that took the test drug-free and sober. Ultimately, the degree to which a driver is impaired by marijuana use depends a lot on the individual, the foundation said. The data appears confusing because AAA also looked at Washington – one of the first states to legalize marijuana – and found fatal crashes involving drivers who recently used marijuana *doubled*. “ In most recent data 1 in 6 drivers who are involved in a fatal crash there had marijuana in there system,” Mosher said. “And as more and more states look at legalizing marijuana we see this as a concerning trend.” Nevertheless, AAA is sending the message that the legal limits established for marijuana are arbitrary. A handful of states have moved to specify the maximum amount of active THC — the main chemical in marijuana — that drivers can have in their system. But AAA says that doesn’t work. “We think those are meaningless,” said Mosher. “They are not backed by any science. One person can have one limit of THC in their blood and be significantly impaired and others can have that same limit and not be impaired at all,” Mosher said. Many in law enforcement and AAA say that officer recognition of impaired drivers is really the only what to determine whether someone is too high to drive. Of course all of this a public safety concerns as pot becomes legal across the country. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Blood Test, Boating Under the Influence, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, Due Process, DUI, law enforcement, marijuana, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Studies, Technology, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Is Cash Bail Effective?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/is-cash-bail-effective/) **Published:** June 7, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Three research studies released this month further confirm the ineffective, discriminatory, and unsafe influence of money bail in U.S. criminal justice systems. In [The Heavy Costs of High Bail: Evidence from Judge Randomization](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2774453), a Columbia Law and Economics Working Paper by Arpit Gupta, Christopher Hansman, and Ethan Frenchman, describes how assigning money bail to people accused of crime in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh increases the likelihood of conviction by 12% and increases recidivism by 4%. Ultimately, the authors found that the use of money bail is not effective – it “does not seem to increase the probability that a defendant appears at trial,” and actually makes us all less safe. In her University of Pennsylvania Law School Working Paper, [Distortion of Justice: How the Inability to Pay Bail Affects Case Outcomes](https://www.law.upenn.edu/cf/faculty/research/details.cfm?research_id=14047), Megan Stevenson reports that people arrested for crimes in Philadelphia and detained due to their inability to pay money bail face up to a 30% increase in convictions—driven by increased guilty pleas—and an additional 18 months of incarceration compared to those who are able to afford bail. Finally, the [Prison Policy Initiative](http://www.prisonpolicy.org/) (PPI) released an analysis of national data that gives context to the Columbia and University of Pennsylvania papers. In [Detaining the Poor: How money bail perpetuates an endless cycle of poverty and jail time](http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/incomejails.html), PPI found that “most of the people who are unable to meet bail fall into the poorest third of society.” Their median income – only $15,109 prior to incarceration – was less than half of the income of non-incarcerated people, and yet the median bail amount nationally is almost a full year’s income for the typical person unable to post a bail bond. Money bail, PPI concludes, results in the unnecessary and excessive detention of poor people, essentially jailing people for their poverty. This research highlights what legislators, practitioners, and taxpayers are increasingly recognizing: money bail doesn’t work, is discriminatory, and makes communities less safe. [Cherise Fanno Burdeen](http://www.pretrial.org/about/staff/), executive director of the [Pretrial Justice Institute](http://www.pretrial.org/) released this statement about the research: “With these recent research findings, there should no longer be any doubt, anywhere, that money bail unfairly punishes the poor while also making everyone less safe. Our [3DaysCount campaign](http://projects.pretrial.org/3dayscount/) calls for replacing the broken money bail system with commonsense and proven solutions to support people being successful on pretrial release.” [Congressman Ted Lieu](https://lieu.house.gov/about/full-biography), sponsor of the [No Money Bail Act of 2016](https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4611/text), said the following: > “Our nation must stop criminalizing poverty, and these new studies provide crucial data proving that being poor increases your chance of jail time and conviction. This kind of research is crucial to supporting the No Money Bail Act of 2016, which would eliminate the use of money bail at the federal level and incentivize states to end the use of bail through the withholding of federal grants. We can no longer stand by in good conscience while Americans, presumed innocent, are deprived of their liberty because they can’t afford bail. Justice in America should not be bought and paid for.” Additionally, judicial leaders across the nation joined together to call attention to these findings.[Chief Justice W. Scott Bales](https://www.azcourts.gov/meetthejustices/Chief-Justice-Scott-Bales), Arizona Supreme Court;[ Chief Justice Patricia Breckenridge](https://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=499), Missouri Supreme Court;[ Chief Justice E. James Burke](http://www.courts.state.wy.us/WSC), Wyoming Supreme Court; [Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye](http://www.courts.ca.gov/2664.htm) California Supreme Court;[ Justice Charles W. Daniels](https://nmsupremecourt.nmcourts.gov/bios/daniels.php), New Mexico Supreme Court;[ Chief Justice Matthew B. Durrant](https://www.utcourts.gov/judgesbios/showGallery.asp?dist=10&ct_type=S),Utah Supreme Court;[ Chief Judge Nan G. Nash](http://seconddistrictcourt.nmcourts.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=142:nash-bio&catid=129&Itemid=648), Second Judicial District, New Mexico;[Chief Justice Mark E. Recktenwald](http://www.courts.state.hi.us/courts/supreme/justices/associate_justice_mark_e_recktenwald), Supreme Court of Hawaii; and[ Chief Justice Robert J. Torres, Jr.](http://www.guamsupremecourt.com/Justices/torres.html), Supreme Court of Guam issued the following statement: > “People should not be held in jail pending the disposition of charges merely because they are poor and cannot afford bail. Recent research suggests that we can identify better ways to make release decisions that will treat people fairly, protect the public, and ensure court appearances.” My opinion? This national effort is gratifying. Few people understand how incarceration negatively affects job opportunities, families and ability mental/emotional wellness. In my Legal Guide titled, “[Making Bail](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/making-bail/),” I discuss how one of the greatest services a competent defense attorney can do for their clients is assist in getting them released from jail as soon as possible on either a reduced bail amount which is lower than the Prosecutor’s recommendations or that the defendant be released without bail altogether. One opportunity to lower/rescind bail is at the defendant’s first appearance or arraignment. Another opportunity exists through a Bail Review Hearing. Under [CrR 3.2](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.2), judges must review the nature of the pending criminal charges, a defendant’s prior criminal history, their history of failing to appear at past court hearings, and their ties to the community (property ownership, employment, family, school, etc). Factoring all of this, the judge decides whether to lower bail or release the defendant altogether. Also, CrR 3.2 allows release of defendants to the care of willing and responsible members of the community, including family members. Also, judges may be persuaded to impose other pretrial release conditions such as mandatory curfews, staying away from businesses serving alcohol. Almost everything is negotiable. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bail, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Court Fines, Due Process, felony, Jail, misdemeanor, Race & Law, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Criminal Defense Attorney Alexander Ransom Joins Skagit Bar Association](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/criminal-defense-attorney-alexander-ransom-joins-skagit-bar-association/) **Published:** June 8, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** I’m proud to announce my new membership into the [Skagit County Bar Association](http://www.skagitcountybar.org/). The organization is a voluntary professional association of lawyers who live and practice in Skagit County, Washington. Among other things, the organization gives pro bono legal help to low-income residents in need of legal services via their [Volunteer Lawyer Program](http://www.skagitcountybar.org/Volunteer-Lawyer-Program). Members also enjoy access to networking opportunities and a profile in the Association’s online directory. Finally, young lawyers benefit from lower-cost membership and fun social events that are both educational and great networking opportunities. Skagit County is a county in Washington with a population of 116,901 as of 2010. Its largest city is [Mount Vernon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Vernon,_Washington "Mount Vernon, Washington"). The county was formed in 1883 from [Whatcom County](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whatcom_County,_Washington "Whatcom County, Washington") and is named for the [Skagit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skagit_(tribe) "Skagit (tribe)") [Indian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States "Native Americans in the United States") tribe, which has been indigenous to the area prior to European-American settlement. Being directly south of Whatcom County, I routinely assisted clients who reside in Skagit County and its various municipalities. I’m very pleased to finally and officially joining the Skagit County Bar Association, network with other attorneys and participate in the organization’s community service activities. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [When Sexting Becomes Criminal](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/when-sexting-becomes-criminal/) **Published:** June 18, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. E.G.](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/323544.pub.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals Division III](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) held that a juvenile’s texting a picture of his erect penis to an adult female is punishable as a violation of [Dealing in Depictions of a Minor Engaged in Sexually Explicit Activity in the Second Degree under RCW 9.68A.050(2)(a)](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.68A.050). Defendant E.G. was 17-year-old juvenile with [Asperger syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome). He began sending harassing phone calls to T.R., a former employee of E.G.’s mother. T.R. at the time was a 22-year-old mother of an infant daughter. E.G. found T.R.’s telephone number by checking his mother’s business records. Beginning in mid-2012, a male using a restricted phone number would call T.R. at night and make sexual sounds or ask sexual questions. On the afternoon of June 2, 2013, T.R. received two text messages: one with a picture of an erect penis, and the other with explicit language. T.R. reported the phone calls and text messages to the police, who tracked the telephone to E.G., then age 17. He was questioned by the police and told them that it was his penis in the photograph.Shortly before his 18th birthday, E.G. was charged in the juvenile division of the [Spokane County Superior Court](https://www.spokanecounty.org/1140/Superior-Court) with one count of [second degree dealing in depictions](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.68A.050) and one count of [making harassing telephone calls](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.61.230). Unfortunately, E.G. had prior criminal behavior of a similar nature. At the time of his arrest, E.G. was currently serving a Special Sex Offender Dispositional Alternative (SSODA) as the result of an earlier juvenile adjudication for [communicating with a minor for immoral purposes](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.68a.090). The defense moved to dismiss the charges under the argument that the statute could not be applied to a minor who was also the “victim” of the offense. The trial court denied the motion, concluded E.G. had committed the offense and required E.G. to register as a sex offender. E.G. timely appealed. The Court of Appeals accepted an [amicus brief](http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/amicus.htm) jointly filed by the [American Civil Liberties Union of Washington](https://aclu-wa.org/) and the [Juvenile Law Center](http://www.jlc.org/). The only issue on appeal was whether the dealing in depictions statute properly could be applied to E.G.’s conduct. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals upheld the juvenile court’s findings of guilt. First, the Court of Appeals reasoned that E.G.’s conduct was not protected by the [First Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment) because minors have no superior right to distribute sexually explicit materials involving minors than adults do. Second, the Court rejected arguments that the criminal statute was vague because it does not provide notice that sending self-produced images of one’s own genitalia to others is included within the scope of the statute. The Court reasoned that while the statute’s reach may be broad, it is not vague. Third, the Court rejected arguments that it was absurd for E.G. to be both victim and perpetrator. The Court’s response was perfunctory and direct: > “We disagree. First, nothing in the statute requires proof of any specific “victim” status as an element of the offense. Rather, child pornography per se victimizes children, which is the reason the legislature is seeking to eradicate it, whether or not the child willingly takes part. The legislature can rationally decide that it needs to protect children from themselves by eliminating all child pornography, including self-produced images that were not created for commercial reasons.” Finally, the Court of Appeals rejected arguments that E.G.’s actions were an innocent sharing of sexual images between teenagers: “It appears, instead, to be the latest step in a campaign of anonymous harassment of T.R. for reasons best known to E.G., but even if it was an effort to entice or impress her, this was not an innocent activity.” With that, the Court of Appeals affirm the juvenile court’s adjudication and disposition of this case. My opinion? I understand it was a terrifying experience for the victim to undergo this terrible experience. Nevertheless, its difficult to justify where, under these facts, a 17-year-old juvenile with [Asperger syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome) should be found guilty of a heinous Class A sex offense felony and register as a sex offender for a number of years. Although there are many possible symptoms of Asperger’s syndrome, the main symptom is significant trouble with social situations. Other symptoms include the following: - Inability to pick up on social cues; - Lack of inborn social skills, such as being able to read others’ body language, start or maintain a conversation, and take turns talking; - Lack of empathy; - Inability to recognize subtle differences in speech tone, pitch, and accent that alter the meaning of others’ speech; . . . and the list goes on. Again, my condolences to the victim. Still, when Asperger’s syndrome is coupled with adolescence and immaturity, it’s difficult to imagine a juvenile defendant truly understanding the repercussions of his actions under these facts. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** ACLU, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Cell Phone, Constitutional Rights, felony, Juvenile, Sex Crimes, Technology, Text Messages, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Unlawful Arrest for Failure to Pay Court Fines](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/unlawful-arrest-for-failure-to-pay-court-fines/) **Published:** June 19, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Sleater](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/331491.pub.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals Div. III ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo)held an arrest warrant may not issue for a defendant who fails to schedule an appearance in court to explain why she had failed to pay her court fines. The Defendant Ms. Sleater had prior convictions for various [Drug Offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). As of April 2014, she was making a combined monthly payment of$75 toward three cases. She was also entered into Benton County’s “pay or appear” program. It required her to make her legal financial obligation (LFO) payments every month or appear to schedule a hearing to explain why she could not make the payments. The program agreement also stated that if the defendant did not make a payment and failed to schedule a hearing, “a warrant will be issued for the Defendant’s arrest.” For months, Ms. Sleater’s mother paid the monthly fines. Her mother made a $150 on-line payment on April 17, 2014. Unfortunately, the computer did not apportion the sum among the three accounts, but applied all of the money to only *one* case number identified with the payment. AS a result, The other two counts were four and seven months behind. On April 22, 2014 the clerk’s office obtained arrest warrants for Ms. Sleater since she had not made payments on those two cases and had not scheduled a hearing to explain the lack of payments. On May 16, 2014 officers arrested Ms. Sleater on the two warrants. She possessed methamphetamine at the time of her arrest. Consequently, the prosecutor filed one count of [possession of a controlled substance](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.4013). Her attorney moved to suppress the evidence under [CrR 3.6](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) on the claim that the warrants were wrongly issued. However, the trial court denied the motion and found Ms. Sleater guilty at trial. She appealed. The WA Court of Appeals held that the arrest warrants were invalidly issued in violation of the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment) to the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview). The Court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable seizures, and that seizure is reasonable if it serves a governmental interest which is adequate to justify imposing on the liberty of the individual.” However, it violates [due process](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process) to punish defendants for failing to pay fines if the defendant cannot pay simply because they are impoverished. > “Nor can a state impose a fine and convert it to jail time solely because a defendant has no ability to pay the fine. The State must afford the defendant a hearing before jailing him for failing to pay his obligations. While the court can put the burden to prove inability to pay on the defendant, it still has a duty to inquire into a defendant’s ability to pay fines prior to jailing him.” Here, the Court reasoned that the effect of the arrest warrants was to require Ms. Sleater to go to jail for failing to pay her LFOs without first conducting an inquiry into her ability to pay them: > “The facts of this case demonstrate the need for such an inquiry. Ms. Sleater’s mother did make a payment toward her daughter’s LFOs, but through some type of error the payment was not reflected in all three files. A hearing before the warrants issued would have allowed the court to resolve the problem without the necessity of an arrest.” Here, reasoned the Court, a warrant should not have issued for defendant’s failure to pay without first determining the willfulness of that violation. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed Ms Sleater’s conviction for possessing methamphetamine. Good decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Bench Warrant, Constitutional Rights, Court Fines, Drug Offenses, Due Process, felony, Legal Financial Obligations, Methamphetamine, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Refusing Field Sobriety Test is Admissible as "Consciousness of Guilt"](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/refusing-sobriety-test-is-admissible-as-consciousness-of-guilt/) **Published:** June 26, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Mecham*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/905983.pdf), the [WA Supreme Court](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) decided that Prosecutors in [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) trials may admit evidence that a defendant is declining field sobriety tests as evidence of consciousness of guilt. **FACTS** In 2011, Officer Campbell made a traffic stop of defendant Mark Tracy Mecham. Although Mecham’s driving showed no signs of intoxication, Mecham smelled of intoxicants and had slurred speech. The officer asked Mecham to perform voluntary field sobriety tests ([FSTs](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/field_sobriety_test)), which would have involved Officer Campbell’s observing Mecham’s eye movements and ability to walk a straight line and stand on one leg. Mecham refused. At trial, Mecham moved to suppress his refusal to perform the FSTs. Typically, trial courts grant this defense motion. In Mecham’s case, however, the trial court denied his motion and ruled that even if FSTs were a search, [probable cause](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause) supported the search. Mecham’s refusal was admitted to the jury as evidence to support the Prosecutor’s theory that Mecham exhibited “Consciousness of Guilt.” The jury found Mecham guilty of [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). Eventually, Mecham’s case was appealed to the WA Supreme Court. He argued that his right to be free from unreasonable searches was violated when the trial court admitted evidence of his refusal to undergo FSTs. **THE DECISION** Unfortunately for Mecham, the WA Supreme Court disagreed and upheld his DUI conviction. In a deeply divided decision, the Court held that while a FST *is* a seizure, it is *not* a search either under [article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx) or under the [Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment). The State may, therefore, offer evidence of a defendant’s refusal to perform FSTs. Field sobriety tests may only be administered when the initial traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion and the officer has reasonable suspicion that the defendant was driving under the influence. The lead majority opinion was authored by Justice Wiggins. Justice Fairhurst concurred in part and dissented in part. Justice Fairhurst would prohibit the administration of FSTs once the defendant is already under formal arrest for an offense other then DUI. Justice Johnson dissented on the grounds that the defendant had been told by the officer who administered the FSTs that they were voluntary. Finally, Justice Gordon McCloud dissented on the grounds that FSTs are searches. My opinion? I agree with Justice McCloud’s dissent. Here’s a portion: > “An FST can reveal information about a person’s body and medical history that are unquestionably private in nature. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ([NHTSA](http://search.usa.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&affiliate=dot-nhtsa&query=field+sobriety+tests&searchCommit=Search)), in addition to possible inebriation, FSTs can reveal a head injury, neurological disorder, brain tumors or damage, and some inner ear diseases. These conditions are not necessarily observable in the subject’s normal public behavior; they may well be revealed only by the special maneuvers the subject is directed to perform during the FST. **Indeed, if an FST did not reveal information beyond what is readily observable by the general public, there would be no need to administer it in the first place.** I therefore conclude that FSTs are searches under article I, section 7 of our state constitution.” FSTs are a search. Period. Clearly, Officers who ask citizens to performs FSTs are seeking evidence of DUI. Because FSTs are a search, Mecham had a constitutional right to refuse to perform them unless (1) the officers had a warrant, or (2) an exception to the warrant requirement applied. Here, the Officer neither possessed or obtained a warrant for a blood test. Nor did the Officer even attempt to get a warrant. Even more concerning, Prosecutors now have free reign to spin a citizen’s refusal of FSTs as “consciousness of guilt.” That’s unfair. Indeed, there’s a lot of debate in criminal law on whether FSTs accurately and/or scientifically indicate whether someone is DUI. These tests are, quite simply, balancing and memory tests administered under extremely uncomfortable and stressful conditions. These tests – which more of less reflect bad balance, lack of memory and preexisting health issues – simply do not accurately depict intoxication. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, Due Process, DUI, Evidence, Jury Trial, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Terry Stop, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Threatening Note = Robbery](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/a-threatening-note-is-robbery/) **Published:** July 9, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Farnsworth](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/912971.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) decided a defendant’s handwritten note demanding money from a bank teller contained threats sufficient enough to support a conviction for robbery. On October 15,2009, defendants Charles Farnsworth and James McFarland were suffering heroin withdrawals and had no money to purchase more. The pair made a plan to “rob” a bank. The plan was for McFarland to wait outside in the car while Farnsworth entered a bank wearing a wig and sunglasses as a disguise, and retrieve money. Farnsworth would present a note to the teller, which read, “No die packs, no tracking devices, put the money in the bag.” They executed the plan. The bank teller handed Farnsworth about $300 in small bills, and McFarland left. Farnsworth and McFarland drove away, but they were pulled over and arrested a few blocks from the bank. Both were charged with [Robbery in the First Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/robbery/) pursuant to RCW 9A.56.200(1 )(b) (robbery committed in a financial institution). Both defendants had long criminal histories. Farnsworth faced the possibility of a life sentence under the [Persistent Offender Accountability Act (POAA)](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.555) of the [Sentencing Reform Act of 1981](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A) if convicted of this robbery, as he was previously convicted of a 2004 Robbery and a 1984 Vehicular Homicide in California. The POAA requires a life sentence when a repeat offender commits a third felony that is classified as a [“most serious offense”](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.030) (often referred to as a “third strike”). Farnsworth went to trial and was found guilty. The trial court sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of release. Farnsworth appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support robbery because (1) there was no threat of force and (2) he agreed to aid only a theft, not a robbery. The case ended up the WA Supreme Court. The court upheld Farnsworth’s conviction. It reasoned that sufficient evidence supports an implied threat of force: > “Although the note did not convey an explicitly threatening message, we believe it was laden with inherent intimidation. When a person demands money at a bank, with no explanation or indication of lawful entitlement to money, it can imply a threat of force because without such a threat, the teller would have no incentive to comply. An ordinary bank teller could reasonably infer an implied threat of harm under these circumstances.” Because of this implicit threat, reasoned the Court, banks have security guards and distinctive policies in place to prevent harm flowing from precisely these types of encounters. The Court also reasoned that the defendants were well aware that banks generally instructed their employees to react to such notes as if they contained an explicit threat. “In fact, the pair relied on that knowledge and fear to commit this crime,” said the Court. Finally, the Court reasoned that no errors deprived Farnsworth of a fair trial. With that, the Court affirmed Farnsworth’s conviction for first degree robbery. My opinion? It’s generally difficult to see how threatening notes create a basis to support a prosecution and conviction for Robbery, which can be a Class or a Class B violent felony “strike” offense. Still, a threatening note passed to a bank teller in a financial institution *must* be taken seriously. This is, in fact, how most bank robberies happen. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Persistent Offender, Robbery, Sentencing, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Three Strikes Law, Uncategorized, Violent Crime, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Apology Letters & Free Speech](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/3244-2/) **Published:** July 12, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v . K.H.-H.*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/919348.pdf), the[ WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that a defendant’s [First Amendment free speech](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment) rights are not violated by a requirement that the offender write an apology letter to the victim of the crime. K.H.-H., a 17-year-old male, was charged with assault with sexual motivation after he forced himself on C.R., a female acquaintance who attended the same high school. The juvenile court found K.H.-H. guilty. At the disposition hearing, the Prosecutor requested the court order K.H.-H. to write a letter of apology to the victim. Defense Counsel objected, insisting that K.H.-H. maintained the right to control his speech. The Court followed the Prosecutor’s recommendations and ordered K.H.-H. to write an apology letter. The court also imposed three months of community supervision. K.H.-H appealed. Eventually, his case ended up in the WA Supreme Court. In short, the Court upheld the sentencing requirement that K.H.-H write the apology letter. First, the Court acknowledged that because a forced apology involves making an offender say something he does not wish to say, it implicates the [compelled speech doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_speech). The compelled speech doctrine generally dictates that the State cannot force individuals to deliver messages that they do not wish to make. Nevertheless, the Court also stated that First Amendment rights are not absolute, particularly in the context of prison and probation, where constitutional rights are lessened or not applicable. “Similarly, criminal convictions result in loss or lessening of constitutional rights.” The Court also reasoned that a victim has an interest in receiving a letter of apology. This not only aims to rehabilitate the juvenile offender but also acknowledges the victim’s interest in receiving the apology: > “A letter of apology demonstrates a recognition and acceptance of responsibility for harmful actions. Such a condition is reasonably necessary for K.H.-H. to recognize what he did was wrong and to acknowledge his behavior. Additionally, an apology letter recognizes the victim’s interest in receiving an apology from the perpetrator. An apology allows the victim to hear an acceptance of responsibility from the very person who inflicted the harm. This is particularly important where both the victim and perpetrator are juveniles, and demonstrates to both the significance of giving and receiving an apology for wrongful acts. > > This further advances the rehabilitative goals of the statute. The outward manifestation of accepting and apologizing for the consequences of one’s actions is a rehabilitative step that attempts to improve K.H.-H.’s character and outlook. Such a condition is reasonably related to the purpose of K.H.-H. ‘s rehabilitation and the crime here. One must face the consequences of a conviction, which often include the loss or lessening of constitutional rights.” Justice McCloud dissented. Among other things, his dissent says the following: > “Compelling a false apology for a crime the defendant denies committing is far from the least restrictive means of achieving rehabilitation. In fact, it is probably the most ineffective way to achieve that result.” An interesting case, no doubt. My opinion? I strive for reductions and dismissals in all of my cases. Sometimes that means taking accountability for what happened. Consequently, that also means apologizing. An apology letter to the judge is a great place to start. They are a great way to demonstrate responsibility and remorse for your actions. While an apology letter to the judge/magistrate is often an excellent way to show your remorse after you have committed an offence, it’s success will largely depend on how serious the crime was. Among other things, judges consider your likelihood at re-offending. A sincere apology letter may show you have learnt your lesson and may go some way to proving this. Writing a letter to the victim can be one way of repairing the harm caused. Remember, judges have a fair amount of discretion when sentencing. They can consider the fact that you have taken responsibility for your actions as well as paid for any loss or damage caused. Finally, many victims will be happy to receive a sign of your recognition of the harm that you have caused them, especially if your crime wasn’t intentional or didn’t cause a great deal of harm. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Compelled Speech Doctrine, Constitutional Rights, Juvenile, Sentencing, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Utah v. Strieff: High Court Upholds Unlawful Search](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-strieff-court-upholds-unlawful-search/) **Published:** July 19, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*Utah v. Strieff*](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1373_83i7.pdf), the [U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) held in a 5-3 vote that an illegal police stop and resulting drug arrest did not ultimately violate the [Fourth Amendment ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment)because the officer later discovered the defendant had an outstanding traffic warrant. The case began when a police officer stopped Edward Strieff on the street and ran his identification. The state of Utah concedes that this was an illegal police stop. However, when the Officer ran Strieff’s identification, it was discovered that Strieff had an outstanding traffic warrant. The officer then arrested him, searched him, and discovered drugs in his pockets. Strieff argued that the drugs should have been inadmissible under the Fourth Amendment because they are the fruits of an illegal search. In an opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with Mr. Strieff, ruled for the State, and found there was no flagrant police misconduct: > “The evidence Officer Fackrell seized as part of his search incident to arrest is admissible because his discovery of the arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence seized from Strieff incident to arrest.” Furthermore, the Court also noted that although the [Exclusionary Rule](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exclusionary_rule) prohibits the admissibility of evidence which is illegally seized in violation of people’s Constitutional rights, there are several exceptions to the rule. One exception is the [Attenuation Doctrine](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exclusionary_rule), which admits typically inadmissible evidence when the connection between unconstitutional police conduct and the evidence is sufficiently remote or has been interrupted by some intervening circumstance. The Court reasoned that the Attenuation Doctrine therefore applies here, where the intervening circumstance is the discovery of a valid, pre-existing, and untainted arrest warrant: “Assuming, without deciding, that Officer Fackrell lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Strieff initially, the discovery of that arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence seized from Strieff incident to his arrest.” Justice Thomas’s majority opinion was joined by [Chief Justice John Roberts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts) and Justices [Anthony Kennedy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedy), [Stephen Breyer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Breyer), and [Samuel Alito](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Alito). Writing in dissent, [Justice Sonia Sotomayor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor) blasted the majority for excusing police misconduct and undermining the Fourth Amendment: > “The Court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendment rights. Do not be soothed by the opinion’s technical language: This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic war rants—even if you are doing nothing wrong. If the officer discovers a warrant for a fine you forgot to pay, courts will now excuse his illegal stop and will admit into evidence anything he happens to find by searching you after arresting you on the warrant. Because the Fourth Amendment should prohibit, not permit, such misconduct, I dissent.” > > “This case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. It says that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights. It implies that you are not a citizen of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged.” My opinion? I agree with Sotomayor’s dissent. *Utah v. Strieff* is a terrible blow to every American’s Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unlawful and intrusive government searches. Period. That aside, will *Utah v. Strieff* negatively impact the constitutional rights of citizens in Washington State? Probably not. We already have time-tested precedents like [*State v. Doughty*](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-doughty-wa-supremes-limit-scope-of-terry-stops/), [*State v. Afana*](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-afana-another-awesome-decision-re-illegal-car-searches/) and *[State v. Winterstein](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-winterstein-probation-officers-cannot-search-of-a-home-if-facts-do-not-support-the-officers-belief-that-probationer-lives-there/). A*ll of these WA Supreme Court cases – and more – are recent opinions that are factually similar to *Utah v. Streiff. F*ortunately, these cases have already ruled against police officers violating people’s Constitutional rights against illegal search and seizure. As a colleague of mine said, “The rest of the country may be SOL, but *Utah v. Strieff* should not survive here in WA State.” Let’s keep our fingers crossed. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Attenuation Doctrine, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Evidence, Exclusionary Rule, felony, law enforcement, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Terry Stop, United States Supreme Court, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Ashley: Prior Bad Acts of DV](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-ashley-dv-evidence-of-prior-bad-acts/) **Published:** July 23, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [State v. Ashley](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/917710.pdf), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) decided a trial court properly admitted evidence of the defendant’s prior acts of domestic violence against the victim. Here, defendant Baron Ashley was charged with [Unlawful Imprisonment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/kidnapping-unlawful-imprisonment/) [Domestic Violence (DV) ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/)for detaining his girlfriend Makayla Gamble in the bathroom without her consent. Apparently, Ashley and the victim Makayla Gamble had a long-term DV relationship. Gamble testified that Ashley had physically abused her in the past. She explained that she had been in a relationship with Ashley for several years and that he had abused her multiple times during that relationship. In total, Gamble described four specific instances of abuse, including three instances when Gamble was pregnant. Gamble explained that she suffered bruises, black eyes, and a popped eardrum as a result of these attacks, but that she called the police only once and later retracted her complaint because she loved Ashley. Specifically, Gamble testified that these instances affected her decision to get into the bathroom when instructed. The jury found Ashley guilty as charged. On appeal, Ashley argued the trial court wrongfully admitted evidence of his prior misconduct under Evidence Rule (ER) 404(b). The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, and the WA Supreme Court granted review. [ER 404(b)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=ER&ruleid=gaer0404) provides in full: > Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. By its plain language, the rule absolutely prohibits certain types of evidence from being used “to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith,” but allows that same evidence to be introduced for any other purpose, depending on its relevance and the balancing of its probative value and danger of unfair prejudice. The Court explained that ER 404(b) prohibits certain types of evidence from being used “to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith,” but allows that same evidence to be introduced for any other purpose, depending on its relevance and the balancing of its probative value and danger of unfair prejudice. The Court also referred to its four-part test to determine if ER 404(b) evidence is admissible: > “To admit evidence of a person’s prior misconduct, the trial court must **(1)** find by a preponderance of the evidence that the misconduct occurred, **(2)** identify the purpose for which the evidence is sought to be > introduced, **(3)** determine whether the evidence is relevant to prove an element of the crime charged, and **(4)** weigh the probative value against the prejudicial effect.” Here, Defendant Ashley argued that the State did not establish that the incidents of prior domestic violence even occurred. He also said that this evidence was irrelevant to Gamble’s credibility and to the elements of the crime, and that the prejudice of the prior bad acts dramatically outweighed any probative value of the evidence. However, the WA Supreme Court rejected Ashley’s arguments. The Court decided the Prosecution satisfied the first prong of the test: “The trial court heard undisputed testimony describing a series of instances of domestic violence by Ashley against Gamble and reviewed a 2004 police report. The trial court found Gamble’s testimony credible. Ashley presents no legal or factual argument for disturbing this finding; he simply disagrees with it.” The Court also found the prosecution satisfied the second and third prong of the test: > “The State’s theory was that Ashley intimidated Gamble, forcing her to remain in the bathroom. The trial court found that the State demonstrated that Ashley’s history of domestic abuse against Gamble was highly probative of whether Ashley restrained Gamble using intimidation and fear based on this history of domestic abuse. Essentially, the trial court found-and the Court of Appeals agreed-that the domestic violence evidence was both material and relevant to Gamble’s lack of consent and to whether Ashley restrained Gamble by intimidation. We agree.” Finally, the Court held the Prosecution satisfied the fourth prong of the test: > “Here, the trial court properly balanced these interests, concluding that Ashley’s long history of domestic violence toward Gamble was highly probative in assessing whether Ashley intimidated Gamble, such that she was restrained without her consent.” In conclusion, the Court held that the trial court undertook the proper ER 404(b) analysis, the domestic violence evidence presented was highly probative of the victim’s lack of consent, and the State met its burden of demonstrating the evidence’s overriding probative value to establish a necessary element of the crime. However, the Court also held that the trial court committed harmless error by instructing the jurors that they could consider the evidence for the purpose of bolstering Gamble’s credibility. Ashley’s conviction was affirmed. For more information on Domestic Violence issues please review my Legal Guide titled [“Defending Against Domestic Violence Charges.”](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/defending-against-domestic-violence-charges/) There, I provide links to my analysis of Washington cases discussing domestic violence. Also, please go the search engine of my [Blog ](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/blog/)if you have specific queries about these issues. And please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. Good luck! ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Domestic Violence, Evidence, felony, Jury Trial, Prior Bad Acts, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Unlawful Imprisonment, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Backpack Searches When Jailed](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-dunham-inventory-searches/) **Published:** July 27, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Dunham](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2046169-2-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals Division II](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) decided that a warrantless search of a suspect’s locked backpack pocket was a lawful inventory search where the defendant was booked into jail, a search of his person produced knives, the backpack was to be logged into the jail’s temporary storage area and the officer felt knives on the outside of the backpack. On January 29, 2014, Sergeant Gwen Carrell of the [Chehalis Police Department ](http://www.ci.chehalis.wa.us/police)responded to a reported shoplifting at a local department store. Upon arrival, Sgt. Carrell met with loss prevention officers. They told Sgt. Carrell that defendant Jason Dunham had multiple knives in his backpack and that they had removed the backpack from Dunham’s reach. Sgt. Carrell placed Dunham in handcuffs for officer safety and searched him for weapons. She located two more knives on Dunham’s person, arrested Dunham for theft and booked him into jail. Sgt. Carrell searched Dunham’s backpack for items to be logged into the jail’s temporary storage. This is called an **inventory search**. In short, it is every police department’s policy to inventory items to be held in its storage facility for any dangerous items. As part of this policy, knives are to be kept in secure containers, preventing them from puncturing anything. Sgt. Carrell used Dunham’s keys to unlock the backpack pocket. She opened the pocket and observed a flashlight, a butane torch, and a glass pipe. What Sgt. Carrell thought was a knife was actually the butane torch. The residue in the glass pipe tested positive for methamphetamine. The State charged Dunham with [Possession of a Controlled Substance](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) and [Theft in the Third Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/theft/). Dunham filed a motion to suppress the evidence found during Sgt. Carrell’s search of the locked portion of his backpack pursuant to [CrR 3.6](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6), arguing that the search violated his constitutional rights. The trial court denied the motion and ruled that the inventory search was valid. Later, the trial court found him guilty on both counts at a bench trial. Dunham appealed. He argued that the warrantless search of his backpack’s locked pocket violated the [Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) and [article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx). He claims that the search was not a valid inventory search. Unfortunately for Dunham the Court of Appeals disagreed. First it reasoned that inventory searches are an exception to the requirement that police have a warrant to search people’s personal property. Second, the Court described the purpose of an Inventory Search: > “The purpose of an inventory search is not to discover evidence of a crime, but to perform an administrative or caretaking function. The principal purposes of an inventory search are to (1) protect the owner’s property, (2) protect the police against false claims of theft by the owner, and (3) protect the police from potential danger. The scope of an inventory search should be limited to those areas necessary to fulfill its purpose.” Third, the Court reasoned that Officer Carrel’s safety concern about potentially exposed knives in the locked pocket was reasonable based on the facts that (1) several knives were found on Dunham’s person, (2) additional knives were found in the unlocked portion of Dunham’s backpack, (3) one of the knives found in the backpack was unsheathed, and (4) Sgt. Carrell felt what she believed to be another knife in the locked pocket of the backpack. Therefore, a manifest necessity existed for searching the locked portion of the backpack. Finally, the Court concluded that the inventory search was valid and affirmed Dunham’s conviction: > “Substantial evidence supports the challenged finding of fact. Given the reasonable indication that the locked portion of the backpack contained dangerous items along with Sgt. Carrell’s reasonable fear of being stabbed, we hold that a manifest necessity existed to search No. 46169-2-II 8 inside the locked portion of the backpack. Therefore the trial court’s findings of fact support its conclusion that the inventory search was valid. We affirm Dunham’s conviction.” My opinion? Search and seizure issues are a HUGE aspect of unlawful possession cases. The legal issues come down to whether the search was lawful, and if not, whether the evidence can be suppressed. Here, the court’s decision appears sound. Under Washington law, officers may search a suspect’s person if they feel “hard and sharp” objects through the outside of a suspect’s clothing. This is done for officer safety. Similarly, Inventory Searches are conducted under the same policy of preserving officer safety. Here, the hard and sharp objects felt through Dunham’s backpack raised a safety concern. Therefore, the search appears lawful. For more information, please review my Legal Guide titled, [“Search & Seizure: Basic Issues Regarding Their Search for Weapons, Drugs, Firearms and Other Contraband.”](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) There, I provide links to my analysis of Washington cases discussing searches of persons, vehicles, cars and homes. Also, please go the search engine of my [Blog ](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/blog/)if you have specific queries about these issues. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Community Caretaking, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Evidence, felony, Inventory Searches, law enforcement, Methamphetamine, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Abandoned Cell Phone Searches](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/abandoned-cell-phone-searches/) **Published:** August 4, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Samalia*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/915326.pdf), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that although cell phone information is protected by the Constitution, the defendant abandoned this privacy interest when he voluntarily left the cell phone in a stolen vehicle while fleeing from police. Defendant Adrian Sutlej Samalia fled on foot from a stolen vehicle during a lawful traffic stop, leaving his cell phone behind in the vehicle. After Samalia successfully escaped, the police searched the cell phone without a warrant and made contact with one of the numbers stored in the cell phone. That contact led to Samalia’s identification as the owner of the phone and driver of the stolen vehicle. On these facts, the State charged Samalia with [Possession of a Stolen Vehicle](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/possession-theft-of-stolen-motor-vehicle/). Samalia moved to suppress the cell phone evidence under [CrR 3.6](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6), arguing that the officers violated his constitutional rights when they seized and searched his cell phone with neither a warrant nor a valid exception to the warrant requirement. The State responded that the warrantless search was valid under the abandonment doctrine. The trial court held that Samalia voluntarily abandoned any privacy interest that he had in the cell phone by leaving it in the stolen vehicle, which he also voluntarily abandoned, while fleeing from Office Yates. After denying Samalia’s suppression motion and subsequent motion for reconsideration, the trial court found Samalia guilty as charged in a bench trial. Samalia appealed to[ Division III of the WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo). They upheld the trial court’s decision under the abandonment doctrine. Ultimately, the WA Supreme Court decided the search was lawful and upheld Samalia’s conviction. It reasoned that [article I, section 7 of Washington’s Constitution ](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx)states that “no person shall be disturbed in his private affairs … without authority of law,” and although the WA Constitution embraces the privacy expectations protected by the [Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) – and in some cases, may provide greater protection than the Fourth Amendment – the search was nonetheless lawful under the abandonment doctrine. **ABANDONMENT DOCTRINE** The Court reasoned that the “abandonment doctrine,” a person loses normal privacy interests in their property upon abandoning it. The abandonment doctrine is not rooted in any obligation by law enforcement to find the owner of property. Basically, it allows law enforcement officers to retrieve and search voluntarily abandoned property without implicating an individual’s rights. The court reasoned that in this sense, voluntarily abandoned property is different from lost or mislaid property, in which the owner maintains a privacy interest in the property and the finder may have an obligation to seek out the owner to return the property. Thus, when an individual flees from law enforcement and leaves a cell phone behind in a stolen vehicle, a trial court may find that the cell phone is no less abandoned than any other item that was also left in the stolen vehicle. Here, the Court declined to find an exception to the abandonment doctrine for cell phones. Consequently, the WA Supreme Court decided the trial court properly found abandonment under these facts. In conclusion, the WA Supreme Court affirmed Samalia’s conviction on the grounds that the information derived from the search of Samalia’s cell phone was properly admitted as evidence under the abandonment doctrine. **DISSENTING OPINION** [Justice Yu](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=yu) authored the dissenting opinion, which was also signed by[ Justice Stephens](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=stephens) and [Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=gordon_mccloud). In short, these dissenting justices all agreed that common law doctrines like the Abandonment Doctrine cannot be applied mechanically to new technology. Second, the abandonment doctrine applies to personal property generally and not digital technology. Third, digital cell phone data remains a private affair, even if the cell phone itself has been voluntarily abandoned. > “The people of Washington are entitled to hold safe from government intrusion the unprecedented wealth of personal information accessible through a cell phone, even if the phone itself has been voluntarily abandoned. If government officials discover a cell phone and want to search its digital data for evidence of criminal activity, they may seize and secure the cell phone to preserve any evidence it may contain, **but they must obtain a warrant before searching its digital data.** Because the police did not obtain a warrant here, the search was unlawful and its fruits should have been suppressed. I respectfully dissent.” My opinion? Last year, I discussed this case when the Court of Appeals decided it in my blog post titled, [State v. Samalia: Search of Abandoned Cell Phone is Lawful.](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-samalia-cell-phone-search-is-lawful/) Again, I disagree with the court’s majority decision in this case. The trial court should have suppressed the cell phone search back in the beginning of this case. Under these circumstances, the abandonment doctrine is simply not the proper legal vehicle to permit a cell phone search. Using this doctrine leaps too far in the wrong direction. Kudos to the dissenting judges in this case. Although the decision was not deeply divided (6-3), the dissenters got it right. Officers need to get search warrants. Period. My general advice to the general public? Never leave incriminating evidence on your cell phone. No pictures, videos, nothing. A lost phone could now be considered “abandoned” and searchable by authorities. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Abandonment Doctrine, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Cell Phone, Constitutional Rights, felony, law enforcement, Plain View, police, Possession of Stolen Motor Vehicle, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Jail Phone Conversations Are Admissible At Trial](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/jail-phone-conversations-are-admissible-at-trial/) **Published:** August 4, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Dere*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/727133.pdf), the [Court of Appeals Division I](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that a telephone conversation between a jail inmate and a person outside the jail is not a private communication when the participants are advised that the call will be recorded and must confirm their understanding that they are being recorded. Also, a recording of such a conversation is admissible evidence against the noninmate as well as against the inmate. Defendant Zakaria Dere was a co-defendant in a [Robbery](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/robbery/). Before the trial, Dere posted bail and was released from custody. Dere received several calls from Mohamed Ali, a codefendant who remained in jail. Their conversations were recorded by the jail’s telephone system. Unfortunately for Dere, the recordings gave evidence that Dere was an accomplice in the robbery. He argued a [CrR 3.5 ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.5)motion to suppress., however, the trial court denied his motion. Ultimately, Dere’s statements were used against him by the State at his trial. He was found guilty of Robbery. He appealed. **WASHINGTON PRIVACY ACT** The Court of Appeals addressed Dere’s argument that the admission of the recordings violated the [Washington Privacy Act under RCW 9.73](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.73). Under this statute, recordings obtained in violation of the act are inadmissible for any purpose at trial. The act also makes it unlawful to intercept or record private communications transmitted by telephone without first obtaining the consent of all participants in the communication. Dere cited *[State v. Modica](https://casetext.com/case/state-v-modica-3)* in arguing that a communication is private when parties manifest a subjective intention that it be private and where that expectation is reasonable. Despite Dere’s arguments, the Court of Appeals reasoned that Dere’s conversations with Ali were not private communications. Dere and Ali did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their telephone conversations because they knew their calls were recorded and subject to monitoring. “Because the calls were not private communications, the privacy act does not apply,” reasoned the Court. **WASHINGTON CONSTITUTION** Next, the Court of Appeals addressed Dere’s claims that the recording of his calls violated his constitutionally protected privacy rights. The Court reasoned that although [Article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution ](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx)generally protects the privacy of telephone conversations, calls from a jail inmate are not private affairs deserving of protection: > ” A jail recording system . . . and its operation typically demonstrates that at least one participant in a conversation has consented to the recording. The inspection of other forms of communication with inmates, such as ingoing and outgoing mail and packages, is not an invasion of a privacy interest protected by the Washington Constitution so long as the inmate is informed of the likelihood of inspection.” With that, the Court of Appeals concluded there was no violation of Dere’s constitutional privacy interests. The Court upheld Dere’s Robbery conviction. My opinion? Obviously, this case shows that suppressing jail inmate conversations is difficult to impossible; especially when the automated voice informs the callers that the conversations are being recorded. I always advise my jailed clients to limit their phone conversations with friends and family members. Speaking from experience, I’ve conducted *many* trials where Prosecutors use recorded jail inmate against my clients in attempts to incriminate them. Usually, the recorded conversations are suppressible on other grounds as being prejudicial, irrelevant, confusing, misleading etc. under[ ER 403](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=ER&ruleid=gaer0403). Still, trying to suppress incriminating statements is a terrible position to be in; especially when avoidable. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Evidence, Jail, Privacy, Robbery, Self-Incrimination, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Privacy Act, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Gift Cards Are "Access Devices"](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/gift-cards-are-access-devices/) **Published:** August 13, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Nelson*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2047236-8-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals Division II ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo)reversed the dismissal of the defendant’s case and decided a gift card is, in fact, an access device. Defendant Angel Rose Marie Nelson was a [Kmart](http://www.kmart.com/) employee. A surveillance video showed that Nelson left her cash register three times to retrieve an empty gift card, then activated each card by adding funds to it without adding cash to the cash register. She activated an [Amazon.com](https://www.amazon.com/) gift card for $100, a [MasterCard](https://www.mastercard.us/en-us.html) gift card for roughly $205, and a [JoAnn’s Fabric & Craft Store](http://www.joann.com/) gift card for $25. She later used at least two of these cards. The State charged Nelson with one count of [second degree theft of an access device ](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.56.040)and one count of [second degree possession of a stolen access device](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.160). Nelson moved to dismiss the charges under [CrR 8.3(c)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=SUPCRR8.03) and [*Knapstad* motion](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/dismissing-cases-through-knapstad-motions/). She argued that the term “access device” could not include gift cards. The superior court granted Nelson’s motion, ruling that, as a matter of law, a gift card is not an access device. The State appealed. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of Nelson’s case. First, the Court reasoned that, under [MERRIAM-WEBSTER UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gift%20card), gift cards *can* access an account because the plain meaning of the word “account” is broad enough to cover a gift card’s balance: > “Under this definition, a gift card can access an account as described above. It is a card that can be used to receive goods or services of a specified value. A gift card thus shows a resulting balance. It is a device that can be used to access a record of a business relationship with outstanding credits, debits, or obligations, and a sum of money—that is, an account.” In conclusion, the Court held that the definition of “access device” can include gift cards so long as they are a means of account access. The word “account” is not limited to a bank account because the plain language of the statute includes no such limitation. The funds to which a gift card provides access can be an account under this statute. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Access Devices, Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Knapstad Motion, Property Crimes, Retail Theft, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [New Washington Driver’s-License Exam Tackles Pot & Cellphone Risks](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/new-washington-drivers-license-exam-tackles-pot-cellphone-risks/) **Published:** August 13, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** A recent [news article](http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/updated-drivers-license-exam-looks-at-pot-cellphone-risks/) by reporter [E.J. Smith III](http://www.seattletimes.com/author/e-j-smith/) of the [Seattle Times](http://www.seattletimes.com/) reports that today’s driver’s license exams require not only a more thorough understanding of longstanding traffic laws but also an understanding of the risks associated with smartphones and the legalization of pot. “We wanted to add more information about impaired driving beyond the information about driving while intoxicated,” said [Department of Licensing](http://www.dol.wa.gov/) spokesman [Brad Benfield](https://www.linkedin.com/in/brad-benfield-672bb61a). “With all the growth of cellphone use … we wanted to make sure that type of information was highlighted in the driver’s guide and test.” E.J. Smith III reports these driving issues are timely and should be addressed. For example, he quotes a recent study by the [AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety](https://www.aaafoundation.org/) concluded that teen drivers spend nearly a quarter of their driving time distracted. Additionally, [one in six drivers involved in fatal crashes](http://newsroom.aaa.com/2016/05/fatal-road-crashes-involving-marijuana-double-state-legalizes-drug/) in Washington in 2014 had recently used marijuana, which is the most recent data available. Finally, according to the [NSC preliminary estimates](http://www.nsc.org/NewsDocuments/2016/mv-fatality-report-1215.pdf), 567 people died in motor-vehicle crashes in Washington last year, a 21 percent increase over 2014. Nationally, the increase was 8 percent. “The old test didn’t have any questions on distractions,” said Nur Hassan, who has run [MLK Simple Driving School](http://www.mlksimpledrivingschool.com/) in Seattle for three years. “Driving is very serious business, so people should not try to take it lightly or try to put in other distractions.” My opinion? Kudos to the Department of Licensing for addressing issues of distracted driving and marijuana use. This is an excellent step in the right direction. Today’s teen driver’s need to know the risks of their driving behavior. I practice a wide range of criminal defense, everything from low-level misdemeanors to Federal charges. I’m honored to represent them through difficult times. I’ve assisted clients who are minors charged with various forms of DUI (drugs as well as alcohol). Many didn’t know the *slightest* amount of alcohol or drugs in their system can lead to DUI charges. Others didn’t know the repercussions of their actions. I’m a firm believer that education is the key to prevention. That said, if you’re interested in more information on these issues then please review my [Drug DUI](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/drug-dui/) practice area and my Legal Guide titled [Drug DUI’s in Washington: The Issues & Recent Case Law.](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/drug-duis-in-washington-the-issues-recent-case-law/) Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Cell Phone, Department of Licensing, Distracted Driving, Drug Offenses, DUI, marijuana, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Reckless Driving, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Technology, Text Messages, Traffic Infractions, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [9th Circuit Court of Appeals Bans Pot Prosecutions](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/9th-circuit-court-of-appeals-bans-pot-prosecutions/) **Published:** August 23, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*U.S. v. McIntosh*](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/16/15-10117.pdf), the [9th Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) banned the [U.S. Department of Justice](https://www.justice.gov/) (DOJ) from prosecuting medical marijuana cases if no state laws were broken. *U.S v. McIntosh* consolidated 10 pending cases in Washington in California where defendants who sold medical marijuana were indicted for violating the [Controlled Substance Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act). The defendants sought dismissal of their charges or to enjoin their prosecutions under the [Consolidated Appropriations Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_Appropriations_Act,_2016), which prohibits the DOJ from spending funds to prevent states’ implementation of their medical marijuana laws. Although marijuana remains illegal under federal law, Congress has barred the Justice Department from spending money to prevent states from regulating the use or sale of medical pot. Federal prosecutors argued unsuccessfully that Congress meant only to bar the department from taking legal action against states and that it could still prosecute individuals who violate federal marijuana laws. The court rejected that, saying that medical marijuana-based prosecutions prevent the states from giving full effect to their own measures [Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diarmuid_O%27Scannlain) wrote the following in his opinion: > “DOJ, without taking any legal action against the Medical Marijuana States, prevents them from implementing their laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana by prosecuting individuals for use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana that is authorized by such laws . . . If the federal government prosecutes such individuals, it has prevented the state from giving practical effect to its law providing for non-prosecution of individuals who engage in the permitted conduct.” > > “If DOJ wishes to continue these prosecutions, Appellants are entitled to evidentiary hearings to determine whether their conduct was completely authorized by state law, by which we mean that they strictly complied with all relevant conditions imposed by state law on the use, distribution, possession, and cultivation of medical marijuana.” With that, the Court of Appeals remanded the case back with instructions to conduct evidentiary hearings to determine whether Appellants complied with state law. Marijuana activists and lawyers representing medical pot suppliers say the ruling is a significant addition to the growing support for broad legalization of the drug. “This is the beginning of the end of federal prosecutions of state medical marijuana dispensary operators, growers and patients,” said [Marc Zilversmit](http://www.zdefender.com/), an attorney representing five people who operate four marijuana stores in Los Angeles and nine indoor growing sites in Los Angeles and San Francisco. My opinion? Good decision. These days, marijuana is legal for medicinal or recreational use in 25 states and the District of Columbia. In addition, ten states have marijuana legalization measures on the November ballot. This case is a positive shift toward legalizing marijuana on a federal level. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Legislation, marijuana, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Kansas Cops Can’t Stop Colorado Drivers Just Because they Suspect Marijuana Possession](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/kansas-cops-cant-stop-colorado-drivers-just-because-they-suspect-marijuana-possession/) **Published:** August 28, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*Vasquez v. Lewis & Jimerson*](https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-3278.pdf), the [10th Circuit Court of Appeals ](https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/)reinstated a lawsuit filed by a Colorado motorist against two Kansas Highway Patrol officers who pulled him over and searched his vehicle for marijuana as he was driving alone at night through Kansas on his way to Maryland. The [KHP officers,](http://www.kansashighwaypatrol.org/) Richard Jimerson and Dax Lewis, stopped Vasquez when they could not read the temporary tag taped to the inside of the car’s tinted rear window. The officers believed they were justified in searching the vehicle because Vasquez was a citizen of Colorado driving on I-70, a “known drug corridor,” in a recently purchased, older-model car. They said he also seemed nervous. On February 28, 2012, Vasquez filed this lawsuit against the Officers under [42 U.S.C. § 1983](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983) – which allows citizens to sue the government for violating Constitutional Rights – and argued that the officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights by detaining him and searching his car without [reasonable suspicion](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_suspicion). At first, his lawsuit was dismissed. He took his lawsuit up on appeal. The 10th Circuit found the officers violated Vasquez’s [Fourth Amendment rights](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) in searching his car without his consent. Nothing illegal was found. He had nothing more than an out-of-state license plate from Colorado, a state that has legalized marijuana. The Court found the officers violated Vasquez’s rights in searching his car: > “Accordingly, it is time to abandon the pretense that state citizenship is a permissible basis upon which to justify the detention and search of out-of-state motorists, and time to stop the practice of detention of motorists for nothing more than an out-of-state license plate,” the ruling states.” My opinion? Good decision. And it makes sense. [Twenty-five states permit marijuana use for medicinal purposes](http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000881), with [Colorado](https://www.coloradopotguide.com/marijuana-laws-in-colorado/), [Alaska](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/07/17/marijuana-in-alaska-has-long-been-legal-now-the-state-is-struggling-to-regulate-it/), [Oregon](http://www.oregon.gov/olcc/marijuana/pages/default.aspx), [Washington](http://gonw.about.com/od/statelawsforvisitors/tp/Recreational-Marijuana-Washington-State-Guide-Visitors.htm), and [Washington, D.C.](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/26/marijuana-legalization-dc_n_6753554.html) permitting some recreational use under state law. Our federal circuit courts are simply reading the writing on the wall. Indeed, it even appears our federal courts are actually leading the charge toward the national legalization of marijuana. In my blog post titled, [9th Circuit Court of Appeals Bans Pot Prosecutions](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/9th-circuit-court-of-appeals-bans-pot-prosecutions/), I discuss recent news that the 9th Circuit prevented the U.S. Department of Justice from prosecuting pot charges if State laws allow for its legal possession. Times are changing . . . Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, law enforcement, Legislation, marijuana, Police Misconduct, Qualified Immunity, Race & Law, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [A "Missing Witness" Argument Cuts Both Ways](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/missing-witness-arguments-cut-both-ways/) **Published:** August 30, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Fair warning folks, this is a post only trial attorneys can appreciate . . . In *[State v. Goss](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/922748.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held a defendant was properly barred from arguing that the jury could draw a negative inference from the fact the State had not offered a recording of a detective’s interview with the defendant. Mr. Goss was charged with Goss was initially charged with one count of [Child Molestation Second Degree](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.086) on accusations that he sexually assaulted his former fiance’s granddaughter. Later, a charge of [Attempted Child Molestation Third Degree ](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.089)was added. The police interviewed Mr. Goss when the accusations first arose. The interview was recorded at the police station, and lasted 50 minutes. Before trial, Goss moved to redact portions of the recorded interview relating to (1) pornography Goss’s home computer and (2) prior allegations of child molestation made against him. The State indicated that it did not plan to play the recording in its case in chief. The trial judge reserved ruling until and unless the recording was offered. Neither side moved to admit the recording during trial. At closing argument, Goss was barred from arguing that the State failed to produce the video. Goss was found guilty of the charges. He appealed. Among other arguments, he said the Prosecutor’s failure to admit the interview at trial was analogous to a party not offering an available witness. This is also called the “Missing Witness Doctrine, which is well-described in *[State v. Blair](http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/117wn2d/117wn2d0479.htm)*. ” Under the “missing witness” or “empty chair” doctrine it is a well-established rule that where evidence which would properly be part of a case is within the control of the party whose interest it would naturally be to produce it, and, he fails to do so, the jury may draw an inference that it would be unfavorable to him. However, the WA Supreme Court rejected these arguments. It pointed out that Goss himself moved to redact portions of the recorded interview relating to prior allegations of child molestation made against Goss by his daughter. The Court also reasoned The detective who questioned Goss on the tape testified at trial. Consequently, Goss could have cross-examined the Officer on the witness and possibly got the recorded interview admitted, redacted or otherwise. Coincidentally, ruled the Court, “Nothing in this record suggests the State’s decision not to play the tape was nefarious. Goss has not shown the trial court abused its discretion because the tape was analogous to a missing witness. ” My opinion? It’s difficult to say the WA Supremes decided this wrong. I’ve won jury trials where the Prosecution has pointed the finger at Defense for failing to produce “missing witnesses.” Usually, these attacks from the State are rejected by courts because the State – and not the defense – carries the burden of proof. Asking the defendant to come up with more witnesses is a sly (and unlawful) way of shifting the burden to the defense. The “Missing Witness” doctrine is rather funny in that it points the finger right back at the attorney who claims the other side failed to produce the “magic witness.” [WPIC 5.20](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Ief9d9f8ae10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)) discusses the limited use of the “Missing Witness” defense/offense tactic. Basically, if a person who could have been a witness at the trial is not called to testify, jurors may be able to infer that the person’s testimony would have been unfavorable to a party in the case. Jurors may draw this inference only if they find that: (1) The witness is within the control of, or peculiarly available to, that party; (2) The issue on which the person could have testified is an issue of fundamental importance, rather than one that is trivial or insignificant; (3) As a matter of reasonable probability, it appears naturally in the interest of that party to call the person as a witness; (4) There is no satisfactory explanation of why the party did not call the person as a witness; and (5) The inference is reasonable in light of all the circumstances. The tactic is to be used **sparingly**, and with good reason: it points the finger right back at the accusing party! Here, that’s exactly what the WA Supreme Court decided. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, Evidence, felony, Jury Trial, Pretrial Investigations, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["Joining" Multiple Offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/joining-multiple-offenses/) **Published:** September 11, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Bluford](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/730479.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals Division I](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) decided a trial court correctly joined a defendant’s multiple counts of robbery for one trial. The similarities between the crimes were adequate for the offenses to be cross admissible to establish a *modus operandi*. The State charged Charles Bluford with nine felony counts. These included seven counts of [Robbery in the First Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/robbery/) plus a charge of [Rape in the First Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/) of one victim and Indecent Liberties of a separate victim. The State initially charged Bluford under three different cause numbers, but moved to join all the counts for trial. Bluford moved to sever five of the counts from the others. The court considered these cross motions at the same hearing and joined all counts for trial. The jury found Bluford guilty of eight counts and acquitted him of one count of Robbery. It sentenced him to life without the possibility of release. Bluford appeals. The Court of Appeals began by discussing the statute and court rule regarding the “joinder” of criminal offenses. [RCW 10.37.060](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=10.37.060) states the following: > When there are several charges against any person, or persons, for the same act or transaction, or for two or more acts or transactions connected together, or for two or more acts or transactions of the same class of crimes or offenses, which may be properly joined, instead of having several indictments or informations the whole may be joined in one indictment, or information, in separate counts; and, if two or more indictments are found, or two or more informations filed, in such cases, the court may order such indictments or informations to be consolidated. Also, [CrR 4.3](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR4.03) says the following: > Two or more offenses may be joined in one charging document, with each offense stated in a separate count, when the offenses, whether felonies or misdemeanors or both: (1) Are of the same or similar character, even if not part of a single scheme or plan; or (2) Are based on the same conduct or on a series of acts connected together or constituting parts of a single scheme or plan. The court reasoned that the joinder rule promotes the public policy goal of conserving judicial resources. Also, joinder is appropriate unless it is so “manifestly prejudicial” that it outweighs the need for judicial economy. In other words, courts may not join offenses if it would prejudice the defendant. The court applied the four-factors guide from *[State v. Cotten](http://courts.mrsc.org/appellate/075wnapp/075wnapp0669.htm) to* determine whether prejudice results from joinder: > (1) the strength of the State’s evidence on each of the counts; (2) the clarity of the defenses on each count; (3) the propriety of the trial court’s instruction to the jury regarding the consideration of evidence of each count separately; and (4) the admissibility of the evidence of the other crimes. The Court applied the *Cotten* factors. First, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the trial court correctly determined that the strength of the State’s evidence for each count was equivalently strong. Second, Bluford asserted a general denial for each count. Therefore, he could not have been prejudiced by inconsistent defenses because his defenses were all the same. Third, Bluford argues that the court’s instructions to the jury at the end of the case did not instruct the jury that it could not consider the evidence of other crimes as propensity evidence. However, Bluford failed to request such an instruction. And the trial court is not required to give such an instruction if the defendant fails to request one. Fourth, the court determined that the evidence of each count would be cross admissible for the other counts for the purpose of showing [*modus operandi*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_operandi). It reasoned that although [ER 404(b)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=ER&ruleid=gaer0404) prohibits introducing evidence of other bad acts as propensity evidence, such evidence is admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, plan, or identity. Under the modus operandi exception, evidence of other bad acts is admissible to show identity if the method employed in the commission of crimes is so unique that proof that an accused committed one of the crimes creates a high probability that he also committed the other crimes with which he is charged. The *modus operandi* must be so unusual and distinctive as to be like a signature. In Bluford’s case, the trial court determined that the crimes were cross admissible for the following reasons: > Each incident occurred within an approximately two month period. Each incident occurred during hours of darkness. Each incident occurred in the Seattle metro area. Each incident occurred in a residential area. The defendant was a stranger to each victim. In each incident, the victims were alone when . . . a male approached with a handgun and gave verbal demands to the victims. The descriptions of the handgun by the victims are similar. Four of the victims gave a description of the vehicle, which matches the vehicle the defendant was later found inside. Two of the three female victims were sexually assaulted during the course of the robberies. Although one of the female victims was not sexually assaulted during the robbery, she ran away at the time of the robbery, thereby limiting the opportunity for the defendant to sexually assault her . . . Therefore, although none of the incidents are a carbon copy of the others, the incidents are strikingly similar. Additionally, in each case the perpetrator approached the victim as he or she exited a car. And when the victim did not cooperate, the perpetrator forcefully took his or her property or assaulted the victim. Consequently, *modus operandi* was proven. Finally, because Bryant failed to renew his motion to sever during trial, he technically failed to preserve for review the issue of severance. Bluford’s convictions were upheld. However, the Court of Appeals vacated his sentence of life without the possibility of release and remanded for resentencing. My opinion? At trial, Prosecutors commonly try joining a defendant’s multiple offenses. As stated above, doing so creates judicial efficiency and shows propensity evidence under ER 404(b). Still, competent defense attorneys should try to sever multiple counts anyway; and most important RENEW THE MOTION DURING TRIAL. Failing to do so effectively waives the issue to be preserved for appeal. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Due Process, felony, Joinder, Jury Trial, Prior Bad Acts, Prison, Rape, Robbery, Sentencing, Severance, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Assault is "Lesser Included" Charge for Indecent Liberties](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/assault-is-lesser-included-charge-for-indecent-liberties/) **Published:** September 11, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Bluford*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/730479.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals Div. I](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) decided that [Assault in the Fourth Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) satisfies the legal prong of the lesser included offense test for the crime of [Indecent Liberties](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.44.100). Charles Bluford appealed his conviction for Indecent Liberties on arguments that the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the lesser charge of assault. For those who don’t know, a “lesser-included” offense shares some, but not all, of the elements of a greater criminal offense. Therefore, the greater offense cannot be committed without also committing the lesser offense. For example, [Manslaughter](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/manslaughter) is a lesser included offense of murder, assault is a lesser included offense of rape, and unlawful entry is a lesser included offense of [Burglary](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/burglary). Here, the Court reasoned that instructing juries on lesser included offenses “is crucial to the integrity of our criminal justice system,” and that courts should therefore “err on the side of instructing juries on lesser included offenses.” Furthermore, the Court of Appeals reasoned that courts should instruct the jury about a lesser included offense if the jury could find that the defendant committed only the lesser included offense. The Court analyzed whether a defendant is entitled to a lesser included offense instruction under the test announced in [*State v. Workman*](http://www.leagle.com/decision/197853390Wn2d443_1484/STATE%20v.%20WORKMAN). Under this test, the defendant is entitled to a lesser included jury instruction when (1) each of the elements of the lesser offense is a necessary element of the charged offense and (2) the evidence in the case supports an inference that the lesser crime was committed. The court applied the *Workman* test and decided Bluford should have been granted a lesser included instruction for assault fourth degree. Here, the State charged Bluford with one count of Indecent Liberties. This requires that a person “*knowingly* cause another person who is not his or her spouse to have sexual contact with him or her or another.. . by forcible compulsion.” Accordingly, this crime requires *knowledge* as the mental state. Therefore, *Workman’s* factual prong was satisfied. The common-law definition of assault that applies is an “unlawful touching with criminal intent.” Thus, reasoned the court, fourth-degree assault requires *intent* as the mental state. Indecent liberties also requires “sexual contact.” Thus, the State must prove that the defendant acted with a sexual purpose. Accordingly, fourth-degree assault does not require a higher mental state than indecent liberties. Therefore, reasoned the Court, the *Workman* test’s legal prong is met here, as well. Consequently, Bluford was entitled to a lesser included offense instruction on fourth-degree assault. The court reversed his conviction. My opinion? Good decision. Sometimes, Prosecutors “overcharge” the seriousness of criminal acts. For example, some offenses charged as Assault in the Second Degree should really be charged as Assault in the Fourth Degree. Consequently, it’s imperative for competent defense attorneys to try convincing judges to give more options to juries than “guilty” or “innocent” on overcharged offenses. That’s why the “lesser included instruction” tactic is a valuable trial tool to seek reductions, especially for sex offenses, which are some of the most damaging criminal charges one could possibly face. A sexual assault or sex crime carries serious penalties, including loss of freedom, sexual deviancy treatment, lengthy registration requirements and negative public stigma. Sexual assault convictions also limit future job opportunities and possibly prevent people from seeing their families. The effects are devastating. For more information on sex offense defense, please read my practice area [Sex Offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/). And please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Jury Trial, Lesser Included Jury Instruction, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Trial Apparel](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/trial-apparel/) **Published:** September 19, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Caver](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/737619.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals Division I ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo)decided a defendant’s constitutional rights were not violated when the court refused to allow him to wear jail clothing at trial. It does not prejudice a defendant to wear civilian clothes. Defendant Terry Caver was arrested and charged for [Possession of Methamphetamine](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). Caver remained in custody when his trial began two months after his arrest. At the start of trial, he asked the trial court for permission to wear his jail clothes in front of the jury. He explained that the clothes “represent that I’m in here, that I’m not on the street. It represents what’s really going on in my life. I don’t want these people thinking that I’m on the streets when I’m not on the streets.” The trial court denied Caver’s request, stating that “it causes much mischief if the defendant is clothed in regular jail garb.” The court explained to Caver that wearing jail clothes would cause the jury to speculate about why he was in jail and whether he posed a danger to them. The jury found him guilty. He appealed on numerous grounds to include arguments that the trial court violated his [due process rights](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process) by not allowing him to wear jail clothes at trial. The court reasoned that although a defendant has the right not to appear in jail or prison clothing pursuant to [*Estelle v. Williams*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estelle_v._Williams), these rights do not include a broad freedom for the defendant to express himself through his dress. > “Compelling Caver to wear civilian clothes did not erode the “physical indicia of his innocence,” as requiring him to wear jail clothes or shackles would. It did the opposite by making him appear as any member of the public. Similarly, civilian clothes did not single Caver out “as a particularly dangerous or guilty person.” And civilian clothes did not offend the dignity of the judicial process or restrict Caver’s ability to assist counsel and testify.” Furthermore, although some Defendants sometimes choose to wear jail clothes as a trial tactic, it does not imply that defendants have a *right* to pursue this trial tactic. Consequently, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court’s decision was not inherently prejudicial and that the trial court did not abuse discretion. My opinion? Jail clothes make people look guilty. Period. That said, most defendants want to wear civilian clothing at trial. Looking “normal” – or at least not incarcerated – tells the jury the defendant might not be guilty of the charges. Here, Mr. Caver *wanted* to wear his jail clothes at trial. Interesting. Was this a trial tactic? Who knows. I cannot speculate anything beyond this plain fact because I am not Mr. Carver’s attorney. However, as the court noted, ” . . . although some Defendants sometimes choose to wear jail clothes as a trial tactic, it does not imply that defendants have a *right* to pursue this trial tactic.” Interesting opinion. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, felony, Jury Trial, Methamphetamine, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["Voodoo Science" Debunked](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/voodoo-science-debunked/) **Published:** September 20, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Interesting [article from the Wall Street Journal ](http://www.wsj.com/articles/rejecting-voodoo-science-in-the-courtroom-1474328199)written [Alex Kozinski ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Kozinski), a judge on the [Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) since 1985, discusses how the U.S. has relied on flawed forensic evidence techniques for decades, resulting in false convictions. According to Judge Kozinski, the [White House ](https://www.whitehouse.gov/)released a report that fundamentally changes the way many criminal trials are conducted. The [new study](https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf) from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology [(PCAST)](https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/pcast) examines the scientific validity of forensic-evidence techniques—DNA, fingerprint, bitemark, firearm, footwear and hair analysis. It concludes that virtually all of these methods are flawed, some irredeemably so. The study indicates that only the most basic form of DNA analysis is scientifically reliable. Some forensic methods have significant error rates and others are rank guesswork. “The prospects of developing bitemark analysis into a scientifically valid method” are low, according to the report. In plain terms, says Judge Kozinski, “Bitemark analysis is about as reliable as astrology.” Yet many unfortunate defendants languish in prison based on bad science. Even more disturbing, the article states that forensic scientists – who are often members of the prosecution team – sometimes see their job as helping to get a conviction. This can lead them to fabricate evidence or commit perjury, says Judge Kozinski. Many forensic examiners are poorly trained and supervised. They sometimes overstate the strength of their conclusions by claiming that the risk of error is “vanishingly small,” “essentially zero,” or “microscopic.” The report calls such claims “scientifically indefensible,” but jurors generally take them as gospel when presented by government witnesses who are certified as scientific experts. Apparently, problems with forensic evidence have plagued the criminal-justice system for years. The PCAST report recommends developing standards for validating forensic methods, training forensic examiners and making forensic labs independent of police and prosecutors. “All should be swiftly implemented,” says Judge Kozinski, who adds that preventing the incarceration and execution of innocent persons is as good a use of tax dollars as any: > “Among the more than 2.2 million inmates in U.S. prisons and jails, countless may have been convicted using unreliable or fabricated forensic science. The U.S. has an abiding and unfulfilled moral obligation to free citizens who were imprisoned by such questionable means. If your son or daughter, sibling or cousin, best friend or spouse, was the victim of voodoo science, you would expect no less.” My opinion? Jurors rely HEAVILY on forensic evidence in their deliberations. And it makes sense: it’s a huge task to weigh evidence and sift through the rhetoric of arguments from the prosecution and defense. Cold, hard, quantifiable and scientific facts make it easy for jurors to render decisions. Consequently, the information from this report is both good and bad news. It’s good because the truth about “voodoo science” in the courtroom has finally surfaced to the mainstream. It’s bad because hundreds, if not thousands of innocent people are convicted of crimes and serve years in prison based on unreliable evidence for crimes they didn’t commit. Fortunately, there’s hope. According to Judge Kozinski, the report “provides a road map for defense lawyers to challenge prosecution experts.” Excellent. Competent attorneys should immediately gain an understanding of challenging prosecution experts who bring voodoo science in the courtroom. It’s the only way to shed light on this grim subject and bring justice to our courts. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, DNA, Due Process, Evidence, Forensics, Homicide & Manslaughter, Prison, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["Stop & Frisk" of Friends](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/3367-2/) **Published:** September 24, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Flores](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/919861.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) decided that police officers may seize a defendant’s companions if officers can articulate a reason based specifically on safety concerns for the officers, the arrestee, his or her companions, or other citizens. On November 2, 2013, an anonymous source reported to the [Moses Lake Police Department](http://www.cityofml.com/index.aspx?nid=44) that Giovanni Powell pointed a gun at someone’s head. Officer Kyle McCain was first to arrive at the scene of the incident. Officer McCain was familiar with Powell, and was soon updated that Powell had an arrest warrant. Officer McCain arrived at the reported address. He observed Powell, whom he recognized, and another person (later identified as Flores) walking down the street together. McCain did not recognize Flores and did not have any reason to suspect Flores of criminal activity. McCain parked across the street from Powell and Flores, got out of his car, drew his side arm, held it pointed at the ground, and ordered Powell to stop. As this was occurring, other officers arrived. Mr. Flores told officer he possessed a firearm in his pants. It was removed and secured. The State charged Flores with [Unlawful Possession of a Firearm in the First Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/). Flores brought a [CrR 3.6](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) motion to suppress all evidence of the gun. The judge granted the motion, which ultimately resulted in dismissal of the charges. The State appealed, and [Division Three of the Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) affirmed the dismissal. The State appealed again to the WA Supreme Court. The court addressed the issue of whether it violates [article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/pages/constitution.aspx) for an officer to seize the nonarrested companion of an arrestee to secure the scene of an arrest. The court reasoned that an individual is seized when, under the circumstances, an individual’s freedom of movement is restrained and the individual would not believe he is free to leave or decline a request due to an officer’s use of force or display of authority. *[State v. Rankin](http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/151wn2d/151wn2d0689.htm).* This determination is made by objectively looking at the actions of the law enforcement officer. The court reasoned that an officer does not meet the standard required for a [*Terry* stop](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stop_and_frisk) in cases like this: “*Terry* must be met if the purpose of the officer’s interaction with the passenger is investigatory. For purposes of controlling the scene of the traffic stop and to preserve safety there, we apply the standard of an objective rationale.” Consequently, the Court gave factors from the [WA Court of Appeals Div. III ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) decision [*State v. Mendes*](http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/137wn2d/137wn2d0208.htm) for determining what “an objective rationale” means when it comes to seizing a defendant’s companions. These *Mendes* factors include (but are not limited to) the arrest, the number of officers, the number of people present at the scene of the arrest, the time of day, the behavior of those present at the scene, the location of the arrest, the presence or suspected presence of a weapon, the officer’s knowledge of the arrestee or the companions and potentially affected citizens. “This is not an exhaustive list, and no one factor by itself justifies an officer’s seizure of non-arrested companions,” said the Court. “When determining whether there is an objective rationale, the court should look at all the circumstances present at the scene of the arrest.” Applying this “Objective Rationale Test,” the Court found that Officer McCain justifiably seized Mr. Flores to secure the scene of Powell ‘s arrest, and that the Officer’s actions were justified. The WA Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, found the seizure was lawful and ruled the evidence of the gun should not have been suppressed. Justice McCloud dissented under arguments that officers must comply with *Terry* at the scene of an arrest, and that the new “Objective Rationale Test” adopted by the Court effectively circumvented time-tested case law: > “This holding creates a new exception to the [Fourth Amendment’s](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment) warrant requirement, and we don’t have the power to create it–only the (United States) Supreme Court does. It’s also a new exception to our court’s consistent statements, for decades, that article I, section 7 provides more protection for individual privacy rights than the Fourth Amendment.” My opinion? The officers would have eventually found Mr. Flores’s firearm anyway if they followed protocol under a *Terry* stop. But they didn’t. Therefore, and similar to Justice McCloud, I’m concerned whether the “Objective Rationale Test” was wrongfully created to become another exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, felony, Firearm, law enforcement, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Terry Stop, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Deadly Force Not Justified](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/deadly-force/) **Published:** September 25, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[A.K.H. v. City of Tustin](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/09/16/14-55184.pdf)*, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held the government could not justify a police officer’s use of deadly force during the officer’s attempted investigatory stop of Mr. Herrera. **FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY.** Defendant Osvaldo Villarreal, a police officer in Tustin, California, fatally shot Benny Herrera during an attempted investigatory stop. Herrera was on foot. Officer Villarreal was in his patrol car and had just driven up beside Herrera. Herrera was in the middle of the roadway, moving in the direction of traffic. His left hand was free and visible; his right hand was in his sweatshirt pocket. Villarreal commanded Herrera to take his hand out of his pocket. Less than a second later, just as Herrera’s hand came out of his pocket, Villarreal shot him twice, killing him. Herrera was unarmed. Villarreal does not claim that he saw, or thought he saw, a weapon in Herrera’s hand. Relatives of Herrera (“Plaintiffs”) filed suit under [42 U.S.C. § 1983](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983) against Officer Villarreal and the [City of Tustin](http://www.tustinca.org/) alleging that Villarreal used excessive force against Herrera in violation of the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment). Villarreal moved for summary judgment based on [qualified immunity](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity), which would have effectively dismissed the lawsuit against him. However, the federal district court denied the Officer’s motion. Officer Villarreal brought an [interlocutory appeal](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/interlocutory_appeal) to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He argued that, even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, his actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment and that the district court therefore erred in denying him qualified immunity. **THE ISSUES.** The Ninth Circuit reasoned it must ask two questions to determine whether Officer Villarreal is entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. First, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, did Villarreal use excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment? Second, if Villarreal used excessive force, did he violate a clearly established right? **THE COURT’S ANALYSIS.** Quoting [*Tennessee v. Garner*](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/case.html), the Ninth Circuit reasoned that Deadly Force is permissible only if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm. Here, the Ninth Circuit found Officer Herrera used excessive force in violation of Mr. Herrera’s Fourth Amendment rights. The Court reasoned that **(1)** the crime at issue was a domestic dispute that had ended before the police became involved; **(2)** the deceased did not pose an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, as the officer did not believe the deceased was armed and the officer did not see a weapon; (**3)** although the deceased did not comply with the officer’s commands to remove his hand from his sweatshirt pocket, he did not attempt to flee; and **(4)** the officer escalated to deadly force approximately 1 second after issuing the command to the deceased to remove his hand from his pocket. “Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, we conclude that Villarreal violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law when he shot and killed Herrera.” **CONCLUSION.** In its conclusion, the Ninth Circuit said the following: > “It has long been clear that a police officer may not seize an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect by shooting him dead. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, that is precisely what Officer Villarreal did here.” My opinion? Great decision. Straightforward, direct, constitutionally sound and accurate. I’m happy the Ninth Circuit saw this case for what it was. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Deadly Force, law enforcement, Police Misconduct, Qualified Immunity, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Jails Aren't Liable to Control Released Inmates](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/jails-not-liable-to-control-released-inmates/) **Published:** October 1, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[Binschus v. Skagit County](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/916446.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held a jail’s duty to supervise and control inmates during incarceration does not include a general duty to somehow prevent inmates from committing crimes after they are lawfully released from incarceration. Isaac Zamora was incarcerated at [Skagit County Jail ](http://www.skagitcounty.net/Departments/Jail/jailrostermain.htm)for nonviolent crimes from April 4, 2008, until May 29, 2008, when he was transferred to [Okanogan County Corrections Center](http://okanogansheriff.org/jail.html). Zamora then served the rest of his sentence at Okanogan County Corrections Center and was released on August 2, 2008. On September 2, 2008, Zamora had a psychotic episode and went on a shooting spree in Skagit County. He ultimately killed six people and injured several others. Some of his victims and their families sued a number of parties, including Skagit County. The plaintiffs alleged that Skagit County failed to exercise ordinary and reasonable care while Zamora was incarcerated in Skagit County Jail several months prior to the shooting. The trial judge granted [summary judgment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_56) to Skagit County and ultimately dismissed the causes of action against the Skagit County jail. The [Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) reversed. Ultimately, the case was appealed to the WA Supreme Court. The Court reasoned that, as a general rule, people and institutions are not responsible for preventing a person from physically harming others. However, there is an exception when a special relation exists between the actor and the third person which imposes a duty upon the actor to control the third person’s conduct. Although the “duty to control” relationship naturally extends between a jail and an inmate, the court clarified, when the relationship *begins* and when it *ends*: > “We did not previously, and do not today, expand it to a general duty to prevent a person from committing criminal acts in the future . . . The practical implications of imposing such a broad duty on jails are striking. By some estimates, the recidivism rate is well over 50 percent . . . Thus, one could argue that in almost any case, it is foreseeable that an inmate may commit another crime after release. Are jails civilly liable for those crimes if they failed to take adequate measures to prevent that foreseeable recidivism? Such an expansive interpretation is not supported . . .” With that, the WA Supreme Court concluded that jails have a responsibility to control violent inmates while they are incarcerated, but they do not have a general duty to prevent such inmates from committing crimes after they are lawfully released from incarceration. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Department of Corrections, Duty to Control, Jail, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Panhandling is Free Speech](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/panhandling-is-free-speech/) **Published:** October 5, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[City of Lakewood v. Willis](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=918279MAJ)*, the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that a Lakewood Municipal Ordinance that prohibited begging near highways and intersections of major highways violated the [First Amendment](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/wp-admin/post-new.php). Mr. Willis was standing near an exit ramp from I-5 in Lakewood and holding a sign saying he was disabled and needed help. An officer cited Mr. Willis for “Aggressive Begging,” a crime under [Lakewood Municipal Code (LMC) 9A.04.020A](http://municode.cityoflakewood.us/show-chapter.php?chap=299). At trial, the jury found Mr. Willis guilty. The municipal court sentenced him to 90 days in jail and a fine of $1,000, with 90 days and $750 suspended. The court also assessed $125 in costs. Mr. Willis appealed, raising several constitutional challenges to the statute. On appeal, the WA Supreme Court reasoned that although the government can impose certain restrictions on speech in a public forum, such as reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions; it cannot impose restrictions based on content. Consequently, Willis may challenge the ordinance as facially overbroad regardless of his conduct. “Because both provisions impose a content-based speech restriction in a substantial number of traditional public forums, Willis’ facial challenge succeeds. Thus, his conviction must be reversed.” My opinion? This is a great decision, and should be helpful to defense attorneys in other municipalities with ordinances that limit and outlaw panhandling. Sure, aggressive panhandling from the homeless is annoying. However, it should not be criminalized. It wastes taxpayer money to incarcerate the homeless on these charges. Next thing you know, the Girl Scouts of America will be jailed for selling cookies at your grocery store. Big congratulations to attorney [David Ionnotti](https://www.avvo.com/attorneys/98032-wa-david-iannotti-37345.html), who represented Mr. Willis. The [ACLU](https://www.aclu.org/) and [Washington Defender Association](http://www.defensenet.org/) filed one amicus brief in the case, and the [Seattle/King County Coalition on Homelessness](http://www.homelessinfo.org/) filed another. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** ACLU, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, First Amendment, misdemeanor, Panhandling, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense --- ### [Lawnmowers Aren't Vehicles](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/lawnmowers-arent-vehicles/) **Published:** October 14, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Barnes](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/338118_pub.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals Division III](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) held that a riding lawnmower is not a “motor vehicle” for the the crime of [Theft of a Motor Vehicle.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/possession-theft-of-stolen-motor-vehicle/) On June 22, 2015, defendant Joshua Barnes and a female companion, Danielle Goodman, drove a white pickup to Judy Fraker’s property near Leavenworth. Fraker was home. Barnes exited the pickup, mounted Fraker’s riding lawnmower, and started the mower’s motor. The mower was a Craftsman, gas-powered, self-propelled riding lawnmower, with a twenty-six horse power engine. Barnes drove the lawnmower up a ramp and into the bed of his pickup. Fraker exited her home, confronted Barnes, ordered him to remove her lawnmower from his pickup and leave her premises. Barnes obeyed. Two days later, Barnes admitted to law enforcement that he attempted to steal the riding lawnmower. The State of Washington charged Barnes with Theft of a Motor Vehicle,[ Driving With License Suspended in the Third Degree](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.342), and [Criminal Trespass in the Second Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/criminal-trespass/). Barnes argued a [*Knapstad* Motion](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/dismissing-cases-through-knapstad-motions/) to dismiss the allegation of Theft of a Motor Vehicle under arguments that the evidence was insufficient because a lawnmower is not a “motor vehicle.” The trial court agreed and dismissed the charge of theft of a motor vehicle without prejudice. The State pursued appealed. The Court began by saying that Washington follows the “Plain Meaning” rule. In other words, to determine legislative intent, this court looks first to the language of the statute. If the statute’s meaning is plain on its face, the court will give effect to that plain meaning as the expression of what was intended. Here, the Court reasoned that a riding lawnmower meets the elements· of ‘motor vehicle’ if we read RCW 46.04.320 and .670 literally. Nevertheless – and in a surprising twist – the Court questioned whether we should always follow the Plain Meaning principle. First, “The legislature sometimes uses inept language in expressing its intent,” reasoned the Court. Second, courts should interpret statutes to affect their purpose. “Therefore, any unlikely, absurd, or strained consequences resulting from a plain and literal reading of the statute should be avoided and a literal reading of RCW 46.04.320 and its definition of “motor vehicle” would lead to unintended and silly results,” reasoned the Court: > “As argued by Joshua Barnes, a literal reading of RCW 46.04.320 and its definition of ‘motor vehicle’ would lead to unintended and silly results. An iRobot Roomba, a self-propelled vacuum, would be a motor vehicle, since one could transport small property on the Roomba. A jokester could place her cat on top of the vacuum and send the iRobot Roomba down her neighborhood street. Theft of a child’s remote control car that includes a doll in the driver’s seat would also qualify for theft of a motor vehicle if we literally read RCW 46.04.320 and .670. Therefore, the purposes behind RCW 9A.56.065 should assist in limiting a literal meaning of the ‘motor vehicle’ definition.” With that, the Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court’s dismissal of charges against Joshua Barnes for theft of a motor vehicle. “A riding lawnmower is not a motor vehicle for purposes of theft.” My opinion? Good decision. I’ve argued many pretrial motions where my opponent’s statutory interpretations lead to absurd results. Sometimes, we must point out the obvious. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** "Plain Meaning" Rule, Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Property Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Theft, Theft of Motor Vehicle, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Recorded Arguments & Privacy](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/recorded-arguments-privacy/) **Published:** October 14, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Smith*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2047205-8-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals Division II](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held that an accidentally recorded argument between the defendant and his wife was improperly admitted at trial and violated the [Washington Privacy Act](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.73). John and Sheryl were a married couple. On June 2, 2013, they were in their residence drinking. They became intoxicated and began to argue. John began to beat and strangle Sheryl, who lost consciousness due to the strangling. Sometime during the attack, John used the residence’s landline telephone to try to locate his cell phone. Unable to do so, he was unaware that his actions activated his cell phone’s voice mail function, which started recording part of the dispute. In that recording, John is heard yelling insults at Sheryl. Sheryl responded to these statements by screaming unintelligibly or asking him to stop or leave her alone. At one point during the recording, Sheryl tells John to “Get away,” to which he responds, “No way. I will kill you.” Shortly after the voice mail was recorded, John left the residence. Sheryl called 911 and reported that John had beaten her. A police officer with the [Vancouver Police Department](http://www.cityofvancouver.us/police) arrived at the residence, and Sheryl was transported to the hospital. John’s cell phone was retrieved and taken by the police. John was later arrested and charged with [first degree attempted murder ](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.32.030)(domestic violence), [second degree attempted murder](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.32.050) (domestic violence), [first degree assault](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.011) (domestic violence), and [second degree assault](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.021) (domestic violence). Before trial, John moved to suppress the cell phone voice mail recording based on [RCW 9.73.030](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030), which applies to intercepting, recording and/or the divulging of private communications under the WA Privacy Act. The trial court held a [CrR 3.6](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) hearing and denied his motion. At John’s bench trial, the recorded voice mail, 911 phone calls, and photographs of Sheryl’s injuries were admitted into evidence. The trial court found John guilty of second degree attempted murder and second degree assault, both with domestic violence enhancements. John appealed on three issues: (1) whether the recorded voice mail’s contents are a conversation; (2) if the contents are a conversation, whether it was private; and (3) if a private conversation, whether it was recorded or intercepted. For the following reasons, the Court held that John recorded a private conversation in violation of RCW 9.73.030. **1. DID A CONVERSATION TAKE PLACE?** Amidst screaming from Sheryl, the following communications took place: > John: “You think you’re bleeding?. . . . You’re the most fucked up person. Give me back the phone.” > > Sheryl: “Get away.” > > John: “No way. I will kill you.” > > Sheryl: “I know.” > > John: “Did you want to kill me? Give me back my phone.” > > Sheryl: “No. Leave me alone.” The Court reasoned that the contents of the recorded voice mail constituted a conversation. Although Sheryl’s screams alone would not constitute a conversation, these screams were responsive to statements that John was making to Sheryl and were scattered throughout the entire dispute, which contained repeated verbal exchanges between the two individuals as outlined above. Within this context, Sheryl’s screams serve as an expression of sentiments responsive to John’s yelling and thus constitute part of a conversation. **2. WAS THE CONVERSATION PRIVATE?** The Court held that the conversation was private. Here, a domestic dispute occurred between two married persons in the privacy of their home. It reasoned that the location of the conversation, the relationship between the parties, and the absence of third parties all declare the privacy of the conversation. Therefore, reasoned the Court, John had a “subjective intention and reasonable expectation that the conversation with Sheryl would be private.” **3. IF THE CONVERSATION WAS PRIVATE, WAS IT RECORDED OR INTERCEPTED?** The Court held that the WA Privacy Act was violated when John accidentally recorded a private conversation without Sheryl’s consent. It reasoned that the WA Privacy Act requires the consent of all parties to a private conversation. Further, the case law has implied that no third party is required to record a conversation. In other words, a party to a private conversation can also be the person who impermissibly records the conversation. Thus, reasoned the Court, John’s recording of this conversation can violate the privacy act, even though he accidentally made himself a party to it. Based on the above, the Court reversed and remanded the second degree attempted murder conviction, but affirmed the second degree assault conviction. My opinion? Although my sympathies go out to the victim, the Court’s decision was correct. Privacy is a mysterious subject matter in our ever-changing world. Cell phones and other devices allow us to record anything, any time, anywhere. The fact is, most of us don’t know even know we’re even being recorded in our daily lives. So you can imagine a scenario where *accidental* recordings become the subject for intense litigation. Many clients ask me if recorded conversations between themselves and alleged victims/witnesses are admissible at trial. Clearly, the answer is “No” under the WA Privacy Act unless the participants are (1) aware that their conversation is being recorded, and (2) expressly consent to the recording. Interesting stuff. This case was a good decision upholding our privacy rights in the face of today’s technological advancements. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Cell Phone, Constitutional Rights, Domestic Violence, Evidence, Forensics, law enforcement, Pretrial Investigations, Privacy, Self-Incrimination, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Marijuana Arrests Increase](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/marijuana-arrests-increase/) **Published:** October 14, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article ](http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicupload/eclips/2016%2010%2013%20%20Marijuana%20Arrests%20Outnumber%20Those%20for%20Violent%20Crimes%20Study%20Finds.pdf)from reporter [Timothy Williams ](http://www.nytimes.com/by/timothy-williams)of the [New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/) discusses a [new study](https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/10/12/every-25-seconds/human-toll-criminalizing-drug-use-united-states) by the [American Civil Liberties Union](https://action.aclu.org/secure/sem-become-freedom-fighter-join-aclu?s_src=UNW160001SEM&alt_src=UNV160001SEM&ms=gad_SEM_Google_Search-Evergreen-ACLU%20Brand_ACLU%20General%20Terms_american%20civil%20liberties%20union_e_93620095102) and [Human Rights Watch](https://www.hrw.org/donate-now?ea.tracking.id=ED2016EVSCgl&gclid=CjwKEAjwhILABRDwo8mlqt6ug38SJACNSq_k3zeuI8-deBoE-HDkgiqx2fGVs5Yp92TG9TwwoGgSixoCujrw_wcB) which reveals that marijuana arrests were about 13.6 percent more than the 505,681 arrests made for all violent crimes, including murder, rape and serious assaults. The report comes in the wake of the [fatal police shooting of Keith Lamont Scott](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/keith-lamont-scott-autopsy-calls-death-homicide-article-1.2829044) last month in Charlotte, N.C. Mr. Scott, 43, had attracted police attention in part because, the police said, he was smoking marijuana. The report is the latest study to highlight the disparate treatment African-Americans often receive in the criminal justice system, including disproportionate numbers of blacks who are sent to jail when they are unable to pay court-imposed fees, or stopped by the police during traffic stops or while riding bicycles. Its many findings are disturbing. **THE REPORT’S FINDINGS:** - Although whites are more likely than blacks to use illicit drugs — including marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and prescription drugs for nonmedical purposes — black adults were more than two-and-a-half times as likely to be arrested. - In Iowa, Montana and Vermont — places with relatively small populations of African Americans — blacks were more than six times as likely to be arrested on drug possession charges than whites. - In terms of marijuana possession, black adults were more than four times as likely to be arrested as white adults in the 39 states in which sufficient data was available. - In Manhattan, where blacks make up about 15 percent of the population, African-Americans are nearly 11 times as likely as whites to be arrested on drug possession. - African-Americans may also be more apt to face arrest, according to researchers, because they might be more likely to smoke marijuana outdoors, attracting the attention of the police. - The above disparities persist whether there are few or many African-Americans in a given area. Mr. Williams also wrote that, according to criminologists, African-Americans are arrested more often than whites and others for drug possession in large part because of questionable police practices. Police departments, for example, typically send large numbers of officers to neighborhoods that have high crime rates. A result is that any offense — including minor ones like loitering, jaywalking or smoking marijuana — can lead to an arrest, which in turn drives up arrest rate statistics, leading to even greater police vigilance. “It is selective enforcement, and the example I like to use is that you have all sorts of drug use inside elite college dorms, but you don’t see the police busting through doors,” said [Inimai M. Chettiar](http://www.brennancenter.org/expert/inimai-m-chettiar), director of the [Justice Program at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice](http://www.brennancenter.org/). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** ACLU, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, felony, Jail, marijuana, Plain View, police, Prison, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Corpus Delicti & Murder Confessions](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/3413-2/) **Published:** October 15, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Young](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/325148_pub.pdf)*, the WA Court of Appeals Division II decided the defendant’s confession to murder was properly admitted because the State presented ample independent evidence of (1) the fact of death, and (2) a causal connection between the death and a criminal act. On the morning of July 4, 2013, John Young entered the Desert Food Mart in Benton City and asked the cashier to call 911 because he had witnessed a shooting of a man named Jacob. Police were summoned. As the investigation proceeded, Mr. Young became a suspect. He was brought in for questioning, and consented to audio and video recording of an interview. During the interview, an officer read Mr. Young [*Miranda* ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/miranda_warning)warnings and obtained his agreement that he understood he was now a suspect and any statements he made could be used against him. Mr. Young then confessed that Jacob was involved in a drug deal gone wrong. With the assistance of an accomplice named Joshua Hunt, Mr. Young admitted he fired one shot into Jacob’s head near the temple-cheek region, killing him. Mr. Young also confessed that he and Mr. Hunt disposed of their shoes and gun by putting the items into a backpack and throwing the backpack into a river. Later, police recovered the shoes and gun. The shoes matched footprints and shoe patterns that had been found in the sand near Jacob’s body. The [Washington State Patrol Crime Laboratory](http://www.wsp.wa.gov/forensics/crimlabs.htm) determined that all of the bullets recovered from the crime scene had been fired from the Charter pistol found in the backpack. Mr. Young was charged with [first degree murder](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/). During a [3.5 hearing](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.5), Young’s attorney lawyer stipulated to the admission of the videotaped interview, telling the court: > “We believe it’s in our interests to actually stipulate to the 3.5 hearing, and I’ve discussed that with Mr. Young, and I know the Court will make its own inquiries, but he knows and understands he has a right to that hearing, but we believe it’s in our benefit and strategic interest to proceed with the stipulation.” The court questioned Mr. Young, who stated he understood he had a right to a hearing on the admissibility of the statements but was agreeing instead that all of his statements were admissible. During trial, Mr. Young’s videotaped confession was played for the jury. At the conclusion of the evidence, the jury returned a guilty verdict. Mr. Young appeals. Mr. Young argued his defense counsel provided [ineffective assistance of counsel ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ineffective_assistance_of_counsel)by stipulating to the admission of Mr. Young’s confession when there was no independent evidence apart from his confession, under the [corpus delecti rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_delicti), sufficient to establish all the elements of first degree murder. For those who don’t know, corpus delicti is a term from [Western](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture "Western culture") [jurisprudence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisprudence "Jurisprudence") referring to the principle that a crime must be proved to have occurred before a person can be convicted of committing that crime. The Court of Appeals rejected Young’s arguments. It reasoned that in a homicide case, the corpus delecti generally consists of two elements: (1) the fact of death, and (2) a causal connection between the death and a criminal act. It can be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, which need not be enough to support a conviction or send the case to the jury. In assessing whether there is sufficient evidence of the corpus delicti independent of a defendant’s statements, the Court assumes the truth of the State’s evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in a light most favorable to the State. Here, the corpus of the crime of murder was amply established by (1) a dead person; (2) multiple gunshot wounds that established a casual connection with a criminal act; (3) testimony eliminating the possibility of self-inflicted wounds; and (4) the recovery of the weapon miles away from the dead body. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that the State is not required to present independent evidence of the defendant’s mental state. It reasoned the State is not required to present independent evidence sufficient to demonstrate anything other than the fact of death and a causal connection between the death and a criminal act. Finally, the Court rejected Mr. Young’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel: > “It appears from his closing argument that Mr. Young’s trial lawyer believed his client’s videotaped interview would advance that argument. Mr. Young fails to demonstrate that his trial lawyer lacked a strategic reason for the stipulation.” With that, the Court of Appeals confirmed Mr. Young’s conviction. My opinion? This case represents a fairly straightforward analysis of the corpus delicti defense. I’ve had great success when it applies, and have managed to get many criminal charges reduced or dismissed under this defense. However, the corpus delicti defense is extremely narrow. Aside from the defendant’s confession, there must be virtually NO independent evidence connecting the defendant to the crime. Here, other evidence existed which implicated Mr. Young and the defense was found inapplicable. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Accomplice, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Corpus Delicti, Evidence, felony, Firearm, Forensics, Homicide & Manslaughter, Ineffective Assistance, Interrogation, Jury Trial, Self-Incrimination, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [I-873: Police Accountability](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/i-873-police-accountability/) **Published:** October 21, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** We’ve all heard it. Killings by police in the line of duty have surged in Washington and the United States over the past decade, according to a [Seattle Times analysis](http://projects.seattletimes.com/2015/killed-by-police/). During that period, only one police officer has been criminally charged in state courts with the illegal use of deadly force on the job. In fact, that case is the only one to be brought in the three decades since Washington enacted the[ nation’s most restrictive law](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.040) on holding officers accountable for the unjustified use of deadly force. [*Not This Time!*](http://www.notthistime.global/about-us/) and [Washington For Good Policing (W4GP)](http://www.w4gp.com/) are a grass-roots movements that evolved from the killing by the [Seattle Police Department](http://www.seattle.gov/police/) of [Mr. Che Andre Taylor](http://kuow.org/post/seattle-police-shooting-was-cold-blooded-murder-naacp-head-says) on February 21, 2016. The campaigns are working to collect 350,000 signatures to put [Initiative 873](https://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/finaltext_1153.pdf) in front of [Washington State’s legislature](http://leg.wa.gov/) in January 2017. This is the first legislative initiative of its kind in the nation that would put forth police accountability. If passed, the legislative initiative may be a model for other states. The initiative appears to be gaining momentum. It is endorsed by the Seattle Police Department, the ACLU of Washington, numerous state senators, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray, Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes, Kshama Sawant and Lorena Gonzalez of the Seattle City Council, Lisa Duggaard of the Public Defenders Association, Jim Cooper and Jessica Bateman of the Olympia City Council. Also, the following newspapers and media outlets have discussed and encouraged the passage of the bill: - [Guest Editorial: Why You Should Sign Initiative 873 to Change the State Law on Police Killings](http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/09/21/24570248/guest-editorial-why-you-should-sign-initiative-873-to-change-the-state-law-on-police-killings), The Stranger - [Decision not to charge police in Pasco killing sparks more calls for legal reform](http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/politics-government/article101477932.html), Tacoma News Tribune - [Law on deadly force by police could change](http://www.king5.com/mb/news/politics/state/law-on-deadly-force-by-police-could-change/318071325), KING-TV - [The Faces Behind the Numbers, Scrutiny of Police Shootings Brings both Analysis and Emotion](http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/the-faces-behind-the-numbers-scrutiny-of-police-shootings-brings-both-analysis-emotion/), Seattle Times - [Initiative Could Change WA Statute on Deadly Force by Police](http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2016-08-04/human-rights-racial-justice/initiative-could-change-wa-statute-on-deadly-force-by-police/a53343-1), Public News Service - [Family rejects ruling that backs police shooting of Tacoma woman](http://komonews.com/news/local/family-rejects-ruling-that-backs-police-shooting-of-tacoma-woman), KOMO News - [Initiative Could Change Prosecution of Officers in Deadly Force Cases](http://www.kxly.com/news/spokane-news/initiative-could-change-prosecution-of-officers-in-deadly-force-cases/40789684), KXLY Spokane - [John T. William’s Brother Speaks of Peace After a Violent Weekend](http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2016/07/18/john-t-williams-brother-rick-speaks-peace-after-violent-weekend-165181), Indian Country - [Let us Breath: We Need to Pass I-873 into Law](https://southseattleemerald.com/2016/07/18/let-us-breathe-we-need-to-pass-i-873-into-law/#more-11226), The South Seattle Emerald - [Initiative Targets State’s Ability to Charge Police Who Use Deadly Force](http://www.theolympian.com/news/local/article88940562.html), The Olympian - [We Can Channel Our Anger to Make Change that Matters](http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattle-activist-we-can-channel-our-anger-to-make-change-that-matters/?utm_content=buffer9c3f8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=owned_buffer), Seattle Times - [Mayor and SPD Back Citizen Initiative to Enable Prosecutions of Killer Cops,](http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/07/07/24318502/seattle-mayor-backs-citizen-initiative-to-enable-prosecutions-of-killer-cops) The Stranger - [Making it Easier to Prosecute Cops Who Kill,](http://www.thestranger.com/news/2016/06/01/24146816/making-it-easier-to-prosecute-cops-who-kill) The Stranger - [Congressman Adam Smith endorses I-873 ](http://blog.seattlepi.com/capitolhill/2016/06/30/congressman-adam-smith-endorses-i-873-anti-police-brutality-initiative/)Anti Police[ Brutality Initiative,](http://blog.seattlepi.com/capitolhill/2016/06/30/congressman-adam-smith-endorses-i-873-anti-police-brutality-initiative/) Seattle PI - [Is the Standard for Prosecuting Police too High,](http://www.kiro7.com/video?videoId=391675708&videoVersion=1.0) KIRO 7 - [Men Shot by Police Join First Anniversary Protest](http://www.theolympian.com/news/local/crime/article79116602.html), The Olympian - [Petition Aims to Hold Officers Accountable](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KygiHyXTgTA&feature=youtu.be), ABC, Tri-Cities It’s refreshing that I-873 has such a broad range of support, especially from the Seattle Police Department. Let’s move forward with the hope that holding officers accountable for unjustified shootings increases respect for police and professionalism within police ranks. For sure, it’s step in the right direction. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Body camera, Constitutional Rights, Deadly Force, I-873, law enforcement, Legislation, police, Police Misconduct, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Felony Disenfranchisement & Voting](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/felony-disenfranchisement-voting/) **Published:** October 21, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** A new [study](http://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/6-million-lost-voters-state-level-estimates-felony-disenfranchisement-2016/) conducted by professors [Christopher Uggen](https://cla.umn.edu/about/directory/profile/uggen001), [Ryan Larson](https://cla.umn.edu/about/directory/profile/lars3965), and [Sarah Shannon](http://sociology.uga.edu/directory/sarah-shannon) and released by the [Sentencing Project](http://www.sentencingproject.org/) reveals that a record 6.1 million Americans are forbidden to vote because of felony disenfranchisement, or laws restricting voting rights for those convicted of felony-level crimes. The number of disenfranchised individuals has increased dramatically along with the rise in criminal justice populations in recent decades, rising from an estimated 1.17 million in 1976 to 6.1 million today. Apparently, the United States remains one of the world’s strictest nations when it comes to denying the right to vote to citizens convicted of crimes. An estimated 6.1 million Americans are forbidden to vote because of “felony disenfranchisement,” or laws restricting voting rights for those convicted of felony-level crimes. The study’s key findings include the following: - As of 2016, an estimated 6.1 million people are disenfranchised due to a felony conviction, a figure that has escalated dramatically in recent decades as the population under criminal justice supervision has increased. There were an estimated 1.17 million people disenfranchised in 1976, 3.34 million in 1996, and 5.85 million in 2010. - Approximately 2.5 percent of the total U.S. voting age population – 1 of every 40 adults – is disenfranchised due to a current or previous felony conviction. - Individuals who have completed their sentences in the twelve states that disenfranchise people post-sentence make up over 50 percent of the entire disenfranchised population, totaling almost 3.1 million people. - Rates of disenfranchisement vary dramatically by state due to broad variations in voting prohibitions. In six states – Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia – more than 7 percent of the adult population is disenfranchised. - The state of Florida alone accounts for more than a quarter (27 percent) of the disenfranchised population nationally, and its nearly 1.5 million individuals disenfranchised post-sentence account for nearly half (48 percent) of the national total. - One in 13 African Americans of voting age is disenfranchised, a rate more than four times greater than that of non-African Americans. Over 7.4 percent of the adult African American population is disenfranchised compared to 1.8 percent of the non-African American population. - African American disenfranchisement rates also vary significantly by state. In four states – Florida (21 percent), Kentucky (26 percent), Tennessee (21 percent), and Virginia (22 percent) – more than one in five African Americans is disenfranchised. My opinion? It makes no sense why convicts are prevented from voting if they’ve been sentenced and punished. It’s a terrible violation of civil rights. Period. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you’re a convicted felon who has paid your debt to society and want your voting rights and/or firearms rights restored. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, felony, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Voting Rights, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Premeditated Murder Unproved](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/premeditated-murder-unproved/) **Published:** October 26, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Hummel](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/720686.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals Division I](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) reversed a defendant’s conviction for first degree murder due to insufficient evidence of premeditation. It reasoned that proof of a strong motive to kill the victim does not, in itself, establish planning or the method of killing. Because the prosecutor did not request the court instruct the jury on murder in the second degree, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice. The facts are interesting. Two juries in [Whatcom County Superior Court](http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/413/Superior-Court) found defendant Bruce Allen Hummel guilty of killing his wife, Alice Hummel. Both were retired Alaska teachers. Their two daughters lived on Alabama Hill in Bellingham in the early 1990s. This case was [heavily covered ](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/crime/article109087842.html)in the [Bellingham Herald](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/). The story begins with Mr. Hummel informing their children that their mother decided to move away and leave the family. Over the years, the girls continued to receive letters and gifts in the mail from Alice. Bruce Hummel told the girls Alice had earned a promotion and moved to Texas. In 2001, the girls reported their mother missing in 2001. They recalled the strange circumstances of their mom’s disappearance. Bellingham police detectives found only traces of their mother’s existence: a current driver’s license from Alaska, monthly disability deposits from a teachers’ retirement system in Alaska, and withdrawals from a bank account in Alaska. Once detectives confronted him with $340,000 in disability checks he had collected under Alice’s name, Mr. Hummel admitted Mrs. Hummel had been dead for years. He claimed she committed suicide by cutting her wrists. Her body was never found. Hummel was convicted of 12 counts of [wire fraud in federal court](https://www.federalcharges.com/wire-fraud-laws-charges/), for the theft of the disability checks, then charged with murder in the first degree in Whatcom County. At his first trial in August 2009, Hummel of first-degree murder in August 2009. He appealed as he started serving a sentence of 45 years in prison. The Washington State Court of Appeals found, in 2012, that that there was sufficient evidence to prove the case, but that Hummel’s rights were violated during voir dire, when potential jurors were questioned in private about sensitive issues in their personal lives. (Many other similar, serious cases have been overturned in Washington for not undertaking what is [called the Bone-Club analysis](http://leg.wa.gov/Senate/Committees/LAW/Documents/RightToAPublicTrial.pdf), essentially a checklist to avoid violating a defendant’s right to a public trial). At his second trial in May 2014, Hummel was again convicted of first-degree murder. This time he was sentenced to 26 years in prison, a shorter term because the Court of Appeals found his federal crimes should not count toward his criminal history because there was no comparable state law to federal wire fraud in 1990. Hummel appealed with assistance from the [Washington Appellate Project](http://www.washapp.org/). Hummel argued there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction because the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the essential element of premeditation. The Court of Appeals agreed. It reasoned that no trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Hummel killed Alice with premeditated intent to commit murder in the first degree. Reversal for insufficient evidence is “equivalent to an acquittal” and bars retrial for the same offense. Also, the Court reasoned that the [Double Jeopardy Clause](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/double_jeopardy) forbids a second trial for the purpose of affording the prosecution another opportunity to supply evidence which it failed to muster in prior proceedings. Because the prosecutor did not request the court instruct the jury on the lesser included crime of murder in the second degree, the Court of Appeals held it could not remand to enter a judgment on [murder in the second degree](http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.32.050). The Court of Appeals reversed and vacate the conviction for premeditated murder in the first degree, and remand the case back to Superior Court to dismiss the conviction with prejudice. My opinion? This isn’t over. I’m certain the State shall appeal to the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, Homicide & Manslaughter, Jury Trial, Lesser Included Jury Instruction, Prison, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Possessing Controlled Substances for Family Members.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/3434-2/) **Published:** October 27, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Yokel](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2047871-4-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals Division II](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) decided that it’s a valid defense for defendants to possess a controlled substance pursuant to a household member’s valid prescription. On February 15, 2015, a police officer discovered defendant Mary Yokel’s car parked in front of a motel room. Yokel had an active arrest warrant. Officer Croy knocked on the motel room door and made contact with Yokel. He then arrested Yokel on the warrant and searched her person incident to arrest. During the search, Officer Croy located one pill in Yokel’s pants pocket and verified it was [Vicodin](http://www.healthline.com/health/pain-relief/vicodin-vs-percocet), containing [hydrocodone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocodone/paracetamol). Yokel said she was holding the Vicodin pill for her daughter, who has a valid prescription. The State charged Yokel with two counts of [possession of a controlled substance](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). At trial, Yokel wanted to introduce evidence that she possessed the Vicodin pursuant to her 16-year-old daughter’s valid prescription. Yokel’s defense was that on the day in question, she had taken two of the pills out of the Vicodin bottle, gave one to her daughter, and put the other one in her pocket after determining that her daughter should not take two pills. However, the trial judge denied Yokel’s motion to continue the case to allow her daughter to testify. Also, the court granted the Prosecutor’s [motion in limine](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/motion_in_limine) to exclude any evidence regarding Yokel’s daughter’s valid Vicodin prescription. As a result, at trial, Yokel was not allowed to testify that she possessed the controlled substance for the purpose of administering it to her daughter. The jury found Yokel guilty of one count of possession of a controlled substance (hydrocodone). Yokel appealed. 1. **RCW 69.50.4013(1) PROVIDES THE DEFENSE THAT DEFENDANTS MAY HOLD PRESCRIPTION PILLS FOR FAMILY MEMBERS.** Ultimately, the Court of Appeals agreed with Yokel that RCW 69.50.4013(1) permits a defendant to possess a household member’s valid prescription for a controlled substance. It reasoned the statute provides an affirmative defense to a person who lawfully possesses a controlled substance obtained “directly from” or “pursuant to” a valid prescription. By including these different phrases in the statute, the legislature indicated its intent that each phrase have a different meaning. Additionally, former [RCW 69.50.308](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.308) (2013), one of the [Uniform Controlled Substances Act’s](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50) statutes, allows practitioners to dispense controlled substances to an “ultimate user” pursuant to a prescription. The Act defines an “ultimate user” as an individual who lawfully possesses a controlled substance for the individual’s own use. Consequently, reasoned the Court, this definition of “ultimate user” indicates the legislature’s intent to allow an ultimate user to possess a controlled substance for the use of another household member: > “Interpreting former RCW 69.50.4013(1) as prohibiting ultimate users from lawfully possessing a controlled substance prescribed to another household member leads to an absurd result. Reading the statute in such a way criminalizes behavior that may involve a common caretaking function. For example, a son who picks up his bedridden father’s prescription medication or a mother who administers a prescription medication to her infant daughter would be in violation of the statute.” **2. THE RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE.** The Court of Appeals said the trial court violated Yokel’s constitutional right to present a defense when it suppressed her from testifying why she held the pill for her daughter. The Court reasoned that the [Sixth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) to the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview) and [article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/pages/constitution.aspx) guarantee a criminal defendant the right to present a defense to the crimes charged. Here, a defendant has the right to present admissible evidence in her defense and must show the evidence is at least minimally relevant to the fact at issue in her case. Further, a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction supporting her theory of the case if there is substantial evidence in the record supporting it. “The trial court effectively barred Yokel from presenting a defense because it excluded all evidence regarding her daughter’s prescription and declined to give her proposed affirmative defense instruction,” reasoned the Court. “In light of our ruling above, the instruction and all evidence in support thereof should have been allowed at trial.” The Court of Appeals concluded the trial court misinterpreted former RCW 69.50.4013(1) and, as a result, denied Yokel the right to present a defense. Therefore, it reversed Yokel’s conviction and remanded for a new trial. My opinion? Excellent decision. The court rightfully went to arguments of statutory construction and interpreted the plain meaning of the statute to reach its decision. Well done. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** "Plain Meaning" Rule, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, felony, Jury Trial, Search and Seizure, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["Knock & Announce" Was Too Short](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/knock-announce-was-too-short/) **Published:** October 28, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Ortiz](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/329704_pub.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals Division III](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) held that police violated a defendant’s rights when they forced entry into his home after waiting only 6-9 seconds of their “knock and announce” during the early morning. In late July 2011, [Wapato Police](http://www.wapato-city.org/policedepartment.html) Sergeant Robert Hubbard viewed the backyard of the defendant’s property from the vantage point of a cooperative neighbor. He saw two marijuana plants. Sergeant Hubbard was granted a [search warrant](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/search_warrant) for the property. on August 11, 2011, at approximately 6:4 7 a.m., Sergeant Hubbard and 11 other police officers executed the search warrant at the property. He knocked on the door three times, announced “police search warrant,” waited one to two seconds, and repeated that process twice more. Hearing nothing inside the home, the officers breached the front door and entered the home. Upon searching the property, the officers found 41 marijuana plants in various stages of growth and other evidence of a grow operation. Mr. Ortiz was eventually charged with one count of [manufacture of a controlled substance](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/), one count of [involving a minor in an unlawful controlled substance transaction](http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=69.50.4015), and several other counts not relevant on appeal. At the end of trial, the jury found Mr. Ortiz guilty. On appeal, Mr. Ortiz argued he received [ineffective assistance of counsel](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ineffective_assistance_of_counsel) because his defense attorney failed to challenge the execution of the search warrant for failure to comply with the knock and announce rule. **EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.** The Court of Appeals began by explaining that effective assistance of counsel is guaranteed by both the [Sixth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) to the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview) and [article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/pages/constitution.aspx). First, the defendant must show he received deficient representation. Second, the defendant must show he suffered prejudice as a result of the deficient performance. **“KNOCK & ANNOUNCE” RULE.** Next, the court explained the “knock and announce” rule. The [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment) to the United States Constitution requires that a non-consensual entry by the police be preceded by an announcement of identity and purpose on the part of the officers. This is part of the constitutional requirement that search warrants be reasonably executed. In WA State, the parallel requirement of article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution is codified in [RCW 10.31.040](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=10.31.040). It states, “To make an arrest in criminal actions, the officer may break open any outer or inner door, or windows of a dwelling house or other building, or any other enclosure, if, after notice of his or her office and purpose, he or she be refused admittance.” The Court explained that in order to comply with the “Knock & Announce” statute, the police must, prior to a non-consensual entry, announce their identity, demand admittance, announce the purpose of their demand, and be explicitly or implicitly denied admittance. The requirement of a demand for admittance and an explicit or implicit denial of admittance have been merged into a ‘waiting period,’ often linked to whether the police officers are refused admittance. Strict compliance with the rule is required unless the State can demonstrate that one of the two exceptions to the rule applies: [exigent circumstances](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exigent_circumstances) or futility of compliance. Finally, the proper remedy for an unexcused violation is suppression of the evidence obtained by the violation. Here, the only disputed issue was whether the police waited long enough before they broke down the door. The answer to this question depends upon the circumstances of the case. The Court elaborated that the reasonableness of the waiting period is evaluated in light of the purposes of the rule, which are: ( 1) reduction of potential violence to both occupants and police arising from an unannounced entry, (2) prevention of unnecessary property damage, and (3) protection of an occupant’s right to privacy. Here, the Court believed the waiting period of 6-9 seconds was unreasonable: > “In this case, due to the early hour of the search, the occupants were foreseeably asleep. Six to nine seconds was not a reasonable amount of time for them to respond to the police, and thus no denial of admittance can be inferred. Even Sergeant Hubbard admitted it would not be a surprise that sleeping occupants would be unable to respond in that amount of time. In addition, the purposes of the rule were not fulfilled due to the property damage done by battering in the door. The police did not comply with the rule.” Although the State presented cases where the “knock and announce” rule was adhered to after police officers breached entry quickly after announcing, the Court nevertheless reasoned that in each of those cases the defendants were both present and awake. But here, the officers did not have any indication the home’s occupants were present or awake. Because the police violated the knock and announce rule, and there is no legitimate strategic or tactical reason for failing to challenge the search, counsel was deficient for not moving to suppress the evidence. This deficiency, reasoned the court, prejudiced the defendant. The Court concluded that Mr. Ortiz established that he was deprived of his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. The court reversed his convictions and remanded the case back to the trial court with directions to suppress the [fruits of the illegal search](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree). My opinion? Excellent decision. Search and seizure issues like this are incredibly interesting. For more information on the case law surrounding these issues please review my Legal Guide titled, [Search & Seizure: Basic Issues Regarding Their Search for Weapons, Drugs, Firearms and Other Contraband](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/). And please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Evidence, Exigent Circumstances, felony, Ineffective Assistance, Knock & Talk, law enforcement, marijuana, police, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Court Denies Prosecutor's "Missing Witness" Jury Instruction in DUI Case.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/3450-2/) **Published:** November 1, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Houser](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/733117.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals Division I](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that in a [DUI](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.502) trial, Prosecutors are not entitled to a [missing witness jury instruction](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Ief9d9f8ae10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&bhcp=1) if the real driver’s testimony would implicate themselves in the crime of [failing to remain at the scene of a collision](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.52.020). On May 19, 2013, defendant Steven Houser was involved in a car accident. He knocked on the door of nearby residence. The occupants observed Houser seemed excited and somewhat disoriented. He answered only a few questions and gave slow responses. Emergency medical technicians arrived shortly after and attended to Houser. State Patrol Troopers noticed Houser had a swollen lip, bloodshot, watery eyes, and a flushed face. Houser told the trooper he had driven off the road and hit a pole. Houser said he had three to four beers that night and that he had been drinking all the way from a friend’s house to the scene of the accident. The Trooper asked Houser if he was willing to submit to [field sobriety tests](http://dui.findlaw.com/dui-arrests/field-sobriety-tests.html). Houser agreed, and the trooper performed the [horizontal gaze nystagmus test](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=selZ9WrD7ac), which indicated impairment. Houser then agreed to a voluntary [portable breathalyzer test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breathalyzer). When the troopers arrested him, Houser became agitated and hostile, yelling, “I wasn’t even driving. My buddy was driving” and that they could not prove Houser was the driver. After impounding the truck, the Troopers took Houser to the hospital and applied for a [blood draw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKuUPO6NNcU). He confirmed he had consumed alcohol within the last 24 hours, but denied driving. Houser’s blood draw registered a blood alcohol content level of 0.19, which was more than twice the legal limit. Houser was charged with [felony DUI ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/felony-dui/)due to prior convictions. At trial, Houser testified that a friend named “Gary” drove Houser’s truck because Houser had already been drinking beer. After getting some marijuana, they drove to a grocery store and Houser continued to drink beer. They then began driving to another friend’s house, and got into the accident along the way. Houser testified Gary was driving and Houser was in the passenger seat when the accident occurred. Houser remembered going off the road, but did not remember getting out of the truck. He testified that Gary did not remain in the truck, but did not know what happened to him. Houser did not know how Gary got out of the truck or whether he was injured. He testified he had not been in contact with Gary since the accident, did not know how to contact him, and had not tried to contact him. None of this information about “Gary” was provided to the Prosecutor before Houser testified. After both sides had rested, the Prosecutor requested a missing witness jury instruction. For those who don’t know, the “missing-witness” rule—which developed from a century-old U.S. Supreme Court decision, *[Graves v. United States](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=150&invol=118)*, 150 U.S. 118 (1893)—allows one party to obtain an adverse inference against the other for failure to call a controlled witness with material information. Houser objected to the jury instruction, noting he had been unable to conduct an investigation to find Gary. The trial court allowed the instruction and permitted the State to refer to the defense’s failure to call Gary to corroborate Houser’s theory of the case in its closing argument. The jury found Houser guilty. Houser appealed. He argued his conviction should be reversed because the trial court misapplied the missing witness doctrine and improperly instructed the jury. The Court of Appeals agreed with Houser. The Court reasoned that the missing witness rule permits the jury to infer that evidence or testimony would be unfavorable to a party if that “‘evidence which would properly be part of a case is within the control of the party whose interest it would naturally be to produce it'” and that party fails to do so. The Court emphasized the missing witness instruction “should be used sparingly.” Furthermore, the limitations on the application of the missing witness rule are particularly important when, as here, the doctrine is applied against a criminal defendant. “The doctrine applies only if several requirements have been satisfied,” said the court. The court also reasoned the rule does not apply where the missing witness’s testimony, if favorable to the party who would naturally have called the witness, would necessarily be self-incriminating. The court reasoned that here, Houser testified that Gary was driving, Houser was in the passenger seat when the accident occurred, and Gary did not remain in the truck. “Houser also testified about his injuries,” said the Court. “Thus, if Gary corroborated Houser’s testimony, Gary would necessarily have incriminated himself for failing to remain at the scene of an accident.” Since the core of Houser’s defense was that he was not driving; and that giving a missing witness instruction and allowing the Prosecutor to comment on Gary’s absence here substantially undercut Houser’s defense. While there was evidence sufficient to support a conviction, there was not overwhelming evidence of guilt. Therefore, we cannot conclude the missing witness instruction, in combination with the prosecutor’s multiple references to Gary’s absence, was harmless. The court reversed Houser’s conviction. My opinion? Good decision. I’ve conducted jury trials where the Prosecutor has tried admitting Missing Witness Jury Instructions in the midst of trial. Luckily, most judges know these instructions should be used sparingly. Worst-case scenario, Missing Witness Jury Instructions shift the burden to the Defendant to prove their defense. This small, yet subtle burden-shift has incredibly damaging implications which ultimately violate a defendant’s rights at trial. Remember, it’s the State – and *not* the defendant – who carries the burden of proof. The defendant has no burden of proving *anything* unless the defense is self-defense or other defenses requiring expert witnesses. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, DUI, Evidence, Missing Witness Instruction, Self-Incrimination, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Cell Phone Spying Is Unlawful](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/cell-phone-spying-is-unlawful/) **Published:** November 3, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Novick*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2047688-6-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf), The [WA Court of Appeals Division II](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held the Defendant committed [Computer Trespass in the First Degree](http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.90.040) when he installed [“Mobile Spy”](http://www.mobile-spy.com/) software on the victim’s cell phone and sent commands to activate the recording feature of the program in order to intentionally record the victim’s private communications. David Novick and Lisa Maunu began dating in December 2013. Novick bought her a new mobile phone on March 11, 2014, and set it up for her. Unbeknownst to Maunu, Novick installed an application called Mobile Spy on Maunu’s new phone. The application allowed a person to log onto the Mobile Spy website and monitor the phone on which the application was installed. From the Mobile Spy website, a user could access all the information stored on the monitored phone, including text messages, call logs, and e-mails. The versions of Mobile Spy software also permitted a user to send commands to the targetted phone from a “live control panel” on the website. One such command allowed a user to activate the phone’s microphone and recording features and record audio into a file that could then be downloaded from the website. Eventually, Novick was caught after his girlfriend Maunu became suspicious. In short, Maunu became concerned because Novick expressed specific knowledge about Maunu’s health conditions, medications, doctors’ appointments, and private conversations. With the assistance of Novick’s employer, it was discovered that Novick had downloaded over 500 audio files from Mobile Spy, searched for GPS (global positioning system) locations, and searched for particular telephone numbers. The State charged Novick with eight counts of Computer Trespass in the First degree and eight counts of [Recording Private Communications](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030) based on Novick’s use of Mobile Spy to record Maunu’s conversations. At trial, Novick was convicted on all charges. Novick appealed on arguments that (1) the State failed to provide sufficient evidence that he intentionally recorded a private communication, and (2) entry of eight convictions of each crime violated his right against [double jeopardy ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/double_jeopardy)because the correct unit of prosecution covers the entire course of conduct. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals disagree with Novick and affirmed his convictions. 1. **THE PROSECUTION SHOWED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF COMPUTER TRESPASS FIRST DEGREE.** First, the Court explained that Computer Trespass in the First Degree occurs when a person intentionally gains access without authorization to a computer system or electronic database of another and the access is made with the intent to commit another crime. The Court further reasoned that here, the underlying crime was Recording Private Communications. A person commits the crime of recording private communications when he intercepts or records private communications transmitted by any device designed to record and/or transmit said communications. Second, the Court reasoned that a forensic review of Novick’s computer activity revealed that he intentionally logged into Mobile Spy’s webiste and sent commands from the website to Maunu’s phone. Also, Novick’s computer records showed that he visited the live control panel on Mobile Spy’s website, downloaded audio files collected from Maunu’s phone and intentionally recorded Maunu’s private communications. Accordingly, the Court held that the State presented sufficient evidence that Novick committed the crime of Recording Private Communications, and with that, committed Computer Trespass First Degree. **2. NO EVIDENCE OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY.** Next, the Court rejected arguments that Novick’s multiple convictions for Computer Trespass and Recording Private Communications violated the prohibition against Double Jeopardy because the correct [unit of prosecution](http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-05/06-for-the-same-offence.html) for each crime covers the entire course of Novick’s conduct. The Court began by saying the [Fifth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment) to the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview) provides that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” Similarly, [article I, section 9 of the Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/pages/constitution.aspx) says, “No person shall . . . be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.” In short, explained the Court, these double jeopardy provisions prohibit multiple convictions for the same offense. Furthermore, when a defendant is convicted for violating one statute multiple times, the proper inquiry is, “What unit of prosecution has the Legislature intended as the punishable act under the specific criminal statute?” The Court explained that in order to determine whether there is a double jeopardy violation, the question becomes “what act or course of conduct has the Legislature defined as the punishable act?” Consequently, the scope of the criminal act as defined by the legislature is considered the **unit of prosecution**. The Court explained that the first step is to analyze the statute in question. If the statute does not plainly define the unit of prosecution, we next examine the legislative history to discern legislative intent. Finally, a factual analysis is conducted to determine if, under the facts of the specific case, more than one unit of prosecution is present. Ultimately, the Court was not persuaded by Novick’s “plain language of the statute” argument the if the legislature intended a single unit of prosecution based on a course of conduct, it could have said so plainly. “What matters is not what the legislature did not say, but what it did say,” said the Court. “The plain language of the statutes support the conclusion that the units of prosecution . . . are *each* separate unauthorized access and *each* recording of a conversation without consent.” The Court further reasoned that while Novick’s actions were somewhat repetitious, they were not continuous: > “On at least eight separate and distinct times, Novick logged onto Mobile Spy’s website, accessed Maunu’s phone by issuing a command through the live control panel, and downloaded at least eight different recordings of conversations between Maunu and various other people. Each access was separated by time and reflected a separate intent to record a separate conversation.” The Court concluded that the State proved that Novick intentionally recorded eight private communications. Additionally, Novick’s actions constituted multiple units of prosecution, and therefore, his multiple convictions did not violate double jeopardy principles. Thus, the Court affirmed Novick’s convictions. My opinion? On the one hand, it’s shocking that citizens can be convicted of felonies by accessing mainstream computer software. Shouldn’t the software itself be outlawed instead? On the other hand, I see how parents can legally using the same software to track their minor children’s whereabouts, conversations and activities. That type of activity os not illegal. This case presents a very good example of an atypical computer crime. We see that Computer Trespass First Degree is very similar to standard Burglary charges in that the State must prove the Defendant intends to commit a crime once they gain access to the victim’s computer system or electronic database. Recording Private Communications is a crime. Therefore, if a defendant records private communications after gaining access, they can be found guilty of Computer Trespass in the First Degree. Simple. Computer crime cases require experts and/or lay witnesses who are competent in discussing these matters. Speaking for the defense, it’s usually best to hire experts familiar with computer forensics to determine if/when the said access was unlawful and/or intentional. Again, the State must prove intent. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Access Devices, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Cell Phone, Computer Crimes, Constitutional Rights, Cyberstalking, Double Jeopardy, Evidence, felony, Forensics, Self-Incrimination, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, Text Messages, Unit of Prosecution, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Trump On Crime](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/trump-on-crime/) **Published:** November 14, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Like it or not, Donald Trump won. Criminal defense attorneys serving their clients must survey the aftermath and ponder how Mr. Trump’s administration approaches issues of criminal justice. What is Trump’s stance on the “War on Drugs?” How does his stance embrace the growing legalization of marijuana among the States? How does Mr. Trump view the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unlawful searches and seizures? How does Trump view the discord between police and communities of color? Will Trump’s administration seek the immediate deportation of illegal immigrants who commit crimes? How does he feel about the death penalty? These issues – and many others – affect many defendants facing criminal charges. If [the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/witness/201301/the-best-predictor-future-behavior-is-past-behavior), we look no further than Mr. Trump’s comments over the years; especially his comments during his campaign. **THE WAR ON DRUGS: 1990 & 2015** In 1990, Trump [argued](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-04-15/news/9001310473_1_donald-trump-drug-czars-enforcement-efforts) that the only way to win the [War on Drugs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs) was to legalize drugs and use the tax revenue to fund drug education programs. As he put it, “You have to take the profit away from these drug czars.” In his 2000 book,*The America We Deserve*, he [stated](http://books.google.com/books?id=PV6qZU_xev8C&lpg=PP1&dq=inauthor%3A%22Donald%20Trump%22&pg=PT18#v=onepage&q=drugs&f=false) that he’d never tried drugs “of any kind.” Fast-forward 25 years, and now Trump is opposed to legalization. “I say it’s bad,” he told the crowd at the [Conservative Political Action Conference](http://cpac.conservative.org/) in June, in response to a question about Colorado’s legal weed. “Medical marijuana is another thing, but I think recreational marijuana is bad. And I feel strongly about that.” Regarding states’ rights, Trump said, “If they vote for it, they vote for it. But they’ve got a lot of problems going on right now, in Colorado. Some big problems. But I think medical marijuana, 100 percent.” Source: [*On the Issues: Donald Trump on Drugs.*](http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Drugs.htm) Apparently, Trump opposes recreational marijuana and endorses medical marijuana. Unfortunately, his stances can become problematic for states like Washington, Colorado and a handful of others which have already passed initiatives allowing its citizens to possess small amounts of marijuana for recreational purposes. Will Trump’s administration reverse these State initiatives? Will Trump’s administration violate federal court opinions which have slowly de-prioritized federal prosecutions of marijuana cases in states which have legalized marijuana? How will drug prosecutions and/or convictions under Trump’s administration affect citizens receiving federal benefits to include welfare, social security and financial aid? Only time will tell. **CRIME, THE 4TH AMENDMENT AND THE RACIAL DIVIDE BETWEEN POLICE AND COMMUNITIES OF COLOR.** Trump’s recent comments at the [First Presidential Debate ](http://www.ontheissues.org/2016_Prez_1.htm)at [Hofstra University](http://www.hofstra.edu/home/index.html), Sept. 26, 2016, moderated by [Lester Holt of NBC News](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Holt) gives telling insights on these issues. **Q: What should be done about crime?** > TRUMP: “[Stop and frisk](http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-justice/stop-and-frisk-practices) worked very well in New York. It brought the crime rate way down. You take the gun away from criminals that shouldn’t be having it. We have gangs roaming the street. And in many cases, they’re illegal immigrants. And they have guns. And they shoot people. And we have to be very vigilant. Right now, our police, in many cases, are afraid to do anything. We have to protect our inner cities, because African-American communities are being decimated by crime.” > > Q: “[Stop-and-frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York](https://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/is-stop-and-frisk-unconstitutional/), because it largely singled out black and Hispanic young men.” > > TRUMP: “No, you’re wrong. Our new mayor refused to go forward with the case. They would have won on appeal. There are many places where it’s allowed.” > > Q: “The argument is that it’s a form of [racial profiling](https://www.aclu.org/issues/racial-justice/race-and-criminal-justice/racial-profiling).” > > TRUMP: “No, the argument is that we have to take the guns away from bad people that shouldn’t have them. You have to have stop-and-frisk.” Some background information and “fact-checking” is necessary to understand this discussion. Recently, in [Floyd v. City of New York](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_v._City_of_New_York), [U.S. District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shira_Scheindlin) [ruled](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-practice-violated-rights-judge-rules.html?_r=0) that New York City police violated the [U.S. Constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) in the way that it carried out its stop-and-frisk program, calling it “a form of racial profiling” of young black and Hispanic men. Apparently, there were 4.4 million stops made by [New York City police ](http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/home/home.shtml)between January 2004 and June 2012, and 83 percent of them were made of blacks and Hispanics — even though those racial groups represented 52 percent of the city’s population in 2010. During trial, Judge Scheindlin found that 14 of the 19 stops constituted an unconstitutional stop or unconstitutional frisk. Ultimately, Judge Scheindin found the NYPD’s execution of its stop and frisk policy was unconstitutional. My opinion? Sure, most would agree we want guns and criminals off our streets. However, if stop and frisk policies involve systematically targeting certain racial groups, then these policies are simply unlawful. Period. Given his statements during the debates, I fear Trump’s administration may create, endorse and execute criminal justice policies which ultimately violate [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment) protections against unlawful searches and seizure. **2. How do you heal the racial divide?** > TRUMP: “We need law and order. If we don’t have it, we’re not going to have a country. I just got today the endorsement of the [Fraternal Order of Police](https://www.fop.net/). We have endorsements from almost every police group, a large percentage of them in the US. We have a situation where we have our inner cities, African- Americans, Hispanics are living in he’ll because it’s so dangerous. You walk down the street, you get shot.” **3. Do you see a crisis in the US of white police officers shooting unarmed blacks?** > TRUMP: “It’s a massive crisis. It’s a double crisis. I look at these things, I see them on television. And some horrible mistakes are made. But at the same time, we have to give power back to the police because crime is rampant. I believe very strongly that we need police. Cities need strong police protection. But officers’ jobs are being taken away from them. And there’s no question about it, there is turmoil in our country on both sides.” **4. Do you understand why African Americans don’t trust the police right now?** > TRUMP: “Well, I can certainly see it when I see what’s going on. But at the same time, we have to give power back to the police because we have to have law and order. And you’re always going to have mistakes made. And you’re always going to have bad apples. But you can’t let that stop the fact that police have to regain control of this tremendous crime wave that’s hitting the US.” **THE SUPREME COURT** According to [Politico Magazine](http://www.politico.com/magazine/), Trump will probably pick ultra-conservative judges to fill anticipated vacancies in the [United States Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/). In an article titled, “[*How President Trump Could Reshape the Supreme Court – and the Country*](http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/donald-trump-wins-supreme-court-214449),” reporter [Jeffrey Rosen](https://twitter.com/RosenJeffrey?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) surmises that Trump’s lasting legacy could be his power to shape the Supreme Court. Apparently, during the third presidential debate, Trump described the 21 judicial candidates he has identified: > “They will be pro-life. They will have a conservative bent. They will be protecting the Second Amendment. They are great scholars in all cases, and they’re people of tremendous respect. They will interpret the Constitution the way the Founders wanted it interpreted, and I believe that’s very important.” Apparently, Trump’s judicial picks are pro-law enforcement on issues involving government searches and seizures. This bodes negatively for preserving Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure. Also, Trump vows to give more power to police to handle the racial divide between police and communities of color. My opinion? That’s similar to dousing a forest fire with gasoline. or allowing a fox to guard your henhouse. Police aren’t experts at policing themselves. What is needed are the reinforcement of police accountability policies as well as a substantial shift with the culture of today’s police departments. Let’s be frank: the unjustified killing of citizens at the hands of police can no longer go unpunished, especially in the face of indisputable video evidence. In those cases, police must be held accountable for the crimes they commit against the citizens they are sworn to serve and protect. It’s the only way to rebuild trust between police and the communities of color. Equally important, we need policies which increase training on [de-escalation techniques](http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/07/deescalation-policing-works.html) and decrease police militarization models which involves the use of [military equipment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_equipment "Military equipment") and [tactics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tactics "Military tactics") by [law enforcement officers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_officer "Law enforcement officer"). This includes decreasing the use of [armored personnel carriers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armored_personnel_carrier "Armored personnel carrier"), [assault rifles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle "Assault rifle"), [submachine guns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submachine_gun "Submachine gun"), [flashbang grenades](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashbang_grenade "Flashbang grenade"), [grenade launchers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenade_launcher "Grenade launcher"), [sniper rifles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper_rifle "Sniper rifle"), and [Special Weapons and Tactics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Weapons_and_Tactics "Special Weapons and Tactics") (SWAT) teams if more reasonable alternatives are possible. **THE DEATH PENALTY** Put simply, Mr. Trump as a staunch advocate of the death penalty. > “A life is a life, and if you criminally take an innocent life you’d better be prepared to forfeit your own. My only complaint is that lethal injection is too comfortable a way to go.” > “I can’t believe that executing criminals doesn’t have a deterrent effect . . . Young male murderers, we are constantly told, are led astray by violent music and violent movies. Fair enough. I believe that people are affected by what they read, see, hear, and experience. Only a fool believes otherwise. So you can’t say on one hand that a kid is affected by music and movies and then turn around and say he is absolutely *not* affected when he turns on the evening news and sees that a criminal has gone to the chair for killing a child. Obviously, capital punishment isn’t going to deter everyone. But how can it not put the fear of death into many would-be killers?” Source: [The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, pp. 102-104](http://www.ontheissues.org/America_We_Deserve.htm), July 2, 2000. **JAILING AND DEPORTATION OF UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS.** According to the [Huffington Post](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/), Trump vows to [immediately deport or imprison up to 3 million undocumented immigrants.](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-deport-3-million_us_5828ad2be4b0c4b63b0d22f1) Trump said he would launch what could be the largest mass deportation effort in modern history, vowing to immediately deport a number of people comparable to the [record-setting figure](http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661) that President [Barack Obama](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/barack-obama/) carried out over two terms in office. This should come as no surprise. According to a [recent article from the Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/09/02/trumps-fuzzy-math-on-undocumented-immigrants-convicted-of-crimes/), Trump’s proposal calls for the deportation of undocumented immigrants who have committed violent crimes. Trump said he would push for two new laws aimed at punishing criminal aliens convicted of illegal reentry and removing “criminal immigrants and terrorists,” including previously deported unauthorized immigrants. He said he would name these laws after victims killed by people in the United States illegally. Although Trump’s removal of undocumented immigrants at this pace is apparently limited to convicted felons, his enthusiasm for removals suggests that overall deportations will likely rise when he takes office, after declining sharply last year. Clearly, Trump’s presidency shall affect our nation’s approach to crime and punishment. Consequently, it’s imperative to hire defense counsel who is competent handling drug charges, death penalty crimes, violent crime, racial injustice and immigration issues. Today’s defense counsel must stay abreast of today’s ever-changing political landscape. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** ACLU, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Death Penalty, Due Process, Immigration, law enforcement, Legislation, marijuana, Police Misconduct, Race & Law, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Criminalizing "Illegal Protests"](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/criminalizing-illegal-protests/) **Published:** November 17, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [Bellingham Herald reported](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/politics-government/article115342263.html) that [Senator Doug Ericksen of Ferndale](http://dougericksen.src.wastateleg.org/), a Republican state senator who campaigned for [President-elect Donald Trump](http://www.politicususa.com/2016/11/16/america-suffered.html), wants to propose a bill that criminalizes what he calls “illegal protests.” In short, his bill would create a new crime of “economic terrorism” and would allow felony prosecution of people involved in protests that block transportation and commerce, damage property, threaten jobs and put public safety at risk. Erickson said his bill also would apply to people who fund and organize such protests. “We are not just going after the people who commit these acts of terrorism,” Ericksen said. “We are going after the people who fund them.” “I respect the right to protest, but when it endangers people’s lives and property, it goes too far,” Ericksen said. “Fear, intimidation and vandalism are not a legitimate form of political expression. Those who employ it must be called to account.”Interestingly, Erickson’s proposed bill comes as thousands of people have taken to the streets nationwide to condemn Donald Trump’s comments about Muslims, people in the country illegally and crude references to women. [American Civil Liberties Union of Washington](https://aclu-wa.org/) spokesman [Doug Honig](https://aclu-wa.org/aclu-washington-leadership) told The Associated Press Wednesday that while they’ll need to see an actual bill, Ericksen’s statement throws out a lot of broad rhetoric. Honig said the following: > “We’re already concerned that some of its loose terms appear to be targeting civil disobedience as ‘terrorism.’ That’s the kind of excessive approach to peaceful protest that our country and state do not need. Let’s keep in mind that civil rights protesters who sat down at lunch counters could be seen as ‘disrupting business’ “and ‘obstructing economic activity,’ and their courageous actions were opposed by segregationists as trying to ‘coerce’ business and government.” My opinion? Yes, protest is ugly. It’s loud. It’s inconvenient. And it’s American. *Fundamentally* American. As in, [First Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) American. It’s no secret that the First Amendment plays a large role in enabling robust public political discussion. In particular, expressive freedom can help to generate dynamic political change. True, there are exceptions to the general protections to the First Amendment; including the [Miller test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test "Miller test") for [obscenity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_obscenity_law "United States obscenity law"), [child pornography laws](https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/child-pornography), speech that incites [imminent lawless action](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action "Imminent lawless action"), and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Despite the exceptions, however, the legal protections of the [First Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_U.S._Constitution "First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution") are some of the broadest of any industrialized nation, and remain a critical, and occasionally controversial, component of American jurisprudence. Erickson’s “economic terrorism” bill is problematic. It attempts to solve little more than a perceived threat and ultimately criminalizes liberty. If proposed and passed through the [GOP-controlled Senate](http://www.theolympian.com/news/politics-government/election/article113540633.html), it would likely would face serious obstacles in the current [Democratic-controlled House](http://www.theolympian.com/news/politics-government/election/article113540633.html). Even if the bill is passed and made into statute, it would immediately face constitutional challenges as being [overly broad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overbreadth_doctrine) and/or [facially invalid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_challenge) as applied. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if your friends or family are charged with crimes related to the exercise of their rights to publicly protest. I’m honored to represent clients who face criminal charges for essentially exercising their First Amendment rights. These prosecutions should be dismissed, debunked and exposed. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 42 U.S.C. § 1983, ACLU, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, felony, First Amendment, Legislation, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Exonerations On the Rise](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/3496-2/) **Published:** November 20, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** News reporters [Alanna Durkin Richer]() and [Curt Anderson](https://twitter.com/Miamicurt?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) of the [Associated Press](http://www.ap.org/) wrote an article describing how last year, 68 out of 157 exonerations were cases in which the defendant pleaded guilty. [*In Trial or Deal? Some Driven to Plead Guilty, Later Exonerated*](https://apnews.com/24cfa961d3444be49901496fdcaa3fda/Trial-or-deal?-Some-driven-to-plead-guilty,-later-exonerated) the article describes the difficult dilemma of many defendants in the criminal justice system: either accept the Prosecutor’s plea offer or risk facing much harsher consequences if found guilty at trial. Apparently, more than 300 of the more than 1,900 people who have been exonerated in the U.S. since 1989 pleaded guilty, according to an [estimate ](http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/Recent-Findings.aspx)by the [National Registry of Exonerations](http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx). The registry is maintained by the [University of Michigan Law School](https://www.law.umich.edu/Pages/default.aspx) using public information, such as court documents and news articles. Last year, 68 out of 157 exonerations were cases in which the defendant pleaded guilty, *more than any previous year*. The numbers reflect an overwhelmed criminal justice system with public defenders taking more cases than they can handle; as well as court officials who try saving the government money with plea bargains compared with costly trials. The data is even more daunting. Last year, more than 97 percent of criminal defendants sentenced in federal court pleaded guilty compared with about 85 percent more than 30 years ago, according to [data ](http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/analysis-reports/federal-court-management-statistics)collected by the [Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. ](http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/judicial-administration)The increase in guilty pleas has been a gradual rise over the last three decades. No one knows exactly how many innocent people are behind bars for pleading guilty. Sociologists have estimated that between 2 and 8 percent of people who plead guilty are in fact innocent. The article emphasized how defendants who were exonerated after pleading guilty often have prior criminal records and come from poor backgrounds and are not well-educated. They’re typically represented by public defenders juggling dozens of cases in a day. Many exonerees were cleared of wrongdoing by taking a new look at [DNA evidence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_profiling) in blood or other body fluids, according to the University of Michigan database. Some were the victims of prosecutorial misconduct, while shoddy police work was to blame in other cases — such as a mistaken FBI hair analysis or falsified fingerprint evidence. Some falsely confessed because of improper interrogation techniques while others maintained their innocence throughout. Making the matter worse, it’s not just prosecutors and defense attorneys who seek to cut plea deals. The article said many judges prefer that route, too. Judges who resolve cases rather than let them languish tend to be seen as more successful. Similarly, explained the article, prosecutors who close cases tend to rise faster in their careers. My opinion? People facing criminal charges MUST seek experienced defense counsel to defend their rights, investigate the facts, interview witnesses, argue pretrial motions, put their clients in the best light possible and conduct an active; fair trial when necessary. Pleas [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) as soon as possible if you, a friend or family member is facing criminal charges. The epidemic of increased exonerations due to injustice in our courts as well as our incoming administration’s trampling of individual rights shows a growing need for competent representation. Put simply, defendants should not plead guilty to criminal charges they are not guilty of. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, DNA, Jury Trial, Prison, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [ACLU Proposes New Jury Selection Court Rule](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/aclu-proposes-new-jury-selection-court-rule/) **Published:** November 27, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [Washington Supreme Court](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) is considering a new court rule which would effectively end racial bias in jury selection. [Proposed General Rule 36 (“GR 36”)](http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.proposedRuleDisplay&ruleId=537) is proposed by the [American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)](https://aclu-wa.org/), and is meant to protect [Washington jury trials ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CR&ruleid=supcr38)from intentional or unintentional, unconscious, or institutional bias in the empanelment of juries. **BACKGROUND** In [*State v. Saintcalle*](http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/178wn2d/178wn2d0034.htm), the Washington State Supreme Court expressed concerns that the federal [*Batson v. Kentucky* ](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/476/79/case.html)test fails to protect potential minority jurors from racial bias during jury selection; specifically, the Prosecutor’s use of [peremptory challenges](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/peremptory_challenge) to strike them. The ACLU believes, however, that *Batson* has failed to adequately protect potential jurors and the justice system from biased use of peremptories. In proposing its new rule, the ACLU deftly cites and relies upon [*State v. Saintcalle*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/index.cfm?fa=controller.managefiles&filePath=Opinions&fileName=862575.pdf), a Washington State Supreme Court case which admits that *Batson* was failing to end racial discrimination in jury selection. The *Saintcalle* Court recognized there was ample data demonstrating that racial bias in the jury selection process remained “rampant”: > “Twenty-six years after *Batson*, a growing body of evidence shows that racial discrimination remains rampant in jury selection. In part, this is because *Batson* recognizes only “purposeful discrimination,” whereas racism is often unintentional, institutional, or unconscious. We conclude that our *Batson* procedures must change and that we must strengthen *Batson* to recognize these more prevalent forms of discrimination.” *Saintcalle*, 178 Wn.2d at 36. In addition to the WA Supreme Court’s *Saintcalle*, the ACLU also argues that [legal scholars ](http://www.law.uci.edu/lawreview/vol5/no4/Lee.pdf)have also long noted *Batson*’s failure to effectively eradicate discrimination in peremptory challenges. **THE “OBJECTIVE-OBSERVER” STANDARD** The ACLU proposes that GR 36 addresses this problem by employing a test that utilizes an objective-observer standard. Apparently, the trial court would invalidate a peremptory strike if an objective observer could find that race or ethnicity was a factor for a peremptory challenge. GR 36 also gives trial courts the necessary latitude to protect the justice system from bias by granting courts the freedom to raise objections to a peremptory strike [*sua sponte*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sua_sponte). It would also bring greater diversity to juries, so that juries in Washington are more representative of the communities they serve.[\[12\]](http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.proposedRuleDisplay&ruleId=537#_ftn12) The rule would also improve the appearance of fairness and promote the administration of justice. My opinion? I hope GR 36 passes. The Washington State Supreme Court has the flexibility to “extend greater-than-federal *Batson* protections” through its rule-making authority. Also, other states have adopted court rules dealing with the *Batson* issue. GR 36 preserves the use of peremptory challenges as part of the right to a jury trial while at the same time addressing racial bias in jury selection. Thankfully, the rule also provides guidance to the judiciary and attorneys about how to apply the rule. By adopting this rule, Washington will ensure that its justice system is not improperly tainted by bias, protect Washingtonians from discrimination, ensure diversity in juries, and address systemic, institutional, and unintentional racism in jury selection. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** ACLU, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Jury Selection, Jury Trial, Legislation, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, United States Supreme Court, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Author of Confidential Informants Book Exposes the Truth](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author-of-confidential-informants-book-exposes-the-truth/) **Published:** December 21, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** A new book discusses how confidential informants negatively impact the criminal justice system. In “11 Days a Snitch,” author Alexandra Natapoff discusses how removing confidential informants information from investigations bolsters law enforcement authority while reducing the ability of legislatures, the press and the public “to evaluate executive actors and hold them accountable.” [Natapoff, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles](http://www.lls.edu/aboutus/facultyadministration/faculty/facultylistl-r/natapoffalexandra/), is considered one of the nation’s leading experts in the use of confidential informants. She has testified before the [U.S. House Judiciary Committee in 2007](https://www.aclu.org/other/written-testimony-law-enforcement-confidential-informant-practices-professor-alexandra) and had a hand in writing legislation in Florida known as Rachel’s Law, which was enacted in the wake of a [young drug informant’s death](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/09/03/the-throwaways). Natapoff discuses the negative impacts that confidential informants have had upon the justice system: 1. **CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED IN FAVOR OF KEEPING AN INFORMANT SECRET.** **• [The ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment)**[**Fourth Amendment**](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) protects against unlawful search and seizure. That means, generally, police need a warrant and a judge’s signature for permission to enter a house or listen in on a private conversation. A confidential informant wearing a wire, however, does not have to jump through those hoops ([though some states have barred warrantless use of informants in this regard](https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2010/jun/15/secret-justice-criminal-informants-and-americas-underground-legal-system/)). **• [The Sixth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment)** guarantees defendants [the right to confront any witnesses against them](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment). With informant witnesses, however, judges have chipped away at this right, [in some cases allowing prosecutors to keep informants’ identities a secret.](http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2016/11/attorney_asks_judge_to_identify_informant_in_attem.html) In 2002, for example, the [Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) tried to strike a balance by allowing a confidential informant to wear a “[wig-and-mustache disguise](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/01/30/11-10397.pdf)” on the stand. • [**The Fourteenth Amendment**](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv) guarantees defendants due process, which includes a right to know all the evidence the state has, including evidence that could discredit the state’s witnesses. For snitches, that evidence could include criminal history and any benefit (such as leniency for their own crimes or cash) they receive in exchange for cooperating with law enforcement. However, the [U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2002 ](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3952717222737473222&q=U.S.+v.+Ruiz+us+supreme+court+2002&hl=en&as_sdt=6,48&as_vis=1)that defendants are not entitled to that information before trial. Specifically, the court was concerned that revealing those details “could ‘disrupt ongoing investigations’ and expose prospective witnesses to serious harm.'” Natapoff argues this is significant because about [95 percent of criminal cases](https://www.bja.gov/Publications/PleaBargainingResearchSummary.pdf) end in plea deals. That means most defendants are pleading guilty without knowing if the evidence against them is completely legit. **2. THE WAR ON DRUGS IS DRIVING THE USE OF INFORMANTS.** In 1995, [decades into the war on drugs](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9252490), lawyer and journalist Mark Curriden published an in-depth look at law enforcement’s extensive use of informants by analyzing more than 1,000 federal search warrants from 1980 to 1993. In that time frame, warrants that solely relied on information from a confidential source increased by nearly 200 percent — from 24 percent to 71 percent. Although it’s impossible to get an accurate number of informants in the U.S., [a recent audit of the DEA’s CI program](https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/a1633.pdf) cited more than 18,000 active confidential sources from October 2010 to September 2015. However, that same report found that “the DEA did not appropriately track all confidential source activity.” **3. THE RISK FOR ABUSE IS HIGH.** Natapoff discusses the case of [four NYPD cops](http://www.villagevoice.com/news/the-incredibles-judges-said-these-cops-cant-be-trusted-so-why-does-the-da-rely-on-them-9292168), who for decades have apparently [fabricated sworn statements and arrests](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/nyregion/gun-arrests-with-2-things-in-common-the-officers-and-unidentified-informers.html?_r=0) with the help of fictitious informants. A State Supreme Court judge in Brooklyn called one of the detectives “extremely evasive,” and did not find him “to be credible.” A judge in another federal case remarked: “I believe these officers perjured themselves. In my view, there is a serious possibility that some evidence was fabricated by these officers.” “Given the reality that informant deals are baked into the criminal justice system, we are obligated to better regulate it,” Natapoff says. “We have fallen down in that regard. We have given such broad discretion to police and prosecutors and failed to create transparency and accountability mechanisms that would give us the confidence that these deals are being made in responsible ways.” My opinion? Transparency is essential to a fair and equitable criminal justice system. Knowing how we handle criminal behavior and dole out punishment allows the public to hold law enforcement accountable. The use of confidential informants, however, can pervert that premise in many ways. As a criminal defense attorney, I’ve always believed the use of confidential informants entrap many into committing crimes they would otherwise not commit. Snitches are motivated/biased actors who are not professionally trained in law enforcement and have significant criminal histories. All of these facts decrease their credibility. Kudos to Natapoff for showing the truth. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Confidential Informants, Constitutional Rights, Evidence, Informant, law enforcement, police, Pretrial Investigations, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["Common Authority" Vehicle Searches](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/common-authority-vehicle-searches/) **Published:** December 21, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Vanhollebeke](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/334279_pub.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals Division III](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) decided a vehicle owner’s consent to search overrode the driver’s express objections. On the night of November 10, 2014, Sergeant Garza pulled the truck over that was facing the wrong way on a one-way street. Sergeant Garza got out of his patrol car and approached the truck. The defendant Mr. Vanhollebeke got out of the truck and started walking toward Sergeant Garza. Sergeant Garza ordered Mr. Vanhollebeke to get back in the truck. Mr. Vanhollebeke then said he had locked himself out of the truck. This unusual behavior made Sergeant Garza suspicious. Dispatch advised that Mr. Vanhollebeke’s license was suspended. Dispatch also advised that Mr. Vanhollebeke was not the registered owner of the truck, and that the truck belonged to a man named Bill Casteel. Sergeant Garza’s plan at this point was to cite Mr. Vanhollebeke for [driving with a suspended license](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.342) and then release him. However, another police officer noticed a glass pipe with a white crystal substance on it sitting in plain view near the dashboard, which he believed was drug paraphernalia. Also, the truck’s steering column was “punched,” which indicated the truck was stolen. The officers did not release Mr. Vanhollebeke and kept him in their custody. The officers asked for permission to search the truck. Mr. Vanhollebeke refused. Sergeant Garza contacted Mr. Casteel, the actual owner of the truck, at Casteel’s home. Mr. Casteel told Deputy Barnes that Mr. Vanhollebeke had permission to use the truck. Casteel also gave police permission to search his truck and gave Deputy Barnes a key to it. Deputy Barnes returned directly to the scene. He used the key to open the truck and began to search it. He looked under the driver’s seat and saw a revolver. The glass pipe tested positive for methamphetamine. The officers confirmed through dispatch that Mr. Vanhollebeke had a prior felony conviction. The State charged Mr. Vanhollebeke with [first degree unlawful possession of a firearm](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/). Mr. Vanhollebeke argued a [CrR 3.6 motion to suppress](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) the physical evidence on the grounds that he had refused to give the officers consent to search the truck and also that the stop’s length and scope were unreasonable. However, the trial court admitted the evidence and denied Mr. Vanhollebeke’s motion to suppress. The jury convicted Mr. Vanhollebeke. Vanhollebeke appealed on the issue of whether Mr. Casteel’s consent overrode Mr. Vanhollebeke’s express objection to search. The Court of Appeals upheld the search. It reasoned that the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) to the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview) guarantees people the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Warrantless searches are generally illegal unless they fall within one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement. However, one exception is consent to search by a person with authority over the place or thing to be searched. This exception includes consent given by a third person, other than the defendant. The court further reasoned that to grant valid consent, the third party must have ***common authority*** over the place or thing to be searched. The court explained that common authority does not mean that the third party has a mere property interest in the place or thing being searched. Rather, to establish lawful consent by virtue of common authority, (1) a consenting party must be able to permit the search in his own right, and (2) it must be reasonable to find that the defendant has assumed the risk that a co-occupant might permit a search. The court decided Mr. Vanhollebeke’s right to use the truck was dependent on the owner’s unrevoked permission: > “Here, Mr. Vanhollebeke had the actual right to exclude all others from the truck except for Mr. Casteel. For this reason, Mr. Vanhollebeke did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy if Mr. Casteel wanted to search his own truck or allow another person to do so.” With that, the Court concluded Mr. Casteel’s consent to search his truck overrode Mr. Vanhollebeke’s objection. Therefore, the search did not violate Mr. Vanhollebeke’s reasonable expectation of privacy and the trial court did not err in denying Mr. Vanhollebeke’s CrR 3.6 motion to suppress. Vanhollebeke’s conviction was affirmed. My opinion? Common authority search issues don’t happen very often in criminal defense. But when they do, it’s imperative to hire competent criminal defense who can leverage a strong motion to suppress the evidence and/or divide the “common parties” to the search. Perhaps the greatest lesson to learn is to simply avoid transporting illegal contraband in plain view within borrowed vehicles. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Common Authority Searches, Constitutional Rights, felony, Firearm, law enforcement, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Terry Stop, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Murray: Improper Implied Consent Warnings Held Unimportant](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-murray-improper-implied-consent-warnings-held-unimportant/) **Published:** December 22, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Murray](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/929301.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) held that DUI breath test results should not be suppressed even though the police officers who informed defendants did not properly inform the defendants of THC warnings. In February, I discussed [Robison’s Court of Appeals decision to suppress the BAC test](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-robison-implied-consent-pot-dui/) before the WA Supreme Court re-addressed the issue on this most recent appeal. Late one night, a state trooper observed Robison speeding through a restaurant parking lot toward a road. The trooper had to hit his brakes to avoid a collision as Robison exited the parking lot. The trooper decided a traffic stop was in order. The trooper could smell both alcohol and cannabis coming from Robison’s car. The officer investigated Robison for [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). Robison performed poorly on [field sobriety tests](http://dui.findlaw.com/dui-arrests/field-sobriety-tests.html) and agreed to take a [roadside breath test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breathalyzer). Based on the results, the officer arrested Robison for suspected driving under the influence (DUI) and took him to a police station. ***At the station, the trooper read Robison an implied consent warning from a standard form’s that did not mention the new statutory language concerning THC.*** The form warning did warn Robison that he was subject to having his driver’s license suspended, revoked, or denied if the test revealed he was under the influence of alcohol. Robison argued a [3.6 motion to suppress](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) the results of the breath test, arguing that the implied consent warning was inadequate because it did not mirror the statutory language regarding the consequences of a finding of THC in his blood. The district court commissioner concluded that the warnings accurately informed the defendant that the result of a breath test would reveal the alcohol concentration of his breath and that it would be misleading to advise or imply to the defendant that the breath test could obtain a THC reading. Robison was found guilty. Robison appealed to the superior court, which reversed, concluding the officer had no discretion to leave out a portion of the implied consent warning. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision to suppress, and the WA Supreme Court accepted review on the State’s appeal. Ultimately, the Court affirmed the lower courts and upheld Robison’s conviction. A driver’s [implied consent to a breath test for alcohol](http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=46.20.308), and the arresting officer’s duty to warn of the potential consequences of the test, have been part of our statutory system for decades. Both the legal consequences of driving while intoxicated and the details and exactitude of the warning required by the legislature have changed during that time. For example, [Initiative 502](http://www.newapproachwa.org/content/initiative), which decriminalized the recreational use of cannabis, also amended the implied consent statute. In relevant part, the amended implied consent statute said: > “(c) If the driver submits to the test and the test is administered, the driver’s license, permit, or privilege to drive will be suspended, revoked, or denied for at least ninety days if: (i) The driver is age twenty-one or over and the test indicates either that the alcohol concentration of the driver’s breath or blood is 0.08 or more ***or that the THC concentration of the driver’s blood is 5.00 or more***.” Robison argued that since some of the statutory language was omitted during his DUI investigation, the tests must be suppressed. However, the WA Supreme Court disagreed: > “We find no case, and none have been called to our attention, that require officers to read an irrelevant statutory warning to a driver suspected of DUI. Instead, as acknowledged by counsel at oral argument, it has long been the reasonable practice of arresting officers to omit warnings related to underage drinking and commercial drivers’ licenses when advising those over 21 or driving on a noncommercial license.” The Court further reasoned that the Implied Consent warnings did not omit any relevant part of the statute, accurately expressed the relevant parts of the statute, and were not misleading. Accordingly, the warnings substantially complied with the implied consent statute and the test results were properly admitted. With that, the WA Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated Robison’s convictions. My opinion? Bad decision. [Like I said before](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-robison-implied-consent-pot-dui/), DUI investigations involving Implied Consent Warnings must keep up with today’s legislative amendments and other changing laws. The law is the law. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, DUI, Evidence, Implied Consent, law enforcement, Legislation, marijuana, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, United States Supreme Court, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Ortuno-Perez: "Other Suspect" Evidence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/3533-2/) **Published:** December 23, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Ortuno-Perez](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/728491.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that a murder defendant was wrongfully prohibited from introducing evidence that another person, who was armed at the murder scene, actually committed the murder. In the early morning hours of October 12, 2013, Jesus Castro was shot in the head while standing outside of a house in Renton. He died several days later. The single shot was fired at close range from a .22 caliber firearm. At the time the shot was fired, anywhere between 5 to 12 people were standing in close proximity to Castro. In that group were 2 individuals particularly pertinent here, the defendant Santiago Ortuno-Perez and Austin Agnish—each of whom was armed with a handgun at the time. On the same day that Castro was shot, Ortuno-Perez was identified as a suspect and subsequently arrested outside of a house in Kent. In the days that followed, Ortuno-Perez was identified as the shooter by several witnesses who were present at the scene, including Agnish. Ortuno-Perez was subsequently charged with one count of [murder in the first degree](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.32.030), committed while armed with a firearm. Crucial to his defense at trial, Ortuno-Perez sought to introduce evidence that another person, not him, killed Castro. In particular, his counsel sought to identify Austin Agnish as the shooter, to cross-examine the State’s witnesses for potential bias in their testimony, and to present additional evidence indicating that a person other than Ortuno-Perez was the shooter. However, the trial court denied Ortuno-Perez’s request because Ortuno-Perez had not demonstrated that Agnish had taken steps to commit the crime. Four days later, Ortuno-Perez’s counsel filed a detailed [offer of proof](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/offer_of_proof) regarding the “other suspect” evidence that the defense would have introduced but for the trial court’s adverse ruling. Again, the trial court excluded the “other suspect” defense. On the 10th day of testimony, Ortuno-Perez moved for a [mistrial](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mistrial), arguing that his right to present a defense had been denied by the trial court’s “other suspect” rulings. The judge denied the motion for mistrial. The jury convicted Ortuno-Perez of [murder in the second degree](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.32.050), committed while armed with a firearm. He was sentenced to 280 months of confinement. Ortuno-Perez appealed. Ultimately, the WA Court of Appeals reversed Ortuno-Perez’s conviction and ordered a new trial. **“OTHER SUSPECT” EVIDENCE.** The court reasoned that Washington’s “other suspect” evidence rule—applicable to proffered evidence that a specific person other than the defendant committed the charged crime—has developed from a broad common law rule to a specific and focused application of well established principles of materiality and probative value. Furthermore, the court reasoned that *[State v. Franklin](http://www.hammerstadlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/State-v.-Franklin.pdf)* holds that such evidence should be admitted if there is an adequate nexus between the alleged other suspect and the crime. Thus, the threshold analysis for “other suspect” evidence involves a straightforward, but focused, relevance inquiry, reviewing the evidence’s materiality and probative value for whether the evidence has a logical connection to the crime. **THE SIXTH AMENDMENT.** The Court further reasoned that the [Sixth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) of the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview) and [article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx) guarantee a criminal defendant a meaningful opportunity to present a defense. This right, however, is not absolute. It may, in appropriate cases, bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process, including the exclusion of evidence considered irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible. As with all evidence, the proponent bears the burden of establishing the admissibility of “other suspect” evidence. Because the premise underlying the introduction of “other suspect” evidence is to show that someone other than the defendant committed the charged crime, the standard for admission is whether the proffered evidence tends to indicate a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt. Evidence is relevant when it is both material—the fact to be proved is of consequence in the context of the other facts and the applicable substantive law — and probative — the evidence has a tendency to prove or disprove a fact. **SUPPRESSING “OTHER SUSPECT” EVIDENCE VIOLATED ORTUNO-PEREZ’S RIGHTS UNDER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT.** Here, the Court of Appeals agreed that the “other suspect” evidence that Ortuno-Perez proffered actually supported a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Prior to trial, defense counsel sought permission to present evidence to the jury that Agnish, not Ortuno-Perez, killed Castro. In his briefing, Ortuno-Perez’s counsel indicated that it planned to present evidence that Agnish (1) was using prescription drugs at the time that Castro was shot, potentially altering his perception of the shooting and his memory thereof, (2) was armed with a handgun and in close proximity to Castro at the time of the shooting, (3) lied about having access to guns other than the one he admitted carrying at the time of the shooting, and (4) was a member of a gang and had expressed a belief that Castro belonged to a rival gang. However, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the trial court abused its discretion by improperly excluding the proffered evidence. It said the evidence proffered by Ortuno-Perez relating to Agnish’s potential culpability was of a type that tended to logically connect Agnish to Castro’s murder: > “If credited by the jury, it would establish Agnish’s motive (a gang clash), his opportunity (he was present at the murder scene and in close proximity to Castro at the instant of the shooting), and his means (he was armed with a handgun). Thus, the evidence proffered was plainly relevant to the question of the identity of Castro’s murderer and was of a type that, if credited by the jury, would support a reasonable doubt as to Ortuno-Perez’s guilt.” The Court of Appeals said that as a result of the trial court’s erroneous rulings , Ortuno-Perez was unfairly prejudiced in two major respects: (1) his ability to confront the witnesses against him was compromised by the rulings preventing him from exploring the potential biases of witnesses who may have been covering for Agnish out of either affinity or fear; and (2) his ability to argue in closing argument that logical inferences from the evidence actually admitted during trial supported a reasonable doubt as to his guilt was compromised by rulings precluding him from suggesting to the jury that anyone other than Ortuno-Perez himself had shot Castro. The trial court’s erroneous rulings were not harmless. The “other suspect” evidence which the trial judge excluded could have caused a reasonable juror to doubt whether Ortuno-Perez was guilty as charged. Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial. My opinion? Good decision. Under the Sixth Amendment, allowing attorneys to argue inferences from the evidence is a rudimentary aspect of this right. Defense Counsel *must* be afforded the utmost freedom in the argument of the case and some latitude in the discussion of their causes before the jury. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** "Other Suspect" Evidence, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Evidence, felony, Homicide & Manslaughter, Jury Trial, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Holiday Drinking In The U.S.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/holiday-drinking-in-the-u-s/) **Published:** December 24, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Interesting [article ](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/24/where-the-heaviest-drinking-americans-live/?utm_term=.4ac0ebb2aa07)by [Christopher Ingraham](https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/christopher-ingraham/?utm_term=.3370e738d611) of the [Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/) discusses how data on total monthly alcohol sales in the United States carries a time-tested seasonal trend: the spikes in December of each year. Clearly, the holidays are traditionally a time for boozing it up. For example, the Department of Health and Human Services [recently updated the official federal statistics](http://samhda.s3-us-gov-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/field-uploads/2k15StateFiles/NSDUHsaeLongTermCHG2015.htm) on the percent of state residents ages 12 and older who drink at least once a month. Also, Ingraham’s article discusses how various direct and indirect measures of alcohol consumption, including [breathalyzer data](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/12/20/the-days-of-the-year-when-americans-are-most-drunk-visualized/?utm_term=.ab7dfe2178de), [Web searches for hangover relief](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/12/31/youre-gonna-get-soooo-wasted-tonight-and-google-knows-it/?utm_term=.735afeaa8314) and [alcohol-related traffic deaths](https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/RethinkHoliday/NIAAA_NYE_Fact_Sheet_2011.pdf) all suggest that peak American drinking happens between Thanksgiving and New Year’s. **THE NORTHEAST** New England is home to the nation’s heaviest drinkers – New Hampshire, where about 64 percent of residents age of 12 or older drink monthly, is tops in the country. Vermont, Maine and Connecticut also come in at drinking rates above 60 percent. Hard-drinking cheese heads in Wisconsin see to it that their home is the only Midwestern state in the top tier of American drinkers. **THE NORTHWEST** Ingraham discusses how the next tier of heavy drinking states are all in the northern part of the country. Some researchers posit that there [may be a relationship between heavy drinking and latitude](http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/high-rates-binge-drinking-may-be-caused-extreme-latitude). At the country level, [alcohol consumption tends to increase](http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/these-are-the-worlds-drunkest-countries-9357860.html) the farther you get away from the equator. This could be a function of the potential for boredom and depression[ during winter months when the nights are long](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/21/today-is-winter-solstice-this-is-how-many-hours-of-daylight-youll-get/?utm_term=.69d1d6d3c48c) and the days are short. For a prime example of this, see [recent stories](http://www.livescience.com/52467-why-antarctica-fuels-excess-drinking.html) involving alcohol and misconduct among people who live in Antarctica. **RELIGIOUS STATES** Ingraham discusses other cultural factors affect some States’ attitudes about drinking. On the map above**,** take a look at Utah and particularly Idaho. They’re in the bottom tier of the states for drinking frequency. Utah, where only 31 percent of adults drink in a given month, comes in dead last. This is almost certainly because of the [large Mormon populations](http://ava.publicreligion.org/#religious/2015/States/religion/10) in those states — 58 percent of Utahans are Mormon, as are 24 percent of people in Idaho. Mormonism generally [prohibits the use of alcohol](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/commentary-mormon-ban-on-alcohol-not-always-absolute/2014/01/27/5f196a04-877a-11e3-a760-a86415d0944d_story.html?utm_term=.57013126878c) and other drugs. There’s likely a similar religious influence in places Alabama, Mississippi and the other Southern states where drinking is low. Those states have [large evangelical Christian](http://ava.publicreligion.org/#religious/2015/States/religion/1,10) populations, [many of whom are abstainers](http://www.pewforum.org/2011/06/22/global-survey-beliefs/). **HOLIDAY DUI PATROLS IN WASHINGTON STATE** Coincidentally, the [Washington State Patrol](http://www.wsp.wa.gov/) announced its increased [Holiday DUI Patrol ](http://www.wsp.wa.gov/information/releases/2016_archive/mr121516.htm)campaign of “Drive Sober Or Get Pulled Over.” Our State Troopers are extremely proactive in reaching their [Target Zero](http://www.targetzero.com/) goal of zero traffic fatalities by 2030. Also, our local police and sheriff’s offices are working very hard responding to incidents of domestic violence, burglary, assault and other criminal incidents associated with holiday celebrations. **SEEK COMPETENT LEGAL REPRESENTATION IF YOU FACE CRIMINAL CHARGES THIS HOLIDAY SEASON.** For many, the holiday season is a joyous time when family and friends get together and celebrate. Naturally, our holiday merriment could involve the libations of alcohol and/or legal (and illegal) drugs. We must enjoy the holidays safely and responsibly. Unfortunately, incidents of domestic violence, DUI, and other criminal behaviors – intentional or otherwise – can dampen our holiday festivities. It’s never desirable to face criminal charges which could negatively affect your life for years to come. However, if you, friends or family find themselves in situations involving law enforcement, jail and/or criminal charges then contact the [Law Office of Alexander Ransom](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/) as soon as possible. I staunchly defends my clients’ constitutional rights to a fair trial, just proceedings and the suppression of evidence involving unlawful searches, seizures and self-incrimination. My practice involves saving people’s careers and reuniting families by seeking reductions and dismissals of criminal charges when appropriate. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. Happy holidays! -Alex Ransom, Esq. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Distracted Driving, Domestic Violence, Drowsy Driving, Drug Offenses, DUI, felony, Jail, law enforcement, marijuana, Miranda, misdemeanor, police, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Terry Stop, Violent Crime, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Protective Sweeps of Homes](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/3543-2/) **Published:** December 25, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Chambers*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/720937.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) decided (1) the police’s “protective sweep” of the defendant’s home was improper because the defendant was arrested outside his home and the officers did not have specific facts that other armed individuals might be inside the defendant’s home, and (2) the defendant’s 3.5 Motion to Suppress statements made to police was rightfully denied because police scrupulously honored the defendant’s [Fifth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment) invocation of his right to remain silent. In this case, defendant Lovett Chambers was drinking at the Feedback Lounge, a neighborhood bar in West Seattle that he frequented. Chambers was a convicted felon of African-American descent who moved to Seattle in 1989, worked in the construction industry, obtained degrees in computer science and started an IT business. In 1992, he got married and later purchased a house in West Seattle with his wife. A few years later, Chambers asked his wife to buy him a Colt .45 caliber semiautomatic handgun. She did so, apparently unaware that he was a convicted felon. On the night of the incident, Mr. Chambers had numerous drinks at the Feedback Lounge. He carried and concealed his .45 pistol. At some point, two Caucasian men entered the bar and began drinking. The gentlemen did not know Mr. Chambers. Later, all of the gentlemen departed the bar simultaneously and walked to their respective vehicles which were parked nearby each other in the parking lot. For reasons unknown, words were exchanged between Chambers and the two gentlemen, who apparently uttered racial epitaphs to each other, Mr. Chambers, or both. One of the gentleman – Michael Travis Hood – pulled a shovel from his vehicle; apparently to defend himself from Mr. Chambers. However, Chambers shot Mr. Hood three times with his .45 pistol. Chambers walked away, got into his car and drove home in his BMW. Mr. Hood died from lethal gunshot wounds to his back. Seattle police arrested Chambers at his home at 10:49 p.m. Officer Belgarde read Chambers his [*Miranda* ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/miranda_warning)rights at 10:51 p.m. Chambers smelled of alcohol. He was “swaying,” had trouble balancing, slurred his words, and was argumentative. Officer Galbraith drove Chambers to the precinct. Officers obtained a warrant to search Chambers’ home and seized a loaded .45 caliber handgun, a spare magazine, and the BMW keys. The police impounded the BMW. Later, officers interrogated Chambers and obtained numerous incriminating statements regarding the shooting. The State charged Chambers with murder in the second degree of Hood while armed with a deadly weapon. Chambers asserted a claim of [self-defense](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Iefa01084e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)). Before trial, Chambers filed a CrR 3.6 motion to suppress the evidence seized from his house and the statements he made. The court denied the motion to suppress the evidence seized from the house. The court concluded the police “were authorized to enter the house to conduct a protective sweep to ensure their safety.” The court also denied the motion to suppress Chambers’ statements to police and reasoned his “right to remain silent was scrupulously honored” under [*Michigan v. Mosley*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_v._Mosley). The jury found Chambers guilty of the lesser-included offense of [manslaughter in the first degree](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.32.060). By special verdict, the jury found Chambers was armed with a firearm at the time he committed the crime. The court imposed the low-end standard range sentence of 78 months plus the mandatory consecutive 60-month firearm enhancement. Chambers appealed. 1. **Evidence Seized from the House Was Obtained Through a Unlawfully Conducted “Protective Sweep,” However, The Trial Court’s Decision to Deny Chambers’ Suppression Motion Was Harmless Error.** Chambers contends the court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence the police seized from his house: the Colt .45, a magazine clip with .45 caliber bullets, and the keys to the BMW. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) to the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview) and [article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx) prohibit a warrantless search and seizure unless the State demonstrates that one of the narrow exceptions to the warrant requirement applies. One recognized exception to the warrant requirement is a “protective sweep” of the home. The court further reasoned that under [*Maryland v. Buie*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_v._Buie) the [U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) describes a [protective sweep](https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/protective-sweep/) as a limited cursory search incident to arrest and conducted to protect the safety of police officers or others. The Court of Appeals decided the trial court erred in concluding the police had the authority to conduct a protective sweep of Chambers’ house. First, a warrantless search of “spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest” without [probable cause](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause) or [reasonable suspicion](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_suspicion) does not apply when the police arrest an individual outside his home. Here, the undisputed facts do not support the warrantless entry and protective sweep of the kitchen under Buie and the court erred in denying the motion to suppress: > “The record does not support the conclusion that there were “articulable facts” that the kitchen harbored “an individual posing a danger.” The police had information that only Chambers shot Hood and was alone when he drove away. The findings establish the only individual in the house when police arrested Chambers was his spouse. The front door was open after the arrest and the police could see Sara was sitting on the living room couch watching television and remained in the living room.” However, the Court of Appeals also ruled that the verdict would have been the same absent the trial court’s error. Chambers testified he acted in self-defense when he shot Hood with the Colt .45. Chambers admitted that he parked his BMW in front of the Beveridge Place Pub on January 21, that he kept a .45 caliber gun under the passenger seat of the BMW, and that he used the Colt .45 to shoot Hood near Morgan Junction Park. For these reasons, the trial court’s decision to deny Chamber’s motion to suppress was [harmless error](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/harmless_error). **2. Chamber’s Incriminating Statements Are Admissible.** On appeal, Mr. Chambers asserts the detectives did not “scrupulously honor” his [Fifth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment) right to remain silent. The court reasoned that the Fifth Amendment provides, in pertinent part, “No person shall be . .. compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” In [*Miranda v. Arizona*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/384/436), the Supreme Court adopted “procedural safeguards” to protect the privilege and held that before questioning an individual in custody, the police must clearly inform the suspect of the following: > That he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. Here, the Court of Appeals decided that because the circumstances leading up to the police’s interview with Chambers show the police scrupulously honored Chambers’ right to cut off questioning, the court did not err in denying the motion to suppress the statements Chambers made. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the record shows the police advised Chambers of his *Miranda* rights at 10:51 p.m. when he was arrested on January 21. Chambers stated he understood his rights and unequivocally said he did not want to talk to the police. The record establishes the police did not “ask the defendant any questions or persist in repeated efforts to wear him down or change his mind after he invoked his rights.” After he invoked his right to remain silent at 10:51 p.m. on January 21, the police did not question Chambers while at police headquarters. And while driving to Harborview to obtain a blood draw at 3:07 a.m. on January 22, the detectives did not ask Chambers any questions. Nonetheless, on the way to Harborview, Chambers said he did not want to talk about what happened. While at Harborview, Chambers seemed to have “sobered up.” When they left Harborview approximately 45 minutes later, Detective Steiger advised Chambers of his Miranda rights again. Chambers stated he understood his rights and did not invoke the right to remain silent. With that, the Court of Appeals concluded the undisputed facts support the conclusion that the right to cut off questioning was scrupulously honored. The Court affirmed the jury verdict. My opinion? The police should have advised Mr. Chambers of his [Ferrier warnings](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/?s=ferrier+warnings), a topic which I have blogged many times. Ferrier warnings must be given if police officers seek to enter the home to conduct a warrantless search for evidence of a crime or contraband. Still, even if Ferrier warnings were given and Mr. Chambers denied the police entry into his home, his incriminating statements to police ultimately assigned harmless error to the unlawful search. Please review my [Search & Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) Legal Guide and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Evidence, Exclusionary Rule, Exigent Circumstances, felony, Fifth Amendment, Homicide & Manslaughter, Interrogation, law enforcement, Miranda, police, Privacy, Probable Cause, Protective Sweep, Search and Seizure, Self-Defense, Self-Incrimination, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Pre-Arrest Silence & Business Records Exceptions to Hearsay Rule](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/pre-arrest-silence-business-records-exceptions-to-hearsay-rule/) **Published:** December 27, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Magana](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/337014_pub.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.google.com/#q=wa+court+of+appeals+division+iii) held (1) the [Fifth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment) is not an obstacle to the State’s introduction of a suspect’s pre-arrest silence as evidence of guilt, and (2) the State failed to lay a proper evidentiary foundation for the Lineup ID Report, however, the erroneous admission of the document was harmless error. Sergio Magana Jr., an adult, met met fourteen-year-old Y.L. through [Facebook](http://www.facebook.com). After exchanging text messages, Y.L. and Mr. Magana made plans to meet at Y.L.’s home. Mr. Magana wanted to be alone with Y.L. When the day they planned to meet arrived, Mr. Magana went inside Y.L.’s home and forcibly raped her. Not long after leaving, Mr. Magana texted and told Y.L. not to mention his name and to delete all of their text messages because her “age scared him.” After approximately two weeks, Y.L. reported Mr. Magana’s conduct to the police. Y.L. identified Mr. Magana from a photo lineup and submitted her phone so text messages could be extracted. The police then began looking for Mr. Magana. After about six weeks, Mr. Magana made contact with the police and spoke to a detective over the telephone. During the call, Mr. Magana arranged to meet with the police. However, he never showed up for his appointment. About a month later, Mr. Magana finally met with a police detective in person. He was advised of his [*Miranda* ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/miranda_warning)rights and acknowledged that he had indeed met Y.L. over Facebook, but he denied having intercourse. Mr. Magana was charged with one count of [third degree rape of a child](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.079). Following a [mistrial ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mistrial)and then a second trial, he was found guilty by a jury and sentenced by the trial court. Mr. Magana appealed. **1. PRE-ARREST SILENCE.** On appeal, Mr. Magana argued the jury should not have known about his failure to appear for his initial police interview. He claims this was an improper comment on his right to silence, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the rule from the [United States Supreme Court’s](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) [*Salinas v. Texas*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-246) holds that the Fifth Amendment is ***not*** an obstacle to the State’s introduction of Mr. Magana’s pre-arrest silence as evidence of guilt. Furthermore, although [Washington State’s Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx) typically provides more protections than the [U.S. Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview), “this is not an area where our state’s constitution affords greater protection than the federal constitution.” Consequently, the Court of Appeals reasoned Mr. Magana was not under arrest or any sort of police custody. They said his scheduled police interview was voluntary, and to the extent Mr. Magana’s failure to appear for the interview was relevant, the State was entitled to present this evidence. **PHOTO LINEUP EVIDENCE.** Also on appeal, Mr. Magana argued the State’s photo lineup exhibit was [hearsay ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hearsay)and admitted into evidence without [proper foundation](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/foundation). However, the State argued that the exhibit was a properly authenticated [business record](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/business_records_exception). The Court reasoned that under [RCW 5.45.020](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=5.45.020) and [ER 803(6)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803), a document may be admitted as a business record as long as a witness testifies to the document’s identity and mode of preparation, and explains that the document “was made in the regular course of business, at or near the time of the act, condition or event.” Here, the exhibit at issue consisted of three pages. The first page is an array of six hand-numbered photos, one of which depicts Mr. Magana. The second page is entitled “Lineup ID Report,” which is a computer-generated report that documents biographical information, including dates of birth, for the six individuals depicted on the photo array. The third page is a copy of the written admonishment form Y.L. signed prior to reviewing the photo array. However, The Court of Appeals reasoned that during the photo identification process, Y .L. failed to review the second page of the report. Also concerning was that at trial, no witness testimony was presented regarding the creation of the Lineup ID Report included on page two. For these reasons, and because no foundation was laid for the Lineup ID Report, it was improperly admitted as a business record. Nevertheless, and given the entirety of the evidence, the erroneous inclusion of the Lineup ID Report was harmless error which did not impact the jury’s verdict. With that, the Court of Appeals affirmed Mr. Magana’s convictions, but remand to the trial court for resentencing. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Business Record, Constitutional Rights, Evidence, felony, Fifth Amendment, Hearsay, Jury Trial, Miranda, Pre-Arrest Silence, Search and Seizure, Self-Incrimination, Sex Crimes, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Bounty Hunters & Bondsmen](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/bounty-hunters-bondsmen/) **Published:** December 27, 2016 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[Applegate v. Lucky Bail Bonds](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/747398.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held a bail bondsman may forcibly enter another party’s land and/or house if he has reasonably believes the fugitive is there. The appeal arises from a civil case brought by appellant Ron Applegate against respondent [Lucky Bail Bonds Inc.](http://www.luckybail.com/) and its agents. Lucky posted bail for Applegate’s daughter, Elizabeth, on her shoplifting charges. Elizabeth failed to appear for court dates. Lucky’s agents went to Applegate’s rural property at night in search of Elizabeth. They found her in Applegate’s residence, but only after getting into a shoving match with Applegate and allegedly entering his residence without permission. During the struggle, bail bonds agents broke several of Applegate’s ribs. He filed suit alleging assault, trespass, and other causes of action. Applegate’s civil cause of action went to a jury trial in superior court. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Lucky Bail Bonds. On appeal, Applegate argued that under the [Restatement of Torts (Second)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restatement_of_Torts,_Second), bondsmen do not have a privilege to enter the private dwelling of a third party, and that the court’s admission of certain [jury instructions](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_instructions) was error. The court reviewed [RCW 18.185](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=18.185), which pertains to “Bail Bond Agents.” The statute defines a bail bond recovery agent as “a person who is under contract with a bail bond agent to receive compensation. . . for locating, apprehending, and surrendering a fugitive criminal defendant for whom a bail bond has been posted.” The statute requires recovery agents to be trained, tested, and licensed. The court also reviewed [RCW 18.185.270(1)](http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=18.185.270), which states that bail bond recovery agent on a recapture mission must carry a copy of the contract pertaining to the individual fugitive and, if requested, must present the copy to “the fugitive criminal defendant, the owner or manager of the property in which the agent entered in order to locate or apprehend the fugitive, other residents, if any, of the residence in which the agent entered in order to locate or apprehend the fugitive, and to the local law enforcement agency or officer.” Applegate argued that the statute does not specifically authorize a bondsman’s encounters with third parties on their property and in their dwellings, and that the trial court’s jury instructions submitted at trial misstated the law and endorsed the actions of “rogue bounty hunters.” Contrary to his argument, the Court of Appeals ruled that the jury instructions did not allow the jury to condone lawless behavior by rogue bounty hunters. If the jurors had believed the agents unreasonably attacked Applegate or broke into his home without reason to believe Elizabeth was there, the instructions required them to find that the agents exceeded the privilege and were acting unlawfully.” With that the Court of Appeals concluded the jury instructions did not misstate the law. Finally, the Court ruled that the jury instructions for [criminal trespass under RCW 4.24.630](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=4.24.630) were lawful and not erroneous. it reasoned that under the criminal trespass statute, the plaintiff must prove wrongful injury to property. An injury that is wrongful can be committed only by a person who “lacks authorization” so to act. Here, the bail bondsmen had a privilege to enter Applegate’s property. Therefore, they did not “lack authorization” under the statute. My opinion? Getting bailed out of jail is a luxury, however, it carries obligations that many defendants should be aware of. Worst-case scenario, bail bond companies can deploy bounty hunters to seek defendants who abscond their responsibilities. Period. Therefore, defendants should expect a knock on their front doors – *and* the front doors of their loved ones – if bounty hunters get involved. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bail, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Bounty Hunters, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [What Happened After Voters Legalized Recreational Marijuana?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/what-happened-after-voters-legalized-recreational-marijuana/) **Published:** January 2, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Reporter [Christopher Ingraham](https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/christopher-ingraham/?utm_term=.4f37c8100528) of the [Washington Post](http://www.washingtonpost.com) wrote an [article ](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/29/what-happened-in-washington-state-after-voters-legalized-recreational-weed/?utm_term=.fdfb6fa3799a)discussing how that the availability of recreational marijuana — in Colorado and elsewhere — is having little to no effect on teens’ propensity to smoke weed. **COLORADO** In his article, Ingraham supports his claim with [the official statistics](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/21/colorado-survey-shows-what-marijuana-legalization-will-do-to-your-kids/?utm_term=.37790027c454) out of Colorado through 2015. It’s also what [federal data shows nationwide](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/13/todays-teens-are-way-better-behaved-than-you-were/?utm_term=.ba0b7e0ea66d) through this year. And it’s also backed up by [other federal surveys of drug use](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/21/one-of-the-greatest-fears-about-legalizing-marijuana-has-so-far-failed-to-happen/?utm_term=.beee837947c8) in the states where marijuana is legal. It appears the data on this point has been consistent enough that longtime skeptics of the merits of marijuana legalization, like [Nora Volkow](https://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida/directors-page/biography-dr-nora-volkow) of the [National Institute on Drug Abuse](https://www.drugabuse.gov/), are expressing surprise at the findings. “We had predicted based on the changes in legalization, culture in the U.S. as well as decreasing perceptions among teenagers that marijuana was harmful that \[accessibility and use\] would go up,” [Volkow told U.S. News and World Report](http://www.usnews.com/news/data-mine/articles/2016-12-13/marijuana-is-harder-than-ever-for-younger-teens-to-find) earlier this month. “But it hasn’t gone up.” **WASHINGTON** However, [a study out Tuesday in the journal JAMA Pediatrics](https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-12/tjnj-dtp122216.php) flies somewhat in the face of the new conventional marijuana wisdom. Examining marijuana use among high school students in Washington state two years before and after the vote to legalize in 2012, it finds that rates of marijuana use increased by about 3 percent among 8th- and 10th-graders over that period. **INTERPRETING THE FINDINGS** The authors posit that reduced stigma about marijuana use is one factor leading to the results that they observed. “Our study suggests that legalization of marijuana in Washington reduced stigma and perceived risk of use,” said lead author [Magdalena Cerdá](http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/emergency/ourteam/faculty/cerda.html) of the [University of California in Davis](http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/index.html) in a news release, “which could explain why younger adolescents are using more marijuana after legalization.” The findings are something of a puzzle. The study found no change in marijuana use among 12th-graders in Washington state, which the authors said could be because the 12th-graders in the study were old enough that “they had already formed attitudes and beliefs related to marijuana use” before the legal change. The study also found no change in use among students at any grade level in Colorado. The authors write that Colorado had a robust medical marijuana industry in place well before full legalization, which may have affected youth attitudes and behaviors there before the study period. Among adolescents, the perceived harmfulness of marijuana [has been declining for decades among all age groups.](http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/data/16data.html#2016data-drugs) But at the same time, [adolescent use of marijuana has been flat or falling](http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/data/16data/16drfig3.pdf). This has led some researchers, including [Mark Kleiman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_A._R._Kleiman) of [New York University](https://www.nyu.edu/), to [rethink the nature of the link](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/18/legal-weed-having-little-effect-on-teen-marijuana-use-federal-data-shows/?utm_term=.e62b6f87523c) between what teens think about weed and whether they use it. In an email, Kleiman pointed out that in Washington state, the recreational marijuana market didn’t open until halfway through 2014, and then only in limited form. That’s halfway through the “after” period (2013 to 2015) in the JAMA Pediatrics study. “The effect of the legalization initiatives themselves on price and availability of cannabis really wasn’t felt until after” the study’s surveys were done, Kleiman said. “Any measured effect would be more likely the result of the political campaign around legalization than legalization itself.” Indeed, the study’s authors agree with that assessment. “Simply legalizing an activity can change people’s views about it and can change their behaviors as well,” said co-author [Deborah Hasin](https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/people/our-faculty/dsh2) of [Columbia University](http://www.columbia.edu/) in an email. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face [drug charges](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Distracted Driving, Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, DUI, I-502, law enforcement, marijuana, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [New Federal Data Shows Decrease in Drunk Driving Rates](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/new-federal-data-shows-decrease-in-drunk-driving-rates/) **Published:** January 2, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** According to reporter [Christopher Ingraham](https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/christopher-ingraham/?utm_term=.ad7dd74de438) of the [Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/), [new federal statistics show](https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/report_2688/ShortReport-2688.html) that the rate of drunken driving in the United States fell to a 13-year low in 2014, the latest year for which data is available. The rate of driving under the influence of illicit drugs has not changed meaningfully in recent years but remains slightly lower than it was in 2008 and 2009 at the start of the Obama administration. Here’s a summary of some other findings: - In 2014, 27.7 million people aged 16 or older (11.1 percent) drove under the influence of alcohol in the past year, and 10.1 million (4.1 percent) drove under the influence of illicit drugs in the past year. About 7.0 million (2.8 percent) drove under the influence of alcohol *and* illicit drugs in the past year, including 5.9 million (2.4 percent) who drove under the simultaneous influence of alcohol and illicit drugs in the past year. - The percentage of people driving under the influence generally increased with age through the young adult years and then declined with age thereafter; percentages were higher among males than females. - The percentage of people aged 16 or older who drove under the influence of alcohol in 2014 (11.1 percent) was lower than the percentages in 2002 through 2012 (ranging from 11.8 to 15.3 percent). - The percentage of people aged 16 or older who drove under the influence of illicit drugs was lower in 2014 (4.1 percent) than in 2002 through 2006 and in 2009 through 2010. - The percentage of people aged 16 or older who drove under the simultaneous influence of alcohol and illicit drugs was lower in 2014 (2.4 percent) than in 2002 through 2010 (ranging from 2.9 to 3.4 percent). Ingraham reported that although experts caution that while the trend is heading in the right direction, there’s still a lot of work to be done. “Although it is heartening to see a downward trend in levels of driving under the influence of alcohol, it still kills thousands of people each year and shatters the lives of friends and loved ones left behind,” said [Frances Harding](https://www.samhsa.gov/about-us/who-we-are/leadership/biographies/frances-harding), director of the [Center for Substance Abuse Prevention](https://www.samhsa.gov/about-us/who-we-are/offices-centers/csap) at [SAMHSA](https://www.samhsa.gov/), the agency that produces the survey. The SAMHSA survey showed that young adults — particularly men ages 21 to 25 — had by far the highest impaired driving rates. More than 1 in 5 men ages 21 to 25 drove drunk in 2014, nearly 1 in 7 drove under the influence of other drugs, and roughly 1 in 12 drove while simultaneously drunk and drugged. One the other hand, young adults have also seen the greatest reductions in drunken driving prevalence over the past 13 years. Since 2002, the drunken driving rate fell by fewer than three percentage points among drivers age 26 and older. But the rate among drivers ages 21 to 25 dropped by more than 10 percentage points. And the prevalence among the youngest drivers, ages 16 to 20, fell by more than half. Ingraham reports there’s no single factor driving the decline in drunken driving rates. The [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention credits interventions](https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/strategies.html) like strong drunken driving laws, public awareness campaigns, and ignition interlock systems that don’t allow drunk drivers to start cars. Some states are [experimenting with innovative programs](http://www.vox.com/2016/2/9/10955138/alcohol-247-sobriety-program) that essentially take away the right to drink alcohol, period, for people convicted of certain alcohol-related crimes. There’s also evidence that [ride-sharing services like Uber](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2783797) can reduce drunken driving rates, although [not all researchers agree](http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/29/487906925/uber-hasnt-had-an-effect-on-drunken-driving-deaths-study-finds) on this. My opinion? This is extremely good news. Although it’s important to save lives by reducing traffic accidents through education, prevention, and all other possible measures; it’s equally important that defendants facing these criminal charges hire capable and competent defense counsel as soon as possible to protect their rights, review the evidence and ensure a fair trial when necessary. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Blood Test, Boating Under the Influence, Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, DUI, marijuana, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Brady v. Maryland to the Rescue](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/brady-v-maryland-to-the-rescue/) **Published:** January 2, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[United States v. Yepiz](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/12/20/07-50051.pdf)*, the [Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) remanded the convictions for numerous defendants so that it may engage in the necessary fact-finding to ascertain whether a government’s witness received benefits that were undisclosed to the defendants at the time of trial. The defendants are all alleged to be members or associates of the [Vineland Boys](http://www.policemag.com/blog/gangs/story/2007/08/the-vineland-boys-gang.aspx) (“VBS”), a gang located in Southern California. On November 30, 2005, a grand jury returned a 78-count first superseding indictment charging appellants and approximately forty other individuals with crimes arising out of their membership or association with VBS. Seven of the nine defendants were charged with violating the [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act), and with RICO conspiracy, and all appellants were charged with [federal distribution of narcotics](http://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Chart-All-Fed-MMs-NW.pdf). Other charged counts included [violent crimes in aid of racketeering (“VICAR”)](http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/612), attempted murder, and [possession with intent to distribute cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana](https://federaldrugcharges.net/). Trial commenced on August 9, 2006. On October 26, 2008, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty as to five counts, a mistrial as to one count, and a verdict of guilty as to the remaining counts. The defendants timely appealed their convictions and sentences. This case was vigorously litigated over the course of two-and-a-half months. It presented the federal district court with a gauntlet of complex legal questions, and required it to grapple with unique concerns to courtroom safety and logistics. At trial, one of the government’s cooperating witnesses was Victor Bulgarian. In September of 2006, on direct examination, Bulgarian testified that he was previously arrested for possession and sale of methamphetamine in an unrelated case, and agreed to cooperate with law enforcement in exchange for a lesser sentence, and a grant of immunity for his testimony as a government witness. Bulgarian testified to having received no benefits from the government in exchange for his testimony. However, on cross-examination, Bulgarian testified to having received $5,000 in cash from the government after he testified to the grand jury in this case. Defendants noted that this testimony directly contravened a letter the government sent to them asserting that no witnesses received any benefits from the government in exchange for their testimony. The government acknowledged that it was “a glaring mistake,” but argued that the error was cured because defendants had ample opportunity to cross examine Bulgarian on the subject of the $5,000 payment. Defendants did not raise the issue again either at trial or in a post-trial motion. Approximately three years later, on August 20, 2009, Bulgarian testified in the trial of defendant Horacio Yepiz. On direct examination, Bulgarian once again testified to having received no benefit from the government in return for his testimony. ***On cross examination, however, Bulgarian testified that since his arrest for drug-related crimes in 2004, he had received roughly $100,000 to $200,000 in cash from five different law enforcement agencies, although he was unable to give an exact figure.*** He explained that he was able to solicit paid work from these agencies whenever he wanted (“I decide when I want to work, and when I work, I get paid.”). Indeed, he testified to having received $800 for three hours of work the week prior. Appellants now argue that the government violated [*Brady v. Maryland*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/373/83) by failing to disclose the full extent of the benefits Bulgarian received at trial. For those who don’t know, *Brady v. Maryland* was a landmark [United States Supreme Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States "Supreme Court of the United States") case that established that the [prosecution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution "Prosecution") must turn over all [evidence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence "Evidence") that might exonerate the defendant ([exculpatory evidence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exculpatory_evidence "Exculpatory evidence")) to the defense. On Appeal, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that, under *Brady*, the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. The Ninth Circuit further reasoned that in order to prevail on a Brady claim, the defendant must show that the evidence was material. Materiality is satisfied when “there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A ‘reasonable probability’ is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Here, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the government’s attempts to minimize the significance of Bulgarian’s testimony are not persuasive in light of the record: > “While some of Bulgarian’s testimony was independently corroborated, it nonetheless played a substantial role in the government’s case-in-chief. In particular, Bulgarian’s testimony was relied upon heavily by the government to show that VBS was a ‘criminal enterprise’ under RICO. Therefore, had the alleged *Brady* materials been made available to appellants at trial, there is a “reasonable probability” that the result of the proceeding would have been altered.” With that, and In light of the disputed facts surrounding defendants’ *Brady* claim, the Ninth Circuit remanded the convictions to the district court so that it may engage in the necessary fact-finding to ascertain whether Mr. Bulgarian received benefits that were undisclosed to appellants at the time of trial, and if so, whether Brady was violated as to each convicted count. My opinion? Good decision. Since *Brady* was decided in 1963, the [U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) has required that prosecutors and police officers disclose evidence that impeaches the credibility of any state witness, including police officers. Examples of impeachment evidence include false testimony, misrepresentations made in court documents, false information in police reports and internal police disciplinary proceedings. Unfortunately, that is not being done. There is no uniform system compiling *Brady* data; each county’s prosecuting attorney has different methods for assembling *Brady* information and different perspectives on when disclosure is constitutionally required. Naturally, this creates problems for defense counsel seeking exculpatory information from prosecutors and law enforcement agencies. Fortunately, competent defense counsel has ways of overcoming these challenges, as demonstrated by the excellent representation given to the defendants in this case. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Brady v. Maryland, Confidential Informants, Discovery, Drug Offenses, Due Process, Evidence, Informant, RICO, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Violent Crime, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Strict Liability Offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/strict-liability-offenses/) **Published:** January 9, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Burch](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2047558-8-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, [Division II of the WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held that in order to convict a defendant of [vehicular homicide](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.520) or [vehicular assault](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.522), the State need not prove that a driver acted with ordinary negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle if it merely proves that the driver was under the influence of alcohol or drugs while driving that vehicle. In December 2014, Burch was driving across an icy bridge when her truck spun out, slid off the road, and hit two men who were investigating the scene of an earlier accident. One of the men died and the other received serious injuries, including multiple broken bones and a severe ear laceration. Burch was uncooperative with law enforcement officers who responded to the scene. During their contact with Burch, the officers noticed that she smelled strongly of intoxicants. They restrained Burch and brought her to a hospital to [draw blood to test for intoxicants](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.506). Testing of that sample showed a [blood alcohol concentration](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.5055) of .09, indicating a concentration between .11 and .14 two hours after the accident. The State charged Burch with vehicular homicide and vehicular assault, alleging that she drove or operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug or any combination of the two, in a reckless manner, and with disregard for the safety of others. The jury found Burch guilty of both vehicular homicide and vehicular assault. In special verdicts, the jury found that Burch had driven while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, but had not driven recklessly. However, the jury was unable to agree as to whether she had driven with disregard for the safety of others. Burch appealed her convictions. The Court of Appeals addressed the sole issue of whether the crimes of vehicular homicide and vehicular assault committed while under the influence of alcohol or drugs require the State to prove ordinary negligence in addition to the fact that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Here, the Court of Appeals disagreed with Burch’s arguments that ordinary negligence is an element of vehicular homicide by [driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). The Court also reasoned, “Offenses that criminalize a broad range of apparently innocent behavior are less likely to be [strict liability offenses](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_liability). However, vehicular homicide committed by a driver under the influence encompasses little, if any, seemingly innocent conduct: > “Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs is itself a serious criminal offense. RCW 46.61.502(1). Therefore, operating a motor vehicle under the influence is rarely, if ever, innocent behavior. Because vehicular homicide while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs requires the State to prove the facts of both impairment and operation of a motor vehicle, the crime necessarily encompasses primarily or solely criminal behavior.” For those who don’t know, a “strict liability offense” strict liability exists when a defendant is in legal jeopardy by virtue of an wrongful act, without any accompanying intent or mental state. In criminal law, possession crimes and statutory rape are both examples of strict liability offences. With that, the Court of Appeals held that the legislature intended to impose strict liability for vehicular homicide while under the influence of alcohol or drugs: “These considerations, along with the analysis of relevant statutory language above, lead to a single conclusion: the trial court did not err by instructing the jury that it could convict Burch without finding ordinary negligence or any other culpable mental state.” The Court also held that the legislature intended vehicular assault by driving under the influence to be a strict liability offense, and that the trial court did not err by instructing the jury that it could convict without finding that Burch acted with ordinary negligence. My opinion? Vehicular Homicide and Vehicular Assault are particularly difficult to mount a legal defense against given the “strict liability” facets of the law. The prosecution does not need to prove intent as long as the offender had drugs or alcohol in their system at the time of the offense. Period. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Blood Test, DUI, felony, Legislation, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Strict Liability, Strict Liability Offenses, Vehicular Assault, Vehicular Homicide, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Promoting Prostitution](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/promoting-prostitution/) **Published:** January 10, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Barbee](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/927715.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) held that a pimp can be convicted on multiple counts of promoting prostitution when multiple prostitutes are involved. Defendant Shacon Barbee was a pimp that made money from prostitutes working under his supervision. Three young women that Barbee “supervised” during 2010 were SE, BK, and CW. **S.E.** SE met Mr. Barbee when she was 13 and began working for him as a prostitute when she was 16. Along with posting ads on websites such as [Backpage.com](http://www.backpage.com/), SE would also work “the track” (a slang term for working on the streets) in popular Seattle-area prostitution locations including [Aurora Avenue](http://kuow.org/post/why-there-so-much-prostitution-aurora-avenue-seattle) and [Pacific Highway South](http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/tougher-police-tactics-stinging-sex-buyers/). SE thought that Barbee cared about her and that they would spend their lives together. She was expected to make $1,000 a day or stay up at night until she met that quota. All of her earnings went to Barbee, who required SE to recruit other girls or young women to work for him as prostitutes. SE would peruse websites like [MySpace](https://myspace.com/) or [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/), looking for attractive girls who might be interested in “escorting.” During 2010, two of the women she recruited on Barbee’s behalf were two 18-year-olds, BK and CW. **B.K.** BK soon began working as a prostitute for Barbee, initially working out of a motel room and later moving to “the track.” After BK was arrested and then released from jail, she went to her parents’ house, intending to stop working for Barbee. A few months later, Barbee texted BK and convinced her to come to his apartment in Seattle. BK soon began living in the apartment and worldng for Barbee again. She testified at trial that Barbee took the keys to her car and refused to return them, would not allow her to leave the apartment during the day, and allowed her to go shopping or visit her daughter only if he accompanied her. At some point in late 2010, BK left and stopped working for Barbee permanently. **C.W.** Eighteen-year-old CW also worked for Barbee during 2010, but for a comparatively short time. She was living in Bellingham and working at a nursing home when SE began communicating with her via MySpace in early May. Excited about the idea of becoming more independent, CW packed her bags, borrowed a friend’s car, and moved to Seattle to meet SEat a Motel6 on Pacific Highway South. Once she arrived, CW was told that she would be worldng for Barbee as an escort, that all of her money would go to him, and that he would provide her with clothes, jewelry, and a place to live. A few weeks later, CW became disillusioned and texted Barbee that she was quitting. She left and never had contact with Barbee again. **THE ARREST & THE VERDICT** That December, SE arranged online to meet a client for an out-call at the Hampton Inn in Kent. Barbee drove SE to the motel and waited for her while she went inside. The client she had arranged to meet turned out to be an undercover officer. When SE arrived and agreed to have sex with the detective, she was arrested. After a short car chase, police officers arrested Barbee as well. The State charged Barbee with two counts of [promoting sexual abuse of a minor](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.68a.101) (SE), one count of [first degree promoting prostitution](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.88.070) (BK), one count of [second degree promoting prostitution](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.88.080) (CW), one count of [leading organized crime](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.82.060), two counts of first degree theft from the Social Security Administration, and one count of [second degree theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/theft/) from the [Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS)](https://www.dshs.wa.gov/). The jury found Barbee guilty on all counts, except that they found him guilty of the lesser included offense of second degree promoting prostitution of BK. **THE APPEAL** Barbee claims that the two counts of promoting prostitution of BK and CW constitute a single unit of prosecution, or that he committed a single “enterprise” of promoting prostitution that involved two prostitutes. On Appeal, he argues that his two convictions for promoting prostitution of different women as part of the same enterprise over the same period of time” encompassed a single unit of prosecution in violation of the double jeopardy prohibition clauses of our federal and state constitutions. **THE ISSUE** The WA Supreme Court addressed whether Barbee’s two counts of second degree promoting prostitution constitute a single unit of prosecution. Here, it appears so. **THE CONCLUSION** The Court decided that yes, Barbee’s two counts of Second Degree Promoting Prostitution constituted two distinct units of prosecution. **THE COURT’S ANALYSIS OF “UNITS OF PROSECUTION”** The WA Supreme Court reasoned that [Double Jeopardy](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/double_jeopardy) is violated when a person is convicted multiple times for the same offense. When the convictions are under the same statute, the court must ask what ‘”unit of prosecution”‘ the legislature intended as the punishable act under the specific criminal statute. The Court further reasoned that both constitutions protect a defendant from being convicted more than once under the same statute if the defendant commits only one unit of the crime. Thus, while a unit of prosecution inquiry is “one of constitutional magnitude on double jeopardy grounds, the issue ultimately revolves around a question of statutory interpretation and legislative intent.” Furthermore, the court reasoned that when engaging in [statutory interpretation](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/statutory_construction), its goal is to ascertain and carry out the intent of the legislature: “To determine legislative intent and thus define the proper unit of prosecution, we first look to the statute’s plain meaning. If the plain meaning of the statute is ambiguous, we may also determine legislative intent by reviewing legislative history.” Once we have defined the proper unit of prosecution, we perform a factual analysis to ascertain whether the facts in a particular case reveal that more than one “unit” is present. **THE COURT’S REASONING ON “UNITS OF PROSECUTION” IN ‘PROMOTING PROSTITUTION’ CASES** The Court reasoned that the plain Language of the Promoting Prostitution statute unambiguously authorizes multiple convictions when an individual promotes prostitution of multiple people: > “While the ‘evil’ of promoting prostitution may be the same regardless of how many prostitutes are “promoted,” it does not follow that a person is ‘equally guilty’ whether he pimps one prostitute or several. Rather, in statutes that involve crimes against persons, that guilt compounds in magnitude depending on the number of lives that are affected.” Ultimately, two “units” were clearly proper here: CW and BK are two distinct “persons” who were both exploited by Barbee. **CONCLUSION** In sum, the WA Supreme Court held that the legislature, by use of the language “a person,” unambiguously authorized a unit of prosecution for each person promoted. “When a defendant promotes prostitution of more than one individual, he or she may be prosecuted for more than one count.” Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision that Barbee’s convictions for promoting prostitution of BK and CW did *not* violate prohibitions on double jeopardy. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Double Jeopardy, felony, Promoting Prostitution, Rule of Lenity, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Unit of Prosecution, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Overbroad Parolee Searches](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/overbroad-parolee-searches/) **Published:** January 29, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Livingston](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2048118-9-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, the[ WA Court of Appeals Division II](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held that evidence collected during a warrantless search of the defendant’s vehicle following the defendant’s arrest on a [D.O.C. warrant](http://doc.wa.gov/information/policies/files/350750.pdf) is only admissible if there is a nexus between the community custody violation and the searched property. On May 29, 2014, DOC Officer Thomas Grabski observed a person, later identified as Darian Livingston, who he recognized as having an outstanding DOC arrest warrant; Livingston was washing a vehicle alone at a car wash. Officer Grabski called for assistance, and two more officers arrived to assist him. When the additional officers arrived, Livingston was talking with a person on a motorcycle. The person on the motorcycle drove away when the officers approached. Livingston was the only person near the vehicle. After confirming Livingston’s identity and the warrant, the officers arrested Livingston. The officers then asked Livingston about the vehicle he had been washing. He said it belonged to his girlfriend who had gone to a nearby store, but he later admitted that his girlfriend was in Seattle and could not pick up the vehicle. Livingston also admitted that he regularly drove the vehicle and that he had placed the key on the motorcycle when he first saw the officers. At the time of his arrest, Livingston was on active DOC probation. The DOC warrant issued in his name said there was “reasonable cause to believe Mr. Livingston\] violated a condition of community custody. DOC Officers Grabski and Joshua Boyd conducted a “compliance search” of the vehicle. When they conducted the search of the vehicle, the officers did not have any information about the nature of the violation that triggered the issuance of the DOC warrant. Inside the vehicle, the officers found mail and other documents with Livingston’s name on them, a single pill, and a prescription bottle containing eight pills. In the vehicle’s trunk, the officers found a black backpack containing scented oils, a loaded .40 caliber handgun, a box of ammunition, and more mail addressed to Livingston. During booking, Livingston revealed that he was also carrying a baggie of cocaine on his person. The State charged Livingston with [first degree unlawful possession of a firearm](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.040) (count I), [unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver (cocaine) ](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50&full=true#69.50.401)(count II), [bail jumping](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.76.170) (count III), [unlawful possession of a controlled substance (oxycodone)](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.4013) (count IV), and [unlawful possession of a controlled substance (hydrocodone/dihydrocodeinone)](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.4013) (count V). Before trial, Livingston [moved to suppress the evidence ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6)discovered during the vehicle search. The judge denied Livingston’s motion. He appealed. Livingston argued that the trial court erred in deciding that the vehicle search was lawful under [RCW 9.94A.631(1)](http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.631) because the officers had a reasonable belief that he had violated a community custody condition or sentencing requirement. Instead, he asked the Court of Appeals to follow [*State v. Jardinez*](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-jardinez-parole-officer-conducts-overbroad-search-of-defendants-ipod/) and hold that to justify such a search, the property searched must relate to the violation that the community custody officer (CCO) believed had occurred. First, the Court of Appeals reasoned that both [article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx) and the [Fourth Amendment ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment)to the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview) prohibit warrantless searches unless an exception exists. Washington law recognizes, however, that probationers and parolees have a diminished right of privacy that permits warrantless searches based on reasonable cause to believe that a violation of probation has occurred. This reduced expectation of privacy for parolees is recognized in RCW 9.94A.631(1), which states, > If there is reasonable cause to believe that an offender has violated a condition or requirement of the sentence, a \[CCO\] may require an offender to submit to a search and seizure of the offender’s person, residence, automobile, or other personal property. Second, the Court reasoned that pursuant to *State v. Jardinez*, there must be a nexus between the violation and the searched property. In *Jardinez*, the defendant’s parole officer searched his iPhone for no reason and found evidence linking Mr. Jardinez to criminal behavior. He was charged and convicted. On his appeal, the Court of Appeals examined the following official comment from the [Sentencing Guidelines Commission ](http://www.ofm.wa.gov/sgc/)(Commission) on RCW 9.94A.631(1): > “The Commission intends that \[CCOs\] exercise their arrest powers sparingly, with due consideration for the seriousness of the violation alleged and the impact of confinement on jail population. Violations may be charged by the \[CCO\] upon notice of violation and summons, without arrest. **The search and seizure authorized by this section should relate to the violation which the \[CCO\] believes to have occurred.”** Noting that Washington courts “have repeatedly relied on the Commission’s comments as indicia of the legislature’s intent,” Division Three concluded that the italicized portion of this comment “demands a nexus between the searched property and the alleged crime.” Following *Jardinez,* the Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred when it failed to consider whether there was a nexus between the violation and the searched property. With that, the Court affirmed Mr. Livingston’s bail jumping conviction, count III, and his unlawful possession of a controlled substance conviction charged as count II. However, the court reversed the order denying Livingston’s motion to suppress the evidence discovered in the vehicle search and remanded Livingston’s case back to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. My opinion? Good decision. I’ve discussed *Jardinez* in another post, and found that opinion compelling as well. Excellent use of prior precedents and [*stare decisis*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Department of Corrections, Drug Offenses, Evidence, felony, Firearm, Nexus, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Misconduct at Closing](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/misconduct-at-closing/) **Published:** February 7, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[In re Personal Restraint of Phelps](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2048011-5-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals Div. II ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo)held **(1)** expert testimony is required if the State intends to rely on the grooming process to prove and argue its case, **(2)** the Prosecutor improperly argued facts not in evidence about sexual grooming, and **(3)** this error resulted in prejudice to the defendant that requires a reversal of his convictions. **BACKGROUND** On June 8, 2012, Defendant Todd Phelps went to trial on his charges of [third degree rape](http://app.leg.wa.gov/Rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.060) and [second degree sexual misconduct with a minor](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.096). In February 2011, the victim AA was a minor who began playing softball on her high school team. Mr. Phelps was one of her coaches. Apparently, Mr. Phelps groomed AA into having sexual relations with him. At trial, the State did not present any expert or lay testimony about the grooming process. In closing argument, however, the prosecutor discussed some of the topics that he questioned the jurors about during jury selection, including the grooming process: > “Then we talked about grooming. We talked about the process of grooming. And some people came up with examples of how someone who is grooming is going to be nice. They are going to try to get the trust of someone. They are going to try and isolate that person so that they can do an act against this person who is being groomed. And it’s not just the person who is being groomed, but it’s other people that are around as well that are being groomed.” The prosecutor referred to the concept of grooming throughout his argument. For example, after talking about the alleged physical contact that occurred before the rape, the prosecutor argued, > “What is all this stuff that’s going on? What is all this physical contact between a coach and a student athlete? It’s grooming; it’s okay, every time I touch you, it’s okay, it’s okay. Eventually, it becomes the norm. The grooming isn’t in the open, folks. When people groom, they don’t do it so everybody can see. That’s not the way it works. It wouldn’t be called grooming. It would be called a crime because he’d be caught all the time.” The prosecutor further discussed how the grooming process took place over time and that, as part of it, Phelps told AA stories about how his wife refused to sleep in the same bed with him, how his wife had made out with another man, and other statements about his wife that were attempts to make AA sympathetic to him. The prosecutor then commented about Phelps’s sexual comments to AA and his physical contact with her, stating that “these are the things that are going on that she’s being told and groomed with throughout their contacts.” After discussing MM’s father’s testimony about Phelps bragging about his ability to control AA’s emotions, the prosecutor argued, > “So let me talk about grooming again. At this point, point of the rape, \[AA\] is pretty much isolated from her entire family until she eventually is allowed to move with her aunt. Remember the stories about her family, her grandma, her cousin, her aunt. She’s told these sex stories by the defendant. She’s told to break up with her boyfriend, don’t talk to your counselor. The defendant is meeting with her in private with other students, but no adults around. He has made her feel important throughout this entire incident. She felt he was the only one she could talk to.” These types of comments from the Prosecutor – and many others about grooming – were repeated and emphasized throughout closing argument. The jury found Phelps guilty of second degree sexual misconduct with a minor and third degree rape. Phelps appealed on the issue of whether the prosecutor committed misconduct by introducing the concept of grooming in closing argument without any evidentiary support or foundation; i.e., arguing that the prosecutor argued facts outside the record. **THE COURT’S ANALYSIS** The court reasoned that the [6th Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) to the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview) guarantees a defendant a fair, but not an error-free, trial. The burden to establish prosecutorial misconduct is on the defendant, who must show that the prosecuting attorney’s conduct was both improper and prejudicial. Prosecutorial misconduct is grounds for reversal only when there is a substantial likelihood that the improper conduct affected the jury. *Expert Testimony of Grooming.* The Court said expert testimony is required if the State intends to rely on the grooming process to prove and argue its case. Although the discussion of grooming in jury selection demonstrates that some of the jurors in this case had some general knowledge of grooming, this does not demonstrate that the jurors had the nuanced understanding of the grooming process that would enable them to understand its effect on things such as AA’s failure to report and how the grooming process may be used to influence others in order to increase the defendant’s credibility or undermine the victim’s credibility. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that the psychological complexities in understanding and evaluating the grooming process demand expert testimony to aid the jury. Ultimately, the Court reasoned that because the prosecutor’s grooming argument encompassed issues that are beyond the jury’s common understanding, Phelps is correct that the prosecutor should have presented expert testimony on this matter if the State wished to rely on these concepts in closing argument. *Arguing Facts Not in Evidence.* The Court held that the Prosecutor’s use of the grooming concept in closing argument without first presenting testimony about the grooming process was misconduct. There was no evidence of any kind before the jury explaining the grooming process, the potential purposes of grooming beyond achieving a sexual relationship with AA, or the effects of grooming on those around AA. Consequently, the State was required to present expert testimony on this aspect of the grooming process because these concepts were not within the common understanding of the jury. For that reason, the prosecutor was arguing facts that were not in evidence. *Flagrant, Ill-Intentioned & Incurable Prejudice.* The Court reasoned that the Prosecutor’s argument, without any evidentiary support, was also clearly prejudicial because it touched on credibility determinations that were key to this case given the circumstantial nature of the case and the lack of direct evidence of the criminal acts. The prosecutor’s argument focused on how Phelps’s grooming behaviors affected AA’s behavior and how those around AA perceived AA. It also was intended to rebut Phelps’s claims that his contact with AA was merely an innocent attempt to help a troubled young woman. Thus, this argument had a strong relationship to AA’s and Phelps’s credibility and potentially influenced the jury’s credibility determinations. Finally, the Court reasoned that any resulting prejudice from the Prosecutor’s statements at closing argument could not have been cured by a jury instruction: > “We hold that Phelps has shown that the prejudice could not have been cured by an instruction. The repeated and pervasive use of the grooming concept makes it less likely that the jury followed this instruction, particularly when the grooming evidence was relevant to the core credibility issues in a case with no direct evidence of the actual crimes. Thus, Phelps has established prosecutorial misconduct.” With that the Court reversed Phelps’ conviction. My opinion? Good decision. As a practice, expert witnesses are required to testify about issues which are beyond the common understanding of jurors. The topic of grooming sexual assault victims certainly requires an expert. Period. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Evidence, Expert Testimony, felony, Jury Trial, Juvenile, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Rape, Sex Crimes, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Deported After Conviction](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/deported-after-conviction/) **Published:** February 12, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Manajares](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/312712_pub.pdf)*, The [WA Court of Appeals Division III ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo)upheld the defendant’s 2002 conviction because at the time it was unforeseeable that the plea would result in deportation. In December 2002, defendant Jose Manajares entered an [*Alford* plea](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/alford_plea) to one count of [Unlawful Imprisonment](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.40.040), a Class C Felony. Before accepting the plea, the court asked Mr. Manajares if he understood that his “plea of guilty to this count is grounds for deportation from the United States, … exclusion from admission to the United States and denial of naturalization,” and he answered “Yes.” The court accepted the plea and sentenced Mr. Manajares. Shortly after he entered the plea, Mr. Manajares was removed from the United States by the [United States Immigration and Naturalization Service](https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/u-s-citizenship-and-immigration-services). Almost 10 years after his 2002 conviction, Mr. Manajares filed a [CrR 7.8 motion](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR7.8) to vacate his Alford plea. He argued he received [ineffective assistance of counsel ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ineffective_assistance_of_counsel)because Manjares’s defense attorney failed to advise him that his conviction could result in deportation. The Court reasoned that when determining whether a defense attorney provided effective assistance, the underlying test is always one of “reasonableness under prevailing professional norms.” ***PADILLA V. KENTUCKY.*** In [*Padilla*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-651.ZS.html), the [United States Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) recognized that immigration law can be complex,” and that “some members of the bar who represent clients facing criminal charges … may not be well versed in it. Because “there will, therefore, undoubtedly be numerous situations in which the deportation consequences of a particular plea are unclear or uncertain,” the Court announced the following standard for assessing a criminal defense lawyer’s duty: > “When the law is not succinct and straightforward … a criminal defense attorney need do no more than advise a non-citizen client that pending criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences. But when the deportation consequence is truly clear, … the duty to give correct advice is equally clear.” Therefore, the Court of Appeals reasoned whether Mr. Manajares’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim depended on whether truly clear adverse immigration consequences would follow from his 2002 plea that defense counsel failed to apprehend and explain. ***IMMIGRATION & NATIONALITY ACT.*** The Court also reviewed the [Immigration and Nationality Act](https://www.uscis.gov/laws/immigration-and-nationality-act), “which holds that any alien convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of … a crime involving moral turpitude ( other than a purely political offense) … is inadmissible.” [8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182). Here, the court reasoned it was unclear to both Mr. Manjares’s immigration attorney and his appellate attorney whether a conviction for unlawful imprisonment was an aggravated felony or a crime of moral turpitude which automatically triggers deportation. Additionally, the court reasoned it is not automatically deficient performance for a lawyer to permit a client to enter an *Alford* plea. For all of these reasons, the Court decided there was ultimately no deficient performance on the part of defense counsel. Mr. De Long’s review with Mr. Manajares of the general statutory deportation warning was therefore competent representation. My opinion? In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court’s *Padilla v. Kentucky* set the “bright line rule” that criminal defense attorneys must warn non-citizen clients of the risk of deportation if the defendant is considering a guilty plea. Employing [*Strickland v. Washington*‘s](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/466/668/case.html) test for evaluating whether legal counsel was “ineffective,” the Court held that criminal defense attorneys have an affirmative duty to warn their non-citizen clients of whether their guilty pleas carry a risk of removal from the United States, If counsel fails to issue a warning, he or she violates the defendant’s [Sixth Amendment ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment)right to effective assistance of counsel. Here, *Padilla’s* 2010 guidelines rules were not in effect because the defendant entered his plea in 2002. Therefore, defense counsel was no deficient in his performance. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Alford Plea, felony, Immigration, Ineffective Assistance, Sixth Amendment, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Diminished Capacity Defense Denied](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/diminished-capacity-defense-denied/) **Published:** February 15, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In a deeply divided decision of 5-4, = the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) held in *[State v. Clark](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/920214.pdf)* that the defendant’s [Diminished Capacity](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/diminished_capacity) defense was properly excluded at trial, even though lay witnesses could testify that the defendant was “slow,” participated in special education, and received Social Security disability benefits. The defendant Anthony Clark killed the victim, D.D., with a single gunshot to the back of his head. D.D.’s body was found in a garbage can behind the triplex apartment building where Clark lived. There were no eyewitnesses to the shooting other than Clark himself. The State theorized that Clark killed D.D. with premeditation in order to steal D.D.’s gun and cocaine. Clark contended the shooting was an accident. The primary disputed issue was thus Clark’s level of intent. **CHARGES** Clark was charged with [premeditated first degree murder](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/), [first degree felony murder](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/), [first degree robbery](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/robbery/), [unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/), and [second degree unlawful possession of a firearm](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/). Clark pleaded not guilty on all counts. **PROCEDURAL HISTORY** Before trial, the defense moved to suppress statements Clark made to police after the shooting, contending that he did not validly waive his [*Miranda* ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/miranda_warning)rights before speaking to police. To support its motion, the defense offered an expert evaluation from a doctor. At the suppression hearing, Dr. Oneal testified that Clark scored in the bottom first to third percentile in standardized intelligence tests. The court found that Dr. Oneal was a credible witness but denied Clark’s motion to suppress. The State then moved to exclude testimony about Clark’s “intellectual deficits” for trial purposes. However, Clark argued that the doctor’s testimony was admissible for three purposes: **(1)** to help the jury understand Clark’s affect during testimony, **(2)** to explain why Clark does not work, and **(3)** to contest the State’s evidence of intent. The court granted the State’s motion in part and excluded the doctor’s expert testimony because, in light of the fact that Clark specifically disavowed any intention to argue diminished capacity, expert testimony on Clark’s intellectual deficits would be irrelevant and confusing to the jury. It did, however, allow for relevant observation testimony bearing on Clark’s intellectual deficits, including his participation in special education, his receipt of Social Security disability benefits, and “that people who knew him considered him slow or tended to discount his testimony.” **JURY TRIAL** At trial, the defense renewed its request to admit the doctor’s expert testimony; arguing that the testimony was necessary to rebut the State’s evidence of intent and to explain Clark’s affect when he testified. Nevertheless, the defense consistently maintained that it was not asserting diminished capacity. The court adhered to its ruling excluding the doctor’s testimony and reminded counsel that relevant observation testimony by lay witnesses was admissible. The defense brought testimony that Clark had been in [special education](http://www.k12.wa.us/SpecialEd/default.aspx), had an individualized education plan, and received [Social Security disability benefits](https://www.ssa.gov/disabilityssi/). It relied on this evidence in its closing argument, emphasizing that Clark was “not your average 20 year old” and arguing that in light of Clark’s actual intellectual abilities, the State had not proved intent to commit murder. Clark was convicted of premeditated first degree murder as charged, as well as all the other charged counts. **ISSUES ON APPEAL** 1. Did the trial court properly exclude expert testimony regarding Clark’s intellectual deficits? 2. Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to object when the State informed prospective jurors that it was not seeking the death penalty? 3. Did cumulative error deprive Clark of his right to a fair trial? **ANALYSIS** ***1. The Court Properly Excluded Expert Testimony of Diminished Capacity Evidence.*** The Court gave background that under [ER 702](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=er&ruleid=gaer0702), expert testimony is admissible “if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” It also reasoned that diminished capacity “allows a defendant to undermine a specific element of the offense, a culpable mental state, by showing that a given mental disorder had a specific effect by which his ability to entertain that mental state was diminished.” Also, the intent to assert diminished capacity *must be declared before trial*. Pretrial disclosure is required because when asserting diminished capacity, the defense must obtain a corroborating expert opinion and disclose that evidence to the prosecution pretrial, giving the State a reasonable opportunity to decide whether to obtain its own evaluation depending on the strength of the defense’s showing,” citing [CrR 4.7(b)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR4.07). Ultimately, the Court rejected Clark’s arguments that his doctor’s expert testimony should have been admitted for the purpose of rebutting the State’s evidence of intent. > “However, expert opinion testimony that a defendant has a mental disorder that impaired the defendant’s ability to form a culpable mental state is, by definition, evidence of diminished capacity. And where, as here, the defense does not plead diminished capacity, such testimony is properly excluded.” Additionally, the Court rejected Clark’s arguments that his doctor’s testimony should have been admitted for the purpose of explaining Clark’s unusually flat affect while testifying: > “The jury had the ability to evaluate Clark’s affect to the same extent it had the ability to evaluate the affect of every testifying witness, and Clark has not shown that Dr. Oneal’s expert testimony would have been helpful for that purpose.” ***2. Defense Counsel Was Not Ineffective for Failing to Object When the State Informed Prospective Jurors It Was Not Seeking the Death Penalty.*** The Court gave background that in order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that trial counsel’s performance was “deficient,” and that, “but for counsel’s deficient performance, there is a ‘reasonable probability’ that the outcome would have been different.” Here, the Court reasoned there was no indication that the jury disregarded its instructions or paid less attention to the evidence presented throughout Clark’s trial because it was told that the death penalty was not at issue. Additionally, there was also no reason to believe that a contemporaneous objection by defense counsel would have reduced any potential for prejudice more than the court’s proper, written instructions did. “We thus hold that Clark has not carried his burden of showing prejudice and therefore has not established ineffective assistance of counsel.” ***3. Cumulative Error Did Not Deprive Clark of His Right to a Fair Trial.*** The Court reasoned Clark does not show any error, so the cumulative error doctrine does not apply. **CONCLUSION.** The Court concluded that Clark’s defense consisted of diminished capacity evidence. With that, the trial court properly excluded expert testimony from Clark’s doctor because Clark did not assert or plead diminished capacity or show that his doctor’s testimony was otherwise relevant. Moreover, the court properly allowed relevant observation testimony, which the defense relied on in its attempt to rebut the State’s evidence of intent. The Court affirmed his conviction. **THE DISSENT.** The dissenting judges reasoned that the trial court admitted certain lay observation testimony supporting the defense, but excluded the more neutral and more persuasive medical expert testimony supporting the same defense theory. It also reasoned that the majority judges wrongfully equated all expert testimony about intellectual deficits with a diminished capacity defense. Additionally, the dissenting judges reasoned that by excluding defense evidence that could rebut the State’s evidence of intent, the trial court violated Clark’s constitutional right to present a defense. Finally, the dissenters reasoned that the exclusion of expert testimony on Clark’s mild mental retardation was not harmless error: “To rebut the State’s evidence that he was a cold, calculated killer, Clark offered lay and expert testimony about how he was slow and did not process information the way other people his age did. But the trial court excluded most of it. It barred all testimony from Dr. Oneal about Clark’s substantial intellectual deficits. 6 Dr. Oneal would have testified, based on his personal testing and evaluation of Clark, that Clark was born prematurely and with significant developmental delays, was highly suggestible and therefore prone to change his story when pressured, and had a very low IQ score indicating that he had extremely poor perceptional reasoning, working memory, and verbal comprehension skills compared to others his age.” With that, the dissenting judges held that the trial court improperly excluded evidence of Clark’s intellectual deficits in violation of the [Evidence Rules](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.rulesPDF&groupName=ga&setName=ER) and Clark’s constitutional right to present a defense; and that this error was not harmless. My opinion? Diminished Capacity is a worthwhile – and difficult – defense to bring forward. Prosecutors consistently try to preclude defense counsel from bringing the defense. Here, it’s too difficult to determine why defense counsel did not assert the defense from the beginning. We’ll never know. Unfortunately for Mr. Clark, it the majority court believed Mr. Clark did not properly assert the defense. Instead, it allowed Clark to get some evidence of his mental deficits through law witnesses. This is lawful, albeit not enough. A defendant can assert a roundabout defense of diminished capacity through law witness observations. What’s problematic, however, is that law witnesses won’t bring the requisite level of insight that experts bring. Interesting opinion. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Diminished Capacity, Expert Testimony, felony, Homicide & Manslaughter, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [The Right to Hope for Jury Nullification](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/the-right-to-hope-for-jury-nullification/) **Published:** February 22, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Interesting [article ](https://www.cato.org/blog/right-hope-jury-nullification)by [Ilya Shapiro](https://www.cato.org/people/ilya-shapiro) of the [Cato Institute](http://www.cato.org) discusses whether [jury nullification](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_nullification) could aid a defendant who is facing deportation in lieu of receiving bad legal advice. According to Ms. Shapiro, defendant Jae Lee came to the United States legally as a child but never became a citizen. In 2009, he pled guilty to a drug crime after his lawyer assured him that he could not be deported. The lawyer was wrong, unfortunately, because the conviction made Lee subject to deportation. When Lee learned of this mistake, he asked the court to [vacate his plea ](http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/withdrawing-guilty-plea-criminal-case.html)so he could instead face trial, arguing that his [counsel’s assistance was ineffective](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ineffective_assistance_of_counsel). The court denied this motion because of the overwhelming evidence against Lee, ruling that his conviction at trial was so certain that his counsel’s bad advice didn’t actually harm him, particularly given the much longer prison sentence he would receive if convicted after trial. The [U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ](http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/)agreed with the law court’s ruling that a jury wasn’t needed to determine Lee’s guilt and that denying the “chance to throw a Hail Mary at trial is not prejudicial” and therefore doesn’t violate Lee’s [Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment). The court reasoned that that the only chance Lee had was acquittal by **“jury nullification”** and thus such a gambit was so irrational—and the idea of nullification so antiquated—that it is not to be allowed. For those who don’t know, jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of “Not Guilty” despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate they are charged with deciding. According to Shapiro, Mr. Lee is now taking the matter at the [United States Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/), which has agreed to hear his argument, which Cato is supporting with [this amicus brief](https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-content/uploads/lee_v_us_merits.pdf). The Supreme Court must now protect the right to pursue Mr. Lee’s potentially risky trial strategy. Although it may not be wise for Mr. Lee to seek acquittal by jury nullification, he should also have the right to decide whether the risk is worth facing as against the certainty of deportation. According to Shapiro, “It is not up to courts to pick which strategy is best for criminal defendants to follow, but judges should protect the right to choose a jury trial even when they might not make the same choice under the same circumstances.” The Supreme Court hears argument in[ *Lee v. United States* on March 28, 2017](http://www.theusconstitution.org/cases/lee-v-united-states-us-sup-ct). My opinion? This is a very relevant, timely, progressive and news-worthy development. The new administration’s goals to deport criminal immigrants puts a lot of pressure on our courts to enforce these policies. Ultimately, I predict an increase in post-conviction Motions to Withdraw guilty pleas based on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel under [*Padilla v. Kentucky*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-651.ZS.html), a 2010 United States Supreme Court case which held that defense attorneys **must** inform their clients whether his plea carries a risk of deportation. please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, family or friends are not U.S. citizens, yet face possible deportation for entering past guilty pleas which were ill-advised by defense counsel. Deportation is a terrible consequence for a prior attorney’s ineffective assistance of counsel. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, felony, Ineffective Assistance, Jury Nullification, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Trump v. Marijuana Legalization](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/trump-v-marijuana-legalization/) **Published:** February 25, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Interesting [news ](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article134605724.html)from [Sadie Gurman](http://www.sadiegurman.com/) of the [Associated Press](http://bigstory.ap.org/journalist/sadie-gurman) discusses Washington State’s Position challenging the [Trump administration’s](https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-trump) stance against recreational marijuana. Officials in Washington state, where recreational marijuana is legal, vow to fight any federal crackdown on marijuana after [White House spokesman Sean Spicer ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Spicer)vowed to increase enforcement of anti-pot laws. Apparently, [President Donald Trump](https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-trump) does not oppose medical marijuana, Spicer added, but “that’s very different than recreational use, which is something the Department of Justice will be further looking into.” In response, Bob Ferguson, attorney general in Washington state, said the following : “We will resist any efforts to thwart the will of the voters in Washington,” Ferguson said Thursday. Trump’s enforcement of federal laws against marijuana steps away from marijuana policy under the Obama administration, which said in a [2013 memo](https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf) that it would not intervene in states’ marijuana laws as long as they keep the drug from crossing state lines and away from children and drug cartels. Eight states and Washington, D.C., have legalized marijuana for recreational use. “Our state’s efforts to regulate the sale of marijuana are succeeding,” they wrote in the letter, which was released Thursday. “A few years ago, the illegal trafficking of marijuana lined the pockets of criminals everywhere. Now, in our state, illegal trafficking activity is being displaced by a closely regulated marijuana industry that pays hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes. This frees up significant law enforcement resources to protect our communities in other, more pressing ways.” Spicer’s comments came the same day a [Quinnipiac poll said 59 percent of Americans think marijuana should be legal ](https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us06062016_Unru52x.pdf/)and 71 percent would oppose a federal crackdown. Also, three presidents over the last 20 years have each concluded that the limited resources of the Justice Department are best spent pursuing large drug cartels, not individual users of marijuana. [Nevada state Senate Majority Leader Aaron Ford](https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Legislator/A/Senate/Current/11) said in a statement Thursday that meddling in recreational pot laws would be federal overreach and harm state coffers that fund education. My opinion? I’m surprised Mr. Trump doesn’t see the financial benefits of legalizing marijuana for recreational use. In Washington state, sales at licensed pot shops now average nearly $4.4 million per day — with little evidence of any negative societal effects. That’s close to $1 billion in sales so far for the fiscal year that began last July, some $184 million of which is state tax revenue. Trump is a business man. If the facts are true, then why *not allow* states to regulate the issue within their borders? Better yet, why not legalize marijuana on the federal level? Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, I-502, Legislation, marijuana, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Trump Administration, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State Senate Passes Bill Making Fourth DUI a Felony.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-senate-passes-bill-making-fourth-dui-a-felony/) **Published:** February 25, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [WA State Senate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_State_Senate) has unanimously passed a bill that would make [driving under the influence](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.502) [(DUI)](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) a felony if the driver has three or more prior offenses on their criminal record within 10 years. [Senate Bill 5037 passed Thursday](http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5037&Year=2017) and now heads to the House, where it has stalled in previous years. The bill’s sponsors are as follows: [Padden](http://leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/default.aspx#padden), [Frockt](http://leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/default.aspx#frockt), [O’Ban](http://leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/default.aspx#oban), [Darneille](http://leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/default.aspx#darneille), [Miloscia](http://leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/default.aspx#miloscia), [Kuderer](http://leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/default.aspx#kuderer), [Zeiger](http://leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/default.aspx#zeiger), [Carlyle](http://leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/default.aspx#carlyle), [Pearson](http://leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/default.aspx#pearson), [Conway](http://leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/default.aspx#conway), [Rolfes](http://leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/default.aspx#rolfes), [Palumbo](http://leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/default.aspx#palumbo), [Angel](http://leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/default.aspx#angel), and [Wellman](http://leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/default.aspx#wellman). Under the measure, a person who is charged with a fourth DUI, and has no other criminal history, would be subject to a [standard sentencing range](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.530) of 13 to 17 months in jail. However, this bill allows [first-time felony offenders](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.650) to spend up to six months in jail, instead of nine, and finish out the rest of their sentence under supervision, such as attending [Alcoholics Anonymous](http://www.aa.org/) meetings and other programs. My opinion? We shouldn’t be surprised. Over the past 20 years, Americans have seen a significant increase in the harsh penalties for intoxicated drivers. Perhaps this is necessary move given the thousands of lives lost to drunk drivers. Speaking as a criminal defense attorney, there’s serious question as to whether people commit these violations purely out of willful disregard for the law and for the safety of others or because of an untreated mental illness or alcohol addiction. Nevertheless, public outcry has led to increased sentences. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Blood Test, Boating Under the Influence, Department of Licensing, Diminished Capacity, Drug Court, Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, DUI, felony, First Time Offender Waiver, I-502, Ignition Interlock Device, Implied Consent, Jail, Legislation, marijuana, misdemeanor, Persistent Offender, Prison, Sentencing, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Lower .08 to .05?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/lower-08-to-05/) **Published:** February 26, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Interesting [article](http://www.king5.com/mb/news/local/olympia/should-washington-lower-the-legal-alcohol-limit/410198813) from [Heather Bosch](http://heatherbosch.com/) of [KING 5 news](http://www.king5.com/) reports that Washington state lawmakers are considering lowering the legal limit for driving under intoxication (DUI) from .08 to .05. “The research shows impairment begins with the first drink,” said [Representative John Lovick](http://housedemocrats.wa.gov/legislators/john-lovick/), D-44th District. “And I believe this after being a state trooper for 31 years.” Lovick said he based his legislation, [House Bill 1874](http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1874&Year=2017), on recommendations from the [National Transportation Safety Board.](https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Pages/2013_Impaired_Driving_BMG-FAQs.aspx) According to Bosche, however, the [American Beverage Institute](https://abionline.org/) opposes the bill and similar legislation being proposed in [Hawaii ](http://mauinow.com/2017/02/21/abi-opposes-bill-to-lower-legal-limit-to-05-in-hawai%CA%BBi-other-states/)and [Utah](http://fox13now.com/2016/12/30/utah-lawmaker-wants-to-lower-dui-rate-from-08-to-05/). The industry group claims only a small percentage of deadly car crashes are caused by drivers with a blood alcohol concentration between .05 and .08, and that a 120-pound woman could reach .05 with just little more than one drink. A 150-pound man could reach it after two. “The move would target responsible and moderate social drinkers while ignoring the hardcore drunk drivers who pose the greatest threat to safety,” said American Beverage Institute Managing [Director Sarah Longwell](https://abionline.org/aboutus/). In short, Longwell says what’s needed is better enforcement of current laws: “We have to focus on the real problem and not be distracted by feel-good legislation that criminalizes perfectly responsible behavior,” said Longwell. Representative John Lovick agrees that current laws could be better enforced, but says lowering the alcohol limit to .05 would be “a great first step in letting the public know that we are serious about keeping people who drive drunk, off the streets.” Bosche reports that a public hearing before the [House Transportation Committee ](http://leg.wa.gov/House/Committees/TR/Pages/default.aspx)will be held Tuesday. The bill already cleared the [House Public Safety committee](http://leg.wa.gov/House/Committees/PS/Pages/default.aspx), but not without controversy. “There will be a few ‘no’ votes on this side of the aisle,” [Representative Dave Hayes](http://www.electdavehayes.com/) (R-10th District) said during a recent hearing. “My personal viewpoint on this is just the fact that I don’t believe it’s necessary to reduce the blood alcohol level, based on testimony and my own personal experience in processing DUIs.” Hayes is a sergeant with the [Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office](http://snohomishcountywa.gov/1949/Sheriffs-Office). Lovick is the former Snohomish County Sheriff. The [National Transportation Safety Board](https://www.ntsb.gov/Pages/default.aspx) has said that if every state lowered the legal blood alcohol limit to .05, it would save 1,000 lives every year. Interestingly, [Mothers Against Drunk Driving](http://www.madd.org/?referrer=https://www.google.com/) (MADD) [does not support the measure](https://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/05/28/madd-founder-dont-lower-the-legal-bac-limit), calling it a “waste of time” because most people who are under .08 can pass field sobriety tests. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Blood Test, Boating Under the Influence, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, Implied Consent, Legislation, marijuana, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Taping Cops is Free Speech](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/taping-cops-is-free-speech/) **Published:** February 28, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals](http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-10312-CV0.pdf) held that videotaping or filming police activities is protected by the First Amendment. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Phillip Turner, a computer science major at [Austin Community College](http://www.austincc.edu/), started collecting video of police activities after he said a Cedar Park police officer blocked his view when filming a [DUI](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.502) arrest several years ago. He filed a complaint and during an investigation learned that there wasn’t an established right to film the police. Armed with his understanding of the law, Turner has since posted a [series of videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/TheBattousai1776) on his website where he challenges police officers and police department policies on videotaping of their activities. On the day of the incident, Mr. Turner was video recording a[ Fort Worth police station](https://www.fortworthpd.com/) from a public sidewalk across the street when Officers Grinalds and Dyess approached him and asked him for identification. Turner refused to identify himself, and the officers ultimately handcuffed him and placed him in the back of a patrol car. The officers’ supervisor, Lieutenant Driver, arrived on scene. after Driver checked with Grinalds and Dyess and talked with Turner, the officers released Turner. He filed suit against all three officers and the City of Fort Worth under [42 U.S.C. § 1983](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983), alleging violations of his [First](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment) and [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) rights. Each officer filed a motion to dismiss, insisting that he was entitled to qualified immunity on Turner’s claims. The district court granted the officers’ motions, concluding that they were entitled to [qualified immunity ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity)on all of Turner’s claims against them. Turner appealed. **THE COURT’S DECISION** Ultimately, the Court affirmed in part and reverse and remand in part. “Filming the police contributes to the public’s ability to hold the police accountable, ensure that police officers are not abusing their power, and make informed decisions about police policy,” [Justice Jacques Wiener](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_L._Wiener_Jr.) wrote in an opinion joined by [Justice Stephen Higginson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_A._Higginson). “Protecting the right to film the police promotes First Amendment principles.” The 5th Circuit made it clear that such activity to be protected, saying that “a First Amendment right to record the police does exist, subject only to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions,” Justice Wiener wrote. > “Filming the police contributes to the public’s ability to hold the police accountable, ensure that police officers are not abusing their power, and make informed decisions about police policy . . . Protecting the right to film the police promotes First Amendment principles.” The 5th Circuit sent the case back to the lower court to examine Turner’s claims that he was unlawfully arrested. The court cleared the officers on that point, determining the acted appropriately. In her dissent, [Justice Edith Clements](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Brown_Clement) said Turner’s First Amendment rights were not violated and that the officers acted reasonably in detaining Turner. Turner’s attorney [Kervyn Altaffer](https://www.avvo.com/attorneys/75204-tx-kervyn-altaffer-105078.html) called the 5th Circuit’s ruling a significant one in a complicated area of the law. “I think any time one of the federal court of appeals says that something is protected by the Constitution, that is important for all people,” Altaffer said. “I definitely think they the police overstepped. … This is supposed to be a free country.” My opinion? Cameras make everyone behave. And I’m extremely happy the 5th Circuit describes this behavior as protected free speech. Kudos to the 5th Circuit. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Cell Phone, Constitutional Rights, First Amendment, law enforcement, Qualified Immunity, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [The Most Charged Crime](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/the-most-charged-crime/) **Published:** March 3, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Apparently, the most commonly charged crime in Washington State – [Driving While License Suspended in the Third Degree](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.342) (DWLS III)- shouldn’t be a crime at all, the state chapter of the [American Civil Liberties Union](https://www.aclu-wa.org/) argues in a [new report](https://www.aclu-wa.org/docs/driven-fail-high-cost-washingtons-most-ineffective-crime). In “*Driven to Fail: The High Cost of Washington’s Most Ineffective Crime – DWLS III*” the report describes the costs of enforcing this law, explores how it burdens individuals and communities, and calls for policies that address the harm of driving with a suspended license without criminalizing it. According to the ACLU, taxpayers spend more than $40 million a year to prosecute cases of DWLS III. “Not every social problem needs to be treated as a crime,” said [Mark Cooke](https://www.aclu-wa.org/node/10002), the ACLU of Washington’s [Campaign for Smart Justice](https://www.aclu.org/feature/campaign-smart-justice) Policy Director. “DWLS III enforcement costs taxpayers millions of dollars, yet does little to improve public safety. The crime is largely punishing people for being poor, not because they are scofflaws or dangerous drivers,” said Cooke. Typically, a DWLS III charge comes about this way: A driver receives a ticket for a [moving violation (such as speeding or rolling through a stop sign)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_violation) and for various reasons does not follow through by paying the ticket or showing up in court to contest it. Hundreds of thousands of people in Washington have had their license suspended for not responding to a ticket for a moving violation. Those who continue to drive once their license is suspended may be arrested and charged with DWLS III. The report estimates that Washington taxpayers have spent more than **$1.3 billion** enforcing this crime between 1994 and 2015. These costs stem from the filing of nearly 1.5 million DWLS III criminal charges, resulting in nearly 900,000 convictions. In 2015, there were nearly 40,000 DWLS III charges filed, costing taxpayers $42,199,270. The report also shows that the law is applied unequally across the state and disproportionately impacts people of color, the young, and the poor. The report recommends that the crime of DWLS III should be taken off the books. Short of that, law enforcement, prosecutors and courts can exercise their inherent discretion and treat DWLS III as a civil offense and offer[ relicensing programs](http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/district-court/citations-or-tickets/relicensing-program.aspx). Civil remedies and relicensing can be more effective and use fewer criminal justice resources. The data in the report also shows that some jurisdictions, such as the cities of Yakima and Seattle, have started to treat DWLS III as a non-criminal offense. My opinion? It’s no mystery that DWLS III allows police to arrest people with suspended licenses. However, most don’t know that it allows police to search people’s vehicles *after* arrest. Therefore, any contraband, guns or other illegal items found in people’s cars can be lawfully seized. Additionally, the defendant will face unlawful possession charges for whatever contraband found during the search. In my opinion, this is the essence of an unlawful [pretextual search](http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/police-traffic-stop-pretext-search-evidence.html). And for that reason, DWLS III should be a civil infraction which circumvents the need for arrest and searches. It should not be a crime. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** ACLU, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Driving While License Suspended/Revoked, Due Process, misdemeanor, Race & Law, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [DUI: Men vs. Women](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/dui-men-vs-women/) **Published:** March 8, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [news article](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/traffic/rules-of-the-road/article136251028.html) from the [Bellingham Herald ](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/)discusses the physiological differences in alcohol impairment levels experienced between men and women. In [*Who Gets Arrested More for DUI: Men or Women?*](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/traffic/rules-of-the-road/article136251028.html), author Doug Dahl states that over the past couple decades, alcohol-impaired driving has steadily been decreasing, however, the reduction in impaired driving doesn’t apply to women. Dahl is the [Target Zero ](http://targetzero.com/)Manager for the [Whatcom County Traffic Safety Task Force](http://wtsc.wa.gov/Counties/whatcom-county/). Apparently, in [a recent 10-year period](http://www.academia.edu/13839487/An_evaluation_of_the_narrowing_gender_gap_in_DUI_arrests), DUI arrests for men decreased by 7.5 percent while DUI arrests for women increased by 28.8 percent. “According to the [CDC](https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html), the average weight of an American man is 196 pounds, while the average American woman weighs 166 pounds,” said Dahl. “Also, because of differences in enzymes, hormones and body fat percentages between men and women, women generally metabolize alcohol at a slower rate.” Simply put, says Dahl, women get drunk faster and stay drunk longer than men: > “To be clear, both of our imaginary people in this example shouldn’t drive. A BAC of .06 will cause impairment. It’s a big enough concern that legislators in some states, including Washington, have proposed reducing the legal limit to .05.” Mr. Dahl further states that the level of impairment between a BAC of .06 and .09 is significant. According to a [study of impaired driving crashes](http://www.dunlapandassociatesinc.com/crashriskofalcoholinvolveddriving.pdf), a driver with a BAC of .06 is about 1.6 times more likely to cause a crash than a sober driver. For a driver with a BAC of .09, that jumps up to 3.5 times more likely. “Don’t judge your own impairment based on how someone else handles the same amount of alcohol, and always have a plan for a safe ride home before going out for drinks,” says Dahl. Regardless of your gender, please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or relative faces charges of [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). These charges are serious, threaten careers and can significantly limit one’s driving privileges. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Blood Test, Deferred Prosecution, Department of Licensing, Driving While License Suspended/Revoked, Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, DUI, Implied Consent, law enforcement, marijuana, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [The "Drug House" Statute](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/the-drug-house-statute/) **Published:** March 11, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Menard*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/339441_pub.pdf?utm_source=State+February+2017+pt+2&utm_campaign=State+Case+Updates+Feb+2017+pt+2&utm_medium=email), the [WA Court of Appeals Division II](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) reversed the lower court dismissal of charges of [Maintaining a Drug Dwelling under RCW 69.50.402](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.402). **BACKGROUND** The defendant Rodney Menard owned and lived at his home in [Yakima](http://www.visityakima.com/). Menard lived at the home since he was 5 years old. He rented rooms to five individuals, occasionally received [methamphetamine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine) from tenants as rent payment, consumed twenty dollars’ worth of methamphetamine per day, and possessed drug pipes. Menard knew his tenants used methamphetamine, but denied knowledge of the use of his home for methamphetamine sales. The [Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) ](https://www.dea.gov/index.shtml)received complaints of drug traffic from Menard’s home. On July 15, 2015, a DEA [confidential informant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informant) purchased approximately a gram of methamphetamine at Menard’s home. On July 23, 2015, the DEA Task Force conducted a narcotics search. The front door was unlocked. Rodney Menard and thirteen other individuals were present when law enforcement officers entered the residence. In a basement bedroom, a lady rested on a small couch with a bag of methamphetamine next to her pillow. Law enforcement officers spoke with Rodney Menard and other residents of the home. When asked if people who visit take drugs, Menard answered: “most people do.” Two renters informed the officers that 10 to 15 different people came daily to the house to use drugs. Menard claimed he unsuccessfully tried to end the heavy traffic at the house. Officers confiscated drug paraphernalia and 25.5 grams of drugs inside the home. **MOTION TO DISMISS** Menard was charged with Maintaining a Drug Dwelling under RCW 69.50.402. He filed a [*Knapstad* motion](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/dismissing-cases-through-knapstad-motions/) under arguments that (1) his conduct is unlawful only if the drug activity constituted the residence’s major purpose, and (2) selling drugs was not the primary purpose of the residence. The trial court granted Menard’s motion to dismiss. The State appealed. **LAW & ANALYSIS** The Court of Appeals reasoned that under Washington law, a defendant may present a pretrial motion to dismiss a charge when the State lacks ability to prove all of the elements of the crime. RCW 69.50.402(1), known colloquially as the “Drug House” Statute, declares: > It is unlawful for any person: ( f) Knowingly to keep or maintain any … dwelling, building … or other structure or place, which is resorted to by persons using controlled substances in violation of this chapter for the purpose of using these substances, or which is used for keeping or selling them in violation of this chapter. Here, Menard argued that he may be found guilty of maintaining a drug dwelling only if he maintains the home for the principal purpose of facilitating the use of controlled substances. However, the Court of Appeals disagreed. The court reasoned that to convict under the “Drug House” Statute, the evidence must demonstrate more than a single isolated incident of illegal drug activity in order to prove that the defendant “maintains” the premises for keeping or selling a controlled substance. The Court further reasoned that sporadic or isolated incidents of drug use are not enough to prove criminal conduct. Here, however, there was substantial evidence that people other than Menard used drugs in the house. Apparently, 10 to 15 people each day entered the home to use drugs. When police searched the house, fourteen people, some of whom admitted to use of methamphetamine, occupied the premises. One resident rested methamphetamine near her pillow. Officers found drug devices scattered throughout the home. When asked if people who visit take drugs, Menard answered: “most people do.” With that, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal of charges. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DEA, Drug House, Drug Offenses, Evidence, felony, Knapstad Motion, Methamphetamine, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Froehrich: Unlawful Inventory Search](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-froehrich-unlawful-inventory-search/) **Published:** March 12, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Froehlich*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2048026-3-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf?utm_source=State+February+2017+pt+2&utm_campaign=State+Case+Updates+Feb+2017+pt+2&utm_medium=email), the [WA Court of Appeals Division II ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo)upheld the suppression of methampetamine found in a vehicle because the defendant’s car was unlawfully searched. **BACKGROUND** Ms. Froehlich was driving her car. She collided with a pickup truck waiting at a stop sign. After the collision, the car came to rest on the right shoulder of the highway. It was not obstructing traffic. A [Washington State Patrol](http://www.wsp.wa.gov/) Trooper arrived at the scene. By this time, Froehlich was seated in the pickup truck that she had hit. Ms. Froehlich eventually left the scene in an ambulance after talking with police at the scene. One trooper followed her to the hospital to do sobriety testing, and she was not arrested. However, the trooper at the scene of the accident decided to impound her car. At the scene, he performed an [inventory search](https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/inventory-search/) of the vehicle which also included the search of Froerich’s purse which she left inside the car. He found methamphetamine. Ms. Froehrich was charged with [Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Substance With Intent to Manufacture or Deliver](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). Froehlich filed a [motion to suppress](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) the methamphetamine, arguing in part that the Trooper had no reason to impound the car and failed to consider reasonable alternatives to impoundment. The trial court granted the motion, suppressed the evidence and ultimately dismissed the charges. The State appealed. **ANALYSIS** Ultimately, the Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that the impoundment was not lawful and therefore the search was not lawful because **(1)** under the community caretaking exception, the State did not prove that the impounding officer considered whether Froehlich, her spouse, or her friends were available to remove the vehicle; and **(2)** even though there was statutory authority for impoundment, the State failed to prove that the impounding officer considered all reasonable alternatives. The Court reasoned that both the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) to the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview) and [article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx) prohibit warrantless searches unless an exceptions to the warrant requirement applies. One exception to the warrant requirement is a non-investigatory, good faith inventory search of an impounded vehicle. Law enforcement may lawfully impound a vehicle for three reasons: **(1)** as evidence of a crime, **(2)** under the community caretaking function, or **(3)** when the driver has committed a traffic offense for which the legislature has expressly authorized impoundment. Even if one of these reasons exists, however, an officer may impound a vehicle only if there are no reasonable alternatives. Here, the Trooper’s impoundment of Froehlich’s car was not lawful under the community caretaking function because there were reasonable alternatives to impoundment. Here, the Trooper never asked Froehlich about arranging to have someone else remove the car as an alternative to impoundment, and the State presented no evidence that the Trooper considered Froehlich’s ability to arrange for the car’s removal. **CONCLUSION** Because Richardson unlawfully impounded the vehicle, his seizure of methamphetamine from Froehlich’s purse was unlawful. My opinion? Good decision. Very simple, straightforward and correct analysis. As usual, I’m extremely impressed with Division II’s handling of search and seizure issues, especially when it comes to vehicle searches. Here, it’s clear that police officers cannot go about impounding people’s vehicles and searching through belongings when reasonable legal alternatives exist. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Community Caretaking, Constitutional Rights, Dismissal, Drug Offenses, Evidence, felony, Inventory Searches, law enforcement, Methamphetamine, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Another Study Finds Few Consequences For Prosecutor Misconduct](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/another-study-finds-few-consequences-for-prosecutor-misconduct/) **Published:** March 18, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Blogger [Radley Balko](https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/radley-balko/?utm_term=.70069c7bfcdd) of the Washington Post describes how a [large-scale study](https://eye.necir.org/2017/03/06/scant-discipline-follows-prosecutors-impropriety-massachusetts/) from the [New England Center for Investigative Reporting](https://necir.org/) discovered that systemic [prosecutor misconduct](http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/58-prosecutorial-misconduct.html) in Massachusetts dated back to 1985. The report found more than 1,000 cases in which misconduct was alleged by criminal defendants and 120 in which a state appeals court reversed conviction due to misconduct. The group found an additional 134 verdicts reversed or thrown out due to misconduct after reviewing data from the state bar. Balko says it’s difficult to draw conclusions from the raw number of incidents because most prosecutor misconduct goes unreported. He says the failure to turn over [exculpatory evidence](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exculpatory_evidence) often becomes apparent only once a defendant has exhausted their appeals, after which the defense gets access to the prosecutor’s files. But by this point, many defendants no longer have legal counsel. Additionally, Balko poignantly describes why defense attorneys intentionally do *not* report prosecutorial misconduct: > “When defense attorneys *do* find misconduct by prosecutors, there are also some strong incentives against reporting it. Most criminal defense attorneys will also have several other clients being prosecuted by the same office, perhaps even the same prosecutor. Reporting misconduct could jeopardize the attorney’s ability to bargain for those clients. Often, the more enticing option is to use the discovery of misconduct as a bargaining chip to get a better deal for the defendant in that case and perhaps earn favor from the prosecutor in others.” The topic is not new to Mr. Balko. He summarized a handful of similar studies in [a piece for the Huffington Post a few years ago](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/01/prosecutorial-misconduct-new-orleans-louisiana_n_3529891.html). “There are a handful of ways to keep wayward public officials honest,” says Balko. He believes in the success of [electoral accountability](http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-polisci-031710-103823) as a viable option. Still, relying on voters to keep prosecutors honest is a risky proposition. “The groups more likely to be victimized by excessive prosecutors are also the groups with the least amount of political power.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Qualified Immunity, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [No Motion to Suppress?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/no-motion-to-suppress/) **Published:** March 23, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*Mahrt v. Beard*](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/03/01/15-16404.pdf), the [9th Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) held that a defendant may bring a pre-plea [ineffective assistance of counsel](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ineffective_assistance_of_counsel) claim when counsel’s failure to argue a [motion to suppress](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/motion_to_suppress) the fruits of a search prevents the defendant from making an informed choice whether to plead guilty. **BACKGROUND FACTS** On September 3, 2012, [Sonoma County Sheriff’s](https://www.sonomasheriff.org/) deputies were dispatched to a residence in Petaluma, California. A neighbor had reported that a male and female subject were arguing over a gun. The Defendant Gregory Mahrt was living in a garage on the property that had been converted into a room. As the deputies approached the property, Mahrt walked out and met them at the front gate. The deputies detained Mahrt and asked about the argument, the gun and whether anyone else was inside the residence. Mr. Mahrt was “uncooperative.” The deputies conducted a [“protective sweep”](http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/protective-sweeps-police.html) of Mahrt’s room in the garage. As the deputies approached the garage, Mahrt began yelling that he did not want the officers to enter his room. According to the report, the deputies observed ammunition cans, ammunition, and what appeared to be an [AR-15 Rifle](http://www.stagarms.com/ar15-rifles/) (later determined to be a replica). The deputies subsequently learned that Mahrt had a prior felony conviction and arrested him for being a [felon in possession of ammunition](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/). The deputies then asked Mahrt for permission to search his room. This is where the facts differ: according to police reports, Mr. Mahrt consented. The deputies conducted a second search of the room. They found additional ammunition, rifle magazines, and two firearms. According to Mahrt, however, he did not consent to the search. On September 5, 2012, the State of California charged Mahrt with having been a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of [California Penal Code § 29800(a)(1) ](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=29800)and [§ 30305(a)(1)](http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-30305.html). Mahrt believed that the warrantless search (or searches) of the garage was (or were) illegal. ***However, neither of the two public defenders who represented him at the trial court level moved to suppress the firearms and ammunition recovered from his room.*** Nevertheless, despite his defense counsel’s failure to move to suppress, Mahrt pleaded guilty to both charges and received a six-year sentence. He appealed. On appeal, Mahrt’s appointed counsel did not raise any issues. Instead, his counsel filed a [*Wende* brief](http://www.capcentral.org/criminal/wende/index.asp), the California analogue to an [*Anders* brief](https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/anders-brief/). A *Wende* brief is filed when a California appellate attorney concludes that an appeal would be frivolous. On November 27, 2013, the California Court of Appeal affirmed Mahrt’s conviction. On April 11, 2014, Mahrt filed a [federal habeas petition](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/habeas_corpus) pursuant to [28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)](http://www.uscourts.gov/forms/habeas-corpus-petitions/petition-writ-habeas-corpus-under-28-usc-ss-2254). The petition alleged that Mahrt’s [Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel](https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt6frag9_user.html) was violated by his trial counsels’ failure to move to suppress the firearms and ammunition found in his room. A magistrate judge, sitting by consent, granted Mahrt’s petition. The State timely appealed. **ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION** 1. *The Defendant May Proceed With a Pre-Plea Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim.* The 9th Circuit reasoned that Mahrt’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, premised upon a failure to file a motion to suppress, is squarely within this line of case discussing pre-plea ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to file a motion to suppress: > “The State’s entire case against Mahrt depended on its ability to introduce into evidence the firearms and ammunition found in his room. If the deputies unconstitutionally searched Mahrt’s home, counsel’s failure to move to suppress the fruits of that search prevented Mahrt from making the informed choice to which he was entitled.” *2. Mahrt’s Counsel Was Ineffective.* The Court held that Mahrt’s counsel was ineffective in failing to move to suppress the firearms and ammunition. It reasoned that there was at least a chance that such a motion would have succeeded. First, there was a clear conflict in the available evidence. Second, a police officer’s report mischaracterized the first search as a “protective sweep.” The Court reasoned that a warrantless protective search is permitted under [*Maryland v. Buie*](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/494/325.html), based on the “interest of the officers in taking steps to assure themselves that the house in which a suspect is being, or has just been, arrested is not harboring other persons who are dangerous and who could unexpectedly launch an attack.” Here, Mahrt was being detained by the deputies, and they had no reason to suspect that there was some other person inside the residence who could pose a danger to themselves or to others. Consequently, the Court reasoned that defense counsel should have filed and argued a motion to suppress the search of Maert’s premises. My opinion? It’s very importnant to retain qualified defense counsel in search and seizure cases such as this. Here, the defendant accepted a plea bargain on the advice of defense counsel who, according to the court, failed to argue motions to suppress. Pretrial motions are essential. It’s imperative to hire defense counsel who know the law and argue it effectively. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Firearm, Ineffective Assistance, Search and Seizure, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Jail Mail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/jail-mail/) **Published:** March 23, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[Mangiaracina v. Penzone](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/03/03/14-15271.pdf)*, the [Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/)held that prisoners have a [Sixth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) right to be present when legal mail related to a criminal matter is inspected. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Nick Mangiaracina was jailed as a pre-trial detainee in [Maricopa County’s](https://www.mcso.org/) Fourth Avenue Jail in Phoenix, Arizona. The jail’s stated policy is to open legal mail addressed to a prisoner only in the presence of that prisoner. Mangiaracina alleged, however, that his mail was repeatedly opened outside his presence in contravention of this policy. His complaint included descriptions of nine specific instances of the jail improperly opening his mail to/from his attorney. In describing his injury resulting from the improper opening of his legal mail, Mangiaracina alleged that he and his two attorneys “are afraid to communicate by mail which is hard as I have so many cases and so much paperwork to go back and forth.” He further explained that his “right to confidentiality and privacy was violated” and that his “defense strategy and his rights in general were just shredded.” **PROCEDURAL HISTORY** Mangiaracina initially filed suit in [Arizona superior court](https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/) pursuant to[ 28 U.S.C. § 1983](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983), alleging violations of his [First ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment)and[ Sixth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) rights by a number of jail employees and John Doe defendants. The case was moved to federal court. Unfortunately, the [U.S. district court](http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/) ultimately dismissed Mangiaracina’s complaint with prejudice. it noted that Mangiaracina had failed to specifically allege that the pieces of mail were marked as “legal mail” and that, for most of the instances, he failed to explain how he knew the mail was opened outside his presence. He appealed to the Ninth Circuit. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Ninth Circuit reasoned that under the[ U.S. Supreme Court’s](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) [*Wolff v. McDonnell*](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/418/539.html) and the Ninth Circuit’s [*Nordstrom v. Ryan*](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1675162.html), that prisoners have a Sixth Amendment right to confer privately with counsel and that the practice of opening legal mail in the prisoner’s presence is specifically designed to protect that right. Furthermore, other circuit courts have similarly recognized the importance of this practice. In [*Jones v. Brown*](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1256761.html), the [Third Circuit](http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/) recognized, in the context of a First Amendment challenge, that opening legal mail outside the addressee’s presence was unlawful. The Ninth Circuit further reasoned that the jail failed to identify any legitimate penological interest that would be served by opening legal mail outside Mangiaracina’s presence: “As we have emphasized in the past, a criminal defendant’s ability to communicate candidly and confidentially with his lawyer is essential to his defense.” By necessity, reasoned the court, prisoners and pre-trial detainees rely heavily on the mail for communication with their attorneys. Unfortunately, the Maricopa County jail system does not allow incoming phone calls or provide access to e-mail, and outgoing phone calls can only be placed as collect calls. With that, the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court’s dismissal of Mangiaracina’s Sixth Amendment and First Amendment claims with respect to some mail-opening incidents and affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the remaining counts of alleged improper mail opening. My opinion? **Excellent decision**. It’s extremely difficult to communicate with jailed clients. Some jails offer limited hours of visitation and/or phone calls. Reading a defendant’s jail mail deprives the expression of confidentiality and chills the inmates’ protected expression. This is wrong, and violates a defendant’s First Amendment rights. With respect to phone calls, I don’t discuss important details over the jail phones because the conversations are recorded. Although recorded phone calls with my clients are inadmissible at trial, these conversations are still surveillance which can “tip off” prosecutors to the strategies and tactics I develop with my clients. Kudos to the Ninth Circuit for a very well-reasoned and substantial decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, First Amendment, Jail, Search and Seizure, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["No-Impeachment Rule" vs. Race Bias](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/no-impeachment-rule-vs-race-bias/) **Published:** March 28, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-606_886b.pdf)*, the [U.S. Supreme Court ](https://www.supremecourt.gov/)held that when a juror says he or she relied on racial stereotypes to convict a criminal defendant, the [Sixth Amendment ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment)requires that the “No-Impeachment Rule” give way in order to permit the trial court to consider the evidence of the juror’s statement and any resulting denial of the jury trial guarantee. **BACKGROUND FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY** In 2007, in the bathroom of a Colorado horse-racing facility, the defendant Peña-Rodriguez allegedly sexually assaulted two teenage sisters. The girls told their father and identified Peña-Rodriguez as an employee of the racetrack. The police located and arrested him. Each girl separately identified Peña-Rodriguez as the man who had assaulted her. At trial, a Colorado jury convicted the defendant Peña-Rodriguez of [Harassment ](http://www.lpdirect.net/casb/crs/18-9-111.html)and [unlawful sexual contact](http://www.lpdirect.net/casb/crs/18-3-404.html). During deliberations, a juror named “H. C.” had expressed anti-Hispanic bias toward the defendant and his alibi witness. Defense Counsel, with the trial court’s supervision, obtained affidavits from the two jurors who witnessed and heard the racially biased statements from juror “H.C.” Defense Counsel motioned for a new trial on the grounds of juror bias. Although the trial court acknowledged racial bias, it denied Defense Counsel’s [motion for a new trial](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_59) on the ground that [Colorado Rule of Evidence 606(b)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_606) generally prohibits a juror from testifying as to statements made by other jurors during deliberations. The case made it’s way to the U.S. Supreme Court **ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The U.S. Supreme Court held that when a juror makes a clear statement indicating that he or she relied on racial stereotypes to convict a criminal defendant, the Sixth Amendment requires that the no-impeachment rule give way in order to permit the trial court to consider the evidence of the juror’s statement and any resulting denial of the jury trial guarantee. *Curing Racial Bias* The Court began by saying that the [Civil War Amendments](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Amendments) created the imperative to purge racial prejudice from the courts. It explained that ever since then, time and again, this Court has enforced the Constitution’s guarantee against state-sponsored racial discrimination in the jury system. The Court has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit the exclusion of jurors based on race, struck down laws and practices that systematically exclude racial minorities from juries, ruled that no litigant may exclude a prospective juror based on race and held that defendants may at times be entitled to ask about racial bias during voir dire. The Court further reasoned this specific case lies at the intersection of the Court’s decisions endorsing the “No-Impeachment Rule” and the need to eliminate racial bias in the jury system. Those lines of precedent need not conflict. Moreover, the Court said racial bias implicates unique historical, constitutional, and institutional concerns and, if left unaddressed, would risk systemic injury to the administration of justice. *ER 606(b): The “No-Impeachment” Rule* Under ER 606(b), a juror may not testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury’s deliberations; the effect of anything on that juror’s or another juror’s vote; or any juror’s mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment. The court may not receive a juror’s affidavit or evidence of a juror’s statement on these matters. However, exceptions exist. For example, a juror may testify about whether **(a)** extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention; **(b)** an outside influence was improperly brought to bear on any juror; or **(c)** a mistake was made in entering the verdict on the verdict form. “This case lies at the intersection of the Court’s decisions endorsing the no-impeachment rule and those seeking to eliminate racial bias in the jury system,” said the Court. “Racial bias . . . implicates unique historical, constitutional, and institutional concerns and, if left unaddressed, would risk systemic injury to the administration of justice.” With that in mind, the Court reasoned that a constitutional rule that racial bias in the justice system must be addressed—including, in some instances, after a verdict has been entered—when necessary to prevent a systemic loss of confidence in jury verdicts; which is “a confidence that is a central premise of the Sixth Amendment trial right.” *The Test* The Court reasoned that before the “No-Impeachment” Rule can be set aside, there must be a threshold showing that one or more jurors made statements exhibiting overt racial bias that cast serious doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the jury’s deliberations and resulting verdict. “To qualify, the statement must tend to show that racial animus was a significant motivating factor in the juror’s vote to convict.” The Court explained that whether the threshold showing has been satisfied depends on the circumstances, including the content and timing of the alleged statements and the reliability of the proffered evidence. In constructing this rule, the Court said that standard and existing safeguards may prevent racial bias in jury deliberations, including careful voir dire and a trial court’s instructions to jurors about their duty to review the evidence, deliberate together, and reach a verdict in a fair and impartial way, free from bias of any kind. With that, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Mr. Peña-Rodriguez’s conviction and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. My opinion? Great decision. This case represents a substantial step toward eliminating racial bias in our courtrooms. Even better, this decision is consistent with pre-existing Washington law under [*Seattle v. Jackson*](https://casetext.com/case/seattle-v-jackson). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** "No-Impeachment" Rule, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Jury Trial, Race & Law, Sex Crimes, Sixth Amendment, Uncategorized, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Unlawful Property Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/unlawful-property-seizure/) **Published:** March 29, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Rivera](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2047326-7-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, the WA Court of Appeals Div. II decided a trial court lacks authority to order defendants to forfeit their property as a condition of their felony sentencing. **BACKGROUND & FACTS** On September 20, 2014, Alicia Clements arrived at defendant Kevin Rivera’s home to serve him papers concerning a civil matter. Ms. Clements exited her vehicle to tape the documents to a post near Mr. Rivera’s driveway. While Clements was posting the paperwork, Rivera and his wife came out the front door and into the driveway. Rivera yelled at Clements that she was trespassing and needed to leave. As Clements was getting back into her car, Rivera took down the documents she posted and approached her car to return them. In the process of returning the documents, Rivera shattered the driver’s side window on Clements’s car, causing glass to cascade into the car and onto the street. Ms. Clements claimed that her window was completely rolled up and that Rivera had deliberately punched through the window with the documents in hand, striking her twice with his fist in the process. However, Rivera stated that Clements’s window was still open when he returned the documents, but that because Clements was attempting to roll up her windows, his fingers caught the edge of the window causing it to shatter. Both Rivera and Clements called 911. [Pierce County Sheriff’s Deputies](http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/index.aspx?NID=1966) responded to the incident. Mr. Rivera for assault. The State charged Rivera with [second degree assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) by battery under RCW 9A.36.021(1)(a), [felony harassment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/harassment/), and [third degree malicious mischief](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/malicious-mischief/). At trial, Rivera conceded that he had broken Clements’s window, but argued he did so accidentally rather than intentionally. The jury convicted Rivera of second degree assault and third degree malicious mischief. As part of his sentence, Rivera was required to forfeit “all property.” **CONCLUSION & ANALYSIS.** The Court of Appeals held that the trial court lacked authority to order property forfeiture as a sentencing condition. It reasoned that under [*State v. Roberts*, 185 Wn. App. 94, 96, 339 P.3d 995 (2014)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/46386-5.15.pdf), the authority to order forfeiture of property as part of a judgment and sentence is purely statutory.. In other words, a trial court has no inherent power to order forfeiture of property in connection with a criminal conviction. With that, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred by ordering forfeiture of seized property as a sentencing condition. My opinion? Good decision. I’ve *never* heard of courts seizing a defendant’s property as a condition of sentencing. Indeed, the [Fifth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment) states that a person may not be deprived of property by the government without “due process of law,” or fair procedures. Typically, if property is an issue, then courts can lawfully order a defendant to pay restitution to the victim for the loss or damage to victim’s property. This makes sense. But to actually *take* a defendant’s property as a sentencing condition? No. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, felony, Fifth Amendment, Harassment, Jury Trial, Property Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Pretrial Custody Held Unlawful](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/pretrial-detention-held-unlawful/) **Published:** April 4, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[Manuel v. Joliet](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/14-9496_8njq.pdf)*, the [U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) held that a person’s pretrial detention for alleged crimes can violate the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) if the judge’s determination of [probable cause](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause) was based solely on [fabricated evidence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_evidence). **BACKGROUND FACTS** During a traffic stop, police officers in Joliet, Illinois, searched the defendant Elijah Manuel and found a vitamin bottle containing pills. Suspecting the pills to be illegal drugs, the officers conducted a field test, which came back negative for any controlled substance. Still, they arrested Manuel and took him to the police station. There, an [evidence technician](http://study.com/articles/Evidence_Technician_Career_Information_and_Requirements_for_Becoming_an_Evidence_Technician.html) tested the pills and got the same negative result, but claimed in his report that one of the pills tested “positive for the probable presence of [ecstasy](https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/mdma-ecstasymolly).” An arresting officer also reported that, based on his “training and experience,” he “knew the pills to be ecstasy.” On the basis of those false statements, another officer filed a sworn complaint charging Manuel with [unlawful possession of a controlled substance](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.4013). *Pretrial Detention* Relying exclusively on that complaint, a county court judge found probable cause to detain Manuel pending trial. While Manuel was in jail, the Illinois police laboratory tested the seized pills and reported that they contained no controlled substances. ***But Manuel remained in custody, spending a total of 48 days in pretrial detention.*** For those who don’t know, [pretrial detention](https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/pre-trial-detention/) refers to detaining of an accused person in a criminal case before the trial has taken place, either because of a failure to post bail or due to denial of release under a pre-trial detention statute. *Civil Rights Lawsuit* At any rate, more than two years after his arrest, but less than two years after his criminal case was dismissed, Manuel filed a [civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U. S. C. §1983 ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983)against Joliet and several of its police officers (collectively, the City), alleging that his arrest and detention violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Federal District Court dismissed Manuel’s suit, holding, (1) that the applicable two-year statute of limitations barred his unlawful arrest claim, and, (2) that under binding legal precedent, pretrial detention following the start of legal process could not give rise to a Fourth Amendment claim. Manuel appealed the dismissal of his unlawful detention claim. however, the [Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals](http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/) affirmed the ruling. Manuel appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. **ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION** The U.S. Supreme Court decided that Mr. Manuel may indeed challenge his pretrial detention on Fourth Amendment grounds even though he was in custody. It explained that the Fourth Amendment prohibits government officials from detaining a person without probable cause. Furthermore, where legal process has gone forward, but has done nothing to satisfy the probable-cause requirement, it cannot extinguish a detainee’s Fourth Amendment claim. “That was the case here,” said the Court. “Because the judge’s determination of probable cause was based solely on fabricated evidence, it did not expunge Manuel’s Fourth Amendment claim.” Consequently, Mr. Manuel proved a valid a Fourth Amendment claim when he sought relief for his arrest and pretrial detention. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals should have determined the claim’s accrual date, unless it finds that the City has previously waived its timeliness argument. In doing so, the court should look to the [common law of torts ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tort)for guidance while also closely attending to the values and purposes of the constitutional right at issue. With that, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded. My opinion? Good decision. Pretrial release is a huge issue in criminal law. In Washington, both [CrR 3.2](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.2) and [CrRLJ 3.2.1](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=clj&set=CrRLJ&ruleid=cljcrrlj3.2.1) govern the release of people accused of crimes. The purposes of the pretrial release decision include providing due process to those accused of crime, maintaining the integrity of the judicial process by securing defendants for trial, and protecting victims, witnesses and the community from threat, danger or interference. The judge or judicial officer decides whether to release a defendant on personal recognizance or unsecured appearance bond, release a defendant on a condition or combination of conditions, temporarily detain a defendant, or detain a defendant according to procedures outlined in these Standards. Ultimately, the law favors the release of defendants pending adjudication of charges. Deprivation of liberty pending trial is harsh and oppressive, subjects defendants to economic and psychological hardship, interferes with their ability to defend themselves, and, in many instances, deprives their families of support. Here, Mr. Manuel was held in jail for 48 days when police lacked probable cause on any charges. That’s awful. Fortunately justice was served when his case was dismissed and that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld his lawsuit. For more information on getting released from jail, please read my Legal Guide titled, [Making Bail](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/making-bail/). And please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) for a free consultation if you, a friend or family member find themselves in jail. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Detention, Drug Offenses, Due Process, Evidence, felony, Jail, Pretrial Release, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Independent Blood Tests](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/independent-blood-tests/) **Published:** April 7, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Sosa*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/338592_pub.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals Div. III ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo)decided there is no requirement that an officer performing a blood draw on a DUI suspect must advise the driver that the driver has the right to an independent blood alcohol test. **BACKGROUND FACTS** On March of 2014, defendant Jose Sosa’s vehicle crossed the center line of U.S. Route 12, causing a two-car collision. Mr. Sosa called 911 and law enforcement responded to the scene. On contact, the responding officer noticed Mr. Sosa smelled of alcohol and showed signs of impairment. In response to questioning, Mr. Sosa disclosed that he had some beer earlier but did not provide any specifics. An ambulance transported Mr. Sosa to the hospital. At the emergency room, a state trooper contacted Mr. Sosa. Again, Mr. Sosa was noted to smell of alcohol and display signs of impairment. The trooper asked Mr. Sosa if he would be willing to do a voluntary [field sobriety test](http://dui.findlaw.com/dui-arrests/field-sobriety-tests.html). Mr. Sosa did not respond. The trooper then offered to administer a [portable breath test (PBT)](https://www.justia.com/criminal/drunk-driving-dui-dwi/docs/the-legal-environment.html), which would have provided a preliminary indication of Mr. Sosa’s BAC. Again, Mr. Sosa did not respond. Based on the trooper’s observations, a warrant was obtained to procure a sample of Mr. Sosa’s blood. Three and a half hours after the accident, Mr. Sosa’s BAC was 0.12. Mr. Sosa was arrested and charged with [vehicular assault](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.522). Several days after the accident, the driver of the vehicle hit by Mr. Sosa returned to the hospital because of abdominal pain. Doctors performed a lifesaving partial splenectomy. Mr. Sosa’s case proceeded to trial. The jury found Mr. Sosa guilty of vehicular assault via all three of the charged alternatives: ( 1) operating a vehicle in a reckless manner, (2) operating a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, and (3) operating a vehicle with disregard for the safety of others. On appeal, Mr. Sosa argues evidence of his blood test results should have been suppressed because he was not advised, at the time of the blood draw, of the right to independent testing. Former RCW 46.61.506(6) (2010) stated: “The person tested may have a physician, or a qualified technician, chemist, registered nurse, or other qualified person of his or her own choosing administer one or more tests in addition to any administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer. … ” On this argument, Mr. Sosa alleged his constitutional rights were violated. **COURT’S ANALYSIS** The Court reasoned that cases relied on by Mr. Sosa in support of his right-to-advice argument interpret prior versions of the Revised Code of Washington. The statutes in effect at the time of Mr. Sosa’s offense no longer required advice about independent testing in the context of a blood draw: > “Had Mr. Sosa’s offense taken place prior to the 2013 amendment, he undoubtedly would have been entitled to advice about independent blood testing. But this is no longer so. Our case law addressing the [implied consent warning](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.308) has always been based on statutory principles, not constitutional grounds.” In short, the Court stated there is no independent constitutional right to such advice. Accordingly, any failure of law enforcement to advise Mr. Sosa about the right to an independent test had no bearing on the State’s evidence or Mr. Sosa’s conviction. With that, the court rejected Mr. Sosa’s challenge to his conviction based on the blood test results. My opinion? Had Mr. Sosa’s offense taken place prior to the 2013 amendment, he undoubtedly would have been entitled to advice about independent blood testing. But this is no longer so. Washington’s implied consent law changed after the [U.S. Supreme Court’s](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) decision in [*Missouri v. McNeely*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_v._McNeely), which held the taking of a DUI suspect’s blood without a warrant violates the suspect’s rights under the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) to the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview) and the [exigency exception to the warrant requirement](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exigent_circumstances) generally does not apply. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Blood Test, Constitutional Rights, DUI, Evidence, Implied Consent, Jury Trial, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Vehicular Assault, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Race Bias Video for Jurors](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/race-bias-video-for-jurors/) **Published:** April 8, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [King County Bar Association Bulletin](https://www.kcba.org/newsevents/barbulletin/Default.aspx) reported recent efforts to tackle the problem of [race bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_bias_in_criminal_news_in_the_United_States) in juries. In [*U.S. District Court Produces Video, Drafts Jury Instructions on Implicit Bias*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicupload/eclips/2017%2004%2006%20US%20District%20Court%20Produces%20Video%20Drafts%20Jury%20Instructions%20on%20Implicit%20Bias.pdf), [Judge Theresa Doyle](http://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/courts/superior-court/docs/judges/doyle-bio.ashx?la=en) of the [King County Superior Court](http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superior-court.aspx) discussed how our federal courts created an instructional video on race bias to be viewed by potential jurors. **RACE BIAS** For those who don’t know, racial biases are a form of [implicit bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_stereotype "Implicit stereotype"), which refers to the attitudes or stereotypes that affect an individual’s understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner. These biases, which encompass unfavorable assessments, are often activated involuntarily and without the awareness or intentional control of the individual. Residing deep in the [subconscious](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subconscious "Subconscious"), these biases are different from known biases that individuals may choose to conceal for the purposes of social and/or [political correctness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness "Political correctness"). “We all have biases,” writes Judge Doyle in her article. “These unconscious, instantaneous, almost automatic judgments can help us get through the day. However, when those unconscious biases stereotype a person because of race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, age or other qualities, they are no longer helpful but harmful to the right to a fair trial.” She discusses how results from the [Implicit Association Test (IAT)](https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html) and other research show a high and nearly universal preference of whites over blacks. Even with African-American test-takers, 40 percent showed a pro-white preference. “Jurors bring these biases to court when they report for jury service,” said Judge Doyle. “However, where race is never mentioned but lurks in the background, e.g., where a party in a case . . . is a person of color, that racial or ethnic bias is most likely to rear its ugly head.” **BACKGROUND TO THE CREATION OF THE VIDEO** Judge Doyle described how in 2015, [then-Chief Judge Marsha Pechman](http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/judges/pechman-bio) of the [Federal U.S. District Court of Western Washington](http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/) appointed a committee to develop an answer to the question of what should courts do about the biases and prejudices that jurors bring with them to court. Apparently, at the same time, the [federal defenders](https://waw.fd.org/) were conducting a criminal trial. During [jury selection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_selection), the federal defenders showed a videotape that dealt with potential race bias. After the trial was concluded, the committee spoke to [Judge Jones](http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/judges/jones-chambers), the [federal prosecutors](https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa), defense lawyers and some of the jurors. Judge Doyle said that based on all of the committee work, including the interviews, the committee developed a script and worked with a production company to produce a video presentation on the nature and impact of implicit or unconscious bias.” In February, after nearly two years of work, the video was finished and the committee had developed [pattern jury instructions on implicit bias](https://www.courts.wa.gov/index.cfm?fa=home.contentDisplay&location=PatternJuryInstructions) for use in criminal cases; which were adopted by the Court. “The instructions incorporate language regarding unconscious bias into a preliminary instruction, the witness credibility instruction, and a closing instruction,” said Judge Doyle. **THE VIDEO** A link to the video and jury instructions is [here](http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/jury/unconscious-bias). It features [Judge Coughenour](http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/judges/coughenour-chambers), defense attorney [Jeffery Robinson](https://www.avvo.com/attorneys/98104-wa-jeffery-robinson-11053.html), and [Annette Hays](https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/meet-us-attorney), acting U.S. attorney for the Western District of Washington. “These three explain how such automatic preferences and biases can influence our perceptions and decisions, threatening the constitutional right to fair trial and due process, and jeopardizing public confidence in the legal system,” says Judge Doyle. “Research shows that awareness of unconscious biases is key to minimizing their effects on perceptions and decision making.” My opinion? My hat’s off to the judges and attorneys involved in the creation of this video. During jury selection, I’ve struggled to introduce these controversial and galvanizing topics. Talking about race is a difficult needle to thread. It can raise suspicion that defendants are trying to “play the race card” on behalf of my Client, which is exactly *un*true: I’m trying to take the “race card” off the table. Fortunately, this video – a tool from the courts, and not an advocate – educates the jury and approaches the subject of race bias from a more objective place. Kudos to the federal courts. Good work. I’m proud of you. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Race & Law, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Interpreting Gone Wrong](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/interpreting-gone-wrong/) **Published:** April 8, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Aljaffar*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/331717_pub.pdf?utm_source=Copy+of+State+March+2017&utm_campaign=State+Case+Updates+March+2017&utm_medium=email), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) held that although the court failed to (1) appoint a certified Arabic interpreter during Mahadi Aljaffar’s felony trial, and (2) failed to make a good cause finding prior to utilizing the services of an *un*certified interpreter, the defendant nevertheless failed to establish prejudice because he failed to adequetely preserve the Constitutional issues for appeal. Therefore, his convictions were affirmed. **BACKGROUND FACTS.** Defendant Mahadi Aljaffar is a [Saudi Arabian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia) national living in the United States on a [student visa](https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/study-exchange/student.html). His primary language is Arabic. He was charged in [Spokane County ](https://www.spokanecounty.org/1140/Superior-Court) Superior Court with several felony sex offenses arising from incidents involving two separate women inside a nightclub bathroom. On the morning of Mr. Aljaffar’s trial, the State said it was unable to obtain the assistance of a certified Arabic interpreter. Washington has only one certified Arabic interpreter and that individual resides in the Seattle area. The State claimed this circumstance made arranging for the assistance of a certified interpreter logistically difficult. Rather than proceed with a certified interpreter, the State proposed proceeding to trial with an interpreter named Imad Beirouty. Mr. Aljaffar objected. The Court overruled his objection. Aljaffar was forced to proceed with the available interpreter. However, the court never made any findings with respect to whether the State had established good cause to proceed without a certified interpreter. At trial, Mr. Aljaffar testified in his own defense. He denied assaulting the two female victims, explaining that he is not interested in women because he is gay. He testified he believed the bar where the assault took place was a gay bar and he did not realize the bathroom in question was a women’s bathroom. During his testimony, Mr. Beirouty frequently utilized a [third person narrative ](http://study.com/academy/lesson/third-person-limited-narrator-definition-examples.html)in recounting Mr. Aljaffar’s testimony. For example, when Mr. Aljaffar’s attorney asked why he mistakenly chose to use the women’s bathroom, the interpreter stated, “He saw two bathroom. There is one bathroom with more privacy than the other one.” Also, on cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Mr. Aljaffar whether he was the only male that entered the women’s bathroom. The interpreter Mr. Beirouty responded, “He observed two-two men dressing like women go into the bathroom.” Also, at other times during Mr. Aljaffar’s testimony, Mr. Beirouty provided commentary on what Mr. Aljaffar was saying, rather than interpretation. The jury found Mr. Aljaffar guilty of two counts of [indecent liberties by forcible compulsion](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.44.100) and one count of [unlawful imprisonment ](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.40.040)with a [sexual motivation](http://www.defensenet.org/immigration-project/immigration-resources/crimes-against-persons/Sexual%20Motivation%20Advisory). **THE APPEAL.** Mr. Aljaffar filed a timely appeal. The arguments on appeal focus solely on the adequacy of the court appointed interpreter. At issue is whether the trial court’s use of Mr. Beirouty as an interpreter violated Mr. Aljaffar’s statutory and constitutional rights. **COURT’S DECISION AND ANALYSIS.** *Defendant Failed to Exercise His Constitutional Right to a Certified Interpreter.* The Court began by saying that non-English speakers involved in court proceedings are entitled to the assistance of a court-appointed interpreter. This right is guaranteed both by [Washington statute](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=2.43&full=true) and the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview). Such a right is implied in the [Fifth](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights#amendmentv), [Sixth](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights#amendmentvi) and [Fourteenth Amendment](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv). In light of these rights, however, during trial Mr. Aljaffar only voiced **one** objection to the use of Mr. Beirouty as an interpreter. Also, while Mr. Aljaffar adequately informed the trial court of his *statutory* concerns, *he never alerted the court to any constitutional issues*. Furthermore, neither Mr. Aljaffar nor his attorney ever said there were misunderstandings with the interpreter or a breakdown in communication. Because the trial court was never asked to address any constitutional concerns, it was never provided the opportunity to remedy problems with Mr. Beirouty’s services prior to the jury’s verdict. *There Was No Good Cause to Excuse Certified Court Interpreter.* The Court addressed the issue of whether the trial court had good cause to excuse a certified interpreter from the proceedings. Here, good cause did not exist to not use a certified interpreter because Mr. Aljaffar was charged with serious felony offenses: > “Not only did he face substantial prison time, his immigration status made him vulnerable to deportation. Given the nature of Mr. Aljaffar’s legal proceedings, the State was obliged to make a substantial, good faith effort to obtain the services of a certified interpreter. There is no record this took place.” Having determined good cause did not justify the use of an uncertified interpreter, the Court next tumed to the question of remedy. *There Was No Prejudice to the Defendant.* On this issue, the Court held that the trial court’s failure to comply with the certification requirements of [RCW 2.43.030 ](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=2.43.030)was not prejudicial. Basically, despite having the assistance of counsel and a certified interpreter, Mr. Aljaffar did not present any evidence at the reference hearing and did not challenge Mr. Beirouty’s testimony that he and Mr. Aljaffar had no problems communicating. “Given these circumstances, Mr. Aljaffar’s argument that inadequacies existed outside of his trial testimony lacks factual support,” said the Court. **CONCLUSION.** The Court concluded by saying that the failure to enlist the services of a certified interpreter without good cause was a serious violation. Given the fact that Mr. Aljaffar testified and placed his credibility before the jury, inadequate interpretation could have impacted the jury’s verdict. Nevertheless, the Court was also satisfied Mr. Aljaffar was not prejudiced by the use of an uncertified interpreter. With that, Mr. Aljaffar’s conviction was affirmed. My opinion? It’s difficult to say Mr. Aljafar was not prejudiced. Although his defense attorney apparently failed to perfectly preserve the Constitutional issues, he did adequately mention the statutory concerns; which, in my mind, are ultimately rooted in protecting Constitution rights. Indeed, the fact that interpreter issues were made a matter of record *at all* by defense counsel should have been enough to preserve the Constitutional issues for appeal. The fact of the matter is, there was an interpreter problem. Period. Otherwise, we’re substituting form over substance and sacrificing Constitutional rights in the process. Hopefully, this case gets appealed. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Interpreter, Sex Crimes, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Unlawful Imprisonment, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Incomplete & Misleading Search Warrant](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/4608-2/) **Published:** April 9, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[United States v. Perkins](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/03/13/15-30035.pdf)*, the [Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) held police officers must submit copies of explicit images that the officer believes gives probable cause for a search warrant for child pornography to the judge who is considering the search warrant application so the judge can independently determine whether the nude photographs are sexually suggestive. **BACKGROUND FACTS** *Canadian Investigation* On December 29, 2012, Charles Perkins, a then-52-year-old citizen of the United States, was traveling through [Toronto International Airport ](https://www.torontopearson.com/#)on his way home to Washington State after taking a trip to Chile with his wife and mother-in-law. [Canadian Border Services Agency(“CBSA”)](http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/menu-eng.html) officers stopped Perkins after learning that he was a registered sex offender. Perkins had a 1987[ first-degree incest](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.64.020) conviction and a 1990 [first-degree child molestation](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.083) conviction. A CBSA officer searched the laptop that Perkins was carrying and, in a folder labeled “cperk,” found two images that he believed to be child pornography. A [Peel Regional Police (“PRP”)](https://www.peelpolice.ca/en/crimeprevention.asp) officer also reviewed the images and, based on his review, arrested Perkins for possession of child pornography. CBSA authorities seized the laptop, along with a digital camera and a memory card. The next day, Canadian police obtained a search warrant and searched Perkins’ luggage. Constable Ullock searched the laptop and found the two images that the CBSA officer had originally discovered. After reviewing the images, Constable Ullock concluded that they did not constitute [child pornography under Canadian law](http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/843-e.htm). In his report of the investigation, he describes the two images as follows: > **IMAGE #1 Filename 997.jpg Description:** This is a Caucasian female that I would estimate to be between the ages of 13 to 15 years of age. The image shows her only from the mid torso up, including her face. The girl appears to be nude and her breasts are clearly visible . . . . In spite of the fact that this girl is under the age of 18, her breasts are not the dominant feature of the image, and there is no obvious sexual purpose to the image. Therefore this image does not meet the Canadian Criminal Code definition of child pornography. > > **IMAGE #2 Filename 989.jpg Description:** This is an image of a Caucasian female that I would estimate to be between the ages of 13 to 14 years of age. This girl is sitting and appears to be taking a picture of herself by holding out a camera with her right arm slightly above her head looking down on her. . . . This girl is completely nude and towards the bottom of the picture a small portion of her vagina can be seen. . . . However in this photo the view of the girls’ \[sic\] vagina makes it a minor aspect of the photo, and her hair drapes over much of her breasts, which decrease\[s\] their prominence. Again there is no clear and obvious sexual purpose to the picture, which means it does not meet the Criminal Code of Canada definition of child pornography. Based on Constable Ullock’s recommendation, the charge against Perkins was dropped on January 10, 2013. *American Investigation* The case was forwarded to Special Agent Tim Ensley of the [United States Department of Homeland Security](https://www.dhs.gov/). Agent Ensley received the two images for first-hand review on January 14, 2013. Ensley applied for a search warrant. In his affidavit, Ensley explained that Canadian officers stopped Perkins because of his prior convictions and arrested him after reviewing the images. Also, Ensley’s description of the second image was far different than the Canadian Constable’s: > **IMAGE #2 Filename 989.jpg Description:** This color image depicts a white female (hereinafter referred to as “child victim”) sitting on what appears to be a bed with one arm stretched out taking a picture of herself. The child victim is completely nude and can be seen in the image from her upper thigh area to the top of her forehead. The child victim’s breasts and genital area are clearly visible. . . . The child victim is young in appearance and appears to be between twelve and fourteen years of age. Agent Ensley concluded that the second image (hereinafter referred to as the “989.jpg image”) met the [federal definition of child pornography](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2256). However, his warrant application did ***not*** include copies of either image. Also, Ensley failed to state that the charge in Canada had been dropped pursuant to Constable Ullock’s determination that the images were not pornographic. On January 16, 2013, an American magistrate issued the warrant. Officers arrived at his home and confiscated his computers *The Search and [Franks Hearing](https://definitions.uslegal.com/f/franks-hearing/)* The search pursuant to the warrant revealed several images of child pornography on Perkins’ computers, and he was charged with one count of receipt of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography. Perkins moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause. Alternatively, Perkins argued that Agent Ensley deliberately or recklessly omitted material facts from the affidavit, entitling him to a [*Franks* Hearing](https://definitions.uslegal.com/f/franks-hearing/) under *Franks v. Delaware*, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). For those who don’t know, a [*Franks* Hearing](https://definitions.uslegal.com/f/franks-hearing/) is a hearing to determine whether a police officer’s affidavit used to obtain a search warrant that yields incriminating evidence was based on false statements by the police officer. The district court denied the motion for a [*Franks* Hearing](https://definitions.uslegal.com/f/franks-hearing/) in its entirety. On June 6, 2013, Perkins conditionally pleaded guilty to one count of [receipt of child pornography](http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/news/congressional-testimony-and-reports/sex-offense-topics/201212-federal-child-pornography-offenses/Chapter_02.pdf). The district court sentenced Perkins to an 180-month term of imprisonment. Perkins appealed. **THE APPEAL** The Court of Appeals examined whether the search warrant contained purposefully or recklessly false statements or omissions. To prevail on a *Franks* challenge, the defendant must establish two things by a preponderance of the evidence: first, that the officer intentionally or recklessly made false or misleading statements or omissions in support of the warrant, and second, that the false or misleading statement or omission was material, i.e., “necessary to finding probable cause. If both requirements are met, the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded. Here, the Court of Appeals held the lower court mistakenly denied Perkins’ motion to suppress. It reasoned that an officer presenting a search warrant application has a duty to provide, in good faith, all relevant information to the magistrate. Here, Agent Ensley omitted from the search warrant application: **(1)** the fact that Canadian authorities dropped the child pornography possession charge against Perkins because the images were not pornographic; **(2)** important portions of Constable Ullock’s description of the 989.jpg image; and **(3)** copies of the images. “By providing an incomplete and misleading recitation of the facts and withholding the images, Agent Ensley effectively usurped the magistrate’s duty to conduct an independent evaluation of probable cause,” said the Ninth Circuit. Therefore, Agent Ensley omitted relevant information from the affidavit that resulted in the misleading impression that image 989.jpg was unequivocally child pornography. Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit held the warrant application was unsupported by probable cause; and that his 20-year prior convictions failed to make it more likely that child pornography would be found on Perkins’ home computers. Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that the two images found in Perkins’ laptop computer did not establishe a fair probability that there was child pornography on Perkins’ home computer in Washington: > “Other than the fact that the subject is nude, the image lacks any traits that would make it sexually suggestive . . . The subject is not posed in a sexual position with, for example, “her open legs in the foreground . . . She is not pictured with any sexual items. She is sitting in an “ordinary way for her age.” Indeed, if the subject were clothed, this would be a completely unremarkable photo. Viewing the image as a whole, we conclude, under the [*Dost* ](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1757784/united-states-v-dost/)six-factor test, that it does not depict the ‘lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area.'” With that, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to the search warrant, and vacated Perkins’ conviction. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Good decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Franks Hearing, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Sex Crimes, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Prostitution Evidence Admitted During Defendant's Assault Trial](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/prostitution-evidence-admitted-during-defendants-assault-trial/) **Published:** April 13, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Woods*](https://casetext.com/case/state-v-woods-577), the WA Court of Appeals held that evidence of prostitution was properly admitted in the defendant’s prosecution for [assault in the second degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/). The Court reasoned these prior acts were necessary to explain to the jury why the victim was fearful of seeking help from her family or from the police. **BACKGROUND FACTS** The Defendant and alleged victim began their volatile relationship in 2009. Drug use, emotional abuse and physical abuse were allegedly involved. Later, allegations arose the Defendant forced the alleged victim to engage in prostitution. In April of 2012, the alleged victim’s mother drove her to the hospital in the aftermath of an alleged assault. The alleged victim disclosed other recent assaults during a subsequent interview with a police detective. **THE CHARGES, JURY TRIAL & BASIS FOR APPEAL** The Defendant was charged with one count of [assault in the second degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) for the September 2011 strangulation, with a special allegation of [domestic violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) pursuant to [RCW 10.99.020](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=10.99). During trial, the court admitted evidence of an August 2011 strangulation and the prostitution evidence. It determined that such evidence was admissible because it aided the jurors in understanding the nature of the relationship, motive, and intent, and helped to illuminate the alleged victim’s state of mind. The trial court also noted that testimony regarding prior assaults may assist the jury in understanding the dynamics of the domestic violence relationship and in assessing the alleged victim’s credibility. The jury found the Defendant guilty. He timely appealed. The WA Court of Appeals granted review to resolve the issues presented. **THE COURT’S REASONING AND CONCLUSION.** *ER 404(b) Evidence* The Court of Appeals reasoned that under [ER 404(b)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=ER&ruleid=gaer0404), evidence of a defendant’s prior bad act is not admissible to prove the defendant’s character and to show action in conformity therewith. However, such evidence may be admissible for other purposes, depending on its relevance and the balancing of its probative value and danger of unfair prejudice. For evidence of a prior bad act to be admissible, a trial judge must **(1)** find by a preponderance of the evidence that the misconduct occurred, **(2)** identify the purpose for which the evidence is sought to be introduced, **(3)** determine whether the evidence is relevant to prove an element of the crime charged, and **(4)** weigh the probative value against the prejudicial effect. Under this analysis, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the trial court’s rulings herein were correct. The alleged victim’s testimony as to how the Defendant forced her into prostitution and why she was unable to escape was necessary for the jurors to understand the dynamics of this domestic violence relationship. Furthermore, the court found that the complainant’s professed shame and fear associated with forced prostitution was an important factor for the jury to consider. *Ineffective Assistance of Counsel* The Court illustrated how [ineffective assistance of counsel ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ineffective_assistance_of_counsel)is established only when the defendant shows that **(1)** counsel’s performance, when considered in light of all the circumstances, fell below an objectively reasonable standard of performance, and **(2)** there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Under this analysis, the Court rejected the Defendant’s arguments that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of the prostitution evidence. It reasoned there was nothing objectionable about this evidence because it was properly admitted pursuant to ER 404(b). Moreover, the Defendant’s counsel expressly deferred an objection to the prostitution evidence after stating that he viewed that evidence as presenting a valuable area for cross examination: “Rather, the record demonstrates that a tactical decision was made.” The Defendant also believed he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to request a limiting instruction regarding the prostitution evidence. However, the Court of Appeals held this was also a strategic decision on the part of defense counsel. With that, the Court of Appeals held that Woods was not prejudiced and upheld his conviction. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Evidence, Ineffective Assistance, Jury Trial, Prior Bad Acts, Promoting Prostitution, Prostitution, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Distracted Driving Bill Passes House](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/distracted-driving-bill-passes-house/) **Published:** April 13, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The Washington state House approved [Senate Bill 5289](http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5289&Chamber=Senate&Year=2017), which would prohibit holding an electronic device — including phones, tablets and other electronic devices — while driving, including while in traffic or waiting for a traffic light to change. Fines for a first offense would total $136 while second and subsequent offenses could cost drivers up to $235. The measure passed the Democratic-controlled chamber on a 63-35 vote. It now heads back to the Republican-controlled Senate for agreement on changes made in the House. **Sponsors & Objectors.** The bill’s sponsor, [Republican Sen. Ann Rivers](http://annrivers.src.wastateleg.org/) of [La Center](http://www.ci.lacenter.wa.us/), told the Associated Press before the vote that she agrees with the House amendments and wants to get the bill to the governor’s desk this session. Rivers said she looks forward to being able to drive down the road at night and not see drivers’ faces lit up in blue from having their focus be on their phones instead of the road. Democratic Rep. [Jessyn Farrell](http://housedemocrats.wa.gov/legislators/jessyn-farrell/) of [Seattle](http://www.seattle.gov/), who also sponsors a similar bill in the House, spoke in favor of the bill during the floor debate saying “this bill is really about safety and is about our kids who are watching every single thing that we do,” said Farrell. However, Rep. [Dave Hayes](http://davehayes.houserepublicans.wa.gov/) of [Camano Island](https://camanoisland.org/) said the bill “goes a little too far.” Nevertheless, the Republican said he was pleased to see the House cleaned up the bill’s language by making the exemptions clearer. **Defenses & Exceptions.** The measure would allow “the minimal use of a finger” to activate, deactivate, or initiate a function of a personal electronic device while driving. Also, exceptions to the bill would include using an electronic device to contact emergency services, to operate an emergency vehicle, to allow transit system dispatch services to communicate time-sensitive messages and to allow any activities that are federally authorized for commercial motor vehicle drivers. Operating an amateur radio station and two-way or citizens band radio services are also exceptions in the proposal. If signed into law this year, the measure would go into effect January 2019. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Distracted Driving, Legislation, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Terry Stop, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Backpage.com Evidence Admitted at Trial as "Business Record."](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/4682-2/) **Published:** April 14, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Butler](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/741446.PDF)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) decided a trial court rightfully admitted business records connecting showing the defendant used Backpage.com to facilitate the commercial sexual abuse of a minor because the State’s failure to provide the written notice of the evidence did not prejudice the defendant, who was given the business records months before trial. **BACKGROUND FACTS** N.C. was 14 years old when she first met 22-year-old defendant Ivory Butler. One day, N.C. skipped school and spent the day with Butler. N.C.’s mother found out she had skipped school and punished her. N.C. ran away from home, and Butler picked her up. He took her to a motel room and arranged for her to meet men at the motel for sex. She gave the money she received to Butler. N.C. continued selling sexual services and giving the money to Butler. Detective Raymond Unsworth found Internet ads on [Backpage.com](https://www.backpage.com/) for female escort services with Butler’s phone number listed as the contact number. The ads included photographs of the body, but not the face, of a young woman. The ads alluded to sexual services that would be provided, with the prices that would be charged. An undercover detective responded to the Backpage ads by contacting Butler’s phone number. The detective, posing as a customer, arranged to obtain sexual services for $300 from a woman in room 201 of the New Horizon Motel. Police found N.C. in that room, together with a disposable cellphone under the mattress, condoms in a Crown Royal bag, and a knife in the bedside table drawer. In Butler’s phone, the contact name assigned to the disposable phone found in the motel room was “Money Baby Money Baby.” Text messages between Butler’s phone and the disposable phone found in the motel room included details about providing sexual services for money. The messages also included instructions from Butler to N.C. to discard the phone in the toilet if the police came. Butler was arrested and charged under [RCW 9.68A.101 with promoting commercial sexual abuse of a minor](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.68A.101). *The Trial Exhibits* At trial, the State sought to admit three exhibits. Exhibits #3 and #4 relate to Backpage ads for escort services. Exhibit #5 was the certification from the Backpage records custodian. Detective Unsworth testified that he found the ads on Backpage’s public website. Each ad included photographs of a young woman, information about the sexual services that could be provided, the price, and Butler’s telephone number as the contact. Exhibits #3 and #4 compiled the ads that were online, more photographs that Detective Unsworth had not seen online, the date each ad was posted, and the poster’s fictitious name, mailing address, and e-mail address. Backpage provided the certification from its records custodian in response to a search warrant for business records. The State provided these exhibits to Butler months before trial as part of discovery. The trial court admitted the exhibits over Butler’s objection. The jury found Butler guilty as charged. On Appeal, Butler argues the Exhibits #3, #4 and #5 were wrongfully admitted. **COURT’S ANALYSIS AND DECISION** Butler argues Exhibits #3, #4 and #5 were inadmissible because the State did not give proper notice under [RCW 10.96.030(3)](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=10.96.030). This statute contains an exception to the general rule requiring witness testimony to admit [business records](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_record). To ensure the opposing party has a fair opportunity to challenge the business records and certification, the statute provides in part: > “A party intending to offer a record into evidence under this section must provide written notice of that intention to all adverse parties, and must make the record and affidavit, declaration, or certification available for inspection sufficiently in advance of their offer into evidence to provide an adverse party with a fair opportunity to challenge them.” The court reasoned that approaching these issues is similar to approaching the [child hearsay rule](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.120): basically, cases addressing the child hearsay statute have upheld the admission of statements without prior notice “so long as the adverse party had or was offered an opportunity to prepare to challenge the statements.” Here, Butler argued the State was required to provide a separate written notice to inform him that it intended to rely on RCW 10.96.030 for admission of the business records. But months before trial, the State provided the certification of the Backpage records custodian, together with the Backpage business records. Mid-trial, the State also offered to produce the custodian for live testimony and a defense interview. This allowed Butler ample opportunity to prepare to challenge the records. With that, the Court denied Butler’s arguments: > “Consistent with the cases addressing the child hearsay statute, we conclude the lack of written notice required by RCW 10.96.030 did not cause any prejudice to Butler. He had ample opportunity to prepare to challenge the business records when the State provided all of the proposed business records and the certification from the records custodian months prior to trial.” Moreover, the Court reasoned that the State offered to call the records custodian as a witness and to allow Butler to interview the custodian. However, Butler declined to request a continuance to interview the witness. Finally, the Court of appeals rejected arguments that the Backpage ads bolstered N.C.’s testimony tying Butler to the Backpage evidence. The Court reasoned that even without the admission of the Backpage ads, overwhelming evidence links Butler to his exploitation of N.C.: > “The physical evidence, text messages, jail phone calls, testimony from N.C., and successful undercover sting operation provide overwhelming evidence that Butler promoted the prostitution of N.C.” Consequently, the Court concluded that the lack of written notice required by RCW 10.96.030 did not cause prejudice to Butler. Overwhelming evidence supported Butler’s guilt. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Business Record, Evidence, Hearsay, Jury Trial, law enforcement, Promoting Prostitution, Prostitution, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Social Media, Technology, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Inmates Paid $1 Per Day](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/immigrants-paid-1-a-day-to-work-in-tacoma-jail/) **Published:** April 15, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** [Article ](http://kuow.org/post/immigrants-are-paid-1-day-work-tacoma-jail-may-be-illegal)from [Andy Hurst](http://kuow.org/people/andy-hurst) of [KUOW](http://kuow.org/) discusses a class action lawsuit says the company running an immigration detention center in Colorado is violating federal anti-slavery laws. Interestingly, this same company runs the [Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma](https://www.ice.gov/detention-facility/tacoma-northwest-detention-center), which is the scene of an expanding hunger strike. Inmates joining the law suit are paid $1 per day for voluntary work. They want improved quality of food, improved medical care and higher paying jobs. The detention center is run by a private company, [GEO Group](https://www.geogroup.com/), which operates under a contract with [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement](https://www.ice.gov/). The group [Latino Advocacy](http://www.latinoadvocacy.org/) said more than 750 people at the Tacoma facility were [refusing meals as of Wednesday morning](http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/group-hundreds-of-detainees-at-tacoma-ice-facility-on-hunger-strike/). Meanwhile, detainees at an Aurora, Colorado, detention center run by GEO Group have filed a class-action lawsuit. It claims the detention center violates [federal anti-slavery laws](https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=40). Attorney [Nina Disalvo](http://www.towardsjustice.org/who_we_are) is an attorney represents the detainees in Colorado. She said it’s illegal to pay them $1 a day. “It’s not the market wage that GEO would have to pay if it were absorbing the real cost of running an immigrant detention center,” Disalvo said. “If GEO actually had to hire janitorial staff to clean its facility, it would have to pay that staff a market wage. And it’s not paying the detainees a market wage for this work.” Disalvo said some of her clients were forced to do janitorial work and clean large areas within the facility without pay. “If they did not do so, they were threatened with or placed in solitary confinement,” Disalvo said. “Our clients allege that forcing people to work under threat of solitary confinement constitutes forced labor under the federal forced labor laws.” GEO Group has denied the lawsuit’s allegations. A spokesperson for Immigration and Customs enforcement says the agency does not comment on pending litigation. [Virginia Kice](http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/virginia-kice/), ICE spokeswoman, confirmed that detainees at the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma earn $1 per day for voluntary work. She said about 25 percent of detainees participate in the program, and that no detainees perform unpaid work at the facility. The Colorado lawsuit could have implications for the Northwest Detention Center. [Northwestern University](http://www.northwestern.edu/) political science professor [Jacqueline Stevens](http://www.polisci.northwestern.edu/people/core-faculty/jacqueline-stevens.html) said that if the plaintiffs prevail, GEO Group will need to pay out up to hundreds of millions of dollars in back wages and penalties. “This could mean the end of government contracts with the private prison industry for housing people held under immigration laws, and the return to more sensible policies,” Stevens said. My opinion? I’m no fan of private prisons. For those who don’t know, a private prison or for-profit prison is a place in which individuals are physically confined or incarcerated by a third party that is contracted by a government agency. Private prison companies typically enter into contractual agreements with governments that commit prisoners and then pay a per diem or monthly rate, either for each prisoner in the facility, or for each place available, whether occupied or not. Such contracts may be for the operation only of a facility, or for design, construction and operation. According to the [ACLU](https://www.aclu.org/banking-bondage-private-prisons-and-mass-incarceration), private prisons have been linked to numerous cases of violence and atrocious conditions. Also, according to the [Bureau of Justice Statistics](https://www.bjs.gov/), for-profit companies were responsible for approximately 7 percent of state prisoners and 18 percent of federal prisoners in 2015 (the most recent numbers currently available). While supporters of private prisons tout the idea that governments can save money through privatization, the evidence is mixed at best—in fact, private prisons may in some instances cost more than governmental ones. Finally, it appears that *immigrants* are the ones filling these detention centers. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement reported that in 2016, private prisons held nearly three-quarters of federal immigration detainees. In light of today’s anti-immigrant presidential administration, it’s no coincidence that [private stocks for U.S. prisons have increased 100% since Trump’s election](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-09/private-prison-stocks-are-surging-after-trump-s-win). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Detention, Immigration, Jail, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Thirteenth Amendment, Trump Administration, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [No-Contact Order Held Invalid](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/no-contact-order-held-invalid/) **Published:** April 26, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Torres](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/336484_pub.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) decided a lower court improperly imposed a 5-year no contact order between the defendant and his son in a Witness Tampering prosecution. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Mario Torres is the father of M.T. (born 2003) and N.B. (born 2012). N.B. lived with his mother. However, on the morning of December 22, 2014, he was left in Mr. Torres’s care while N.B.’s mother went shopping. M.T. was also with Mr. Torres at the time. On December 23, N.B.’s mother and grandmother took him to receive medical care after he was found unresponsive. N.B. died a few days later. N.B.’s injuries suggested his death was a homicide. ***Police Interview With M.T.*** Part of law enforcement’s investigation into N.B. ‘s death involved a [forensic interview](http://www.practicenotes.org/vol8_no1/what_is.htm) of M.T. He originally told the interviewer that N.B. was responsive while in Mr. Torres’s care and ate some “Chicken McNuggets” during this time. But M.T. later told the interviewer this was not true. M.T. then said that he heard a loud bang while Mr. Torres was caring for N.B. and N.B. started loudly crying. Mr. Torres later told M.T. he had accidentally stepped on N.B. ‘s leg causing him to fall and strike the bedpost. M.T. never saw N.B. get up again after this. M.T. told the interviewer that both his parents approached him at his grandmother’s home earlier that day and told him to make up a story about N.B. eating Chicken McNuggets, and not mention that N.B. had bumped his head. Additionally, Mr. Torres allegedly told M.T. to “make up lies” about what happened. ***Police interview with Mr. Torres.*** The police talked to Mr. Torres the day after M.T’s interview. After being advised of his [*Miranda* rights](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/miranda_warning), Mr. Torres denied injuring N.B. but admitted N.B. fell and struck his head on a bedpost. Mr. Torres also admitted he did not want M.T. to talk to the police and had a private conversation with him to outline what M.T. would say. Mr. Torres claimed he told M.T. to tell the truth and say Mr. Torres did not cause the injuries to N.B. He did not offer any specific details on what M.T. was told. ***Criminal Charges, Guilty Verdicts, Sentencing & the 5-Year No Contact Order.*** The State charged Mr. Torres with one count of [Witness Tampering under RCW 9A.72.120(l)(c)](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.72.120). Although the case progressed toward trial, Mr. Torres ultimately pled guilty and entered an [*Alford* plea](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/alford_plea) on February 25. His case then proceeded directly to sentencing. During the sentencing colloquy, the court ultimately imposed a five-year [no-contact order](http://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-is-a-no-contact-order/), prohibiting Mr. Torres from all contact with M.T. except by written mail. Mr. Torres also received a sentence of six months and $1,960 in court fines. Torres appealed. For those who don’t know, a no contact order is also called a [restraining order](http://thelawdictionary.org/restraining-order/ "An order in the nature of an injunction. See ORDER. "), and prohibits a person from being in physical or verbal contact with another person. The court must order the no contact agreement, and usually specifies how many feet, or yards, away the individuals must stay from one another. If broken the defendant may receive a fine, or jail time with a felony or [misdemeanor](http://thelawdictionary.org/misdemeanor/ " In criminal law. A general name for criminal offenses of every sort, punishable by indictment or special proceedings, which do not in law amount [...]") charge. **COURT OF APPEALS’ DECISION AND REASONING.** The Court began with stating [RCW 9.94A.505(9) ](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.505)authorizes a trial court to impose crime related prohibitions as sentencing conditions. A No-Contact Order is such a prohibition. The court further reasoned that conditions interfering with fundamental rights, such as the right to a parent-child relationship, must be “sensitively imposed” so they are “reasonably necessary to accomplish the essential needs of the State and public order.” A trial abuses its discretion if the trial court employs the wrong legal standard. The Court further reasoned that here, at sentencing, the trial court imposed a five-year no-contact order, prohibiting almost all contact between Mr. Torres and his son. The Court reasoned that in so doing, the court failed to acknowledge Mr. Torres’s fundamental right to parent his child or explain why a five year prohibition on all personal contact was reasonably necessary to further the State’s interests. “This was error, even under the deferential abuse of discretion standard,” said the Court of Appeals. “While the trial court certainly can impose a no-contact order to advance the State’s fundamental interests in protecting children, it must do so in a nuanced manner that is sensitive to the changing needs and interests of the parent and child.” > “The State suggests we can infer the reasons for the court’s no-contact order from the record. We disagree. The record before us is scant. The trial judge did not explain why he decided to impose a no-contact order that was 10 times longer than what was requested by the State. We are unable to discern the court’s likely reasoning from the limited information presented. It is the trial court’s duty to balance the competing interests impacted by a no contact order.” With that, the WA Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the trial court for further reconsideration – and *instructions* – on re-creating the no contact order. *“How to Create a No Contact Order.”* This portion of the Court opinion was very instructive to the lower court. For example, it was instructed that the trial court shall first address whether a no-contact order remains reasonably necessary in light of the State’s interests in protecting M.T. from harm. If it is, then the court shall endeavor to narrowly tailor the order, both in terms of scope and duration. When it comes to the order’s scope, the court shall consider less restrictive alternatives, such as supervised visitation, prior to restricting all personal contact between Mr. Torres and his child. In addition, the court’s order should recognize that “what is reasonably necessary to protect the State’s interests may change over time.” Accordingly, the court shall consider whether the scope of the no-contact order should change over time. The court shall also reconsider whether the ultimate length of the no-contact order remains appropriate. Finally, the trial court should keep in mind that a sentencing proceeding is not the ideal forum for addressing parenting issues. My opinion? This was a great decision. I’m impressed that the Court of Appeals gave specific instructions on creating no contact orders in the future. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Alford Plea, Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, No Contact Order, Sentencing, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Tampering With a Witness, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Elder Abuse Bill Goes to Vote](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/elder-abuse-bill-goes-to-vote/) **Published:** April 28, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Washington State may pass new legislation protecting elderly, vulnerable adults against financial exploitation and neglect. [House Bill 1153](http://www.washingtonvotes.org/2017-HB-1153) unanimously passed in the [Senate ](http://leg.wa.gov/Senate/Pages/default.aspx)earlier this month and was approved in the [House ](http://leg.wa.gov/House/Pages/default.aspx)in February. A date has not yet been set for the bill to be signed by [Gov. Jay Inslee](http://www.governor.wa.gov/), though it will happen within the next few weeks. The legislation, requested by the attorney general, would (1) lower the requisite mental state for the crimes of Criminal Mistreatment in the first and second degree from recklessness to criminal negligence, and (2) creates the crimes of Theft from a Vulnerable Adult in the first degree and second degree. A “vulnerable adult” is defined as any person 18 years or older who is clearly mentally or physically unable to care for himself or herself or suffers from a cognitive impairment. Currently, for a [standard theft offense](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.050), a person could serve zero to 90 days in a county jail if they have no prior criminal history. The new statute, however, would rank the crime at a higher seriousness level of theft by forcing an offender who has no priors to serve up to 12 to 14 months in prison. Additionally, if defendants were convicted of several crimes in the past, prosecutors say they could face up to 8 ½ years in prison compared to the existing maximum penalty, which is closer to five years. Some people opposed this part of the bill during public hearings held earlier this year saying it goes from zero to prison too quickly, but the bill’s sponsor, [Democratic Rep. Roger Goodman of Kirkland](http://housedemocrats.wa.gov/legislators/roger-goodman/), says financial abuse of elderly and vulnerable adults is reaching epidemic proportions and the penalties are not strong enough to deter anyone. “We need to send a strong message that abusing the elderly, financially or physically, is serious enough that you’re going to have a felony on your record and you’re going to go to prison and be supervised afterward,” Goodman said. Last year, the state’s [adult protective services](https://www.dshs.wa.gov/altsa/home-and-community-services/adult-abuse-and-prevention) received more than 35,000 complaints. Of those, nearly 8,700 were related to financial abuse of an elderly or vulnerable adult and more than 5,600 were complaints of neglect. Also under the statute, the standard of proof for [criminal mistreatment](http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9a.42) cases would change from “recklessness” to “criminal negligence,” something prosecutors say was needed to make it easier to prove cases. “This is a major change that will allow us to hold more people accountable who cause vulnerable people serious injury or death,” said [Page Ulrey, a King County senior deputy prosecuting attorney](http://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/prosecutor.aspx), who has prosecuted elder abuse cases since 2001. Ulrey said the new statute seems like a more appropriate penalty for the degree of harm that is often done in these cases, which she says is committed most often by someone the person trusts or loves such as a family member or close friend. Mike Webb, the legislative affairs director at the [attorney general’s office](http://www.atg.wa.gov/), said he’s seen jurors fail to find recklessness beyond a reasonable doubt in cases when an offender didn’t remove a catheter leading to death or somebody didn’t turn a vulnerable person over for so long it led to bed sores to the bone. “The existing law made it very challenging to bring about a felony criminal mistreatment charge because jurors struggled to find reckless behavior,” he said. “Most saw it as a failure to act rather than recklessness.” Ulrey pointed out another significant change the bill would do is extend the [statute of limitations](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/statute_of_limitations) as financial exploitation of vulnerable adults can take years to be uncovered. She said it gives law enforcement, prosecutors and other adult protection services six years instead of three to investigate and gather information surrounding the case. Thirty-seven states have criminal penalties for financial exploitation of the elderly and vulnerable adults, according to the [National Conference of State Legislatures](http://www.ncsl.org/). Thirty-four states currently have pending legislation. My opinion? Elder abuse is awful. Still, lowering the standard of proof for criminal mistreatment cases from “recklessness” to “criminal negligence” may inadvertently create problems for jurors trying these cases. There are many components to “Negligence.” For example, was there actual negligence? Was there a duty of care? Was there a breach of duty? If so, was the breach foreseeable under the circumstances? Were there damages? Not every case is cut and dried. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Criminal Mistreatment, Elder Abuse, Legislation, Theft, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Students, Not Suspects](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/5101-2/) **Published:** April 29, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Interesting [article ](http://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/even-a-spitball-can-be-criminal-says-aclu-report-on-police-in-washington-schools/)by [Claudia Rowe](http://www.seattletimes.com/author/claudia-rowe/) of the [Seattle Times](http://www.seattletimes.com/) describes a report from the [American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)](https://www.aclu-wa.org/) saying says that police officers patrolling school hallways brings significant costs to the learning environment and finances of our schools. “We were surprised by the degree to which officers have almost unfettered ability to enforce in school discipline,” said Vanessa Hernandez, youth policy director at the ACLU who wrote the “[Students Not Suspects](https://www.aclu-wa.org/docs/students-not-suspects-need-reform-school-policing-washington-state)” report. “That’s a pretty dangerous road to go down, to have student discipline in an educational environment handed to a law enforcement agent, and it really sends a troubling message to students about how we perceive them.” The advocacy organization examined data from the 2013-14 through 2015-16 school years in more than 100 districts. National data show a strong correlation between placing officers in schools and increased youth referrals to the criminal justice system. And in Washington, state law makes it a misdemeanor to cause a disturbance within school walls. “Any student misbehavior — from talking back to a teacher, to making an off-color joke, to throwing spitballs — could be treated like a crime,” Hernandez said. Thirty years ago, few schools used police to respond to misbehavior. But in recent decades the number of officers patrolling the halls has ballooned — from fewer than 100 nationally in the late 1980s, to an estimated 17,000 today. Yet no state agency systematically tracks police in schools, or the impact on students. Most commonly, officers are contract employees who report to their police departments, not district administrators. In Washington, Hernandez added, at least 3,400 kids were either arrested on campus or referred to law enforcement for prosecution during in the 2013-14 school year, which is the most recent data available. In a time when state lawmakers are wrestling with a multibillion dollar hole in funding for education, schools are spending millions on police officers, the report found. Seventeen districts pay the entire cost of their school police, covering salaries, benefits and even, in two cases, leasing patrol cars. On average, schools contribute about $62,000 annually for each full-time officer, and up to $125,000 at the high end. That adds up fast in districts that use officers in multiple schools. [Spokane, for example, paid more than $1 million for school officers](http://www.spokaneschools.org/Page/3030) during the 2014-15 school year, the report says. And [Kent — which is facing an $18 million budget hole — spent almost $500,000 in 2015-16.](http://www.kent.k12.wa.us/Page/294) (Seattle’s school police officers are covered by the city, not the school district budget.) Other approaches, like [restorative justice ](http://old.seattletimes.com/html/education/2025538481_edlabrestorativejusticexml.html)and [trauma-informed teaching, ](http://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/you-are-more-than-your-mistakes-teachers-get-at-roots-of-bad-behavior/)have been shown to reduce disciplinary incidents by addressing the underlying causes of misbehavior, and the ACLU suggests that money for police might be better spent on school psychologists, social workers or teaching assistants. Yet momentum has moved in the opposite direction. Nationally, 24 percent of elementary schools and 42 percent of middle- and high schools routinely hire police officers, according to the report. But not all schools have police officers. In high-poverty schools — whether urban or rural — police are a much more routine presence. In small-town [Walla Walla, for example, the alternative school where 80 percent of kids are low-income, has an officer](http://www.wwps.org/archived-articles/357-). But the regular comprehensive high school, where only 45 percent of students are low-income, does not. Even the tiny Liberty district, with about 450 students, has a police officer on staff, the ACLU found. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** ACLU, Bellingham Defense Attorney, law enforcement, police, Search and Seizure, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["Incentivized" Informants](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/incentivized-informants/) **Published:** May 6, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Very interesting [op-ed piece](http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/justice-can-be-tainted-by-use-of-informants-testimony/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=article_left_1.1) from [Barry Scheck](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Scheck) of the [Innocence Project](https://www.innocenceproject.org/) discusses how [Senate Bill 5038](http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/Senate/5038%20SBR%20LAW%2017.pdf) rightfully confronts and addresses the issue of false testimony by “incentivized” confidential informants in criminal cases. State Senate Bill 5038 adds to key advances that Washington has already made over the years to improve the administration of justice. “Incentivized” informants are people who are often used by the government in criminal prosecutions to provide information or evidence against defendants in exchange for an explicit promise or expectation of a personal benefit. “Benefits include anything from reduced or eliminated jail time to improved living conditions behind bars to monetary rewards,” says Scheck. “Recognizing both the value of this testimony to the state and the risk that a witness will be tempted to give false testimony in order to benefit personally, this bill outlines specific information that must be learned and turned over to the defense in the discovery process before trial.” This, says Scheck, will ensure that all parties have an opportunity to properly scrutinize the informant. “The reality is, some informants lie,” said Scheck. “When they do, they undermine the integrity and the truth-seeking function of our justice system.” In support of his argument, Scheck cited these facts: • False testimony by incentivized witnesses is a leading cause of wrongful conviction in capital cases nationally, a contributing factor in nearly half of such exonerations. • [Of 349 DNA-based exonerations, 17 percent involved an incentivized witness](http://www.albanylawreview.org/Articles/Vol74_3/74.3.1301%20NORRIS.pdf). • In Tulia, Texas, [46 innocent people were convicted of drug charges based on the testimony of a single, lying informant](https://www.aclu.org/other/racist-arrests-tulia-texas). • Ten Washington state wrongful conviction cases listed on the [National Registry of Exonerations](http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx) involved the use of incentivized testimony. Scheck believes these numbers demonstrate that this is a national problem, requiring all states to look closely at the safeguards needed to regulate this system. SB 5038 addresses an information gap in the system that will improve accuracy and protect constitutional rights. Prosecutors have a responsibility to know and disclose this information. In this year alone, in addition to Washington, four states are considering proposals to strengthen or establish new frameworks for assessing informant testimony. Notably, while some proposals go further than others, all of these proposed reforms impose new disclosure requirements around incentivized informants.” My opinion? For far too long, the world of incentivized informants has been an evidentiary black hole. The testimony of jailhouse snitches, confidential informants and co-defendants should immediately be treated as suspect. Every year that passes without these reforms puts more innocent people at risk and strikes at the heart of the credibility of our justice system. A healthy justice system demands that we ensure that the strongest protections are in place for the innocent. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Confidential Informants, Constitutional Rights, Jury Trial, Legislation, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Proposed Law Evicts Suspected Meth Users From Hotels](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/proposed-law-evicts-suspected-meth-users-from-hotels/) **Published:** May 9, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Interesting [article](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/politics-government/article149287769.html)[ ](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/politics-government/article149287769.html)by [Marilyn Napier ](https://muckrack.com/marilyn-napier)of the [Skagit Valley Herald](http://www.goskagit.com/) reported that a new state law proposed by the [Skagit County Prosecuting Attorney ](https://www.skagitcounty.net/Departments/ProsecutingAttorney/main.htm)will allow local governments to evict residents from certain buildings contaminated by methamphetamine, even without evidence of manufacturing. The new law takes effect on July 23, 2017. [State House Bill 1757](http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/1757%20HBR%20ENVI%2017.pdf) was created by the problems that arose at Burlington’s [Sterling Motor Inn](https://www.yelp.com/biz/sterling-motor-inn-burlington). Apparently, the hotel was found to have widespread high levels of methamphetamine contamination. As a result, the City of Burlington wanted residents of the motel to evacuate because the level of contamination was considered unsafe. Although the residents, some of whom had lived at the motel for years, left voluntarily, the city and Skagit County did not have the legal authority to evict them. Because of the [Clandestine Drug Lab law](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=64.44), the [Skagit County Public Health Department ](https://www.skagitcounty.net/Departments/Health)was unable to evict the residents because the law required that there be evidence of drug manufacturing. **THE PROPONENTS.** Skagit County Prosecuting Attorney Rich Weyrich and the [Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys](http://70.89.120.146/wapa/index.html) wrote the bill, which was sponsored by[ Rep. Dave Hayes, R-Camano Island](http://davehayes.houserepublicans.wa.gov/), and was passed by both the state House and state Senate in mid-April. “This takes away the idea that you have to have evidence of manufacturing meth. Now you just have to show that there is meth residue present,” Weyrich said. [Gov. Jay Inslee](http://www.governor.wa.gov/) signed the bill April 25. [Burlington Mayor Steve Sexton](http://burlingtonwa.gov/directory.aspx?EID=9) said he doesn’t think the Sterling Motor Inn incident is going to be the last time the city deals with a contaminated property. “I think that (the law) is what it takes for Skagit County to do the job they should do in situations like that,” he said. “This is what the county said they needed.” **A BLIGHT IN THE COMMUNITY.** Apparently, the state health department reported that about 60 percent of the rooms did not have fire safety measures, such as working smoke detectors. Violations also included rodent infestation in the laundry room, storage shed and the electrical panel room. Beyond the failed health inspection, the motel had been the center of about 200 calls to police in 2015, a number that had continued to increase since 2009. According to police, officers had been called for weapon offenses, domestic violence, drug deals, prostitution, burglary and assault. Harrison added the law is good news for the public. My opinion? This law is questionably unconstitutional. Although governments can pass laws for public safety reasons, they cannot make laws which violate people’s constitutional rights. Here, an “automatic eviction” lacking due process – or based on evidence which was obtained through unlawful search and seizure – might end up patently violating people’s individual rights. We’ll see what happens. For more information on Search and Seizure, please refer to my Legal Guide titled, [Search & Seizure: Basic Issues Regarding Their Search for Weapons, Drugs, Firearms and Other Contraband.](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) And please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, Legislation, Methamphetamine, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Sessions Seeks Harsher Prosecutions & Stricter Sentences](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/sessions-seeks-harsher-prosecutions-stricter-sentences/) **Published:** May 12, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Today, [CNN ](http://www.cnn.com/)Reporter [Laura Jarrett](http://www.cnn.com/profiles/laura-jarrett) broke the [story ](http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/12/politics/sessions-criminal-charging-memo/)that [Attorney General Jeff Sessions](https://www.justice.gov/ag/staff-profile/meet-attorney-general) has a new directive for federal prosecutors across the country: charge suspects with the most serious offense you can prove. Friday’s announcement follows a line of [several other significant departures](http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/13/politics/jeff-sessions-new-era-for-doj/) from Obama-era domestic policies at the [Justice Department](https://www.justice.gov/), but this decision crystalized Sessions’ position in the criminal justice realm. In a brief [one-and-a-half-page memo](http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/05/12/ag.memo.on.department.charging.and.sentencing.policy.pdf), Sessions outlined his new instructions for charging decisions in federal cases, saying that his new first principle is “that prosecutors should charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense.” “The most serious offenses are those that carry the most substantial guidelines sentence, including mandatory minimum sentences,” Sessions later adds. While the [federal sentencing guidelines](http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines) are advisory — and take into account everything from a defendant’s criminal history to cooperation with authorities —[ some judges have felt handcuffed](https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/02/17/i-sentenced-criminals-to-hundreds-more-years-than-i-wanted-to-i-had-no-choice/?utm_term=.e9541e845ef7) by mandatory minimums, which provide a statutory sentencing minimum of months below which the judge cannot depart. The move was harshly criticized by the [New York University School of Law Brennan Center for Justice](http://www.brennancenter.org/), a nonpartisan law and policy institute focused on democracy and justice. “The Trump administration is returning to archaic and deeply-flawed policies,”[ Inimai Chettiar](http://www.brennancenter.org/expert/inimai-m-chettiar), the center’s justice program director, said Friday. “Sessions is leaving little to no room for prosecutors to use their judgment and determine what criminal charges best fit the crime.” “That approach is what led to this mess of mass incarceration,” she added. “It exploded the prison population, didn’t help public safety, and cost taxpayers billions in enforcement and incarceration costs.” Sessions also formally withdrew a signature part of[ Attorney General Eric Holder’s “Smart on Crime” initiative](https://www.justice.gov/archives/ag/attorney-generals-smart-crime-initiative), which sought to target the most serious crimes and reduce the number of defendants charged with non-violent drug offenses that would otherwise trigger mandatory minimum sentences. “We must ensure that our most severe mandatory minimum penalties are reserved for serious, high-level, or violent drug traffickers,” Holder wrote in a 2013 memo. “In some cases, mandatory minimum and recidivist enhancements statutes have resulted in unduly harsh sentences and perceived or actual disparities that do not reflect our Principles of Federal Prosecution.” As a result, during the Obama era, federal prosecutors were instructed not to charge someone for a drug crime that would trigger a mandatory minimum sentence if certain specific factors were met: (a) the relevant conduct didn’t involve death, violence, a threat of violence or possession of a weapon; (b) the defendant wasn’t an organizer, leader or manager of others within a criminal organization; (c) there were no ties to large-scale drug trafficking operations; and (d) the defendant didn’t have a “significant” criminal history (i.e., prior convictions). All of those charging factors are now gone under Sessions’ reign and not surprising, as he has previously telegraphed his [desire to prosecute more](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-sessions-directs-federal-prosecutors-target-most-significant-violent) federal cases generally. My opinion? We’re bringing back the [War on Drugs](http://www.drugpolicy.org/facts/new-solutions-drug-policy/brief-history-drug-war-0). As it stands, the federal government typically prosecutes only the most serious offenses, and does so with what can seem to be a crushing investigation and avalanche of evidence. Their resources are vast. Mounting a defense can feel daunting. Here, the effects of Session’s decision will most immediately be felt in the context of drug crimes. Federal mandatory minimums can be harsh because the sentences are dictated based on drug type and quantity. Said differently, Sessions decision could bring back the [War on Drugs](http://www.drugpolicy.org/facts/new-solutions-drug-policy/brief-history-drug-war-0). His actions are already embracing it’s worst features: confidential informants, harsh plea bargains and long sentences. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Confidential Informants, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Sentencing, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Trump Administration, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Life Sentences Increase](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/5439-2/) **Published:** May 14, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Article by [Samantha Michaels](http://www.motherjones.com/authors/samantha-michaels) of [Mother Jones](http://www.motherjones.com/) discusses how one out of every nine prisoners in the United States is currently serving a life sentence—a record high—even as the overall prison population has fallen. That’s according to a depressing [new report](http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Still-Life.pdf) by the [Sentencing Project](http://www.sentencingproject.org/), an advocacy group that’s been tracking life sentences since 2004. Almost 162,000 people are now serving life behind bars, up from 132,000 about a decade ago and 34,000 in 1984. To put that in perspective, for every 100,000 people in America, 50 have been locked up for life. That’s roughly the *total* incarceration rate—including inmates whose sentences are just a few months—in Scandinavian countries like [Denmark](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark), [Sweden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden), and [Finland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland). And it doesn’t even account for the tens of thousands of Americans handed sentences of 50 years or more, which are considered “de facto life sentences,” says [Ashley Nellis](http://www.sentencingproject.org/staff/ashley-nellis/), a senior research analyst at the Sentencing Project who co-authored the report. What’s driving the uptick? It’s not a rise in violent crime or murder—both have dropped substantially since the mid-1990s. Nor is it an increase in the number of criminals behind bars: A majority of states saw declining overall prison populations from 2010 to 2015. According to Michaels, the continuing rise in lifers is a legacy of three-strikes laws and mandatory minimum sentencing. “It may also be related to the shift away from capital punishment,” she says. She further elaborates that in some states that no longer allow executions, elected officials like governors and prosecutors have championed life-without-parole sentences—which account for the biggest increase in life sentences nationally—as a way to appear tougher on crime. “Going forward, we will have a system that allows us to put these people away for life, in living conditions none of us would want to experience,” [Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy](http://portal.ct.gov/en/Office-of-the-Governor), a Democrat, [said](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-17692716) in 2012 when his state abolished the death penalty. But these lengthy punishments probably aren’t keeping the public safer. “The impulse to engage in crime, including violent crime, is highly correlated with age,” the Sentencing Project notes. “Most criminal offending declines substantially beginning in the mid-20s and has tapered off substantially by one’s late 30s.” The biggest losers of all this? Minorities. Of all the lifers and de facto lifers in the country, almost half are African American. What’s more, 12,000 of the total are locked up for crimes they committed as kids, though some are eligible for release thanks to [recent court decisions](http://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/juvenile-life-without-parole/). In 2010, the [Supreme Court ruled](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/560/08-7412/opinion.html) that life-without-parole sentences are unconstitutional for juveniles who didn’t commit homicide. [In 2012, ](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/10-9646/opinion3.html)the justices went further, saying that mandatory life-without-parole sentences for kids, including those who committed homicide, are also unconstitutional. Nineteen states and DC now ban any kind of life-without-parole sentence for juveniles.) Finally, according to Michaels, it’s important to remember that many of the prisoners serving these long sentences never actually hurt anyone: Two-thirds of lifers or de facto lifers in the federal system committed nonviolent crimes—and one-third of them are serving time for drug crimes. With [Attorney General Jeff Sessions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Sessions) at the helm of the [Justice Department](https://www.justice.gov/ag) alongside his team of [tough-on-crime advisers](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-jeff-sessions-wants-to-bring-back-the-war-on-drugs/2017/04/08/414ce6be-132b-11e7-ada0-1489b735b3a3_story.html?utm_term=.104b42004541), there’s a good chance that won’t be changing anytime soon. My opinion? I couldn’t agree more. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Prison, Race & Law, Sentencing, Studies, Trump Administration, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Immigration Arrests Up 38 Percent Under Trump](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/immigration-arrests-up-38-percent-under-trump/) **Published:** May 17, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** [Stephen Dinan](http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/stephen-dinan/) of [The Washington Times](http://www.washingtontimes.com/) [reports ](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/17/immigration-arrests-38-percent-under-trump/)that under the [Trump administration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Donald_Trump), arrests of criminal aliens has increased by 38 percent. Unshackled from the restrictions under the [Obama administration](http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/barack-obama/), immigration agents and officers are making far more arrests — but are still keeping their chief focus on criminals, authorities said as the released number detailing the first 100 days under President [Trump](http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/trump/). Arrests of criminal aliens is up nearly 20 percent, reaching nearly 30,500, while arrests of those without criminal convictions is up 60 percent, reaching about 10,800. Combined, they show a rise of 38 percent in total arrests by [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)](https://www.ice.gov/), the agency responsible for policing the interior of the country. Dinan reports that perhaps most striking is surge in at-large arrests made out in the community. Those have risen by 50 percent compared to a year earlier, according to ICE. While criminals are still the chief targets, ICE said it has reversed the [Obama administration](http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/barack-obama/)’s policy of carving out entire classes of illegal immigrants from any danger of deportation. That’s expanded the potential targets from just a couple million to potentially almost all of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants now in the U.S. “These statistics reflect President [Trump](http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/trump/)’s commitment to enforce our immigration laws fairly and across the board,” said [Thomas Homan, acting director of ICE](https://www.ice.gov/leadership). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Detention, Immigration, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Trump Administration, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State v. Armstrong: Prosecutor Not Obligated to Bring Video Evidence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-armstrong-surveillance-video-evidence/) **Published:** May 21, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** I’m often asked by Clients, “Why can’t you make the Prosecution get video surveillance evidence from crime scene?” This recent case explains why. In *[State v. Armstrong](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/931194.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) held that the Prosecutor’s failure to obtain a copy of the [AM/PM ](http://www.ampm.com/)store’s [surveillance video](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance) prior to the store’s destruction of the video pursuant to the store’s policy, did *not* violate the defendant’s due process rights. **FACTS & BACKGROUND** A [no-contact order](http://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-is-a-no-contact-order/) existed prohibiting Defendant Dennis Armstrong from contacting his former partner, Nadia Karavan. Nonetheless, on April 20, 2014, they agreed to meet at a bus stop in violation of the No-Contact Order. As the two talked, Armstrong became angry. He yelled and hit the wall of the bus stop shelter. Armstrong then hit Karavan twice in the face with an open fist. After a brief struggle, Karavan ran to a nearby AM/PM gas station, and Armstrong followed her. According to the store clerk, Todd Hawkins, the two exchanged words. Armstrong followed Karavan around the store for several minutes, and Karavan asked Hawkins to call the police several times. When Hawkins finally called the police, Armstrong left the store. Officers responded to the 911 call. Officer Martin noticed that Karavan had a slightly swollen, red abrasion on the side of her face. Armstrong denied spending time inside the AM/PM. In response, the officers told Armstrong that surveillance video from the AM/PM would show what really happened. The officers repeatedly emphasized the video and told Armstrong that he should “tell the truth” because they had the “whole thing on video.” The State charged Armstrong with a [domestic violence felony violation of a court order](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=26.50.110). Before trial and again during trial, Armstrong moved to discharge his counsel. One of his reasons was that counsel failed to give him the surveillance video as he requested. The prosecutor told the court that the State had never possessed the video. The court denied Armstrong’s motions. At trial, Hawkins (the AM/PM employee) testified that there were about 16 cameras around the store: a few of which covered the gas pumps and one that may have shown a slight, low view shot of the bus stop. Although Hawkins testified that police had requested surveillance video from AM/PM in the past, no officer requested footage from the night of this incident. Hawkins had previously reviewed the video from that night and testified that it showed what he described in his testimony, but per AM/PM policy, the video had since been destroyed. At trial, the officers gave various reasons why they never collected the video. Officer Martin testified that she heard Officer Elliot ask about the video, but she assumed it was the responsibility of someone else at the scene to investigate the video. Officer Rodriguez testified that he never viewed the video. He simply followed Officer Elliot’s lead when the two were questioning Armstrong. Officer Elliot was unavailable to testify at trial. Detective Rande Christiansen, who had been assigned to do the follow-up investigation on the case, testified that he did not investigate any video from the AM/PM because he did not know such video existed. The jury returned a general guilty verdict despite the lack of surveillance video evidence. On appeal – and with other arguments, Armstrong claimed that the police violated his right to due process because they failed to collect video surveillance from the AM/PM after using that video as a tool when interviewing Armstrong at the scene. **ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** Ultimately, the Court held that Armstrong failed to show that the police acted in bad faith when they did not collect video surveillance that was *only* potentially useful evidence. The Court reasoned that under the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal constitution, criminal prosecutions must conform with prevailing notions of fundamental fairness, and criminal defendants must have a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense. Consequently, the prosecution has a duty to disclose material [exculpatory evidence](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exculpatory_evidence) to the defense and a related duty to preserve such evidence for use by the defense. The court also reasoned that although the State is required to preserve all potentially material and favorable evidence, this rule does not require police to search for exculpatory evidence. And in order to be *material* exculpatory evidence – that is, evidence which has value to the defense of which can alter or shift a fact-finder’s decision on guilt or innocence – the evidence must both possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before it was destroyed and be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means. Finally, the court reasoned that the police’s failure to preserve “potentially useful evidence” was not a denial of due process unless the suspect can show bad faith by the State. The presence or absence of bad faith turns on the police’s knowledge of the exculpatory value of the evidence at the time it was lost or destroyed. Also, acting in compliance with its established policy regarding the evidence at issue is determinative of the State’s good faith. “Armstrong asserts that the video surveillance was potentially useful evidence,” said the Court. “Therefore, he must show that the police acted in bad faith.” According to Armstrong, the police acted in bad faith because they told him during the interview that they were going to collect the video but they never actually collected it. Armstrong describes this as the police acting with an “extreme cavalier attitude” toward preserving potentially useful evidence. The Court further reasoned that beyond this failure to collect the video, Armstrong offers no evidence of bad faith, such as improper motive. > “Armstrong has failed to show that the police acted in bad faith when they failed to collect the surveillance video from the AM/PM. The testimony of the officers indicates that the video went uncollected due to mere oversight. Armstrong has presented no evidence that the police had an improper motive. At most, Armstrong has shown that the investigation was incomplete or perhaps negligently conducted, but that is not enough to show bad faith.” With that, the Court upheld his conviction. My opinion? I understand the Court’s opinion insofar as the Prosecution should not be burdened with providing exculpatory evidence, especially if that evidence is unimportant – or not material – to the larger issues of guilt. However, I would object to the AM/PM employee discussing the video as [facts that are not admitted into evidence](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VACf5ck7qL8). Under this objection when the attorney claims that “the question assumes facts not in evidence,” what he is really saying is that the facts that are being presented to the witness are presumably not yet in evidence and therefore, how can this witness properly answer the question if those facts have not been put before this jury? Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Discovery, Domestic Violence, Due Process, Evidence, felony, Jury Trial, law enforcement, No Contact Order, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Opening the Door](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/opening-the-door/) **Published:** May 24, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Wafford](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/751646.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) that a defendant’s counsel “opened the door” to suppressed evidence during [opening statement](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/opening_statement), and that the proper remedy was to admit evidence that the court had previously ruled inadmissible. **FACTS & BACKGROUND** The incidents began years before. In 2005, T.H.’s mother heard that eight-year-old T.H. had told a friend that something inappropriate happened with Mr. Wafford. After reporting to police, T.H.’s mother took T.H. to be interviewed at [Dawson Place, the Snohomish County Center for Child Advocacy](http://dawsonplace.org/). There, a [child forensic interview specialist](http://www.smallvoices.org/what_we_do/forensic_interviews.html) talked with T.H., and their conversation was video-recorded. T.H. did not make a specific disclosure of sexual abuse by Wafford, though she did appear to nod affirmatively in response to one question about inappropriate sexual contact. The State did not investigate further or charge Wafford. However, Mr. Wafford continued to sexually abuse H.F. as well as her sister T.H. Eventually, the State charged Wafford with crimes against both T.H. and H.F. As to T.H., Wafford was charged with [first degree rape of a child](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.44.073), [first degree child molestation](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.083), and[ first degree incest](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.64.020). As to H.F., Wafford was charged with first degree rape of a child, first degree child molestation, and [third degree child molestation](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.089). **PRE-TRIAL SUPPRESSION OF VIDEO INTERVIEW** Before trial, the court conducted a child hearsay hearing at which it concluded that the 2005 recorded interview of T.H. was inadmissible. The court reasoned that because T.H. never actually described an act of sexual contact, her statements were not admissible under the [child hearsay statute](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.120). **TRIAL** During defense counsel’s opening statement, she referred explicitly to the video of T.H.’s interview: “Mariyah brought both H.F. and T.H. to Dawson Place in 2005. Nova Robinson interviewed on video T.H., but T.H. denied that anything was happening to her.” The State did not object. After opening remarks, the State requested that the court admit the interview video that had been previously excluded. The State argued that when defense counsel mentioned the video, she opened the door to its admission. The court found that defense counsel opened the door and admitted a portion of the video. Ultimately, the jury found Wafford guilty of first degree child molestation of T.H., but was unable to reach a verdict on the remaining counts. The court sentenced Wafford to 68 months in prison. Wafford appealed on the argument that, as a matter of law, comments made by counsel during opening statements cannot open the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence. **ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION** The Court reasoned that **(1)** a party who introduces evidence of questionable admissibility may open the door to rebuttal with evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible, and **(2)** a party who is the first to raise a particular subject at trial may open the door to evidence offered to explain, clarify, or contradict the party’s evidence. [*State v. Jones*](http://courts.mrsc.org/appellate/144wnapp/144wnapp0284.htm), citing [5 KARL B. TEGLAND, WASHINGTON PRACTICE: EVIDENCE LAW AND PRACTICE § 103.14, at 66-67 (5th ed.2007)](http://legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Practice-Materials/Evidence-Law-and-Practice-6th-Vols-5-5A-5B--5C-Washington-Practice-Series/p/103664221). With that background, the Court addressed Wafford’s argument that because a comment made during an opening statement is not evidence, it cannot open the door pursuant to [*State v. Whelchel* ](http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/115wn2d/115wn2d0708.htm)and [*Corson v. Corson*](). However, the Court distinguished these cases. First, it reasoned that *Whelchel* does not support the broad proposition that opening statements cannot open the door because the evidence in question in *Whelchel* was admissible when the parties made opening statements. Second, the *Corson* case was distinguishable because in that case the trial court wrongfully admitted [irrelevant and prejudicial evidence](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_403) in response to an improper opening statement when other more effective means of ensuring a fair proceeding are available. Consequently, the *Corson* case did not hold that opening statements can never open the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence. Next, the Court rejected Wafford’s argument that comments made during opening statements cannot open the door. First, such a rule would be contrary to the general rule permitting trial courts the discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence. Second, whether the issue arises from the statement of counsel or the testimony of a witness is immaterial to the question faced by the trial judge: to what extent, if any, has the statement compromised the fairness of the trial and what, if any, response is appropriate: > “In answering this question, the trial judge should have a range of options at his or her disposal. A judge may admonish the jury to disregard certain statements or reiterate its instruction that opening statements are not evidence. The judge may allow testimony about otherwise inadmissible evidence, while continuing to exclude the exhibit or document which contains the evidence. Or the judge may find that a party has opened the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence. The appropriate response is that, which in the discretion of the trial judge, best restores fairness to the proceeding.” Finally, the Court rejected Wafford’s argument that the trial court mistakenly admitted the recording because it was inadmissible hearsay and therefore incompetent evidence. Under [ER 801(d)(1)(ii)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=ER&ruleid=gaer0801), a statement is not hearsay if “the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross examination concerning the statement, and the statement is… consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive. . . .” Here, however, the victim testified. The court concluded her affirmation of Wafford’s unlawful sexual conduct was consistent with her testimony and is thus not hearsay under ER 801(d)(1). With that, the Court upheld Wafford’s conviction and sentencing. My opinion? It is well settled in Washington that a party that introduces evidence of questionable admissibility runs the risk of “opening the door” to the admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence by an opposing party. For this reason, it is mandatory that attorneys exercise extreme discretion with their comments and questions during trial. Defense attorneys must avoid discussing evidence they work so hard to suppress. Not only can one “open the door” during direct and cross examination of witnesses, but also opening statements. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Evidence, felony, Ineffective Assistance, Jury Trial, Opening the Door, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Seattle Allows Filming Cops](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/5701-2/) **Published:** May 25, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article](http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/new-seattle-law-says-its-ok-to-watch-record-and-comment-on-police-activity/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=article_left_1.1) in the [Seattle Times](http://www.seattletimes.com/) by [Daniel Beekman]( **Categories:** Access Devices, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Body camera, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, First Amendment, law enforcement, Legislation, Obstructing, police, Technology, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [the "Do's & Dont's" of Washington's Distracted Driving Law](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/the-dos-donts-of-washingtons-distracted-driving-law/) **Published:** May 28, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article ](http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/heres-what-the-new-distracted-driving-law-means-to-you-when-it-goes-into-effect-in-july/)by reporter [Mike Lindblom](http://www.seattletimes.com/author/mike-lindblom/) of the[ Seattle Times](http://www.seattletimes.com/) discusses Washington’s [Driving Under the Influence of Electronics (DUIE) Act](http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/5289-S.PL.pdf#page=1) set to be enforced in July. The law forbids virtually all use of handheld gadgets such as phones, tablets, laptop computers and gaming devices while driving. According to Lindblom, nearly one-tenth of motorists are holding a device at any given moment, [state observation teams have found](http://wtsc.wa.gov/News/new-statewide-survey-shows-cell-phone-use-greatest-cause-of-distracted-driving/). That far outnumbers traffic police on the road and raises questions about the law’s chances of success. On the other hand, the state has a history of reducing drunken driving and posting a [95 percent compliance](http://www.wsp.wa.gov/information/releases/2016_archive/mr052316c.htm) with seat-belt requirements. Linblom gave helpful insights to the law: **Q. When does the law take effect?** **A.** Approximately July 23, which is 90 days after the Legislature’s regular session adjourned, the governor’s staff say. “Public safety is better served by implementing this bill this year,” Inslee wrote in his [partial-veto message](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3725946-SSB-5289-PV-05-16-2017.html). Bill sponsor [Sen. Ann Rivers, R-La Center](http://annrivers.src.wastateleg.org/), had initially proposed a Jan. 1, 2018, start, and then agreed to a year delay, in negotiations with the House, to give police and drivers more time to prepare. **Q. What will be banned?** **A.** Texting is already illegal, as is holding a cellphone at the ear. Drivers constantly flout those rules, or evade them by holding a phone [between the legs](http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/crotches-kill-alberta-launches-racy-campaign-to-curb-distracted-driving-1.1164122), or just below the chin. The new bill forbids handheld uses, including composing or reading any kind of message, picture or data. Photography while driving is illegal. Drivers also cannot use handheld devices while at a stop sign or red-light signal. **Q. What is still legal?** **A.** Drivers may still use a smartphone mounted in a dashboard cradle, for instance to use a navigation app, but not to watch video. The new law permits “minimal use of a finger” to activate an app or device. Built-in electronic systems, such as hands-free calling and maps, remain legal. Calls to 911 or other emergency services are legal, as are urgent calls between transit employees and dispatchers. Amateur radio equipment and citizens-band radio, remain legal. Handheld devices may be used if the driver has pulled off the roadway or traffic lanes, where the vehicle “can safely remain stationary.” **Q. What are the penalties?** **A.** The standard traffic fine of $136 would nearly double to $235 on the second distracted-driving citation. **Q. Is DUIE a primary offense?** **A.** Yes. A police officer can pull someone over just for using a handheld device. **Q. Will a ticket raise my insurance rates?** **A.** Probably. Distracted-driving citations will be reported on a motorist’s record for use by the insurance industry, which testified in favor of the law. There was considerable debate about that, as some lawmakers sought to keep DUIE offenses off the record, the way texting violations are currently. But the safety hawks managed to make them reportable — a penalty that [House sponsor Jessyn Farrell, D-Seattle](http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/distracted-driving-bill-approved-by-state-lawmakers/), gained in exchange for allowing that now-vetoed 1½ year implementation time. The cost of a citation on personal insurance bills will depend on what the data show, about a correlation between someone’s violations and crash history, said Nicole Ganley, public-affairs director for the [Property Casualty Insurers Association of America](http://www.pciaa.net/). [Arkansas](http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/ODN/ArDemocrat/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=ArDemocrat%2F2017%2F05%2F01&entity=Ar00703&sk=B2ECC972), [North Dakota](http://www.westfargopioneer.com/news/4241399-new-distracted-driving-law-passes-north-dakota), and Colorado lawmakers passed stronger distraction bills this year, she said, but insurers especially like the Washington law’s broader sweep. “It’s modernizing the driving code, so that all the behaviors are included,” she said. “This new law will serve as a deterrent and draws a line in the sand that this behavior is not safe for anyone.” **Q. What about other kinds of distraction?** **A.** Miscellaneous distractions such as grooming or eating will be a secondary offense, meaning a ticket may be issued if a law-enforcement officer pulls you over for some other offense, such as speeding or a dangerous lane change. The penalty will be an extra $30. **Q. Who will enforce this?** **A.** Lack of staffing is a potential weakness. [Earlier this year, there were as few as a half-dozen State Patrol troopers some shifts](http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/citing-rise-in-distracted-driving-deaths-washington-lawmakers-may-toughen-smartphone-laws/) in the whole Bellevue detachment, patrolling Interstate 405 and Interstate 90. Those teams should grow somewhat. The Legislature voted to raise trooper pay 16 percent this year, based on a governor’s agreement with the troopers’ labor union, in hopes of winning recruits and stopping attrition. A new class of 49 people just graduated from the academy May 1, of which 16 will work in King County, said [Trooper Rick Johnson, a spokesman in Bellevue](http://www.wsp.wa.gov/information/releases/2016_archive/mr080416.htm). Another class is due in September. “We’re moving in the right direction, definitely,” he said. In early April, the state’s law-enforcement agencies spent $400,000 in federal grants to add 6,000 patrol hours aimed at driver distraction. The same program in April 2016 produced 5,412 citations statewide, double the usual monthly pace, according to the [Washington Traffic Safety Commission](http://wtsc.wa.gov/). Statistics show 171 of 568 road deaths in the state in 2015 were blamed on some form of driver distraction, not necessarily electronics. Officials haven’t issued plans for any extra patrols, to break in the new law this summer. [To date, only $19,000 has been budgeted](http://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/Budget/Detail/2017/ctbillaspassed_0421.pdf) to support the distraction law. Lawmakers weren’t intending to fund a big education blitz until next year. So the safety commission will do what it can, to possibly include informational cards for police to hand drivers, before the tougher law begins July 23, according to spokeswoman Erica Stineman. [Gina Bagnariol-Benavides](http://q13fox.com/2017/04/20/it-will-be-a-cultural-shift-sister-of-distracted-driving-victim-applauds-new-legislation/), who also testified for tougher laws, said the governor’s sudden change was “a pretty exciting thing.” “Common sense tells you (that) you shouldn’t use your phone behind the wheel of a car,” Bagnariol-Benavides said. “I don’t think there’s a huge amount of education that should have to go along with that.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Cell Phone, Domestic Violence, Legislation, Technology, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["Rough Estimates" Can't Support a Conviction for Property Crimes.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/rough-estimates-of-property-cant-support-a-conviction-for-property-crimes/) **Published:** May 30, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Williams](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/338321_pub.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) decided that a victim’s “rough estimate” regarding the value of stolen property of “roughly $800” will not support a conviction for possession of property in the second degree. While the owner of a chattel may testify to its market value without being qualified as an expert on valuation, the owner must testify to an adequate basis of his opinion of value to support a conviction. **FACTS & BACKGROUND** In May 2014, the [Spokane Police Department](https://my.spokanecity.org/police/) received calls complaining of a man stalking through backyards in a west Spokane neighborhood. On May 6, 2014, one caller, Brad Dawson, observed the man carrying two sports duffel bags and possibly a screwdriver. Also on May 6, 2014, someone burglarized the home of David and Joan Nelson. Joan Nelson’s brother, John Johnston, drove through the neighborhood in an attempt to apprehend the burglar. After inspecting five homes, Johnston espied a kneeling gentleman, with two duffels bags astride, employing a screwdriver to pry open a lock on a storage facility. The man fled when Johnston yelled. Johnston called 911 and tracked the fleer as the fleer scattered from yard to yard and hid in changing locations. Johnston kept contact on his cellphone with Spokane police. Spokane police officers arrived and apprehended the burglar, Leibert Williams. Law enforcement officers found a duffel bag, a Bluetooth speaker, a laptop, running shoes, a jacket, and two rings belonging to Adam Macomber in the possession of Williams. Days earlier, Macomber had discovered the property missing from his apartment. The State of Washington charged Leibert Williams with five crimes: **(1)** [residential burglary](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/), **(2)** [second degree burglary](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/), **(3)**[ attempted second degree burglary](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/), **(4)** [attempted theft of a motor vehicle](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/possession-theft-of-stolen-motor-vehicle/), and **(5)** [possession of stolen property in the second degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/possession-of-stolen-property/). The State added the final charge near the date of trial. During trial, Macomber identified those items missing from his apartment. However, he only gave “rough estimates” of $800 for the value of his items. The State presented no other testimony of the value of stolen goods. And the trial court denied a request by Leibert Williams for a lesser included offense instruction with regard to second degree possession of stolen property. The jury found Williams guilty of first degree criminal trespass, attempted second degree burglary, vehicle prowling, and second degree possession of stolen property. The jury acquitted Williams of residential burglary. Williams’ appeal concerns the possession of stolen property conviction. **ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION** The Court reasoned that Macomber’s testimony failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of his stolen property exceeded $750 when Macomber said, “I could give a rough estimate . . . I would say roughly $800.” It further reasoned that “value” for the purposes of theft means the market value of the property at the time and in the approximate area of the theft. “Market value” is the price which a well-informed buyer would pay to a well-informed seller, when neither is obliged to enter into the transaction. In a prosecution, value need not be proved by direct evidence. Rather, the jury may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, including changes in the condition of the property that affect its value. Here, Adam Macomber testified to a “rough estimate” value of the stolen goods to be $800, a figure close to the minimum amount required to convict of $750. He listed the property taken from him, but did not describe the condition of the property when stolen. He also failed to disclose the purchase date or the purchase price of each item. > “Macomber did not testify to the basis of his opinion of value. For all we know, he used the purchase price of the goods, the replacement cost of the goods, or some intrinsic value to himself.” With that, the Court decided that the proper remedy for the insufficiency of evidence was to dismiss the charge for possession of stolen property in the second degree. This somewhat extreme measure was partially based on the trial court’s refused to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of third degree possession: “This court lacks authority to direct the entry of judgment of the lesser included offense if the jury was not instructed on that offense.” My opinion? Good decision. My heart goes out to the victim, however, courts need more than mere “rough estimates” when it comes to assigning a value to property. Indeed, property crimes are assigned a seriousness level – from simple misdemeanors through Class A felonies – by identifying the value of the property which was stolen or destroyed. These are not small matters. There’s a big difference between felonies and misdemeanors. Therefore, it’s extremely important to be specific and correct on these matters. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Burglary, Evidence, felony, Property Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [SCOTUS Eliminates the "Provocation Rule"](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/scotus-eliminates-the-provocation-rule/) **Published:** June 14, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[County of Los Angeles v. Mendez](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-369_09m1.pdf)*, the [U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) held that the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) provides no basis to uphold the Ninth Circuit’s “provocation rule,” a doctrine which makes officers liable for injuries caused by their use of force. **BACKGROUND FACTS** The [Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department](https://www.lasd.org/) received word from a confidential informant that a potentially armed and dangerous parolee-at-large had been seen at a certain residence. While other officers searched the main house, Deputies Conley and Pederson searched the back of the property where, unbeknownst to the deputies, respondents Mendez and Garcia were napping inside a shack where they lived. Without a search warrant and without announcing their presence, the deputies opened the door of the shack. Mendez rose from the bed, holding a BB gun that he used to kill pests. Deputy Conley yelled, “Gun!” and the deputies immediately opened fire, shooting Mendez and Garcia multiple times. Officers did not find the parolee in the shack or elsewhere on the property. **PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIMS** For those who don’t know, the “Provocation Rule” holds that if a police officer recklessly promotes a potentially violent confrontation with a Fourth Amendment violation, the officer is liable for any injury caused by a subsequent use of force that results from that confrontation, even if the use of force itself was reasonable. Armed with the “Provocation Rule,” Mendez and Garcia sued the police deputies and the County under 42 U. S. C. §1983. They advanced three Fourth Amendment claims: a warrantless entry claim, a knock-and-announce claim, and an excessive force claim. On the first two claims, the Federal District Court awarded Mendez and Garcia nominal damages. On the excessive force claim, the court found that the deputies’ use of force was reasonable, but held them liable nonetheless under the Ninth Circuit’s provocation rule, which makes an officer’s otherwise reasonable use of force unreasonable if **(1)** the officer “intentionally or recklessly provokes a violent confrontation” and **(2)** “the provocation is an independent Fourth Amendment violation,. The Government appealed the case to the [Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/). On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the knock-and-announce claim and that the warrantless entry violated clearly established law. It also affirmed the District Court’s application of the provocation rule, and held, in the alternative, that basic notions of proximate cause would support liability even without the provocation rule. The Government appealed the Ninth Circuit’s ruling to the U.S Supreme Court. **COURT’S ANALYSIS** In short, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment offers no basis for the Ninth Circuit’s “provocation rule.” It reasoned that the rule is incompatible with this Court’s excessive force jurisprudence, which sets forth a settled and exclusive framework for analyzing whether the force used in making a seizure complies with the Fourth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the legal issue is “whether the totality of the circumstances justifies a particular sort of search or seizure.” *[Tennessee v. Garner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner).* The Court reasoned that the provocation rule instructs courts to look back in time to see if a different Fourth Amendment violation was somehow tied to the eventual use of force. Problematically, this approach that mistakenly conflates distinct Fourth Amendment claims. To the extent that a plaintiff has other Fourth Amendment claims, they should be analyzed separately. “The Ninth Circuit attempts to cabin the provocation rule by defining a two-prong test: First, the separate constitutional violation must “create a situation which led to” the use of force; and second, the separate constitutional violation must be committed recklessly or intentionally,” said the Court. The U.S. Supreme thought this approach was mistaken. First, the rule relies on a vague causal standard. Second, while the reasonableness of a search or seizure is almost always based on objective factors, the provocation rule looks to the subjective intent of the officers who carried out the seizure: > “There is no need to distort the excessive force inquiry in this way in order to hold law enforcement officers liable for the foreseeable consequences of all their constitutional torts.” Plaintiffs can, subject to qualified immunity, generally recover damages that are proximately caused by any Fourth Amendment violation. Here, reasoned the Court, if respondents cannot recover on their excessive force claim, that will not stop them from recovering for injuries proximately caused by the warrantless entry. “The Ninth Circuit’s proximate-cause holding is similarly tainted,” said the Court. Its focuses solely on the risks foreseeably associated with the failure to knock and announce—the claim on which the court concluded that the deputies had qualified immunity—rather than the warrantless entry. My opinion? I concur with blogger Radley Balko’s insights on this. He blogs about criminal justice, the drug war and civil liberties for [The Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/), and says the following: > “The cops, on the other hand, engaged in some incredibly sloppy policing that nearly got someone killed. They violated the Mendezes’ Fourth Amendment rights not once, but twice. Then they filled the couple with bullets after they mistook Angel Mendez’s reach for his pellet gun as a threat. Angel Mendez was shot five times, and lost his right leg below the knee. Jennifer Mendez was shot in the back. That was 6½ years ago. They still haven’t seen a dime. And after Tuesday’s ruling, it seems unlikely that they ever will.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Confidential Informants, Constitutional Rights, Informant, law enforcement, police, Police Misconduct, Provocation Rule, Qualified Immunity, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Pretrial Publicity & Change of Venue](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/pretrial-publicity-change-of-venue/) **Published:** June 15, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Munzanreder](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/333281_pub%20in%20part.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) held that the jury selection process used by the trial court – which included a written questionnaire with a number of questions regarding exposure to media reports and questioning each juror individually about media exposure – protected the defendant’s constitutional rights to an impartial venue. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion to change venue. **BACKGROUND FACTS** John J. Munzanreder appealed his conviction for the first degree murder of his wife. Because of the sensational nature of the alleged crime, local media extensively covered his case from arrest through trial. Munzanreder worked with Juan Ibanez at Valley Ford in Yakima, Washington. In early February 2013, Ibanez approached Munzanreder and asked him for money for a toolbox. Munzanreder agreed to give him the money ifhe helped get rid of somebody. Munzanreder told Ibanez that he wanted help killing his wife, Cynthia, and would give him $20,000. Ibanez said he would help, but he would not kill her. Munzanreder gave Ibanez cash and directed him to purchase a gun. Munzanreder told Ibanez his plan: Munzanreder and his wife would go the movies, he would shoot her with the new gun, he would then throw the gun to Ibanez in some nearby bushes, and Ibanez would run away with the gun. On February 28, 2013, the Munzanreders went to see a movie at the Majestic Theater in Union Gap, Washington, a small city immediately south of Yakima. Ibanez received a prearranged text message from Munzanreder that the plan would be executed and went to the theater and waited in the bushes adjacent to the theater’s parking lot. After the movie, as the couple approached their car, Munzanreder shot his wife with the gun purchased by Ibanez. Munzanreder then threw the gun into the bushes where Ibanez waited. As Ibanez left the scene with the gun, he ran past a couple near his car. Law enforcement arrived and questioned witnesses. Munzanreder told law enforcement he heard a shot and saw a man in black clothes running away. Munzanreder said he had followed the man, but fell and injured himself, developing a black eye. Munzanreder’s wife later died from her injuries. Law enforcement continued to investigate. They interviewed Ibanez, whose car had been reported at the crime scene. Ibanez quickly confessed and told law enforcement of the details of the crime. Media coverage of both the murder and the arrests quickly saturated Yakima County. Munzanreder was charged with [Murder in the First Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/). The State also sought a [Deadly Weapon Enhancement](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94a.533) because the crime occurred with a handgun. ***The Jury Questionnairre*** Defense counsel and the State had worked together to create an agreed juror questionnaire. The purpose of the questionnaire was to uncover juror bias, so that the trial court and the parties could individually interview venire jurors with possible bias in open court but outside the presence of other venire jurors. The questionnaire contained many questions, including questions focusing on pretrial publicity about the case. Those questions asked the venire jurors to list media sources they used, whether they generally believed the media, whether they thought the media was fair to both sides of a case, and what criminal cases they followed in the media. It also specifically asked about Munzanreder’s case. The questionnaire asked venire jurors if they knew information about the case from any sources, and concluded the section by asking if they had formed any opinions about the case. The questionnaire also asked venire jurors if they wanted to discuss their answers separately from other jurors. The completed questionnaires revealed that 105 of the remaining 128 venire jurors knew about the case; of these 105, 24 had formed opinions; and of these 24, most believed Munzanreder was guilty. Before the remaining venire panel returned to the courtroom, Munzanreder orally moved for a change of venue. The motion was anticipated because Munzanreder had earlier said he would make such a motion, and had provided the trial court and the State with copies of local media stories and media Facebook posts. The State, although opposing Munzanreder’s motion, indicated the trial court might give additional peremptory challenges. Munzanreder responded that he might ask for additional peremptory challenges, but would not do so until after the court ruled on his motion. The trial court took the motion under advisement and said it would make its ruling later in the jury selection process. The parties completed voir dire and then went through the process of selecting the Jury. The trial court permitted each party 6 peremptory challenges for the first 12 jurors, and 1 additional peremptory challenge for each of the 3 alternate jurors. Munzanreder never asked for additional peremptory challenges. The panel was sworn in. The trial court provided the panel various preliminary instructions and then excused them for lunch. With the panel excused, the trial court gave its oral ruling denying Munzanreder’s motion to change venue. Over the next several days, the parties presented their evidence. The jury returned a guilty verdict on 1st degree murder with a firearm enhancement. The trial court sentenced Munzanreder to 340 months of incarceration. Munzanreder timely appealed. His principal arguments on appeal are the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his [motion to change venue](http://litigation.findlaw.com/filing-a-lawsuit/what-is-a-motion-for-change-of-venue.html), and the voir dire process used by the trial court failed to protect his constitutional right to an impartial jury. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** First, the Court applied a [*Gunwall* analysis](http://gunwall.org/gunwall-analysis/) to determine if the Washington Constitution provides greater protection than the United States Constitution in a particular context. A *Gunwall* analysis must be performed, if litigants want the court to consider whether a parallel constitutional provision affords differing protections. Here, the Court found that Munzanreder’s state constitutional right to an impartial jury should be interpreted as providing the same degree of protection as the parallel federal constitutional right. The Court similarly held that [article I, section 22 of the WA Constitution’s](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx) right to an impartial jury does not provide any more protection than the Sixth Amendment. Second, the Court of Appeals raised and dismissed Munzanreder’s arguments that the voir dire process employed in his case was insufficient. It reasoned that under [*Lopez-Stayer v.*](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14715729173991352562&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr) *Pitts*, a trial court has considerable discretion in conducting voir dire. Abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court bases its decision on untenable grounds or untenable reasons. Here, the Court of Appeals discussed how extensive and meticulous jury selection was in this case. The trial court summoned 243 potential jurors. The parties worked together to craft an extensive juror questionnaire that satisfied the State, Munzanreder, and the trial court. The trial court granted several dozen individual interviews in open court outside the presence of other venire jurors. The trial court was fully involved with the process, and asked questions designed to expose bias and to ensure that jurors would reach a verdict based on the evidence presented at trial and on the court’s instructions on the law. Jury selection took over four days. Munzanreder did not request additional peremptory challenges, despite knowing he had that option. Munzanreder simply asserts now that the process was insufficient, although he was heavily involved at trial in developing the process used. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals decided that because Munzanreder does not show an abuse of discretion, his appeal on this issue fails. Third, the Court of Appeals raised and dismissed Munzanreder’s arguments that the jury selection process used by the trial court was constitutionally deficient. He attempts to punctuate his point by showing that four biased jurors were empaneled. The Court reasoned that A party may challenge a juror for cause under [CrR 6.4(c)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR6.04); and [RCW 4.44.170](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=4.44.170). The trial court is in the best position to determine whether a juror can be fair and impartial because the trial court is able to observe the juror’s demeanor and evaluate the juror’s answers to determine whether the juror would be fair and impartial. For this reason, this court reviews a trial court’s denial of a challenge for cause for a manifest abuse of discretion. Here, the Court of Appeals found no manifest abuse of discretion. Munzanreder failed to use his peremptory challenges to remove juror #51, a potentially bad and unbiased juror. He also elected not to request additional peremptory challenges. If the trial court erred in denying Munzanreder’ s for cause challenge of venire juror 51, because Munzanreder elected not to remove venire juror #51 with his allotted peremptory challenges or by requesting additional challenges, Munzanreder waived that error. Fourth, the Court of Appeals raised and dismissed Munzanreder’s arguments that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion for a change of venue. He primarily argues the pretrial media publicity was overwhelmingly inflammatory, which prejudiced the jury pool against him. The Court reasoned that in order to prevail on a change of venue motion, the defendant need only show a probability of unfairness or prejudice. [*Sheppard v. Maxwell*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheppard_v._Maxwell), [*State v. Rupe.* ](http://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/1987/51443-7-1.html)The following nonexclusive factors aid our review of whether a trial court abused its discretion in denying a change of venue motion: > “**(I)** the inflammatory or noninflammatory nature of the publicity; **(2)** the degree to which the publicity was circulated throughout the community; **(3)** the length of time elapsed from the dissemination of the publicity to the date of trial; **(4)** the care exercised and the difficulty encountered in the selection of the jury; **(5)** the familiarity of prospective or trial jurors with the publicity and the resultant effect upon them; **(6)** the challenges exercised by the defendant in selecting the jury, both peremptory and for cause; **(7)** the connection of government officials with the release of publicity; **(8)** the severity of the charge; and **(9)** the size of the area from which the venire is drawn.” Here, the Court of Appeals reasoned that although the initial venire pool provided substantial challenges because of the trial court’s careful process for selecting a jury, it was highly confident that 11 of the 12 empaneled jurors were impartial. “If venire juror #51 was biased, Munzanreder had the opportunity to remove him,” said the Court. “Munzanreder elected not to use any of his peremptory challenges to remove venire juror 51, and he did not request additional peremptory challenges. These two facts strongly suggest that even Munzanreder believed the empaneled jury was fair and impartial.” With that, the Court of Appeals concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Munzanreder’s motion to change venue. Consequently, the Court of Appeals confirmed Munzanreder’s conviction. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, Firearm, Gunwall Analysis, Jury Selection, Jury Trial, Pretrial Publicity, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Venue, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Shackled in Court](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/shackled-in-court/) **Published:** June 18, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[United States v. Sanchez-Gomez](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/05/31/13-50561.pdf)*, the [Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) held that a lower federal court’s policy of routinely shackling all defendants in the courtroom was unconstitutional. **BACKGROUND FACTS** In 2013, the judges of the[ Southern District of California](https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/SitePages/Home.aspx) approached the [U.S. Marshals Service](https://www.usmarshals.gov/) and requested “a district-wide policy of allowing the Marshals Service to bring all in-custody defendants in full restraints for most non-jury proceedings.” “Full restraints” means that a defendant’s hands are closely handcuffed together, these handcuffs are connected by chain to another chain running around the defendant’s waist, and the defendant’s feet are shackled and chained together. Starting on the first day of the policy’s implementation, the [Federal Defenders of San Diego](https://fdsdi.com/) objected to the routine use of shackles and requested that each defendant’s shackles be removed. The judges routinely denied the requests, relying on the Marshals Service’s general security concerns. The judges also pointed to increasing security threats from what they viewed as changing demographics and increasing case loads in their district. The shackling was the same regardless of a defendant’s individual characteristics. One defendant had a fractured wrist but appeared in court wearing full restraints. Nevertheless, the judge denied her motion to remove the restraints, Another defendant was vision-impaired. One of his hands was free of restraint so he could use his cane, but his other hand was shackled and secured to a chain around his waist and his legs were shackled together. His objection to the restraints was also denied. And another defendant was shackled despite being brought into court in a wheelchair due to her “dire and deteriorating” health. The court “noted” her objection to the shackles and denied the defendant’s motion to remove the shackles. Defendants appealed these denials to the district court and also filed motions challenging the constitutionality of the district-wide policy. The district courts denied all relief. All four cases were consolidated for review of the policy’s constitutionality. **COURT’S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS** This 9th Circuit said that under the [Fifth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment), no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” It reasoned that the [U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) has said time and again that “liberty from bodily restraint always has been recognized as the core of the liberty protected by the [Due Process Clause](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process) from arbitrary governmental action. [*Youngberg v. Romeo*, 457 U.S. 307, 316 (1982)](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/307/case.html). Liberty from bodily restraint includes the right to be free from shackles in the courtroom, reasoned the court. Also, the right to be free from unwarranted shackles no matter the proceeding respects our founding principle that defendants are innocent until proven guilty. “The principle isn’t limited to juries or trial proceedings,” said the Court. It also includes the perception of any person who may walk into a public courtroom, as well as those of the jury, the judge and court personnel: > “A presumptively innocent defendant has the right to be treated with respect and dignity in a public courtroom, not like a bear on a chain . . . The fact that the proceeding is non-jury does not diminish the degradation a prisoner suffers when needlessly paraded about a courtroom, like a dancing bear on a lead, wearing belly chains and manacles.” The Court further reasoned that the most visible and public manifestation of our criminal justice system is the courtroom. “Courtrooms are palaces of justice, imbued with a majesty that reflects the gravity of proceedings designed to deprive a person of liberty or even life.” It reasoned that a member of the public who wanders into a criminal courtroom must immediately perceive that it is a place where justice is administered with due regard to individuals whom the law presumes to be innocent. That perception cannot prevail if defendants are marched in like convicts on a chain gang. “Both the defendant and the public have the right to a dignified, inspiring and open court process. Thus, innocent defendants may not be shackled at any point in the courtroom unless there is an individualized showing of need.” Moreover, the Court reasoned that it has a long tradition of giving correctional officials a wide berth in maintaining security within their own facilities. “But we don’t have a tradition of deferring to correctional or law enforcement officers as to the treatment of individuals appearing in public courtrooms.” Here, in the courtroom, law enforcement officers have no business proposing policies for the treatment of parties as a class. Insofar as they have information pertaining to particular defendants, they may, of course, bring it to the court’s attention. But a blanket policy applied to all defendants infuses the courtroom with a prison atmosphere. The Marshals Service should not have proposed it and the judges should not have paid heed. > “We must take seriously how we treat individuals who come into contact with our criminal justice system—from how our police interact with them on the street to how they appear in the courtroom. How the justice system treats people in these public settings matters for the public’s perception, including that of the defendant. Practices like routine shackling and [“perp walks”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perp_walk) are inconsistent with our constitutional presumption that people who have not been convicted of a crime are innocent until proven otherwise. We must treat people with respect and dignity even though they are suspected of a crime.” Finally, the Court reasoned that the Constitution enshrines a fundamental right to be free of unwarranted restraints. “Thus, we hold that if the government seeks to shackle a defendant, it must first justify the infringement with specific security needs as to that particular defendant.” Courts must decide whether the stated need for security outweighs the infringement on a defendant’s right. This decision cannot be deferred to security providers or presumptively answered by routine policies, said the Court. “All of these requirements apply regardless of a jury’s presence or whether it’s a pretrial, trial or sentencing proceeding. Criminal defendants, like any other party appearing in court, are entitled to enter the courtroom with their heads held high.” My Opinion? Excellent decision. Unless a defendant is particularly dangerous to themselves or others, there is simply no reason to parade them around the court like animals. It’s degrading, demoralizing and reduces respect for the criminal justice system; especially if defendants are not yet found guilty for crimes. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Fifth Amendment, Shackled Defendants, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Ninth Circuit Strikes Nevada Statutory Scheme Allowing Pretextual Stops](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/ninth-circuit-strikes-nevada-statutory-scheme-allowing-pretextual-stops/) **Published:** June 18, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[United States v. Orozco](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/06/01/15-10385.pdf)*, the [Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) held that a statute allowing Nevada law enforcement officers to stop and search commercial vehicles for no reason violates the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) as unlawfully [pretextual](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretext). **BACKGROUND FACTS** In 2013, law enforcement received a tip that defendant Victor Orozco – a commercial truck driver – regularly transported illegal drugs across the border inside his semi truck. Unbeknownst to Orozco, Nevada had a [statutory and administrative scheme](https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-480.html) allowing its police officers to pull over and search commercial vehicles for contraband under the notion that these searched perform a public safety purpose. On April 27, 2013, the tipster said Orozco would be driving through [White Pine County](http://www.whitepinecounty.net/), Nevada. Trooper Zehr of the [Nevada Highway Patrol](http://nhp.nv.gov/) was advised of the vehicle and its location. He was told he would have to develop his own probable cause to get the vehicle stopped because there could possibly be drugs in the vehicle, but there was nothing solid. Troopers targeted Orozco’s truck and pulled it over. They discovered the truck had made several trips across the border. Eventually, a K-9 officer dog arrived and made a positive alert as to the presence of drugs. The troopers found a duffel bag containing twenty-six pounds of methamphetamine and six pounds of heroin in the sleeper compartment. Prior to trial, Orozco [moved to suppress](http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-motion-suppress.html) the drug evidence on the ground that the inspection of his vehicle was an impermissible pretext “motivated by a desire to search for evidence of drug trafficking, rather than to conduct a commercial vehicle inspection.” However, because “safety inspections” were part of a facially valid administrative scheme, the district judge held that the stop of Orozco’s truck was lawful. Later, Orozco was convicted of two counts of [possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/841) for which he was sentenced to 192 months in prison. **LEGAL ISSUE ON APPEAL** Orozco appealed his conviction on the issue of whether the stop was justified under the [administrative search doctrine](http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/search.html), which permits stops and searches, initiated in furtherance of a valid administrative scheme, to be conducted in the absence of [reasonable suspicion](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_suspicion) or [probable cause](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause). **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION** In short, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s denial of Orozco’s motion to suppress, vacated his conviction for two counts of drug possession arising from the stop of his vehicle and remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings. “Nevada Highway Patrol troopers made the stop in order to investigate criminal activity, even though they lacked the quantum of evidence necessary to justify the stop,” reasoned the Court of Appeals. Based on that, the stop was not justified under the administrative search doctrine, which permits stops and searches, initiated in furtherance of a valid administrative scheme, to be conducted in the absence of reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The Court of Appels further reasoned that although an administrative scheme allowing Nevada law enforcement officers to make stops of commercial vehicles and conduct limited inspections without reasonable suspicion was valid on its face because its purpose was to ensure the safe operation of commercial vehicles, the evidence in this case, however, established beyond doubt that the stop of the defendant’s vehicle was a pretext for a stop to investigate information of suspected criminal activity short of that necessary to give rise to reasonable suspicion. > “The stop would not have been made in the absence of a tip that the defendant was possibly carrying narcotics. Accordingly, the stop was a pretextual stop that violated the Fourth Amendment.” The Court further emphasized that the presence of a criminal investigatory motive, by itself, does not render an administrative stop pretextual, and nor does a dual motive—one valid and one impermissible. “Rather, the defendant must show that the stop would not have occurred in the absence of an impermissible reason.” With that, the Court reversed Orozco’s convictions. My opinion? Good decision. Pretextual stops are often used by police officers as an excuse to initiate a stop and search of automobiles suspected of being involved in criminal activity. These stops involve police officers stopping drivers for traffic violations – minor or otherwise – to conduct investigations which are separate and unrelated to the original reasons substantiating the stop. Pretextual traffic stops give police officer a lot of discretion in who they choose to stop and for what reasons. *Too* much discretion. Again, good decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Administrative Search Doctrine, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, law enforcement, police, Pretext, Probable Cause, Reasonable Suspicion, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Traffic Infractions, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Drug-Sniffing Dogs](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/drug-sniffing-dogs/) **Published:** June 21, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[United States v. Gorman](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/06/12/15-16600.pdf)*, the [Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) held that the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) was violated when an officer unreasonably prolonged an initial traffic stop and radioed for a [drug-sniffing dog](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detection_dog) after because he thought there were drugs in the car. **BACKGROUND FACTS** In January 2013, a police officer stopped Straughn Gorman on [Interstate-80](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_80) outside [Wells, Nevada](http://www.wellsnevada.com/city-contact-information/) for a minor traffic infraction. The officer thought Gorman might be carrying drug money. Acting on this concern, he unsuccessfully attempted to summon a drug-sniffing dog and then prolonged Gorman’s roadside detention, which lasted nearly half an hour, as he conducted a non-routine records check. Unable to justify searching the vehicle, he questioned Gorman further and finally released him without a citation. Undeterred, the officer then developed the bright idea of contacting the [sheriff’s office in Elko](http://www.elkocountynv.net/departments/sheriff/), a city further along Gorman’s route, to request that one of their officers stop Gorman a second time. The first officer conveyed his suspicions that Gorman was carrying drug money, described Gorman’s vehicle and direction of travel, and reported that his traffic stop had provided no basis for a search. “You’re going to need a dog,” he said. A second officer, who had a dog with him, then made a special trip to the highway to intercept Gorman’s vehicle. The second officer saw Gorman and eventually believed he had found a traffic reason to pull him over. Following the second stop, the second officer performed a series of redundant record checks and conducted a dog sniff. The dog signaled the odor of drugs or drug-tainted currency. On the basis of the dog’s alert, the second officer obtained a [search warrant](http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/search-warrant-requirements.html), searched the vehicle, and found $167,070 in cash in various interior compartments. No criminal charges arising from this incident were ever brought against Gorman. Instead, the government attempted to appropriate the seized money through[ civil forfeiture](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/981). Civil forfeiture allows law enforcement officials to “seize . . . property without any predeprivation judicial process and to obtain forfeiture of the property even when the owner is personally innocent.” [*Leonard v. Texas*, 137 S. Ct. 847, 847 (2017).](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-122_1b7d.pdf) Gorman contested the forfeiture by arguing that the coordinated stops violated the Fourth Amendment. He prevailed. The federal district court ordered that his money be returned and also awarded him [attorneys’ fees](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/attorneys_fees_or_attorneys_fees). The Government appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. **ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals **(1)** affirmed the lower court’s order granting claimant’s motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a traffic stop; **(2)** affirmed the award of attorneys’ fees; and **(3)** held that the search of claimant’s vehicle following coordinated traffic stops violated the Constitution. The Court of Appeals held that the first stop of claimant’s vehicle was unreasonably prolonged in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court reasoned that the Supreme Court has made clear that traffic stops can last only as long as is reasonably necessary to carry out the “mission” of the stop, unless police have an independent reason to detain the motorist longer. The “mission” of a stop includes “determining whether to issue a traffic ticket” and “checking the driver’s license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile’s registration and proof of insurance.” [*Rodriguez v. United States*, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 1615 (2015)](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf). Additionally, the Court held that the dog sniff and search of claimant’s vehicle during the coordinated second vehicle stop followed directly in an unbroken causal chain of events from that constitutional violation; and consequently, the seized currency from the second stop was the [“fruit of the poisonous tree”](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree) and was properly suppressed under the [exclusionary rule](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exclusionary_rule). Finally, the Court held that none of the exceptions to the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine – the [“independent source” exception](https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/independent-source-rule/), the [“inevitable discovery” exception](https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/inevitable-discovery-exception/), and the [“attenuated basis” exception](http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/60/835/565742/) – applied to claimant’s case. Good decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Evidence, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, law enforcement, police, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Downtown Bellingham's Loitering Problem: What's the Answer?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/downtown-bellinghams-loitering-problem-whats-the-answer/) **Published:** June 27, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article ](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article158082699.html)by Kie Relyea of the [Bellingham Herald ]()discusses the problem of increased loitering in downtown Bellingham. According to Relyea, downtown business owners are telling city leaders they need help. They’re tired of people sleeping in the doorways of their buildings, lighting fires in their alcoves, and having to clean up after those who leave behind stolen bicycles, trash, feces and drug paraphernalia such as used needles. That, and a rise in antisocial behavior and unseemly loitering, is making some people who visit and work in downtown Bellingham feel unsafe. Relyea reports that Bellingham residents reported feeling less safe when walking alone downtown during the day and night than previously, according to a recent [survey](https://www.cob.org/Documents/mayor/2016-residential-survey-final-report.pdf) of residents’ views about issues facing the community. [The March 12 deadly shooting in downtown](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/crime/article143824104.html) also raised a great deal of concern about safety downtown. **THE STATISTICS** According to Relyea, [Bellingham Police Department ](https://www.cob.org/gov/dept/police)statistics showed a nearly 2.5 percent increase in overall incidents from 2013 and 2016 in downtown – going from 3,688 to 3,778 responses that were both criminal and non-criminal in nature. For 2016 alone, 53 percent of the incidents police responded to in the downtown were non-criminal in nature. Criminal incidents would be arrestable offenses such as assaults, robbery and rape. Non-criminal could include responding to people with mental problems, someone violating the sitting and lying ordinance, or someone who was drunk. **SOLUTIONS** Relyea reports that business owners want to help those who want to be helped. This means opening a bigger shelter for the homeless, getting them into housing, finding them jobs and helping people struggling with mental health and addiction. [Bellingham Mayor Kelli Linville](https://www.cob.org/gov/mayor) said prevention was important to her, and the city spends up to $450,000 a year toward such efforts, including for the Homeless Outreach Team, community paramedic and intensive case management. An upcoming project called [Whatcom GRACE (for Ground-Level Response and Coordinated Engagement)](http://www.whatcomcounty.us/DocumentCenter/View/25812) also could help, by reaching out to those being called “familiar faces” – people who tend to fall through the cracks over and over, and who have a number of needs such as housing, behavioral health and substance abuse. They’re also the ones who come into contact with a number of organizations. Apparently, police believe it’s a safety issue to not have people blocking sidewalks where there are pedestrians. However, the [ACLU and homeless advocates said such laws target people ](http://law.seattleu.edu/newsroom/2015-news/advocacy-groups-warn-local-officials-on-anti-homeless-laws)who are visibly poor and homeless, and could be unconstitutional. [Bellingham Council](https://www.cob.org/gov/council) member [Michael Lilliquist](https://www.cob.org/gov/council/Pages/michael-lilliquist.aspx) gave his perspective: “For some people, including myself, restricting and limiting people from sitting down is not a well-aimed tool. For one thing, sitting down is sometimes a perfectly fine and normal thing to do. In addition, our police tell me it is difficult to enforce and easy to avoid,” he said. “For example, people can move just a little distance, such as where the alleyway or a driveway cuts through, and then they are technically not in violation because it is not a ‘sidewalk’ under the definition,” Lilliquist added. “It seems like a lot of work, and some hostility, to get at something that is not the heart of the problem.” My opinion? First, don’t criminalize homelessness. That’s not the answer, and only leads to violating people’s [constitutional rights](https://www.aclu.org/united-states-bill-rights-first-10-amendments-constitution). Second, if anything, divert more resources to addressing mental health and substance abuse. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** ACLU, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, law enforcement, police, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Terry Stop, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Fourth of July is One of the Deadliest Days For Drunk Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/4th-of-july-is-one-of-the-deadliest-days-for-drunk-driving/) **Published:** July 4, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** [Excellent news article ](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/4/15916030/drunk-driving-deadliest-days)by reporter [German Lopez](https://www.vox.com/authors/german-lopez) of [Vox ](https://www.vox.com/)discusses how the [Fourth of July ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Day_(United_States))is among the deadliest days for drunk driving every year, thanks to people both drinking and driving more. According to [an analysis](http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/independence-day-ranks-highest-in-average-daily-crash-deaths) by the [Insurance Institute for Highway Safety ](http://www.iihs.org/)using data from the [Fatality Analysis Reporting System](https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/fatality-analysis-reporting-system-fars), between 2010 and 2014, July 4 had the second highest percent of car crash deaths that were linked to alcohol, and July 3 was also in the top 10. Lopez gives a scale on how the 10 deadliest days broke down, with the percentage noting how many of the car crash deaths involved a blood alcohol level of 0.08 g/dL or more: 1. **January 1:** 62 percent (364 of 591 car crash deaths) 2. **July 4:** 47 percent (278 of 592 car crash deaths) 3. **December 24:** 41 percent (191 of 461 car crash deaths) 4. **February 6:** 41 percent (151 of 366 car crash deaths) 5. **July 24:** 41 percent (207 of 502 car crash deaths) 6. **July 3:** 41 percent (219 of 533 car crash deaths) 7. **March 9:** 41 percent (161 of 396 car crash deaths) 8. **December 25:** 41 percent (137 of 338 car crash deaths) 9. **April 21:** 40 percent (176 of 435 car crash deaths) 10. **April 17:** 40 percent (176 of 438 car crash deaths) Also, Lopez reported that although drunk driving deaths have plummeted over the past few decades. In 1981, drunk driving killed [more than 21,000 people](http://www.madd.org/drunk-driving/about/history.html). By 2015, [that figure was cut in half](https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html). An array of reforms played a big role in that reduction, including [raising the legal alcohol age to 21](https://www.vox.com/2016/1/19/10761802/drinking-age), pushing police to take the enforcement of drunk driving laws much more seriously, and [general improvements in car and traffic safety](https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811572). But much of that action happened in the 1980s and ’90s, when [MADD](http://www.madd.org/) and other advocacy groups came together in a strong, well-funded effort to take drunk driving more seriously. Since then, the issue has fallen off the national radar. Alcohol’s problems extend far beyond drunk driving as well. Alcohol is linked to at least [88,000 deaths in the US each year](https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm), only about an eighth of which are driving-related. That estimate comes from 2006 through 2010, but [more recent data suggests that at least some alcohol deaths are trending up](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/9/13898956/alcohol-deaths-2015): Between 2010 and 2015, the number of alcohol-induced deaths (those that involve direct health complications from alcohol, like liver cirrhosis) rose from less than 26,000 to more than 33,000. Based on the research, there is also *a lot* more that America could be doing to prevent alcohol-related deaths — yet there is little media or public attention to this issue, so there is little pressure for lawmakers to put this research into action. The result is that one of the big causes of death in America continues to kill thousands of people a year. **DEALING WITH INCREASED DEATH TOLLS RELATED TO ALCOHOL ABUSE.** Lopez points out that when Americans think about alcohol policy, the first thing that comes to mind is probably [Prohibition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States), which effectively banned the manufacture and sale of alcohol from 1920 to 1933. That solution, of course, did not work. Still, Lopez suggests the following other policies could help address the negative safety impacts of drinking. - **A higher alcohol tax:** [A 2010 review of the research](http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2009.186007) in the [*American Journal of Public Health* ](http://ajph.aphapublications.org/)came out with strong findings: “Our results suggest that doubling the alcohol tax would reduce alcohol-related mortality by an average of 35%, traffic crash deaths by 11%, sexually transmitted disease by 6%, violence by 2%, and crime by 1.4%.” - **Reducing the number of alcohol outlets:** [A 2009 review](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19944925) published in the [*American Journal of Preventive Medicine*](http://www.ajpmonline.org/) also found that limiting the number of alcohol outlets (such as liquor stores) in an area through stricter licensing, for example, can limit problematic drinking and its dangers. But it also found that going too far can have negative results — by, for example, causing more car crashes as people take longer drives to outlets and possibly drink before returning home. - **Revoking alcohol offenders’ right to drink:** South Dakota’s [24/7 Sobriety program](http://www.vox.com/2016/2/9/10955138/alcohol-247-sobriety-program)effectively revokes people’s right to drink if a court deems it necessary after an alcohol-related offense. The program, specifically, monitors offenders through twice-a-day breathalyzer tests or a bracelet that can track blood alcohol level, and jails them for one or two days for each failed test. [Studies](http://www.vox.com/2016/2/9/10955138/alcohol-247-sobriety-program) from the RAND Corporation have linked the program to drops in mortality, DUI arrests, and domestic violence arrests. - **Put state governments in charge of selling alcohol:** [A 2014 report](http://www.rand.org/pubs/external_publications/EP50498.html) from RAND concluded that when state governments monopolize alcohol sales through state-run shops, they can keep prices higher, reduce access to youth, and reduce overall levels of use. These are just a few of the ideas that experts have put out there. There are many more ways to curtail alcohol consumption and misuse without outright banning it. Maybe these policies still go too far for some people. Different individuals will likely disagree on whether these proposals go too far in restricting personal liberty, even if they do save some lives. But the research suggests such policies are at least worth considering. Yet lawmakers have paid very little attention to alcohol policy. As [Philip Cook, a public policy expert at Duke University](https://sanford.duke.edu/people/faculty/cook-philip-j) who wrote [*Paying the Tab: The Costs and Benefits of Alcohol Control*](https://www.amazon.com/Paying-Tab-Benefits-Alcohol-Control/dp/0691171157), told Mr. Lopez, the last time Congress raised the federal alcohol tax was 1991 — and that has let the actual impact of the tax erode due to increasing inflation: > “The great opportunity we have is to restore taxes to the real value that they had a few decades ago. That’s justified by the current social costs of drinking, and would have all kinds of beneficial effects, while being justified just from the point of view that drinkers should pay for the damage that they do.” My opinion? I share Mr. Lopez’s argument that part of the problem is that policymakers just don’t feel much pressure to act on these kinds of public health problems — at least in the same way they feel compelled to act on an issue like, say, terrorism. So thousands of needless deaths continue happening in America every year, including hundreds this Fourth of July. However, if you; a friend or family member is pulled over for alcohol-related driving, contact a qualified, competent criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. The consequences of DUI – ranging from jail, to high court fines to suspended/revoked drivers licenses are too great to be trifled with. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Reckless Driving, Reckless Endangerment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Traffic Infractions, Vehicular Assault, Vehicular Homicide, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Sex Offenders & Cyberspace](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/sex-offenders-social-media/) **Published:** July 6, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[Packingham v. North Carolina](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf)*, the [United State Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) outlawed a North Carolina statute that makes it a felony for a registered sex offender to access a commercial social networking web site. The statute restricts lawful speech in violation of the First Amendment. **BACKGROUND FACTS** In 2008,[ North Carolina enacted a statute ](http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/statutes/statutelookup.pl?statute=14-202.5)making it a felony for a registered sex offender to gain access to a number of websites, including commonplace social media websites like [Facebook ](http://www.facebook.com)and [Twitter](https://twitter.com/?lang=en). North Carolina has prosecuted over 1,000 people for violating this law. The Defendant was charged after posting a statement on his personal Facebook profile about a positive experience in traffic court. The trial court denied petitioner’s [motion to dismiss](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/motion_to_dismiss) the charges on the ground that the law violated the First Amendment. He was convicted and given a suspended prison sentence. On appeal, the [State Court of Appeals](http://www.nccourts.org/Courts/Appellate/Appeal/) struck down the statute on First Amendment grounds, however, the [North Carolina Supreme Court](http://www.nccourts.org/Courts/Appellate/Supreme/) ended up reversing the decision. The United States Supreme Court granted review on the issue is whether the Carolina Statute was permissible under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause, applicable to the States under the [Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv). **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION** The U.S. Supreme Court held that the statute impermissibly restricts lawful speech in violation of the First Amendment. First, the Court reasoned that the First Amendment allows all persons have access to places where they can speak, listen, reflect, speak and listen once more. Today, one of the most important places to exchange views is [cyberspace](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cyberspace), particularly [social media](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20media), which offers “relatively unlimited, low-cost capacity for communication of all kinds to users engaged in a wide variety of protected First Amendment activity on any number of diverse topics. [*Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union*, 521 U. S. 844, 870](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/844/case.html). The Court stated that the Internet’s forces and directions are so new, so protean, and so far reaching that courts must be conscious that what they say today may be obsolete tomorrow. Indeed, the Court expressly proceeded very carefully in its analysis: > “Here, in one of the first cases the Court has taken to address the relationship between the First Amendment and the modern Internet, the Court must exercise extreme caution before suggesting that the First Amendment provides scant protection for access to vast networks in that medium.” That said, the Court bluntly reasoned that the statute is not narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest. Like other inventions heralded as advances in human progress, the Internet and social media will be exploited by the criminal mind. It is also clear that sexual abuse of a child is a most serious crime and an act repugnant to the moral instincts of a decent people, and that a legislature may pass valid laws to protect children and other sexual assault victims. “Two assumptions are made in resolving this case,” said the Court. First, the law applies to commonplace social networking sites like Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter. Second, the First Amendment permits a State to enact ***specific***, ***narrowly-tailored*** laws that prohibit a sex offender from engaging in conduct that often presages a sexual crime, like contacting a minor or using a website to gather information about a minor. However, the Court reasoned that even with these assumptions, the North Carolina statute enacts unprecedented prohibitions in the scope of First Amendment speech it burdens: > “Social media allows users to gain access to information and communicate with one another on any subject that might come to mind. With one broad stroke, North Carolina bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge.” The Court said that even convicted criminals might receive legitimate benefits from the social media for access to the world of ideas, particularly if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives. Consequently, the Court reasoned that North Carolina failed to prove that its sweeping law was necessary or legitimate to serve its purpose of keeping convicted sex offenders away from vulnerable victims. “No case or holding of this Court has approved of a statute as broad in its reach.” With that, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded Mr. Packingham’s criminal conviction. My opinion? Excellent decision. Granted, nobody wants anyone using the internet for predatory purposes. Nevertheless, its simply unconstitutional to totally prohibit people – even convicted sex offenders – from using the internet and social media. There’s plenty of [spyware](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/spyware), [child molestation sting operations](https://www.themarshallproject.org/2017/01/22/the-return-of-to-catch-a-predator#.x16QXAsM9) and [government internet monitoring](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/11/nsa-internet-surveillance-email) happening on the internet to reduce the risk of predatory behavior. There’s no need for the Government to make statutes which violate Constitutional rights. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Computer Crimes, Constitutional Rights, felony, First Amendment, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Social Media, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Guilty Pleas & Deportation](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/guilty-pleas-deportation/) **Published:** July 6, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[Lee v. United States](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-327_3eb4.pdf)*, the [United States Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) held that a defendant was prejudiced by his attorney’s bad advice to accept a guilty plea when following that advice ultimately led to Lee’s deportation. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Defendant Jae Lee moved to the United States from [South Korea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea) with his parents when he was 13. He spent 35 years in this country. He never returned to South Korea. He also never became a U. S. citizen, and lived instead as a lawful permanent resident. In 2008, federal officials heard from a [confidential informant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informant) that Lee had sold the informant [ecstasy ](http://www.drugfreeworld.org/drugfacts/ecstasy/what-is-ecstasy.html)and [marijuana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)). After obtaining a warrant, the officials searched Lee’s house. They found drugs, cash, and a loaded rifle. Lee admitted that the drugs were his. Later, a [grand jury indicted him ](https://www.federalcharges.com/grand-jury-investigations-what-to-expect/)on one count of [possessing ecstasy with intent to distribute](http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/possession-with-the-intent-to-distribute.html). Lee retained a private defense attorney and entered into plea discussions with the Government. Importantly, during the plea process, Lee repeatedly asked his attorney whether he would face deportation. His attorney assured him that he would not be deported as a result of pleading guilty. Based on that assurance, Lee accepted a plea and was sentenced to a year and a day in prison. Unfortunately for Lee he had, in fact, pleaded guilty to an [“aggravated felony” under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U. S. C. §1101(a)(43)(B)](https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/aggravated_felonies.pdf). Therefore, Lee was subject to mandatory deportation under federal law [§1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1227)as a result of that plea following his attorney’s advice When Lee learned of this consequence, he filed a [motion to vacate his conviction](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/vacating-a-prior-criminal-conviction/) and sentence, arguing that his attorney gave constitutionally [ineffective assistance](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ineffective_assistance_of_counsel). At an [evidentiary hearing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preliminary_hearing), both Lee and his plea-stage counsel testified that “deportation was the determinative issue” to Lee in deciding whether to accept a plea, and Lee’s counsel acknowledged that although Lee’s defense to the charge was weak, if he had known Lee would be deported upon pleading guilty, he would have advised him to go to trial. A Magistrate Judge recommended that Lee’s plea be set aside and his conviction vacated. The District Court, however, denied relief, and the [Sixth Circuit ](http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/)affirmed. Applying the two-part test for ineffective assistance claims from [*Strickland v. Washington*](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/466/668/case.html), the Sixth Circuit concluded that, while the Government conceded that Lee’s counsel had performed deficiently, Lee could not show that he was prejudiced by his attorney’s erroneous advice. Lee appealed the Sixth Circuit’s decision. He was granted review by the U.S. Supreme Court. **COURT’S DECISION & ANALYSIS** The U.S. Supreme Court held that Lee successfully showed he was prejudiced by his defense attorney’s bad advice. The Court reasoned that when a defendant claims that his attorney’s bad performance deprived him of a trial by causing him to accept a guilty plea, then the defendant can show prejudice by demonstrating a reasonable probability that, but for the attorney’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Here, the Court believed Lee’s argument that he never would have accepted a guilty plea if he knew he would be deported upon accepting the guilty plea. The Court further reasoned that the decision whether to plead guilty involves assessing the respective consequences of a conviction after trial and by plea. It explained that when consequences are similarly dire, even the smallest chance of success at trial may look attractive: > “For Lee, deportation after some time in prison was not meaningfully different from deportation after somewhat less time; he says he accordingly would have rejected any plea leading to deportation in favor of throwing a [“Hail Mary”](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hail-mary) at trial.” Finally, the Court reasoned that under the unusual circumstances of this case, Lee has adequately demonstrated a reasonable probability that he would have rejected the plea had he known that it would lead to mandatory deportation. Here, both Lee and his attorney testified that deportation was the determinative issue to Lee when Lee accepted the plea deal. Also, Lee’s responses to the judge’s questioning during the entry of his plea confirmed the importance that Lee placed on deportation. He had strong connections to the United States, while he had no ties to South Korea. Finally, the Court rejected the Government’s argument that Lee cannot convincingly argue that his decision to reject the plea bargain would have been rational under the circumstances since deportation would almost certainly result from a trial: > “Unlike the Government, this Court cannot say that it would be irrational for someone in Lee’s position to risk additional prison time in exchange for holding on to some chance of avoiding deportation.” With that, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Lee’s conviction. My opinion? Good decision. In [*Padilla v. Kentucky*](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-651.pdf), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a defense attorney has an obligation under the Sixth Amendment to advise non-citizens about the potential adverse immigration consequences of a plea to criminal charges, and that the absence of such advice may be a basis for claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Clearly, it’s of the utmost importance that defense attorneys competently advise their clients of the ramifications of pleading guilty. As demonstrated here, pleading guilty to aggravated felonies results in the unwanted consequences of immediate deportation. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Immigration, Ineffective Assistance, Informant, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Juror Misconduct](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/juror-misconduct/) **Published:** July 7, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[Godoy v. Spearman](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/06/30/13-56024.pdf)*, the [Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) overturned a murder conviction because a juror inappropriately communicated with a “judge friend” about the case during deliberations. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Enrique Godoy was convicted of [second-degree murder](http://statelaws.findlaw.com/california-law/california-second-degree-murder-laws.html) by a [Los Angeles County Superior Court](https://www.lacourt.org/) jury. A week before his June 12, 2006 sentencing, he moved for a new trial alleging that Juror 10 had improperly communicated about the case with a “judge friend” during deliberations. To substantiate his allegations, Godoy brought brought alternate juror “E.M.” to his sentencing hearing. The trial court continued Godoy’s sentencing to a future court date. Later, Godoy sent the Prosecutor a declaration about Juror 10’s misconduct from alternate juror N.L., who wrote the following: > “During the course of the trial, juror number ten kept continuous communication with a gentleman up north, who she referred to as her “judge friend.” Juror number ten explained to us, the jury as a whole, that she had a friend that was a judge up north. From the time of jury selection until the time of verdict, juror number ten would communicate with her “judge friend” about the case via her TMobile Blackberry, a two way text paging system. When the jury was not sure what was going on or what procedurally would happen next, juror number ten would communicate with her friend and disclose to the jury what he said.” Despite this “smoking gun” declaration, the trial court nevertheless sentenced Godoy to 16 years’ to life imprisonment. Godoy appealed his conviction to the [California Court of Appeal](http://www.courts.ca.gov/courtsofappeal.htm), arguing the trial court erred by **(1)** refusing to presume Juror 10’s communications prejudiced the verdict and **(2)** refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing on the alleged misconduct. However, the California Court of Appeal rejected both of these arguments on the merits and affirmed Godoy’s conviction. Gody again appealed, this time going to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. **COURT’S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION** This Ninth Circuit’s opinion began with the following: > “One of the most fundamental rights in our system of criminal justice is the right to trial before an impartial jury. Its common law origin can be traced back to the Middle Ages. It was enshrined in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, and it has been embraced by the Supreme Court in numerous cases . . .” Against this backdrop, the Ninth Circuit held that the California Court of Appeal decision violated the clearly established [Supreme Court ](https://www.supremecourt.gov/)law that governs this case. It reasoned that under [*Mattox v. United States*](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/146/140/case.html), due process does not tolerate any ground of suspicion that the administration of justice has been interfered with by external influence. “Thus, when faced with allegations of improper contact between a juror and an outside party, courts apply a settled two-step framework,” said the Ninth Circuit. At **step one**, the court asks whether the contact was “possibly prejudicial,” meaning it had a tendency to be injurious to the defendant. If so, the contact is deemed presumptively prejudicial and the court proceeds to **step two**, where the burden rests heavily upon the State to establish the contact was, in fact, harmless. If the State does not show harmlessness – or in other words, if the defendant was, in fact, harmed by the juror’s contact with an outside party – then the court must grant the defendant a new trial. However, when the prejudicial effect of the contact is unclear, then the trial court must hold a hearing to determine the circumstances of the contact, the impact thereof upon the juror, and whether or not it was prejudicial. “Here, the California Court of Appeal failed to adhere to this framework in three key respects,” said the Ninth Circuit. First, although the State court correctly acknowledged at step one that N.L.’s declaration raised a presumption of prejudice, it never required the State to rebut that presumption at step two. It concluded instead that the presumption was rebutted because Godoy’s evidence failed to prove prejudice.” The Ninth Circuit further reasoned that under [*Mattox* ](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/146/140/case.html)and [*Remmer*](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/347/227/case.html), however, Mr. Godoy was not required to prove prejudice at step two. Once he triggered the presumption, the burden rested heavily upon the State to disprove prejudice. “Thus, in denying relief because Godoy’s evidence did not prove prejudice at step two, the State court acted contrary to well established law,” reasoned the Ninth Circuit. Second, the California Court of Appeal decision to set aside the State court’s failure to hold the State to its burden was error. In other words, it was wrong for the California Court of Appeal to rely on the very same statement from N.L.’s declaration both to raise the presumption of prejudice and to rebut it. “This defies not only logic, but also the clearly established definition of a ‘presumption,’” reasoned the Ninth Circuit. Third, the California Court of Appeal denied Godoy a hearing on prejudice under the wrong legal rule. It held he had to show a “strong possibility” of prejudice, but Remmer requires a hearing whenever, as here, the presumption attaches but the prejudicial effect of the contact is unclear from the record. “Because the state court’s decision contravened these bedrock principles, it was contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent under [28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1),](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2254)” reasoned the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit concluded that because Godoy showed the presumption of prejudice, he was entitled to the evidentiary hearing that he never had to begin with. With that, the Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment of the lower court and remanded the case back with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the circumstances of Juror 10’s misconduct, the impact thereof upon the jury, and whether or not it was prejudicial. My opinion? There’s a lot to be learned from this case. First, in all of my trials I admit a jury instruction prohibiting the jurors from accessing the internet and/or their smartphone devices. Jurors must rely on the evidence and the law and not be guided by outside influences. Second, I try and discuss the case with jurors immediately after they render verdicts. These conversations are very helpful teaching moments because jurors reveal what swayed their decisions. Also – and important to the defense of my clients – jurors may reveal whether their fellow jurors committed misconducts similar to the type described in this case. Good decision. And kudos to the defense attorney who discovered the juror misconduct. Although my heart goes out to the friends and family of the murder victim, justice is not served when our courts fail to administer their obligation to give defendants a fair trial. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Cell Phone, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, felony, Homicide & Manslaughter, Juror Misconduct, Jury Trial, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, Violent Crime, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Join Offenses = Bad Results](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/6722-2/) **Published:** July 10, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Linville](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2047916-8-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held that the defendant’s numerous criminal charges cannot be “joined” to a charge of [leading organized crime](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.82.060). **BACKGROUND FACTS** Following an increase in residential burglaries in [Thurston County](http://www.thurstoncountywa.gov/tchome/Pages/default.aspx), law enforcement officers noticed similarities among several burglaries. Officers ultimately recovered numerous items taken during the burglaries from Linville’s home. The State charged Linville with 1 count of [leading organized crime](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.82.060), 35 counts of [residential burglary](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.52.025), 1 count of attempted residential burglary, 4 counts of[ first degree burglary](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.52.020), 3 counts of [second degree burglary](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.52.030), 39 counts of [trafficking in stolen property](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.82.050), 17 counts of [first degree theft](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.56.030), 18 counts of [second degree theft](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.56.040), 1 count of attempted second degree theft, 3 counts of [third degree theft](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.050), 5 counts of [theft of a firearm](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.300), 5 counts of [identity theft](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/Rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.35.020), 4 counts of [unlawful possession of a firearm](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.040), 1 count of [possession of stolen property](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.150), and 1 count of [possession of a controlled substance](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.4013), for a total of 138 charges with numerous deadly weapon sentencing enhancements. The State alleged that Linville was [armed with a firearm](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94a.533) during the commission of the four first degree burglaries. At no point did Linville argue that joinder of any offenses was improper under RCW 9A.82.085. During the jury trial, the State presented testimony from numerous co-defendants who identified Linville as the instigator and leader of the burglary scheme. The co-defendants’ testimony was corroborated by law enforcement officers and victims who described the common characteristics among the burglaries and identified stolen goods recovered from the homes of Linville and his co-defendants. The jury found Linville guilty of 137 offenses, and he was sentenced to 914 months in prison, which included 240 months for four firearm sentencing enhancements. Linville appealed on the argument that his defense counsel gave ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to move for severance of offenses that were not part of the pattern of criminal profiteering activity from the charge of leading organized crime under RCW 9A.82.085. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** Ultimately, the Court agreed with Linville. It reasoned that the [Sixth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) guarantees the effective assistance of counsel in criminal proceedings. To show [ineffective assistance of counsel](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ineffective_assistance_of_counsel), a defendant must show that **(1)** defense counsel’s conduct was deficient, and **(2)** the deficient performance resulted in prejudice. To show deficient performance, Linville must show that defense counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. To show prejudice, Linville must show a reasonable possibility that, but for counsel’s purportedly deficient conduct, the outcome of the proceeding would have differed. 1. ***Counsel Rendered Deficient Performance.*** First, the Court reasoned that [RCW 9A.82.085](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.82.085) states the following, in relevant part: > “In a criminal prosecution alleging a violation of leading organized crime, the state is barred from joining any offense other than the offenses alleged to be part of the pattern of criminal profiteering activity.” [RCW 9A.82.010(12)](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.82.010) defines “pattern of criminal profiteering activity” as “engaging in at least three acts of criminal profiteering.” RCW 9A.82.010(4) defines “criminal profiteering” as: > “any act, including any anticipatory or completed offense, committed for financial gain, that is chargeable or indictable under the laws of the state in which the act occurred and, if the act occurred in a state other than this state, would be chargeable or indictable under the laws of this state had the act occurred in this state and punishable as a felony and by imprisonment for more than one year, regardless of whether the act is charged or indicted, as any of the following: . . . .” RCW 9A.82.010(4) then lists 46 crimes and their defining statutes. First and second degree theft, trafficking in stolen property, leading organized crime, and identity theft are included in the list. **However, residential burglary, first degree burglary, second degree burglary, attempted residential burglary, theft of a firearm, third degree theft, unlawful possession of a firearm, and possession of stolen property are NOT included in the list.** Consequently, the Court reasoned that a plain reading of the statutes made it clear that the State was barred from joining charges of residential burglary, first degree burglary, second degree burglary, attempted residential burglary, theft of a firearm, third degree theft, unlawful possession of a firearm, and possession of stolen property to Linville’s prosecution for leading organized crime. > “The unreasonable failure to research and apply relevant statutes without any tactical purpose constitutes deficient performance. Here, defense counsel’s failure to object to the State’s improper joinder of charges was unreasonable and constitutes deficient performance.” ***2. Counsel’s Deficient Performance Resulted in Prejudice to the Defendant’s Case.*** The Court said that in order to succeed on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Linville must also show that but for his attorney’s deficient performance the outcome of the trial would have differed, and therefore the deficient performance was prejudicial. To this end, the Court reasoned that this issue is somewhat different than the related issue of discretionary joinder or severance pursuant to [CrR 4.4(b)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR4.04). Under CrR 4.4(b), a trial court must grant a motion to sever offenses if it determines that “severance will promote a fair determination of the defendant’s guilt or innocence of each offense.” A defendant seeking such a severance under CrR 4.4(b) must show that a trial involving all counts would be so manifestly prejudicial as to outweigh the concern for judicial economy. In contrast, the Court explained that RCW 9A.82.085 leaves no room for the trial court’s discretion. Under that statute, the State is barred from joining offenses other than those alleged to be part of the criminal profiteering activity in a prosecution for leading organized crime. “Because of defense counsel’s failure to object, Linville was improperly tried for 138 total charges and convicted of 137 offenses,” said the Court. “Had counsel properly objected to the joinder, 56 of the charges, including all of the burglary charges, would have been severed, the trial would not have included convictions for those 56 improperly joined charges, and the outcome of this trial would have been different.” The Court extrapolated the prejudicial consequences of the joinder. It explained that each of the four firearm enhancements – which resulted in a mandatory minimum sentence of 240 months – were associated with the four counts of first degree burglary. The firearm enhancements would *not* have been considered but for defense counsel’s deficient performance. “The improper joinder had additional prejudicial consequences,” stated the Court. For example, by improperly joining four charges of unlawful possession of a firearm, the State was permitted to introduce evidence of Linville’s prior felony for possession of a controlled substance without a prescription. This prior conviction evidence was highly prejudicial given that the State’s theory was that Linville’s crime ring was motivated by drugs. Also, the State relied heavily on the burglaries as evidence of Linville’s guilt for leading organized crime. A jury separately considering the burglary charges would not necessarily have heard testimony of Linville’s accomplices accusing him of orchestrating a broad scheme. Consequently, the Court held that Linville’s defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object to the joinder of offenses in violation of RCW 9A.82.085. The Court therefore reversed Linville’s convictions and remanded them back to the trial court for separate trials. My opinion? Good decision. A defense attorney’s failure to sever “joined” offenses into separate trials can have profoundly devastating effects. Put simply, juries are more biased against the defendant in a joinder trial versus a trial with a single charge. Consequently, they are more likely to convict on a particular charge in a joinder trial with multiple charges than in a trial on the same single charge. It’s imperative that competent defense attorneys sever counts whenever possible. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Burglary, Constitutional Rights, felony, Firearm, Joinder, Jury Trial, Property Crimes, Sentencing, Severance, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Theft, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [DV Protection Orders](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/dv-protection-orders/) **Published:** July 11, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[Rodriquez v. Zavala](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/936455.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/)held that a person does not have to be a victim of domestic violence (DV) in order to be included in a DV protection order. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Esmeralda Rodriguez and Luis Zavala shared a history of domestic violence. Over the course of their relationship, Zavala repeatedly physically and emotionally assaulted Rodriguez. He shoved Rodriguez to the ground while she was pregnant with their infant child L.Z., attempted to smother her with a pillow, blamed her for his failings in life, pulled a knife on her and promised to cut her into tiny pieces, threatened to kidnap L.Z., and said he would do something so horrible to Rodriguez’s daughters from a prior relationship that she would want to kill herself. He threatened to kill her, her children, and himself. Zavala tried to control Rodriguez. He restricted her communication with friends and family members, and he appeared uninvited wherever she was when she failed to return his phone calls. Zavala’s history of violence against Rodriguez reached its peak one day in June 2015 after the couple had separated. At 2:00 a.m. that morning and in violation of a previous restraining order, Zavala pounded on Rodriguez’s door, threatening to break windows unless she let him in. Rodriguez went to the door and opened it enough to tell Zavala to leave. Zavala pushed past Rodriguez, cornered her, and began choking her. He told Rodriguez he was going to “end what he started.” The police arrived and arrested Zavala. A few days later, Rodriguez went to the court and petitioned for a domestic violence protection order for herself and her children, including L.Z. In her petition, Rodriguez described the assault and Zavala’s history of violence. The court issued a temporary order pending a full hearing. The temporary order restrained Zavala from contacting Rodriguez and all four children. At the later [protection order hearing](http://www.livestrong.com/article/160542-what-happens-at-restraining-order-hearings/), Zavala appeared. Rodriguez discussed the choking incident and told the court that L.Z. had been asleep in another room during the most recent attack. She feared Zavala would take their son based on previous threats. Zavala admitted to coming to the house because he wanted to see L.Z., but denied Rodriguez’s allegations of abuse. The trial court issued a protective order for Rodriguez and her daughters, but excluded L.Z., explaining that the boy was not “present” during the assault or threatened at all. According to the trial judge, “L.Z. wasn’t involved in any of this.” The order was effective for one year, expiring on June 26, 2016. Rodriguez appealed. Among other things, she argued that her son should have been included in the final protection order based on her fear that Zavala would hurt L.Z. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that a petitioner may seek relief based only on her fear of imminent harm to herself. The WA Supreme Court granted review. **ISSUE** Whether the definition of “[domestic violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/)” in chapter [26.50 RCW](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/Rcw/default.aspx?cite=26.50) contemplates a parent’s fear of harm for a child at the hands of another parent. **COURT’S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION** The Court reasoned that in order to commence a domestic violence protection order action, a person must file a petition “alleging that the person has been the victim of domestic violence committed by the respondent. [Under the statute, “Domestic violence” is defined as the following:](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=26.50.010) > “(a) physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury or assault, between family or household members; (b) sexual assault of one family or household member by another; or (c) stalking as defined in RCW 9A.46.110 of one family or household member by another family or household member.” The Court further explained that The Court of Appeals interpretation of the statute was unnecessarily narrow. “By relating the fear of harm back to the petitioner, it ignores the final prepositional phrase ‘between family or household members.'” Consequently, because domestic violence includes the infliction of fear of harm between family members generally, the definition includes a mother’s fear of harm to her child by that child’s father. Also, the context of the statute, related provisions, and statutory scheme as a whole also indicate that “domestic violence” was intended to cover more than merely a petitioner and a perpetrator: > “This definition reflects the legislative recognition that violence in the home encompasses many different familial and household roles; violence does not distinguish on the basis of relationship.” Moreover, the Court reasoned that a person does not have to be a victim of domestic violence to be included in a protection order. [RCW 26.50.060](http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=26.50.060) gives trial courts substantial discretion to protect victims and their loved ones. The provision explains that a trial court may bar a respondent from going to the “day care or school of a child” or having “any contact with the victim of domestic violence or the victim’s children or members of the victim’s household” and that, notably, the court may order “other relief as it deems necessary for the protection of the petitioner and other family or household members sought to be protected.” Additionally, the Court said that the legislative intent of the [Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA)](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/Rcw/default.aspx?cite=26.50) further supports that “domestic violence” includes a petitioner’s fear of harm between family members. Finally, the Court explained that the plain language of [RCW 26.50.010(3)](http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=26.50.010), related DV statutes, and the statutory scheme show that the definition of “domestic violence” allows a petitioner to seek relief based on a general fear of harm between family members. It said that deciding that “domestic violence” means the fear possessed only by the one seeking protection not only conflicts with the statute’s plain language, it would leave children unprotected: > “Even more acutely, such an interpretation would fail to protect infants and developmentally delayed children. These are the most vulnerable of our vulnerable populations. Excluding these children from protection orders because they fail to or cannot show fear of a harm they may not understand subjects them to violence the legislature expressly intended to prevent.” Accordingly, the WA Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals because Zavala’s violent threats against L.Z. were “domestic violence” under the plain language of the statute, and Rodriguez properly petitioned for a protection order on L.Z.’s behalf based on her reasonable fear for him. Please read my Legal Guide titled [Defending Against Domestic Violence Charges](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/defending-against-domestic-violence-charges/) and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a DV crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Domestic Violence, Legislation, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Border Patrol Backs Trump](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/border-patrol-president-endorses-trump-policies/) **Published:** July 17, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** According to a[ news article](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/17/brandon-judd-border-patrol-union-president-says-mo/?utm_source=onesignal&utm_campaign=pushnotify&utm_medium=push) by reporter [Douglass Ernst](http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/douglas-ernst/) of the [Washington Times](http://www.washingtontimes.com/), President [Trump](http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/trump/) received a glowing performance review Monday from the head of the [National Border Patrol Council](http://www.bpunion.org/). [Brandon Judd](http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/brandon-judd/), who is the President of the National Border Patrol Council, appeared on [“Fox and Friends”](http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-and-friends/index.html) on Monday to discuss illegal immigration, [Mr. Trump](http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/trump/)’s plan to build a border wall with [Mexico](http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/mexico/), and morale within the agency. The union president said that agents have a new “energy” to them due to a concrete commitment to enforcing existing federal laws. “There’s a vibe, there’s an energy in the Border Patrol that’s never been there before,” [Mr. Judd](http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/brandon-judd/) told host Steve Doocy. “In the 20 years I’ve been in the patrol, we haven’t seen this type of energy, and we’re excited because we signed up to do a job and this president is allowing us to do that job.” [Mr. Judd](http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/brandon-judd/) said that having a giant contiguous wall along the southern border was not as important as having barricades at “strategic locations” such as El Paso and San Diego. “The president has done a great job of actually enforcing the law — something we didn’t see in the last eight years,” [Mr. Judd](http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/brandon-judd/) said, Fox News Channel [reported](http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/07/17/border-patrol-union-president-trump-wall-high-energy-among-agents). “And if we continue to do that, then a clear message will be sent throughout the world that if you cross our borders illegally, you will be detained and you will be sent back. “If you look at the rhetoric that the president sent out, we’ve had a drop that we’ve never seen before with any president,” he continued. “If you’re in the left, right or middle, you have to say this president has done exactly what he promised to do and we do have border security like what we expect to see.” My opinion? Let’s observe how these ongoing immigration issues develop. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court Supreme Court had a [ruling](http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/26/politics/travel-ban-supreme-court-ruling/index.html) which [allowed parts of President Donald Trump’s travel ban to go into effect](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf) and will hear oral arguments on the case this fall. In its decision, the court is allowing the ban to go into effect for foreign nationals who lack any “bona fide relationship with any person or entity in the United States.” The court, in an unsigned opinion, left the travel ban against citizens of six majority-Muslim on hold as applied to non-citizens with relationships with persons or entities in the United States, which includes most of the plaintiffs in both cases. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Many charges – including [sex offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/), and [felony assaults](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) – are potentially deportable offenses for non-citizens. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Immigration, Legislation, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Trump Administration, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Invalid Search Warrant](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/invalid-search-warrant/) **Published:** July 17, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Youngs](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/734202.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) suppressed evidence of the defendant’s blood test collected after a [search warrant](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/search_warrant) because the search warrant application did not contain sufficient facts to establish that the suspect was driving the car. **BACKGROUND FACTS** In the early morning hours of May 15, 2013, a [Washington State Patrol](http://www.wsp.wa.gov/) Trooper arrested Youngs after driving a car involved in a [rollover collision](https://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle-Shoppers/Rollover/Causes). The judge issued the warrant based on the Affidavit in Support of Search Warrant for Evidence of a [Driving While Under the Influence of Intoxicants (DUI)](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). This affidavit is a largely preprinted form to which the law enforcement officer may add information. Following the blood draw, the State charged Youngs with DUI. Youngs [moved to suppress evidence](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) obtained under authority of the warrant. The district court denied the motion. Youngs then agreed to a [stipulated bench trial](http://www.drunkdrivingdefense.com/dui-stipulated-bench-trial-conditional-plea/) based on the police report and blood alcohol report. The district court found Youngs guilty and sentenced him. Youngs sought review in the superior court. The Court affirmed based on the content in the state trooper’s affidavit. Eventually, the WA Court of Appeals granted Youngs’s appeal. **ISSUE** The question was whether the trooper’s search warrant affidavit had sufficient facts for a judge to make an independent decision whether there was [probable cause ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause)that the defendant was driving. **COURT’S DECISION & ANALYSIS** The Court decided that although the factual information concerning intoxication is sufficient and unchallenged in this case, the factual information to establish driving is insufficient. The Court reasoned that a judge may only issue a search warrant upon probable cause. The warrant must be supported by an affidavit identifying the place to be searched and the items to be seized. The affidavit must contain sufficient facts to convince an ordinary person that the defendant is probably engaged in criminal activity. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that judges must evaluate the relevant affidavit “‘in a commonsense manner, rather than hypertechnically, and any doubts are resolved in favor of the warrant. Thus, a “negligent or innocent mistake” in drafting the affidavit will not void it. Also, judges may draw reasonable inferences from the stated facts. However, the Court also reasoned that inferences alone, without an otherwise substantial basis of facts, are insufficient. The affidavit may provide summary statements so long as it also expresses the facts and circumstances underlying that summary. Here, the Court found technical problems with the affidavit. For example, one problem is that the preprinted language in the form—”ceased driving/was found in physical control of a motor vehicle” — suggests that it is intended to apply to two different crimes. One crime is [“Driving While Under the Influence under RCW 46.61.502](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.502), while the other is [“Physical Control of Vehicle While Under the Influence under RCW 46.61.504](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.504), which is a totally separate and different crime with different elements for the State to prove: The Court said that unlike the act of driving, which may be readily observed, “physical control” is a conclusion drawn from other facts. For example, a police officer may reach this conclusion based on the defendant’s proximity to the vehicle, possession of keys to it, or similar observable circumstances. Because the magistrate must independently determine whether probable cause exists, he or she cannot simply accept such a conclusion without supporting allegations. Therefore, ruled the Court, the statements in the search warrant affidavit are conclusory, general, and insufficient to support probable cause that Youngs was driving the vehicle. With that, the Court reversed Youngs’ conviction and remanded the case back to the district court with directions to suppress the evidence obtained by the warrant. My opinion? Excellent decision. Sure, it’s sometimes safe to assume that the sole driver of a car involved in a collision is, in fact, the driver. However, it muddies the waters even further when law enforcement officers issuing search warrants fail to clarify whether the crime of straight DUI or Physical Control DUI took place. These crimes are very different. One crimes involves officers seeing the defendant drive (straight DUI) while the other crime does not (Physical Control DUI). Combined with the fact that there was missing information regarding the defendant’s driving *at all*, this combination of errors makes for an ineffective search warrant. Again, good decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Blood Test, Drug Offenses, DUI, Evidence, misdemeanor, Physical Control DUI, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Race-Based Jury Selection](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/6886-2/) **Published:** July 17, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[City of Seattle v. Erickson](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/934088.pdf)*, the[ WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) held that the Prosecutor’s [peremptory strike](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Peremptory+strike) of a minority juror was a[ *prima facie*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prima_facie) showing of [racial discrimination](http://civilrights.findlaw.com/discrimination/racial-discrimination.html) requiring a full analysis under [*Batson v. Kentucky*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/476/79). **BACKGROUND FACTS** In 2013, Matthew Erickson, a black man, was charged in [Seattle Municipal Court](http://www.seattle.gov/courts/) with [Unlawful Use of a Weapon](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/) and [Resisting Arrest](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/resisting-arrest/). After voir dire, the [City of Seattle](https://www.seattle.gov/cityattorney/about-us/criminal-division) (City) exercised a peremptory challenge against tjuror #5, who was the only black juror on the jury panel. After the jury was empaneled and excused from the courthouse with the rest of the venire, Erickson objected to the peremptory challenge, claiming the strike was racially motivated. The court found that there was no *[prima facie](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prima_facie)* showing of racial discrimination and overruled Erickson’s objection. Erickson was convicted on both counts. Erickson appealed the municipal court’s decision to [King County Superior Court](http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superior-court.aspx). The superior court affirmed the municipal court, finding that the circumstances surrounding the challenge did not raise any inference that the juror was stricken because of his race. The judge did not address whether Erickson’s motion was timely. **ISSUES** The WA Supreme Court granted review of Erickson’s appeal on the following issues: **1.** Did Erickson waive his right to a *Batson* challenge when he objected after the jury was empaneled and both the jury and venire excused? **2.** Did the trial court error in finding that Erickson did not make a prima facie showing of racial discrimination when the City struck juror #5? ***BATSON V. KENTUCKY:* THE LEGAL BACKGROUND ON RACE-BASED PEREMPTORY STRIKES** For those who don’t know, in [*Batson v. Kentucky*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/476/79), the [United States Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) created a 3-step process for enforcing the constitutional rule against excluding a potential juror based on race. **First**, the defense must show that the circumstances at trial raise an inference of discrimination. **Second**, the prosecutor must give a nonracial reason for the strike. **Third**, the court decides if the prosecutor intentionally discriminated against the juror because of race. The decision was made to stop the unfair practice of race-based peremptory strikes of qualified minority jurors because at that time, prosecutors could easily mask their efforts to exclude racial minorities from jury service. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** First, the Court ruled that Erickson did ***not*** waive His Right to a *Batson* challenge when he objected to the striking of a juror after the jury was empaneled but before testimony was heard. It reasoned that a number of federal courts also allow *Batson* challenges after the jury has been sworn. Read together, the case law has adopted rules requiring that a *Batson* challenge be brought at the earliest reasonable time while the trial court still has the ability to remedy the wrong. “These cases recognize that judges and parties do not have instantaneous reaction time, and so have given both trial courts and litigants some lenience to bring *Batson* challenges after the jury was been sworn,” said the Court. “This is in line with our own jurisprudence.” The Court further stated that objections should generally be brought when the trial court has the ability to remedy the error, and allowing some challenges after the swearing in of the jury does not offend that ability. “Although the timing was not ideal, the *Batson* challenge was raised when the trial court still had an opportunity to correct it,” said the Court. “So even though Erickson brought his *Batson* challenge after the jury was empaneled, the trial court still had adequate ability to remedy any error. Therefore, Erickson made a timely *Batson* challenge.” Second, the WA Supreme Court Court ruled that the trial court did, in fact, error in finding that Erickson did not make a *prima facie* showing of racial discrimination when the Prosecutor struck juror #5. Here, and in bold strokes, the Court changed how *Batson* is applied in Washington so that striking a juror who is the only member of a cognizable racial group automatically triggers a full *Batson* analysis by the trial court: > “The evil of racial discrimination is still the evil this rule seeks to eradicate,” the court explained, writing that “this alteration provides parties and courts with a new tool, allowing them an alternate route to defend the protections espoused by *Batson*. A prima facie case can always be made based on overt racism or a pattern of impermissible strikes. Now, it can also be made when the sole member of a racially cognizable group is removed using a peremptory strike.” With that, the WA Supreme Court carved the following bright-line rule adopted from [*State v. Rhone*](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1520274.html): > **“We hold that the trial court must recognize a prima facie case of discriminatory purpose when the sole member of a racially cognizable group has been struck from the jury. The trial court must then require an explanation from the striking party and analyze, based on the explanation and the totality of the circumstances, whether the strike was racially motivated.”** In other words, the peremptory strike of a juror who is the only member of a cognizable racial group on a jury panel does in fact, constitute a prima facie showing of racial motivation. Also, the trial court must ask for a race-neutral reason from the striking party and then determine, based on the facts and surrounding circumstances, whether the strike was driven by racial reasons. The WA Supreme Court reverse Erickson’s conviction and remanded his case back to the trial court for a new trial. My opinion? I’m very pleased. I wrote about unlawful race-based peremptory strikes in my blog on *[State v. Saintcalle;](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-saintcalle-the-wa-supreme-courts-recent-ruling-on-race-discrimination-in-our-criminal-justice-system/)* a WA Supreme Court case having similar dynamics, peremptory strikes and *Batson* challenges to the case at hand. In that post, I was very disappointed that the WA Supreme Court failed to fix a systemic problem of Prosecutors exercising race-based peremptory strikes during jury selection. Finally, the WA Supreme Court has become more proactive in stopping this unfair, unconstitutional practice. It’s not enough for Prosecutors to give utterly superficial reasons for striking minority jurors when the *real* reason for striking them is blatantly staring us in the face. Now, and finally, Prosecutors must prove that their decision to strike is *not* race-based. This subtle, yet oh-so-important shift in perspective effectively addresses what’s really happening during jury selection and makes a solution toward preventing race-based peremptory strikes. Excellent. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Jury Selection, Jury Trial, misdemeanor, Race & Law, Resisting Arrest, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Violent Crime, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Public Records & Inmates](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/public-records-inmates/) **Published:** July 20, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[Department of Corrections v. McKee, ](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/344363_pub.pdf)*the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) held that state law prevents jail inmates from making prolific records requests for the purpose of suing the agency and profiting financially. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Jeffrey McKee is an inmate in the custody of the [Washington State Department of Corrections (the Department)](http://www.doc.wa.gov/). Since 2006, he submitted at least 336 requests to the Department under the [Public Records Act (PRA)](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/Rcw/default.aspx?cite=42.56). The Department filed a lawsuit against McKee and sought a [preliminary injunction](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/preliminary_injunction) to stop Mr. McKee from filing further requests. It argued [RCW 42.56.565(2)(c)(i)](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=42.56.565) applies when an inmate makes prolific records requests for the purpose of suing the agency and profiting financially. The trial court disagreed and interpreted the statute as being limited to situations in which inmates seek the private information of agency employees to harass those employees. The trial court therefore generally denied the Department’s request for an injunction. After the trial court entered its order, the Department filed a motion in the Court of Appeals for discretionary review. **ISSUE** On appeal the issue was whether Mr. McKee’s requests were made to harass or intimidate the agency or its employees. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** Given the plain language of the statute, the Court of Appeals held that an inmate’s requests for public records may be prohibited if the request or requests are burdensome and made for financial gain. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the PRA is a “strongly worded mandate for broad disclosure of public records.” It requires all state and local agencies to make any public record available for public “inspection and copying” on request, unless the record falls within certain specific exemptions. The policy behind this law is that “free and open examination of public records is in the public interest.” To promote this policy, the PRA is to be “liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed.” However, the Court also acknowledged that in 2009, the legislature enacted RCW 42.56.565 to address abusive requests for public records by inmates. This statute authorizes courts to prohibit the “inspection or copying of any nonexempt public record by persons serving criminal sentences in state, local, or privately operated correctional facilities” if the court finds that one of following four situations applies: **(1)** The request was made to harass or intimidate the agency or its employees; **(2)** Fulfilling the request would likely threaten the security of correctional facilities; **(3)** Fulfilling the request would likely threaten the safety or security of staff, inmates, family members of staff, family members of other inmates, or any other person; or **(4)** Fulfilling the request may assist criminal activity. The statute then gives a non-exhaustive list of factors a court may consider in deciding whether to enjoin an inmate’s past or future records requests under RCW 42.56.565(3). These factors include: **(1)** other requests by the requestor, **(2)** the type of records sought, **(3)** statements offered by the requestor concerning the purpose for the request, **(4)** whether disclosure of the requested records would likely harm any person or vital government interest, **(5)** whether the request seeks a significant and burdensome number of documents, **(6)** the impact of disclosure on correctional facility security and order, the safety or security of correctional facility staff, inmates, or others, and **(7)** the deterrence of criminal activity. The Court further reasoned that when an inmate files prolific records requests and sues an agency, the statute ensures the agency will not have to pay penalties in the event it makes a good faith error in responding. However, even if the agency is not required to pay penalties, it is still obligated to respond to future requests. “This is still burdensome and expensive, even if the agency does not have to pay penalties,” said the Court of Appeals. Consequently, the Court reasoned that in order to alleviate these burdens and expenses, the statute allows the agency to stop the inmate from making future requests, just like the Department did here. With that, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling on behalf of Mr. McKee. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Crime & Safety in America](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/crime-safety-in-america/) **Published:** July 20, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** According to an [article from the Crime Report](https://thecrimereport.org/2017/07/20/crime-rates-are-lower-prisons-have-little-impact-vera-says/), U.S. violent crime rates are lower than they have been for four decades, and prisons’ impact as a crime deterrent “is minimal at best.” [Apparently, the Vera Institute of Justice gave two new briefing papers](https://www.vera.org/spotlights/for-the-record-evidence-briefs) which countered the political rhetoric and unfounded assumptions which influence criminal justice policy. **The Prison Paradox** In [*The Prison Paradox*](https://www.vera.org/publications/for-the-record-prison-paradox-incarceration-not-safer), [author Don Stemen](https://www.vera.org/people/don-stemen) summarizes the weak relationship between incarceration and crime reduction, and highlights proven strategies for improving public safety that are more effective and less expensive than incarceration. He writes that, despite its widespread use, research shows that the effect of incarceration as a deterrent to crime is minimal at best, and has been diminishing for several years. “Indeed, increased rates of incarceration have no demonstrated effect on violent crime and in some instances may increase crime,” writes Stemen. “There are more effective ways to respond to crime—evidenced by the 19 states that recently reduced both their incarceration and crime rates.” The report suggests that policymakers should adopt “crime reduction strategies that seek to engage the community, provide needed services to those who are criminally involved, and begin to address the underlying causes of crime.” **Measuring Public Safety** In [*Measuring Public Safety*](https://www.vera.org/publications/for-the-record-measuring-public-safety-statistics-violent-crime), [author Bruce Frederick](https://www.vera.org/people/bruce-frederick) examines erroneous conclusions about current crime trends—using both existing and original research—and describes how to avoid common pitfalls when interpreting statistics on violent crime. “With a few hyper-localized exceptions that require targeted attention, violent crime rates are lower today than they have been at any point over the past four decades,” says Frederick. “However, this era of public safety has been misrepresented by some media reports and public commentary concluding that violent crime increases in a few cities equal a sweeping national problem.” Apparently, over-generalizing data on homicides from a small sample of major U.S. cities has led to premature conclusions being drawn about a nationwide reversal of the general decline in violent crime. Such reports were “unfounded,” the Frederick says, adding that today’s relatively lower crime rates are “not a cause for complacency because some of our communities are experiencing significant increases in violent crime.” My opinion? It’s important for criminal defense attorneys to be informed and aware of crime trend data. Oftentimes, our judiciary mistakenly cites unproven or misinterpreted data when they hand down lengthy prison sentences to citizens convicted of crimes. Therefore, it’s important to “fact check” and assist our judiciary in making clear, reasonable decisions whenever possible using studies like those mentioned above. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Prison, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Affidavits of Prejudice](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/affidavits-of-prejudice/) **Published:** July 25, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Lile](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/930350.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) held that a judge’s granting a continuance is a [discretionary ruling](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Discretion+in+Decision+Making) which effectively negates any [affidavits of prejudice](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=4.12.050) which the parties may file against that judge afterward. **BACKGROUND FACTS** One evening in 2013, two intoxicated groups crossed paths on a Bellingham sidewalk. United States Navy sailor Lile (the Defendant) and his companions were walking in one direction on the sidewalk and another group moved toward them in the opposite direction. Lile’s group had recently left a party in which Lile had admittedly consumed alcohol over a period of about five hours. Unfortunately, Mr. Lile’s group had negative interactions with the other group of individuals. This resulted in Liles being striking someone in the face, fracturing their jaw, knocking out some teeth, concussing the victim and rendering them briefly unconscious. Lile was pulled away by one of his companions. A nearby police officer witnessed the fracas and approached Lile, who ran away. A chase ensued. Officer Woodward jumped onto Lile’s back. Lile struggled, striking Officer Woodward in the face. Officer Josh McKissick arrived shortly thereafter and assisted Officer Woodward in finally subduing and arresting Lile. Ultimately, Lile was charged with [Assault in the Fourth Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/), [Assault in the Third Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/), [Assault in the Second Degree ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/)and [Resisting Arrest](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/resisting-arrest/) under numerous counts. **CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS & AFFIDAVIT OF PREJUDICE** The matter was set for a January 22, 2014 [pretrial status hearing](https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-to-expect-at-a-pretrial-hearing.html). During the hearing, the judge orally granted a 1-week continuance, issuing a written order to that effect February 3, 2014. On February 4, 2014, Lile’s attorney submitted a motion to sever, asking the court to order separate trials for Lile’s alleged assaults on Millman and Rowles from his assault on Officer Woodward. During the February 6, 2014 status hearing, before Judge Uhrig ruled on the motion to sever, Lile’s attorney informed Judge Uhrig that Lile had filed an [affidavit of prejudice](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=4.12.050) against him. ***Affidavit of Prejudice*** For those who don’t know, an affidavit of prejudice (AOP) is a statutory pleading/device which gives either the Prosecutor of the Defense Attorney opportunity to dismiss/excuse a particular judge from deciding any issues on a pending criminal case. The AOP must be filed as soon as possible; preferably before the particular judge decides any issues on the case. Typically, AOP’s are not honored if they are filed after the judge has already made [discretionary rulings](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Discretion+in+Decision+Making) on the case. The Prosecutor asserted the affidavit was not timely because the judge’s ruling on the January 22, 2014 continuance motion preceded the affidavit and was discretionary. The judge agreed with the Prosecutor, indicating that the continuance ruling was indeed discretionary; as he had denied such requests in the past. As a result, he ruled the AOP untimely. He then denied Lile’s [motion to sever](https://definedterm.com/motion_to_sever). Lile did not later renew the motion to sever, an option provided by [CrR 4.4(a)(2)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR4.04). Months later, Lile’s case proceeded to jury trial, where a different judge handled the proceedings. Lile was convicted on all charges. Lile appealed to the WA Court of Appeals on a number of issues, however, the Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Afterward, Lile appealed to the WA Supreme Court. **ISSUE** For purposes of this blog entry, we focus on the issue of whether the joint continuance motion was discretionary, making Lile’ s affidavit of prejudice untimely and leaving the original judge qualified to hear the motion to sever. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The WA Supreme Court decided that a ruling to continue a case is, in fact, a [discretionary ruling. ](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Discretion+in+Decision+Making)For those who don’t know, a discretionary ruling is an official, substantive decision from the judge using reason and judgment to choose from among acceptable alternatives. The court reasoned that under an AOP, a party has the right to disqualify a trial judge for prejudice, without substantiating the claim, if the requirements of the statute are met. The statute says, “no Judge of a superior court … shall sit to hear or try any action or proceeding when it shall be established … that said judge is prejudiced against any party or attorney.” To establish prejudice, a party can file a motion supported by an affidavit indicating that the party cannot, or believes that it cannot, have a fair and impartial trial before such judge. In order to be timely, however, an AOP must be made ‘before the judge presiding has made any order or ruling involving discretion. The statute also provides that the arrangement of the calendar, the setting of an action, motion or proceeding down for hearing or trial, the arraignment of the accused in a criminal action or the fixing of bail shall not be construed as a ruling or order involving discretion. The Court reasoned that a trial court’s ruling on an opposed continuance is discretionary because the court must consider various factors; such as diligence, materiality, due process, a need for orderly procedure, and the possible impact of the result on the trial. Furthermore, the WA Supreme Court held that the judge’s continuance ruling was discretionary. It reasoned that continuances, even when unopposed, have a significant impact on the efficient operation of our courts and the rights of the parties, particularly in criminal proceedings. Correspondingly, [CrR 3 .3(h)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.3) gives trial courts discretion in granting them. Here, the continuance ruling here impacted the “duties and functions of the court, and therefore involved discretion. In conclusion, the WA Supreme Court held that the judge’s continuance ruling was discretionary; which made him qualified to rule on Lile’ s severance motion. **JUDGE MADSEN’S CONCURRING OPINION** Although Judge Madsen concurred with the opinion, her reasoning differed. She did, in fact, find that the judge did *not* make a discretionary ruling when granting the continuance. She reasoned that whether an order is discretionary is not about the form of the motion, but about whether there was something **substantive** related to the case underlying the motion. “In the present case, I would find that the continuance ruling was not discretionary for purposes of RCW 4.12.050 because the court’s ruling indicated no predisposition on the issues in the case,” she said. She elaborated that, admittedly, granting or denying a motion necessarily involves some type of discretion, but the same is true of the other preliminary matters that the majority distinguishes. “Arranging the calendar, setting a matter for hearing or trial, arraigning an accused, and setting an amount for bail are all discretionary acts in the sense that the judge has the general freedom to make those decisions,” she said. However, the legislature has dictated that these acts will not be construed as rulings involving discretion within the meaning of RCW 4.12.050(1). > “The same is true of the agreed continuance in this case. The motion occurred pretrial and was unopposed. It was a calendaring matter, not a substantive ruling on an issue in the case.” With that, Judge Madsen held that the judge erred in denying Lile’ s affidavit of prejudice. My opinion? I must agree with Judge Madsen’s concurrence. Like her, I believe that arranging the calendar, setting a matter for hearing or trial, arraigning an accused, and setting an amount for bail can be seen as discretionary, however, the legislature has dictated that these acts will not be construed as rulings involving discretion within the meaning of the statute. At any rate, the Court’s decision in this case highlights the fact that AOP’s must be filed by Defense Counsel *as soon as possible*. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Affidavit of Prejudice, Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["Furtive Movements"](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/furtive-movements/) **Published:** July 26, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Weyand](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/933774.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) held that officers lacked sufficient facts to justify a [*Terry* stop](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/terry_stop_stop_and_frisk) of the defendant. Walking quickly while looking up and down the street at 2:40 a.m. is an innocuous act, which cannot justify intruding into people’s private affairs. **BACKGROUND FACTS** On December 22, 2012, at 2:40 in the morning, Corporal Bryce Henry saw a car parked near [95 Cullum Avenue](https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/95-Cullum-Ave-Richland-WA-99352/85936344_zpid/) in [Richland, Washington](http://www.ci.richland.wa.us/), that had not been there 20 minutes prior. The area is known for extensive drug history. Corporal Henry did not recognize the car and ran the license plate through an [I/LEADS (Intergraph Law Enforcement Automated System)](https://support.hexagonsafetyinfrastructure.com/infocenter/index?page=product&facRef=LEADS&facDisp=Law%20Enforcement%20Agencies%20Data%20System%20(I/LEADS)&landing=1) database. However, that license plate search revealed nothing of consequence about the vehicle or its registered owner. After parking his car, Corporal Henry saw Weyand and another male leave 95 Cullum. As the men walked quickly toward the car, they looked up and down the street. The driver looked around once more before getting into the car. Weyand got into the passenger seat. Based on these observations and Corporal Henry’s knowledge of the extensive drug history at 95 Cullum, he conducted a [*Terry* stop](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/terry_stop_stop_and_frisk) of the car. After stopping Weyand, Corporal Henry observed that Weyand’s eyes were red and glassy and his pupils were constricted. Corporal Henry is a [drug recognition expert](http://www.decp.org/drug-recognition-experts-dre/) and believed that Weyand was under the influence of a narcotic. When Corporal Henry ran Weyand’ s name, he discovered an [outstanding warrant](https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-is-an-outstanding-warrant.html) and arrested Weyand. Corporal Henry searched Weyand incident to that arrest and found a capped syringe. Corporal Henry advised Weyand of his Miranda3 rights, and Weyand admitted that the substance in the syringe was [heroin ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin)that he had bought from a resident inside 95 Cullum. **PROCEDURAL HISTORY** The State charged Weyand with one count of [unlawful possession of a controlled substance](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). Weyand [moved to suppress](http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-motion-suppress.html) all evidence and statements under Criminal Rules [(CrR) 3.5](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.5) and [3.6](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) and to dismiss the case against him. Weyand argued that the officer did not have sufficient individualized suspicion to conduct the investigatory stop. After the hearing, the court concluded that the seizure was a lawful investigative stop. According to the court, Corporal Henry had [reasonable suspicion](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_suspicion) to believe that Weyand was involved in criminal activity. The court found Weyand’s case distinct from [*State v. Doughty*](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-doughty-wa-supremes-limit-scope-of-terry-stops/), because in this case there was actual evidence of drug activity at, as well as known drug users frequenting, 95 Cullum. The court additionally found that Weyand knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his [*Miranda* rights](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/miranda_warning); thus, all post-Miranda statements were admissible at trial. Weyand waived his right to a jury trial and agreed to submit the case to a [stipulated facts trial](https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/User:Ryan/content/why-%22stip-facts-trials%22-are-death-hope_Why_Stip_Facts_Trials_are_the_Death_of_Hope). Finding that Weyand possessed a loaded syringe that contained heroin, the court found Weyand guilty of unlawful possession of a controlled substance. Weyand appealed, and [the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/318681.unp.pdf). It reasoned that the totality of the circumstances, coupled with the officer’s training and experience, showed that the officer had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that justified the stop. Those circumstances included “the long history of drug activity at 95 Cullum, the time of night, the 20 minute stop at the house, the brisk walking, and the glances up and down the street.” **LEGAL ISSUE** Whether the specific facts that led to the *Terry* stop would lead an objective person to form a reasonable suspicion that Weyand was engaged in criminal activity. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court held that officers lacked sufficient facts to justify a *Terry* stop of the defendant. It reasoned that under the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) to the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview) and [article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/pages/constitution.aspx), an officer generally may not seize a person without a warrant. There are, however, a few carefully drawn exceptions to the warrant requirement. The State bears the burden to show that a warrantless search or seizure falls into one of the narrowly drawn exceptions. One of these exceptions is the *Terry* investigative stop. The *Terry* exception allows an officer to briefly detain a person for questioning, without a warrant, if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is or is about to be engaged in criminal activity. An officer may also briefly frisk the person if the officer has reasonable safety concerns to justify the protective frisk. The Court found that the totality of the circumstances did not justify a warrantless seizure. It reasoned that in order to conduct a valid *Terry* stop, an officer must have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts known to the officer at the inception of the stop. To evaluate the reasonableness of the officer’s suspicion, Courts look at the[ totality of the circumstances](http://www.yourdictionary.com/totality-of-the-circumstances-test) known to the officer. The totality of circumstances includes the officer’s training and experience, the location of the stop, the conduct of the person detained, the purpose of the stop, and the amount of physical intrusion on the suspect’s liberty. The suspicion must be individualized to the person being stopped. “Here, the trial court’s decision rested primarily on evidence that 95 Cullum was a known drug location,” said the Court. “However, Corporal Henry did not observe current activity that would lead a reasonable observer to believe that criminal activity was taking place or about to take place in the residence.” ***Furtive Movements*** Also, the Court reasoned that reliance on ‘furtive movements’ as the basis for a *Terry* stop can be problematic. “Case law has not precisely defined such movements, and courts too often accept the label without questioning the breadth of the term.” It explained that ‘furtive movements’ are vague generalizations of what might be perceived as suspicious activity which does not provide a legal ( or factual) basis for a *Terry* stop.” The Court quoted [Judge Richard Posner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner) in recognizing that “furtive movements,” standing alone, are a vague and unreliable indicator of criminality: > “Whether you stand still or move, drive above, below, or at the speed limit, you will be described by the police as acting suspiciously should they wish to stop or arrest you. Such subjective, promiscuous appeals to an ineffable intuition should not be credited.” With that, the WA Supreme Court reasoned that simply labeling a suspect’s action a “furtive movement,” without explaining how it gives rise to a reasonable and articulable suspicion, is not sufficient to justify a *Terry* stop. Furthermore, reasoned the Court, police cannot justify a suspicion of criminal conduct based only on a person’s location in a high crime area: > “It is beyond dispute that many members of our society live, work, and spend their waking hours in high crime areas, a description that can be applied to parts of many of our cities. That does not automatically make those individuals proper subjects for criminal investigation.” Consequently, the WA Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and hold that walking quickly and looking around, even after leaving a house with extensive drug history at 2:40 in the morning, is not enough to create a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity justifying a *Terry* stop. My opinion? Excellent decision. I’m very impressed the Court addressed the term “furtive movements” and put it in perspective. Law enforcement officers regularly use this catch-phrase to describe suspicious behavior allowing them stop/search/seize people. Although officer safety is a primary concern and a very good reason to search people who are already in police custody and making “furtive movements” in the presence of officers, it cannot be a basis for stopping and searching people who are simply going about their business walking down the street. Great decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, Evidence, felony, Furtive Movements, Privacy, Race & Law, Reasonable Suspicion, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Terry Stop, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Marijuana and Violent Crime](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/marijuana-and-violent-crime/) **Published:** July 31, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** An article in the [Bellingham Herald](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/) from reporter [Melissa Santos](https://www.linkedin.com/in/melissa-santos-08b31211/) says that an [upcoming report](http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/343218-trumps-doj-gears-up-for-crackdown-on-marijuana) from a [U.S. Department of Justice](https://www.justice.gov/) task force is expected to link marijuana use to violent crime, which some fear might signal the start of[ a Trump administration crackdown](http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/marijuana/article130460274.html) on weed. According to Santos, [U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions](https://www.justice.gov/ag/staff-profile/meet-attorney-general) links marijuana use to violent crime in recent months, [fueling some advocates’ concerns](http://www.newsweek.com/marijuana-legalization-marijuana-jeff-sessions-640904) about what might come out of next week’s report from the [Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-crime-reduction-and-public-safety-task-force). “Experts are telling me there’s more violence around marijuana than one would think and there’s big money involved,” Sessions said. In April, Sessions [promised the task force](https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/955476/download) would “undertake a review of existing policies in the areas of charging, sentencing and marijuana to ensure consistency with the department’s overall strategy on reducing violent crime.” That was after Sessions told reporters in February that the nation was seeing “real violence” around the “unhealthy practice” of marijuana use, [according to POLITICO](http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/02/jeff-sessions-marijuana-235461). According to Santos, however, Mr. Sessions’ statements run contrary to the experience in Washington state, which became one of the first two U.S. states to legalize recreational marijuana use for adults in 2012. Since voters approved [Initiative 502](http://www.newapproachwa.org/content/initiative), [FBI crime statistics](https://www.ucrdatatool.gov/) show lower rates of violent crime in Washington than before legalization. According to the FBI data, in 2011 there were 295.6 violent offenses reported per 100,000 Washington residents. In 2015, the most recent full year of data available, that rate had fallen to 284.4 violent offenses per 100,000 people. Other data compiled by the [Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs ](http://www.waspc.org/)showed some fluctuations in violent crime rates but still found no statistically significant increase. According to those reports, in 2012 there were 3.6 violent offenses per 1,000 state residents. In 2016, the state’s violent crime rate was 3.3 offenses per 1,000 people. Santos writes that the downturn in violent crime in Washington is consistent with national trends. [A Pew Research Center analysis](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/21/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/) of the FBI data found that nationwide, the rate of reported violent crimes in 2015 was roughly half what it was in 1993. Still, Washington’s violent crime rate in 2015 was substantially lower than the national rate, according to the FBI data. Neither the FBI data nor the data from the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs specifically tracks violent crime that might be related to marijuana. A spokeswoman for the [Tacoma Police Department](https://www.cityoftacoma.org/government/city_departments/police) said her agency doesn’t track offenses that way, either. “In Washington state, I think it would be a strain to correlate violent crime with marijuana usage,” said [Mitch Barker](http://www.waspc.org/index.php?option=com_community&view=profile&userid=27983690), the executive director of the sheriff and police chiefs group. “I would struggle to believe that the legalization of marijuana or more legalization relates to violent crime — somebody would have to make that case to me.” [State Rep. David Sawyer, D-Tacoma](http://housedemocrats.wa.gov/legislators/david-sawyer/) and the chairman of the House committee that deals with marijuana, said some state officials initially expected crime to go up with marijuana legalization, especially since the state’s weed stores run entirely on cash. That didn’t happen, Sawyer said. “As far as I’m aware there is no credible study linking violent crime and marijuana,” he said. “I think what more people are realizing is violent crime is linked to keeping marijuana illegal . . . In general, legalization takes money out of the hands of criminals,” he said, referring to drug cartels. [State Sen. Ann Rivers, R-La Center](http://annrivers.src.wastateleg.org/) and the Senate GOP’s leader on marijuana policy, agreed. She noted Washington is expecting [to rake in about $730 million in tax revenue](http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/marijuana/article130464479.html) from marijuana sales in the next two years — and not all of that is from people who just discovered the drug. Rivers said she still thinks it would be too costly and difficult for the federal government to try rein in states that have legalized recreational and medical marijuana. According to the [National Conference of State Legislatures](http://www.ncsl.org/), eight states plus Washington, D.C. have legalized recreational use of pot, while 29 states have legalized medical-marijuana use. Yet in May, Sessions asked Congress to lift a restriction that prevents the Justice Department from using federal money to interfere with states that have legalized medical marijuana. Sessions called the restriction on federal prosecutions “unwise… particularly in the midst of an historic drug epidemic and potentially long-term uptick in violent crime,” according to reports by [Massroots.com](https://www.massroots.com/news/exclusive-sessions-asks-congress-to-undo-medical-marijuana-protections) and [The Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/13/jeff-sessions-personally-asked-congress-to-let-him-prosecute-medical-marijuana-providers/?utm_term=.7302e4222319). Sawyer said he remains concerned that Washington’s system could be at risk. “I think it’s a very real possibility,” Sawyer said. “But we’re going to see what the administration chooses to do.” **VIOLENT CRIME RATES IN WASHINGTON STATE** The Federal Bureau of Investigation reports violent crime rate in Washington has declined since voters here legalized recreational marijuana use in November 2012. The FBI numbers are based on crimes reported to law enforcement agencies. **2010**: 313.5 offenses per 100,000 city inhabitants **2011**: 294.6 offenses per 100,000 city inhabitants **2012**: 295.6 offenses per 100,000 city inhabitants **2013**: 289.1 offenses per 100,000 city inhabitants **2014**: 285.8 offenses per 100,000 city inhabitants **2015**: 284.4 offenses per 100,000 city inhabitants The state’s rate of violent crime in 2015, the most recent year of data available, also was substantially lower than the national average, according to the FBI. Nationally, the estimated rate of violent crime was 372.6 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2015. Source: [FBI, Crime in the United States reports, 2010-2015](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015) Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Trump Administration, Uncategorized, Violent Crime, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Reducing Recidivism](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/7270-2/) **Published:** July 31, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In an [article ](https://thecrimereport.org/2017/07/17/the-nearly-perfect-recidivism-machine/)titled, “The Nearly Perfect Recidivism Machine”[David J. Krajicek](http://crimescape.com/authors/david-j-krajicek), a contributing editor with [The Crime Report](https://thecrimereport.org/), discusses a book written by [Texas criminologist William R. Kelley](http://www.williamkellyphd.com/). “One would have to look far and wide to find a greater public policy failure than the American criminal justice system,” says Kelly in the opening chapter of his new book, [From Retribution to Public Safety: Disruptive Innovation of American Criminal Justice](https://www.amazon.com/Retribution-Public-Safety-Disruptive-Innovation/dp/1442273887/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1499722197&sr=8-1&keywords=kelly+retribution) (Rowman & Littlefield). Krajicek writes that Kelly, [a University of Texas-Austin sociology professor](http://www.williamkellyphd.com/), has long been one of the country’s toughest justice critics. In this book, he offers a plan for top-to-bottom transformation of the system, in collaboration with [federal judge Robert Pitman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Pitman) and [psychiatrist William Streusand](https://www.healthgrades.com/physician/dr-william-streusand-ykb4n). Kelly suggest reforms to rein in the charging powers of prosecutors. He recommends the creation of independent panels of clinical experts that would screen offenders and recommend to prosecutors who ought to be diverted to treatment. “There is nothing about punishment that changes the underlying conditions, disorders and deficits that the majority of criminal offenders bring into the justice system,” Kelly says. Arrestees with[ mental illness](https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/what-is-mental-illness), [substance-use disorders](https://www.samhsa.gov/disorders/substance-use), [homelessness ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness)and other problems churn through the system and into prison, where the underlying issues that led to a lawless life are ignored. In a conversation with TCR Contributing Editor David J. Krajicek, Kelly explains why he believes the system should incorporate more carrot and less stick for offenders and how the Trump administration’s approach threatens to make things worse. He also suggests that the public already has a more sophisticated view of how to fix the system than our political leaders. ***The Crime Report:*** *What is the impact of the country’s justice policy failures?* **William R. Kelly:** The short financial and statistical answer is that over the past 45 years, we have spent $1 trillion on the war on crime, $1 trillion on the war on drugs and have accomplished a recidivism rate of 65 percent. Nearly all of this effort has focused on trying to punish crime out of people, based on naïve conceptions of criminality such as “hanging around with the wrong people” and “making bad decisions.” The evidence is quite clear that crime has much more complex origins and correlates. What we have accomplished is a nearly perfect recidivism machine, placing all of us at the unnecessary and avoidable risk of criminal victimization, and wasting extraordinary amounts of money. ***TCR:*** *You refer to “the culture of American criminal justice.” What are its key characteristics and how do you change it?* **Kelly:** It is squarely based on the “tough on crime” mantra. This has dictated the decisions of legislators, prosecutors, judges, and corrections officials. The focus over the past 45 years has been driven by retribution and misguided assumptions that punishment deters re-offending. The question that has been routinely asked is how much punishment does this offender deserve. A more productive question for many offenders is how do we reduce the likelihood a particular offender will reoffend… We need to provide clear incentives to motivate changing how we think about crime and punishment. Cost-benefit analyses conclusively show that behavioral change through clinical intervention like mental health and substance use disorder treatment is much more effective and cost efficient. The financial advantages should motivate legislators and local government officials. Reducing recidivism should be an incentive for prosecutors, judges, public defenders, and probation and parole officers, who will benefit from reductions in caseloads. Then there is the greater good of enhanced public safety, something we incorrectly assume the justice system already does. ***TCR:*** *You say the facile American view of crime and punishment got us here. Have voters grown more sophisticated, or are reform-minded pols still at risk of being Willie Hortoned?* **Kelly:** Public opinion data demonstrate that much of the public has a more nuanced view of crime and punishment than many legislators, prosecutors and judges. The public believes that the purpose of corrections is to rehabilitate offenders and therefore reduce recidivism. Many have moved beyond “lock ‘em up and throw away the key.” Unfortunately, many policymakers, elected officials and some segments of the public still seem to be holding on to the idea that criminals are just bad people deserving maximum punishment. I’m sorry to say that Willie Horton is alive and well…There appears to be a reluctance to really embrace meaningful, comprehensive criminal justice reform. ***TCR:*** *You write, “We have arrived at the nadir of politics and policy.” Did you write that before or after Donald Trump’s election?* **Kelly:** I wrote that before Trump was elected when I incorrectly believed that we had already reached bottom. Who would have thought that anyone with any sense of history and even a superficial exposure to the evidence would run as the law-and-order candidate and resurrect the war on drugs? ***TCR:*** *How do you demonstrate that “tough” and “dumb” are synonyms when it comes to criminal justice?* **Kelly:** You focus on the enormous financial waste that the justice policy has produced. While there will be endless debates about what’s right or just and who deserves what, it is pretty hard to ignore the bottom line. [A recent study estimates that the criminal justice and collateral social costs of tough on crime is $1 trillion per year](https://thinkprogress.org/the-true-cost-of-mass-incarceration-exceeds-1-trillion-60a6daa69f9d). And it’s hard to reconcile 65 percent recidivism. ***TCR:*** *Who’s to blame for the state of “correctional malpractice” you say we are in?* **Kelly:** First and foremost, elected officials who have blindly championed “tough on crime” policies to their political benefit, but to the detriment of public safety and the prudent use of tax dollars. State legislators and Congress have provided the mechanisms for tough on crime—mandatory sentences, restrictive parole release laws, and an ever-expanding criminal code that seems to make criminal justice the go-to system for just about every social ill. But the culpability of elected officials goes well beyond that. The vast majority of offenders in the criminal justice system have a substance-use disorder, 40 percent are mentally ill, and 60 percent have had a least one traumatic brain injury often leading to neurocognitive dysfunction…The decision to not properly fund public health, schools and social welfare agencies has created problems that by default are managed by the criminal justice system. Criminal justice reform means much more than merely reforming the criminal justice system. It requires massive changes to and investment in a variety of collateral institutions. ***TCR:*** *Your book articulates and recommends a scientific approach to justice reform. Yet science is out of favor in Washington and many state houses. Is there a scientific path forward?* **Kelly:** Yes there is, but I am afraid that we need to disguise it for some, by minimizing the science and emphasizing the public safety benefits and cost savings. ***TCR:*** You note an overlooked data point: The country has 21 million people with substance-use disorders, the world’s third-highest rate. What explains this particular American exceptionalism? **Kelly:** It is largely a result of the lack of public substance abuse resources, including inadequate treatment capacity and insurance coverage. Much of it can be attributed to the [failure of the war on drugs ](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/opinion/a-decade-of-failure-in-the-war-on-drugs.html)and the belief that we can either punish or threaten substance abuse out of people. Criminalizing substance abuse rather than treating it as a public health problem has led to the failure to provide adequate funding for treatment. Unfortunately, the picture is bleaker. The majority of substance abuse and mental health treatment in the U.S. is paid for by Medicaid. Current versions of repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act call for substantial cuts to Medicaid. That does not bode well for a problem that is crippling the country, the economy, communities, families, and the justice system. ***TCR:*** *You write that we have used an absurdly simplistic approach (lock ‘em up) for a boundlessly complex problem. Explain briefly the research on co-morbidity among inmates.* **Kelly:** The vast majority of offenders in the criminal justice system have clearly identifiable disorders, deficits and impairments. Many have more than one disorder, known as co-morbidity or co-occurring disorders. For example, [the majority of offenders with a mental illness also have a substance-use disorder](https://csgjusticecenter.org/substance-abuse/faqs/). Neuro-cognitive problems are often co-morbid with mental health and substance abuse. It does not require a clinician to appreciate that “lockin’ ‘em up” does nothing to alleviate these conditions and in fact typically exacerbates them. When we do attempt to address these problems–diversion to a drug court or a mental health court–our focus is on just one crime-related condition. Our correctional treatment and rehabilitation efforts typically ignore co-morbidity. ***TCR:*** *What do the rest of us in a presumably civilized society owe these damaged people?* **Kelly:** I don’t think it’s so much what we owe them, but what do we owe ourselves: lower crime and recidivism, lower risk of being victims of crime, and lower cost of criminal justice. We have the tools to accomplish these things, but making it a political priority has been elusive. ***TCR:*** *You compare the U.S. system to those of Germany and Holland; it doesn’t stack up well. You cite one lesson we can learn from those countries: “If you treat inmates like humans, they will act like humans.” How is it possible that we don’t know that already?* **Kelly:** In order to justify our draconian and dysfunctional reliance on punishment, we need to think of criminals as “not like us” in fundamental ways, as deserving retribution and harsh punishment. Punishment is what we have been told is the only thing “these people” will understand. Psychological research confirmed a long time ago that incentives work better than punishment for changing behavior. Our Western allies have better outcomes for those they incarcerate because they focus on preparing offenders to be released and live crime-free, productive lives. Our approach often is to de-humanize prison inmates and emphasize punishment over rehabilitation. We do little to facilitate successful reentry into society.Psychological research confirmed a long time ago that, in most cases, incentives work much better than punishment for changing behavior. This is another example of the disjuncture between scientific evidence and criminal justice policy. *TCR:*** *Your key recommendation is an “unprecedented expansion” of diversion away from court toward intervention and treatment. Describe the panel review process you suggest.* **Kelly:** Traditional criminal prosecution, conviction and punishment are entirely appropriate for many offenders. For example, violent offenders and chronic, habitual offenders probably need to be separated from society through incarceration in the interest of public safety. For many others, such as non-violent offenders and many drug offenders, we have a much better chance of reducing recidivism by diverting them and mitigating the factors that are associated with their criminality. One of the key issues here is making good decisions about who to divert and who to prosecute. We developed the concept of independent panels of clinical experts to facilitate better decision-making, both in terms of who should be diverted and what treatment or intervention will decrease the probability of recidivism. Offenders often have complex clinical needs that require the special expertise of psychiatrists, psychologists and clinical social workers who can assess and diagnose, determine the risk of re-offending, and make recommendations to prosecutors. The goal is to divert appropriate individuals away from traditional prosecution to situations where their risk can be supervised and managed and where they can receive adequate treatment and intervention. ***TCR:*** *And this is the “disruptive innovation” of your book title?* **Kelly:** The panels are part of it. Implementing this concept will require a substantial shift in how prosecutors do their jobs, as well as how we think about crime and punishment. In effect, this requires changing the criminal justice culture. We also argue that all levels of government need to address major deficiencies in public health, a fundamental consideration in assuring adequate capacity and expertise for intervention and treatment. The bigger picture is that criminal justice reform requires disruptive innovation of collateral institutions, such as public health. ***TCR:*** *And how might it be greeted by prosecutors, who hold all the power right now?* **Kelly:** This will not be easy. However, reasonable incentives for prosecutors should be recidivism reduction, in turn reducing caseloads. Success should be measured by recidivism rates, something directly related to performance of criminal justice. The primary reasons that prosecutors’ caseloads are so large and unmanageable relate to the failure to reduce recidivism. ***TCR:*** *You say these changes will force us to redefine success in our justice system. How so?* **Kelly:** Success should be measured by recidivism rates, something directly related to performance of criminal justice. As it stands now, there really is no accountability. Everyone involved in criminal justice–legislators, police, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, and corrections officials–should all be held responsible for recidivism reduction. That would also be a disruptive change. ***TCR:*** *Tell me about the process of partnering with Robert Pitman and William Streusand in this book.* **Kelly:** I wrote the book, but both Pitman and Streusand played very important roles in devising solutions. For example, Pitman, a former U.S. Attorney who is now a federal judge, brought his knowledge and expertise to the task of developing statutory and procedural details for how the expert panels would fit into the roles and responsibilities of prosecutors, defense counsel and judges. The input of Streusand, a psychiatrist, was crucial in the development of the clinical protocol for the expert panels and assessing offender dysfunction, as well as the discussions about fixing public health. ***TCR:*** *You were going through a serious health crisis while writing this book, as you point out in the introduction. I hope you are doing well. I wonder if that diversion somehow informed the book’s content.* **Kelly:** Thank you. I am in complete remission and feel very blessed. To be honest, it could not have worked out any better. I was diagnosed in early March of 2016, when I had a rough draft of one chapter written. I was so fortunate that I had this project to distract me from the reality of being pretty sick and going through some difficult chemo. It was also fortuitous that I had two collaborators who are very good friends and played important roles in my recovery. I’m not sure that being sick informed the content, but I suspect it influenced the tone. If I sound impatient at times in the book, it is probably a result of being confronted with the reality that life is short. My opinion? Excellent article, and excellent book by Mr. Kelly. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Prison, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Race & Law, Recidivism, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Violent Crime, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Immigrants Make Up 22% of Federal Prison Population](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/immigrants-make-up-22-of-federal-prison-population/) **Published:** August 1, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Interesting [article by ](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/1/immigrants-22-percent-federal-prison-population/?utm_source=onesignal&utm_campaign=pushnotify&utm_medium=push)[Stephen Dinan](http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/stephen-dinan/) of [The Washington Times](http://www.washingtontimes.com/) claims that a stunning 22 percent of the federal prison population is immigrants who have either already been deemed to be in the country illegally or who the government is looking to put in deportation proceedings, the administration said Tuesday. [President Trump](https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-trump) requested the numbers as part of his initial [immigration executive orders](https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states). The 22 percent is much higher than the population of foreign-born in the U.S. as a whole, which is about 13.5 percent. All told, the government counted more than 42,000 aliens in federal prisons as of June 24. About 47 percent already face final deportation orders, making them illegal immigrants, and 3 percent are currently in immigration courts facing deportation proceedings. Almost all of the rest are being probed by federal agents looking to deport them. Immigrants who commit serious crimes, even if they once had legal status, can have that status revoked and can be subject to deportation, which explains the high number of cases where an alien is still being probed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The [U.S. Marshal Service](https://www.usmarshals.gov/), meanwhile, is holding about 12,000 “self-reporting” aliens, and almost all of them have already been ordered deported. Government officials said they’re still trying to collect information on the foreign-born population in state and local prisons and jails. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Immigration, Prison, Race & Law, Trump Administration, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [No-Contact Order Lengths](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/no-contact-order-lengths/) **Published:** August 7, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Granath](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/746774.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that the lower court erred by refusing to lift a post-conviction No-Contact Order when the defendant fulfilled all the conditions of her sentence. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Defendant Wendy Granath was charged with sending a series of harassing e-mails to her estranged husband. She was convicted in [King County District](http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/district-court.aspx) Court on one count of [Cyberstalking ](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.61.260)and one count of [Violation of a No-Contact](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/no-contact-order-violations/) Order. Both offenses were designated as crimes of [Domestic Violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/). On November 8, 2012, the court imposed a 24-month [suspended sentence](http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/suspended-sentences.html). The court ordered 24 months of supervised probation and imposed fines and fees totaling $1,808. Also on November 8, 2012, the court issued a [No-Contact Order](http://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-is-a-no-contact-order/). The order form was captioned as a post conviction domestic violence No-Contact Order authorized by [RCW 10.99.050](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=10.99.050). The order directed Granath not to threaten, stalk, harass, or contact her estranged husband or keep him under surveillance, and not to knowingly come within 500 feet of him, his residence, his school, or his workplace. The order warned, “Violation of this order is a criminal offense under [chapter 26.50 RCW](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/supdefault.aspx?cite=26.50) and will subject a violator to arrest.” Notably, the order form includes a blank space for the expiration date: > 4\. This no-contact order expires on: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. Five years from today if no date is entered. In Granath’s case, **the district court did not enter a date in the blank**, so by default, the order was set to expire on November 8, 2017. At any rate, the district court “closed the case” in December 2014 after Granath paid the fines. At this point, the no-contact condition of her sentence no longer remained in effect. Granath moved to have the No-Contact Order vacated on the ground that it expired when she completed her sentence. However, the district court denied the motion. The court characterized a No-Contact Order issued under RCW 10.99.050 as a “stand-alone” order and found that such an order can “survive on its own” for a full five years even if the underlying sentence is completed earlier. Granath appealed to[ King County Superior Court](http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superior-court.aspx). The superior court affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Court of Appeals granted Granath’s motion for review. **ISSUE** The legal issue was whether the legislature Intended to criminalize violation of a post conviction No-Contact Order entered as a condition of sentence if the violation is committed after that sentence has been served. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court summarized the parties’ arguments. It acknowledged that Granath contends that under RCW 10.99.050(1), the no-contact order expires at the same time as the sentence containing the no-contact condition. In her case, that was in December 2014. The State, however, argues the No-Contact Order expires five years after the sentence was imposed. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals took issue with the State’s argument. It said that the State’s idea that a No-Contact order may remain in effect for a ‘statutory maximum’ of some kind is not expressed in RCW 10.99.050; it is derived from [*State v. Armendariz*](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1098178.html). In that case, though, the maximum duration of the No-Contact order was derived from felony sentencing statutes, not from RCW 10.99.050. “The State fails to come to grips with the plain language of RCW 10.99.050(1),” said the Court. It also criticized the State’s arguments as wrongfully interpreted policy arguments under [LAWS OF 1979, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 105, § 1; RCW 10.99.010.](http://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/documents/sessionlaw/1979ex1c105.pdf?cite=1979%20ex.s.%20c%20105%20%C2%A7%201.) The Court found that Granath was found guilty of a crime, she was sentenced, and a condition of the sentence restricted her contact with the victim. The district court was required by the statute to record the condition of the sentence as a no-contact order. However, once Granath completed her sentence and her case was closed, the No-Contact condition of sentence expired. The separate no-contact order expired at the same time. The district court erred by denying Granath’s motion to vacate the No-Contact Order. > “We conclude a no-contact order authorized by RCW 10.99.050(1) must reflect a no-contact condition of the sentence actually imposed. The No-contact order terminates when the no-contact condition of sentence terminates.” With that, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s ruling that the No-Contact Order in this case be preserved for 5 years. My opinion? Good decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Cyberstalking, Domestic Violence, No Contact Order, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Random UA's & Privacy](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/random-uas-privacy/) **Published:** August 9, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Olsen](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/933154.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/?fa=supremecourt.welcome) held that although random urinalysis tests (UAs) do implicate the privacy interests of a defendant who is on probation (probationer), the testing does not violate the defendant’s Constitutional rights if the UAs purpose was to monitor compliance with a valid probation condition requiring the defendant to refrain from drug and alcohol consumption. **BACKGROUND FACTS** The facts are undisputed. In June 2014, defendant Brittanie Olsen pleaded guilty in [Jefferson County District Court ](http://www.jeffersonsheriff.org/343/District-Court)to one count of [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). The court imposed a sentence of 364 days of confinement with 334 days suspended. As a condition of her suspended sentence, the court ordered that Olsen not consume alcohol, marijuana, or non prescribed drugs. Over defense objection, the court also required Olsen to submit to “random urine analysis screens … to ensure compliance with conditions regarding the consumption of alcohol and controlled substances.” Olsen appealed to [Jefferson County Superior Court](http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/308/Superior-Court), arguing that the random UAs requirement violated her privacy rights under the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) to the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview) and [article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx). She contended a warrantless search of a misdemeanant probationer may not be random but instead “must be supported by a well-founded suspicion that the probationer has violated a condition of her sentence.” The court agreed, vacated Olsen’s sentence, and remanded to the [district court ](http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/discourt/)for resentencing without the requirement that Olsen submit to random urine tests. The State appealed, and the[ Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) reversed, holding that “offenders on probation for DUI convictions do not have a privacy interest in preventing the random collection and testing of their urine when used to ensure compliance with a probation condition prohibiting the consumption of alcohol, marijuana, and/or non prescribed drugs. **ISSUE** The WA Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether random UAs ordered to monitor compliance with a valid probation condition not to consume drugs or alcohol violate a DUI probationer’s privacy interests under article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution. **COURT’S CONCLUSIONS & ANALYSIS** The Supreme Court held that the random UAs here were conducted with “authority of law” under article I, section 7 of our state constitution. Furthermore, although random UAs of DUI probationers do implicate privacy interests, the UAs here are narrowly tailored and imposed to monitor compliance with a valid probation conditions. The Court reasoned that The Washington State Constitution says that no person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law. One area of increased protection is the collection and testing of urine. “Compared to the federal courts, we offer heightened protection for bodily functions,” said the Court. It elaborated that our courts have generally held that for ordinary citizens, suspicionless urinalysis testing constitutes a disturbance of one’s private affairs that, absent authority of law, violates the WA Constitution. “On the other hand, we have repeatedly upheld blood or urine tests of prisoners, probationers, and parolees of some cases without explicitly conducting an analysis under the WA Constitution,” said the Court. It elaborated that two questions must be answered in cases like this: (1) whether the contested state action disturbed a person’s private affairs and, if so, (2) whether the action was undertaken with authority of law. ***a. UAs Implicate a DUI Probationer’s Privacy Interests.*** “We have consistently held that the nonconsensual removal of bodily fluids implicates privacy interests,” said the Court. It further stated that UAs implicate privacy interests in two ways. First, the act of providing a urine sample is fundamentally intrusive. This is particularly true where urine samples are collected under observation to ensure compliance. Second, chemical analysis of urine, like that of blood, can reveal a host of private medical facts about a person, including whether he or she is epileptic, pregnant, or diabetic. “These privacy interests are precisely what article I, section 7 is meant to protect.” However, the Court also said that probationers do ***not*** enjoy constitutional privacy protection to the same degree as other citizens. “Probationers have a reduced expectation of privacy because they are persons whom a court has sentenced to confinement but who are serving their time outside the prison walls,” said the Court. Therefore, the State may supervise and scrutinize a probationer more closely than it may other citizens. “However, this diminished expectation of privacy is constitutionally permissible only to the extent necessitated by the legitimate demands of the operation of the parole process.” The Court then addressed the State’s argument that UAs do not implicate Olsen’s privacy interests because probationers lack any privacy interest in their urine. “We disagree,” said the Court. “Even though misdemeanant probationers have a reduced expectation of privacy, this does not mean that they have no privacy rights at all in their bodily fluids.” After giving a detailed analysis under the precedent of *State v. Surge*, the Court summarized that, even though probationers do not enjoy the same expectation of privacy as other citizens, the UAs here still implicate their reduced privacy interests under the WA Constitution. ***b. Random UAs of DUI Probationers Do Not Violate the WA Constitution Because They Are Conducted with Authority of Law.*** Next, the Court addressed whether the UA was performed with authority of law. In short, the Court decided that issue in the affirmative. It said the State has a strong interest in supervising DUI probationers in order to promote rehabilitation and protect the public, and elaborated that probation is simply one point (or, more accurately, one set of points) on a continuum of possible punishments. It elaborated that probation is not a right, but an act of judicial grace or lenience motivated in part by the hope that the offender will become rehabilitated. To that end, a sentencing court has great discretion to impose conditions and restrictions of probation to assure that the probation serves as a period of genuine rehabilitation and that the community is not harmed by the probationer’s being at large. “As such, the State has a compelling interest in closely monitoring probationers in order to promote their rehabilitation,” said the Court. “As probation officers’ role is rehabilitative rather than punitive in nature, they must, then, have tools at their disposal in order to accurately assess whether rehabilitation is taking place.” Here, in the case of DUI probationers, the Court reasoned that monitoring and supervision ensure that treatment is taking place and serve to protect the public in the case that a probationer fails to comply with court-imposed conditions. The court further reasoned that random UAs are narrowly tailored to monitor compliance with probation conditions, they are an effective monitoring tool and they are a permissible under these circumstances: > “Unannounced testing is, arguably, crucial if a court is to impose drug testing at all. Random testing seeks to deter the probationer from consuming drugs or alcohol by putting her on notice that drug use can be discovered at any time. It also promotes rehabilitation and accountability by providing the probation officer with a ‘practical mechanism to determine whether rehabilitation is indeed taking place.'” Finally, the WA Supreme Court reasoned that random UAs, under certain circumstances, are a constitutionally permissible form of close scrutiny of DUI probationers. It found that the testing here was a narrowly tailored monitoring tool imposed pursuant to a valid prohibition on drug and alcohol use. Random UAs are also directly related to a probationer’s rehabilitation and supervision. With that, the Court concluded that the random UAs here were conducted with “authority of law” under article I, section 7 of our state constitution and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision to invoke them. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, DUI, Fourth Amendment, Privacy, Probation, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Urinalysis, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Alcohol Abuse On The Rise](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/alcohol-abuse-on-the-rise/) **Published:** August 10, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article ](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/america-s-drinking-problem-is-much-worse-this-century)by [John Tozzi](https://www.bloomberg.com/authors/APy9NHwA6cQ/john-tozzi) of [Bloomberg ](https://www.bloomberg.com/)claims that Americans are drinking more than they used to, a troubling trend with potentially dire implications for the country’s future health-care costs. The number of adults who binge drink at least once a week could be as high as 30 million, greater than the population of every state save California, according to a [study](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2647079) published on Wednesday in [JAMA Psychiatry](http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry). A similar number reported alcohol abuse or dependency. Between the genders, women showed the larger increase in alcohol abuse, according to the report. “This should be a big wake-up call,” said [David Jernigan](https://www.jhsph.edu/faculty/directory/profile/2015/david-h-jernigan), director of the [Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health](https://www.jhsph.edu/), who wasn’t involved with the research. “Alcohol is our number one drug problem, and it’s not just a problem among kids.” Tozzi reports that while underage drinking has [declined](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/well/family/binge-drinking-drops-among-teenagers.html?_r=0) in recent years, adult consumption increased across all demographics. The jump was also especially large for older Americans, minorities and people with lower levels of education and income. The rise is “startling,” said [Bridget Grant](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bridget_Grant), a researcher at the [National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism](https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/) and lead author of the paper. “We haven’t seen these increases for three or four decades.” The share of adults who reported any alcohol use, high-risk drinking or alcohol dependence or abuse increased significantly between when surveys were conducted in 2001-02 and in follow-up surveys during 2012-2013. Researchers personally interviewed tens of thousands of people with similar questions, offering a robust, nationally representative look at how American drinking habits have evolved in the 21st century. About 12.6 percent of adults reported risky drinking during the previous year in 2012-13, compared with 9.7 percent in 2001-02. Behavior was considered high-risk if people surpassed the government’s guidelines for excessive alcohol intake, set at four drinks in one day for women and five drinks for men, at least once a week. That 3 percentage point increase may not seem like a huge jump, but given an adult U.S. population of about 250 million, it represents roughly 7 million more people binge drinking at least once a week. The increase in alcohol abuse or dependence was even greater: Some 12.7 percent of respondents reported such behavior in the 2012-13 period, compared with 8.5 percent in 2001-02. That percentage increase is roughly equivalent to 10.5 million people at the current population. The surveys assessed abuse or dependence using standard [diagnostic criteria](https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/dsmfactsheet/dsmfact.pdf) (PDF), with questions such as whether people had difficulty cutting down on drinking, or if they continued drinking even when it caused trouble with family and friends. There’s no single explanation for the increase. Researchers point to economic stress in the aftermath of the [Great Recession](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession); more easily available alcohol at restaurants and retailers; and the diminished impact of alcohol taxes. As a percentage of average income, [alcohol is cheaper today](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23597808) than at any point since at least 1950. Pervasive marketing by the alcohol industry and new products such as flavored vodkas or hard lemonade and iced tea may also be driving some of the increases among women and other demographics, said Jernigan. The consequences for health care, well-being and mortality are severe. Excess drinking caused on average more than 88,000 deaths in the U.S. each year from 2006 to 2010, the Centers for Disease Control [estimates](https://nccd.cdc.gov/DPH_ARDI/Default/Report.aspx?T=AAM&P=f6d7eda7-036e-4553-9968-9b17ffad620e&R=d7a9b303-48e9-4440-bf47-070a4827e1fd&M=8E1C5233-5640-4EE8-9247-1ECA7DA325B9&F=&D=)—more than twice the number of [deaths from prescription opioids](https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/index.html) and heroin last year. The total includes drunk-driving deaths and alcohol-linked violence, as well as liver disease, strokes and other medical conditions. The CDC says drinking too much is responsible for [one in 10 deaths](https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/p0626-excessive-drinking.html) among working-age Americans. The estimated cost of excess alcohol consumption is almost [$250 billion](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26477807) a year in the U.S. “We pay for all of it,” said [Jürgen Rehm](http://www.camh.ca/en/research/about_research_at_CAMH/scientific_staff_profile/Pages/J%C3%BCrgen-Rehm.aspx), senior director of the Institute for Mental Health Policy Research at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto. The costs show up in higher health-care needs, lost productivity and prosecuting alcohol-fueled crimes, from drunk driving to homicide. Rehm said alcohol doesn’t command the attention of policymakers the way tobacco, illicit drugs or prescription opioids have. “The response of society should be commensurate to the level of the problem,” he said. Yet there is no national strategy in the U.S. that matches recent, high-profile efforts to combat opioids, smoking or illegal drugs. “Alcohol,” Rehm said, “we just tend to overlook.” My opinion? Alcohol is a factor in roughly 70% – 80% of my cases. [DUI](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.502) crimes are most commonly associated with alcohol use, but it doesn’t stop there. [Assault](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.36), [domestic violence ](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=26.50.010)and [sex offenses](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.44) also overwhelmingly involve alcohol in some way, shape or form. And although [voluntary intoxication](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Iefa05ea6e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)) is a valid defense in some cases, juries and judges tend to be pessimistic of its viability. This is because [previous research](http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2300494) finds that Americans tend to consider excess drinking a character flaw rather than a medical problem. Fortunately, in some cases Prosecutors can be persuaded to give some leeway to those who obtain alcohol evaluations and undergo treatment. These actions show the defendant is taking accounability for the alleged crimes they committed while under the influence of alcohol, and that the incident may have been isolated to those particular circumstances. If you have received a [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crime involving alcohol use/abuse, you should contact an experienced attorney who can help you through the various requirements from the courts, prosecutors, judges, probation and the Department of Motor Vehicles. You should have a alcohol evaluation done promptly, and have your attorney prep your thoroughly before hand. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [The Rise of Bitcoin](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/the-rise-of-bitcoin/) **Published:** August 11, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [news article](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/10/bitcoin-value-surge-sign-of-criminal-activity/) by [Dan Boylan](http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/dan-boylan/) of [The Washington Times](http://www.washingtontimes.com/) claims that the value of the shadowy digital currency known as Bitcoin has jumped to record highs this month, sending shock waves through America’s defense and intelligence agencies, which fear its growth signals a surge in use by terrorists, drug kingpins, white-collar criminals and Russian cybercriminals who don’t want to be tracked by the world’s governments. **BACKGROUND ON BITCOIN** For those who don’t know, Bitcoin is a worldwide [cryptocurrency](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptocurrency "Cryptocurrency") and digital [payment system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_system "Payment system") invented by an unknown programmer, or a group of programmers, under the name [Satoshi Nakamoto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto "Satoshi Nakamoto"). It was released as [open-source software](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software "Open-source software") in 2009. The system is [peer-to-peer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer "Peer-to-peer"), and transactions take place between users directly, without an intermediary. These transactions are verified by network [nodes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Node_(networking) "Node (networking)") and recorded in a public [distributed ledger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_database "Distributed database") called a [blockchain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin#Blockchain). Since the system works without a central repository or single administrator, bitcoin is called the first decentralized [digital currency](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_currency "Digital currency"). Besides being created as a reward for [mining](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin#Mining), Bitcoin can be exchanged for other currencies, products, and services in legal or [black markets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_market "Black market"). As of February 2015, over 100,000 merchants and vendors accepted bitcoin as payment. According to research produced by [Cambridge University](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_University "Cambridge University") in 2017, there are 2.9 to 5.8 million unique users using a cryptocurrency wallet, most of them using Bitcoin. The currency’s unique power comes from its independency and lack of reliance on any single government for its legitimacy. Unlike regular money, digital or cryptocurrencies are not connected to banks or governments and allow anonymous purchases or money exchanges completely outside the realm of banks, credit card firms or other third parties. Instead, the coins exist because users “mine” them by lending their computing power to verify other users’ transactions. **CYBER TERRORISM & BITCOIN** In Britain, screenshots on social media showed [National Health Service](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service) computer screens with messages demanding $300 worth of Bitcoin to regain access to files. While cyberattacks have increasingly targeted businesses around the world, Bitcoin [ransom attacks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransomware), especially in the U.S., are skyrocketing. The[ FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Crime_Complaint_Center) reported it received 2,673 ransomware incidents last year — nearly double the figure from 2014. Despite Moscow’s denials of meddling in the U.S. presidential election, major investigations also continue into Russian hackers suspected of using cyberattacks to undermine or influence the vote. **WORLD GOVERNMENTS STRIKE BACK AGAINST CYBER CRIMES AND BITCOIN** This summer, the [U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)](https://www.fincen.gov/), the [Department of Justice](https://www.justice.gov/) and scores of European illicit finance law enforcement officials have fought back with a wave of operations against Russian cybercriminals. Late last month, they shuttered [AlphaBay ](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/alphabay-largest-online-dark-market-shut-down)and [Hansa ](http://reason.com/blog/2017/07/26/five-lessons-from-the-hansa-and-alphabay)— two of the biggest [“dark web”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_web) contraband marketplaces rife with the illegal sale of guns, drugs and other forbidden merchandise. In an even more startling sign of the battle raging around Bitcoin, a FinCEN-led international illicit financing task force arrested a Russian “mastermind of organized crime” on a small beachside village in northern Greece less than two weeks ago. [Alexander Vinnik](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-greece-russia-arrest-idUSKBN1AB1OP), who is accused of laundering more than $4 billion worth of illegal funds using Bitcoin accounts, operated [BTC-e](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTC-e), one of the world’s oldest Bitcoin exchanges. U.S. authorities accuse Mr. Vinnik of facilitating crimes including drug trafficking, public corruption, hacking, fraud, identity theft and tax refund fraud. “Just as new computer technologies continue to change the way we engage each other and experience the world, so too will criminals subvert these new technologies to serve their own nefarious purposes,” [Brian Stretch, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California](https://www.justice.gov/usao/district/ndca), said about BTC-e. Mr. Vinnik was arrested amid worldwide cyberhavoc triggered by massive [WannaCry’s Bitcoin ransomware attacks](https://qz.com/1045270/wannacry-update-the-hackers-behind-ransomware-attack-finally-cashed-out-about-140000-in-bitcoin/) in May and June. The attacks forced a production shutdown at Renault auto plans, crashed computers at Britain’s National Health Service and targeted India’s ATM network. A little-noticed provision of the law passed by Congress and signed by President Trump this month imposing new sanctions for North Korea, Iran and Russia mandated the formulation of a national security strategy to combat “the financing of terrorism and related forms of illicit finance.” Among those forms, according to the text of the law, were “so-called cryptocurrencies and other methods that are computer, telecommunications, or internet-based” for cybercrime. America’s defense and intelligence agencies, FinCEN in particular, pride themselves on the U.S. government’s ability to track and disrupt the illicit financial networks that work through traditional banks and finance channels. This summer’s crackdowns on illicit Bitcoin activity has been considerable, but the dramatic surge in the currency’s overall value poses even more challenges. **WHAT IS A BITCOIN WORTH NOWADAYS?** Over the past month, Bitcoin prices are up more than 30 percent. According to the CoinDesk Bitcoin Price Index, a bitcoin traded for more than $3,000 — a record high — this past weekend. The surge follows a spinoff another cryptocurrency, [Bitcoin Cash](https://www.bitcoincash.org/). Anticipation of the spinoff sent bitcoin values spiraling last month as market analysts predicted a “civil war” with the rival. The opposite appears to have occurred with the spinoff driving up Bitcoin’s value. Market analysts say the value surge demonstrated bitcoin’s resiliency in addition to a growing public appetite for cryptocurrencies. On Thursday, bitcoins traded at $3,439.55 per coin, driving the overall market value of all existing bitcoins to $56 billion. Adding Bitcoin’s overall value to other cryptocurrencies such as Ethereum and Litecoin and the total market capitalization of such digital cash is roughly $120 billion. **HOW DO WE RESPOND TO THE INCREASED USE OF CRYPTOCURRENCIES?** [Yaya Fanusie](http://www.defenddemocracy.org/about-fdd/team-overview/yaya-j-fanusie/), a former counterterrorism analyst for the [CIA](https://www.cia.gov/index.html), is credited with identifying the first verifiable instance of a terrorist organization attempting to use bitcoin to raise funds. He now runs analysis for the [Center on Sanctions and Illicit Finance at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies](http://www.defenddemocracy.org/) and told The Washington Times in an interview that the increased volume of bitcoin trading in itself is not the concern. “The national security concern is not that criminals will use this type of technology — they use all technologies,” Mr. Fanusie said. “The policy question is: How do you deal with something that governments can’t control?” He said the U.S. needs to engage with the cryptocurrencies as much as possible and pointed to Defense Department procurement experiments already underway. “Bitcoin is like a rebellious teenager,” he said. “It wants to do its own thing. So what do you do? Do you ban it? No, you want to have a good relationship with it and influence how it develops.” **BUILDING A CRIMINAL DEFENSE** Virtual currencies like Bitcoin can play a central role in more traditional types of crime. Bitcoin trading enables some types of unlawful purchases that may be serious offenses, such as illegal purchases of weapons or drugs. One such high-profile case is that of [Silk Road’s alleged owner, Ross Ulbricht](https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/10/25/fbi-says-its-seized-20-million-in-bitcoins-from-ross-ulbricht-alleged-owner-of-silk-road/#599280ce2765), whose Bitcoin assets of over $28 million were seized in a criminal investigation into alleged illegal drug sales. Unfortunately, [Identity Theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/identity-theft/) can play a part of these cryptocurrency transactions. Even ordinary cash has a history of being used for nefarious ends, but digital currency transactions can make the courtroom defense of criminal charges more complex. When facing the possibility of fines, forfeiture, or even incarceration, it is best to find an attorney with the experience it takes to build a nuanced, creative defense. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Bitcoin, Computer Crimes, Cyber Terrorism, Dark Web, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Jail Calls Make Revenue](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/prisoners-generate-revenue/) **Published:** August 19, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Wonderful [article ](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/08/remote-video-visitation/535095/?utm_source=twb)by [Brian Alexander](https://www.theatlantic.com/author/brian-alexander/) of [The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/) claims that private companies have much to gain from installing and maintaining video technology connecting inmates with visitors. **VIDEO CHAT TECHNOLOGY** Over the past decade, many prisons have outsourced video chat the systems to private corporations, often as part of a package that includes phone services. As of 2014, [according to a report by the nonprofit Prison Policy Initiative](https://www.prisonpolicy.org/visitation/report.html), over 500 jails and prisons in 43 states had adopted video visitation. An unknown number of those 500-plus facilities have also adopted “remote” video visitation, something akin to [Skype](https://www.skype.com/en/), in which a “visitor” can communicate with an inmate via a computer, from any location. Unlike the in-facility video visitation systems, these remote setups come with charges of up to a dollar per minute, not counting account-deposit fees and set-up charges—expenses that can be quite burdensome for the [often-poor](https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/income.html) families of inmates. Despite the expense, however, the benefits cannot be ignored. Many visitors may conclude that driving to the jail is a waste of time and gas, and opt to pay. And jailers argue that video visitation has obvious security advantages and improves staff efficiency, as deputies don’t have to remove a prisoner from a housing unit or check visitors in. Additionally, the revenues cannot be ignored either. Video chat systems make jailers—whether local governments or private corporations—the de-facto business partners of the companies, while enriching private-equity firms (which own many video-visitation providers) and their investors. “Video visitation is a link in the whole system that sees inmates as a revenue opportunity,” says [Daniel Hatcher](http://law.ubalt.edu/faculty/profiles/hatcher.cfm), a law professor at the [University of Baltimore](http://www.ubalt.edu/index.cfm) and the author of [*The Poverty Industry: The Exploitation of America’s Most Vulnerable Citizens*](http://www.indiebound.org/book/9781479874729). “It’s part of a larger system that sees the broader vulnerable family as a revenue opportunity, too.” **A LUCRATIVE BUSINESS** Reporter Brian Alexander says that inmate-communication services have proven to be a very lucrative business, and expensive [phone charges](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/31/us/steep-costs-of-inmate-phone-calls-are-under-scrutiny.html) borne by the families of prisoners have stoked controversy for years. In response, the [Federal Communications Commission (FCC)](https://www.fcc.gov/) capped per-minute rates in 2015. Prison-telecom companies sued. President Trump’s appointee to head the FCC, Ajit Pai, [dropped the FCC’s defense of the rate-cap rules](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/inmates-prison-fees-fine-trump/516213/), and, in June, [a court struck them down](http://thehill.com/policy/technology/337593-court-strikes-down-in-state-prison-call-rates). Even so, the phone charges became a scandal and some in Congress vowed to take action. Administrators began to feel queasy about the rates. The procedural hurdles and the outright bans on in-person visitation seem designed to nudge visitors to stay home and visit remotely. This not only benefits providers, but jails, prisons, and local jurisdictions too, which can use income from company commissions or profit-sharing to benefit the facility, a county’s general fund, or some other local cause. For example, the [Prison Policy Initiative ](https://www.prisonpolicy.org/)[uncovered](https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520964282.pdf) a contract between Securus and Maricopa County, Arizona, that provided for a 10 percent commission to the county of gross monthly revenues, but only if the number of paid video visits reached at least 8,000 for that month. If Securus grossed $2.6 million or more, the county’s percentage rose to 20 percent. **VIDEO VISITATION NO REPLACEMENT FOR IN-PERSON VISITS.** Alexander emphasizes that video visitation is no replacement for in-person visits. As an oft-cited [Minnesota Department of Corrections study from 2011](https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=261020) showed, “prison visitation can significantly improve the transition offenders make from the institution to the community. Any visit reduced the risk of recidivism by 13 percent for felony reconvictions and 25 percent for technical violation revocations.” Also, a [report by the National Institute of Corrections](https://nicic.gov/library/029609) (part of the [U.S. Department of Justice](https://www.justice.gov/)) similarly concluded that video visitation “cannot replicate seeing someone in-person, and it is critical for a young child to visit his or her incarcerated parent in person to establish a secure attachment.” **INVESTORS ARE PIQUED** Meanwhile, because the largest inmate telecom-and-video providers generate a healthy flow of cash, they’ve attracted the interest of private equity, or PE. The fees that flow upward from prisoners and their families find their way to these firms and their investors. In 2013, for example, [Global Tel Link](http://www.gtl.net/), another major inmate phone-and-video provider, [borrowed](http://www.piperjaffray.com/pdf/dcm5132013.pdf) $885 million to fund dividend recapitalizations at the behest of its PE sponsor, [American Securities](https://www.american-securities.com/); that debt would be paid back with the proceeds from inmate calls and video visitations. **VIDEO CHAT: GOOD OR BAD?** Alexander says that even a critic like Hatcher, the author and law professor, believes that video visitation has the potential for good. Such a service can complement in-person visits. It could allow an inmate to see a child’s school performance. It could substitute for an in-person visit when weather makes travel to a jail or prison hazardous. But Hatcher fears that it’s being used to restrict contact and drain money from people [who are often already poor](https://csgjusticecenter.org/corrections/publications/uncovering-the-pre-incarceration-incomes-of-individuals-in-the-justice-system/). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Jail, Prison, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Sessions on WA Marijuana](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/sessions-on-wa-marijuana/) **Published:** August 24, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent article by [Melissa Santos](http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/author/melissasantos/) of the [Tacoma News Tribune](http://www.thenewstribune.com/latest-news/) claims that Washington state officials disagree with how [U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions](https://www.justice.gov/ag/staff-profile/meet-attorney-general) has characterized [Washington state’s legal marijuana market](https://mjbizdaily.com/category/news-by-state/washington-state/). Last week, [Gov. Jay Inslee](http://www.governor.wa.gov/) and [State Attorney General Bob Ferguson](http://www.atg.wa.gov/about-bob-ferguson) both [drafted a letter](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3943864-Inslee-Ferguson-Ltr-to-Sessions-Re-Marijuana-Aug.html) saying Sessions recently made many allegations that are outdated, incorrect, or based on incomplete information. Later, key lawmakers involved with setting the state’s marijuana policy — including two Republicans — followed up [with their own letter](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3946111-AG-Sessions-Letter-Final.html). They, too, said Sessions is off base. “…We believe your comments reflect a misunderstanding of what has happened in Washington State since recreational marijuana was legalized in 2012,” reads the letter signed by state [Rep. David Sawyer, D-Tacoma](http://housedemocrats.wa.gov/legislators/david-sawyer/); state [Sen. Ann Rivers, R-La Center](http://annrivers.src.wastateleg.org/); state [Rep. Cary Condotta, R-Wenatchee](http://carycondotta.houserepublicans.wa.gov/); and state [Sen. Karen Keiser, D-Kent](http://sdc.wastateleg.org/keiser/). The letters are in response to [a July 24 letter](http://www-dev.governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/8%202%2017%20Ltr%20from%20J%20Sessions.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery) from Sessions, a former Republican senator from Alabama. In the July letter, Sessions cited parts of [a 2016 report](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bxs3xMLjUamANHhRRkluWkRobXM/view) by the [Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area](http://www.mfiles.org/home/nw-hidta), an enforcement program run by the [Office of National Drug Control Policy](https://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp). Sessions claims this report raises serious questions about the efficacy of marijuana ‘regulatory structures’ in Washington State. Here are some of Sessions’ key assertions that Washington state officials are disputing and why. **CLAIM #1: LEGAL MARIJUANA LABS ARE EXPLODING – LITERALLY.** According to Inslee and Ferguson, Sessions’ repeatedly fails to distinguish between marijuana activity that is legal and illegal under state law. “Instead, it conflates the two in a manner that implies that state-legal marijuana activity is responsible for harm actually caused by illegal marijuana activity,” Inslee and Ferguson wrote. One example is when Sessions cites 17 explosions at THC extraction labs in Washington state. (THC, short for [tetrahydrocannabinol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrocannabinol), is the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana.) “…None of these explosions were at labs operating legally under state license,” Inslee’s and Ferguson’s letter says. “In the history of our licensing system, no legal extraction lab has ever had an explosion.” **CLAIM #2: WASHINGTON STATE IS ALLOWING A BLACK MARKET TO THRIVE.** Inslee and Ferguson cite similar problems with Sessions’ assertion that marijuana from Washington has been diverted to 43 other states. They say that statistic covers years before Washington’s recreational sales began “and reveals nothing about whether the sources of the marijuana were legal or illegal.” Rivers, Sawyer, Keiser and Condotta add that Sessions is ignoring the effects of the state’s move in 2016 to eliminate unlicensed medical-marijuana dispensaries in Washington state, as well as to start carefully tracking medical marijuana. The 2016 report that Sessions cited about the state’s marijuana market came out before those reforms went into effect. **CLAIM #3: YOUTH USE OF MARIJUANA HAS INCREASED.** In short, the lawmakers say the notion that minors’ marijuana use increased after legalization is inconsistent with the available facts. As evidence, the lawmakers cite the state’s [2016 Healthy Youth Survey](http://www.doh.wa.gov/DataandStatisticalReports/DataSystems/HealthyYouthSurvey), which found that rates of teen marijuana use have remained steady despite the [legalization of marijuana in 2012](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Initiative_502). The lawmakers also say that marijuana businesses have better rates of complying with laws banning sales to minors than businesses that sell liquor. **CLAIM #4: MOST DRIVERS DON’T THINK MARIJUANA IMPAIRS THEM.** Here, Sessions had cited a statistic that 61.9 percent of drivers do not believe marijuana makes a difference in their driving ability. However, the study that Sessions references [doesn’t actually say that. ](http://wtsc.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2014/11/Washington-State-Roadside-Survey-Wave-1-10-01-14-for-WA.pdf)Instead, it found that 97 out of 893 drivers surveyed reported having previously used marijuana within 2 hours of driving. While 61.9 percent of that group said marijuana didn’t hinder their driving ability, that number reflected only 6.7 percent of all the 893 drivers surveyed. **CLAIM #5: YOU CAN COMPARE VEHICLE CRASH RATES BEFORE AND AFTER LEGALIZATION.** Inslee and Ferguson disagree with Sessions’ assertion that [driving while under the influence of marijuana](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.502) has increased in Washington state since marijuana legalization. Those statistics aren’t reliable, Inslee and Ferguson say, because testing for THC during DUI stops used to be much rarer. “Prior to marijuana legalization, blood testing for THC at suspected DUI traffic stops was substantially less common,” Inslee and Ferguson’s letter reads. “Consequently, comparable statistics do not exist.” My opinion? Misinformation and exaggeration are tools used by many who rail against Washington’s legalization of marijuana. Hopefully, the current administration won’t take any adverse actions such as conducting federal investigations and/or prosecutions of citizens in Washington state who ingest marijuana. And hopefully, other states also legalize. Perhaps some momentum in that direction would persuade the feds to not be so aggressive in demonizing and outlawing marijuana. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, DUI, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, I-502, Legislation, marijuana, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Trump Administration, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Racial Bias in Media Coverage of the Opioid Crisis vs. Crack Epidemics](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/racial-bias-in-media-coverage-of-the-opioid-crisis-vs-crack-epidemics/) **Published:** August 29, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent, informative [article ](https://www.cjr.org/criticism/opioid-crisis-photos.php?link)by [Michael Shaw](https://www.cjr.org/author/michael-shaw) of in the [Columbia Journalism Review](https://www.cjr.org/) discusses the clear double standard in the visual framing of the opioid crisis in comparison to the crack cocaine crisis of the 1980’s. Shaw claims that media coverage of the opioid epidemic—which largely affects suburban and rural whites—portrays it as an outside threat and focuses on treatment and recovery, while stories of heroin in the 1970s, crack-cocaine in the 1980s, and other drug problems that impact urban people of color today have focused on the drug user’s morality. Photos of the [opioid crisis](https://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/opioids/opioid-crisis) depict well-lit spaces, stress domesticity, and emphasize close-knit communities. In contrast, pictures of urban drug problems have depicted nighttime scenes on seedy streets or portrayed individuals interacting with the police, courts, or jails—often using starker black and white photography. In sum, Shaw argues, “Elected officials, the criminal justice system, and the American media have adopted a ‘kinder and gentler’ tone around the opioid crisis.” ###### “A sub-theme of opioid crisis coverage: Many stories showcase children who have been saved by loving grandparents.” Photo from *The New York Times*, 2016. ###### Drug stories about black families in cities present a “narrative of broken homes, addicted babies, mothers depicted as unfit, the engagement of state agencies, and children routinely placed into foster care.” Photo from *The Washington Post*, 1989. The [racial bias](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/crack-heroin-and-race/401015/) is inescapable. A drug crisis that is largely affecting suburban and rural whites is being treated with a [drastically different](http://www.alternet.org/drugs/massive-discrepancies-between-media-coverage-mythical-crack-babies-and-opiate-dependent-babies) [attitude](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/there-was-no-wave-of-compassion-when-addicts-were-hooked-on-crack/) and [approach](http://www.nupoliticalreview.com/2016/06/21/the-overlooked-racial-complexities-of-the-opioid-epidemic/) in words and imagery than those used to characterize heroin use in the 1970s, crack cocaine in the late 1980s, and the drug problem plaguing America’s people of color and urban poor today. Shaw claims that elected officials, the criminal justice system, and the American media have adopted a “kinder and gentler” tone around the opioid crisis. The attitude and phrasing of a recent *New York Times* [article](https://twitter.com/CrimesMelan/status/855261768763027456%0A)—titled: “In Heroin Crisis, White Families Seek Gentler War on Drugs”—is both an example and an illustration. As is *Time’*s just-published [photo story](http://time.com/jeffrey-stockbridge-kensington-philadelphia-photographs/) “A caring lens on the opioid crisis.” The visual language is just as illuminating. The opioid crisis has been framed as [a threat from outside](https://goo.gl/23mr6j), with drug users facing an “illness or a “disease” rather than a personal moral shortcoming. “You can see in this photo how demonstrators cast addicts who have died from drugs as victims, and in the inset photo, literally as an angel,” says Shaw. “In [another photograph](http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/9_1dD3JaDF5/Activists+March+Capitol+Hill+Urge+Congress/I27pa72_NM7), you can see how the same group, FedUp!, has co-opted the quilt as a protest symbol reminiscent of the AIDS crisis.” Shaw also argues that the largely white drug “epidemic” we’re facing now bears little resemblance to the scenes of squalor, sociopathy, and criminality depicted in this [33-photo Getty package ](http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/iBt9cQnHnaD/Drug+Deaths+Continue+Rapid+Rise/y6HnRlwd3PQ)shot in the Bronx and published in June. And photos from the urban “war on drugs” don’t look much different today than they did 30 years ago. A US Marshal, far left, keeps his pistol trained on suspects as other marshals raid a crackhouse. (AP Photo/Scott Applewhite) The photo above by Scott Applewhite, also shot in the Bronx, appeared in 1989. It was published [to illustrate](http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/the-pulse/91223-addiction-compassion-race-looking-back-at-the-crack-epidemic-) an eight-week federal anti-drug initiative characterized by armed police raids on inner city crack houses. Suffice it to say police in general have taken a different approach to white opioid drug users (more on that later). Over the years, photographers have produced many landmark photo stories and bodies of work about drug addiction. The subjects and the settings have been uniformly harsh, the subjects primarily indigent and wayward, and the environs largely decrepit. Those stories include Larry Clark’s[ “](https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/jun/05/larry-clark-tulsa-teenage-lust-photography-controversy%0A)[Tulsa](https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/jun/05/larry-clark-tulsa-teenage-lust-photography-controversy%0A),” shot in the mid-1960s and published in 1971; Jessica Dimmock’s[ “](http://viiphoto.com/articles/the-ninth-floor/)[The Ninth Floor](http://viiphoto.com/articles/the-ninth-floor/),” shot in the Flatiron District of Manhattan and published in 2007; Michel Du Cille’s Pulitzer Prize winning [work](http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/obituaries/article4452322.html) in 1988 documenting crack addiction in Miami. Another important photo story in the canon of addiction is Eugene Richards’s “[Cocaine True Cocaine Blue](https://eugenerichards.com/cocaine-true-cocaine-blue/eaudn8pfv7mq2wfg487niyg8rd9wsy).” The project was shot primarily in New York and Philadelphia from 1988 to 1992 and published in 1994. The Instagram post above captures the visual tone and sensibility of that historical investigation. Notice the difference in tone between the historical work and a [opioid story](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/06/05/the-addicts-next-door?utm_content=buffer23e05&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer) in June in *The New Yorker* shot by Richards in one West Virginia county. This tweet depicts four of six Richards images that illustrated the story. In the top left photo, the girl playing in the yard lives with her grandmother. She lost her father to a heroin overdose. The top right photo shows people running a project that helps place addicts in rehab. The middle photo shows a mother, a recovering addict, showing off her newborn. And the last photo is a doctor who offers free public classes in the use of Narcan, the drug that reverses opioid overdoses. “What are the larger themes of photo coverage of the opioid crisis, centered on rural and suburban white America, and where do they contrast with coverage of drugs in cities?” asks Shaw. “Photos are almost always shot in color rather than the starker black and white. We typically see daytime or well-lit indoor photos, as opposed to night action on seedy streets or dark alleys.” Shaw further emphasizes that there is minimal engagement with courts, jail, or the police. And there is a stress on domesticity. The photos often are shot at a home, the spaces mostly tidy or pulled together. Bedroom portraits are common. Opioid stories typically discuss family, extended family, and community. This image in the tweet above appeared in *The New York Times* “gentler drug war” [story](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/us/heroin-war-on-drugs-parents.html%0A) mentioned above. It’s a photo of Courtney Griffin, who died of a heroin overdose in 2014. The picture in the center show Courtney closely flanked by her sister and her mother. Emphasizing love and closeness, as well as nostalgia and irony, the photo exemplifies how the opioid imagery stays away from pain, despair, isolation, and, of course, relationship problems. Victims are often depicted in a sympathetic light, with an emphasis on family bonds and survivor grief. A [sub-theme](http://www.aarp.org/health/drugs-supplements/info-2017/opiates-addiction-grandparents-raising-grandchildren.html) of opioid crisis coverage: Many stories [showcase](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-opioid-crisis-is-straining-the-nations-foster-care-systems/2017/06/30/97759fb2-52a1-11e7-91eb-9611861a988f_story.html?utm_term=.dcac3d020611) children who have been saved by loving grandparents. In the photo accompanying a *Times* story, notice the child safe in her bedroom, the letters on the wall spelling out her name, reinforcing identity and continuity. This pattern is a [dramatic contrast](http://www.alternet.org/drugs/massive-discrepancies-between-media-coverage-mythical-crack-babies-and-opiate-dependent-babies%0A) to the narrative of broken homes, addicted babies, mothers depicted as unfit, the engagement of state agencies, and children routinely placed into foster care that is so characteristic of drug stories focused on black families in cities. This photo by Jahi Chikwendiu appeared in a *Washington Post* [article](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/maryland-news/opioid-crisis-in-maryland-a-house-of-reckoning-and-recovery/2017/07/05/b9889d22-4f84-11e7-91eb-9611861a988f_story.html?utm_term=.d23691837fe1) highlighting a recovery house in Bowie, Maryland. Opioid stories consistently stress close-knit towns and support communities.This is a reunion picnic with residents, graduates, family members, and supporters. Of course, the bonding and intimacy in these photos obscure the alienation and the emotional isolation that go hand in hand with addiction. “The issue of responsibility is largely absent until the theme of recovery comes into play,” says Shaw. At that point, users and addicts are often shown exercising [remarkable will](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/25/opioids-addiction-survivors-recovery-treatment) and [winning the battle](https://worcestermag.com/2014/07/17/pill-man-one-mans-fight-overcome-opiate-addiction/25284)with the disease. Photos stress dignity, help-seeking, coping skills, and self-reliance in the face of poverty and other challenges. Paul Wright shows a picture of himself in the hospital after a near fatal overdose in 2015, Thursday, June 15, 2017, at the Neil Kennedy Recovery Clinic in Youngstown, Ohio. (AP Photo/David Dermer) Consider this AP photo of a young man showing a picture of himself after a near-fatal overdose in 2015. It’s like it can’t be the same person, the Nike “Just Do It” accentuating a sense of agency over addiction. This photo was featured in a major [article](https://goo.gl/GEgdgQ%0A) on the opioid crisis published this month by *The New York Times Magazine*. Faith, love, and patriotism are themes that often lace photos of the opioid crisis. In this photo, we see a look of conviction on the man’s face and an American flag in the background. This formerly homeless man [started](http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/08/with_60k_followers_on_facebook.html) a wildly popular Facebook group after his friend died of heroin and is now a sought after drug counselor. What’s more American than bringing nationalism, patriotism, and a sense of can-do to a problem otherwise riddled with shame? When you do see photos of actual drug use, the images are typically clinical and objective, as opposed to desperate and dingy. After all the crafted photojournalism like the images you see above, it’s jarring to see these user pictures more in the style of stock photography. This photo by [John Moore](https://www.worldpressphoto.org/people/john-moore) is part of a story about New London, Connecticut, which is suffering an unprecedented heroin and opioid pain pill epidemic. You’ll notice that the user wears a crucifix, a symbol of faith and a visual buffer with the drug use. Unlike other drug scourges, where photos of users using were common and showed faces, many opioid portraits hide the users’ faces. We hardly ever see anguish, craving, or the high, the rush, or the stupor. The subjects look as if they are doing a routine task, like brushing their teeth. Compare this to a frame from a story about [New York City in May 2015](http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/rVWcEzIu9Vw/Synthetic+Marijuana+K2+Use+Rise+New+York+City) on the rise of [synthetic marijuana, or K2](https://spiceaddictionsupport.org/what-is-spice/), in New York City. The above photo by [Spencer Platt](https://www.worldpressphoto.org/people/spencer-platt) shows a black male drug user unceremoniously splayed out on an East Harlem sidewalk. “Of course, there are exceptions,” says Shaw. This tweet captures several photos from a [*St. Louis Post-Dispatch*](http://www.stltoday.com/) [story](http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/a-mass-killer-st-louis-heroin-deaths-hit-new-high/article_2fd6130c-3c35-524a-891e-e51eff2e40b4.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share) that the public [found widely disturbing](http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/columns/editors-desk/photo-of-heroin-users-tackles-problem-head-on/article_3b481916-04b0-5afd-a9a4-9803f905489b.html). Administration of heroin in most opioid stories is visualized in a casual way. In the unusual instance that depiction is [blatantly graphic](http://time.com/4634809/photo-opioid-addiction/) or inordinately casual though, a much stronger impact has been elicited. In this case, a couple is photographed shooting up at home, the woman six months pregnant. Beyond the act of administration, however, the rest of the imagery still conforms to many of the domestic norms described above. The February 6, 2017 photo was made in the kitchen, as the couple apparently prepared a meal. The place looks otherwise spotless; both wear clean clothes, and the dishes on the far counter seem to be washed. In the accompanying images by photojournalist David Carson, the drug use fits a larger routine. It might be a horror, but it’s a particularly antiseptic and contained one. In light of campaign politics and now the debate over healthcare, geography has been almost as prominent a theme in the opioid crisis as demographics. A great deal of the towns are down-and-out, suffering from poverty and a loss of industry. In many cases, however, the photography softens the blow. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug House, Drug Offenses, Methamphetamine, Opoids, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense --- ### [Extortion & Promises](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/extortion-promises/) **Published:** August 30, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. McClure](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2048867-1-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo)held that extortion was satisfied by evidence that the defendant attempted to obtain valuable intangible property – a promise from the victim that he would not pursue criminal charges or a civil remedy against the defendant for the damaged property. **BACKGROUND FACTS** In late 2013, Williams and McClure entered into an agreement under which McClure would reside in a double wide trailer Williams owned that needed repairs. McClure would perform the repairs. In return, he would live in the trailer rent free for one year and then he would start paying rent. After a year, Williams contacted McClure and told him that if he did not pay rent, Williams would evict him. McClure responded by threatening to destroy the trailer if Williams evicted him. McClure did not pay his rent and Williams began the eviction process. Williams visited the trailer on the day McClure was to be evicted and discovered that the sliding glass door, the front door, the kitchen cabinets, and the wood stove had been removed. In addition, pipes were ripped out of the ceiling and electrical lines had been cut. Williams contacted the sheriff. A few days later, Williams returned to the trailer and observed people on the property who were removing siding, electrical wire, plumbing, appliances, and fixtures from the trailer and portions of his shed. A deputy sheriff informed Williams that someone had taken out a Craigslist ad inviting people onto the property to take what they wanted. Williams sent a text message to McClure asking him to remove the ad. McClure texted a response: “I will pull the ads if you take a letter . . . signed and notarized by both you and Lisa (Williams’ wife) that will not allow any charges to be placed against me or my wife for anything related to the property. I don’t need the hassle. I will also not have the signs placed that I made for the same purpose.” After Williams again asked McClure to remove the ad, McClure texted, “A simple letter will take you 15 minutes and it will be done.” The State charged McClure with [first degree extortion](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.120) and [first degree malicious](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/malicious-mischief/) mischief. A jury convicted him of both charges. **LEGAL ISSUE** McClure appeals only his first degree extortion conviction on the issue of whether that “promise” sought by the defendant constituted valuable intangible “property” supporting an extortion conviction or merely involved[ coercion under RCW 9A.36.070](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.070) – Williams abstaining from conduct that he had the legal right to engage in. **ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals reasoned that under RCW 9A.56.120(1), a person is guilty of first degree extortion if that person commits “extortion” by means of specific types of threats. “Extortion” means “knowingly to obtain or attempt to obtain by threat property or services of the owner.” “Property” means “anything of value, whether tangible or intangible, real or personal.” It further reasoned that McClure clearly was seeking a promise to not pursue criminal charges for a crime that involved financial loss to Williams – the cost of repairing damaged property. As a victim of a crime under [RCW 9.94A.753(5)](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94a.753), Williams would have the ability to receive restitution in a criminal proceeding for the property damage McClure caused. “This ability to receive restitution for property damage had value to Williams,” reasoned the Court of Appeals. Furthermore, McClure also arguably was seeking a promise not to pursue any civil remedy for the property damage McClure caused. That is how Williams interpreted the threat. He testified that McClure demanded Williams’ agreement “not to hold me responsible or press any charges for the damage that was done to your property.” Finally, the Court of Appeals reasoned that this ability to hold McClure responsible for the property damage in a civil lawsuit had value to Williams: > “A reasonable jury could have inferred from the evidence that McClure was attempting to obtain something intangible that had value – Williams’ promise not to pursue compensation for the property damage that McClure caused.” Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held that the State presented sufficient evidence to support McClure’s conviction for first degree extortion. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Extortion, felony, Jury Trial, Malicious Mischief, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Increased Rape on Campus](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/increased-rape-on-campus/) **Published:** August 31, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article ](http://www.thedailybeast.com/theres-been-a-huge-increase-in-campus-sex-assaults-why)by [Lizzie Crocker](http://www.thedailybeast.com/author/lizzie-crocker) of the [Daily Beast](http://www.thedailybeast.com/) says that reports of sexual assault on college campuses have surged dramatically in the past 15 years, according to a [new federal study](https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017064.pdf), while all other reported on-campus crimes have decreased. Importantly, Crocker acknowledges that the 205 percent increase in reports of sexual assault — from 2,200 in 2001 to 6,700 in 2014 — does not necessarily confirm the [campus rape epidemic narrative](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/21/how-misleading-is-the-new-one-in-four-campus-rape-statistic) perpetuated by high profile cases like that of [convicted rapist Brock Turner](http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/09/30/california-approves-new-brock-turner-law?via=desktop&source=copyurl) and [Alec Cook](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/27/campus-serial-rapist-kept-leather-notebook-of-victims-to-kill-prosecutors-say), who was recently expelled from the [University of Wisconsin](http://www.wisc.edu/) after being charged with sexually assaulting multiple women. In fact, the Education Department’s new study may indicate progress in combating the stigma of silence around sexual assault on college campuses. Conducted by the [National Center for Education Statistics ](https://nces.ed.gov/)and the [Justice Department](https://www.justice.gov/), the new study looked at data collected under the [Clery Act](https://clerycenter.org/policy-resources/the-clery-act/), a law which requires colleges and universities to report to the federal government all sex crimes on or adjacent to campus that are reported to school authorities. Crocker reports that because sexual assault is one of the most underreported crimes, some advocates say that these figures likely underestimate the prevalence of [sexual assault](http://www.thedailybeast.com/keyword/sexual-assault) on campus. “They’re similar to law enforcement statistics on sex offenses in that they’re not an accurate representation of the magnitude of the problem,” said Christopher Krebs, lead author of the National Institute of Justice’s’ 2007[ Campus Sexual Assault Study](https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221153.pdf)—the source of the widely cited “one in five” figure that has since been challenged. (Krebs himself [has previously said ](http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/09/aau_campus_sexual_assault_survey_why_such_surveys_don_t_paint_an_accurate.html)that the number is “not a nationally representative statistic.”) Krebs has since co-authored the [Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS)](https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ccsvsftr.pdf), which surveyed 23,000 students at nine colleges from 2014 to 2015 and compared their findings to Clery Act data. Released last January, the study found that participants reported 2,380 rapes compared to the 40 rapes reported under the Clery Act by the same nine schools during that 2014-2015 period. “770 of these rapes occurred on campus, and only 160 of them were reported to authorities who would have been required to report them under the Clery Act,” said Krebs. Crocker reports that when weighing their data against Clery Act requirements, which only counts reported rapes that occured on or adjacent to campuses, the CCVS survey counted only 60 rapes—not a significant difference from the 40 rapes reported by the nine schools in [Clery Act data](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/09/18/how-safe-is-your-college). According to Krebs, the discrepancy between the 2,380 rapes reported by CCVS survey participants at nine schools and the 40 rapes reported under the Clery Act by those schools shows that the law’s standards are too narrow. “To fully grasp the prevalence of campus sexual assault, you need survey data that are collected in a reliable and methodologically rigorous manner,” he said. Meanwhile, the[ Association of American University Women (AAUW)](http://www.aauw.org/what-we-do/educational-funding-and-awards/) recently analyzed federal data collected between 2014 and 2015—which comprises part of the latest government study—and found that [89 percent of college campuses](http://www.aauw.org/article/clery-act-data-analysis-2017/) reported zero incidents of rape during that time period. “We’ve always emphasized that zero is a red flag, and we know that the reported incidents are just the tip of the iceberg,” said [Anne Hedgepeth, the AAUW’s government relations manager](http://www.aauw.org/author/annehedgepeth/). “Schools are out of touch with reality if they continue to claim that they have no sexual violence on their campuses,” she added. “It simply doesn’t square with a lot of research on campus sexual assault.” Indeed, nearly 100 colleges and universities [reported at least 10 incidents of rape in 2014](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/06/07/these-colleges-have-the-most-reports-of-rape/?utm_term=.bb791ebba621), according to federal data, with four Ivy League schools — [Brown](http://www.sanfordbrown.edu/), [Dartmouth](http://home.dartmouth.edu/), [Stanford](https://www.stanford.edu/), and [Harvard ](https://college.harvard.edu/)— listed among the worst offenders. Still, Hedgepath emphasized that the increased reports of sexual assault in the latest Education Department study—which included “fondling” in its definition of sexual assault for data collected between 2014 and 2015—suggests victims feel increasingly safer [reporting campus sexual assault](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/08/rape-prevention-is-still-a-woman-s-job-campuses-say). “There may still be a lot of ‘zero incidents’ on college campuses, but it’s a positive thing that more students are coming forward to report their assaults,” she said. Crocker reports that both Hedgepath and Krebs stressed that climate surveys about [campus sexual assault](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/23/the-media-is-making-college-rape-culture-worse) conducted by universities (or looking closely at specific universities) can shed light on the most effective methods of combat sexual violence within those communities. “Asking students about their experiences can show schools where their Clery Act numbers may be falling short on what’s really happening on their campuses,” said Hedgepath Indeed, sexual assault statistics vary across universities just as they vary across in cities across the country. According to federal data, Brown University “It’s really easy for media outlets to pick a number like the ‘one in five’ statistic” as indicative of campus sexual assault on a national scale, said Krebs. But that figure differs from school to school. “Universities need to understand sexual assault in their individual communities to adequately address it, and rigorous survey data are the only thing that accurately reflect the scope of the problem.” My opinion? Rape is awful. Our college youth who experiment with drugs and alcohol unknowingly create a party atmosphere which can lead to sexual assaults. Fortunately, colleges know that educating students is the most important steps toward prevention. If you, a friend or family member are accused of sexual assault, then immediately contact an experienced criminal defense attorney. Chances are, the matter is being investigated by police. Hiring experienced counsel can preserve your rights and ensure your defenses in the face of these terrible accusations. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Rape, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Skagit County Jail: Who Will Provide Inmate Medical Care?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/skagit-county-jail-who-will-provide-inmate-medical-care/) **Published:** September 1, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article ](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article170457082.html)by [Brandon Stone](https://www.goskagit.com/users/profile/bstone/) of the [Skagit Valley Herald](http://www.goskagit.com/) says that with Skagit County set to move jail inmates into the new [Community Justice Center](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article160921649.html), questions remain about who will provide medical services. According to Stone, [Jessica Neill Hoyson](https://www.skagitcounty.net/Departments/RiskManagement/dept.htm), the county’s director of human resources and risk management, opened a presentation to the [Board of County Commissioners](https://www.skagitcounty.net/Departments/CountyCommissioners/main.htm) on Tuesday by asking a question. “Do we continue with direct services, or do we contract with a for-profit provider?” she asked. According to Stone’s article, Skagit County currently employs jail medical staff itself, saving money over contracting for services while accepting sole responsibility for union negotiations and potential malpractice lawsuits. At an estimated $1.9 million a year, county-provided services at the new jail would be cheaper than contracting with [NaphCare](http://www.naphcare.com/), a private, Alabama-based jail healthcare company that has expressed interest in working with the county. Private-sector estimates come in at about $2.1 million, Neill Hoyson said. Both the county and private-sector numbers factor in an expected increase in inmate population at the larger jail – with 400 beds, the new jail is much larger than the current 83-bed facility. Both plans would provide for about 12 full-time equivalent positions. Neill Hoyson said county staff recommend hiring a consultant to evaluate the different models, but that recommendation was not discussed by the commissioners. [Dr. Marc Stern](http://sph.washington.edu/faculty/fac_bio.asp?url_ID=Stern_Marc), an assistant professor at the [University of Washington’s School of Public Health](http://sph.washington.edu/), told the commissioners Tuesday that by spending about $3,000 to $4,000 per inmate per year, Skagit County currently falls on the lower end of the spectrum for jail medical care. The new plans would increase that number to about $8,000. Jail inmates tend to have more health issues than the general population, he said. Studies indicate that investments in medical care for inmates tend to save money for the public health system when those inmates return to the community, he said. However, Mr. Stern, stakeholders from the jail and the commissioners were skeptical about privatization. “I think privatization is more expensive,” Stern said. “(To make a profit), it has to be.” [Chief of Corrections Charlie Wend ](https://www.skagitcounty.net/Departments/Jail/main.htm)said he has worked to build relationships between the jail and mental health and drug addiction treatment facilities in the community. Those relationships may not carry over to a private provider, he said. “There are just some functions of government that should stay with the government,” Wend said. However, Stern anticipated NaphCare would have an easier time hiring medical staff because it would pay higher wages. The county has said it’s had trouble with staffing because it can’t offer competitive wages. [Skagit County’s Jail Finance Committee](https://www.skagitcounty.net/Departments/Jail/FinanceCommittee/main.htm), made up of city and county representatives, meets Sept. 20, and the commissioners are expected to come to the table with a suggestion. My opinion? Granted, I know very little about the discussion and what the real issues are. My knee-jerk reaction, however, is that privatization is not the answer. In [*Prison Healthcare: Medical Costs, Privitization, and Importane of Expertise*](http://piperreport.com/blog/2015/11/26/prison-healthcare-medical-costs-privatization-and-importance-of-expertise/), author [Kip Piper](http://piperreport.com/blog/author/kip/) discusses the pros and cons of outsourcing medical care to prison inmates. I’m confident those involved will make the right decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Department of Corrections, Jail, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Is Spanking A Child Legal?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/is-spanking-a-child-legal/) **Published:** September 4, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Every so often, I have Clients accused of [Criminal Mistreatment](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.42&full=true), [Child Abuse/Neglect](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=388-15-009), [Assault in the Fourth Degree](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.041) or other crimes involving the abuse of children. As a parent, you expect decisions about your own child’s well-being to be up to you. Can the law interfere with your ability to discipline your child? Can the law forbid you from spanking your child? In Washington, parents are entitled to raise and reasonably discipline their children, so long as that discipline does not interfere with the children’s health, welfare, or safety. [Parents may reasonably use corporal punishment (like spanking) to discipline](http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=26.44.015). But what does the law in Washington really mean by “reasonably discipline”? Under Washington law, the physical discipline of a child is not against the law when it is “[reasonable and moderate](http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.100).” But what does “reasonable and moderate” mean? Couldn’t those broad guidelines mean different things to different people? To provide further guidance, Washington law elaborates that physical discipline is reasonable and moderate when it is “[inflicted by a parent, teacher, or guardian for purposes of restraining or correcting the child.](http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.100)” Physical punishment should be in direct response to a child’s disobedience or acting-out, rather than a blanket response to general bad behavior. Any person besides a parent, teacher, or guardian must be authorized in advance by the child’s parent or guardian to use reasonable, moderate force to correct or restrain the child when it is appropriate. Washington’s law also gives a list of unreasonable methods of disciplining a child, including: - throwing, kicking, burning, or cutting - striking a child with a closed fist - shaking a child under age three - choking or otherwise interfering with a child’s breathing - threatening a child with a deadly weapon - any other act that is likely to cause bodily harm greater than transient pain or minor temporary marks So if we know what going way too far looks like, but we also know that physical punishment is okay when it’s reasonably tailored to correct a child’s behavior, where is the line between discipline and abuse, and how can parents avoid crossing it? In Washington, child “abuse” is defined as “[injury of a child by any person under circumstances which cause harm to the child’s health, welfare, or safety.](http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=26.44.020)” When potential child abuse cases come before a court, the court will evaluate the child’s age, size, and health condition, as well as the location of the child’s injury and the surrounding circumstances, to help determine whether the acts at issue were reasonable discipline or abuse. So ultimately, **yes**, parents, teachers and guardians are legally allowed to spank children for purposes of restraining or correcting the child. However, you must keep in mind (both for your sake as well as your child’s) that physical punishment should always be: - reasonable and moderate - inflicted by a parent, guardian, teacher, or someone with advance parental permission - intended to correct or restrain the child Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Child Abuse, Criminal Mistreatment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Should Police Always Be Allowed to Shoot?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/should-police-always-be-allowed-to-shoot/) **Published:** September 6, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article ](https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/2017/08/reforming-the-us-police-force-should-the-police-be-allowed-to-shoot/)from [Lawyer Monthly](https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/) on the issue of whether police should be allowed to use deadly and lethal force under various circumstances. It wrote that according to civil rights attorney [Rodney Diggs](https://imwlaw.com/attorneys/rodney-s-diggs/) with [Ivie, McNeill & Wyatt](https://imwlaw.com/), “The LAPD faces a need for systemic change”. In May 2017, the LA police commission unanimously approved [25 new recommendations](http://assets.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/OIG%20Report%20on%20Best%20Practices.pdf), after discovering alarming findings in the LAPD’s first ever, Use of Force Report. Diggs, who has handled multiple wrongful death lawsuits stemming from officer-involved shootings and individuals with mental disabilities, believes these recommendations are a step in the right direction. > “Over the years I have practiced, I have seen \[approximately\] 50-60% increase in wrongful death cases related to individuals suffering from mental disabilities/illness.” According to the article, Lawyer Monthly surmised that such a vast increase of wrongful deaths is cause for huge concern. Therefore, what accounts towards this increase? “The changes are due to the officer’s lack of being trained and dealing with individuals who suffer from mental illnesses,” says Diggs. “Conventional police training directly clashes with effective tactics for resolving a typical mental health crisis. Unfortunately, much of that training relies on a command-and-control approach that can lead to dangerous escalations in the use of force.” **HANDLING CITIZENS WITH MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES** “It’s more of a lack of training,” said Diggs. “Proper training takes time and money and the reason to why departments may not choose to use resources needed to train officers, is because the value may be hard to quantify. Once departments realize that it may cost money upfront for training but ultimately will save money and lives, they will see the return on investment.” Training ought to enhance the public’s trust and to lessen the cases we are seeing involving mishandling alleged perpetrators. Rodney says: “Training will teach officers that they do not have to approach a situation and take action right away. But in a medical emergency, slowing it down, getting additional resources and perhaps even stepping back should be the norm. “When the public sees that someone’s life is saved because an officer properly assessed a situation and now that family doesn’t have to lose a loved one, then the public will trust that the police are equipped to handle these situations.” **MEDIA** “Additionally, the media plays a big role in the perception of its viewers,” said Diggs. He elaborated that the media can either assist in enhancing the public’s trust or incite fear. “So if we want to bridge the gap between officers and civilians, the media needs to highlight instances in which officers do the right thing in a very sticky situation.” **USE OF WEAPONRY** “Use of force is never acceptable unless the force used is objectively reasonable and used only when necessary to accomplish lawful objectives,” said Diggs. “Officers have to assess the situation and determine which use of force should be used in their specific situation.” **USE OF FORCE AND WEAPONRY** In the article, Rodney outlines the factors officers should use when deciding whether to use force and what type of force option to use: **(1)** Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the officer or others; **(2)** The severity of the crime; **(3)** Whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest; and **(4)** Whether the suspect is a flight risk or attempting to escape custody. Further, deadly force should only be used if there is an *immediate* threat of death or *severe* bodily injury to the officer or another. However, implementing an effective process will not be easy. The article states that one possible method of improving often involves implementing better and stronger sanctions; so, we wonder whether those involved in wrongful deaths need to be better sanctioned. **STRONGER SANCTIONS** “A lot of times we see that criminally, officers are not charged with murder or even disciplined within their own departments,” said Diggs. “Despite the monetary compensation that may be awarded to families, the officers face no discipline and the money that is being paid is not being paid out of the officer’s pockets. Monetary compensation by way of settlement, or event civil verdicts, does not equate police reform. “Greater sanctions would cause a deterrent and would cause officers to think twice and consider the reasonable and appropriate force options available to them or opt not to use force, especially deadly force, when it’s not needed,” says Diggs. The [OIG Report of National Best Practices](http://assets.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/OIG%20Report%20on%20Best%20Practices.pdf) report itself discusses the following options: - Increased de-escalation training, and adopting de-escalation as a formal agency policy. - Discouraging force against those who pose a danger only to themselves. - Other options, such as chemical spray and personal protection shields. - Providing prompt supervisory response to critical incidents to reduce the likelihood of unnecessary force. You can read the full proposed report [here](http://assets.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/OIG%20Report%20on%20Best%20Practices.pdf). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, law enforcement, police, Police Misconduct, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Top Cop Says Police Militarization Endangers Public Safety.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/top-cop-says-police-militarization-endangers-public-safety/) **Published:** September 10, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article ](https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/retired-police-major-police-militarization)by [Major Neill Franklin](https://lawenforcementactionpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/franklin-neill-_2017v5.pdf), Executive Director,[ Law Enforcement Action Partnership](https://lawenforcementactionpartnership.org/) says that the [Trump administration](https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-trump) wrongfully revoked President Obama’s [Executive Order 13688](https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/trump-just-gave-thousands-bayonets-and-hundreds), which limited the scope of a federal program that allows state and local police departments to obtain military equipment free of charge. “I’m convinced that the 1033 Program has been one of the single greatest contributors to the public losing trust in law enforcement,” said Major Franklin. He further said that scrapping Executive Order 13688 means police departments will again have unfettered access to high caliber guns, grenade launchers, and armored vehicles, among other forms of military equipment. “During a time when criminal justice and police reform have bipartisan support, this decision shows a clear misunderstanding both of what Americans want and, more perilously, of what’s truly effective at improving public safety.” In his article, Major Franklin said that the use of such equipment for regular police work damages police-community relations. Militarization has eroded public trust in police, the effectiveness of law enforcement overall, and ultimately, public safety. “Officers need to engage in crime prevention and crime fighting activities that work,” said Major Franklin. They do not need to participate in programs that waste resources and create dangerous situations for both law enforcement and the public. He claimed that in the SWAT raids studied by the ACLU for its 2013 report, [War Comes Home](https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/jus14-warcomeshome-text-rel1.pdf), 79 percent of SWAT deployments were issued to execute search warrants, mostly for drugs. Somewhere between 36 and 65 percent of those drug searches resulted in no discovery of illegal contraband*.* “Even if everything goes smoothly and nobody gets injured or killed during a raid, it’s still an enormous waste of time and extremely dangerous for both officers and civilians.” “An all-too-common SWAT scenario is one where SWAT’s involvement escalates a nonviolent situation into a deadly one,” said Major Franklin. “Imagine that you are awoken at dawn by the sound of men shouting and battering down your door. You can’t hear what the voices are saying, but you realize your home is being invaded. Your instinct tells you to grab your lawfully owned gun and face the intruders. You race downstairs and make it to the front door only to find the intruders are police – and they think you have drugs. The police are scared of an armed man running toward them, and you’re barely awake. You’re confused. And then shots are fired. Nobody remembers who pulled the trigger first.” “With each of these incidents, public trust in the police erodes,” said Major Franklin. He claimed that research shows people who don’t trust police [are less likely to report a crime. ](https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/policing-in-america-12-14-16.pdf) “I can tell you from experience it makes them much less likely to cooperate in investigations. Without the community to help us, police work — the hard work of solving rapes and homicides and kidnappings — becomes nearly impossible. Major Franklin said his philosophy is instead guided by the [Nine Principles of Policing set forth by Sir Robert Peel](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/nyregion/sir-robert-peels-nine-principles-of-policing.html?mcubz=3) and his commissioners nearly 200 years ago, which have set the standard ever since. The very first principle is to prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force. “I support replacing the 1033 Program with one in which officers must demonstrate competence, be trained in proper equipment usage, and may only use military equipment for hostage, active shooter, and barricade scenarios. I believe this because I became a police officer to protect people. When people fear the police more than they fear crime itself, the legitimacy of the career I loved so much becomes meaningless,” said Major Franklin. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Police Militarization, Police Misconduct, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Trump Administration, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Does Sex Offense Registration Violate the Constitution?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/does-sex-offense-registration-violate-the-constitution/) **Published:** September 13, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** An [article ](http://reason.com/archives/2017/09/06/for-sex-offenders-registration-is-punish)written by [Jacob Sullum](http://reason.com/people/jacob-sullum/all) of [www.reason.com](http://reason.com/) talks about how a federal judge recently ruled that Colorado’s online database of sex offenders violates the [Eighth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/eighth_amendment) of the [U.S. Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview). Last week, a federal judge [recognized](http://www.denverpost.com/2017/09/01/colorado-sex-offender-registration-act-unconstitutional/) what anyone dealing with the burdens, obstacles, and dangers of life on the registry knows: Its punitive impact far outweighs any value it might have in protecting the public. In fact, [U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Paul_Matsch) [concluded](http://sentencing.typepad.com/files/20170831-millard-ruling-re-sex-offender-registry-.pdf), registration can violate the Eighth Amendment by imposing what amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. The three men who challenged [Colorado’s Sex Offender Registration Act ](https://apps.colorado.gov/apps/dps/sor/info-statutes.jsf)were sentenced to probation. Two of them also served 90 days in jail. Their real punishment began later, when they found that appearing in the state’s [online registry](https://apps.colorado.gov/apps/dps/sor/) of sex offenders made it impossible to lead a normal life. **David Millard** David Millard, who pleaded guilty to second-degree sexual assault on a minor in 1999, has been employed by the Albertsons grocery chain since 2003. His job was jeopardized after a customer saw his name and photo on a sex offender website. Millard was forced to move repeatedly after his status as a registered sex offender was revealed, once by police and once by a local TV station. The second time, he had to fill out about 200 rental applications before finding an apartment he could rent. Millard later bought a house in Denver, which is periodically visited by police officers seeking to verify his address. “If he is not home when they visit,” Matsch notes, “they leave prominent, brightly colored ‘registered sex offender’ tags on his front door notifying him that he must contact the Denver Police Department.” Millard experienced name calling and vandalism, and he worries that worse may be coming. “Because of the fear and anxiety about his safety in public,” Matsch writes, “Mr. Millard does little more than go to work, isolating himself at his home.” **Eugene Knight** Eugene Knight was convicted of attempted sexual assault on a child in 2006 based on a crime he committed when he was 18. He’s a “full-time father” because he is unable to find work that pays well enough to cover the cost of child care. However, Knight is not allowed on school grounds to drop off his kids or attend school events. **Arturo Vega** Arturo Vega, who pleaded guilty to third-degree sexual assault as a juvenile but is listed in Colorado’s public database because he failed to comply with registration requirements he did not understand, has tried twice to get off the registry. Both times his petitions were rejected by magistrates who insisted he prove a negative: that he was not likely to commit another sexual offense. **The Court’s Rationale** Judge Matsch held that the lower court’s justices did not foresee the ubiquitous influence of social media, the proliferation of commercial websites peddling information from sex offender registries, or the cheap scare stories that local news outlets would produce based on that information. Those developments have magnified the life-disrupting potential of registration, as illustrated by the experiences of the plaintiffs in this case. Judge Matsch noted that because of the registry, these men face “a known, real, and serious threat of retaliation, violence, ostracism, shaming, and other unfair and irrational treatment from the public…regardless of any threat to public safety based on an objective determination of their specific offenses, circumstances, and personal attributes.” By forcing sex offenders into this precarious situation, Judge Matsch reasoned, the state is punishing them. He noted that State or federal courts have reached the same conclusion in [Alaska](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2628160/doe-v-state/), [Maine](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2056690/state-v-letalien/), [Michigan](http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0207p-06.pdf), [New Hampshire](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18076145444431387567&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr), [Oklahoma](https://www.leagle.com/decision/inokco20130626911), and [Pennsylvania](http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-121B-2016oajc%20-%2010317692521317667.pdf). “Maybe someday the Supreme Court will stop pretending otherwise,” wrote Sullum. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Eighth Amendment, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Sentencing, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Self-Defense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/self-defense/) **Published:** September 16, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Vela](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/332993_pub.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) held that the defendant’s [Sixth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) right to present evidence was violated when the trial court excluded testimony regarding why the defendant, who claimed self-defense, feared the victim. **BACKGROUND FACTS** On February 20, 2014, Duarte Vela shot and killed Antonio Menchaca in [Okanogan County](http://www.okanogancounty.org/). The question at trial was *why* Duarte Vela shot and killed Menchaca. Apparently, Menchaca was the ex-brother-in-law of Duarte. Vela and his family were living in Okanogan County. Apparently, Vela and his family were afraid of Menchaca, who just finished serving a prison sentence in California. Also, Vela had already contacted Menchaca when Menchaca returned from California and told Menchaca to stay away from his family. On the date of the incident, Vela’s wife called Vela and said she thought she saw Menchaca driving by their house. Vela went home, retrieved a firearm and then was heading to Brewster to pick up a child, when he saw Menchaca parked along the road on old Hwy 97 near the Chiliwist Road. Vela stopped and confronted Menchaca. According to a witness at the scene, Vela then pulled out a pistol and shot the Menchaca two or three times. Menchaca died at the scene from the gunshots. Vela then drove back to his home, put the gun away and called 911 to report the shooting. Vela told Deputies he was at his home and would be waiting for them. Deputies arrived and picked up Vela without incident. Vela was transported to the Okanogan County Jail and booked for various firearm offenses and [Murder in the Second Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/). The trial occurred in January 2015. Prior to jury selection, the State moved [*in limine*](http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1291) to exclude evidence of Menchaca’s [prior bad acts](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404). Vela responded that he sought to admit certain prior bad acts of Menchaca known to him to establish the reasonableness of his fear of Menchaca. Specifically, Vela wanted to introduce testimony that **(1)** Menchaca threatened to return to Okanogan and kill Duarte Vela’s after being released from prison, **(2)** Menchaca kidnapped Vela’s younger sister in 2007 when she was just 15 years old, **(3)** Menchaca had repeatedly battered Vela’s sister throughout their marriage, and that she had told Vela about this, **(4)** Vela’s wife witnessed the domestic violence abuse from Manchaca to Vela’s sister **(5)** Vela was told by his family members about Menchaca’s threat to kill his family and Menchaca’s domestic violence against Blanca, **(6)** Vela feared Menchaca being around his family, **(7)** Vela believed he needed to arm himself when he went to his sister’s apartment to confront Menchaca, **(8)** Vela’s wife told him the SUV driver Martinez and Menchaca gave her a threatening look when the SUV first parked in or near the pullout, **(9)** why Vela followed the SUV the first time, **(10)** why Vela believed there were two people in the car when he followed the SUV the first time, **(11)** Martinez’s statement to him that he was alone in the SUV, **(12)** what he felt when he saw Martinez later drive by with Menchaca in the passenger seat, **(13)** why Vela had an elevated fear as he went after the SUV for the second time, **(14)** Vela’s wife being upset when he returned and explained that Menchaca was not in the SUV, **(15)** Vela’s belief that something was wrong when Martinez and Menchaca both got out of the car and walked toward him, **(16)** what Vela feared Menchaca and Martinez might do as they walked toward him, and **(17)** the degree of bodily harm Vela feared just before he shot Menchaca, as Menchaca became upset and reached into his pocket. However, the trial court excluded the proferred evidence on the basis that the testimony was irrelevant, too remote in time and ultimately inadmissible. Also, toward the end of trial, Duarte Vela requested a [“no duty to retreat” jury instruction](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Iefa01090e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)). However, the trial court denied the instruction. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts. Vela appealed. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals reasoned that right to present testimony in one’s defense is guaranteed by both the [United States](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview) and the [Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/lawsandagencyrules/documents/12-2010-wastateconstitution.pdf). Here, Vela argued the trial court’s evidentiary rulings violated his right to present a defense. He principally argues the trial court committed reversible error when it excluded evidence relating to: **(1)** Menchaca’s prison threat, **(2)** Menchaca’s years of domestic abuse against Blanca, **(3)** Menchaca’s abduction of Maricruz, **(4)** why he feared Menchaca, and **(5)** the type of bodily harm he feared just before he shot Menchaca. The Court reasoned that in considering a claim of self-defense, the jury must take into account all the facts and circumstances known to the defendant. “Because the vital question is the reasonableness of the defendant’s apprehension of danger, the jury must stand as nearly as practicable in the shoes of the defendant, and from this point of view determine the character of the act,” said the Court of Appeals. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that evidence of a victim’s propensity toward violence that is known by the defendant is relevant to a claim of self-defense because such testimony tends to show the state of mind of the defendant and to indicate whether he, at that time, had reason to fear bodily harm. Thus, such evidence is admissible to show the defendant’s reason for fear and the basis for acting in self-defense. “Here, Vela sought to introduce Menchaca’ s threat to kill Vela’s family and Menchaca’s past domestic violence not to prove they were true, but for the very relevant purpose of showing the reasonableness of his fear of Menchaca,” reasoned the Court of Appeals. “The evidence, therefore, was not [hearsay](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hearsay). To the extent the trial court excluded this and several miscellaneous statements offered by Duarte Vela to show his state of mind, the trial court erred,” said the Court. The Court also said that the reasonableness of Vela’s fear of Menchaca is one of two components of his self-defense claim, the other component being the degree of bodily harm he feared just before he shot Menchaca: > “Menchaca’s past threat to kill Vela’s family was central to Duarte Vela’s ability to explain the reasonableness of his fear. Unless the evidence was inadmissible under the State’s other arguments, the trial court’s exclusion of this evidence deprived Vela of the ability to testify to his versions of the incident.” Furthermore, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the trial court’s evidentiary rulings precluded Vela from presenting a legal defense to the killing that he admitted to and omitted evidence that would have created a reasonable doubt that did not otherwise exist. “For this reason, the trial court’s evidentiary rulings violated Duarte Vela’s Sixth Amendment right to present a defense,” said the Court of Appeals. Next, the Court of Appeals addressed whether the trail court erred in refusing to allow Vela the “No Duty to Retreat” jury instruction. “Because the facts would not support retreat as an option to someone pulling a gun at close range and because the State did not argue that Vela could have retreated, the trial court did not err in refusing the instruction.” **CONCLUSION** Although the Court of Appeals denied Vela’s argument of instructional error, it concluded the trial court’s evidentiary rulings denied his Sixth Amendment right to present a defense. It therefore reversed and remanded for a new trial. My opinion? Good decision. It’s wrong to hobble defendants of their right to self-defense when the defense is justified. For more on this topic, please read my Legal Guide titled, [“Self-Defense.”](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/self-defense/) And please [call my office](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you have friends or family accused of crimes involving self-defense. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Firearm, Homicide & Manslaughter, Prior Bad Acts, Self-Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Hate Crimes Rising?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/hate-crimes-rising/) **Published:** September 14, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The Seattle Police Department Office of [Public Affairs](http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/author/media-relations/) just released its [semiannual report detailing bias crimes and incidents for the first half of 2017](http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Bias-Crime-Report-1st-Half-2017-.pdf). During this time, a total of 178 criminal and non-criminal bias based incidents were reported, up from the 128 incidents reported at the same time last year. The report indicates that the increase can be attributed in large part to victims feeling more comfortable reporting bias crimes due to enhanced trust, improved reporting mechanisms and ongoing community outreach by the Department. “SPD continues to be a national leader in investigating and reporting bias crimes as well as outreach to communities experiencing these acts,” said [Chief of Police, Kathleen O’Toole](https://www.seattle.gov/police/about-us/about-the-department/command-staff). “In the spirit of transparency and accountability we continue to release these reports letting the community know that the Department works hard every day to make sure our most vulnerable victims are heard and we pursue the justice they deserve.” **Highlights From the Report:** - Bias crimes often occur between complete strangers and take victims by surprise. Many of them are property crimes committed anonymously under the cover of darkness. The Seattle Police Department’s clearance rate for these incidents is 39%. Many of these arrests are made by patrol officers arriving on the scene soon after an incident has occurred. Detectives work hard to locate suspects not found at the time of the incident. 13 cases from this period remain open and may be cleared by arrest. - The Seattle Police Department’s Bias Crime Coordinator partnered with community organizations to reach out to some of Seattle’s most vulnerable populations. Refugee and immigrant populations were a focus for outreach during this period. Information has been distributed in 18 different languages describing how to report a crime. - The highest rate of increase in reporting is in the category of crimes with bias elements, which are incidents which are not primarily motivated by bias, but bias language is used during the commission of a crime. These incidents went up 64%. Officers and the community recognize and report bias when they observe it. “The first half of 2017 was characterized by a high level of interest in the community regarding hate crimes, as evidenced by the high rate of reporting in Seattle. I was contacted many times by people wanting to report incidents they had witnessed, or asking how they could help if they were to see someone being victimized,” said [Detective Beth Wareing, Bias Crimes Coordinator](https://www.seattle.gov/police/information-and-data/bias-crime-unit). “We rely on the community to stay involved and aware for our efforts in combating hate crimes to be successful. The community is our most valuable partner.” “SPD has adopted a number of best practices with regards to hate crime prevention, response and reporting,” said [Dr. Jack McDevitt, Director of Institute on Race and Justice, at Northeastern University](https://www.northeastern.edu/cssh/faculty/jack-mcdevitt) and a leading expert in bias crimes. “The Department has made numerous efforts toward improving both the data collection and reporting of bias crimes incidents. This data is not only collected, but analyzed monthly, a rarity in law enforcement.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [City of Everett Sues OxyContin Manufacturer](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/city-of-everett-sues-oxycontin-manufacturer/) **Published:** September 18, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Timely [article ](http://www.heraldnet.com/news/city-of-everett-to-defend-its-side-in-oxycontin-case/)by [Diana Hefley](http://www.heraldnet.com/author/diana-hefley/) of the [Everett Herald](http://www.heraldnet.com/) reports that lawyers for Everett are expected in federal court Monday to defend the merits of a lawsuit filed earlier this year against the makers of the pain medication OxyContin. [Purdue Pharma](http://www.purduepharma.com/), the drug’s maker, is asking [U.S. District Court](http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/)[Judge Ricardo Martinez](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_S._Martinez) to toss the lawsuit before it ever goes to trial. According to Hefley’s article, the City of Everett is blaming Purdue for ignoring the diversion of its product, a prescription opioid, to the black market. The lawsuit alleges the multibillion-dollar pharmaceutical company’s irresponsible business practices helped set in motion what some officials now call an [opioid epidemic in Snohomish County](https://www.heraldnet.com/news/opioid-epidemic-remains-rampant-in-county/), marked by a spike in [overdoses](https://www.heraldnet.com/news/snohomish-county-fights-to-reduce-opiate-overdose-deaths/), deaths and crime. The [lawsuit](https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.heraldnet.com/news/everett-might-sue-oxycontin-maker-over-opioid-deaths-crime/&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjIs6TGmKjWAhVmjVQKHWhLDhAQFggFMAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNFUgN51WcFgTE4GBZBxGLiPh-wnuw) claims Purdue knew OxyContin was being funneled to [“pill mills”](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/whats-a-pill-mill/) and drug traffickers, including some who set up shop in Everett. Heroin use in Snohomish County and nationwide has skyrocketed in recent years. Addicts often cite prescription painkillers as the source of their introduction to opioids. Hefly reports that Everett’s lawsuit doesn’t name a dollar amount. Instead, it claims the city has spent and will need to continue to spend significant tax dollars addressing addiction in the community. Purdue filed a motion to dismiss the case.The company’s lawyers wrote that the city’s allegations are based largely on a false theory that Purdue did nothing to alert law enforcement to the illegal diversion. Two criminal prosecutions into trafficking rings show that “law enforcement was, at the time, already aware of, and investigating, the criminal conduct of physicians, pharmacies and gang members at issue,” Purdue’s attorney, Thomas Adams, wrote in court papers. Apparently, the city lacks any standing to hold Purdue responsible for Everett’s costs associated with responding to addiction and crime, the defendants argue. “While we are deeply troubled by the abuse and misuse of our medication, this lawsuit paints a completely flawed and inaccurate portrayal of events that led to the crisis in Everett,” the company wrote on its [website](http://www.purduepharma.com/news-media/get-the-facts/facts-about-diversion-in-everett-washington-and-the-citys-lawsuit-against-purdue-pharma/). Hefley reports that Purdue was sued a decade ago in Washington. Several states alleged the company had engaged in deceptive marketing practices. Purdue agreed to pay the states $19.5 million as part of a consent judgment. Washington received more than $700,000. As part of the judgment, Purdue agreed to implement diversion detection programs. However, the City of Everett claims Purdue ignored its obligations. The city pointed to the criminal prosecution of [Jevon Lawson](https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.heraldnet.com/news/jevon-lawson-rapper-swag-suspected-of-drug-trafficking-snohomish-county/&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwijyvabnajWAhUFllQKHUFNBi4QFggFMAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNEhlAeoDLnaiCaL3SPYem1AMljVqw), a California transplant and aspiring rap artist, living in Snohomish County, who peddled large amounts of OxyContin. The Daily Herald wrote about Lawson’s indictment in 2011. Everett has defended its lawsuit in a [31-page response](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.heraldnet.com/news/city-addresses-oxycontin-makers-effort-to-have-suit-dismissed/&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjIs6TGmKjWAhVmjVQKHWhLDhAQFggIMAE&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNFeqsXINw-QFavdICSsrJ8RF2DQVw). Its lawyers cited multiple cases — one involving a gun maker and other companies that sell toxic chemicals — to support the contention that Everett has a legal right to hold the manufacturer of a product responsible for harm done to the community. Everett isn’t the only city taking on the pharmaceutical giant. Last week, the [City of Tacoma filed a federal lawsuit against Purdue](http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article173201221.html), along with co-defendant pharmaceutical companies [Endo ](http://www.endo.com/)and [Janssen](http://www.janssen.com/us/). The lawsuit claims the opioid manufacturers made misleading statements about the risks of their products to doctors and patients for the past 20 years. My opinion? A large amount of my clients charged with DUI, drug crimes, assaults, property crimes and identity theft are, in fact, suffering from drug addictions to opiods. [Recent reports and crime data](http://www.news-herald.com/general-news/20161226/opioid-related-crimes-continued-to-climb-in-2016) also reflects an uptick in opiod-related crimes. Although we must take accountability for our actions, it violates justice to assume that drug addicts are totally responsible for their actions when prescription “medicine” drives them to abuse drugs and exhibit criminal behavior. Good luck to the City of Everett. And excellent reporting from reporter Diana Hefley, by the way. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal allegations that you allegedly committed while under the influence of prescribed opioids. the defense of [Diminished Capacity](http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=516) may apply. Under this defense, diminished capacity means that although the accused was not insane, due to emotional distress, physical condition, drug addiction or other factors he/she could not fully comprehend the nature of the criminal act he/she is accused of committing. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Opoids, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Dealing in Depictions](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/8839-2/) **Published:** September 20, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Gray*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/936099.pdf), the [WA Supreme Court](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) decided that the Dealing in Depictions of a Minor Engaged in Sexually Explicit Conduct statute allows the State to prosecute a minor for taking and distributing a sexually explicit photo of himself. **BACKGROUND FACTS** When he was 17 years old, Eric D. Gray electronically sent an unsolicited picture of his erect penis to an adult woman. The woman contacted the police, and Gray was charged with and convicted of one count of [Second Degree Dealing in Depictions of a Minor Engaged in Sexually Explicit Conduct](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/). It also charged him with one count of [Telephone Harassment under RCW 9.61.230](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.61.230). Gray moved to dismiss both charges for insufficient evidence, which the trial court denied. In a stipulated facts trial, the court found Gray guilty of the second degree dealing in depictions of a minor charge. The State agreed to dismiss the telephone harassment charge and chose not to charge him with two counts of misdemeanor indecent exposure stemming from an unrelated incident. He was sentenced to 150 hours of community service, 30 days of confinement, and fees, before being released with credit for time served. He was ordered to [register as a sex offender](http://www.waspc.org/sex-offender-information). Mr. Gray appealed to [Division Three of the Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo), which affirmed his adjudication. He appealed again, this time to the Washington Supreme Court, claiming the plain language of the statute does not anticipate minors who take and transmit sexually explicit images of themselves. The [American Civil Liberties Union of Washington](https://www.aclu-wa.org/), the [Juvenile Law Center](http://jlc.org/), [Columbia Legal Services](http://www.columbialegal.org/), and [TeamChild](http://www.teamchild.org/) subsequently filed a joint brief as [*amicus curiae*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/amicus_curiae), or “friend of the court”. **ISSUES** 1. Does RCW 9.68A.050 allow the State to prosecute a minor for taking and distributing a sexually explicit photo of himself? 2. Is RCW 9.68A.050 impermissibly overbroad or vague in violation of the federal or state constitutions? **COURT’S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS** The WA Supreme Court reasoned that the plain language of the statute prohibits transmitting sexually explicit images of a minor even if the minor himself sent it: > “Under this statute, the State properly charged Gray for his actions. When he was 17, Gray took a photo of his erect penis and sent it, unsolicited, to another person. Gray is a “natural person” and therefore a person for purposes of the statute. He was also under the age of 18, making him a minor under the statute as well. He stated he was attracted to T.R., and when he sent the picture he included the phrase “Do u like it, babe?,” indicating an attempt to arouse the recipient. The picture he transmitted was, therefore, a visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct because it was a picture of a minor’s genitals designed to sexually stimulate the viewer. This falls squarely within the statute’s plain meaning.” The Court also reasoned that the statute here is unambiguous. A “person” is any person, including a minor. “Images of a ‘minor’ are images of *any* minor,” reasoned the Court. It elaborated that nothing in the statute indicates that the “person” and the “minor” are necessarily different entities. Therefore, the photographer or distributor may also be the minor in the photograph. “Because of this, Gray was properly charged with taking and disseminating sexually explicit images of a minor,” said the Court. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that the Legislature’s findings support the Court’s plain reading of the statute. “The legislature intended to destroy the blight of child pornography everywhere, from production of the images to commercial gain,” said the Court. “Because the statute was intended to curtail production of child pornography at all levels in the distribution chain, the statute prohibits Gray’s actions.” Finally, the Court reasoned that the statute is neither unconstitutionally overbroad nor unconstitutionally vague. First, it does not invite arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Despite Gray’s arguments, the Court reasoned that the State is vested with great discretion in determining how and when to file criminal charges. Here, Gray presents no evidence the State made the choice to charge Gray for an arbitrary or discriminatory purpose. Second, the wording of the statute allows a reasonable person to understand what conduct is prohibited. “It states that ‘a person’ will be guilty if they transmit sexually explicit images of ‘a minor,’ said the Court. “On its face, this includes any person, even a minor taking a picture of himself. Our responsibility is to interpret the law, not to write it, and here the law is clear.” With that, the WA Supreme Court voted 6-3 to affirm the Court of Appeals and upheld Gray’s conviction. **THE DISSENT** Justice McCloud authored the dissenting opinion. He reasoned that RCW 9.68A.050 is designed to tackle a significant problem: trafficking in sexual depictions of children. Furthermore, the statute tackles that problem with severe criminal penalties for the traffickers but protection for the depicted children. “There is a long-standing and well-accepted rule that when a legislature enacts a criminal law to protect such a specific class, we cannot interpret that law to permit prosecution (and potential revictimization) of members of that protected class for their own exploitation—unless the legislature explicitly says so. The legislature did not say so here. Hence, the general rule applies,” said Justice McCloud. “Gray, the depicted minor, cannot be prosecuted under this statute for disseminating pictures of himself.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** ACLU, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, felony, Juvenile, Legislation, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Visions of Freedom](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/visions-of-freedom/) **Published:** September 24, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In her article titled [Visions of Freedom](https://qz.com/1076513/photoville-photo-requests-from-solitary-captures-the-dream-life-of-prisoners-in-isolation/), author [Hanna Kozlowska](https://qz.com/author/hkozlowskaqz/) discusses a New York art exhibit where artists capture the artistic requests of inmates held in solitary confinement. The project [“Photo Requests from Solitary”](http://solitarywatch.com/special-projects/photo-requests-solitary/) offers inmates held in solitary confinement a chance to ask for any image that they want, and to get their request fulfilled by professional photographers, artists. The inmates’ ideas range from the mundane to the elaborate—from a simple photo of a frog in its natural habitat, to an imaginary scene where a black man dramatically unshackles. According to Kozlowska, the exhibition opened Sept. 13 as part of [Photoville](http://photoville.com/), a photography festival in New York’s [Brooklyn Bridge Park](https://www.brooklynbridgepark.org/). Viewers see the requests and the photos alike. It’s meant to raise awareness about solitary confinement, as a movement to abolish isolation in New York prisons is gaining ground. Meanwhile, the photos, sent to inmates in their cells, provide them some form of relief in conditions of extreme sensory deprivation and isolation [proven to be psychologically damaging.](http://www.newsweek.com/2017/04/28/solitary-confinement-prisoners-behave-badly-screws-brains-585541.html) “The idea is that human imagination can survive even this,” said [Jean Casella](http://solitarywatch.com/author/casellaj4/) co-director of the watchdog group [Solitary Watch](http://solitarywatch.com/). “When you ask people what they want to see, there’s never any shortage of images or fantasies… Part of the message of this show is that you can’t take that away, no matter what you do.” The exhibit also shows the inmate’s detailed requests, which the organizers say are just as powerful, if not more moving to the viewer. The project started in 2009, within a group working to shut down the [notorious Tamms Correctional Center](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-02-27/news/0902260729_1_mentally-ill-inmates-illinois-department-controversial-prison), a super-max prison in Illinois. The inmates were strictly isolated from each other and the outside world, says [Laurie Jo Reynolds, an artist and activist](http://creativetime.org/summit/author/laurie-jo-reynolds/). When discussing a poetry exchange with inmates, someone asked if they could send the prisoners photos. But with each photo sent, the inmate would have to give up one of their own. Reynolds asked: “Why not ask them what they want?” Tamms was shut down in 2013, and the project was expanded to other states. The Brooklyn exhibition shows requests and photos from New York. Over the years, certain categories emerged in what the inmates wanted to see in their cells. “I think those categories are useful in thinking about the experience of being in prison,” Reynolds says. My opinion? It’s a wonderful idea. Legally speaking, there’s [strong debate](https://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/Dignity_and_the_Eighth_Amendment.pdf) that solitary confinement is “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the [Eighth Amendment to the Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/eighth_amendment). Cruel and unusual punishment includes torture, deliberately degrading punishment, or punishment that is too severe for the crime committed. Artistically speaking, inspiration can come from many places. Dark and lonely places; even, where people are forgotten, downtrodden, separated from families and their aspirations destroyed by their choices and terrible circumstances. What do prisoners think about when placed in solitary confinement? What does one dream and yearn for? These visions of freedom are powerful indeed. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Eighth Amendment, Prison, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Solitary Confinement, Studies, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Sue the Drug Companies](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/sue-the-drug-companies/) **Published:** September 29, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** [Seattle Times ](https://www.seattletimes.com/)reporters [Nina Shapiro ](https://www.seattletimes.com/author/nina-shapiro/)and [Vernal Coleman ](https://www.seattletimes.com/author/vernal-coleman/)wrote an [article ](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/washington-state-ag-bob-ferguson-seattle-sue-oxycontin-maker-over-opioid-deaths/)describing the lawsuit filed by [Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson](http://www.atg.wa.gov/about-bob-ferguson) and [Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes](https://www.seattle.gov/cityattorney) against pharmaceutical companies, including OxyContin maker [Purdue Pharma](http://www.purduepharma.com/), accusing them of fueling the state’s ongoing opioid epidemic and downplaying the risk of addiction. “They ignored what was happening for their bottom line,” Ferguson said, “And that’s not right.” According to the article, the city of [Seattle’s suit ](http://wwwqa.seattle.gov/cityattorney/news/seattle-opioid-litigation)includes Purdue, [Teva Pharmaceuticals](http://www.tevapharm.com/) and several other prescription drugmakers. The[ state’s suit](http://agportal-s3bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/uploadedfiles/Another/News/Press_Releases/Washington%20v%20Purdue%20Complaint%209-28-17.pdf) involves only Purdue, accusing the company of using deceptive marketing to convince both patients and doctors that the drug is effective for treating chronic pain and carries low risk of addiction. Both suits are filed in [King County Superior Court](http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superior-court.aspx), and allege that the pharmaceutical companies contributed to the drugs being over-prescribed by doctors. Ferguson’s lawsuit seeks to force Purdue to forfeit profits made in Washington over the sale of opioids. Reporters Shapiro and Coleman describe how these lawsuits are the latest in a long string of efforts to curb the opioid epidemic nationwide. In Washington, opioids — prescription drugs and heroin — have caused about [700 deaths a year ](https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/Pubs/346-083-SummaryOpioidOverdoseData.pdf)since 2006. More people died here in 2015 from these drugs than from car accidents or firearms, according to Ferguson’s suit. In a news conference Thursday at [Harborview Medical Center](http://www.uwmedicine.org/harborview), Ferguson and Holmes introduced their lawsuits. Ferguson said Purdue had conducted an “uncontrolled experiment” by infusing communities across the nation with misleading marketing about opioids. Such marketing continued, according to his complaint, despite a 2007 court order in a prior lawsuit brought by Washington and 25 other states over the same issue. The order prohibited Purdue from understating risks of abuse and addiction, and also required the company to take action when it became aware of overprescribing “pill mills.” And yet, Fergson’s lawsuit claims, Purdue looked the other way when confronted with red flags. “They ignored what was happening … for their bottom line,” Ferguson said, “and that’s not right.” Holmes said Seattle’s lawsuit would seek to “recover what’s been lost” because of the [opioid epidemic](https://www.hhs.gov/opioids/about-the-epidemic/index.html). The suit refers to defendants as the makers of brand names like [OxyContin ](https://www.drugs.com/oxycontin.html)and [Percocet ](https://www.drugs.com/percocet.html)as well as generics such as [oxycodone ](https://www.drugs.com/oxycodone.html)and [hydrocodone](https://www.drugs.com/hydrocodone.html). He said the city spends millions each year for first responders who deal with overdoses, social workers who help treat people with addiction, and park employees who pick up needles instead of doing other work. Holmes also linked the epidemic to the [city’s homelessness crisis](http://www.seattle.gov/homelessness). He referenced a 2016 city assessment that concluded a main cause of someone losing their home, second only to job loss, was drug addiction. “Unlike earthquakes and hurricanes, this disaster is human-made,” Holmes said. Purdue issued a statement Thursday in response to the lawsuits, saying it was seeking motions to dismiss similar suits in other states. “We are deeply troubled by the opioid crisis and we are dedicated to being part of the solution. As a company grounded in science, we must balance patient access to FDA-approved medicines, while working collaboratively to solve this public health challenge,” the statement said. “We vigorously deny these allegations and look forward to the opportunity to present our defense.” Earlier this month, [Tacoma sued](http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article173201221.html) three opioid makers, and on Tuesday a [federal judge ruled](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/judge-city-of-everett-can-proceed-with-lawsuit-against-opioid-maker/) that a lawsuit filed by Everett against Purdue could proceed. These municipalities hope to recoup costs for responding to drug addiction, including money spent on emergencies and social services. My opinion? Kudos to WA Attorney General Bob Ferguson and City Attorney Pete Holmes for having the courage to file these lawsuits. More power to them. I hope they recover a huge amount of damages from these companies and make positive change happen. As a criminal defense attorney, I’ve seen an increase of otherwise upstanding and law-abiding citizens commit crimes because of their drug addictions. The trend is disturbing. It begins with people suffering from physical injuries or mental sicknesses. They take pain killers prescribed from a doctor. Eventually, the person gets addicted to the pain killers, loses their medical insurance and turns to street drugs like heroin or methamphetamine to continue supporting their drug habit. Sure, it’s easy to label people as drug abusers who refuse to take responsibility for their actions. However, it’s harder to call people drug abusers when the drug is sold as “medicine” which is (over)prescribed from a doctor. Many addicts – again, good people, mind you – end up homeless. Indeed, recent data shows that [opiate use has increased in homeless populations.](http://www.commerce.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/hau-why-homelessness-increase-2017.pdf) Finally, our government is acknowledging these trends. Washington State is not the only state suing drug companies like Purdue. [Oklahoma](https://www.reuters.com/article/oklahoma-drugs/oklahoma-becomes-4th-u-s-state-to-sue-opioid-drugmakers-idUSL1N1JR1KN), [Missouri](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-missouri-opioids/missouri-sues-opioid-manufacturers-joining-two-other-u-s-states-idUSKBN19C1VK), [Ohio](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/us/ohio-sues-pharmaceutical-drug-opioid-epidemic-mike-dewine.html?mcubz=3), [Mississippi](http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2017/06/11/mississippi-sets-tone-opioid-drugmakers-face-rising-tide-lawsuits/346518001/), and [New Hampshire](https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2017/08/08/new-hampshire-is-latest-state-to-sue-oxycontin-manufacturer) are also suing. Delaware and many others are considering it. When OxyContin came out, it was promoted to healthcare practitioners as a “wonder-drug.” The initial 1995 literature and in-service training about this new med in the hospitals and clinics back then was that it was better than morphine, because it was more powerful, less addictive, and lasted longer (sustained release). The drug maker was aggressive in hiring doctors and nurses to promote this drug. It was successful and number of prescriptions soared. The sales pitch was OxyContin relieved the patient’s pain better and with lower risk of the addictive side effect. After all, who wouldn’t want to help their patients by giving them the best possible treatment? [Purdue spent $200 million in 2001 for marketing. In 2002, it made $1.5 billion in sales.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622774/) What many people found out later was this drug was highly addictive as they saw high rates of addiction and overdoses. This caught the attention of the [Department of Justice](https://www.justice.gov/). In 2007, Purdue – the maker of OxyContin – [paid out over $600 million in civil and three of its executives pleaded guilty to criminal charges for failing to brand the drug’s addiction risks. ](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/business/11drug-web.html) It’s time to prevent drug companies from poisoning our communities. Please [contact my offic](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/)e if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges related to drug addiction. It’s important to have a caring, competent and experienced criminal defense attorney who fights for your constitutional rights, supports your defenses and understands the story behind the charges. Call today. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Opoids, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [‘Sanctuary’ Cities Targeted by ICE in Immigration Raids](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/sanctuary-cities-targeted-by-ice-in-immigration-raids/) **Published:** October 3, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** [Erik Ortiz](https://twitter.com/@erikjhortiz) [reported ](https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/sanctuary-cities-targeted-ice-immigration-raids-nearly-500-arrested-n805796)that a federal operation to arrest undocumented immigrants netted nearly 500 people in cities and states that have openly opposed the Trump administration’s deportation initiatives. According to Ortiz, [Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)](https://www.ice.gov/) officials said last Thursday that its four-day [“Operation Safe City” targeted people ](https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-arrests-over-450-federal-immigration-charges-during-operation-%E2%80%98safe-city%E2%80%99)in residing in the so-called [“Sanctuary Cities”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city) of New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Denver, Washington and Baltimore as well as Cook County, Illinois; Santa Clara County in California’s Bay Area; Portland, Oregon; and Massachusetts. Officials in those places — some referring to themselves as “sanctuary communities” — have been vocal about not fully cooperating with federal immigration authorities, at times [clashing with state leaders ](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/spurred-trump-states-battle-sanctuary-cities-n787651)who support [President Donald Trump’s](https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-trump) agenda. Sanctuary communities have passed ordinances limiting compliance with federal immigration laws and seek to shield undocumented immigrants who may be deported simply over their immigration statuses or low-level criminal offenses. “Sanctuary jurisdictions that do not honor detainers or allow us access to jails and prisons are shielding criminal aliens from immigration enforcement and creating a magnet for illegal immigration,” [Tom Homan, ICE’s acting director](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Homan), said in a statement. “As a result, ICE is forced to dedicate more resources to conduct at-large arrests in these communities.” It is not unusual for ICE to round up immigrants by the hundreds or even low thousands, although the latest raid comes on the heels of a planned operation that would have targeted about 8,400 undocumented immigrants this month. But the [Department of Homeland Security ](https://www.dhs.gov/)[scrapped the operation after the agency ](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ice-plans-mega-largest-immigration-raid-operation-its-kind-n799691)said it was halting nationwide enforcement actions in the wake of hurricanes [Irma ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Irma)and [Harvey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Harvey). This latest effort indicates the administration is ready to renew its efforts. “ICE’s goal is to build cooperative, respectful relationships with our law enforcement partners to help prevent dangerous criminal aliens from being released back onto the streets,” Homan said. According to ICE, of the 498 people arrested this week, 317 had criminal convictions. Some were also categorized as “immigration fugitives,” “previously deported criminal aliens,” and/or associated with a gang. Most of the criminal convictions were for driving under the influence as well as assault- and drug-related offenses, ICE said. Others were arrested for marijuana possession, traffic offenses and even charges of being a “peeping tom.” City officials declared Portland a sanctuary city in March, and its mayor, [Ted Wheeler](https://www.portlandoregon.gov/wheeler/), has criticized the Trump administration’s push to[ end the Obama-era program](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-dreamers-daca-immigration-announcement-n798686) that has allowed undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children to remain in the country. The administration, meanwhile, has faced setbacks as it seeks to overhaul immigration — an issue that has failed repeatedly to gain traction in Congress. Weeks ago, a [U.S. district judge in northern Illinois gave sanctuary cities a temporary victory](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/us/sessions-sanctuary-cities-chicago.html), saying the [Justice Department](https://www.justice.gov/) can’t [withhold public safety grants](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/attorney-general-sessions-raises-stakes-sanctuary-cities-n786546) to Chicago because officials there don’t want to impose certain immigration policies. My opinion? As a criminal defense attorney, my role is to protect people’s [Constitutional Rights under the Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment). Therefore, I have a natural inclination to prevent warrantless, unlawful searches and seizures. That said, I understand if the government declares a state of emergency holding that exigent circumstances warrants the immediate seizure and deportation of undocumented immigrants. However, there’s lots of controversy surrounding the subject of ICE raids on Sanctuary Cities. Some civil rights advocates say the raids fit with the Trump administration’s pattern of scapegoating, criminalizing, and demonizing immigrants. Also, courts have said that holding someone without a warrant could violate their constitutional rights, putting jailers at risk of lawsuits. Finally, others have accused Trump’s attack on sanctuary cities as a malignant executive power grab that subverts the [Spending Clause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause) and tramples the [10th Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Fourth Amendment, Immigration, Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE), Sanctuary Cities, Search and Seizure, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Trump Administration, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [The Eyes Never Lie](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/the-eyes-never-lie/) **Published:** October 6, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Interesting [article ](http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/04/technology/business/eyedetect-lies-polygraph/index.html)by reporter [Matt McFarland](http://money.cnn.com/author/matt-mcfarland/index.html) of [CNN ](http://www.cnn.com/)describes new artificial intelligence (AI) which detects deception by tracking dilations in the pupils in our eyes. A Utah-based company called [Converus ](http://converus.com/)has developed technology called [EyeDetect](http://converus.com/eyedetect-lie-detection-technology-featured-science-channels-wormhole/). It’s gaining popularity as a more affordable, less biased version of a [polygraph exam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph), which has long been the gold standard for detecting lies. EyeDetect relies on an algorithm that weighs a variety of factors. The key indicators are if a person’s eyes dilates while reading a question, and how fast they read questions. Our pupils dilate when we’re deceptive because lying takes more mental energy. The eyes allow in more light and information to help our brains with their added workload. This evolved as a survival instinct, according to[ David Raskin, a retired University of Utah professor, who worked on the team that developed the science behind EyeDetect](http://ed-psych.utah.edu/old-index.php). According to McFarland, EyeDetect, which launched in 2014, is used today in 34 countries as part of job interviews and corporate investigations. Latin American banks, for example, use the technology to determine if their tellers can be trusted. Research has shown the accuracy rates of EyeDetect and polygraph are similar, both nearing 90%. A person taking an EyeDetect exam sits at a desk and answers true-or-false questions on a tablet. An infrared camera tracks eye movement, blinking and pupil dilation. After 30 minutes, an [algorithm ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm)scores their deceptiveness on a scale from zero to 100. According to McFarland, some local U.S. law enforcement departments and private investigators have started using EyeDetect. “The eyes are the window of the soul,” said [Juan Becerra](http://www.panthersi.com/juan-becerra/), an investigator at [Panther Security and Investigations](http://www.panthersi.com/). He used to work with polygraphs at the [FBI](https://www.fbi.gov/) and now uses EyeDetect. “This is something that’s revolutionary and that’s going to change the entire deception detection field.” Converus and the Utah scientists say the U.S. federal government has been slow to embrace the technology. [The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill this summer lifting the polygraph requirement for U.S. Customs and Border Patrol applicants](http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/336811-house-votes-to-allow-lie-detector-exemptions-for-border-patrol) to address staffing shortages. Advocates for the bill have said flaws in polygraphs have made it more difficult to fill open positions. Apparently, a deceptive person will generally take longer to answer questions on a test, as they’re being careful. But on the specific questions they’re lying on, they will respond faster. Raskin and the other Utah professors — a group of leading polygraph researchers who gravitated toward optical tests for deception — said there are several advantages to sensing lies through the human eyes. Polygraph exam results can be biased because humans administer and score the tests. EyeDetect removes the human element. [Ken Roberts, a deputy sheriff in the Dona Ana County Sheriff Department](https://donaanacounty.org/content/roberts-sworn-undersheriff) in Las Cruces, New Mexico, has switched from administering polygraphs to EyeDetect exams for pre-employment screenings. Roberts still sees some uses for polygraphs, such as interviewing a suspect in a homicide case, when tailored follow-up questions are necessary. My opinion? Although interesting, this new technology could be viewed as a more technologically advanced version of [junk science](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_science). [The general rule in Washington is that polygraph testimony is inadmissible unless it is agreed by both parties.](http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/094wn2d/094wn2d0527.htm#094wn2d0527) This is because the accuracy (i.e., validity) of polygraph testing has long been controversial. An underlying problem is theoretical: there is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception. An honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious. However, even if the test isn’t used in court, it can still be used by police during questioning. If that happens to you, make sure to have an [experienced criminal lawyer](http://www.ransom-lawfirm.com) present to make sure there’s no funny business such as leading questions and/or unscrupulous interrogation tactics. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Polygraph, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Female Attorneys Interrupted More Than Males](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/female-attorneys-interrupted-more-than-males/) **Published:** October 11, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Informative article by reporter [Tom Jacobs](https://psmag.com/author/tomjacobs) of the [Pacific Standard](https://psmag.com/) claims that female attorneys arguing before the [United States Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) are treated differently than their male counterparts. Jacobs reported that in a [recently published study](http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/692611), [University of Alabama ](https://www.ua.edu/)scholars [Dana Patton](https://psc.ua.edu/profiles/dana-patton/)and [Joseph Smith](https://psc.ua.edu/profiles/joseph-smith/) analyzed the transcripts of 3,583 oral arguments presented to the court over more than three decades. They found “female lawyers are interrupted earlier and more often, allowed to speak for less time between interruptions, and subjected to more and longer speeches by the justices compared to male lawyers.” Their study, published in the [*Journal of Law and Courts*](http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/jlc/current), provides evidence that deep-seated gender bias infects even a top-level government institution that is rigorously committed to equal treatment. Jacobs reports that the researchers analyzed written transcripts of all Supreme Court oral arguments from 1979 through the end of the 2013 term. It found 10.9 percent of the attorneys making these (usually 30-minute) presentations were women—a figure that increased to 14.2 percent after the 2000 term. “Men were allowed an average of 225 words before the first interruption (by a justice), compared to 192 words for women,” they report. “Male lawyers spoke an average of about 95 words between interruptions, compared to 83 words for female lawyers.” “Justices’ interruptions are both longer and more frequent during presentations by female lawyers,” the researchers add. “Justices interrupted women an average of 51.3 times, compared to 49.2 times for men.” “Could this be explained by the fact that female lawyers represent different kinds of clients?” asked Jacobs. To control for that possibility, Jacobs said that the researchers compared the experiences of men and women lawyers representing the [U.S. Office of the Solicitor General](https://www.justice.gov/osg). They found that, compared to their male counterparts, women representing the solicitor general’s office “are allowed fewer words at the beginnings of and during their presentations, and they endure longer and more frequent interruptions.” OK, but is it possible that women are more likely to represent underdogs—perhaps ones with weaker cases that are more prone to challenge? Perhaps, but the researchers found it doesn’t matter. “Female lawyers do not enjoy the well-documented positive effect of being on the winning side of a case,” they write. “While male lawyers are treated substantially more deferentially when they represent the winning side of a case, female lawyers enjoy no such benefit.” Jacobs reported, somewhat surprisingly, “the increasing number of female justices on the court does not seem to have mitigated the disparate treatment of female lawyers,” the researchers add. The only element that tempers this tendency is “when the legal dispute concerns a gender-related issue.” In such cases, they found female attorneys are not disadvantaged, presumably because issues of sex and bias are front and center in the justices’ minds. Jacobs points out that the researchers argue that their findings have implications that go far beyond the Supreme Court. If women professionals are treated unfairly “in a place one would least likely to expect it,” they write, “men likely receive more deferential treatment from bosses and coworkers in all manner of workplaces compared to their female counterparts.” My opinion? It’s a terrible injustice to the legal system if these findings are correct and no reasonable explanation exists otherwise. Perhaps the findings show a larger disturbing trend. According to [U.S. Census Bureau](https://www.census.gov/people/io/publications/table_packages.html) data, in 2014 the median pay for full-time female lawyers was 77.4 percent of the pay earned by their male counterparts. Also, in all law-related jobs, median pay for female workers in 2014 was 51.6 percent of the pay received by male workers. As Jacobs states toward the end of his article, “Perhaps professional women are at an inherent disadvantage, no matter if the authority figure they answer to is wearing an expensive suit, or a judicial robe.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Gender, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Inmate Lawsuits](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/inmate-lawsuits/) **Published:** October 14, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[Entler v. Gregoire](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/10/06/14-35053.pdf)*, the [Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) held that a prisoner may not be disciplined for threatening to file civil suit against prison staff. The filing of a criminal complaint against prison officials by a prisoner, as well as the threat to do so, are protected by the [First Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment), provided they are not baseless. **BACKGROUND** John Thomas Entler is a prisoner at the [Washington State Penitentiary (“WSP”)](http://www.doc.wa.gov/corrections/incarceration/prisons/wsp.htm). During the summer of 2012, he took issue with certain incidents at the WSP and submitted written complaints to the prison officials involved. In all but one, Entler threatened to initiate civil litigation if his concerns were not addressed; in the other, he threatened to file a criminal complaint against a number of state officials and have them arrested. Entler was disciplined for these threats under a [Washington Department of Corrections (“DOC”)](http://www.doc.wa.gov/) regulation that bars prisoners from intimidating or coercing prison staff. Later, Entler brought a complaint pursuant to [42 U.S.C. § 1983](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983) alleging that his First Amendment rights were violated when he was disciplined for threatening to initiate civil litigation and file a criminal complaint against prison officials. The complaint ended up in federal court. The Defendants – here, the DOC – moved for judgment on the pleadings under [Rule 12(c)](https://www.sandberglaw.com/articles/winning-without-trial-rule-12c-motions-judgment-pleadings/). Initially, the federal district court summarily adopted Magistrate Judge Hutton’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that Defendants’ 12(c) motion be granted and that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Entler [sought reconsideration](http://www.schwabe.com/newsroom-publications-12314). In a written decision denying Entler’s motion, the federal district court, disagreeing with the magistrate judge, held that Entler’s informal complaints were not protected by the First Amendment because they “were not part of the grievance process”; but the court agreed that there was a “rational connection” in the “particular context” of the case with the correctional institution’s “legitimate penological interest,” namely the “peaceable operation of the prison through the insistence on respect.” The court also agreed with the R&R that, in any event, “defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.” This appeal followed. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals began by saying that running a prison is an inordinately difficult undertaking, and that it should give adequate consideration to the judgment of the prison authorities. “We cannot, however, condone punishing a prisoner for simply threatening to sue if his grievances are not addressed,” said the Court of Appeals. It reasoned that regardless of the prisoner’s misdeeds—however reprehensible—prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the Constitution: > “The most fundamental of the constitutional protections that prisoners retain are the First Amendment rights to file prison grievances and to pursue civil rights litigation in the courts . . . for without those bedrock constitutional guarantees, inmates would be left with no viable mechanism to remedy prison injustices.” With that, the Court reasoned that Entler did exactly what he was “expected” to do by the DOC Grievance Program Manual: he sought informal resolution of his concerns through regular administrative channels prior to utilizing the grievance machinery by submitting [“kites”](http://www.jailmedicine.com/kite-where-did-that-come-from/) to the appropriate prison officials. “This is as it should be,” said the Court. “Entler gave the prison administration the opportunity in the first instance to attempt to resolve his concerns and thus obviate the need to engage in the formal grievance process—with its attendant administrative burdens and costs —and litigation.” Furthermore, the Court reasoned that it may well be that if the prison officials were able to address Entler’s concerns rather than to punish him for his threats to sue, this litigation might never have come to pass. “It would have been a good thing,” said the Court. In 2012, the year Entler initiated this suit, prisoners nationwide filed 54,402 of the 267,990 civil cases brought in the district courts.14 In 2016, the most recent year with complete statistics, these filings had increased to 76,417 out of 292,159.15 Thus, over 25% of the district courts’ civil caseload in our country entails prisoner litigation. The Court of Appeals concluded that Since Entler has alleged cognizable First Amendment retaliation claims regarding his threats to sue, it was improper to dismiss the complaint in its entirety under Rule 12(c). However, in regard to Entler’s threat to file a criminal complaint, even My opinion? Good decision. As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said, “The most fundamental of the constitutional protections that prisoners retain are the First Amendment rights to file prison grievances and to pursue civil rights litigation in the courts.” Exactly. Prisons are nowhere fun, and they’re not easy to manage, but an inmate’s Constitutional rights do not totally disappear once they’re incarcerated. Indeed, the *only* right inmates have left to exercise is the First Amendment. And denying them that one right – the right to express themselves – chills free speech. Pure and simple. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, First Amendment, Prison, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Yoga Behind Bars](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/yoga-behind-bars/) **Published:** October 14, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Wonderful [report ](http://www.doc.wa.gov/news/2017/10132017.htm)written by [Tim Kelly](mailto:timothy.kelly@doc.wa.gov) of the [WA Department of Corrections](http://www.doc.wa.gov/) (DOC) says that Incarcerated individuals in the DOC’s custody have [various programs](http://www.doc.wa.gov/corrections/programs/descriptions.htm) available in the correctional facilities. A relatively new one is yoga. [Yoga Behind Bars](http://yogabehindbars.org/), a Seattle based non-profit organization, visits eight of the department’s [twelve facilities](http://www.doc.wa.gov/corrections/incarceration/prisons/default.htm). Yoga Behind Bars, which started in 2008, has approximately 40 volunteers that travel to state correctional facilities. Programs like yoga, aid in supporting people’s ability to grow and change, a [core value](http://www.doc.wa.gov/about/agency/mission.htm#mission) of the agency. Yoga classes at the [Monroe Correctional Complex](http://www.doc.wa.gov/corrections/incarceration/prisons/mcc.htm) meet twice a week. Classes at the facilities regularly have 25 to 30 students with some classes even having waiting lists. Yoga is offered to all custody classifications from minimum to maximum custody and there is even a mindfulness program in segregation. To better serve the population, thirteen inmates have become certified yoga instructors. Excellent. Yoga is an excellent way to manage stress. It’s holistic benefits allow people – and especially inmates – deal with negativity throughout their day in a healthy way. Hopefully, inmates will reap the many benefits of yoga and continue practicing it after they’re released from prison. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Prison, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Don't Search My Tent!](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/dont-search-my-tent/) **Published:** October 19, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Pippin](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2048540-1-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeal](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo)s held that a person has a constitutional privacy interest in a tent that is unlawfully erected on public property. **BACKGROUND** Mr. Pippin was a homeless man, living in a tent-like structure on public land in Vancouver. As part of an attempt to notify individuals of a [new camping ordinance](https://www.cityofvancouver.us/vmc/7766/822040-unlawful-camping?throbber=1) which prohibits camping on public land without permission, police officers approached Pippin’s tent and requested that he come out. Because Pippin did not come out after an uncertain amount of time and because of noises they heard in the tent, the officers felt they were in danger. One officer lifted a flap of Pippin’s tent to look inside. In the tent, the officers observed a bag of methamphetamine. Pippin was charged with [unlawful possession of a controlled substance.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) He [moved to suppress](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) the evidence derived from the officer basically lifting the flap and looking into the tent, arguing that it was an unconstitutional search under the [Fourth ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment)and [Fourteenth Amendments](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv) of the [United States Constitution ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview)and [article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution. ](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx)The Court granted his motion and dismissed the charge. The State appealed on arguments that **(1)** the trial court erred in determining that Pippin had a privacy interest in his tent under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution, and **(2)** if Pippin’s tent is entitled to constitutional privacy protection, the trial court erred in concluding that the officers’ act of opening and looking into the tent was not justified as a [protective sweep](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/protective-sweeps-police.html) or through [exigent circumstances](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exigent_circumstances) based on officer safety. **COURT’S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS** In the published portion of this opinion, the Court of Appeals held that Pippin’s tent and its contents were entitled to constitutional privacy protection [under article I, section 7 of the WA Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx). The Court reasoned that Article I, section 7 of the WA Constitution mandates that “no person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.” It then analyzed different cases under the WA Supreme Court. In short, prior opinions have held that the State unreasonably intruded into a person’s private affairs when it obtained long distance telephone toll records through a pen register, examined the contents of a defendant’s trash placed on the curb for pickup, randomly checked hotel registries to determine who were guests at a hotel, attached a global positioning system tracking device to a defendant’s vehicle, and read through text messages on a cell phone. The Court’s analysis focused on **(1)** the historical protections afforded to the privacy interest, **(2)** the nature of information potentially revealed from the intrusion, and **(3)** the implications of recognizing or not recognizing the asserted privacy interest. > “Pippin’s tent allowed him one of the most fundamental activities which most individuals enjoy in private—sleeping under the comfort of a roof and enclosure. The tent also gave him a modicum of separation and refuge from the eyes of the world: a shred of space to exercise autonomy over the personal. These artifacts of the personal could be the same as with any of us, whether in physical or electronic form: reading material, personal letters, signs of political or religious belief, photographs, sexual material, and hints of hopes, fears, and desire. These speak to one’s most personal and intimate matters.” The Court further reasoned that the temporary nature of Pippin’s tent does not undermine any privacy interest, nor does the flimsy and vulnerable nature of an improvised structure leave it less worthy of privacy protections. “For the homeless, those may often be the only refuge for the private in the world as it is,” said the Court. Under the case law above, Pippin’s tent was the sort of closed-off space that typically shelters the intimate and discrete details of personal life protected by article I, section 7. The court concluded by saying that all three examined factors—the historical protections, the intimate details revealed from a search, and the implications of recognizing the interest—weigh in favor of finding that Pippin’s tent functioned as part of his private affairs worthy of protection from unreasonable intrusions. > “Accordingly, we hold that Pippin’s tent and its contents fell among those “privacy interests which citizens of this state . . . should be entitled to hold, safe from governmental trespass absent a warrant. As such, Pippin’s tent and contents are protected under article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution.” In the unpublished portion of the opinion, the Court held that because the State failed to show that an arrest was taking place, the protective sweep exception does not apply. My opinion? Excellent decision. The homeless have rights, too. Just because one lives in a tent without a front door to knock on, doesn’t mean that police can intrude on one’s public affairs. There was no “exigent circumstance” or “officer safety issue” justifying the intrusion. Good opinion. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Evidence, Exigent Circumstances, Fourth Amendment, law enforcement, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Evidence of Self-Defense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/evidence-of-self-defense/) **Published:** October 21, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** ![Self Defense Men | Meme Generator](https://memegenerator.net/img/images/14748299.jpg)In [*State v. Lee*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2048792-6-II%20Unpublished%20Opinion.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held that the trial court violated the defendant’s [Sixth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) right to present a defense by excluding evidence of [self-defense](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/self-defense/). **BACKGROUND FACTS** On January 25, 2015, the defendant Chevalier Lee’s girlfriend, Danielle Spicer, visited the home of Alice Gonzalez and her husband, Louis Gonzalez -Hernandez. Spicer went to the Gonzalez’s house and stayed there with Gonzalez and Gonzalez Hernandez’s’ five children while Gonzalez and Gonzalez-Hernandez ran errands. Gonzalez and Gonzalez-Hernandez returned home to find Lee at their house playing cards with their children and Spicer. Although they had not invited him, Lee had been to their home many times and was generally welcome there. Later that evening, Lee and Spicer began arguing about whether they would spend the night with Gonzalez and Gonzalez-Hernandez or return to their respective individual residences. Lee loudly cursed at Spicer as the argument escalated. Gonzalez-Hernandez told Lee that he did not like “that kind of behavior” in his house and Lee would have to leave. Lee refused and said that he didn’t have to leave. Gonzalez-Hernandez told Lee to leave approximately three-to-five times. According to Lee, he then cursed at Gonzalez-Hernandez who “came right at” him. Gonzalez-Hernandez had his hands up. Lee was scared and hit Gonzalez-Hernandez. The two men then wrestled. Lee left after seeing the scared looks Gonzalez, Spicer, and the children had. According to Gonzalez-Hernandez, Lee called him a “f\*\*king b\*\*\*h” and hit him in the face. Another witness saw Lee approach Gonzalez-Hernandez and get within inches of his face. Gonzalez-Hernandez again told Lee to leave and Lee “swung at him.” After they fought for a few minutes, Gonzalez called 911 and Lee and Spicer left. ***Jury Trial*** At trial, the defense sought to elicit testimony from Spicer that she and Lee had witnessed Gonzalez-Hernandez being “physical with his wife” in a separate incident four days prior to the assault. *Lee’s attorney argued that this evidence would show that Lee had actual knowledge that Mr. Gonzalez-Hernandez actually had the capacity to be aggressive and/or violent.* According to Lee’s defense attorney, this evidence would show Lee’s state of mind regarding his need to defend himself. The judge sustained the City’s objection, finding the evidence was “more [prejudicial than probative](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_403)” and that allowing such evidence would open the door to evidence about Lee’s prior misconduct. The defense suggested it would then elicit testimony that Lee “had prior information that Mr. Gonzalez-Hernandez had been known to be aggressive.” The trial court sustained the City’s objection to this evidence, finding it “more prejudicial than probative of anything.” In fact, during Lee’s testimony, Lee stated that he “had reason to be scared of Gonzalez-Hernandez already,” to which the City objected and the court sustained. Neither the City nor the court stated any specific grounds for this objection or ruling. A jury found Lee guilty of [Assault Fourth Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/). He appealed to the [Pierce County Superior Court](https://www.piercecountywa.org/122/Superior-Court) which affirmed the conviction. The WA Court of Appeals granted Lee’s motion for discretionary review. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals held that the trial court violated Lee’s [Sixth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) right to present a defense by excluding evidence of [self-defense](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/self-defense/). The Court agreed with Lee that evidence he had witnessed regarding Gonzalez-Hernandez’s recent violent behavior was critical to his defense because it both increased the likelihood he had a subjective fear of Gonzalez-Hernandez and it made his fear more objectively reasonable, thus strengthening his self-defense argument. The Court of Appeals reasoned that self-defense is a complete defense under [RCW 9A.16.020](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.020). A defense of self-defense requires proof **(1)** that the defendant had a subjective fear of imminent danger of bodily harm, **(2)** that this belief was objectively reasonable, and **(3)** that the defendant exercised no more force than was reasonably necessary. The City has the burden of proving the absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court further reasoned that evidence of self-defense is evaluated from the standpoint of the reasonably prudent person, knowing all the defendant knows and seeing all the defendant sees. This standard incorporates both objective and subjective elements. The subjective portion requires the jury to stand in the shoes of the defendant and consider all the facts and circumstances known to him or her; the objective portion requires the jury to use this information to determine what a reasonably prudent person similarly situated would have done. Also, said the Court, a fact finder evaluates self-defense from the defendant’s point of view as conditions appeared to him at the time of the act. For the subjective portion of the self-defense test, jurors must place themselves in the shoes of the defendant and evaluate self-defense in light of all that the defendant knew at the time. All facts and circumstances known to the defendant should be placed before the jury. Thus, reasoned the court, under [ER 404(B)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=ER&ruleid=gaer0404) and [ER 405 (B)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=ER&ruleid=gaer0405), where a defendant claims self-defense, a victim’s prior acts of violence known to the defendant are admissible to establish a defendant’s reason for apprehension and his basis for acting in self-defense. *ER 404(B)* To determine whether a specific act should be admissible under rule 404(B), the trial court must **(1)** find by a preponderance of the evidence that the misconduct occurred, **(2)** identify the purpose for which the evidence is sought to be introduced, **(3)** determine whether the evidence is relevant to prove an element of the crime charged, and **(4)** weigh the probative value against the prejudicial effect. The trial court is required to conduct an ER 404(b) analysis on the record. “In this case, Lee sought to admit evidence of Gonzalez Hernandez’s prior acts of violence to prove that Lee had knowledge of those acts, giving him reason to fear Gonzalez-Hernandez,” said the Court. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that evidence that Lee had witnessed Gonzalez-Hernandez being “physical” with his wife four days before the incident was relevant to Lee’s state of mind. “The evidence would allow the jury to assess Lee’s reason to fear bodily harm from the victim,” said the Court. Finally, the Court weighed the probative value of Gonzalez-Hernandez’s history of violence against its prejudicial effect. “Because the evidence in this case was relevant and otherwise admissible, the trial court should only exclude it if the City showed that the evidence was so prejudicial as to disrupt the fairness of the fact-finding process at trial,” said the Court. “Here, the proffered evidence went to Lee’s complete defense. Its probative value is to allow Lee to present a defense.” Consequently, the Court ruled that the City failed to demonstrate that evidence of Gonzalez-Hernandez’s prior violent conduct known to Lee would be so prejudicial as to outweigh Lee’s Sixth Amendment right to present his defense. “This type of evidence should be heard by a jury so it can assess the reasonableness of Lee’s actions,” said the Court. With that, the Court of Appeals reversed Lee’s conviction. My opinion? Good decision. Under the Sixth Amendment, citizens have a right to an adequate defense. Under Washington statute, self-defense is a complete defense. Therefore, suppressing evidence which *proves* self-defense violates the Sixth Amendment. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, ER 404(B), ER 405(B), Evidence, misdemeanor, Self-Defense, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [MS-13 Targeted By the Feds](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/ms-13-targeted-by-the-feds/) **Published:** October 23, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Informative [news ](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/23/ms-13-doj-organized-crime-task-force-target/)from [Andrea Noble](http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/andrea-noble/) of [The Washington Times](http://www.washingtontimes.com/) gives us insights into the priority and trajectory of federal prosecutions nowadays. Ms. Noble reports that today, [Attorney General Jeff Sessions](https://www.justice.gov/ag/staff-profile/meet-attorney-general) announced that he’s designated the [MS-13 street gang](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-13) as a priority for the [Justice Department’s](https://www.justice.gov/) [Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces](https://www.justice.gov/criminal/organized-crime-drug-enforcement-task-forces) — enabling authorities to target the gang with a broader array of federal resources. “Now they will go after MS-13 with a renewed vigor and a sharpened focus,” Mr. Sessions said Monday as he addressed the [International Association of Chiefs of Police ](http://www.theiacp.org/)conference in Philadelphia. “Just like we took [Al Capone ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone)off the streets with our tax laws, we will use whatever laws we have to get MS-13 off of our streets.” The priority designation will instruct federal agencies such as the [IRS](https://www.irs.gov/), [FBI](https://www.fbi.gov/), [Drug Enforcement Administration](https://www.dea.gov/index.shtml) and [Immigration and Customs Enforcement](https://www.ice.gov/) to target the El Salvador-based gang not just with drug laws but also tax, racketeering and firearms laws. Ms. Noble wrote that prior to this year, the task force was only able to get involved in cases when they involved the drug trade or money laundering. But changes to the task force’s authority in this year’s budget allow the Justice Department to directly name an organization as a priority. The change will mean that the task force can now get involved in a broad range of cases involving MS-13, also known as Mara Salvatrucha, including anything from [murder prosecutions](https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao/legacy/2012/01/26/usab6001.pdf) to [firearms violations](https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ut/legacy/2013/06/03/guncard.pdf). Noble says that Mr. Sessions has singled out MS-13’s involvement in the drug trade as a priority as his department has sought to combat both illegal immigration and an influx of drugs brought in the country from overseas. “Drugs are killing more Americans than ever before in large part thanks to powerful cartels and international gangs and deadly new [synthetic opioids](http://www.opium.org/what-are-synthetic-opioids.html) like [fentanyl](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fentanyl),” Mr. Sessions said. During his address to law enforcement leaders Monday, Mr. Sessions also highlighted a number of recent Justice Department grants awarded to police and sheriffs agencies: - $200,000 will be awarded to the IACP’s [Institute for Police and Community Relations](http://www.theiacp.org/ICPR), to help improve trust and cooperation between law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve. - $5 million will be spent on rapid response training meant to prepare agencies for response to active shooter incidents. – $100 million in grants will pay for state and local agencies to hire more police officers. My opinion? We see some overlap in how the Trump administration and the Department of Justice are handling immigration issues with criminal prosecutions. Remember, the [Trump administration promised to build a wall](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/29/16298346/trump-administration-started-building-wall) separating the United States from Mexico in order to keep out the [“rapists and criminals,” that he referred to as Mexican immigrants. ](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/05/pence-yes-trump-called-mexicans-rapists-and-criminals-but-you-keep-forgetting-about-the-other-part/?utm_term=.4144bf45e64e)Therefore, we should not be surprised that Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ tough-as-nails approach to gang prosecutions – *Mexican* gang prosecutions, mind you – is part and parcel to [Trump’s immigration policies](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/21/us/trump-immigration-policies-deportation.html). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Gangs, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Trump Administration, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Who Is The Toxicologist?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/who-is-the-toxicologist/) **Published:** October 24, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In the deeply divided 5-4 court decision *[State v. Salgado-Mendoza](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/932930.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that the trial court did *not* abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the toxicologist’s testimony under CrRLJ 8.3(b) even though the defendant was not informed which State toxicologist would testify. I originally discussed this case in my blog titled, [“Prosecutors Must Reveal Toxicologist Identities in DUI Trials.”](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/prosecutors-must-reveal-toxicologist-identities-in-dui-trials/) At that time, the [WA Court of Appeals Division II](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) reversed the defendant’s [DUI ](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.502)conviction because the Prosecutor failed to give Defense Counsel the name of their Toxicologist expert witness before trial. On appeal, however, the WA Supreme Court decided differently. It overturned the Court of Appeals and said the trial court, in fact, was correct in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the toxicologist’s testimony. **BACKGROUND FACTS** On the evening of August 11, 2012, a [Washington State Patrol](http://www.wsp.wa.gov/) trooper stopped and arrested Mr. Salgado-Mendoza for [DUI](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.502). His [BAC test](http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/bac-test%20/) showed a blood alcohol concentration of 0.103 and 0.104; which is over the .o8 limit. Before trial, the State initially disclosed the names of nine toxicologists from the [Washington State Patrol toxicology laboratory](http://www.wsp.wa.gov/forensics/toxicology.htm), indicating its intent to call “one of the following.” It whittled the list to three names the day before trial, but did not specify which toxicologist it would call until the morning of trial, noting that it provided the witness’s name “as soon as we had it and that’s all that we can do in terms of disclosure.” Mendoza [moved to suppress](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) the toxicologist’s testimony under [CrRLJ 8.3(b)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.rulesPDF&ruleId=cljcrrlj8.03&pdf=1) based on late disclosure, asking the court to “send a message to the state patrol crime lab and say this isn’t okay anymore.” The trial court refused, finding no actual prejudice to the defense and observing that the practice of disclosing a list of available toxicologists rather than a specific witness was driven more by underfunding of the crime labs than by mismanagement. Salgado-Mendoza appealed to the superior court, which found the district court had abused its discretion. The Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that the delayed disclosure violated the discovery rules and caused prejudice. Again, however, the WA Court of Appeals disagreed. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The WA Supreme Court reasoned that while the State’s disclosure practice amounted to mismanagement within the meaning of CrRLJ 8.3(b), Salgado-Mendoza has not demonstrated [actual prejudice](https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/actual-prejudice/) to justify suppression. The majority Court explained that under CrRLJ 8.3(b), the party seeking relief bears the burden of showing *both* misconduct *and* actual prejudice. “In this case, Salgado-Mendoza can demonstrate misconduct within the meaning of the rule, but not actual prejudice. He can prove misconduct because a discovery violation need not be willful—simple mismanagement will suffice. Here, the State’s failure to at least narrow the list of possible toxicology witnesses pretrial reflects mismanagement,” said the Court. “However, Salgado-Mendoza cannot show prejudice that wan’ants complete suppression of the toxicologist’s testimony.” With that, the WA Supreme Court held that Mr. Mendoza has not demonstrated actual prejudice to justify suppression of the toxicologist’s testimony. “Because there was no abuse of discretion, we reverse the Court of Appeals.” **THE DISSENT** [Justice Madsen](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=madsen) authored the dissenting opinion. She was joined by Justices [Yu](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=yu), [Gordon McCloud](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=gordon_mccloud) and [Johnson](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=johnson). In short, the dissenting judges disagreed with the majority because they believed the defendant was prejudiced by this delayed disclosure of the possible toxicologists who would testify. They reasoned that forcing a defendant to bear the burden of preparing to cross-examine a long list of witnesses when the State only intends to call one is not how our system of justice operates. “The State cannot cite funding deficiencies and simply shift its burden of prosecution onto defense counsel,” wrote Judge Madsen. “If the State wishes to pursue prosecution, it must allocate sufficient resources to its departments so that they may operate in a way that is consistent with a defendant’s right to a fair trial.” > “By under-staffing the State’s toxicology laboratory so that they cannot confirm who will testify until the day of trial, the State is not meeting this burden and defendants are being forced to compensate for the deficiency. Therefore, I would find that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Salgado-Mendoza’s motion to suppress the toxicologist’s testimony.” My opinion? I agree with the dissenting opinion. Under the [Sixth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) and the [WA Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/lawsandagencyrules/documents/12-2010-wastateconstitution.pdf), The State bears the burden of proving their charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, the State must follow discovery rules under [CrR 4.7](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR4.07). *One of the State’s discovery obligations is to name their witnesses who they call to testify*. Period. Collateral issues revolving around the State’s under-staffing and a lack of funding should not excuse violating a defendant’s Constitutional rights. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, DUI, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Toxicologist, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington State Patrol, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Excessive Tasing](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/excessive-tasing/) **Published:** October 31, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[Jones v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept.](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/10/20/14-17388.pdf)*, the [Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) held that any reasonable officer would have known that continuous, repeated, and simultaneous tasings could only be justified by an immediate or significant risk of serious injury or death to officers or the public. However, such force generally cannot be used on a prone suspect who exhibits no resistance, carries no weapon, is surrounded by sufficient officers to restrain him and is not suspected of a violent crime. **BACKGROUND FACTS** In the early morning of December 11, 2010, Officer Mark Hatten of the [Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department](https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Pages/default.aspx) pulled over Anthony Jones for a routine traffic stop. Hatten ordered Jones out of the car so he could pat him down for weapons. Jones obeyed at first but then started to turn toward Hatten. Scared of the much larger Jones, Hatten drew his firearm, pointed it at Jones and ordered him to turn back around. Instead, Jones sprinted away. Hatten called for backup and pursued Jones. Hatten didn’t believe [deadly force](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/10/1047.7) was necessary because Jones hadn’t threatened him and didn’t appear to have a weapon. As he waited for other officers to arrive, Hatten used his [taser](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser) to subdue Jones. Hatten fired his taser twice, causing Jones’s body to “lock up” and fall to the ground face down with his hands underneath him. Hatten proceeded to kneel on Jones’s back in an attempt to handcuff Jones, keeping his taser pressed to Jones’s thigh and repeatedly pulling the trigger. Hatten continued to tase Jones even after backup arrived. Backup consisted of four officers: Richard Fonbuena on Hatten’s right side, who helped handcuff Jones; Steven Skenandore, who controlled Jones’s legs and feet; Timothy English at Jones’s head, who applied a taser to Jones’s upper back; and Michael Johnson, who arrived last and ordered the tasing to stop. Johnson wanted his officers to “back off on the tasers so that Jones’s muscles would relax.” According to Johnson, Jones “didn’t look like he was physically resisting” and there were “enough officers” to take Jones into custody. In all, Jones was subjected to taser shocks for over ninety seconds: Hatten tased Jones essentially nonstop that whole time—with some applications lasting as long as nineteen seconds—and, for ten of those seconds, English simultaneously applied his taser. Once the officers stopped tasing Jones, his body went limp. They sat him up but Jones was nonresponsive and twitching; his eyes were glazed over and rolled back into his head. The officers tried and failed to resuscitate him. Jones was pronounced dead shortly thereafter. The coroner’s report concluded that “police restraining procedures”—including the tasings—contributed to Jones’s death. Jones’s parents sued the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and all of the officers involved in restraining Jones. They alleged [Fourth ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment)and [Fourteenth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv) violations as well as various state law torts. However, the lower district court granted [summary judgment](https://www.nolo.com/dictionary/summary-judgment-term.html) for the defendants on all claims. The plaintiff’s appealed. **LEGAL ISSUE** Whether police officers are entitled to [qualified immunity](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity) when they’re alleged to have caused the death of a suspect by using tasers repeatedly and simultaneously for an extended period. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** As a preliminary matter, the Court of Appeals held that under [Fed. R. Civ. P. 17](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_17), the lower district court abused its discretion by failing to give plaintiffs a reasonable opportunity to substitute the proper party and thus cure the defective complaint. Next, the Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether the officers were reasonable in the degree of force they deployed. They held that the officers’ repeated and simultaneous use of tasers for over ninety seconds was unreasonable and that a jury could reasonably conclude that the officers knew or should have known that these actions created a substantial risk of serious injury or death: > ” . . . any reasonable officer would have known that continuous, repeated, and simultaneous tasings could only be justified by an immediate or significant risk of serious injury or death to officers or the public.” The Court also reasoned that that such force generally cannot be used on a prone suspect who exhibits no resistance, carries no weapon, is surrounded by sufficient officers to restrain him and is not suspected of a violent crime. Furthermore, it reasoned that given that there was clearly established Fourth Amendment law and a jury could reasonably conclude that the officers used [excessive force](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/excessive_force), the question of qualified immunity must proceed to trial. Furthermore, the Court held that the plaintiff’s state law [battery](https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/battery) and [negligence](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence) claims were triable, and should not have been dismissed by the lower district court. It said that while there was no evidence that any of the officers acted out of hostility or improper motive, there was a factual dispute as to whether the repeated and simultaneous tasings were so excessive under the circumstances that they amounted to willful or deliberate disregard of Jones’s rights. The Court of Appeals therefore [remanded ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/remand)plaintiffs’ battery and negligence claims. In a twist, however, The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower district court’s dismissal of the Fourteenth Amendment claim. It said that even assuming all the facts Plaintiffs alleged, there was no evidence that the officers acted with a purpose of harming Jones that was unconnected to a legitimate law enforcement objective. In another twist, the Court of Appeals held that the Plaintiffs’[ false arrest](https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/False+arrest+and+imprisonment) and[ false imprisonment](http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/false-imprisonment.html?version=2) claims failed because there was no evidence that the decision to arrest Jones lacked justification, let alone that it was made in bad faith. The Court of Appeals therefore affirmed the dismissal of that claim. My opinion? A well-reasoned, good decision. Although the Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of some of the Plaintiffs’ claims due to lack of evidence, the Court was ultimately convinced that the officers’ repeated and simultaneous use of tasers for over ninety seconds was unreasonable. Good decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Deadly Force, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Fourth Amendment, law enforcement, police, Police Misconduct, Qualified Immunity, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Taser, Uncategorized, Unlawful Imprisonment, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Defense of Property](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/defense-of-property/) **Published:** November 1, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In[ *State v. Yelovich*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2048949-0-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held that an owner of property cannot use force to defend that property when **(1)** the interference with the property occurs when the defendant was not present, **(2)** the interference has been completed and the property is no longer in the owner’s possession, and **(3)** the property has been removed from an area within the owner’s control. **BACKGROUND FACTS** *Assault & Arrest* Defendant Yelovich and his ex-girlfriend De Armond dated for several years before breaking up. A [domestic violence no-contact order](https://www.courts.wa.gov/dv/?fa=dv_order.ordtypes) was in place that prevented Yelovich from contacting De Armond. According to Yelovich, on the morning of June 7, 2015, he was at his son’s house packing boxes in the garage and moving them to his car. While he was working, Yelovich left several items unattended in his car, which had a broken passenger-side window. One of the items was a cell phone. As Yelovich was taking a box to his car, he caught a glimpse of someone walking down the street. At that time, he could not tell who the person was. When he reached his car, he noticed that his cell phone and other items were missing. Yelovich walked to the middle of the street and saw that the person in the street was De Armond. De Armond was repeatedly turning around and looking back toward Yelovich. Yelovich immediately believed that she had taken his cell phone. Yelovich got into his car and chased after De Armond. He drove to the end of the road a few blocks away and turned the corner before encountering De Armond. He parked his car, got out, and demanded that she return his phone. Yelovich knew at that point that he was violating the no-contact order. But he believed that the action was necessary before De Armond disappeared with his phone. Yelovich grabbed De Armond’s purse strap and attempted to pull the purse from her, believing that the cell phone was in the purse. De Armond resisted, holding tightly to her purse. In the struggle, De Armond fell to the ground. After a bystander intervened, law enforcement officers arrived and arrested Yelovich. The State charged Yelovich with [violating the no-contact order](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/no-contact-order-violations/). The information alleged that Yelovich had assaulted De Armond, making the violation a felony under [RCW 26.50.110(4)](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=26.50.110). *Trial and Conviction* At trial, the witnesses testified to the facts recited above. Yelovich proposed a [jury instruction that included both defense of property and self-defense components](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Iefa01084e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)). The trial court ruled as a matter of law that a defense of property instruction did not apply because Yelovich was not using force to prevent the cell phone from being taken; he was trying to recover the cell phone that was no longer in his possession. A jury convicted Yelovich of the felony contact order violation. Yelovich appeals his conviction. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** In short, the Court of Appeals disagreed with Yelovich’s argument that the trial court erred by refusing to give a defense of property jury instruction. “Yelovich asserted as a defense that he was justified in using force against De Armond because she had taken his cell phone,” said the Court. It reasoned, however, that Yelovich’s own testimony established that he used force in an attempt to recover the cell phone after De Armond allegedly had taken it and had left the immediate area, not to prevent De Armond from taking the cell phone in the first instance. “The issue here is to what extent a defendant can rely on the defense of property as a defense when he or she uses force to recover property that already has been taken and is no longer in his or her possession,” said the Court. The Court further reasoned that the plain language of the [“Use of Force” Statute RCW 9A.16.020(3)](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.020) establishes that an owner of property *cannot* use force to defend that property after the interference with the property has been completed. First, the property owner can use force only if he or she is about to be injured. “Once the interference with the property has been completed, the owner no longer is about to be injured; he or she has been injured,” said the Court. Second, the property owner can use force only in preventing or attempting to prevent the interference. An action taken to prevent interference must occur before the interference has been completed. Defense of property by definition is defensive rather than offensive. “Once the interference with the property has been completed, the owner’s use of force is to recover the property, not to prevent the interference,” said the Court. Third, the property owner can use force only if the property is lawfully in his or her possession. “Once the interference with the property has been completed, another person has obtained possession of the property and the owner necessarily no longer has possession,” said the Court. > “Based on the language of RCW 9A.16.020(3) and relevant case law, we hold that an owner of property cannot use force to defend that property when **(1)** the interference with the property occurs when the defendant was not present, **(2)** the interference has been completed and the property is no longer in the owner’s possession, and **(3)** the property has been removed from an area within the owner’s control.” The Court reasoned that here, application of this three part test and the statutory language show that a defense of property instruction was not appropriate. First, Yelovich was not present at his car when De Armond allegedly removed the cell phone. He discovered that the cell phone was gone only after it already had been taken. Second, at that point De Armond had completed the alleged taking and had possession of the phone. Third, De Armond had left the area of Yelovich’s control – his car – and was a few blocks away. Therefore, the undisputed evidence shows that De Armond’s theft of Yelovich’s cell phone, if it occurred, already had been completed when Yelovich chased after De Armond and accosted her. Yelovich was attempting to recover the cell phone, not to prevent its theft. The Court furthe rreasoned that Yelovich was not about to be injured when he accosted De Armond; he already had been injured through the loss of his cell phone. He was not attempting to prevent a theft; the theft already had occurred. And Yelovich no longer had possession of the cell phone; the phone allegedly was in De Armond’s possession. “Therefore, defense of property under RCW 9A.16.020(3) cannot apply and there was no evidence to support Yelovich’s other proposed instruction,” said the Court. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Access Devices, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Cell Phone, Defense of Property, felony, No Contact Order, Property Crimes, Self-Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Poll: 6 In 10 Black Americans Say Police Unfairly Stopped Them Or A Relative](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/poll-6-in-10-black-americans-say-police-unfairly-stopped-them-or-a-relative/) **Published:** November 3, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** News [article ](http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/10/30/560382301/poll-6-in-10-black-americans-say-theyve-been-unfairly-stopped-by-police?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social)by [Joe Neel](http://www.npr.org/people/5005601/joe-neel) of [NPR ](http://www.npr.org/)says that a new [poll](http://www.npr.org/assets/img/2017/10/23/discriminationpoll-african-americans.pdf) out this week finds that 60 percent of black Americans say they or a family member have been stopped or treated unfairly by police because they are black. In addition, 45 percent say they or a family member have been treated unfairly by the courts because they are black. The poll is a collaboration between NPR, the [Robert Wood Johnson Foundation](https://www.rwjf.org/) and the [Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/). The poll reveals the consequences of these stops for black Americans personally and across society — 31 percent of poll respondents say that fear of discrimination has led them to avoid calling the police when in need. And 61 percent say that where they live, police are more likely to use unnecessary force on a person who is black than on a white person in the same situation. Previous polls have asked similar questions, but ours is unique in that it’s the first to ask about lifetime experiences with policing. It’s part of NPR’s ongoing series [“You, Me and Them: Experiencing Discrimination in America.”](http://www.npr.org/series/559149737/you-me-and-them-experiencing-discrimination-in-america) A [Pew Research poll](http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/06/27/on-views-of-race-and-inequality-blacks-and-whites-are-worlds-apart/) in 2016 asked whether people had been unfairly stopped by police because of race or ethnicity in the previous 12 months and found that 18 percent of black people said yes. A 2015 [CBS News/New York Times poll](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-state-of-race-relations-in-america/) asked whether this had ever happened and found 41 percent of black people said yes. Neel reports that the NPR poll differs from Pew in that NPR asked not only about a much longer period but also whether people had been unfairly stopped or treated because of their race or ethnicity. Also the NPR poll differ from CBS in that NPR included the word “unfairly.” Finally, the NPR poll differs from both the Pew and CBS polls because NPR asked whether a person or a family member had had this experience, which gives a better sense of the presence of these experiences in respondents’ life and surroundings. Neel also reports that the [black American data from our poll](http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/10/25/559015355/how-black-americans-see-discrimination), released Tuesday, were compiled from 802 black Americans as part of a large national representative probability survey of 3,453 adults from Jan. 26 to April 9. The margin of error for the full black American sample is plus or minus 4.1 percentage points. It is imperative to contact a competent attorney if you, a friend or family member were pulled over, searched and/or seized by police under suspicious circumstances. Please read my [Search and Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) Legal Guide and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, law enforcement, police, Police Misconduct, Race & Law, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Traffic Infractions, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Character Evidence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/character-evidence/) **Published:** November 12, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Wilson](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/749447.PDF)* the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that the trial court mistakenly admitted into evidence a dissimilar and unfairly prejudicial prior act of sexual misconduct as a purported common scheme or plan under [ER 404(b)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=ER&ruleid=gaer0404). **BACKGROUND FACTS** Claudine Wilson has cared for her granddaughter, B.E., since she was born on January 29, 2006. In 2010, when B.E. was four years old, Claudine married the defendant Leslie Wilson. Wilson moved into Claudine’s home in Auburn, Washington which Claudine shared with several other family members. Claudine, Wilson, and B.E. shared a bedroom. Claudine and Wilson slept in a king size bed. B.E. had her own bed in the same room, but sometimes slept with Claudine and Wilson. Wilson and B.E. appeared to get along well. However, the marriage between Wilson and Claudine eventually deteriorated, in part due to Wilson’s alcohol use. Wilson left the household in July 2012. About five months later, in December 2012, just after Claudine spoke to Wilson on the telephone, B.E. told Claudine that Wilson had touched her. Wilson was charged with two counts of [Rape of a Child in the First Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/) and one count of Attempted Rape of a Child in the First Degree. Before trial, the State informed the trial court of its intent to present evidence of a sexual remark Wilson allegedly made to B.E.’s older cousin, S.H. Specifically, S.H. claimed that when she was 11 or 12 years old and wearing a bathing suit, Wilson remarked that she should not “wear that stuff around [him] because it gets—[him] so excited.” The State argued that this evidence showed that Wilson had a common scheme or plan to sexually assault young girls. The defense argued that the evidence showed only propensity and was inadmissible. The court ruled that S.H.’s testimony demonstrated a common scheme or plan and was admissible under ER 404(b). **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals agreed with Mr. Wilson that the trial court erred in admitting a dissimilar and unfairly prejudicial prior act of sexual misconduct as a purported common scheme or plan under ER 404(b). The Court reasoned that ER 404(b) prohibits the use of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. The same evidence may be admissible for other purposes, however, depending on its relevance and the balancing of the [probative value and danger of unfair prejudice](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_403). [*State v. Gresham*](https://casetext.com/case/state-v-gresham-38). One accepted “other purpose” under ER 404(b) is to show the existence of a [common scheme or plan](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mimic_rule). The Court further reasoned that prior misconduct and the charged crime must share a sufficient number of “markedly and substantially similar” features so that the similarities can naturally be explained as individual manifestations of a general plan. The prior misconduct must be sufficiently similar to the charged crime, or else the evidence of misconduct is not probative of whether the alleged act occurred. Similarity of results is insufficient and the evidence must show more than a general “plan” to molest children. Ultimately, in doubtful cases, the evidence should be excluded. Against that backdrop, the Court decided that the incidents described by B.E. and S.H. did **not** share “markedly and substantially similar” features that can naturally be explained as individual manifestations of a general plan: > “B.E. reported recurring incidents of sexual abuse. S.H. reported an isolated, sexually-oriented remark. There was a significant difference in the victims’ ages when the incidents occurred. The evidence was similar only in the respect that it tended to show Wilson’s sexual attraction to minors. S.H.’s testimony did not demonstrate the existence of a common scheme or plan. In view of the limited evidence presented to the jury, we cannot say that the admission of the ER 404(b) evidence did not materially affect the trial within reasonable probabilities.” With that, the Court of Appeals reverse Wilson’s conviction of Rape of a Child. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, ER 404(B), Evidence, Rape, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Corpus Delicti & Drugs](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/corpus-delicti-drugs/) **Published:** November 19, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Hotchkiss](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2048963-5-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held that, despite the [corpus delicti defense](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_delicti), the discovery of 8.1 grams of [methamphetamine](https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/methamphetamine/what-methamphetamine) and $2,150 in cash during a search of the defendant’s home, provided sufficient [corroborating evidence](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/corroborating_evidence) of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Law enforcement officers executed a search warrant on Hotchkiss’s residence in [Vancouver](https://www.cityofvancouver.us/). During the search, Hotchkiss admitted that he had an [“8-ball”](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=8%20ball) – approximately 3.8 grams – of methamphetamine in a safe and provided the officers with the code. He also stated that he procured about one 8-ball of methamphetamine every day and broke it down, and estimated that he had about 10 customers. Inside the safe, officers found 8.1 grams of methamphetamine and $2,150 in cash. The State charged Hotchkiss with [possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver – methamphetamine](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). At a bench trial, officers testified about finding the methamphetamine and cash and about Hotchkiss’s statement that he had 10 methamphetamine customers. After the State rested, Hotchkiss requested that the trial court disregard the testimony regarding his incriminating statement under the corpus delicti rule because there was insufficient evidence corroborating his statement. The court reserved its ruling on the corpus delicti issue. Hotchkiss then testified that he and a woman who lived with him used three or four grams of methamphetamine per day. He also testified that the cash in the safe came from other people living at his residence, who paid rent of $1,150 per month in cash, and from his employment. He claimed that any statement he made to the officers about selling methamphetamine referred to his actions 20 years earlier. On rebuttal, an officer with extensive experience dealing with methamphetamine users and sellers testified that a typical methamphetamine dose is 0.2 to 0.4 grams. He also testified that it would be very rare that someone would possess eight grams of methamphetamine solely for personal use. The trial court found that the quantity of methamphetamine in Hotchkiss’s possession combined with the amount of cash recovered with the drugs was sufficient corroborating evidence to satisfy the corpus delicti rule. The court then found Hotchkiss guilty of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. Hotchkiss appeals his conviction. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals reasoned that the [corpus delicti rule](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/corpus_delicti) prevents the State from establishing that a crime occurred solely based on the defendant’s incriminating statement. The State must present corroborating evidence independent of the incriminating statement that the charged crime occurred. Without such corroborating evidence, the defendant’s statement alone is insufficient to support a conviction. The Court then addressed the question of whether there was enough independent evidence to support the conviction for possession of methampetamine with intent to deliver. “The general rule is that mere possession of a controlled substance, including quantities greater than needed for personal use, is not sufficient to support an inference of intent to deliver,” said the Court. Here, the State presented evidence that **(1)** Hotchkiss had 8.1 grams of methamphetamine in his possession; **(2)** given an average dose size of 0.2 to 0.4 grams, such an amount typically would produce 20 to 40 doses; and **(3)** it would be very rare for a person to possess that amount merely for personal use. The Court reasoned that under the general rule, this evidence standing alone would not be sufficient either to convict Hotchkiss of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver or to provide corroborating evidence under the corpus delicti rule. “But the State presented evidence of an additional factor suggestive of intent to deliver – $2,150 of cash in Hotchkiss’s safe next to the methamphetamine,” said the Court. “This methamphetamine and cash evidence would be sufficient to support a conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver.” With that, the Court of Appeals concluded that the State satisfied the corpus delicti rule and affirmed Hotchkiss’ conviction of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. My opinion? Corpus Delicti is a tricky defense. It usually works best in cases where there is a gaping hole between the corroborating evidence and the defendant’s statements. For example, let’s say that police received a 911 call about a red truck driving around in your neighborhood swerving in an out of traffic. The police respond to the call, drive to your neighborhood, and look a for a red truck. They find one parked at your home. They knock on your door. You open the door. You’re intoxicated from drinking alcohol. “Were you driving?” asked the police. “Yes,” you say. Police immediately arrest you for DUI. Corpus delicti would be the appropriate defense in a case like this. Under our current DUI laws, the State must prove that not only were *you* driving that particular red truck, but that you were under the influence of alcohol *when* driving. In short, corpus delicti ensures that your statements and admission shall not be used against you in cases where there is a lack of independent evidence supporting your statements. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a family member of friend face criminal charges with weak and/or questionable evidence supporting the charges. No matter what a person’s admissions are, we have the constitutional right to question the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the charges and perhaps argue the corpus delicti defense. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Corpus Delicti, Drug Offenses, felony, Methamphetamine, police, Self-Incrimination, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Black Men Sentenced Longer](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/black-men-sentenced-longer/) **Published:** November 19, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** African-American men serve longer sentences than white men for the same [crime](http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/crime.htm), a new study by the [U.S Sentencing Commission](https://www.ussc.gov/) shows. The [commission’s analysis](https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2017/20171114_Demographics.pdf) of demographic prison data from 2012 to 2016 found that black men serve sentences that are on average 19.1 percent longer than those for white men for similar crimes. The racial disparity in sentencing can’t be accounted for by whether an offender has a history of violence, according to the study by the commission, an independent bipartisan agency that is part of the U.S. federal judiciary branch. “Violence in an offender’s criminal history does not appear to contribute to the sentence imposed” except as it may factor into a score under sentencing guidelines, the study said. When accounting for violence in an offender’s past, black men received sentences that were on average 20.4 percent longer than that of white men, according to the commission’s analysis of fiscal year 2016 data, the only year for which such data is available. The new study updates an earlier commission report in 2012, known as the [Booker report](https://www.ussc.gov/research/congressional-reports/2012-report-congress-continuing-impact-united-states-v-booker-federal-sentencing), that came after a Supreme Court decision in 2005, [United States vs. Booker](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-104.ZS.html), which permitted judges to enhance an offender’s sentence based on “facts” determined by their own judgment. Before then, federal judges were only allowed to sentence an offender based on guidelines provided by the sentencing commission According to the non-profit organization, [The Sentencing Project](http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Trends-in-US-Corrections.pdf), the U.S. is the world’s leader in incarceration, with 2.2 million people in prison as of 2015, a 500 percent increase over the last 40 years. The Sentencing Project also found that black men are nearly six times as likely as white men to be incarcerated, and Hispanic men are 2.3 times as likely. For black men in their 30s, one in every 10 is in prison or jail on any given day, according to 2015 data cited by the organization. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Prison, Race & Law, Sentencing, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Vehicle Prowl Prior Convictions](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/vehicle-prowl-priors/) **Published:** November 24, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *State v. LaPointe*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that when a defendant pleads guilty on the same day in a single proceeding to multiple counts of misdemeanor vehicle prowling, the crime of vehicle prowling in the second degree is ***not*** elevated to a felony. **BACKGROUND FACTS** On December 9, 2013, Clifford Paul LaPointe Jr. pleaded guilty as charged by amended information to two counts of misdemeanor [vehicle prowling in the second degree](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.52.100) in July 2013 and in September 2013. LaPointe also pleaded guilty as charged by amended information to vehicle prowling in the second degree in May 2013 under a different cause number. On January 3, 2014, the court sentenced LaPointe on the convictions. The court imposed a concurrent 364-day suspended sentence. On January 6, 2016, the State charged LaPointe with felony vehicle prowling in the second degree. The information alleged LaPointe had “previously been convicted on at least two separate occasions of the crime of vehicle prowling in the second degree, each occurring on a separate date and not having been charged in the same charging document.” LaPointe filed a [*Knapstad* ](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/dismissing-cases-through-knapstad-motions/)motion to dismiss the charge of felony vehicle prowling in the second degree. He argued that under the plain and unambiguous language of RCW 9A.52.100(3), he had not been previously convicted on “two separate occasions.” LaPointe argued the record established he pleaded guilty in 2013 by amended information to the misdemeanor vehicle prowling in the second degree charges on the same day and in the same proceeding. However, the State counter-argued the court should deny the motion to dismiss under RCW 9A.52.100(4). The State reasoned that because LaPointe pleaded guilty as charged in two amended informations to offenses that occurred on different dates, his 2013 convictions elevated the current offense to a felony. The trial court denied LaPointe’s *Knapstad* motion. It reasoned that LaPointe was previously convicted on at least two separate occasions because he pleaded guilty in 2013 to misdemeanor vehicle prowling in the second degree based on separate dates of occurrence as charged in separate charging documents. LaPointe agreed to a [trial on stipulated facts (bench trial](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bench_trial)). The court convicted LaPointe of felony vehicle prowling in the second degree. The court ruled the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that LaPointe had been previously convicted on two separate occasions of the crime of misdemeanor vehicle prowling in the second degree. On appeal, LaPointe contends the court erred in denying his *Knapstad* motion to dismiss the felony charge of vehicle prowling in the second degree. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** On review, the Court of Appeals gave some necessary background. It explained that in 2013, the [Washington State Senate](http://leg.wa.gov/Senate/Pages/default.aspx) proposed an amendment to [RCW 9A.52.100](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.52.100) to elevate the crime of misdemeanor vehicle prowling in the second degree to a felony upon a third or subsequent conviction. Afterward, the [Washington State House of Representatives](http://leg.wa.gov/House/Pages/default.aspx) amended [Senate Bill 5053](http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5053&Year=1995) to define when a third or subsequent conviction elevates vehicle prowling in the second degree to a felony. Next, the Court turned to LaPointe’s arguments regarding statutory interpretation. “LaPointe argues that under the plain and unambiguous language of RCW 9A.52.100(3), the court erred in denying his *Knapstad* motion to dismiss the felony charge because he had not been previously convicted on two separate occasions,” said the Court. “The State asserts that under RCW 9A.52.100(4), LaPointe was previously convicted on two separate occasions because he was not charged in the same information and the crimes occurred on different dates.” The Court of Appeals reasoned that when interpreting a statute, the fundamental goal is to ascertain and carry out the intent of the legislature: > “We seek to determine legislative intent solely from the plain language of the statute. The plain meaning of a statutory provision is to be discerned from the ordinary meaning of the language at issue.” The court further explained that it derives legislative intent from the plain language of the statute by considering the text of the provision in question, the context of the statute in which the provision is found, related provisions, and the statutory scheme as a whole. “We do not analyze individual subsections in isolation from the other sections of the statute when doing so would undermine the overall statutory purpose,” said the Court. “We must also interpret and construe a statute to harmonize and give effect to the language used in the statute with no portion rendered meaningless or superfluous and assume the legislature means exactly what it says.” It reasoned that in this case, the defendant was convicted of two counts of vehicle prowling in the second degree under King County Cause No. 13-1-13980-1, and one count of vehicle prowling in the second degree under King County Cause No. 13-1-12822-1. These convictions are each based on separate dates of occurrence. The convictions under 13-1-13980-1 were charged in a charging document that is separate from the charging document in 13-1-12822-1. The two cause numbers were sentenced on the same date to give the defendant the benefit of presumptively [concurrent sentences.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/concurrent_sentence#) “The State’s argument that by identifying two situations that do not count as convictions for purposes of charging a felony in RCW 9A.52.100(4), the legislature has defined “separate occasions” that elevate the crime to a felony, is the inverse of what the language actually says,” said the Court. “RCW 9A.52.100(4) states that multiple counts of vehicle prowling either charged in the same information or ‘based on the same date of occurrence’ do not count as separate offenses for the purposes of charging as a felony: > “Multiple counts of vehicle prowling (a) charged in the same charging document do not count as separate offenses for the purposes of charging as a felony based on previous convictions for vehicle prowling in the second degree and (b) based on the same date of occurrence do not count as separate offenses for the purposes of charging as a felony based on previous convictions for vehicle prowling in the second degree.” “The State’s argument also relies on a [logical fallacy](https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/659/03/),” said the Court. “The proposition that ‘A implies B’ is not the equivalent of ‘non-A implies non-B,’ and neither proposition follows logically from the other.” In other words, said the Court, identifying two situations that do not count as separate offenses does not mean the inverse—that pleading guilty on the same day in the same proceeding to multiple charges that occurred on different days in two different cause numbers elevates the crime to a felony. The Court reasoned that because neither a plain reading of the statutory scheme as a whole nor legislative history clearly resolves the ambiguity, under the [rule of lenity](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/statutory_construction), it interpreted the statute to mean that when a defendant pleads guilty on the same day in a single proceeding to multiple counts of misdemeanor vehicle prowling as charged by amended information in two different cause numbers, the crime of vehicle prowling in the second degree is ***not*** elevated to a felony. With that, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s denial of LaPointe’s *Knapstad* motion to dismiss and also reversed his conviction of felony vehicle prowling in the second degree. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** "Plain Meaning" Rule, Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Knapstad Motion, misdemeanor, Rule of Lenity, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Statutory Interpretation, Vehicle Prowl, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [The Feds on Crime Under Jeff Sessions](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/the-feds-on-crime-under-jeff-sessions/) **Published:** November 27, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [news article](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/while-eyes-are-on-russia-sessions-dramatically-reshapes-the-justice-department/2017/11/24/dd52d66a-b8dd-11e7-9e58-e6288544af98_story.html?utm_term=.54da99326e16) by [Matt Zapotosky](https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/matt-zapotosky/) and [Sari Horwitz](https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/sari-horwitz/) of the [Washington Post ](https://www.washingtonpost.com/)describes the dramatic and controversial changes in policy Jeff Sessions has made since becoming the Attorney General under President Trump months ago. > “From his crackdown on illegal immigration to his reversal of Obama administration policies on criminal justice and policing, Sessions is methodically reshaping the Justice Department to reflect his nationalist ideology and hard-line views — moves drawing comparatively less public scrutiny than the ongoing investigations into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with the Kremlin.” Zapotsky and Horwitz write that Sessions has implemented a new charging and sentencing policy that calls for prosecutors to pursue the most serious charges possible, even if that might mean minority defendants face stiff, mandatory minimum penalties. He has defended the [president’s travel ban](https://www.recode.net/2017/9/24/16359172/donald-trump-tech-travel-immigrants-ban-revision) and tried to [strip funding from cities with policies he considers too friendly toward undocumented immigrants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city).Apprently, Sessions has even adjusted the department’s legal stances in cases involving voting rights and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues in a way that advocates warn might disenfranchise poor minorities and give certain religious people a license to discriminate.“The Attorney General is committed to rebuilding a Justice Department that respects the rule of law and separation of powers,” [Justice Department spokesman Ian Prior](https://www.justice.gov/opa/contact-office) said in a statement, adding, “It is often our most vulnerable communities that are most impacted and victimized by the scourge of drug trafficking and the accompanying violent crime.” **Immigration** Zapotsky and Horwitz write that unlike past attorneys general, Sessions has been especially aggressive on immigration. He served as the public face of the administration’s rolling back of a program that granted a reprieve from deportation to people who had come here without documentation as children, and he directed federal prosecutors to make illegal-immigration cases a higher priority. The attorney general has long held the view that the United States should even reduce the number of those immigrating here legally. Zapotsky and Horwitz said that in an [interview with Breitbart News](http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/05/exclusive-jeff-sessions-obamatrade-can-killed/ "www.breitbart.com") in 2015, then-Sen. Sessions (R-Ala.) spoke favorably of a 1924 law that excluded all immigrants from Asia and set strict caps on others. “When the numbers reached about this high in 1924, the president and Congress changed the policy and it slowed down immigration significantly,” Sessions said. “We then assimilated through 1965 and created really the solid middle class of America, with assimilated immigrants, and it was good for America.” According to Zapotsky and Horwitz, [Vanita Gupta](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanita_Gupta), the head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division in the [Obama administration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama) who now works as chief executive of the [Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights](https://civilrights.org/), said Sessions seems to harbor an “unwillingness to recognize the history of this country is rooted in immigration.” “On issue after issue, it’s very easy to see what his worldview is of what this country is and who belongs in this country,” she said, adding that his view is “distinctly anti-immigrant.” **Police Oversight & Sentencing** Zapotsky and Horwitz write that questions about Sessions’s attitudes toward race and nationality have swirled around him since a Republican-led Senate committee in 1986 rejected his nomination by President Ronald Reagan for a federal judgeship, amid allegations of racism. In January, his confirmation hearing to become attorney general turned bitter when, for the first time, a sitting senator, [Cory Booker (D-N.J.)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Booker), testified against a colleague up for a Cabinet position. Booker said he did so because of Sessions’s record on civil rights. Sessions ultimately won confirmation on a 52-to-47 vote, and he moved quickly to make the Justice Department his own. Two months into the job, he told the department’s lawyers to review police oversight agreements nationwide, currying favor with officers who often resent the imposition of such pacts but upsetting those who think they are necessary to force change. Zapotsky and Horwitz also said that Sessions imposed a new charging and sentencing policy that critics on both sides of the aisle have said might disproportionately affect minority communities and hit low-level drug offenders with stiff sentences. “Allies of Sessions say the policy is driven not by racial animus but by a desire to respond to increasing crime,” write Zapotsky and Horwitz. “The [latest FBI crime data, for 2016](https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2016-crime-statistics-released), showed violent crimes were up 4.1 percent over the previous year and murders were up 8.6 percent — although crime remains at historically low levels. The [Bureau of Prisons](https://www.bop.gov/) projects that — because of increased enforcement and prosecution efforts — the inmate population will increase by about 2 percent in fiscal 2018, according to [a Justice Department inspector general report](https://oig.justice.gov/challenges/2017.pdf "oig.justice.gov").” Zapotsky and Horwitz wrote that [Larry Thompson, who served as deputy attorney general in the George W. Bush administration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Thompson) and is a friend of Sessions, said that although he disagrees with the attorney general’s charging policy, he believes Sessions was “motivated by his belief that taking these violent offenders off the streets is the right way to address the public safety issues.” **Civil Rights & Hate Crimes** According to Zapotsy and Horwitz, Sessions’s moves to empower prosecutors have led to a concerted focus on hate-crimes prosecutions — a point his defenders say undercuts the notion that he is not interested in protecting the rights of minorities or other groups. Prosecutors have brought several such cases since he became attorney general and recently sent an attorney to Iowa to help the state prosecute a man who was charged with killing a gender-fluid 16-year-old high school student last year. The man was [convicted of first-degree murder](http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2017/11/03/verdict-reached-kedarie-johnson-murder-trial/830354001/ "www.desmoinesregister.com"). But while civil rights leaders praised his action in that case, [Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the national Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law](https://lawyerscommittee.org/staff/kristen-clarke/), said that it “stands in stark contrast to his overall efforts” to roll back protections for transgender people. Shortly after he became attorney general, Sessions revoked federal guidelines put in place by the Obama administration that specified that transgender students have the right to use public school restrooms that match their gender identity. [In September, the Justice Department sided in a major upcoming Supreme Court case with a Colorado baker, Jack Phillips](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/in-major-supreme-court-case-justice-dept-sides-with-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple/2017/09/07/fb84f116-93f0-11e7-89fa-bb822a46da5b_story.html?utm_term=.c61eecd642fa), who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because he said it would violate his religious beliefs. [Sessions recently issued 20 principles of guidance to executive-branch agencies about how the government should respect religious freedom](https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1001891/download), including allowing religious employers to hire only those whose conduct is consistent with their beliefs. About the same time, he [reversed a three-year-old Justice Department policy that protected transgender people from workplace discrimination by private employers and state and local governments](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/trump-administration-asks-court-to-toss-out-challenge-to-military-transgender-ban/2017/10/05/3819aec4-a9d5-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.0bf888137a11). The Justice Department has similarly rolled back Obama administration positions in court cases over voting rights. In February, the department dropped its stance that Texas intended to discriminate when it passed its law on voter identification. And in August, it sided with Ohio in its effort to purge thousands of people from its rolls for not voting in recent elections — drawing complaints from civil liberties advocates. At a recent congressional hearing, Sessions said the department would “absolutely, resolutely defend the right of all Americans to vote, including our African American brothers and sisters.” According to Zapotsky and Horwitz, critics say that Sessions’ record shows otherwise. “We are seeing a federal government that is pulling back from protecting vulnerable communities in every respect,” Clarke said. “That appears to be the pattern that we are seeing with this administration — an unwillingness to use their enforcement powers in ways that can come to the defense of groups who are otherwise powerless and voiceless.” My opinion? Watching the actions of the feds – and especially the top federal prosecutor for the United States – gives us a litmus test which defines the shape of things to come on a more local level. The reason why it’s important to watch the movements of federal prosecutions is because they impress upon – and persuade – the priorities of state prosecutions. Let’s see what happens. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Immigration, law enforcement, Police Misconduct, Race & Law, Sentencing, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["Revenge Porn" Outlawed by the Feds?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/revenge-porn-outlawed-by-the-feds/) **Published:** November 29, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article186853453.html) by [Brian Murphy](https://muckrack.com/brian-murphy-11) and [Andrea Drusch](https://twitter.com/andreadrusch?lang=en) of [mcclatchydc.com](http://www.mcclatchydc.com/) discusses how congressional lawmakers are pushing to make “[revenge porn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenge_porn)” or “[sextortion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sextortion)” a federal crime. Tuesday, [Sens. Richard Burr](https://www.burr.senate.gov/), R-N.C., [Kamala Harris](https://www.harris.senate.gov/), D-Calif., and Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said they’d sponsor [the new legislation to make “revenge porn” a federal crime](https://www.harris.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/The%20ENOUGH%20Act.pdf) by passing a bill very similar to a bill introduced last year by [Rep. Jackie Speier](https://speier.house.gov/), D-Calif. Speier introduced the bill in the House again Tuesday. According to the article, [Rep. Joe Barton](https://joebarton.house.gov/), a Texas Republican who is sponsoring the bill, [said he shared a sexually explicit video and text messages with a woman](http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article186068468.html) he was seeing after he separated from his second wife. An image from that video of a naked Barton, now 68, appeared on the internet last week, [becoming the talk of his hometown](http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article186378928.html) and [spurring debate over criminal intent](http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article186230483.html). Barton apologized last week for the leaked video, saying he should have used better judgment. He also suggested he’d been the victim of the crime of revenge porn, which is illegal under Texas’s law, but not federal law. Barton sent the video to a woman who he saw over the span of several years. In a recorded phone conversation that the woman gave to the [Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/), Barton asked her not to use the video to hurt his career. She said she had no intention of doing so, but the video surfaced last week from an anonymous [Twitter](https://twitter.com/?lang=en) account. Barton took the incident to the [U.S. Capitol Police](https://www.uscp.gov/), but said last week he’d heard no word that an investigation had been opened. According to Murphy and Drusch’s article, [thirty-eight states and D.C. have laws](http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/revenge-porn-laws-by-state.html) against distributing “revenge porn.” The new federal legislation would make it “unlawful to knowingly distribute a private, visual depiction of an individual’s intimate parts or of an individual engaging in sexually explicit conduct, with reckless disregard for the individual’s lack of consent to the distribution, and for other purposes.” Murphy and Drusch wrote that North Carolina passed legislation outlawing “revenge porn” in 2015 and [updated the provision in 2017](http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article160773789.html). The state law makes it illegal to post nude photos online without the consent of the victim. [The FBI defines “sextortion”](https://www.fbi.gov/video-repository/newss-what-is-sextortion/view) as “when someone threatens to distribute your private and sensitive material if you don’t provide them images of a sexual nature, sexual favors, or money.” In short, the proposed federal legislation would establish federal criminal liability for people who share private, explicit images without consent. In order to prosecute someone under the proposed law, officials would have to prove the defendant was aware of a substantial risk that the victim expected the image would remain private and that sharing could cause harm to the victim. “Perpetrators of exploitation who seek to humiliate and shame their victims must be held accountable,” said Harris, the former attorney general of California who prosecuted operators of “revenge porn” sites. “It is long past time for the federal government to take action to give law enforcement the tools they need to crack down on these crimes.” The bill provides up to five years in prison and/or unspecified fines. My opinion? Washington State has already outlawed “revenge porn” as a Class C Felony under the “Disclosing Intimate Images” statute [RCW 9A.86.010](http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.86&full=true). Other states have also followed suit. It appears the feds are simply catching up. Immediately [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges for distributing suggestive content online. It’s imperative to find a competent criminal defense attorney who can possibly suppress the evidence and/or convince prosecutors and judges to reduce or dismiss these egregious charges. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Cyber Terrorism, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, felony, Legislation, Shaming, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [A Vehicle is a "Premises"](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/a-vehicle-is-a-premises/) **Published:** December 2, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Joseph](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/937109.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that a vehicle is a “premises” for the purpose of the second degree criminal trespass statute because a vehicle is a type of “building” and “premises” includes “any building.” **BACKGROUND FACTS** On October 4, 2014, police responded to a report of vehicle prowling. The responding officer found defendant Anthony Joseph asleep in an unlocked Chevy Blazer on a public street in Ellensburg. The officer recognized Joseph and knew that he was homeless. The officer contacted Joseph and told him to exit the vehicle. Initially, Joseph said that he had the owner’s permission; however, he then admitted he did not, and was arrested for vehicle prowling. The State filed charges of [third degree assault ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/)and [second degree vehicle prowling](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.52.100).’ The matter proceeded to a jury trial. The State sought [jury instructions](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_instructions) on first and second degree criminal trespass as [lesser included offenses](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lesser_included_offense) of the vehicle prowling charge. The trial court refused to instruct the jury on[ first degree trespass](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/criminal-trespass/), but instructed the jury on [second degree trespass](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/criminal-trespass/), over Joseph’s objection. The State asked the court to define the term “premises” used in the second degree criminal trespass statute, but did not submit a definitional instruction. The trial court did not define “premises,” but allowed the parties to argue whether this term included a motor vehicle. The jury acquitted Joseph of vehicle prowling, but found him guilty of second degree criminal trespass. Joseph appealed, and the[ Court of Appeals, Division Three](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) affirmed his conviction, holding that a motor vehicle constitutes premises for purposes of second degree criminal trespass. **ISSUE** Whether second degree criminal trespass is a lesser included offense of second degree vehicle prowling. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** “This case presents a challenging question of statutory interpretation because of the overlapping and intersecting definitions of ‘building’ and ‘premises’ in Title 9A RCW,” said the Court. It reasoned that although no definition of the word “building” is available in the criminal statutes, a definition of “building” is found in RCW 9A.04.110(5), which states the following: > “(5) ‘Building,’ in addition to its ordinary meaning, includes any dwelling, fenced area, ***vehicle***, railway car, cargo container, or any other structure used for lodging of persons or for carrying on business therein, or for the use, sale, or deposit of goods; each unit of a building consisting of two or more units separately secured or occupied is a separate building.” Next, the Court engaged a lengthy discussion about overlapping definitions of “premises” and “building” as they applied to legislative amendments to the criminal trespass statute and the Washington Pattern Jury Instructions. Also, the court said that the legislature plainly intended second degree criminal trespass to encompass trespass into any “building” as defined in the criminal code, RCW 9A.04.110(5), save for trespass into a building in its ordinary sense. “This interpretation properly restricts first degree trespass to unlawful entries into ordinary ‘buildings,’ a descriptor that needs no further definition,” said the Court. The more severe charge (a gross misdemeanor) is justified by the increased likelihood of trespass into a home or business. > “All other trespasses fall under the term “premises” and are treated as simple misdemeanors. RCW 9A.52.080. This includes trespasses into premises that are “buildings” broadly conceived, but are not ordinarily thought of as buildings—as relevant here, vehicles.” The Court reasoned that under this interpretation, the trial court properly instructed the jury on second degree criminal trespass as a lesser included offense of second degree vehicle prowling. “Because the evidence supports the jury’s verdict, we affirm Joseph’s conviction.” My opinion? Clearly, legal definitions can be broadly interpreted; sometimes to the point of absurdity. However, it is not unreasonable to accept the notion that vehicles can actually be a premises. Many impoverished people live and sleep in their vehicles. If a man’s home is his castle, and the castle is a vehicle, then the vehicle is his castle, no? Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Jury Trial, Lesser Included Jury Instruction, Property Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Vehicle Prowl, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Vacating Convictions](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/vacating-convictions/) **Published:** December 21, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Lambert](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/75424-6.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that when an offender has been convicted of an offense that is a crime against a person, the record of that conviction may not be vacated. Third degree statutory rape is a crime against a person. **BACKGROUND FACTS** In 1986, when Lambert was nineteen years old, he was charged with [third degree statutory rape](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.060). The charge was based on an incident involving a victim fifty-five months younger than Lambert. Lambert pleaded guilty as charged. Lambert was sentenced in May 1987. The law at that time said that the record of conviction for statutory rape could be vacated, in the trial court’s discretion, after the offender satisfied his sentence and completed five years after discharge without a new conviction. In July 1987, however, [the law concerning vacation of the record of conviction was amended](http://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/documents/sessionlaw/1987c486.pdf). Under the new law, statutory rape in the third degree was defined as a crime against persons that could not be vacated. [In 1988, the legislature enacted broad changes to the criminal code concerning sex offenses](http://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/documents/sessionlaw/1988c145.pdf). The sections defining statutory rape in each degree were replaced with provisions defining three degrees of rape of a child. “Rape of a child” replaced “statutory rape” in the list of crimes against persons that could not be vacated. In 2016, Lambert moved to vacate the record of his conviction. He argued that the 1988 amendments did *not* [apply retroactively](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/retroactive) and the trial court thus had discretion to vacate the record of conviction for his offense, third degree statutory rape. The trial court ruled that Lambert was “not eligible to have his conviction vacated because rape of a child third degree is a crime against a person.” Lambert appealed. **LEGAL ISSUE** Whether statutory rape in the third degree is a crime against a person that may not be vacated. **ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** “The legislature expressly designated statutory rape in the third degree, and that crime as it ‘may be renamed in the future,’ as a non-vacatable crime against a person,” reasoned the Court. “Rape of a child in the third degree criminalizes the same essential conduct as third degree statutory rape: engaging in sexual intercourse with a person between fourteen and sixteen years of age.” The court further reasoned that the offenses differ in replacing the requirement that the offender be at least eighteen years old with the requirement that the offender be at least forty eight months older than the victim. Rape of a child is expressly defined as a crime against persons. “It appears that the 1988 amendments renamed statutory rape and retained the prohibition on vacating the record of conviction for that offense,” said the Court. > “We conclude that where, as here, an offender was convicted of statutory rape, and the facts proved establish each element of that offense as amended and renamed, the prohibition on vacating the record of conviction remains in effect.” Finally, the Court said Lambert had no vested right to vacate the conviction because he failed to satisfy all statutory conditions for vacating his sentence before the change in law took place. My opinion? It’s important to seek qualified, competent legal representation when trying to vacate prior criminal convictions. It’s not abundantly clear that prior crimes against others cannot be vacated under the law. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member need advice on vacating criminal convictions. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Legislation, Rape, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Statutory Interpretation, Vacating Convictions, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Wine Glass Sizes Are Increasing](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/wine-glass-sizes-are-increasing/) **Published:** December 21, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** An article by [Rebecca Smithers ](https://www.theguardian.com/profile/rebeccasmithers)of the Guardian reports that scientists at the [University of Cambridge](https://www.theguardian.com/education/cambridgeuniversity) have found that the capacity of wine glasses has ballooned nearly seven-fold over the past 300 years, rising most sharply in the last two decades in line with a surge in wine consumption. [Wine](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wine) glasses have swelled in size from an average capacity of 66ml in the early 1700s to 449ml today, the study reveals – a change that may have encouraged us to drink far more than is healthy. Indeed, a typical wine glass 300 years ago would only have held about a half of today’s smallest “official” measure of 125ml. Smithers reports that the university’s behaviour and health research unit quizzed antique experts and examined 18th-century glasses held at the [Ashmolean museum in Oxford](https://www.theguardian.com/culture/ashmolean-museum), glassware used at [Buckingham Palace](https://www.royal.uk/royal-residences-buckingham-palace), and more recent glasses in [John Lewis catalogues](https://www.johnlewis.com/request-a-catalogue). The evidence was clear: the newer glasses were bigger. [The study, published on Wednesday](http://www.bmj.com/cgi/doi/10.1136/bmj.j5623) in the [BMJ](http://www.bmj.com/), measured wine glass capacity from 1700 to the present day to help understand whether any changes in their size might have contributed to the rise in wine consumption. “Wine will no doubt be a feature of some merry Christmas nights, but when it comes to how much we drink, wine glass size probably does matter,” said [Prof Theresa Marteau](http://www.phpc.cam.ac.uk/people/pcu-group/pcu-senior-academic-staff/theresa-marteau/), director of the [Behaviour and Health Research Unit at the University of Cambridge](http://www.bhru.iph.cam.ac.uk/), who led the research. In 2016, Marteau and her colleagues [carried out an experiment at the Pint Shop in Cambridge](http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/larger-wine-glasses-may-lead-people-to-drink-more), altering the size of wine glasses while keeping the serving sizes the same. They found this led to an almost 10% increase in sales. Smithers reports that for the new study, the researchers obtained measurements of 411 glasses from 1700 to the modern day. They found wine glass capacity increased from 66ml in the 1700s to 417ml in the 2000s, with the mean wine glass size in 2016-17 even higher at 449ml. “Wine glasses became a common receptacle from which wine was drunk around 1700,” says author [Dr. Zorana Zupan](http://www.phpc.cam.ac.uk/people/pcu-group/researchers/zorana-zupan/). “This followed the development of lead crystal glassware by George Ravenscroft in the late 17th century, which led to the manufacture of less fragile and larger glasses than was previously possible.” The study points out that[ alcohol ](https://www.theguardian.com/society/alcohol)is the fifth largest risk factor for premature mortality and disability in high income countries. In England, the type of alcohol and volume consumed has fluctuated over the last 300 years, in response to economic, legislative and social factors. Significantly, wine consumption increased almost fourfold between 1960 and 1980, and almost doubled again between 1980 and 2004, a trend attributed to better marketing and licensing liberalisation which allowed supermarkets to compete in the lucrative drinks retail business. “Our findings suggest that the capacity of wine glasses in England increased significantly over the past 300 years,” added Zupan. > “Since the 1990s, the size has increased rapidly. Whether this led to the rise in wine consumption in England, we can’t say for certain, but a wine glass 300 years ago would only have held about a half of today’s small measure.” The strength of wine sold in the UK has also increased since the 1990s, adding to the amount of pure alcohol being consumed by wine drinkers. In England, wine is increasingly served in pubs and bars in 250ml servings, with smaller measures of 125ml often absent from wine lists or menus despite a regulatory requirement that licensees make customers aware of them. [The Wine and Spirits Trade Association ](http://www.wsta.co.uk/)said sociological trends were probably part of the reason for the growing wine glasses. “The size of a wine glass reflects the trend and fashions of the time and is often larger for practical reasons” said the [WSTA chief executive Miles Beale](http://www.wsta.co.uk/staff-members/37). “Red wine, for example, is served in a larger glass to allow it to breathe, something which perhaps wasn’t a priority 300 years ago.” Drink responsibly. If, however, your family or friends are charged with [DUI](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.502) or face any other alcohol-related charges, then [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) and schedule a free consultation. You need effective and competent representation before the judge, prosecutors and the [Department of Licensing](http://www.dol.wa.gov/). ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, DUI, misdemeanor, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Domestic Violence & Cell Phone Privacy](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/domestic-violence-cell-phone-privacy/) **Published:** December 23, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Smith](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/939233.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that the accidental recording of a domestic violence confrontation between the defendant and his wife was admissible at trial and did not violate the defendant’s rights under the [Washington Privacy Act](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.73). **BACKGROUND FACTS** John Garrett Smith and Sheryl Smith were married in 2011. On the evening of June 2, 2013, the Smiths engaged in an argument at their home that turned violent. During the incident, Mr. Smith used the home’s landline cordless phone to dial his cell phone in an attempt to locate the cell phone. The cell phone’s voice mail system recorded the incident because Mr. Smith left the landline open during his attempt to find his cell phone. This voice mail contained sounds of a woman screaming, a male claiming the woman brought the assault on herself, more screams from the female and name calling by the male. Mr. Smith punched and strangled Mrs. Smith to the point of unconsciousness and then left their home. When Mrs. Smith regained consciousness, her eyes were black and swollen shut, her face was swollen and bleeding, and she had difficulty breathing.’ Mrs. Smith was hospitalized for several days due to the severity of her injuries, which included a facial fracture and a concussion. For months after the assault, she suffered severe head pain, double vision, nausea, and vertigo. The State charged Mr. Smith with [attempted first degree murder](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/), [attempted second degree murder](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/), [first degree assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/), and [second degree assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) for the incident. *The Motion to Suppress & Trial* Prior to trial, Mr. Smith filed a [motion to suppress](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) the audio recording found on his cell phone that captured part of the incident, including him threatening to kill his wife. Mr. Smith argued that Ms. Williams had unlawfully intercepted the recording pursuant to the Washington Privacy Act, when she listened to the voice message left on his phone. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, ruling that Ms. Williams’s conduct did not constitute an interception. The court also ruled that Washington’s Privacy Act, which prohibits the recording of private conversations without consent, did not apply because the information was accidentally recorded. The case proceeded to a bench trial. The trial court found Mr. Smith guilty of attempted second degree murder, second degree assault, and the related special allegations of domestic violence, but acquitted him of the remaining counts and the aggravator. Mr. Smith was sentenced to a standard range sentence of 144 months. *The Appeal* He appealed, and his appellate argument focused on the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress. Smith continued to assert that the recording was unlawfully admitted because Ms. Williams had unlawfully intercepted it. The Court of Appeals reversed Mr. Smith’s conviction for attempted second degree murder, holding that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress the recording of the incident because **(1)** the recording was of a “private conversation” and **(2)** Mr. Smith had unlawfully recorded the “private conversation,” despite the fact that the recording was made inadvertently. The Court of Appeals rejected Mr. Smith’s assertion that Ms. Williams had unlawfully intercepted the conversation, and decided the case on a different issue, that is, whether Mr. Smith’s actions violated the privacy act. The State sought review on the issue of how the privacy act is to be properly applied in this case. **ISSUE** Whether the voice mail recording is admissible in Mr. Smith’s criminal prosecution. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The WA Supreme Court reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstated Mr. Smith’s attempted second degree murder conviction. The Court reasoned that accidental, inadvertent recording on a cell phone voice mail of a domestic violence assault did not contain a “conversation” within the meaning of the privacy act, where the recorded verbal exchange consisted mostly of sounds of a woman screaming, a male claiming the woman brought the assault on herself, more screams from the female, name calling by the male, and the man stating he will kill the woman when she told him to get away. Furthermore, the owner of the cell phone was deemed to have consented to the voice mail recording due to his familiarity with that function. The lead opinion was authored by [Justice Madsen](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=madsen) and signed by Justices [Wiggins](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=wiggins), [Johnson](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=johnson) and [Owens](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=owens). Justice [González](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=gonzalez) concurred in the result on the grounds that the defendant cannot invade his own privacy and cannot object about a recording he made being used against himself. [Justice Gordon McCloud](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=gordon_mccloud) authored a separate concurring opinion, which was signed by Justices [Stephens](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=stephens), [Yu](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=Yu), and [Fairhurst](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=fairhurst), in which she stated that the verbal exchange on the recording constitutes a “private” conversation which was solely admissible pursuant to statute. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Domestic Violence, Privacy, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, Violent Crime, Washington Privacy Act, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [I-940 & Police Misconduct](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/i-940-police-misconduct/) **Published:** December 28, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Wonderful [article](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/thousands-of-i-940-signatures-say-its-time-to-review-prosecuting-police-for-deadly-shootings-in-washington-state/) by [Joseph O’Sullivan](https://www.seattletimes.com/author/joseph-osullivan/) of the [Seattle Times](https://www.seattletimes.com/) reports that [Initiative 940 (I-940)](http://www.deescalatewa.org/about_us) gives an opportunity to prosecute police for deadly shootings in Washington state. With Thursday’s expected delivery of signatures for Initiative 940, years of debate and stalemate over Washington’s deadly-force law look to be coming to a head. If I-940 qualifies, state lawmakers — and probably ultimately voters — will face big decisions on a charged issue. ***De-Escalate Washington*** [De-Escalate Washington](http://www.deescalatewa.org/) didn’t just pull together the bare-bones 260,000 signatures for I-940, which [would make it easier to prosecute law-enforcement officers](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/proposed-deadly-force-initiative-seeks-more-training-new-standard-for-prosecuting-police/) for alleged misuse of deadly force. The group hopes to turn in about 360,000 signatures Thursday to the Washington Secretary of State’s office, according to Leslie Cushman, the group’s policy director. In his article, O’Sullivan reports that community advocates have argued Washington’s law — considered the nation’s most restrictive for holding officers accountable for unjustified use of deadly force — is overdue for a change. Right now, an officer can’t be convicted of a crime for using deadly force if he or she acted in good faith and without malice, or what the law calls “evil intent.” That makes it nearly impossible for prosecutors to bring criminal charges even if they find an officer committed a wrongful killing, [according to a 2015 report](https://projects.seattletimes.com/2015/killed-by-police/) by The Seattle Times. [I-940 would change the law](https://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_1372.pdf) to a more detailed, multipart threshold that considers what a “reasonable officer” might have done under the circumstances. It would also take into account an officer’s intentions to determine if she or he acted in good faith. The initiative also requires more de-escalation and mental-health training for law- enforcement officers. O’Sullivan also writes that the effort comes on the heels of high-profile shootings including the deaths in Seattle of [Che Taylor](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/jurors-find-che-taylor-posed-threat-to-seattle-police-before-he-was-fatally-shot/) and [Charleena Lyles ](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/seattle-police-review-finds-fatal-shooting-of-charleena-lyles-was-within-department-policy/)by white officers of African Americans and other minorities in recent years have underscored concerns about law enforcement. Family members of several victims of police shootings have been involved in the campaign, including Che’s brother Andrè, who chairs [De-Escalate Washington](http://www.deescalatewa.org/). ***Law Enforcement Response to I-940*** O’Sullivan reports that law-enforcement groups have protested changes to the deadly-force statute. They say the new legal standard could prompt officers to hesitate in ways that could endanger themselves and others. “Unfortunately, this initiative will not do anything to reduce violent interactions between law enforcement and the public,” said [Teresa Taylor](http://www.wacops.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48:executive-board---staff&catid=20:site-content&Itemid=138), executive director for the [Washington Council of Police & Sheriffs](http://www.wacops.org/), which represents more than 4,300 law- enforcement officers. However, success in the legislative session that begins in January appears unlikely. Lawmakers this year [couldn’t find a compromise](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/police-shooting-sparks-new-effort-to-change-washingtons-deadly-force-law/) that satisfied both law enforcement and community activists. My opinion? I-940 is a step in the right direction. And it’s about time. Police misconduct is a hot-button issue. Granted, being a police officer is a very difficult job. Officers make difficult judgment calls in very complex, risky and dangerous situations. That said, officers need training on diffusing situations which don’t necessarily rise to public safety and/or officer safety risks. I-940 is not made to put police in jail for doing their jobs. It’s made to foster public trust, train officers in de-esclating their contacts with citizens and avoid unnecessary shooting deaths. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Deadly Force, I-940, law enforcement, Legislation, police, Police Militarization, Police Misconduct, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Prosecutors Use Body Camera Evidence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/prosecutors-use-body-camera-evidence/) **Published:** December 28, 2017 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Interesting [feature](https://www.npr.org/2017/12/24/573275449/in-practice-police-accountability-is-not-the-main-function-of-body-cameras?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social) from [Martin Kaste,](https://www.npr.org/people/2100722/martin-kaste) a correspondent for [NPR](http://www.npr.org) who covers law enforcement and privacy issues. In this feature, he discusses how police body cameras are becoming key tools for prosecutors. This year, police body cameras made the transition from experimental tech to standard equipment. Sales exploded after the [2014 Ferguson protests](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_unrest) as police departments scrambled to refute claims of abuse. Now the cameras have become routine, but they’re not making a significant dent in the number of people shot and killed by police. In this feauture from [Weekend Edition Sunday](https://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-sunday/2017/12/24/573275415/weekend-edition-sunday-for-december-24-2017), Kaste described how body cameras have become a standard piece of equipment for the criminal justice system. “Prosecutors now use them far more often than – for police accountability, prosecutors are using it to make cases against defendants, against members of the public who are charged with crimes,” said Kaste. He also described how a [survey last year conducted by George Mason University](http://cebcp.org/wp-content/technology/BWCProsecutors.pdf) showed that prosecutors were far more likely to have used video to prosecute a member of the public than to use the video to prosecute a police officer. “What we have really is technology that quickly became sort of required for prosecution in general,” said Mr. Kaste. “Juries now expect it, and the police in the field kind of feel the pressure to get video of themselves finding evidence.” Kaste answered questions on whether citizens can use body camera video to support their own claims of police abuse. “There’s no national standard on that, and that’s becoming more and more of a bone of contention,” he said. “In a lot of places, it’s considered a public record and you can request it. But a lot of cases, you don’t get to see the video because the case is under investigation, and that kind of puts it in limbo. Or, in places like California, Police departments have cited officer privacy. They kind of almost view it as a personnel record or something, and it takes a lot to get the video out,” said Mr. Kaste. > ” . . . it’s gotten to the point where at least one academic I talked to this year said we should rethink the whole system and start giving the video to a third party to control, not to the police department.” My opinion? Ultimately body-worn cameras (BWC’s) are a good thing. They provide non-objective evidence of *what really happened* instead of forcing us to rely on people’s stories. However, I agree with Mr. Kaste in his argument that obtaining the video is oftentimes difficult. It makes no sense that BWC evidence is released by the very same police departments that it’s made to scrutinize. This is the fox guarding the hen house. Consequently, attorneys must be incredibly careful, diligent and consistent on arguing public disclosure requests and motions to obtain pretrial discovery of this evidence. [Contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member faces criminal charges involving BWC evidence. Although it might work in a defendant’s favor, the [evidence can be suppressed](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) if it’s [unfairly prejudicial against defendants under the rules of evidence](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_403). ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Body camera, Constitutional Rights, Evidence, Fourth Amendment, law enforcement, police, Police Misconduct, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Glaring During Trial](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/glaring-during-trial/) **Published:** January 5, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Sage*, ](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/752791.pdf)the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial based upon the victim’s behavior – glaring at the defendant – when called to the stand. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Jonathan Sage faced four counts of [second degree rape of a child](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/). He was alleged to have engaged in sexual acts with minors J.M. and E.M., and came into contact with the two brothers because he owned a company at which J.M. and E.M.’s mother worked. The case proceeded to trial. During proceedings, the victim E.M. glared at Sage as he entered the courtroom. Sage’s defense attorney objected and requested an immediate mistrial. He described the interaction as follows: > “E.M. walked past defense counsel and hissed at the Defendant, bent down, and made an aggressive stare. As best as I could tell, the jurors looked horrified. Their reaction is clear that the stance or that moment is going to live in their minds as opposed to what he > testifies to. My client has a right to a fair trial, to be presumed innocent, and I don’t know that he can get a fair trial with this jury after that behavior.” Although the trial judge sustained defense counsel’s objection, the court denied the [motion for mistrial](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mistrial) and instructed the jury to disregard E.M.’s behavior. The jury convicted Sage on all four counts and, by [special verdict](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/special_verdict), found the alleged [aggravating circumstances](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/aggravating_circumstances) had been established. The court concluded the aggravating circumstances were substantial and compelling reasons to impose an [exceptional sentence](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.535). Sage appealed his conviction and his exceptional sentence under the argument that his motion for a mistrial should have been granted because E.M.’s courtroom behavior prejudiced the jury. **COURT’S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals reasoned that a trial court should only grant a mistrial when the defendant has been so prejudiced that nothing short of a new trial can ensure that the defendant will be fairly tried. To determine the effect of the irregularity leading to the request for a mistrial, the court examines: **(i)** its seriousness; **(ii)** whether it involved cumulative evidence; and **(iii)** whether the trial court properly instructed the jury to disregard it. “Here, E.M. entered the courtroom and glared at Sage,” said the Court of Appeals. “The trial court denied Sage’s motion for mistrial and entered a detailed ruling on the record. Unlike a verbal outburst or threatening gesture, E.M. glared at Sage. The court gave a curative instruction. E.M. did not repeat the behavior after the trial court instructed the jury to disregard the behavior,” said the Court of Appeals. “We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion.” Also, the Court of Appeals upheld Sage’s exceptional sentence based on aggravating factors. With that, the Court upheld Sage’s conviction and exceptional sentence. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, ER 404(B), Exceptional Sentencing, Rape, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Bla Bla Bla](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/bla-bla-bla/) **Published:** January 11, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Boyd](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/749331.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that a prosecutor improperly disrespects defense counsel by using “bla, bla, bla” to describe opposing counsel’s argument. This phrase is both disrespectful and dismissive. **BACKGROUND FACTS** In February 1998, when he was 23 years old, Jayson Boyd had sex with a 15 year old. In 1999, he pleaded guilty to [rape of a child in the third degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/). He was required to register as a sex offender under [RCW 9A.44.130](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.130) and [RCW 9A.44.140](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.140). Since his conviction in 1999, Boyd has been convicted of [failure to register as a sex offender](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.132) three times. Boyd is homeless, has a ninth or tenth grade education, and is mentally ill. At the time of his crime in 1998, homeless sex offenders were not required to register as sex offenders because they did not have addresses. The legislature subsequently amended the statute to require homeless sex offenders who lacked a fixed address to update the county sheriff weekly, in person, of their whereabouts. Boyd largely complied with the registration requirement but pleaded guilty to crimes of failure to register in 2009, 2010, and 2013. In March 2015, the State charged Boyd with failure to register as a sex offender between January 27, 2015 and February 10, 2015. The court ordered a [competency evaluation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competency_evaluation_(law)) after Boyd rambled incoherently during a pretrial hearing. A month later, after Boyd was found competent to stand trial, the court held another hearing. At that hearing, the court issued a scheduling order, which Boyd signed, setting the next hearing date for November 6, 2015. While explaining the order to Boyd, however, the court misspoke—it told Boyd that he needed to appear on December 6, 2015. After Boyd failed to appear on November 6, 2015, the Prosecutor added a charge for bail jumping. During closing arguments, the Prosecutor appeared to have given a mocking and deragatory tone. After the jury retired to deliberate, Boyd’s defense attorney moved for a [mistrial](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mistrial) based on [prosecutorial misconduct](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutorial_misconduct): > “During the prosecutor’s first closing argument, it was normal in tone, very even and level. And the rebuttal closing argument after I had given my closing, she started out and then repeatedly throughout that closing argument, either pretending she was me or Mr. Boyd, but was kind of in a sing-song tone, a complaining child-like type tone of voice when mentioning the barriers that my client faces as a homeless person and saying “bla, bla, bla,” and this was something that was repeated throughout the closing argument. And so I’d be making a motion for a mistrial based on—based on the prosecutor’s tone of > voice during the closing argument.” The trial court denied the motion, explaining: “I did not hear what I consider to be a mocking or derogatory tone.” While the trial court agreed that the prosecutor used a different tone than her normal speech tone, it concluded that “having listened to many, many, many closing arguments, there was nothing in the tone that I heard that was derogatory or mocking or anything that grabbed my attention as being out of line, inappropriate or unprofessional.” Boyd was convicted by a jury as charged and sentenced to 45 months in prison. **THE APPEAL** On appeal, one of the issues was whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Boyd’s motion for a mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct. **COURT’S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals said that the inquiry on prosecutorial misconduct consists of two prongs: **(1)** whether the prosecutor’s comments were improper and **(2)** if so, whether the improper comments caused prejudice. To show prejudice, the defendant must show a substantial likelihood that the prosecutor’s statements affected the jury’s verdict. The defendant bears the burden of showing that the comments were improper or prejudicial. Here, the prosecutor’s references to Boyd’s “barriers” and chaotic life are not improper remarks about his homelessness, poverty, or mental illness because they rebut the very defense advanced by Boyd’s counsel—that complying with the law was “too much” for him because of his “barriers.” But we find that the prosecutor impugned defense counsel by stating “And again, Boyd’s Defense Counsel talks about chaos in his life, barriers, bla, bla, bla. No evidence of that.” > “Using ‘bla, bla, bla’ to refer to an opposing counsel’s argument is both disrespectful and dismissive. Although the statement does not imply deception or dishonesty like ‘crock,’ it implies that the arguments are unworthy of consideration and may be dismissed offhand. We find the statement was improper.” Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals was not convinced that the Prosecutor’s statements during trial affected the jury’s verdict. “The court did not abuse its discretion by denying Boyd’s motion for a mistrial,” said the Court, and upheld Boyd’s conviction and sentence. **THE DISSENT** [Justice Becker’s](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/bios/?fa=atc_bios.display&folderid=div1&fileID=becker) dissent focused on how poverty issues negatively impact justice as homelessness applies to offenders who have a duty to register: > “Our (failure to register) statute has grown steadily harsher, especially as applied to homeless offenders. I believe it is time to reconsider the ex post facto analysis of the statute in light of the changes since [*State v. Ward*](https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/1994/59542-9-1.html). I would join the jurisdictions holding that frequent in-person reporting requirements render a registration statute so punitive that applying it retroactively violates the constitution. I would reverse Boyd’s conviction and remand for dismissal with prejudice.” My opinion? “Bl bla bla” issues aside, I agree with the dissenting Justice Becker when she says that frequent in-person reporting requirements render a registration statute so punitive that applying it retroactively violates the constitution. Being homeless is difficult enough by itself. Requiring homeless people to register under Washington’s rigorous “Duty to Register” statute is incredibly difficult, if not nearly impossible, for homeless people to follow and obey. As a a result, the law unequally punishes sex offenders for *being homeless*. That’s simply not fair. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Rape, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [WA Death Penalty To End?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/wa-death-penalty-to-end/) **Published:** January 11, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article193965314.html) reporter Max Wasserman of the [News Tribune](http://www.thenewstribune.com/) reports that lawmakers are optimistic that 2018 may bring the end of [Washington’s death penalty](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=10.95), following changes in senate leadership and years of stalled attempts in the state Legislature. Wasserman reports that under current state law, individuals found guilty of aggravated first-degree murder can be [put to death by hanging](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanging) or [lethal injection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection). The [latest bill](http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1935&Year=2017) would replace that sentence with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Should it pass, Washington would a list of other states that have eliminated capital punishment in recent decades. Wasserman also reports that the new chair on the committee overseeing the bill,[ state Sen. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle](http://sdc.wastateleg.org/pedersen/), expects the current push to abolish the death penalty to make it through the senate and possibly to the governor’s desk — the farthest any related bill would have made it in five years. “The stars may be aligning now for support of doing away with the death penalty,” Pedersen said. Washington’s death penalty has been seldom used in recent years. In 2014, [Washington Gov. Jay Inslee](https://www.governor.wa.gov/) placed a [moratorium on capital punishment](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/washington-governor-jay-inslee-suspends-death-penalty.html), suspending the practice for as long as he’s in office. The state’s last execution occurred in 2010 when Cal Coburn Brown, convicted for the 1991 rape and murder of 21 year-old Holly Washa, was put to death by lethal injection. Despite its lack of use, the death penalty remains on the books in Washington. Attempts to match the governor’s position in the legislature have stalled in the past five decades, despite widespread support among lawmakers for abolishing it. Wasserman reports that some place blame with prior leadership of the senate’s Law and Justice Committee. [Sen. Mike Padden, R-Spokane Valley](http://mikepadden.src.wastateleg.org/), who has been replaced by Pedersen as chairman of that committee, would not grant past death-penalty bills a hearing. “I don’t anticipate I’ll be supporting the bill,” Padden said this week. “Some crimes are so heinous and so brutal that I think the death penalty is appropriate” Padden pointed out that capital punishment also has been used as a negotiating tool against some of the state’s most egregious offenders, including serial killer Gary Ridgway. Ridgway — also known as the Green River killer — agreed to tell prosecutors the whereabouts of victims in exchange for the death penalty being taken off the table in his case. Apparently, the state’s prosecutors are split on whether to abolish the death penalty. “The death penalty is a question with profound moral implications, certainly worthy of wide discussion,” [Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney Mark Lindquist](https://www.co.pierce.wa.us/3560/Meet-Mark-Lindquist) said. “That discussion should not be limited to legislative debate in Olympia, but instead should be the subject of civic dialogue around the entire state.” [Tom McBride](http://www.waprosecutors.org/staff/TOM.HTML), the executive director of the [Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys](http://70.89.120.146/wapa/index.html), defended the death penalty while leaving the door open for future reform. “The constitutionality and evenhanded imposition of the death penalty in Washington State are issues that we will defend; but the costs, timely imposition and ultimate appropriateness of death for aggravated murder is certainly open to debate,” McBride told The News Tribune via email. **CRITICS OF THE DEATH PENALTY** Wasserman reports that critics of the death penalty have long scrutinized the practice as a high-stakes arm of an imperfect justice system that can — and has — executed innocent people. More than 150 people nationwide have been exonerated from death row since 1973, according to data from the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (NCADP). One of those cases occurred in Washington. Benjamin Harris was sentenced to death in 1986 for the murder of Jimmie Lee Turner, a Tacoma auto mechanic, only to have the charges dropped on appeal 11 years later. Inadequate defense counsel may have led to Harris’ initial conviction, a point [NCADP](http://www.ncadp.org/pages/contact) program director Toni Perry believes is emblematic of wealth disparities in capital sentencing. “Minorities, persons with diminished capacities who can’t defend themselves, who can’t get a good attorney — it’s arbitrary. There are no rich people on death row,” Perry said. The death penalty also comes with fiscal baggage. Largely due to legal fees in the appeal process, the death penalty costs an average $1 million more per case than life imprisonment in Washington, according to a [2015 Seattle University study of state convictions](https://www.seattleu.edu/artsci/departments/criminal/center-for-the-study-of-crime-and-justice/death-penalty-cost-study/). For these reasons, [Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson](http://www.atg.wa.gov/about-bob-ferguson) called upon the Legislature to do away with the practice last year. Five states — New Jersey, New Mexico, Illinois, Connecticut and Maryland — have since 2007 passed legislation to eliminate their death penalty. “There is no role for capital punishment in a fair, equitable and humane justice system,” Ferguson, who requested this year’s bill, said in 2017 press release. “Whether new leadership and a Democratic majority will be enough to achieve the goal one year later remains to be seen,” reports Wasserman. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Death Penalty, felony, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Uncategorized, Violent Crime, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Driverless Cars for Crime?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/driverless-cars-for-crime/) **Published:** January 12, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Informative [article](http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/national-security/article193616539.html) by [Tim Johnson](https://muckrack.com/tim-johnson) of [McClatchy DC Bureau](http://www.mcclatchydc.com/) reports that driverless cars could potentially be used by criminals, hackers and terrorists who want to employ them for mayhem and criminal purposes. “Self-driving cars may enable new crimes that we can’t even imagine today,” said [Patrick Lin](https://philosophy.calpoly.edu/faculty/patrick-lin), director of the [Ethics + Emerging Sciences Group ](http://ethics.calpoly.edu/)at [California Polytechnic University](https://www.calpoly.edu/). Johnson reports that the manufacture of self-driving cars is already underway among major automakers and [Silicon Valley tech giants](http://www.vocativ.com/326494/the-best-tech-giants-to-work-for-in-silicon-valley/index.html), and a handful of current models allow limited hands-free driving and even park themselves. Before long, experts say, totally autonomous vehicles will hit the roads, starting with taxis and fleet delivery vehicles. The clearly visible potential danger, Lin and others say, focuses on vulnerability to hackers who could turn driverless autos into vehicles for mayhem if not into weapons themselves. **CAN ELECTRONIC CARS BE “TAMPER-PROOF?”** Lots of questions remain over whether the electronic systems of self-driving vehicles can be made tamperproof, and if humans aboard will be able to override if systems go haywire. Some engineers say glitches are common and adoption is likely to be gradual. “Most people don’t understand how easy it is to hack into a driverless car, and then basically steer it off course,” said [Dr. Mary Cummings](http://mems.duke.edu/faculty/mary-cummings), a former Navy fighter pilot who heads the [Humans and Autonomy Laboratory at Duke University’s Pratt School of Engineering](https://hal.pratt.duke.edu/). Cummings said she views hackers as a greater threat than criminals or terrorists when it comes to autonomous vehicles. “There’s no way I’d put my kid in a driverless car right now,” Cummings said. **THE FBI’s CONCERNS** Johnson reports that the [FBI](https://www.fbi.gov/), in an unclassified report [obtained by The Guardian in 2014](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/16/google-fbi-driverless-cars-leathal-weapons-autonomous), voiced concerned about how “game changing” autonomous cars may become for criminals, hackers and terrorists, turning the vehicles into more potentially lethal weapons than they are today. An FBI spokesperson did not immediately respond to a query about the impact of autonomous cars on law enforcement. “The FBI is already worried about robo-getaway drivers, which frees up a suspect to shoot back,” Lin said. “Criminals might be able to make a better escape, if a road full of self-driving cars will always move out of the way when you threaten a collision.” Criminals might commandeer self-driving vehicles and trap passengers inside until they pay a ransom, Lin said, or use camera-equipped models to case robbery locations over longer periods since the cars don’t need to eat or sleep. They can ditch accomplice drivers, who often have loose lips, as they conduct crimes. Society still has to decide how much invasive technology it will permit in self-driving cars in the name of safety, experts said. Should they contain sensors to detect explosives or narcotics to halt terrorism and crime? Cameras to record what happens inside the vehicles? “If law enforcement pulls over an empty self-driving car that’s carrying contraband, they can likely track down the user,” Lin said. “Cars aren’t as disposable as burner phones.” **HACKERS & TERRORISTS** Johnson reports that fears that hackers or terrorists could commandeer vehicles captivate the common imagination, fueled by Hollywood. Last year’s hit [“The Fate of the Furious,”](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwMKRevYa_M) which tallied $1.1 billion in box office earnings, portrayed elite hackers guiding hundreds of cars speeding down [New York’s Seventh Avenue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Avenue_(Manhattan)), turning them into battering rams. A less cinematic scenario, experts say, is that terrorists might use only one or two autonomous vehicles in an attack, perhaps blocking a tunnel leading into a metropolis to divert attention from a pending attack elsewhere in the city. Terrorists might seek to program autonomous vehicles to carry out attacks far in the future, with explosives or as a weapon to plow into crowds. “Can I instruct a car to do something a year in advance? What if I’ve been dead for most of that year?” asked [Martin C. Libicki](https://www.rand.org/about/people/l/libicki_martin_c.html), an information technology and national security expert. Such fears tend to eclipse consideration of how self-driving vehicles are bound to lead to a steady, dramatic drop in traffic fatalities. In 2016, [37,461 people](file:///Users/tjohnson/Downloads/2016%20Quick%20Facts.pdf) died in traffic accidents. “All of these things are evaluated through a political filter. Nobody writes headlines about the person who didn’t die in an auto accident. Everybody will write headlines about the person who died because of a self-driving car,” Libicki said. The vast majority of fatalities are caused by drivers who are distracted, drunk, not wearing seat belts, sleepy or otherwise not paying full attention. “Ninety-four percent of all crashes have an element of human error. We’re talking about enormously significant numbers,” said [David Strickland](http://www.selfdrivingcoalition.org/about/david-strickland), counsel for the [Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets](http://www.selfdrivingcoalition.org/about), a group representing companies like Ford, Uber, Lyft and Volvo developing autonomous vehicles. “This is going to sound cold hearted,” began [Arthur Rizer](https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/people/arthur-rizer), director of criminal justice at [R Street Institute](http://www.rstreet.org/), a conservative think tank in Washington, but the terrorist danger from autonomous vehicles “is minute compared to the lives that we will save just from reducing traffic accidents.” Rizer said police departments across the country might face a drop in income as traffic fines and tickets decrease. Self-driving vehicles will be programmed to obey traffic laws. Traffic tickets cost drivers an average of $150. “Revenue will plummet. Also, court revenues will plummet because courts make a lot of their money off of fees,” said Rizer, a former police officer and Justice Department prosecutor. Rizer said reducing the focus of police on traffic violations will certainly be part of a changing landscape for police forces brought about by autonomous vehicles. But he said police, too, will be freed somewhat from traffic patrols. Yet to be seen is whether law enforcement will be empowered with remote [“kill switches”](http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/how-to/a9212/thwart-car-thieves-with-a-hidden-kill-switch-15699546/) for officers to use if they deem a self-driving vehicle to be operating suspiciously. Lin concurred that as resources shift, police tactics will also need to shift. “The police will no longer have a pretext for stopping a car if the vehicle never speeds, never drives recklessly, and so on,” Lin said. “Resources for highway patrols could be shifted to more targeted operations, if fewer traffic cops are needed.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, Uncategorized, Vehicular Assault, Vehicular Homicide, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Black & Undocumented](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/black-undocumented/) **Published:** January 13, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/the-double-punishment-for-black-immigrants/549425/?utm_source=twb) by [Jeremy Raff](https://www.theatlantic.com/author/jeremy-raff/) of [the Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/) claims that although only 7 percent of non-citizens in the U.S. are black, they make up 20 percent of those facing deportation on criminal grounds. The reason for higher deportation rates? Research suggests that because black people in the United States are more likely to be[ stopped, arrested](https://openpolicing.stanford.edu/findings/), and[ incarcerated](http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Black-Lives-Matter.pdf), black immigrants may be disproportionately vulnerable to deportation. According to Raff, more than half a million black unauthorized immigrants in the United States—[about 575,000](http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/04/09/a-rising-share-of-the-u-s-black-population-is-foreign-born/) as of 2013. Last week,[ *The New York Times* reported](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/23/us/politics/trump-immigration.html) that the presence of immigrants from Haiti and Nigeria, who together represent roughly [20 percent ](http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/04/09/a-rising-share-of-the-u-s-black-population-is-foreign-born/)of the foreign-born black population, vexed [President Trump](https://www.whitehouse.gov/people/donald-j-trump/). [The Haitians “all have AIDS,” Trump said in a June meeting](https://www.axios.com/report-trump-said-haitian-immigrants-all-have-aids-1515110820-4d6f7da4-ca7a-4e01-9329-7f25b49e709c.html) with his top advisers according to the *Times*, while the Nigerians would not “go back to their huts” after seeing America, he said. (The White House denied the comments). “The criminal-justice system acts like a funnel into the immigration system,” said [César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández](https://www.law.du.edu/faculty-staff/cesar-garcia-hernandez), a [University of Denver](https://www.law.du.edu/) law professor who studies the[ nexus of policing and immigration law](https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/09/the-rise-of-crimmigation/499712/). [New York University law professor Alina Das](http://its.law.nyu.edu/facultyprofiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=profile.overview&personid=18026) said black immigrants are “targeted by criminalization.” Raff reports that while the Obama administration [prioritized immigrants with felony convictions](https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/obama-record-deportations-deporter-chief-or-not) for deportation, President Trump’s[ executive ](https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/immigration-under-trump-review-policy-shifts)orders effectively made anyone in the country illegally a target for removal. Arrests of non-criminals[ more than doubled](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration-arrests-of-noncriminals-double-under-trump/2017/04/16/98a2f1e2-2096-11e7-be2a-3a1fb24d4671_story.html?utm_term=.26e52034b998), and among those who have been charged with a crime,[ the top three categories are](https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report/2017/iceEndOfYearFY2017.pdf) “traffic offenses—DUI,” “dangerous drugs,” and “immigration,” which means illegal entry, illegal reentry, false claim to U.S. citizenship, and trafficking, according to ICE. In fiscal year 2017, almost [74 percent](https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report/2017/iceEndOfYearFY2017.pdf) of people arrested by ICE had a criminal conviction—arrests the agency uses to[ argue](https://www.ice.gov/topics/fy2017) “that its officers know how to prioritize enforcement without overly prescriptive mandates.” But Hernández sees something different in the large number of criminal convictions among ICE detainees. “Racial bias present in the criminal-justice system plays itself out in the immigration context,” he said. “There are so many entry points” to deportation, said Das, and “when you are a person of color who is also an immigrant, you face a double punishment.” Raff also reports that a [2016 report](http://www.stateofblackimmigrants.com/assets/sobi-fullreport-jan22.pdf) by the [NYU Immigrant Rights Clinic](http://www.law.nyu.edu/academics/clinics/year/immigrantrights), where Das is the co-director, and the [Black Alliance for Just Immigration](http://baji.org/) found that although black immigrants represent about 7 percent of the non-citizen population, they make up more than 10 percent of immigrants in removal proceedings. Criminal convictions amplify the disparity: Twenty percent of immigrants facing deportation on criminal grounds are black. Today, almost[ 10 percent of the black population](http://www.stateofblackimmigrants.com/) in the United States is foreign-born, up from about 3 percent in 1980. As the number of black immigrants has grown, so, too, have the linkages between cops, courts, and the immigration system. According to Raff, aside from ICE’s[ splashier arrests within so-called “sanctuary cities](http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ice-raids-sanctuary-20170928-story.html),” most apprehensions nationwide happen inside jails once an immigrant has had contact with local police. This collaboration is a result of decades of legislation and executive action by both Democrats and Republicans. Two years after the passage of his controversial crime bill, [former President Bill Clinton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton) signed[ the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act](https://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11515132/iirira-clinton-immigration) in 1996. Known as IIRIRA (pronounced “ira-ira”), the law expanded mandatory detention and the number of deportable crimes. As[ the federal inmate population doubled](https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/population_statistics.jsp#old_pops), prison-like immigrant-detention centers rose up in tandem. Raff reports that in the early 1990s, there were around 5,000 immigrants detained each day; by 2001, the population [quadrupled](https://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/issues/detention-101). And the Trump administration wants to keep that number growing: The president’s 2018[ budget](https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/budget.pdf) called for increasing the daily detainee population to 51,000, a[ 25 percent bump over last year](https://www.npr.org/2017/11/21/565318778/big-money-as-private-immigrant-jails-boom). “Additional detention space does make Americans safer,” argued [Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies](https://cis.org/Vaughan), a group that advocates for stricter enforcement. Detention also ensures that undocumented immigrants don’t “disappear into the woodwork,” Vaughan said. “The benefit of keeping illegal aliens in custody,” she said, is that “it prevents the release of criminal aliens back into the community to have the opportunity to reoffend.” Raff reports that while the prison population has begun to dwindle in recent years—[the incarceration rate fell 13 percent between 2007 and 2015](http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/analysis/2017/01/12/us-adult-incarceration-rate-declines-13-percent-in-8-years)—immigration detention remains “one of the fastest-growing sectors of the carceral state,” said [Kelly Lytle Hernandez, a University of California, Los Angeles, historian](http://www.history.ucla.edu/faculty/kelly-lytle-hernandez) who studies the origins of U.S. immigration control. ICE’s[ Secure Communities](https://www.ice.gov/secure-communities) program—which began under [former President George W. Bush](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush); was expanded, then killed, under his successor [Barack Obama](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama); then[ reinstated](https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-executive-order-reestablishes-secure-communities) by Trump—provides local police with a national fingerprint database to check suspects for immigration violations. ICE can also deputize local law enforcement to make immigration arrests, a power authorized by IIRIRA. Some [60 law-enforcement agencies across 18 states](https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-rights-organizations-urge-dakota-county-reject-costly-287g-program) participate in that program. “Local police are some of the biggest feeders into the immigration-enforcement system,” said [Will Gaona, the policy director](https://www.acluaz.org/en/biographies/will-gaona) of the [American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona](https://www.acluaz.org/en). “And that’s more true in Arizona”—where Gustave was picked up—“because of [S.B. 1070](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1070).” That 2010 state law, which has since been [emulated in dozens of states](https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/09/arizona-law/500426/), requires police to ask about immigration status if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. My opinion? Immigration and race relations certainly are hot-button topics in today’s administration. Hopefully,equitable decisions in the criminal justice system can be made which don’t unduly and/or specifically affect immigrants; regardless of their race. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) you have a non-American friend or family member who faces criminal charges. Immigration issues play a huge factor in how criminal cases are resolved. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, felony, Immigration, Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE), Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [ER 404(B) and "Lustful Disposition"](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/er-404b-and-lustful-disposition/) **Published:** January 15, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [State v. Gonzales](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/75127-1.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that a trial court did not commit error in admitting evidence that, after the charged conduct, the victim observed the defendant masturbating while holding the victim’s bra. **BACKGROUND FACTS** When J.G. was six years old, she and her younger brother moved in with their grandfather, defendant Eddy Gonzales and his wife. This sexual abuse ended when J.G. was ten or eleven years old. But after the molestation stopped, J.G. once encountered Gonzales masturbating in his room while holding her bra. When J.G. was eleven years old, she moved out of the house. She informed family members of the molestation. They, in turn, contacted police; who later arrested Mr. Gonzales. Gonzales was charged with [first degree rape of a child](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/) and [first degree child molestation](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/). The State later added a second count of first degree child rape and charged him with [tampering with a witness](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/tampering-with-a-witness-intimidation-of-witnesses/). At trial, the Court admitted testimony that he masturbated while holding J.G.’s bra. The jury acquitted Gonzales of one count of first degree child rape, but found him guilty of the remaining charges. Among other issues not discussed here, Gonzales appealed on the issue of whether the trial court wrongfully admitted that evidence. He argued this uncharged misconduct goes to [propensity](http://evidencecharacter.lawbooks.cali.org/chapter/propensity-character-evidence/) and should be excluded under [ER 404(b)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404). He argues the trial court wrongfully admitted this testimony to show his “lustful disposition” toward J.G., particularly because it occurred after the charged conduct. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** First, the Court of Appeals described the rules of evidence which allow or disallow the evidence from getting to the jury. In short, (ER) 404(b) provides that evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for “other purposes.” Consequently, the Court reasoned that Washington courts have consistently held one such other purpose is evidence of collateral sexual misconduct when it shows the defendant’s [lustful disposition toward the victim](http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/116wn2d/116wn2d0531.htm). This is because a lustful disposition makes it more likely that the defendant committed the crime charged. Evidence of uncharged sexual misconduct occurring before or after the charged acts [is admissible](http://courts.mrsc.org/washreports/119WashReport/119WashReport0450.htm). In an ER 404(b) analysis, the trial court must balance and weigh [probative value against the potential for unfair prejudice.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_403) Second, the Court of Appeals applied the law to its reasoning. It said that here, the trial court admitted J.G.’s testimony that she saw Gonzales masturbating while holding her bra. The trial court reasoned that Gonzales’s behavior was sexual conduct that showed lustful disposition toward J.G. The trial court also found that the probative value of the evidence was not outweighed by unfair prejudice. “The trial court did not abuse its discretion,” said the Court of Appeals. “Gonzales’s action shows a sexual desire for J.G. Thus, it goes toward an ‘other purpose’ as provided under ER 404(b).” Third, the Court of Appeals rejected Gonzales’s arguments that any uncharged sexual misconduct is unfairly prejudicial in a sex abuse prosecution. It reasoned that the admitted evidence was not unfairly prejudicial because his act was not more inflammatory than the charged crime, and J.G. was only indirectly victimized by it. Finally, the Court of Appeals rejected Gonzales’s arguments that the admitted testimony had diminished probative value because the incident occurred after the alleged abuse. The Court of Appeals reasoned that an act occurring after the charged abuse is relevant to lustful disposition. It was not an abuse of discretion to conclude that the probative value of this testimony was not outweighed by unfair prejudice. With that, the Court of appeals affirm the admission of the “lustful disposition” testimony under ER 404(b) and upheld Mr. Gonzalez’s conviction. My opinion? It’s tricky to predict whether judges will admit or deny evidence when the evidence is offered for “other purposes” under ER 404(b). Judges have lots of discretion an how and where the rule applies. Still, judges must follow the doctrine of [*stare decisis*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis) and make rulings which are consistent existing case law when rendering decisions. Fortunately, I’m quite familiar with the case law on this subject. [Please contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member faces charges and the State wants to offer evidence of the offender’s behavior which falls outside the scope of the immediate facts that are alleged. Perhaps a well-argued [pretrial motion to suppress evidence](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) could change the complexion of the case and result in reducing or dismissing the charges. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, ER 404(B), Rape, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [DOL Shared Info With ICE](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/dol-shared-info-with-ice/) **Published:** January 16, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Informative [article](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/washington-state-will-require-court-order-to-release-licensing-info-to-immigration-authorities/) by reporters [Nina Shapiro](https://www.seattletimes.com/author/nina-shapiro/) and [Vianna Davila ](https://www.seattletimes.com/author/vianna-davila/)of the [Seattle Times](https://www.seattletimes.com/) says that the [Washington State Department of Licensing (DOL)](http://www.dol.wa.gov/) will no longer release personal information to federal immigration authorities without a court order unless required by law. Apparently, the DOL gave photos and driver’s-license applications to [Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)](https://www.ice.gov/about) — information that was potentially helpful in arresting and deporting people. According to reporters Shapiro and Davila, the [Seattle Times first reported the agency’s practice](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/washington-state-regularly-gives-drivers-info-to-immigration-authorities-inslee-orders-temporary-halt/) Thursday, revealing that DOL was handing over personal information to federal authorities 20 to 30 times a month. The policy was surprising to many, given that Washington is among a minority of states to allow undocumented immigrants to get driver’s licenses. In another major shift announced in a news release Monday, DOL said it would use emergency rule-making to end its practice of collecting “information that isn’t mandated and could be misused,” specifically information on license applications about where a person was born. The release did not say whether the application would continue to note the IDs a person used to obtain a license. Those IDs could include a foreign passport or other documents that might signal someone does not have legal status. The agency also has accepted the [resignation of Deputy Director Jeff DeVere](http://www.theolympian.com/news/local/article194743879.html). DeVere oversaw compliance with an executive order that [Gov. Jay Inslee](https://www.governor.wa.gov/) [signed last year](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/inslee-signs-order-limiting-states-involvement-in-immigration-enforcement/), designed to prevent state employees from helping federal officials enforce immigration laws — an attempt to thwart [President Donald Trump’s approach to immigration enforcement](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-donald-j-trump-7/). Until questioned by The Seattle Times last week, Inslee’s office didn’t know the extent of DOL’s cooperation with the feds, according to his [spokeswoman, Jaime Smith](https://www.linkedin.com/in/jaimesmithpr). The response to the licensing department’s policy of cooperating with ICE was swift and furious. The governor ordered DOL to direct future requests from federal immigration officers to his general counsel. State lawmakers [pledged to file a bill](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/lawmakers-express-outrage-over-dol-information-sharing-with-immigration-agents/) to ensure the practice was stopped. Monday’s announcement from the department included an apology, and made clear that the offices of the governor and [Attorney General Bob Ferguson](http://www.atg.wa.gov/about-bob-ferguson) had a hand in the changes. “We support the Executive Order, but failed to meet the Governor’s intent regarding the protection of this type of information,” [DOL Director Pat Kohler](http://www.dol.wa.gov/about/director.html) said in the news release. “We are sorry that our work did not align with our state’s values.” She went on to say DOL “did not clearly communicate” the information federal law enforcement was requesting nor seek clarification with the governor’s office and the Legislature about how to handle those requests. The agency also announced it would review its processes and computer systems with the governor’s and attorney general’s offices; hire a community liaison to ensure DOL practices “meet the needs of all Washington residents”; start a new hotline to answer questions about the issue; and educate agency staff on all policy and procedural changes and the governor’s executive order. “The recent revelations about our state Department of Licensing’s failure to safeguard certain information from federal immigration officials has shaken and angered many communities” Inslee said in statement Monday. “It has angered me. I understand what’s at stake in getting this right, and the ramifications of what it means when we get it wrong,” the governor said. “I expect every employee in every one of my state agencies to understand this as well.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Department of Licensing, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Immigration, Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE), Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["Original Gangster" Comment Improper, But Not Prejudicial](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/original-gangster-comment-improper-but-not-prejudicial/) **Published:** January 23, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[In re Personal Restraint of Sandoval](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/924121.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that it was improper for the prosecutor to refer to the defendant as an [“OG”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_gangster) (original gangster) in closing argument, where no one testified that simply being a longtime gang member was sufficient for “OG” status. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Mr. Sandoval is a member of the Eastside Lokotes Surefios (ELS) gang in Tacoma. On February 7, 2010, ELS members, in a stolen van, pulled up to a car and fired no less than 12 gunshots from at least two firearms into the passenger door of the car. The driver, Camilla Love, was hit three times and died from her injuries. Sandoval was arrested in September 2010. The State ultimately charged Sandoval with three counts: [first degree murder (by extreme indifference)](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/) of Camilla Love (count I), [first degree assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) of Joshua Love (count 2), and [conspiracy to commit first degree murder (count 3)](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.28.040). The other ELS members involved in the shooting were similarly charged. They were tried along with Sandoval in the same proceeding, but pleaded guilty after the prosecution rested in exchange for reduced charges. Only Sandoval took his case to the jury. During trial, the Prosecutor presented evidence indicating that Sandoval was a longtime ELS member. Sandoval concedes this. Evidence was also presented that OGs have elevated status. The trial court found this evidence sufficient to support a reasonable inference that Sandoval was an OG. Later, the jury ultimately convicted Sandoval as charged. The court sentenced Sandoval to a total sentence of 904 months of confinement. The ELS members who pleaded guilty received reduced charges. Sandoval appealed. Among other issues on appeal, he argued that comments made by the prosecutor during rebuttal closing argument constituted misconduct and that this misconduct violated his constitutional right to a fair trial. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** 1. ***The Prosecutor’s “OG” References were Improper But Did Not Prejudice*** ***Sandoval.*** The court explained that in order to make a successful claim of prosecutor misconduct, the defense must establish that the prosecuting attorney’s conduct was both improper and prejudicial. To be prejudicial, a substantial likelihood must exist that the misconduct affected the jury’s verdict. The Court further reasoned that when a defendant objects to an allegedly improper comment, it evaluates the trial court’s ruling for an abuse of discretion. Failure to object to an allegedly improper remark constitutes waiver unless the remark is so flagrant and ill-intentioned that it evinces an enduring and resulting prejudice that could not have been neutralized by an admonition to the jury. “While some of the prosecutor’s comments were improper, Sandoval fails to demonstrate prejudice,” said the Court. The Supreme Court agreed that the prosecutor’s repeated references to Sandoval being an “OG” during his rebuttal closing argument was an improper attempt to embellish Sandoval’s culpability to the jury because the inference was not reasonably supported by the record. “But no one testified that simply being a longtime gang member was sufficient for OG status,” said the Court. The court reasoned that although a witness testified that an OG was one of the older original members of the gang, the witness did not identify Sandoval as such, instead naming older gang members who were incarcerated at the time of the Love shooting. “Thus, the evidence presented at trial was insufficient for the prosecutor to reasonably infer that Sandoval was an OG,” said the Court. “As a result, the OG comments were improper.” Nevertheless, the Supreme Court also reasoned that the prejudice generated from such comments is negligible. Sandoval freely admitted he needed to be involved in the attack, attended planning meetings for the attack, and voluntarily assisted a co-defendant in searching out a target and keeping an eye on police that evening. “Given these admissions, it is not substantially likely that the jury’s mistaken belief that Sandoval may have been an OG would have affected the outcome in this case. “This claim has no merit,” said the Court. ***2. The Prosecutor’s Racial Comments Were Not Improper.*** Here, Sandoval claimed that the prosecutor improperly distinguished between the gang status of Asian/Pacific Islanders and Latinos during rebuttal closing argument. The Supreme Court explained that it is improper and a [Sixth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) violation for a prosecutor to “flagrantly or apparently intentionally appeals to racial bias in a way that undermines the defendant’s credibility or the presumption of innocence.” The court explained that when racial bias is implicated, the normal prejudicial standard for prosecutorial misconduct is elevated. To avoid a constitutional violation from prosecutorial misconduct based on comments appealing to [racial bias](http://www.apa.org/research/action/speaking-of-psychology/understanding-biases.aspx), the State must demonstrate that the misconduct did not affect the verdict “beyond a reasonable doubt.” “However, this heightened standard does not apply every time a prosecutor mentions race,” said the Court. “It applies only when a prosecutor mentions race in an effort to appeal to a juror’s potential racial bias, i.e., to support assertions based on stereotypes rather than evidence.” The Supreme Court reasoned that here, the prosecutor referred to Asian/Pacific Islanders one time and did so to explain the hierarchy of the ELS membership; that is, only Latinos such as Sandoval could be full-fledged members. The Supreme Court further reasoned that Sandoval, rather than the State, has the burden of demonstrating that the prosecutor’s comment regarding the role of Asian/Pacific Islanders was improper and prejudicial, and he fails to do so. The trial court did not err when it held that the prosecutor’s statement about gang hierarchy was a reasonable inference based on all the testimony that came out at trial. “It is not substantially likely that any alleged improper comments by the prosecutor prejudiced Sandoval,” said the Supreme Court. “This claim has no merit.” With that, the Supreme Court upheld Sandoval’s conviction and sentence. My opinion? Prosecutors are bound by a sets of rules which outline fair and dispassionate conduct, especially during trial. Generally, prosecutorial misconduct is an illegal act or failing to act, on the part of a prosecutor, especially an attempt to sway the jury to wrongly convict a defendant or to impose a harsher than appropriate punishment. If prosecutors break these rules, then misconduct might have happened. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Gangs, Homicide & Manslaughter, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Race & Law, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Violent Crime, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Silver Platter Doctrine](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/silver-platter-doctrine/) **Published:** January 27, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Martinez](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/746626.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that the defendant’s computer hard drive which Texas police seized in Texas pursuant to a search warrant was lawfully searched by the [Washington State Patrol](http://www.wsp.wa.gov/) without a Washington [search warrant](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/search_warrant) under the silver platter doctrine. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Carlos Martinez began working at the [Monroe Police Department](https://www.monroewa.gov/index.aspx?nid=68) in 1989. He worked in several capacities, including as a [Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.)](https://www.dare.org/) program instructor. While working as a D.A.R.E. instructor, Martinez met A.K., who was in fifth grade at the time. Beginning in 2001 or 2002, when A.K. was 13 or 14 years old, she began baby-sitting Martinez’s two young children. A.K. also came to the Martinezes’ house when she was not baby-sitting. She would sometimes show up unannounced. She would help Martinez with chores and do her schoolwork at the house. At the time, Martinez was married to his then-wife Julie West. Apparently, Martinez began touching A.K. in a sexual manner when she was 14. He also set up a video camera in the bathroom and digitally recorded her when she used the facilities. Ms. West went on vacation. During that time, A.K. stayed at the family home. When Ms. West returned from vacation, she discovered a love note from A.K. to Martinez. She also discovered a video recording that Martinez had made of A.K. getting out of the shower and stored on the family computer. West confronted Martinez about the recording. He said he wanted to see if A.K. had cut herself on the kitchen knife as she had claimed. West claimed that when she asked Martinez why he still had the recording on the computer, he responded that it was “nice to look at.” Not long after this, A.K. and her family moved from Monroe to Eastern Washington. Martinez and A.K. kept in touch. Martinez claims that in February 2007 they began a consensual sexual relationship when A.K. was 18 years old. In fall 2009, the Army recalled Martinez to active duty and stationed him in San Antonio, Texas. A.K. moved to Texas to be with him. They lived together for a short time. After their relationship deteriorated in October or November 2011, Martinez gave A.K. the video recordings that he made of her in his bathroom in 2004. A.K. testified that Martinez told her he wanted to watch the tapes one last time and masturbate to them. She claimed he asked her to touch him as well. A short time later, A.K. contacted the Texas police to turn over the tapes. She also told the Texas police that she began an intimate relationship with Martinez some time before she was 16. Later, she contacted WSP. The Texas police obtained a warrant to search Martinez’s home and seize his laptop computer and digital media storage devices. Then, a grand jury was convened in Texas to consider a possession of child pornography charge. But the grand jury refused to indict, returning a “no bill.” The case was dismissed. Texas police made a mirror image of Martinez’s computer hard drive and, at WSP’s request, sent it to WSP. Without obtaining a separate warrant, WSP searched this mirror image hard drive. Texas police also sent WSP two actual laptop computers and hard drives seized from Martinez. After obtaining a warrant, WSP searched those items. The State initially charged Martinez with two counts of [voyeurism](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.115), two counts of [child molestation](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.083), one count of [rape of a child in the third degree](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.079), and one count of [possession of depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.68A.070). Later, the State dismissed the molestation and rape charges. It tried Martinez on only one count of voyeurism and one count of possession of depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. The jury found Martinez guilty on both counts. Because the voyeurism charge occurred outside the statute of limitations, the trial court dismissed that count and convicted him on only the possession count. **ISSUES** The Court of Appeals accepted review on the issues of **(1)** whether the warrantless search of Martinez’s computer hard drive was lawful when Texas police – and not WA law enforcement – searched the computer, and **(2)** whether spousal privilege applies to suppress the testimony of his ex-wife at trial. **SHORT ANSWER** The Court of Appeals held that **(1)** the silver platter doctrine allowed the Washington State Patrol to later examine the hard drive without a warrant, and **(2)** because Martinez acted as a guardian to the victim, the spousal privilege does not apply here. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals reasoned that [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. If a government action intrudes upon an individual’s “reasonable expectation of privacy,” a search occurs under the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, the Washington Constitution provides greater protection of a person’s privacy rights than does the Fourth Amendment. [Article 1, section 7 of the Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx) focuses on those privacy interests which citizens of this state have held, and should be entitled to hold, safe from governmental trespass absent a warrant. ***Silver Platter Doctrine*** Under the [Silver Platter Doctrine](https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/silver-platter-doctrine/), however, evidence lawfully obtained under the laws of another jurisdiction is admissible in Washington courts even if the manner the evidence was obtained would violate Washington law. Evidence is admissible under this doctrine when **(1)** the foreign jurisdiction lawfully obtained evidence and **(2)** the forum state’s officers did not act as agents or cooperate or assist the foreign jurisdiction. “Martinez does not dispute that Texas lawfully obtained the hard drive,” reasoned the Court of Appeals. “And he does not challenge the trial court’s findings that Washington State Patrol (WSP) had no involvement in obtaining or serving the Texas warrant and that Texas police did not act as agents of WSP when they obtained or served the warrant.” Thus, under the silver platter doctrine, the evidence was admissible. Next, the Court of Appeals rejected Martinez’ arguments that the silver platter doctrine does not apply here because the Texas officers did not conduct any search that would be unlawful in Washington. “The doctrine requires that the State show only two things: **(1)** the search was lawful in Texas and **(2)** the Washington officers did not act as agents for Texas or cooperate or assist Texas in any way,” said the Court. “Because the State proved this, the doctrine applies.” ***Search Warrant*** Next, Martinez argued that the warrant issued in Washington allowing the WSP to search his laptop computers and hard drives was overbroad. In response, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the Fourth Amendment provides that “no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Furthermore, the [search warrant particularity requirement](https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-04/09-particularity.html) helps prevent general searches, the seizure of objects on the mistaken assumption that they fall within the issuing magistrate’s authorization, and the issuance of warrants on loose, vague, or doubtful bases of fact. “When a search warrant authorizes a search for materials protected by the First Amendment, a greater degree of particularity is required, and we employ a more stringent test,” said the Court. “While the First Amendment presumptively protects obscene books and films, it does not protect child pornography involving actual minors.” Also, the Court of Appeals raised and dismissed Martinez’ arguments that the warrant was invalid for other reasons as well. ***Spousal Privilege*** The Court of Appeals addressed Martinez’ arguments that the trial court mistakenly admitted the testimony of his ex-wife regarding a conversation she shared with Mr. Martinez’ video of A.K. as being “nice to look at.” The Court reasoned that generally, a current or former spouse cannot be examined about confidential communications made during the marriage without the consent of the other spouse. It also explained that the [marital privilege rule](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marital_privilege) tries to encourage the free interchange of confidences between husband and wife that are necessary for mutual understanding and trust. “But in some situations the policies that underlie the right to invoke a testimonial privilege are outweighed by the suppression of truth that may result,” said the Court. “Thus, this spousal privilege does not apply in a criminal proceeding for a crime committed against a child for whom the spouse is a parent or guardian.” The Court reasoned that here, West merely repeated statements by Martinez and did not comment about her belief in Martinez’s guilt. “We agree that these facts are sufficient for the jury to conclude that Martinez kept the recording for the purpose of sexual stimulation and that West’s testimony that Martinez said the recording was ‘nice to look at’ could not have materially affected the outcome of the trial,” said the Court. Finally, the Court of Appeals raised and dismissed Martinez’ arguments that there was prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. “The Prosecutor’s general references were unlikely to have affected the jury’s verdict in light of the other incriminating evidence,” said the Court. Furthermore, Martinez does not show that his counsel’s failure to object to the Prosecutor’s case presentation was unreasonable and/or was not strategic. With that, the Court of Appeals upheld Martinez’ conviction and sentence. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Child Molestation, Constitutional Rights, Evidence, felony, Forensics, Fourth Amendment, Marital Privilege, Rape, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Sex Crimes, Silver Platter Doctrine, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Spousal Privilege, Technology, voyeurism, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Witness Tampering](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/witness-tampering/) **Published:** February 1, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Gonzalez](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2048850-7-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, the WA Court of Appeals decided there was sufficient evidence that the defendant attempted to influence a witness to testify falsely where he asked the witness to give a different story than the one she told the police. **BACKGROUND FACTS** The defendant Leonel Gonzalez was in a relationship with Nona Hook for several years. Hook lived with her mother, Carol Salyers, and several other family members, and Gonzalez was frequently in the home. Salyers owned a Jeep and permitted Hook, but not Gonzalez, to drive it. In the early morning hours of September 21, Gonzalez called Hook, and she asked him if he had taken her Jeep. According to Hook, Gonzalez denied knowing anything about the Jeep, but he told her that he was “coming home.” At some point after this call, someone contacted the police. The police were waiting when Gonzalez arrived at Hook’s home in the Jeep. Upon seeing the police, Gonzalez drove away, jumped out of the Jeep while it was still moving, and attempted to flee on foot. The Jeep rolled into and damaged a parked vehicle. The police caught and arrested Gonzalez. Following his arrest, officers discovered a white substance that later tested positive for both methamphetamine and cocaine in Gonzalez’s back pocket. ***Jail Call*** While in jail following his arrest, Gonzalez called Hook. This call was recorded. During the call, Gonzalez insisted that Hook listen to him and told her that some people were trying to contact her and that when his “investigator” or “somebody” called her, she was to tell them that she “gave him permission.” Hook responded, “Tell them that I gave you permission,” and Gonzalez interrupted her and told her to “listen” and said adamantly, “That’s it.” Hook responded by chuckling and saying, “That’s gonna be a little bit hard for me to do.” Gonzalez appears to respond, “Well, then don’t do it.” The rest of Gonzalez’s response is unclear. Hook replied, “I mean, for one thing, I was—you already know what the deal was.” And Gonzalez told her aggressively to “listen” and that they were not “going to talk about all that.” He then stated, “You know what to do, so.” Gonzalez and Hook then talked about when Hook could visit so they could talk about their relationship and whether they would marry even if he was in prison. During this part of the conversation, Hook commented about how hard it was for her to be away from him, and Gonzalez responded by asking her whether she “would rather deal with” 6 or 15 years. ***Criminal Charges*** The State charged Gonzalez with [theft of a motor vehicle](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/possession-theft-of-stolen-motor-vehicle/), [unlawful possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine)](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/), [hit and run](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/hit-run/), and [tampering with a witness](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/tampering-with-a-witness-intimidation-of-witnesses/). ***Jury Trial & Appeal*** At trial, Ms. Hook testified about the jail calls. Ultimately, the jury found Gonzalez guilty of unlawful possession of a controlled substance and tampering with a witness. Gonzalez appealed under arguments that the evidence was insufficient to support the witness tampering conviction because **(1)** he asked Hook to speak to his investigator and never discussed her testimony and **(2)** there was no evidence he was asking Hook to testify falsely. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** Gonzalez argues that the State failed to prove that he was attempting to influence Hook to testify falsely because he asked her to tell the defense investigator only something different than she told the police. He asserts that speaking to the defense investigator is not the equivalent of testimony. “We disagree,” said the Court of Appeals. The Court reasoned that Gonzalez’s request that Hook tell the defense investigator a different story than she told the police would have little effect if it did not also imply that Hook needed to also be willing to testify consistently with what she told the defense investigator. “Thus, a rational finder of fact could have easily found that Gonzalez was attempting to influence Hook’s potential testimony,” said the Court. Gonzalez also argued that there was insufficient evidence to establish that he asked Hook to testify falsely. “Again, we disagree,” said the Court of Appeals. “At no point in her testimony did Hook testify that she had given Gonzalez permission to take the Jeep on September 18th,” said the Court. Instead, she testified that she dropped Gonzalez off, drove the Jeep home and parked it, and left the keys near the back door. Although Gonzalez came into her bedroom the next morning, Hook did not testify that he asked for or that she gave him permission to drive the Jeep. The Court of Appeals further reasoned that taking this evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the jury could find that Hook’s testimony established that Gonzalez took the Jeep without her permission and that Hook’s testimony was truthful. > “Given that Gonzalez asked Hook to state that she had given him permission, a rational finder of fact could have easily found that Gonzalez was asking Hook to testify falsely. Accordingly, Gonzalez’s insufficient evidence arguments fail, and we affirm his witness tampering conviction.” In sum, the Court of Appeals affirmed Gonzalez’s convictions, but remanded for re-sentencing on the unlawful possession of a controlled substance conviction consistent with this opinion. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Methamphetamine, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Theft of Motor Vehicle, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, Witness Tampering **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [DWLS-III Decriminalized?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/13367-2/) **Published:** February 13, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/bill-in-olympia-targets-harsh-penalties-for-driving-while-suspended/) by [Seattle Times](https://www.seattletimes.com/) staff reporter [Agatha Pacheco ](https://www.seattletimes.com/author/agatha-pacheco/)discusses how a birpartisan group of lawmakers is continuing to push for change in a law that legislators, civil-rights groups and others say disproportionately burdens the poor and communities of color. [Senate Bill 6189,](http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=6189&Year=2017) which is sponsored by [Sen. Joe Fain, R-Auburn](http://joefain.src.wastateleg.org/), would decriminalize the charge of [third-degree driving with a suspended license (DWLS-III)](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.342), a misdemeanor. Under current state law, those caught driving with a suspended license due to unpaid traffic tickets or because they didn’t show up for court hearings can be jailed. The bill has been referred to the [Senate’s Law and Justice Committee](http://leg.wa.gov/Senate/Committees/LAW/Pages/default.aspx) but not yet scheduled for a hearing. [Sen. Jamie Pederson, D-Seattle](http://sdc.wastateleg.org/pedersen/), who chairs the committee, said he agreed the issue is important, but with a short legislative session and many bills to review, he was hesitant to say if he will schedule a hearing on a proposal that in the past hasn’t been successful. [According to a 2017 report](https://www.aclu-wa.org/news/report-exposes-huge-costs-and-ineffectiveness-washington%E2%80%99s-most-commonly-charged-crime-driving) by the [American Civil Liberties Union of Washington](https://www.aclu-wa.org/), Driving While License Suspended Third Degree is the state’s most commonly charged crime. SB 6189 would remove its misdemeanor status and make the charge a traffic infraction with a $250 penalty. The penalty would be reduced to $50 if a defendant could show he or she got the license reinstated. Pacheco reports that since 1994, prosecutors in Washington state have filed some 1.4 million charges and obtained 860,000 convictions, according to the ACLU report. Native Americans were twice as likely as whites to be charged with the crime of third-degree driving while license suspended (DWLS-III), and blacks were three times as likely. According to Pacheco, unpaid traffic infractions can pile up quickly, with some people accumulating thousands of dollars in fines that must be paid off to reinstate their license, said [Rick Eichstaedt, executive director of the](https://cforjustice.org/staff/) [Center for Justice](https://cforjustice.org/), which operates a program in Spokane that helps people reinstate a suspended license. The [Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs](http://www.waspc.org/) has opposed previous efforts to decriminalize DWLS-III, but [Executive Director Steve Strachan](http://www.waspc.org/index.php?option=com_community&view=profile&userid=28019245) said the organization recognizes the financial burden the law has caused. The association wants to work with legislators to find a balanced solution to DWLS-III where accountability still exists and abuse of the system is discouraged, Strachan said. ![""]("https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/gen_204?id=xbid&dbm_b=AKAmf-CkaUk947LnAw2WxDSB1sLO6DIx0eHXNrnActEAl5HFBqeW-Kp6Oq5s_QLtB0ll8uDkngxsTXgUmmvHzQBzt9-VtdOLVotq12hDlWzlAdNrblXfuhM") Fain, the Auburn lawmaker, previously worked in the [King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office](https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/prosecutor.aspx) and said he witnessed a deluge of DWLS-III cases that made it difficult to focus on more important cases, such as [drunken driving](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). In [2009](https://www.kcba.org/kcba/newsevents/barbulletin/BView.aspx?Month=01&Year=2009&AID=article11.htm), in conjunction with [King County District Court](https://kingcounty.gov/courts/district-court.aspx), the prosecutor’s office stopped charging stand-alone DWLS-III cases, but Fain said prosecutors still spent a lot of time handling such cases tied to other crimes. “I want to spend more of my time on things that will actually improve public safety,” Fain said. “I think individuals, especially lower-income people, living paycheck to paycheck need to be able to go to work and pay their fines,” Fain said, “so you want to make sure you’re not inhibiting a person’s ability to comply with the law.” Pacheco correctly states that DWLS-III charges are the least serious of the DWLS charges. First- and second-degree driving with a suspended license are charges aimed at [habitual offenders](http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.65) and those who lost their licenses due to drunken-driving or reckless-driving convictions. Co-sponsor [Sen. David Frockt, D-Seattle](http://sdc.wastateleg.org/frockt/), said fines and the possibility of jail time under the current law effectively criminalize poverty and hurt communities of color. “Putting people into this cycle where people get fined and they can’t pay and get further fined,” said Frockt, “there’s other alternatives.” Pacheco says that if a measure is passed, Washington would join a handful of states that have decriminalized driving with a suspended license, including Oregon, Wisconsin and Maine, according to the [National Conference of State Legislatures](http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/driving-while-revoked-suspended-or-otherwise-unli.aspx). In 1993, [Senate Bill 1741](http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/1993-94/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/House/1741-S.SL.pdf?cite=1993%20c%20501%20%C2%A7%201) made driving with a suspended license due to unpaid traffic infractions a misdemeanor. My opinion? I hope the legislature decriminalizes DWLS-III. These charges essentially hook people into the criminal justice system for failing to pay traffic fines. The charges also expose people to a search incident to arrest with the very real possibility of police finding illegal contraband which may lead to heavier charges. Also, a DWLS-III conviction makes it difficult for people to get to work and further holds back those working their way toward paying off fines and avoiding more fines or jail time. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member is charged with DWLS III. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** ACLU, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Driving While License Suspended/Revoked, Legislation, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Driving With Wheels Off the Roadway](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/driving-with-wheels-off-the-roadway/) **Published:** February 13, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Brooks](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/350029_pub.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) held that the neutral area separating a highway on-ramp from an adjacent lane of travel does not meet the definition of “roadway.” A driver who crosses this area is properly stopped for a violation of [Driving with Wheels Off Roadway under RCW 46.61.670](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.670). **BACKGROUND FACTS** While merging onto westbound [U.S. Route 97 from U.S. Route 2 in Chelan County](https://route97.net/route-97/regions/chelan-county-wa/), Jena Brooks’s car crossed over a portion of the highway designated as a “neutral area.” A neutral area is a paved triangular space separating an entrance or exit ramp from an adjacent lane of highway. The neutral area between Route 97 and its merger with westbound Route 2 is marked on each side by thick white channelizing lines. The drawing below is a depiction of a neutral area similar to the one crossed by Ms. Brooks: ![Image result for ON RAMP NEUTRAL AREA](https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/images/fig3b_09_2.gif) A [Washington State Patrol](http://www.wsp.wa.gov/) trooper observed Ms. Brooks’s vehicular activity and performed a [traffic stop.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_stop) Ms. Brooks was ultimately arrested for [driving on a suspended license](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.342) and other misdemeanor offenses. During proceedings in [district court](http://www.co.chelan.wa.us/district-court), Ms. Brooks filed a [motion to suppress](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6), arguing her vehicle had been stopped without [probable cause](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause). The motion was denied. Pertinent to this appeal, the district court ruled Ms. Brooks’s merger over the highway’s neutral area constituted “driving with wheels off roadway,” in violation of RCW 46.61.670. 2 Ms. Brooks was subsequently convicted of several misdemeanor offenses after a jury trial. Later, she successfully appealed the suppression ruling to the [superior court](http://www.co.chelan.wa.us/superior-court). It found Washington’s definition of a roadway ambiguous in the context of a highway’s neutral area. The superior court then invoked the [rule of lenity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_lenity) and determined Ms. Brooks should not have been stopped for driving with wheels off the roadway in violation of RCW 46.61.670. **ISSUES** The Court of Appeals addressed **(1)** whether the term roadway is ambiguous in the current context, and **(2)** if the term is ambiguous, whether the rule of lenity is an available tool of statutory construction that might benefit a defendant such as Ms. Brooks. **ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** > “A highway’s neutral area is not a vehicle lane. It is too short to facilitate meaningful travel. And its triangular shape cannot consistently accommodate the size of a vehicle. Rather than being designed for vehicular travel, it is apparent the neutral area is designed as a buffer zone. It keeps vehicles separate so as to facilitate speed adjustment and, in the context of a highway on-ramp, safe vehicle merging.” The Court further reasoned that National standards set by the [Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD)](https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/) confirmed its observations about the apparent design purpose of a highway’s neutral area. In short, the Court reasoned the MUTCD refers to the neutral area as an “island.” As such, it is an area intended for vehicle “separation.” “Although a neutral area may be designated either by a wide or double solid white channelizing line, the two options carry no substantive significance” said the Court of Appeals. “Like a double white line, a solid white line can serve as an indicator that crossing is prohibited. The whole point of a neutral area is to exclude vehicles and promote orderly and efficient traffic flow,” said the Court of Appeals. The Court concluded that Ms. Brooks failed to maintain her vehicle wheels on an area of the highway meeting the statutory definition of a roadway. A vehicle stop was therefore permitted under Washington’s wheels off roadway statute. Consequently, the superior court’s order on appeal from the district court is reversed. Surprisingly, there’s quite a bit of caselaw on what constitutes “Driving With Wheels Off the Roadway.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges following after a police officer pullover where this citation led to arrest. It’s quite possible to suppress the fruits of a search based on unlawful stop, search and/or seizure. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Driving While License Suspended/Revoked, Driving With Wheels Off Roadway, misdemeanor, police, Rule of Lenity, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Traffic Infractions, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Death Penalty Repealed?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/death-penalty-repealed/) **Published:** February 16, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article ](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/washington-senate-passes-bill-to-abolish-death-penalty/)in the [Seattle Times](https://www.seattletimes.com/) by Reporter [Rachel La Corte ](https://www.seattletimes.com/author/rachel-la-corte/)says that the [Washington Senate](http://leg.wa.gov/Senate/Senators/Pages/default.aspx) passed a bill to abolish the Death Penalty. The measure would remove [capital punishment as a sentencing option for aggravated murder](http://www.atg.wa.gov/death-penalty-cases) and mandate instead a sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole. After failing to gain traction in previous years, an effort to abolish the death penalty in Washington passed out of the state Senate on Wednesday and now heads to the [House of Representatives](http://leg.wa.gov/House/Pages/MembersByDistrict.aspx). The measure passed out of the Democrat-led chamber on a bipartisan vote, with a handful of Democrats crossing over to vote no, and five Republicans voting yes, including the bill’s sponsor, [Republican Sen. Maureen Walsh](http://maureenwalsh.src.wastateleg.org/), of Walla Walla. During the floor debate, Walsh said that her motivation for the bill was because “simply, this seems to be a flawed policy.” > “We spend a lot of money, our tax money, appealing these decisions, and we have done this for many, many years . . . I have no sympathy for people that kill people, that’s not why I’m doing this. I’m doing this maybe because I feel like it’s somewhat our responsibility as legislators to vet these issues here in this forum, in this venue.” La Corte reports that a [2015 study](file:///C:/Users/Alex%20Ransom/Downloads/The_Economic_Costs_of_Seeking_the_Death_Penalty_in_WA_FINAL.pdf) from [Seattle University](https://www.seattleu.edu/) found that death-penalty cases in the state cost $1 million more than similar cases where capital punishment is not sought. Before the final vote, lawmakers rejected an amendment that would have sent the measure to voters to decide. Three additional amendments were shot down by [Lt. Gov. Cyrus Habib](http://www.ltgov.wa.gov/) on procedural grounds: two that would have retained the death penalty as an option when the victim was a law-enforcement officer or corrections officer, and another that would have retained the death penalty for defendants who request it. [Senate Republican Leader Mark Schoesler](http://markschoesler.src.wastateleg.org/) of Ritzville said he was voting no because he had “no trust in the judiciary that life without parole really means life without parole.” “In our court system today does anyone have absolute confidence in anything?” he asked. “I don’t.” Previous bills to ban the death penalty never got past the committee phase, despite a [moratorium put in place by Gov. Jay Inslee in 2014](https://www.governor.wa.gov/news-media/gov-jay-inslee-announces-capital-punishment-moratorium). [Democratic Rep. Laurie Jinkins](https://housedemocrats.wa.gov/legislators/laurie-jinkins/), chairwoman of the [House Judiciary Committee](https://judiciary.house.gov/), said the measure would get a hearing before her committee, but she said that while she personally supports the bill, it’s too soon to say whether it will make it to the House floor, where Democrats hold a narrow majority. “I will work very, very hard to make that happen,” she said. “This is a deeply moral decision for every single lawmaker. It’s going to require bipartisan support probably to make it out of committee and most certainly to move off the floor of the House.” [Democratic Sen. Reuven Carlyle of Seattle](http://sdc.wastateleg.org/carlyle/), a co-sponsor of the measure, said Wednesday’s vote reflects the public’s evolving thinking on the death penalty. “You cannot read a front-page story about DNA mistakes that has someone in jail for 35 years and not be jolted to the core,” he said after the vote. “That has transformed the public’s view of this issue.” [The death penalty has been overturned or abolished in 19 states and the District of Columbia](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-and-without-death-penalty), and several states are considering measures this year. An additional four states — Washington, Oregon, Colorado and Pennsylvania — now have moratoriums. There have been 78 inmates, all men, put to death in Washington state since 1904. The most recent execution in the state came in 2010, when[ Cal Coburn Brown died by lethal injection for the 1991 murder of a Seattle-area woman](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/killer-on-death-row-16-years-is-executed/). In December 2016, Inslee invoked the moratorium as he reprieved[ Clark Elmore](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/crime/article122770324.html), who was sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl. Reprieves aren’t pardons and don’t commute the sentences of those condemned to death. As long as the moratorium is in place, death-row inmates will remain in prison rather than face execution. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Death Penalty, Homicide & Manslaughter, Legislation, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Violent Crime, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Burglary of Inmate's Cell?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/burglary-of-inmates-cell/) **Published:** February 19, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Dunleavy](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/347621_pub.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) held that a jail cell is a separate building for purposes of supporting a burglary charge/conviction, and the that the victim’s jail cell need not be secured or occupied at the time of the crime in order to support the charge. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Dunleavy was an inmate at the [Walla Walla County jail](http://www.co.walla-walla.wa.us/departments/she/Jail.shtml) in Unit E. In Unit E, there are eight cells capable of housing two inmates per cell. The cells open into a day room. In Unit E, the cell doors are open from about 6:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. An inmate is permitted to close his cell door, but if he does, the door will remain locked until opened the next morning. Dunleavy was hungry one day, so he asked inmate Kemp LaMunyon for a tortilla. LaMunyon responded that he did not have enough to share, but would buy more later and share with Dunleavy at that time. Dunleavy later bullied LaMunyon and threatened to “smash out.” Soon after, inmate John Owen attacked LaMunyon. During the attack, Dunleavy snuck into LaMunyon’s jail cell and took some of LaMunyon’s food. LaMunyon was seriously injured by Owen. Jail security investigated the fight and the theft, and concluded that the two were related. Security believed that Dunleavy staged the fight between Owen and LaMunyon to give him an opportunity to take LaMunyon’s food. Because of the seriousness of LaMunyon’s injuries, and because security concluded that the fight and the theft were related, the jail referred charges to the local prosecuting authority. The State charged Dunleavy with [second degree burglary](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/), [third degree theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/theft/), and [second degree assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/). After the State presented its case, Dunleavy [moved to dismiss](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=crr&ruleid=SUPCRR8.03) the second degree burglary charge on the basis that an inmate’s cell is a separate building. The trial court considered the parties’ arguments, denied Dunleavy’s motion to dismiss, and the case continued forward. Dunleavy called one witness who testified that Dunleavy did not conspire with Owen to assault LaMunyon. After closing arguments, the case was submitted to the jury. The jury began deliberating at 1:30 p.m. At 4:00 p.m., the jury sent a written note to the trial court through the bailiff. The note asked, “Are the Walla Walla county jail policies legally binding? Are they considered law? What if we are not unanimous on a certain count?” The trial court, counsel, and Dunleavy discussed how the trial court should respond. The trial court’s response read, “You are to review the evidence, the exhibits, and the instructions, and continue to deliberate in order to reach a verdict.” No party objected to this response. Less than one hour later, the jury returned a verdict finding Mr. Dunleavy guilty of second degree burglary and third degree theft but not guilty of second degree assault. **ISSUES** Dunleavy appealed on the issues of whether **(1)** jail cells are separate buildings for purposes of proving burglary, and **(2)** whether there is an implied license for unlawful entry. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** ***1. Jail cells are separate buildings for purposes of proving burglary.*** The Court of Appeals reasoned that under [statute](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.52.030), a person is guilty of burglary in the second degree if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, he or she enters or remains unlawfully in a building other than a vehicle or a dwelling. Furthermore, [Washington law](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.04.110) defines “building” in relevant part as any structure used for lodging of persons; each unit of a building consisting of two or more units separately secured or occupied is a separate building. With these legal definitions in mind, the court noted that that a jail is a building used for lodging of persons, specifically inmates. Each cell is secured at night and an inmate can secure his cell from others. Furthermore, each cell is separately occupied by two inmates. “We discern no ambiguity,” said the Court of Appeals. “A jail cell is a separate building for purposes of proving burglary.” ***2. No implied license for unlawful entry.*** The Court of Appeals raised and dismissed Dunleavy’s arguments that he did not commit burglary when he entered LaMunyon’s cell because his entry was lawful from an implied license to enter the cell. Contrary to Dunleavy’s argument, the Court explained that under [Washington law](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?Cite=9A.52.010), a person ‘enters or remains unlawfully’ in or upon premises when he or she is not then licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to so enter or remain.” The Court of Appeals explained that the victim, LaMunyon, did not give Dunleavy permission to enter his cell. Furthermore, the Jail Sergeant testified that inmates are told when they are first booked into jail that they may not enter another inmate’s jail cell. “Inmates are subject to punishment for breaking these rules, including criminal charges,” said the Court of Appeals. “A rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Dunleavy entered LaMunyon’s cell unlawfully.” Consequently, the Court of Appeals affirmed Dunleavy’s conviction, yet remanded for resentencing on the separate issue that his offender score was incorrectly calculated. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Burglary, felony, Jury Trial, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Theft, Uncategorized, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Emergency Blood Draws](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/emergency-blood-draws/) **Published:** February 20, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Inman](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2049174-5-II%20Order%20Publishing.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held that a warrantless blood draw was proper under [exigent circumstances](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exigent_circumstances) where: **(a)** the injury collision occurred in a rural area; **(b)** there is spotty phone service; **(c)** a search warrant takes 30-45 minutes to create; and **(d)** helicopters airlifted the DUI suspect to a hospital. A search warrant is not required before a blood sample collected under the exigent circumstances exception is tested for alcohol and drugs. **BACKGROUND FACTS** In May 2015, Inman and Margie Vanderhoof were injured in a motorcycle accident on a rural road. Inman was the driver of the motorcycle and Vanderhoof was his passenger. Captain Tim Manly, the first paramedic on the scene, observed a motorcycle in a ditch and two people lying down in a driveway approximately 20 to 25 feet away. Captain Manly observed that Inman had facial trauma, including bleeding and abrasions on the face, and a deformed helmet. Based on Inman’s injuries, Captain Manly believed that the accident was a high-trauma incident. Captain Manly learned from a bystander that Inman had been unconscious for approximately five minutes after the collision before regaining consciousness. Manly administered emergency treatment to Inman, which included placing Inman in a C-Spine, a device designed to immobilize the spine to prevent paralysis. While Captain Manly provided Inman with treatment, Sergeant Galin Hester of the [Washington State Patrol](http://www.wsp.wa.gov/) contacted Vanderhoof, who complained of pelvic pain. Sergeant Hester spoke with Inman and smelled intoxicants on him. Later, [Jefferson County Sheriff’s](http://www.jeffersonsheriff.org/172/Sheriff) Deputy Brandon Przygocki arrived on the scene and observed a motorcycle in a ditch with significant front-end damage. He contacted Inman in the ambulance and, smelling alcohol, asked whether Inman had been drinking and driving. Inman admitted he had been driving the motorcycle and that he had been drinking before he drove. Deputy Przygocki believed he had probable cause to believe Inman was driving under the influence. Helicopters came to airlift Inman and Vanderhoof to the nearest trauma center. Deputy Przygocki knew that preparation of a search warrant affidavit takes 30-45 minutes. There was no reliable cell phone coverage in the rural area. Deputy Przygocki conducted a warrantless blood draw after reading a special evidence warning to Inman informing him that he was under arrest and that a blood sample was being seized to determine the concentration of alcohol in his blood. There is a process by which a search warrant for a blood draw may be obtained telephonically and executed by an officer at the hospital to which Inman was being transported. However, this process is problematic and, in the experience of Officer Hester, had never worked in the past. **TRIAL COURT PROCEDURES** Inman was charged with [vehicular assault while under the influence](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.522) and filed a [motion to](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) suppress evidence of the warrantless blood draw. He argued that the[ implied consent statute](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.308) authorized a warrantless blood draw but that the implied consent statute was not constitutional, so there was no valid authority for the blood draw. He also argued that the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement did not justify a warrantless blood draw in this case. In response, the State argued that Inman’s blood was lawfully drawn pursuant to the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. The trial court heard testimony from six witnesses, who testified consistently with the factual findings summarized above. The trial court orally ruled that exigent circumstances justified the blood draw and later entered written findings of fact and conclusions of law. Inman filed a [reconsideration motion](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=cr&ruleid=supcr59). He argued that there was no probable cause for DUI. He also argued that, even assuming that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless blood draw, a warrant was needed to test the blood. The State disagreed. The trial court denied Inman’s reconsideration motion. The trial court concluded that Deputy Przygocki had probable cause to believe Inman had committed a DUI. In addition, the trial court concluded that the warrantless blood draw was justified under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. Finally, the trial court concluded that because the blood was lawfully seized under exigent circumstances, no warrant was required to test the blood. After a stipulated facts trial, the trial court found Inman guilty of vehicular assault. Inman appealed. **COURT’S CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS** 1. ***The Arrest Was Supported by Probable Cause.*** The Court of Appeals reasoned that under both the [Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) and [article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx), an arrest is lawful only when supported by [probable cause](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause). Probable cause exists when the arresting officer, at the time of the arrest, has knowledge of facts sufficient to cause a reasonable officer to believe that an offense has been committed. Whether probable cause exists depends on the totality of the circumstances. Here, Deputy Przygocki had probable cause to believe Inman had committed a DUI. When Deputy Przygocki arrived on the scene, he observed a motorcycle in a ditch with significant front-end damage and, after running the license plates, knew the vehicle belonged to Inman. Deputy Przygocki learned from Sergeant Hester that Inman was in the ambulance and smelled of alcohol. Deputy Przygocki then contacted Inman in the ambulance, and Inman admitted he had been driving the motorcycle and that he had been drinking before he drove. “Based on these facts, Deputy Przygocki knew that Inman was driving the motorcycle after drinking alcohol when he crashed. This knowledge is sufficient to cause a reasonable officer to believe that Inman was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol,” said the Court of Appeals. ***2. Exigent Circumstances Supported a Warrantless Blood Draw.*** The Court of Appeals reasoned that a warrantless search is impermissible under both article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, unless an exception to the warrant requirement authorizes the search. Drawing a person’s blood for alcohol testing is a search triggering these constitutional protections. A warrantless search is allowed if exigent circumstances exist. The exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement applies where the delay necessary to obtain a warrant is not practical because the delay would permit the destruction of evidence. > “The natural dissipation of an intoxicating substance in a suspect’s blood may be a factor in determining whether exigent circumstances justify a warrantless blood search, but courts determine exigency under the totality of the circumstances on a case-by-case basis.” The Court of Appeals held that under the circumstances, obtaining a warrant was not practical. Inman and Vanderhoof were both injured from a motorcycle accident that resulted in significant front-end damage to the motorcycle, which was found in a ditch. Both Inman and Vanderhoof received emergency medical services, and Inman was receiving treatment for possible spine injuries. At the time of the blood draw, helicopters were coming to airlift Inman and Vanderhoof to the nearest hospital. It would have taken at least 45 minutes to prepare and obtain judicial approval for a search warrant. Deputy Przygocki lacked reliable cell phone coverage in the rural area, so obtaining a telephonic warrant may have been a challenge. **CONCLUSION** The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not err in denying Inman’s suppression motion. First, there was probable cause to arrest Inman for DUI. Second, exigent circumstances existed to authorize a warrantless blood draw. Third, the implied consent statute does not bar a warrantless search under exigent circumstances. Finally, a legal blood draw under the exigent circumstances exception allows testing of the blood without a warrant when there is probable cause to arrest for DUI. My opinion? Exigent circumstances are one of many arguments that the government uses to get around search warrant requirements. [Contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges involving DUI, blood draws, or exigent circumstances which arguably circumvent the need for officers to obtain search warrants. In difficult cases like the one described above, competent legal counsel is definitely needed to protect constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizure. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Blood Test, Constitutional Rights, DUI, Exigent Circumstances, Fourth Amendment, Implied Consent, Probable Cause, Search Warrant, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Vehicular Assault, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Forced & Warrantless Entry](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/forced-warrantless-entry/) **Published:** March 10, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[Bonivert v. City of Clarkston](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/02/26/15-35292.pdf)*, the [Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) held that police officers responding to a “physical domestic” call violated the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) by entering the locked house without a warrant after the suspect, who was the lone occupant of the home by the time the police arrived, refused repeated requests to come to the door. Under the facts of the case, the forced entry could not be upheld under [consent](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/implied_consent), [emergency doctrine](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/emergency_doctrine) or [exigent circumstances](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exigent_circumstances). **BACKGROUND FACTS** This case starts with a domestic dispute call to the police from the home of Ryan Bonivert. During an evening gathering with friends, Bonivert reportedly argued with his girlfriend, Jessie Ausman, when she attempted to leave with the couple’s nine-month old daughter. By the time police arrived, the disturbance was over: Ausman, the baby, and the guests had safely departed the home, leaving Bonivert alone inside. At that point, there was no indication that Bonivert had a weapon or posed a danger to himself or others. Nor does the record suggest that Ausman intended to reenter the house or otherwise asked police to accompany her inside. When Bonivert failed to respond to repeated requests to come to the door, the officers decided they needed to enter the house. No attempt was made to obtain a search warrant. Though Bonivert locked the door to his house and refused police entreaties to talk with them, the police broke a window to unlock and partially enter the back door. Even then, Bonivert tried to shut the door, albeit unsuccessfully. Although Ausman consented to the officers entering the house, Bonivert’s actions were express—stay out. Nevertheless, the officers forced their way in, throwing Bonivert to the ground, and then drive-stunned him with a taser several times, handcuffed him, and arrested him. Bonivert was arrested for [assaulting an officer](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.36.031), [resisting arrest](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/resisting-arrest/), and [domestic violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) [assault in the fourth degree.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) Bonivert brought civil rights claims under[ 42 U.S.C. § 1983](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983) against the [City](http://www.clarkston-wa.com/), the [County](http://www.clarkston-wa.com/), Combs, Purcell, Gary Synder, and Joseph Synder, alleging warrantless entry and excessive force in violation of Bonivert’s constitutional rights. The [district court](http://www.waed.uscourts.gov/) granted [summary judgment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_56) in favor of the defendants on the basis of [qualified immunity](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity). For those who don’t know, qualified immunity protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff’s rights. It only allows suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right. When determining whether or not a right was “clearly established,” courts consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendant’s conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** In short, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the warrantless entry into Bonivert’s home violated the Fourth Amendment as none of the lawful exceptions to the warrant requirement applied. The officers are not entitled to qualified immunity. ***The Police Officers Were Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity.*** The Court reasoned that police officers are not entitled to qualified immunity if **(1)** the facts taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury show that the defendants’ conduct violated a constitutional right and **(2)** the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. In other words, the question is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted. ***Fourth Amendment*** The Court of Appeals explained that the Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. “It has long been recognized that the physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed,” reasoned the Court. “This special protection of the home as the center of the private lives of our people reflects an ardent belief in the ancient adage that a man’s house is his castle to the point that the poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown.” Consequently, the Court reasoned it is a basic principle of Fourth Amendment law that warrantless searches of the home or the curtilage surrounding the home are presumptively unreasonable. > “Taken in the light most favorable to Bonivert, . . . the facts demonstrate that the officers violated Bonivert’s constitutional right because no exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement justified the officers’ entry into Bonivert’s home.” ***Warrantless Entry: Officer are Not Entitled to Entry Under the “Consent” Exception.*** The Court explained that although the consent exception ordinarily permits warrantless entry where officers have obtained consent to enter from a third party who has common authority over the premises, [*Georgia v. Randolph*](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15354777432474595853&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr) held that an occupant’s consent to a warrantless search of a residence is unreasonable as to a co-occupant who is physically present and objects to the search. “Such is the situation here,” said the Court of Appeals. “Even though the officers secured Ausman’s (his girlfriend’s) consent, Bonivert was physically present inside and expressly refused to permit the officers to enter on two different occasions.” The court explained that Bonivert expressly refused entry when he locked the side door to his house. During the initial “knock and talk,” Combs and Purcell knocked and attempted to open the front and back doors to the house, but found them to be locked. As the officers circled the house to approach the side door, Bonivert realized it was unlocked and locked it as Combs was approaching. Combs heard the door lock and informed Purcell. Bonivert also expressly refused entry when he attempted to close the back door on the officers after Combs broke in. Once the officers decided to enter the home by force, Combs used his flashlight to shatter a window pane in the back door, reached through the opening, and unlocked the door. At that point, Bonivert partially opened the door and confronted the officers, which prompted the officers to fire their tasers in dart mode. All parties agree that after the darts failed to make contact, Bonivert tried to shut the door, placing it between himself and the officers, but ultimately was prevented from doing so when Officer Combs rushed through with such force that he threw Bonivert to the other side of the room. > “Based on the foregoing, we hold that the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity under the consent exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Simply put, a reasonable officer would have understood that no means no.” ***Warrantless Entry: Officers Are Not Entitled to Entry Under the “Emergency” Exception.*** The Court reasoned that the emergency aid exception permits law enforcement officers to enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury. An entry pursuant to the emergency aid exception is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, regardless of the individual officer’s state of mind, as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify the action. However, the police bear a heavy burden when attempting to demonstrate an urgent need that might justify warrantless searches or arrests, because the emergency exception is narrow and rigorously guarded. “Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Bonivert, there were simply no circumstances pointing to an actual or imminent injury inside the home,” said the Court. By the time the officers arrived, both Ausman and the child were safely outside, surrounded by four other adults intent on protecting them from harm. During the entire time that the officers spoke to the witnesses, circled and attempted to enter the home from various points, and called on Deputies Gary and Joseph Snyder for backup, the house was silent. Ausman further assured the officers that there were no weapons in the house and that Bonivert did not pose a danger to himself. Consequently, the Court rejected arguments that an emergency existed which allowed warrantless entry into the house. ***Warrantless Entry: Officers Are Not Entitled to Entry Under the “Exigent Circumstances” Exception.*** The Court explained that the exigency exception permits warrantless entry where officers have both probable cause to believe that a crime has been or is being committed and a reasonable belief that their entry is necessary to prevent the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of the suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts. Here, the Court reasoned that Bonivert, who was inside his home when the alleged domestic assault occurred and remained there even after the officers broke into his back door, was never a “fleeing suspect.” The officers never articulated any other legitimate law enforcement justification for entry under the exigency exception. ***The Lower Court Improperly Denied Bonivart’s Excessive Force Claims.*** Taken in the light most favorable to Bonivert, the evidence reflects that Bonivert remained inside the home at all times; that Bonivert did not threaten or advance toward the officers; that Bonivert posed no immediate threat to the officers; that Combs threw Bonivert across the back room; that Bonivert did not resist arrest; and that Combs tasered Bonivert several times in drive-stun mode notwithstanding Bonivert’s compliance. The evidence does not justify the district court’s conclusion that “no reasonable jury could find the use of force within the home excessive. With that, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds on the Fourth Amendment claims for unlawful entry and excessive force. Excellent decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Domestic Violence, Exigent Circumstances, felony, Fourth Amendment, law enforcement, Police Misconduct, Qualified Immunity, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Taser, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Drive-By Shooting Conviction Reversed](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/drive-by-shooting-conviction-reversed/) **Published:** March 11, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Vasquez](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/341071_pub.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) held that the [drive-by sentence aggravator](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=10.95.020) is not met where a perpetrator ran 63 feet from his vehicle and around the corner of a grocery store prior to shooting and killing the victim. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Mr. Vasquez shot and killed Mr. Garcia as Mr. Garcia was seated in the front passenger side of a GMC Envoy parked at the Airport Grocery in Moses Lake, Washington. Mr. Garcia’s girlfriend was in the front driver’s seat and her five-year-old child was in the back seat, behind Mr. Garcia. Neither Mr. Garcia’s girlfriend nor her child were physically injured during the shooting. At the crux of this case is the route Mr. Vasquez took to shoot Mr. Garcia. For several minutes prior to the shooting, the Envoy was parked near the Airport Grocery’s front entrance. Mr. Vasquez then arrived at the scene in a Toyota pickup. The Toyota was parked on the side of the grocery, next to a fenced utility area, approximately 63 feet away from the Envoy. Once the Toyota was parked, Mr. Vasquez ran from the pickup and hid behind the utility fence for nearly a minute. Mr. Vasquez then rushed around the corner of the grocery, across the front-side of the Envoy, and over to the area of the front passenger window of the Envoy. The front window was partially rolled down, exposing Mr. Garcia to Mr. Vasquez. Mr. Vasquez shot and killed Mr. Garcia from point-blank range. Mr. Vasquez then retreated to the Toyota and it sped away. The entire shooting was captured on video by the grocery’s surveillance system. Approximately one minute and 16 seconds elapsed between the Toyota’s initial arrival and ultimate departure. A jury convicted Mr. Vasquez of first degree murder with a drive-by shooting aggravator, along with several counts of [drive-by shooting](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drive-by-shooting/). Mr. Vasquez was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for the aggravated first degree murder conviction. He also received a [60-month firearm enhancement](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94a.533). Mr. Vasquez appealed on arguments that the evidence was insufficient to prove a drive-by shooting. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** Washington’s [drive-by shooting statute](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.045) states, in pertinent part: > A person is guilty of drive-by shooting when he or she recklessly discharges a firearm as defined in RCW 9.41.010 in a manner which creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person and the discharge is either from a motor vehicle or ***from the immediate area of a motor vehicle that was used to transport the shooter or the firearm, or both, to the scene of the discharge.*** The legal question was whether the State’s evidence showed Mr. Vasquez was in the “immediate area” of the Toyota pickup truck at the time of the shooting. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the Court of Appeals held the “immediate area” requirement was not met. The Court of Appeals explained that a drive-by shooting is commonly understood to involve shots fired from inside a vehicle, or from “within a few feet or yards” of the vehicle. In other words, the crime contemplates a shooter who is either inside a vehicle or within easy reach of the vehicle. “Mr. Vasquez’s offense did not fall within either circumstance,” reasoned the Court of Appeals. It further reasoned that Mr. Vasquez was far from reach of the Toyota at the time he shot Mr. Garcia. “In fact, Mr. Vasquez had to traverse several intervening obstacles in order to get a clear shot at his victim,” said the Court. “Although Mr. Vasquez was in the immediate area of Mr. Garcia’s Envoy at the time of the shooting, he was not in the immediate area of the Toyota that had transported him to the scene. Mr. Vasquez’s offense therefore does not qualify as a drive-by shooting.” The Court concluded that because Mr. Vasquez was neither inside the Toyota nor within immediate reach of the Toyota at the time of the shooting, the State failed to present sufficient evidence justifying Mr. Vasquez’s convictions for drive-by shooting as well as the drive-by shooting aggravator to Mr. Vasquez’s first degree murder conviction. Consequently, the Court reversed Vasquez’s drive-by shooting convictions and aggravator. My opinion? The circumstances of this case are certainly tragic. However, it’s not uncommon for Prosecutors to charge people for crimes which don’t fit the facts and circumstances. That’s why it’s extremely important to hire a qualified and competent defense attorney who knows and understands the law. Defense counsel must question the evidence and, when necessary, argue pretrial motions to dismiss charges where evidence is lacking. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drive-By Shooting, felony, Firearm, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Common Authority to Search](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/14213-2/) **Published:** March 19, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Vanhollebeke](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/940541.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that a driver’s refusal to consent to the search of his or her vehicle must generally be respected. But where the facts reasonably raise a significant question about whether the driver had any legitimate claim to the vehicle at all, the police may contact the absent owner and then get that owner’s consent to search instead. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Defendant Justin Vanhollebeke drove his truck the wrong way down a one-way street. Not surprisingly, an officer stopped him. Vanhollebeke ignored the officer’s command to stay in the vehicle, got out and locked the vehicle behind him, left a punched out ignition and apparent drug paraphernalia behind in plain view of the police, and had no key. The police asked Vanhollebeke for consent to search the vehicle. Vanhollebeke refused. A police officer then contacted the truck’s owner, received the absent owner’s consent and a key to search, and then returned to search the vehicle. Vanhollebeke was charged with [unlawful possession of a firearm](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/) found in the truck. Vanhollebeke [moved to suppress](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) the fruits of the search, arguing that the warrantless search was unconstitutional. The trial court denied the motion, reasoning that there’s a reduced expectation of privacy in a borrowed vehicle. The trial court made no explicit findings of fact regarding the officers’ motivation for contacting Mr. Casteel. Vanhollebeke was found guilty, sentenced to 34 months confinement, and assessed fees of $1,380. He appealed on the issue of whether the search was constitutional. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The WA Supreme Court reasoned that warrantless searches are presumptively unconstitutional, unless they fit within one of the few, narrow exceptions to the warrant requirement. Under both the Washington and United States Constitutions, warrantless searches are per se unreasonable. However, there are a few jealously and carefully drawn exceptions to the warrant requirement. “One of those exceptions is for consent, and consent is the exception at issue here,” said the Court. It elaborated that consent to a search establishes the validity of that search if the person giving consent has the authority to so consent. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that while the driver of an absent owner’s vehicle does not ordinarily assume the risk that the absent owner will consent to a search, the driver does assume that risk where the facts reasonably suggest it is stolen. Next, the Court adopted and applied the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) standard for valid third-party consent to a search is a two-part test: **(1)** Did the consenting party have authority to permit the search in his own right? And if so, **(2)** did the defendant assume the risk that the third party would permit a search? Both this Court and the United States Supreme Court refer to this test as the “[common authority rule](https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/common-authority/).” In short, the common authority rule refers to a legal principle that permits a person to give consent to a law officer for the purpose of searching another person’s property. The common-authority rule provides for searches without warrant. The principle can be applied only when both parties have access or control to the same property. ***The Consenting Party Had Authority to Permit the Search.*** The WA Supreme Court held that here, the consenting party, the owner, clearly had the authority to consent to the search in his own right. “There is no dispute that the first part of the test is satisfied in this case as the truck’s owner, Casteel, could clearly consent to its search in his own right,” said the Court. “The driver of a car owned by another does not ordinarily assume the risk that the owner will consent to a search.” ***Vanhollebeke, by Borrowing Casteel’s truck, Assumed the Risk that Casteel Might Allow Others to Search It.*** The Court held that the evidence in this case gave the officers good reasons to believe the vehicle was stolen. This driver, without a key or identification and with a punched out ignition clearly visible, therefore assumed the risk that the police would contact the absent owner and seek consent to search. The Court elaborated that this reasoning is consistent with the reasoning in the United States Supreme Court’s “common authority” cases that legitimation of expectations of privacy by law must have a source outside of the Fourth Amendment, either by reference to concepts of real or personal property law or to understandings that are recognized and permitted by society. “The search in this case did not violate the Fourth Amendment,” concluded the Court. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Common Authority Rule, Common Authority Searches, Constitutional Rights, Evidence, felony, Firearm, Fourth Amendment, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Unlawful Imprisonment Evidence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/unlawful-imprisonment-evidence/) **Published:** March 20, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [State v. Scanlan](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/744381.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) upheld the defendant’s conviction for [Unlawful Imprisonment](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.40.040) because there was evidence that the victim told his doctor that he had been imprisoned in his home for two days against his will by the Defendant. **BACKGROUND** In 2013, Bagnell, an 82-year-old widower, was living independently in the [Federal Way](http://www.cityoffederalway.com/) home that he had shared with his wife of more than 50 years. Sometime in 2013, Bagnell met Scanlan, a woman 30 years his junior. They quickly became friends and about two months later, Scanlan moved in with Bagnell. On October 16, 2014, the [Federal Way Police Department](http://www.cityoffederalway.com/police) responded to Bagnell’s home after receiving a 911 hang-up call. The officers found Bagnell and Scanlan inside the home. Scanlan was uninjured, but Bagnell, who was dressed in a t-shirt and underwear, had wounds on his head, arms, and legs. After questioning Scanlan, the officers arrested her. As a result of the incident, a court order was issued prohibiting Scanlan from contacting Bagnell. A few weeks later, on November 6, 2014, Bagnell’s adult children grew concerned after Bagnell missed a scheduled meeting with them. After trying and failing to reach him on his cell phone and home phone, Bagnell’s children went to Bagnell’s house to check on him. When Bagnell’s children arrived at his house, they found it dark. Its blinds were drawn and all of the interior and exterior lights were out. The children thought this was odd and moved up to the front porch to try to see inside. From the porch they could see the glow of the television and shadowy movements. They rang the doorbell and knocked but received no answer. Bagnell’s children were alarmed and opened the door with an emergency key. Inside, they found Bagnell’s home in disarray. Trails of blood ran across the carpet and up the stairs, gouges marked the walls, and broken household items and debris lay on the floor. A golf club leaned against a wall, and a hammer lay on a coffee table. A crowbar was on the dining room table, and a broken broom handle stood in a garbage bucket in the middle of the family room’s floor. Bagnell sat alone in a chair in the family room, dazed, bleeding from several wounds, and severely bruised such that “His face was black.” Bagnell at first appeared to be unconscious, but he began to respond to their attempts to rouse him as they called 911. Roughly 15 minutes later, Federal Way Police Officer Brian Bassage arrived at Bagnell’s home. Just as Officer Bassage arrived, Scanlan was found hiding under a blanket in the front seat of a car in the garage. As Officer Bassage removed her from the car, Bagnell’s daughter yelled out at her that she had “just beat her father half to death, that there was blood everywhere.” Scanlan shouted back, “It’s not that bad.” At the police station, Scanlan claimed to be injured. The police took pictures, but did not detect any significant injuries. Scanlan did not receive medical treatment. Bagnell was transported to the hospital where he was treated in the emergency room for his injuries which included: extensive bruising all over his body, four large open wounds on his legs, wounds on his arms, and fractures on both hands. Bagnell was treated in the emergency room by emergency room Nurse Catherine Gay and Dr. Robert Britt. Bagnell also met with social worker Jemina Skjonsby. After treatment, but prior to his release, Bagnell met with Federal Way Police Department Detective Adrienne Purcella from about midnight to 1:00 a.m. Bagnell signed a form medical records waiver at 12:55 a.m. Bagnell did not testify at trial. However, the trial court admitted statements that Bagnell made to medical providers in the emergency room, as well as subsequent statements made to his primary care physician and wound care medical team. In November 2015, the State charged Scanlan with [assault in the second degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) (count 1), [felony violation of a court order](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/no-contact-order-violations/) (count 2), [unlawful imprisonment ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/kidnapping-unlawful-imprisonment/)(count 3), and [assault in the fourth degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) (count 4). All counts contained a [domestic violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) allegation. The jury found Scanlan guilty of assault in the second degree, felony violation of a court order, and unlawful imprisonment. Scanlon appealed her convictions She contends that, among other issues, there was [insufficient evidence](https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/insufficient+evidence) to support the charge of unlawful imprisonment. **COURT’S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals held there is sufficient evidence of unlawful imprisonment. The Court reasoned that when reviewing a claim for the sufficiency of the evidence, it considers whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, all reasonable inferences from the evidence must be drawn in favor of the State and interpreted most strongly against the defendant. A claim of insufficiency admits the truth of the State’s evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom. Finally, circumstantial evidence is as reliable as direct evidence. However, inferences based on circumstantial evidence must be reasonable and cannot be based on speculation. In this case, the State charged Scanlan with unlawful imprisonment under RCW 9A.40.040 which states: “A person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment if he or she knowingly restrains another person.” To prove restraint, the State had to prove that Scanlan restricted Bagnell’s movements (a) without consent and (b) without legal authority, in a manner which interfered substantially with his liberty. Restraint is without consent if it is accomplished by physical force, intimidation, or deception. The Court reasoned that first, Bagnell told his physician Dr. Britt that he had been in his home for two days, that he had been imprisoned, or at least held in his home, against his will. Also the physician’s assistant testified that Bagnell told her that Scanlan locked him in a room: “He was living with a girlfriend at the time who had locked him in a room and had beat him with a candlestick, a broom and a hammer over multiple areas,” said the physician’s assistant, who also testified at trial. Second, circumstantial evidence supports the inference that Scanlan used force or the threat of force to restrain Bagnell. Bagnell’s children found the front door locked, their father in a stupor, the house in disarray, and a broken broom, hammer, golf club, and crowbar. Bagnell’s children were also unable to contact their father by phone. Additionally, Bagnell’s cell phone was found broken, a battery was found to have been removed from a cordless phone in the home, and another phone was found to have no dial tone. > “Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, this is sufficient evidence of unlawful imprisonment.” With that, the Court of Appeals affirmed Scanlan’s conviction for unlawful imprisonment. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Domestic Violence, Evidence, felony, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Unlawful Imprisonment, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Excessive Force?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/excessive-force/) **Published:** March 24, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[Thompson v. Copeland](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/03/13/16-35301.pdf)*, the [Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) held that a police officer uses [excessive force](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/excessive_force) when he points a gun at a suspect’s head and threatens to kill the suspect after the suspect, who was arrested for a felony, has already been searched, is calm and compliant, and is being watched over by a second armed deputy. **BACKGROUND FACTS** In December, 2011, Pete Copeland, a deputy in the [King County Sheriff’s Office (“KCSO”)](https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/sheriff.aspx), was on patrol in the [City of Burien](http://www.burienwa.gov/), Washington. After watching Lawrence Thompson commit “multiple traffic violations,” Copeland pulled him over. Thompson apologized to Copeland but failed to provide a driver’s license, although he did offer up some mail addressed in his name. When Copeland ran Thompson’s identifying information, he discovered that Thompson had a suspended license for an unpaid ticket, that Thompson was a convicted felon, and that his most recent felony conviction was for possessing a firearm. Copeland decided to arrest Thompson for [driving with a suspended license](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.342), and to impound Thompson’s car, as required by a City of Burien ordinance. Copeland had Thompson exit the vehicle and [patted him down for weapons](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/pat-down_search). Finding none, Copeland radioed for backup, and had Thompson sit on the bumper of Copeland’s patrol car. Copeland then conducted an inventory search of Thompson’s vehicle. During his search, Copeland saw a loaded revolver sitting in an open garbage bag on the rear passenger-side floorboard. After seeing the gun, Copeland decided to arrest Thompson for [Unlawful Possession of a Firearm](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/). Thompson continued to sit on the bumper of Copeland’s police cruiser, watched over by another deputy who had arrived for backup on the scene. Thompson was about 10–15 feet from the gun in the backseat of his car, and was not handcuffed. Copeland signaled to the deputy watching over Thompson, then drew his gun. What happened next is disputed by the parties. Copeland claims he unholstered his firearm and assumed a low-ready position, with his gun clearly displayed but not pointed directly at Thompson. By contrast, Thompson claims that Copeland pointed his gun at Thompson’s head, demanded Thompson surrender, and threatened to kill him if he did not. Copeland directed Thompson to get on the ground, facedown, so that he could be handcuffed. Thompson complied and was cuffed without incident. Copeland arrested Thompson for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The State of Washington charged Thompson with Unlawful Possession of a Firearm. However, the charges were dismissed after determining that the evidence against Thompson had been gathered in violation of the [Washington State Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx). Thompson sued Officer Copeland and [King County](https://www.kingcounty.gov/) under [42 U.S.C. § 1983](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983), alleging violations of his [Fourth Amendment rights](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment). Specifically, Thompson alleged that Officer Copeland used excessive force in pointing his gun at Thompson and threatening to kill him. In recommending dismissal of this claim, the [federal Magistrate Judge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_magistrate_judge) found that the degree of force used on Thompson was reasonable given that Officer Copeland was conducting a felony arrest of a suspect who was not secured, who was in relatively close proximity to a weapon, who was taller and heavier than him, and who had a prior felony conviction for unlawfully possessing a firearm. The Magistrate Judge concluded that Officer Copeland’s minimal use-of-force in effectuating Thompson’s arrest was objectively reasonable, and did not violate Thompson’s Fourth Amendment rights. The Magistrate Judge also granted Copeland’s motion to dismiss under summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. Later, The federal district court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and dismissed Thompson’s claims with prejudice. Thompson appealed. **ISSUE** In the course of a felony arrest, may a police officer point a loaded gun at an unarmed suspect’s head, where that suspect had already been searched, was calm and compliant, was watched over by a second armed deputy, and was seated on the bumper of a police cruiser 10–15 feet away from a gun found in the suspect’s car? And if not, was the police officer entitled to qualified immunity from future lawsuits for police misconduct? **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Ninth Circuit held that pointing a loaded gun at the suspect’s head in these circumstances constitutes excessive force under the Fourth Amendment, but that the officers here are entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of the traffic stop. “Our analysis involves two distinct steps,” said the Court of Appeals. “Police officers are not entitled to qualified immunity if **(1)** the facts taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury show that the officers’ conduct violated a constitutional right, and **(2)** the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” 1. ***Violation of a Constitutional Right.*** The Court reasoned that Officer Copeland’s use of force in arresting Thompson was not objectively reasonable. Officer Copeland pointed the gun at Thompson’s head and threatened to kill him if he did not surrender. This type and amount of force can hardly be characterized as minor, reasoned the Court. Furthermore, Thompson had no weapon and had already been searched. He was sitting on the bumper of a squad car, watched over by an armed deputy. He was not actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. > “Reviewing the totality of the circumstances, the force used against Thompson was excessive when balanced against the government’s need for such force. In the end, pointing guns at persons who are compliant and present no danger is a constitutional violation.” **2.** ***No Clearly Established Right.*** Here, the Court reasoned that although the use of excessive force violated Thompson’s constitutional rights, Officer Copeland is entitled to [qualified immunity](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity) because Thompson’s right not to have a gun pointed at him under the circumstances here was not clearly established at the time the events took place. “Looking to the particular setup here, we cannot say that every reasonable officer in Copeland’s position would have known that he was violating the constitution by pointing a gun at Thompson,” said the Court of Appeals. “Thompson’s nighttime, felony arrest arising from an automobile stop, in which a gun was found, coupled with a fluid, dangerous situation, distinguishes this case from our earlier precedent.” The Court reasoned that, more specifically, Copeland was conducting a felony arrest at night of a suspect who was not handcuffed, stood six feet tall and weighed two hundred and sixty-five pounds, was taller and heavier than Copeland, and had a prior felony conviction for unlawfully possessing a firearm. “Although Thompson was cooperative, the situation was still critical in terms of potential danger to the officers, especially given that a loaded gun was only 10–15 feet away,” said the Court. “Copeland did not violate a “clearly established” right as that concept has been elucidated by the Supreme Court in the excessive force context.” The Court of Appeals concluded that because the law was not clearly established within the parameters dictated by the Supreme Court, Officer Copeland was entitled to qualified immunity. Therefore, the lower district court’s grant of summary judgment was AFFIRMED. **3. *Dissenting Opinion.*** My opinion? Respectfully, I disagree with the Court of Appeals’ majority decision and agree with [Justice Christen’s](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ce9/view.php?pk_id=0000000473) dissenting opinion. “This decision squarely conflicts with the clear directive our court issued in [*Robinson v. Solano County*](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1471354.html), a case involving facts that, if distinguishable at all, posed a greater threat to officer safety,” said Justice Christen. Ultimately, she reasoned that *Robinson* recognized the critical distinction between pointing a gun at someone’s head and holding it in the “low ready” position. “Deputy Copeland was justified in displaying some degree of force, but accepting the allegations in the complaint as true, he unquestionably used excessive force when he aimed his gun at Thompson’s head and threatened that if Thompson moved, he’d be dead.,” said Justice Christen. “Because that rule was clearly established long before Thompson was arrested, I respectfully dissent.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member believe police used excessive force in any given situation. Police officers have difficult tasks. In recent years, however, the use of force by police officers making traffic stops has flared into a national debate of renewed importance. It’s imperative to seek legal counsel with knowledge and competence in this debate, and who may recover damages from the police officer’s liability. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Driving While License Suspended/Revoked, felony, Firearm, Fourth Amendment, law enforcement, police, Police Misconduct, Qualified Immunity, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Probable Cause & Parties](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/probable-cause-parties/) **Published:** March 25, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*District of Colombia v. Wesby*](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/15-1485_1qm2.pdf), the [United States Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) decided that police officers had [probable cause](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause) to arrest partygoers at a home when the totality of the circumstances make it clearly obvious that criminal activity was happening. **BACKGROUND** [District of Columbia police](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Police_Department_of_the_District_of_Columbia) officers responded to a complaint about loud music and illegal activities in a vacant house. Inside, they found the house nearly barren and in disarray. The officers smelled marijuana and observed beer bottles and cups of liquor on the floor, which was dirty. They found a make-shift strip club in the living room. Several women were wearing only bras and thongs, with cash tucked into their garter belts. The women were giving lap dances while other partygoers watched. Most of the onlookers were holding cash and cups of alcohol. The officers found more debauchery upstairs. A naked woman and several men were in the bedroom. A bare mattress—the only one in the house—was on the floor, along with some lit candles and multiple open condom wrappers. A used condom was on the windowsill. The officers found one partygoer hiding in an upstairs closet, and another who had shut himself in the bathroom and refused to come out. Many partygoers scattered when they saw the uniformed officers, and some hid. The officers questioned everyone and got inconsistent stories. Two women identified “Peaches” as the house’s tenant and said that she had given the partygoers permission to have the party. But Peaches was not there. When the officers spoke by phone to Peaches, she was nervous, agitated, and evasive. At first, she claimed that she was renting the house and had given the partygoers permission to have the party, but she eventually admitted that she did not have permission to use the house. The owner confirmed that he had not given anyone permission to be there. At that point, the officers arrested the 21 partygoers for [Unlawful Entry](https://code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/code/sections/22-3302.html). The police transported the partygoers to the police station, where the lieutenant decided to charge them with [Disorderly Conduct](https://code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/code/sections/22-1321.html). The partygoers were released, and the charges were eventually dropped. Several partygoers sued for False Arrest under the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment). The Federal District Court concluded that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest the partygoers for unlawful entry and that two of the officers, petitioners here, were not entitled to qualified immunity. A divided panel of the D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Eventually, this case went to the U.S. Supreme court. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** 1. ***The Officers Had Probable Cause to Arrest.*** The U.S. Supreme Court held that police officers had probable cause to arrest the partygoers. The Court reasoned that considering the “totality of the circumstances” under *[Maryland v. Pringle](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/540/366/)*, the officers made an “entirely reasonable inference” that the partygoers knew they did not have permission to be in the house. Taken together, the condition of the house and the conduct of the partygoers allowed the officers to make several common-sense conclusions about human behavior. Because most homeowners do not live in such conditions or permit such activities in their homes, the officers could infer that the partygoers knew the party was not authorized. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that officers also could infer that the partygoers knew that they were not supposed to be in the house because they scattered and hid when the officers arrived. Also, the partygoers’ vague and implausible answers to questioning also gave the officers reason to infer that the partygoers were lying and that their lies suggested a guilty mind. Finally, Peaches’ lying and evasive behavior gave the officers reason to discredit everything she said. **2. *The Lower Court Failed to Conduct the Correct Analysis.*** The Supreme Court explained that the lower court failed to follow two basic and well-established principles of law. First, it viewed each fact in isolation, rather than as a factor in the totality of the circumstances. Second, it believed that it could dismiss outright any circumstances that were susceptible of innocent explanation. Instead, it should have asked whether a reasonable officer could conclude—considering all of the surrounding circumstances, including the plausibility of the explanation itself—that there was a substantial chance of criminal activity. **3. *The Officers Were Entitled to Qualified Immunity.*** For those who don’t know, [Qualified Immunity](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity) protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a [plaintiff](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plaintiff)‘s rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right. When determining whether or not a right was “clearly established,” courts consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the [defendant’s ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defendant)conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights. Courts conducting this analysis apply the law that was in force at the time of the alleged violation, not the law in effect when the court considers the case. The Court ruled that here, officers are entitled to qualified immunity under [42 U. S. C. §1983](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983) unless the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time. To be clearly established, a legal principle must be “settled law,” and it must clearly prohibit the officer’s conduct in the particular circumstances before him. In the warrantless arrest context, “a body of relevant case law” is usually necessary to “ ‘clearly establish’ the answer” with respect to probable cause. [*Brosseau v. Haugen*](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/543/194/). With that, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the lower court’s decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) of you, a friend or family member’s house party was interrupted by police who conducted arrests. Competent defense counsel can ascertain whether constitutional rights were violated in the search and seizure of persons and property. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, False Arrest, Fourth Amendment, law enforcement, misdemeanor, Probable Cause, Qualified Immunity, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Increase of Uninsured Drivers in WA State](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/increase-of-uninsured-drivers-in-wa-state/) **Published:** March 27, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Informative [article](http://www.theolympian.com/latest-news/article206989449.html) by [Rolf Boone](https://muckrack.com/rolf-boone/articles) of [The Olympian](http://www.theolympian.com/) discusses how the number of uninsured motorists in Washington state increased to 17.4 percent between 2012 and 2015, according to the [Northwest Insurance Council](http://www.nwinsurance.org/), which cited a [report](https://www.insurance-research.org/research-publications/uninsured-motorists-2017-edition) by the [Insurance Research Council.](https://www.insurance-research.org/) Washington state is now seventh highest in the country for uninsured drivers. “It is concerning that in our region’s thriving economy, with more vehicles than ever on our roadways, that a growing percentage of drivers are uninsured, breaking the law and imposing higher costs on insured drivers,” said Kenton Brine, Northwest Insurance Council President in a statement. The five states with the highest number of uninsured motorists: -Florida, 26.7 percent. -Mississippi, 23.7 percent. -New Mexico, 20.8 percent. -Michigan, 20.3 percent. -Tennessee, 20 percent. Under [RCW 46.30.020](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.30.020), it is a civil infraction to drive without insurance. The [legislative intent](http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.30.010) of this law says, “It is a privilege granted by the state to operate a motor vehicle upon the highways of this state. The legislature recognizes the threat that uninsured drivers are to the people of the state.” Driving without insurance can be potentially damaging. Along with facing civil penalties, police officers may find some excuse to search your vehicle and/or investigate you for [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/), [Driving While License Suspended](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.342), etc. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) if you, a friend or family member face these or any other charges relating to driving. You may need competent defense counsel to get these charges reduced or dismissed. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Driving While License Suspended/Revoked, Legislation, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Drug Offender Recidivism](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/drug-offender-recidivism/) **Published:** March 29, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** A recent [Pew Study](http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2018/03/more-imprisonment-does-not-reduce-state-drug-problems) suggests that imprisoning drug offenders for longer prison sentences does not reduce drug problems in any given state. In other words, there is no statistical data showing a relationship between prison terms and drug misuse. To test this, [Pew](http://www.pewtrusts.org/en) compared state drug imprisonment rates with three important measures of drug problems— self-reported drug use (excluding marijuana), drug arrest, and overdose death—and found no statistically significant relationship between drug imprisonment and these indicators. In other words, higher rates of drug imprisonment did not translate into lower rates of drug use, arrests, or overdose deaths. The study found that nearly 300,000 people are held in state and federal prisons in the United States for drug-law violations, up from less than 25,000 in 1980. These offenders served more time than in the past: Those who left state prisons in 2009 had been behind bars an average of 2.2 years, a 36 percent increase over 1990, while prison terms for federal drug offenders jumped 153 percent between 1988 and 2012, from about two to roughly five years. The study said that as the U.S. confronts a [growing epidemic of opioid misuse](https://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/opioids/opioid-overdose-crisis), policymakers and public health officials need a clear understanding of whether, how, and to what degree imprisonment for drug offenses affects the nature and extent of the nation’s drug problems. To explore this question, The Pew Charitable Trusts examined publicly available 2014 data from[ federal and state law enforcement, corrections, and health agencies](https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/statedeaths.html). The analysis found no statistically significant relationship between state drug imprisonment rates and three indicators of state drug problems: self-reported drug use, drug overdose deaths, and drug arrests. The findings—which Pew sent to the [President’s Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis](https://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/presidents-commission/) in a letter dated June 19, 2017—reinforce a large body of prior research that cast doubt on the theory that stiffer prison terms deter drug misuse, distribution, and other drug-law violations. The evidence strongly suggests that policymakers should pursue alternative strategies that research shows work better and cost less. > “Although no amount of policy analysis can resolve disagreements about how much punishment drug offenses deserve, research does make clear that some strategies for reducing drug use and crime are more effective than others and that imprisonment ranks near the bottom of that list. And surveys have found strong public support for changing how states and the federal government respond to drug crimes.” “Putting more drug-law violators behind bars for longer periods of time has generated enormous costs for taxpayers, but it has not yielded a convincing public safety return on those investments,” concluded the study. “Instead, more imprisonment for drug offenders has meant limited funds are siphoned away from programs, practices, and policies that have been proved to reduce drug use and crime.” My opinion? Public safety should be the number one reason we incarcerate. However, penalties should be the most effective, proportional, and cost-efficient sanction to achieve that goal. This would create more uniform sentences and reduce disparities, while preserving judicial discretion when necessary. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face [drug charges](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). If convicted, your loved ones risk facing an unnecessary amount of incarceration. Only a competent and experienced criminal defense attorney can reduce of criminal charges and/or facilitate the implementation of sentencing alternatives which reduce the amount of prison time an offender faces. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, felony, Opoids, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Probation Searches](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/probation-searches/) **Published:** April 5, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Cornwell](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/938458.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/?fa=supremecourt.visit) held that [Article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx) requires a nexus between the property searched and the suspected probation violation. Here, there was no nexus between the defendant’s failure to report to DOC and the car which the defendant was driving. **BACKGROUND FACTS** In September 2013, petitioner Curtis Lament Cornwell was placed on probation. His judgment and sentence allowed his probation officer to impose conditions of his release, which included the following provision: > “I am aware that I am subject to search and seizure of my person, residence, automobile, or other personal property if there is reasonable cause on the part of the Department of Corrections to believe that I have violated the conditions/requirements or instructions above.” Cornwell failed to report to the [Department of Corrections (DOC)](http://www.doc.wa.gov/) in violation of his probation, and DOC subsequently issued a [warrant for his arrest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_warrant). Cornwell first came to the attention of [Tacoma Police Department](https://www.cityoftacoma.org/government/city_departments/police/operations_bureau/community_policing_division/sector_1) Officer Randy Frisbie and CCO Thomas Grabski because of a distinctive Chevrolet Monte Carlo observed outside a house suspected of being a site for drug sales and prostitution. An officer conducted a records check and determined he had an outstanding warrant. In late November 2014, Officer Frisbie testified that he intended to stop the vehicle because he believed Cornwell was driving it and he had an outstanding warrant. He did not initiate the stop based on any belief that the car contained drugs or a gun or because he observed a traffic violation. Before Officer Frisbie could activate his police lights, the car pulled into a driveway and Cornwell began to exit it. Cornwell ignored Officer Frisbie’s orders to stay in the vehicle, and Officer Frisbie believed Cornwell was attempting to distance himself from the car. Officer Frisbie then ordered Cornwell to the ground. Cornwell started to lower himself in apparent compliance before jumping up and running. Cornwell was apprehended after both officers deployed their [tasers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser). He had $1,573 on his person at the time of arrest. After securing Cornwell, Officer Patterson called CCO Grabski to the scene. Upon arrival, CCO Grabski searched the Monte Carlo. He described the basis for his search as follows: > “When people are in violation of probation, they’re subject to search. So he’s driving a vehicle, he has a felony warrant for his arrest by DOC, which is in violation of his probation. He’s driving the vehicle, he has the ability to access to enter the vehicle, so I’m searching the car to make sure there’s no further violations of his probation.” In this case, CCO Grabski found a black nylon bag sitting on the front seat of the car. The bag contained [oxycodone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxycodone), [amphetamine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphetamine) and [methamphetamine pills](https://drugfree.org/drug/methamphetamine-pills/), [sim cards](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subscriber_identity_module), and small spoons. A cell phone was also found in the car. Cornwell moved pursuant to [CrR 3.6](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) to suppress the evidence obtained during the vehicle search. The trial court denied the motion. A jury convicted Cornwell of three counts of [unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) and one count of [resisting arrest](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/resisting-arrest/). The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The WA Supreme Court granted review on the issue of whether the search of the car Cornwell was driving an unlawful search. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The WA Supreme Court held that individuals on probation are not entitled to the full protection of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that probationers have a reduced expectations of privacy because they are serving their time outside the prison walls. Accordingly, it is constitutionally permissible for a CCO to search an individual based only on a well-founded or reasonable suspicion of a probation violation, rather than a [search warrant](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/search_warrant) supported by [probable cause](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause). However, the Court also also reasoned that the goals of the probation process can be accomplished with rules and procedures that provide both the necessary societal protections as well as the necessary constitutional protections. “Limiting the scope of a CCO’s search to property reasonably believed to have a nexus with the suspected probation violation protects the privacy and dignity of individuals on probation while still allowing the State ample supervision,” said the Court. “We therefore hold that article I, section 7 permits a warrantless search of the property of an individual on probation only where there is a nexus between the property searched and the alleged probation violation.” The Court reasoned that the CCO’s search of Cornwell’s car exceeded its lawful scope. “While CCO Grabski may have suspected Cornwell violated other probation conditions, the only probation violation supported by the record is Cornwell’s failure to report,” said the Court. It also reasoned that CCO Grabski’s testimony at the suppression hearing confirmed that he had no expectation that the search would produce evidence of Cornwell’s failure to report. “In this case, the search of Cornwell’s vehicle was unlawful because there was no nexus between the search and his suspected probation violation of failure to report to DOC,” concluded the Court. “The evidence seized during the search should have been suppressed. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals and Cornwell’s convictions.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member were subject to an unlawful search. It is imperative to hire experienced and competent defense counsel to suppress evidence of an unlawful search as quickly as possible. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Department of Corrections, Drug Offenses, Evidence, felony, Fourth Amendment, law enforcement, Nexus, police, Probation, Resisting Arrest, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [The Particularity Requirement for Search Warrants](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/the-particularity-requirement-for-search-warrants/) **Published:** April 8, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. McKee](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/739476.PDF)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that a [search warrant](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/search_warrant) that authorized the police to search and seize a large amount of cell phone data, including images, video, documents, text messages, contacts, audio recordings, call logs, calendars, notes, and tasks, and authorized a “physical dump” of “the memory of the phone for examination,” violated the [particularity requirement](https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-04/09-particularity.html) of the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment). **BACKGROUND FACTS** In 2012, A.Z. lived with her older brother and her mother in Anacortes. All parties were addicted to heroin, methamphetamine or both. A.Z. was using heroin and methamphetamine on a daily basis during 2012. In January 2012, A.Z.’s mother introduced A.Z. to 40-year-old Marc Daniel McKee during a “drug deal” for methamphetamine. McKee started spending a lot of time with the family and supplied them with methamphetamine. They would often “get high” together. At the end of June, McKee left to go to Alaska for work. When McKee returned two months later, he immediately contacted A.Z. McKee told A.Z. he had heroin and methamphetamine. McKee and A.Z. spent three days together at a Burlington motel using the drugs and engaging in consensual sex. Eventually, A.Z’s mother confronted McKee about the sexual encounters between A.Z. and McKee. Bringing another male with her A.Z.’s mother confronted McKee at a hotel room, beat him up, took his cell phone, and pulled A.Z out of the room. Later, A.Z.’s mother scrolled through the phone. She found pictures and videos of her daughter A.Z tied naked to a bed as well as videos of McKee and A.Z. having sex. After A.Z.’s mother looked at the video clips and photographs on the cell phone, she contacted the Mount Vernon Police Department. On October 30, A.Z.’s mother met with Detective Dave Shackleton. A.Z.’s mother described the video clips and photographs she saw on the cell phone. She left the cell phone with Detective Shackleton. Later, A.Z.’s mother contacted Detective Shackleton to report that J.P., another minor female, told her that McKee gave J.P. drugs in exchange for sex. Brickley obtained a restraining order prohibiting McKee from contacting A.Z. ***Application for a Search Warrant*** On October 31, Detective Jerrad Ely submitted an application and affidavit (Affidavit) in support of probable cause to obtain a warrant to search McKee’s cell phone to investigate the crimes of “Sexual Exploitation of a Minor RCW 9.68A.040” and “Dealing in Depictions of a Minor Engaged in Sexually Explicit Conduct RCW 9.68A.050.” The court issued a search warrant. The warrant allowed the police to obtain evidence from the cell phone described as an LG cell phone with model VX9100 currently being held at the Mount Vernon Police Department for the following items wanted: > “Images, video, documents, text messages, contacts, audio recordings, call logs, calendars, notes, tasks, data/internet usage, any and all identifying data, and any other electronic data from the cell phone showing evidence of the above listed crimes.” The search warrant authorizes the police to conduct a “physical dump” of the memory of the cell phone for examination. On November 7, 2012, the court filed a “Receipt of Execution of Search Warrant.” The Receipt of Execution of Search Warrant states the police conducted a “Cellebrite Dump” of the cell phone on November 6. Cellebrite software obtains all information saved on the cell phone as well as deleted information and transfers the data from the cell phone to a computer. ***Criminal Charges*** The State charged McKee with three counts of [Possession of Depictions of Minors Engaged in Sexually Explicit Conduct in the First Degree](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.68A.070#:~:text=RCW%209.68A.,engaged%20in%20sexually%20explicit%20conduct.) in violation of RCW 9.68A.070(1) based on the three cell phone video clips, one count of [Possession of Depictions of a Minor Engaged in Sexually Explicit Conduct in the Second Degree](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.68A.070#:~:text=RCW%209.68A.,engaged%20in%20sexually%20explicit%20conduct.) in violation of RCW 9.68A.070(2) based on the cell phone photographs, one count of [Commercial Sex Abuse](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.68A.100) of J.P. as a minor in violation of RCW 9.68A.100, three counts of [Distribution of Methamphetamine and/or Heroin to a person under age 18](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.406) in violation of RCW 69.50.406(1) and .401(2), and one count of [Violation of a No-Contact Order](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=26.50.110) in violation of RCW 26.50.110(1). ***Motion to Suppress*** McKee filed a motion to suppress the evidence the police seized from his cell phone. McKee asserted the search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment requirement to describe with particularity the “things to be seized.” McKee argued the warrant allowed the police to search an “overbroad list of items” unrelated to the identified crimes under investigation. McKee also argued probable cause did not support issuing a search warrant of the cell phone for the crime of dealing in depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. The court entered an order denying the motion to suppress. The court found the allegations in the Affidavit supported probable cause that McKee committed the crimes of sexual exploitation of a minor and dealing in depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. The court concluded the citation to the criminal statutes established particularity and the search warrant was not overbroad. At trial, the jury found McKee not guilty of distribution of methamphetamine and/or heroin. The jury found McKee guilty as charged on all other counts. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** Ultimately, the Court of Appeals held that the search warrant violated the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment, and that a search conducted pursuant to a warrant that fails to conform to the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment is unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment was adopted in response to indiscriminate searches and seizures conducted under the authority of ‘general warrants.’ “The problem posed by the general warrant is not that of intrusion per se, but of a general, exploratory rummaging in a person’s belongings,” said the Court. “The Fourth Amendment addresses the problem by requiring a particular description of the things to be seized . . . The court further reasoned that by limiting the authorization to search to the specific areas and things for which there is probable cause to search, the requirement ensures that the search will be carefully tailored to its justifications, and would not take on the character of the wide-ranging exploratory searches the Framers of the Constitution intended to prohibit. “The degree of specificity required varies depending on the circumstances of the case and the types of items,” said the Court. “The advent of devices such as cell phones that store vast amounts of personal information makes the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment that much more important.” The Court also quoted language from the U.S. Supreme Court’s *Riley v. California* and the WA Supreme Court’s *State v. Samilia*; both cases strongly supporting the notion that cell phones and the information contained therein are private affairs because they may contain intimate details about individuals’ lives. “Here, the warrant cites and identifies the crimes under investigation but does not use the language in the statutes to describe the data sought from the cell phone,” said the Court. “The warrant lists the crimes under investigation on page one but separately lists the “Items Wanted” on page two.” Consequently, the Court reasoned that the description of the “Items Wanted” was overbroad and allowed the police to search and seize lawful data when the warrant could have been made more particular. Furthermore, the Court held that the warrant in this case was not carefully tailored to the justification to search and was not limited to data for which there was probable cause. The warrant authorized the police to search all images, videos, documents, calendars, text messages, data, Internet usage, and “any other electronic data” and to conduct a “physical dump” of “all of the memory of the phone for examination.” “The language of the search warrant clearly allows search and seizure of data without regard to whether the data is connected to the crime,” said the Court. “The warrant gives the police the right to search the contents of the cell phone and seize private information with no temporal or other limitation.” As a result, reasoned the Court, there was no limit on the topics of information for which the police could search. Nor did the warrant limit the search to information generated close in time to incidents for which the police had probable cause: > “The warrant allowed the police to search general categories of data on the cell phone with no objective standard or guidance to the police executing the warrant. The language of the search warrant left to the discretion of the police what to seize.” With that, the Court of Appeals held the search warrant violated the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment. The Court reversed and dismissed the four convictions of Possession of Depictions of a Minor Engaging in Sexually Explicit Conduct. My opinion? For the most part, courts look dis favorably on the searches of people’s homes, cars, phones, etc., unless the probable cause for the search is virtually overwhelming, and/or an emergency exists which would spoil the evidence if it was not gathered quickly; and/or a search warrant exists. Even when search warrants are drafted and executed, they *must* be particular to the search. In other words, law enforcement can’t expect that a general, non-specific search warrant is going to win the day for them and allow a fishing expedition to take place. Here, the Court of Appeals correctly followed the law. In this case, limiting the search to the crimes cited on the first page of the warrant was insufficient. The descriptions of what to be seized must be made more particular by using the precise statutory language to describe the materials sought. Please read my [Search and Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) Legal Guide and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member’s person, home, vehicle or cell phone was searched by police and evidence was seized. The search may have been unlawfully conducted in violation of your Constitutional rights. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Access Devices, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Cell Phone, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Evidence, felony, Forensics, law enforcement, Methamphetamine, No Contact Order, police, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Marijuana vs. Alcohol](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/marijuana-vs-alcohol/) **Published:** April 11, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Wonderful [article](http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article208492829.html) by [Matthew Martinez](https://muckrack.com/matthew-martinez) of the [Miami Herald](http://www.miamiherald.com/) says that according to new research from [Cowen and Company](https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeadams/2018/04/05/binge-drinking-rates-drop-in-states-with-recreational-marijuana-laws/2/#1a479e46e26f), seven of the nine states that allow adults to legally consume marijuana saw 13 percent fewer binge drinking episodes than non-cannabis states, and 9 percent fewer than the national average. In recreational use states, binge drinkers guzzled 6.6 drinks per binge, compared with 7.4 drinks in non-cannabis states. > “We have consistently argued that cannabis and alcohol are substitute social lubricants,” the report reads. “To be sure, we do not dispute that alcohol will continue to be quite popular in the U.S. (generating over $210 bn in annual retail sales today). We are, however, focused on the marginal alcohol unit, which given the cannabis category’s much smaller size, creates a sizable opportunity for the cannabis industry.” Nevada and California, the two states to have most recently legalized recreational pot, still had higher rates of binge drinking intensity than [Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia](http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/31/news/marijuana-state-of-the-union/index.html), but the report stated the company expects “mean reversion for these states, too, given the historical precedent.” People’s decision to switch to marijuana, according to the report, include: outsized switching among younger consumers, shifting risk perceptions among 18- to 25-year-olds, less pressure to generate alcohol tax revenue in legal cannabis states, consumer survey work on alcohol consumption among cannabis consumers, and academic research that concludes medical cannabis weighs on alcohol purchases. The Wall Street investment firm calls marijuana a viable “substitute social lubricant” for alcohol in the years to come, projecting even greater sales numbers for the industry than previously thought. “Assuming federal legalization, we believe cannabis can generate gross sales of $75 billion by 2030 (and $17.5 billion in tax revenue),” the report reads. “As cannabis access expands, we expect further pressure on alcohol sales, given this notable divide in consumption patterns.” A 2015 study published in the [Journal of Health Economics](https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/journal-of-health-economics) and cited by [The Washington Post,](https://www.washingtonpost.com/) studying a drop-off in people’s marijuana use and a corresponding [spike in their alcohol use once they reach age 21](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/07/08/people-substitute-marijuana-for-alcohol-at-age-21-study-says/?utm_term=.fc2e91b0376c), the age to legally drink in the U.S., concluded that the two substances are indeed substitutes for each other among users. What Cowen and Company’s more recent research finds is almost the exact inverse of that older study: **that as recreational marijuana becomes legal in more and more states, some people are choosing the high from the plant over the the one from the bottle.** A study published in March in the journal [Neuropsychopharmacology](https://www.nature.com/npp/) found that one of the non-psychoactive compounds in marijuana, cannabidiol (CBD), could also [help drug addicts and alcoholics from relapsing](http://www.bnd.com/news/nation-world/national/article206687444.html). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime involving drugs or alcohol. The substantive defenses of [Voluntary Intoxicatio](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Iefa05ea6e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default))n and [Diminished Capacity](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Iefa05eace10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&bhcp=1) might be applicable to the specific facts of the case. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Uncategorized **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Whatcom County Sues Opioid Drug Manufacturer](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/whatcom-county-sues-opioid-drug-manufacturer/) **Published:** April 13, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Impressive [article](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article208583989.html) by [Kie Relyea](https://muckrack.com/kie-relyea) of the [Bellingham Herald](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/) discusses how the [Whatcom County Council](http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/268/County-Council) voted to join a growing legal fight against makers and wholesalers of [prescription opioids](https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/opioids/prescribed.html), saying they have contributed to a [public health crisis](https://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/opioids/opioid-overdose-crisis). On Tuesday, the [County Council decided to retain law firm Keller Rohrback ](http://wa-whatcomcounty.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/33589)in Seattle, which is representing a number of municipalities including Skagit, Pierce and King counties in Washington state. The vote was 7-0. > “Pretty broad consensus it was a good thing to do for the county.” > > *-Council member [Todd Donovan](http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/2261/Todd-Donovan).* Relyea reports that the law firm will sue the makers and distributors of opioid painkillers, including [Purdue Pharma](http://www.purduepharma.com/), [Endo Pharmaceuticals](http://www.endo.com/), [Janssen Pharmaceuticals](http://www.janssen.com/us/) and other entities. The law firm has so far filed lawsuits on behalf of five counties in the state, as well as the City of [Tacoma](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/state/washington/article173201221.html). Whatcom County isn’t paying the law firm, which will be compensated if there’s a judgment against the companies, Donovan said. The county wants help responding to a public health [crisis caused by opioids](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/11/congress-searches-prescription-help-fight-growing-opioid-epidemic/504181002/), according to Donovan. “They are partially liable for over-prescribing these things and marketing them as non-addictive,” he said. “They should help us in bearing the cost.” In a separate lawsuit filed in 2017, the state of Washington sued [Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin,](http://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ferguson-new-details-unsealed-lawsuit-against-one-nation-s-largest-opioid) accusing it of “fueling the opioid epidemic in Washington state.” My opinion? GOOD. Opioids have turned many law-abiding and hardworking Americans into drug addicts. A substantial portion of my criminal defense practice is dedicated to helping clients who suffer from drug addictions which force them to commit crimes. You’d be amazed. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member is addicted to opioids and charged with a crime. The defense of [Diminished Capacity](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Iefa05eace10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)) may apply. Under this defense, evidence of mental illness or disorder may be taken into consideration in determining whether the defendant had the capacity to form the intent to commit the crime. In some cases, drug addicts lack intent to commit crimes because they are acting under the compulsion of their addiction. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Court, Drug Offenses, Opoids, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Marijuana Use & Your Job](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/marijuana-use-your-job/) **Published:** April 13, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Interesting [article](http://abcnews.go.com/US/people-marijuana-based-professions-study/story?id=54417564) by [Dr. Kelly Arps](http://abcnews.go.com/author/Kelly_Arps) of [abc news](http://abcnews.go.com/) reports that a [survey](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/wr/mm6714a1.htm?s_cid=mm6714a1_x#suggestedcitation) released by the Centers for Disease and Control Prevention ([CDC](http://abcnews.go.com/topics/lifestyle/health/center-for-disease-control.htm)) Thursday may help inform employers about marijuana use in their industry. The [Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE)](https://www.colorado.gov/cdphe) analyzed data from the [Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS)](https://www.cdc.gov/brfss/index.html) — a phone survey about health habits in general — and published a breakdown of marijuana use by industry and job. Of the more than 10,000 workers surveyed, 14.6 percent answered yes to the question, “Did you use marijuana or hashish in the last 30 days?” They were not asked whether they used marijuana while on the job. Not surprisingly, use was more common in males and among young people, with nearly 30 percent of those in the 18- to 25-year-old age group reporting at least one use in 30 days. ***Which profession smokes the most pot?*** In the “accommodation and food services” industry, 30 percent of workers reported smoking pot at least once in the past month. Those in the job category “food preparation and serving” had the highest use at 32 percent of workers. ***What other professions have a high proportion of marijuana users?*** “Arts, design, entertainment, sports and media” came in second at 28 percent. Marijuana use was also reported by 19 to 21 percent of workers in “production,” “life, physical, and social science,” “sales and related,” and “installation, maintenance, and repair.” ***What about people in high risk jobs?*** While the study doesn’t reveal if anyone actually got high on the job, the researchers did take a special look at industries in “safety-sensitive occupations” in which workers are responsible for their own safety or the safety of others. Those in construction, manufacturing, and agriculture industries all fell above the state average in percentage of workers reporting marijuana use. Notably, healthcare, utilities, or mining, oil, and gas all had less than 10 percent of their workers report marijuana use. All three of these low-use industries are also those known to perform drug testing on employees. ***Next steps: Workplace marijuana use policies*** In states where marijuana use is legal, companies are currently left to their own judgment regarding workplace use. Those with a policy that allows medicinal or recreational marijuana use during personal time will have difficulty interpreting a positive drug screen — was the employee high at work or does the result reflect his or her use last weekend? Experts have suggested implementing standardized cognitive testing rather than drug screens for those approved to use marijuana while employed — or for those with a suspected marijuana-related workplace safety incident. ***Marijuana use is frequently linked to mental health issues*** Dr. Arps reports that if an employee is using marijuana, then employers should dig further. “Is there [anxiety](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/info/anxiety), is there [ADHD](http://www.vyvanse.com/adhd-definition), is there [depression](https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/depression/index.shtml)?” said [Dr. Scott Krakower](https://www.northwell.edu/find-care/find-a-doctor/psychiatry/dr-scott-ira-krakower-do-11360371). “If marijuana is there, what else are we missing? Are we meeting our employees’ needs?” Dr. Arps also reports that federal law allows employers to prohibit employees from working under the influence of marijuana and may discipline employees who violate the prohibition without violating the [Americans with Disabilities Act](https://www.ada.gov/). Several states have laws, however, which prohibit discrimination based on its use, citing evidence supporting the positive effects of marijuana on various health conditions. “With widespread legalization, we will likely see publicized court cases surrounding these issues,” says Dr. Arps. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, marijuana, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Supreme Court Makes it Harder to Deport Legal Immigrants Who Commit Crimes.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/supreme-court-makes-it-harder-to-deport-legal-immigrants-who-commit-crimes/) **Published:** April 25, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*Sessions v. Dimaya*](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/15-1498_1b8e.pdf), the [United States Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) held that 18 U. S. C. §16(b), which defines “violent felony” for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act’s removal provisions for non-citizens, was unconstitutionally vague. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Respondent James Dimaya is a [lawful permanent resident](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lawful_permanent_resident_lpr) of the United States with two convictions for [first-degree burglary under California law](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=459). After his second offense, the Government sought to deport him as an [aggravated felon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggravated_felony). An [Immigration Judge](https://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary/immigration-judge) and the [Board of Immigration Appeals](https://www.justice.gov/eoir/board-of-immigration-appeals) held that California’s first-degree burglary is a [“crime of violence” under §16(b)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/16). While Dimaya’s appeal was pending in the [Ninth Circuit](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a similar residual clause in the [Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Career_Criminal_Act)—defining “violent felony” as any felony that “otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another,” [18 U. S. C. §924(e)(2)(B)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/924)—was unconstitutionally “void for vagueness” under the [Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment). Relying on [*Johnson v. United States*](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/13-7120/), the [Ninth Circuit](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) held that §16(b), as incorporated into the [INA](https://www.uscis.gov/laws/immigration-and-nationality-act), was also unconstitutionally vague. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** [Justice Kagan](https://www.oyez.org/justices/elena_kagan) delivered the majority opinion of the Court and concluded that §16(b)’s “crime of violence” clause was unconstitutionally vague. The Court’s opinion began by explaining that The [Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)](https://www.uscis.gov/laws/immigration-and-nationality-act) virtually guarantees that any alien convicted of an “aggravated felony” after entering the United States will be deported. See [8 U. S. C. §§1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), 1229b(a)(3), (b)(1)(C)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1227). An aggravated felony includes “a crime of violence for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year. Justice Kagan explained that Section 16’s definition of a crime of violence is divided into two clauses—often referred to as the elements clause, §16(a), and the residual clause, §16(b). The residual clause, the provision at issue here, defines a “crime of violence” as “any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.” To decide whether a person’s conviction falls within the scope of that clause, courts apply the categorical approach. This approach has courts ask not whether the particular facts underlying a conviction created a substantial risk; but whether “the ordinary case” of an offense poses the requisite risk. Justice Kagan reasoned that ACCA’s residual clause created grave uncertainty about how to estimate the risk posed by a crime because it tied the judicial assessment of risk to a speculative hypothesis about the crime’s ordinary case, but provided no guidance on how to figure out what that ordinary case was. Compounding that uncertainty, ACCA’s residual clause layered an imprecise “serious potential risk” standard on top of the requisite “ordinary case” inquiry. “The combination of indeterminacy about how to measure the risk posed by a crime and indeterminacy about how much risk it takes for the crime to qualify as a violent felony resulted in more unpredictability and arbitrariness than the Due Process Clause tolerates,” said Justice Kagan. Justice Kagan further reasoned that Section 16(b) suffers from those same two flaws. He explained that similar to the ACCA’s residual clause, §16(b) calls for a court to identify a crime’s ordinary case in order to measure the crime’s risk but offers no reliable way to discern what the ordinary version of any offense looks like. Additionally, its “substantial risk” threshold is no more determinate than ACCA’s “serious potential risk” standard. “Thus, the same two features that conspired to make ACCA’s residual clause unconstitutionally vague also exist in §16(b), with the same result,” said Justice Kagan. Next, Justice Kagan raised and dismissed numerous arguments from the Government that §16(b) is easier to apply and thus cure the constitutional infirmities. “None, however, relates to the pair of features that *Johnson* found to produce impermissible vagueness or otherwise makes the statutory inquiry more determinate,” said Justice Kagan. With that, the majority Court concluded that §16(b)’s “crime of violence” clause was unconstitutionally vague. The Court was deeply divided. Justice Kagan’s opinion was joined by [Justice Ginsburg](https://www.oyez.org/justices/ruth_bader_ginsburg), [Justice Breyer](https://www.oyez.org/justices/stephen_g_breyer), and [Justice Sotomayor](https://www.oyez.org/justices/sonia_sotomayor). [Justice Gorsuch](https://www.oyez.org/justices/neil_gorsuch) filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. [Justice Roberts](https://www.oyez.org/justices/john_g_roberts_jr) filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices [Kennedy](https://www.oyez.org/justices/anthony_m_kennedy), [Thomas](https://www.oyez.org/justices/clarence_thomas), and [Alito](https://www.oyez.org/justices/samuel_a_alito_jr) joined. Interestingly, it was Justice Gorsuch — a Trump nominee who sided with the four liberal-leaning justices in the ruling — who was the swing vote in this case. Despite his surprise vote, he explicitly left the door open to [Congress](https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/congress/) to act, saying it should be up to lawmakers and not the courts to be explicit about the crimes that deserve automatic deportation for even legal immigrants. My opinion? This decision is very good for legal immigrants facing crimes which are questionably deportable as [crimes of moral turpitude](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-s-crime-moral-turpitude-according-us-immigration-law.html) and/or [crimes of violence](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/16) under today’s immigration laws. It’s incredibly difficult to navigate the criminal justice system, and even more so for defendants who are not citizens. Therefore, it’s imperative for legal immigrants charged with crimes to hire competent defense counsel when charged with crimes which may essentially result in deportation. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Burglary, Constitutional Rights, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, felony, Fifth Amendment, Immigration, Skagit County Criminal Defense, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [5 Types of Alcoholics](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/5-types-of-alcoholics/) **Published:** April 26, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Apparently, there are several types of alcoholics. Scientists at the [National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)](https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/) conducted a [survey of 43,093 individuals](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2094392/), screening them for alcohol dependence as well as a wide range of other factors. The NIAAA researchers found that there were five distinct patterns of [alcohol dependence](https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/alcohol-treatment/alcohol-abuse/). **YOUNG ADULT SUBTYPE** This is the most prevalent subtype, making up 31.5 percent of people who are alcohol dependent. The average age of dependent young adults is 25 years, and they first became dependent at an average of age 20. They tend to drink less frequently than people of other types (an average of 143 days a year). However, most of their drinking is binge drinking – they drink five or more drinks on an average of 104 (73 percent) of those days. On drinking days, the average maximum number of drinks is 14. This pattern of alcohol use is more likely to be hazardous than non-binging patterns. Young adult alcohol dependents are 2.5 times more likely to be male than female. About 75 percent have never been married, 36.5 percent are still in school, and 54 percent work full time. Approximately 22 percent have a first- or second-degree family member who is also dependent on alcohol. Compared to other types of alcoholics, [young adults are less likely to have psychiatric disorders](https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/mental-health-addiction-therapy/) or legal problems. Fewer than 1 percent of them have antisocial personality disorder. About 32 percent also smoke cigarettes, and 25 percent also use cannabis. Only 8.7 percent of young adult alcohol dependents have ever sought treatment for their drinking problem. If they do choose to seek help, they tend to prefer 12-step programs over specialty treatment clinics or private professional practices. The [NIAAA](https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/special-populations-co-occurring-disorders/college-drinking) reports that four out of five college students drink alcohol and half of those who do binge drink. They also note that each year, among college students between the ages of 18 and 24: - At least 1,825 students die from alcohol-related accidental injuries. - Over 690,000 students are assaulted by another student who has been drinking. - More than 97,000 students are victims of alcohol-related date rape or sexual assault. - About 599,000 students are unintentionally injured while they are under the influence of alcohol. - Over 150,000 students develop alcohol-related health problems. - About 25 percent of students experience school-related consequences from their alcohol consumption, such as being late to or missing classes, falling behind on coursework, doing poorly on homework, exams or papers, and receiving overall lower grades. **YOUNG ANTISOCIAL SUBTYPE** Young antisocial alcohol dependents make up 21.1 percent of alcoholics – 54 percent of them have antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). ASPD is characterized by at least three of the following: - Recurring criminal activities - Regular fights or assaults - Lack of regard for the safety of others - Lack of remorse - Impulsiveness - Deceitfulness - Irresponsibility They are also young (average age 26 years), and they have the earliest age of onset of drinking (average 16 years) and the earliest age of alcohol dependence (average 18 years). Young antisocial alcoholics drank an average of 201 days in the last year, binge drinking (consuming five or more drinks) on an average of 161 (80 percent) of those days. When they drink, their maximum number of drinks is 17, the highest of any subtype of alcoholic. About 76 percent of this type of alcoholic are male. Only 7.6 percent have received a college degree, although another 13.4 percent are still in school. Approximately 47 percent are employed full time. Family incomes average around $32,000, the lowest among the subtypes (alongside the chronic severe subtype). Over half of young antisocial alcoholics (52.5 percent) have a close family member who is also alcohol dependent. In addition, they also have high rates of psychiatric disorders: - 37 percent have major depression (and 15 percent have had a major episode of depression during childhood) - 33 percent have[ bipolar disorder](https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/bipolar-disorder/sub-types/ "The Sub-Types of Bipolar Disorder") - 19 percent have [obsessive-compulsive personality disorder](https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/recovery-blog/substance-abuse-obsessive-compulsive-disorder/) - 14 percent have social phobia They also have high rates of substance abuse: - 77 percent smoke cigarettes - 66 percent meet criteria for [cannabis abuse/dependence](https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/drug-rehab/marijuana-addiction/many-forms-cannabis/ "What Are the Many Forms of Cannabis?") - 29 percent have [cocaine use disorder](https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/drug-rehab/cocaine-addiction/) - 22 percent have [opioid use disorder](https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/drug-rehab/opiate-addiction/) - 8 percent meet criteria for amphetamine abuse/dependence Almost 35 percent of young antisocial alcoholics have sought help for their alcohol-dependence problems. They tend to go to self-help groups, detoxification programs, and specialty treatment [programs](https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/treatment-program/medical-detox/), and they have high rates of participation in treatments offered by individual private health care providers. The [NIAAA](http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh25-1/5-11.htm) reports that alcohol and ASPD make for a dangerous combination. People with ASPD are 21 times more likely to develop alcohol dependence in their lifetimes. Meanwhile, alcohol is more likely to increase aggressive behaviors in people with ASPD than in people without. This may be because alcohol interferes with executive functioning in the brain, which regulates and inhibits aggressive behavior. People with ASPD also show impaired executive functioning, which may make them particularly vulnerable to this effect. **FUNCTIONAL SUBTYPE** Functional alcoholics make up 19.4 percent of alcohol-dependent individuals. This group tends to be older (average age 41 years), has a later age of first drinking (average 19 years), and a later onset of alcohol dependence (average age of 37 years). They tend to drink alcohol every other day (an average of 181 days per year), and they consume five or more drinks on an average of 98 (54 percent) of those days. On drinking days, they tend to consume a maximum of 10 drinks. About 62 percent of functional alcoholics work fulltime, 3.6 percent are in school fulltime, and 5 percent are retired. Nearly 26 percent have a college degree or higher, and average household income is almost $60,000, the highest among any of the subtypes. Approximately 40 percent are female, and nearly 50 percent are married. About 31 percent of functional alcoholics have a close family member who also has alcohol dependence. They have moderate rates of [major depression](https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/co-occurring-disorders-treatment/depression/)(24 percent) and smoking cigarettes (43 percent), and low rates of anxiety disorders, other substance use disorders, and the lowest rates of having legal problems (fewer than 1 percent). Fewer than 1 percent of these individuals have antisocial personality disorder. Only 17 percent of functional alcoholics have ever sought help for their alcohol dependence. Those who do [tend to make use of 12-step programs ](https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/aftercare/)and private health care professionals. Functional alcoholics make up 19.4 percent of alcohol-dependent individuals. This group tends to be older (average age 41 years), has a later age of first drinking (average 19 years), and a later onset of alcohol dependence (average age of 37 years). They tend to drink alcohol every other day (an average of 181 days per year), and they consume five or more drinks on an average of 98 (54 percent) of those days. On drinking days, they tend to consume a maximum of 10 drinks. **INTERMEDIATE FAMILIAL ALCOHOLICS** Intermediate familial alcoholics make up 18.8 percent of all alcoholics. Nearly half (47 percent) of them have a close family member who is also an alcoholic. They have an average age of 38 years, began drinking at almost age 17, and developed alcohol dependence at an average age of 32 years. Intermediate familial alcoholics drink on an average of 172 days a year, consuming five or more drinks on 93 (54 percent) of those days, with a maximum of 10 drinks. They have the highest rates of employment among alcoholics, with 68 percent working full time and with an average family income of nearly $50,000 a year. Nearly 20 percent have a college degree. About 64 percent are male, while about 38 percent are married and 21 percent are divorced. Intermediate familial alcoholics have elevated rates of mental illness: - 47 percent [have major depression](https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/co-occurring-disorders-treatment/depression/) - 22 percent [have bipolar disorder](https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/bipolar-disorder/what-look-like/) - 19 percent have [obsessive-compulsive disorder](https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/co-occurring-disorders-treatment/ocd/) - 15 percent have generalized [anxiety disorder](https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/co-occurring-disorders-treatment/anxiety-disorder/what-look-like/) - 5 percent have antisocial personality disorder They also have higher rates of substance use/abuse: - 57 percent smoke cigarettes - 25 percent have cannabis use disorder - 20 percent have cocaine use disorder Almost 27 percent of intermediate familial alcohol dependents have sought help for their drinking problem. They tend to prefer self-help groups, [detoxification programs](https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/drug-detox/alcohol/), specialty treatment programs, and individual private health care providers. **CHRONIC SEVERE SUBTYPE** This is the rarest and most dangerous type of alcoholism, making up 9.2 percent of alcoholics. Chronic severe alcoholics average 38 years of age. They begin drinking early (at 16 years) and develop alcohol dependence later (around 29 years of age). This group has the highest rates of drinking, consuming alcohol on an average of 247.5 days a year and binge drinking on 172 (69 percent) of them, with a maximum of 15 drinks. The majority of chronic severe alcoholics are male (65 percent). They also have the highest divorce rates, with 25.1 percent divorced and 8.6 percent separated, and only 28.7 percent married. Only 9 percent have a college degree, and they also have the lowest employment rate, with only 43 percent of chronic severe alcoholics employed full time and 7.6 percent both unemployed and permanently disabled. Chronic severe alcoholics have the highest rate of family members who also experience alcohol dependence, at 77 percent. They are most likely to have mental illnesses: - 55 percent have depression - 47 percent have antisocial personality disorder (the second-highest rate, after young antisocial alcoholics) - 34 percent have bipolar disorder - 26 percent have social phobia - 25 percent have dysthymia - 24 percent have generalized anxiety disorder - [17 percent have panic disorder](https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/co-occurring-disorders-treatment/anxiety-disorder/panic/) Substance abuse is also common: - 75 percent smoke cigarettes - 58 percent have cannabis use disorder - 39 percent have cocaine use disorder - 24 percent have opioid use disorder Chronic severe alcoholics experience the most pervasive symptoms: - Highest rate of emergency room visits related to drinking of any subtype - 94 percent drink larger/longer amounts than intended - 92 percent drink despite experiencing problems from drinking, such as at work, school, in relationships, or while driving - 88 percent experience withdrawal symptoms - 83 percent have repeatedly tried to reduce their drinking - 64 percent spend significant time recovering from drinking - 48 percent reduced meaningful activities, like hobbies or family time, because of alcohol Almost 66 percent of chronic severe alcoholics have sought help for their alcoholism. They have the highest rates of attendance at self-help groups, [detoxification programs](https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/drug-detox/do-it-yourself-vs-program/), and specialty rehabilitation programs, and the highest rates of treatment in inpatient programs. When seeking treatment, they tend to turn to social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, and private physicians. Alcoholism is a debilitating disease. Making matters worse, it can lead people to commit crimes they otherwise would not commit. [DUI ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/)is the perfect example of a crime which necessarily involves alcohol or drug abuse. Fortunately, there are defenses. [Voluntary Intoxication](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Iefa05ea6e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)) and/or [Diminished Capacity](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Iefa05eace10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&bhcp=1) might apply. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member suffer from alcoholism and are charged with a crime. Perhaps good defenses combined with hard work and strong dedication to a alcohol treatment program might persuade the Prosecutor to reduce or dismiss the charges. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Drug Recognition Expert, DUI, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Evidence of Forgery](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/evidence-of-forgery/) **Published:** April 29, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Bradshaw*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/758535.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that sufficient evidence existed to convict the defendant, an [escrow agent](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/escrow_agent.asp), of [forgery](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.60.020). **BACKGROUND FACTS** In 2014, Defendant/Appellant Stacy Bradshaw was a licensed escrow agent and the owner of North Sound Escrow. By law, an escrow agent must maintain several types of liability insurance. Bradshaw had coverage for crime as well as for errors and omissions through the insurance firm [USI Kibble & Prentice](https://www.usi.com/). The limits were $1 million per claim. In February 2014, Bradshaw was retained as the escrow agent for the sale of commercial property for the price of approximately $1.4 million. [Umpqua Bank](https://www.umpquabank.com/) was the lender for one of the parties. Umpqua asked Bradshaw for a copy of her insurance information. Bradshaw obtained a “Certificate of Liability Insurance” from Kibble & Prentice showing her limits of $1 million. She gave Umpqua a copy of the certificate that was altered to represent that Bradehaw had coverage limits of $2 million. Umpqua noticed the alterations and contacted both Kibble & Prentice and the Department of Financial Institutions, the agency that regulates escrow agents. This led to the prosecution of Bradshaw on one count of forgery. Bradshaw waived her right to a [jury trial](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_trial) and opted instead for a [bench trial](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bench_trial). The court convicted Bradshaw as charged and sentenced her to 40 hours of community service, $3,600 in financial restitution, and 6 months of community supervision. Bradshaw’s appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. **LEGAL ISSUE** Whether sufficient evidence exists to uphold the defendant’s forgery conviction. **RULE** A person is guilty of [Forgery](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/forgery/) if, with intent to injure or defraud: (a) He or she falsely makes, completes, or alters a written instrument or; (b) He or she possesses, utters, offers, disposes of, or puts off as true a written instrument which he or she knows to be forged. **ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals reasoned that the trial court correctly determined that the Certificate of Liability Insurance has legal efficacy as a written instrument and a public record. The court reasoned that a written instrument is broadly defined in the current [statute](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.60.010) as “Any paper, document, or other instrument containing written or printed matter or its equivalent; or (b) any access device, token, stamp, seal, badge, trademark, or other evidence or symbol of value, right, privilege, or identification.” The Court reasoned that the certificate holder named on Bradshaw’s certificate of liability insurance is the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions. The Certificate was filed with the department as evidence that Bradshaw was in compliance with coverage requirements. Finally, the certificate had material significance to the [Washington State Department of Financial Institutions.](https://dfi.wa.gov/) “As part of the licensing process, and under [statute](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=18.44.201), an escrow agent must submit proof of financial responsibility to the department, including a fidelity bond providing coverage in the aggregate amount of one million dollars,” said the Court. Furthermore, under the [Washington Administrative Code](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=208-680-310), to demonstrate compliance with the requirement for a fidelity bond, the applicant is required to provide the department with a certificate of insurance that includes the aggregate amount of coverage. By [statute](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=18.44.201), maintaining such insurance is “a condition precedent to the escrow agent’s authority to transact escrow business in this state.” The Court raised and dismissed Bradshaw’s arguments that the evidence is insufficient to prove her certificate of insurance is a public record because the State did not establish that anyone in the department scrutinized it during the process of renewing her license. “Bradshaw cites no authority for this proposition, and we have found none,” said the Court. > “In short, the record shows that Bradshaw’s certificate of insurance was a type of document required by law to be filed and necessary or convenient to the discharge of the duties of the department. In view of the regulatory scheme, the trial court reasonably found that a certificate of insurance coverage for an escrow agent is a written instrument, the alteration of which supports a forgery charge because it is a public record with legal efficacy.” With that, the Court held that sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s determination that Bradshaw’s certificate of insurance had legal efficacy as a foundation for legal liability. Finally, the Court raised and dismissed arguments that the [Rule of Lenity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_lenity) supports the reversal of her conviction. “The rule of lenity operates to resolve statutory ambiguities in favor of criminal defendant,” said the Court. “It ensures fair warning by so resolving ambiguity in a criminal statute as to apply it only to conduct clearly covered.” The Court reasoned that here, because Bradshaw’s conduct is clearly covered by the statute, the rule of lenity is not applicable. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Forgery, Rule of Lenity, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [DV & Cohabitating Parties](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/dv-cohabitating-parties/) **Published:** May 4, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Shelley*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/777611.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) reversed the the defendant’s domestic violence convictions and held that a man, who is cohabitating with a woman and her child, does not necessarily have a “family or household” relationship to the child. **BACKGROUND FACTS** From late 2013 until April 2015, Defendant Aaron Shelley, his girlfriend Cheri Burgess, and her son from another relationship, A.S., lived with Shelley’s aunt and uncle. On the evening of April 29, 2015, Shelley became angry and wanted Burgess to leave the house. After attempting to force Burgess out of the house, Shelley placed a knife against Burgess’s throat and stated he was going to kill her because she was not leaving. Shelley’s uncle, Mr. Sovey, intervened and convinced Shelley to give him the knife. While Burgess and Sovey were talking in the kitchen, Shelley took A.S. out to the car. When Burgess confronted Shelley, Shelley grabbed A.S. by the throat. A.S. made a choking noise, “like he couldn’t breathe.” And when Burgess tried to grab A.S., Shelley said, “If you don’t leave or get away, I’m just gonna squeeze him, keep squeezing him. Get away from me. Leave, leave. Just effing leave. Leave my boy.” After Sovey came outside, Burgess walked away and called the police. The State charged Shelley with, among other things, two counts of [second degree assault ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/)as to Burgess, one count of [second degree assault of a child](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) as to A.S., and one count of [felony harassment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/harassment/) for threatening to kill A.S. The State alleged each crime was one of [domestic violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/). The jury convicted Shelley of one count of assault as to Burgess. The jury found this was a crime of domestic violence because Shelley and Burgess were members of the same family or household. The jury also convicted Shelley of one count of assault as to A.S. and one count of felony harassment. Shelley appealed on the issue of whether he was properly convicted of domestic violence acts against A.S. **COURT’S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS** The WA Court of Appeals reasoned that under [RCW 10.99.020(3)](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=10.99.020) and [RCW 26.50.010(6)](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=26.50.010), “family or household members” includes the following: > “Spouses, former spouses, persons who have a child in common regardless of whether they have been married or have lived together at any time, adult persons related by blood or marriage, adult persons who are presently residing together or who have resided together in the past, persons sixteen years of age or older who are presently residing together or who have resided together in the past and who have or have had a dating relationship, persons sixteen years of age or older with whom a person sixteen years of age or older has or has had a dating relationship, and persons who have a biological or legal parent-child relationship, including stepparents and stepchildren and grandparents and grandchildren.” “The State had the burden of establishing Shelley and A.S. had a biological or legal parent-child relationship,” said the Court. “It is undisputed that Shelley is not A.S.’s biological father because Shelley and Burgess did not meet until she was six months pregnant.” The Court also raised and dismissed the State’s arguments that Shelley’s presumption of parentage was proven under [RCW 26.26.116 of the Uniform Parentage Act](http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=26.26.116). “The State did not present the trial court with any evidence of such a judicial determination,” said the Court of Appeals. “On this record, the State’s presumptive parent and de facto parent theories fail.” The Court concluded that because A.S. and Shelley are not family or household members, the domestic violence special verdicts on count 3, second-degree assault of a child, and count 4, felony harassment, were invalid as a matter of law. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with DV crimes involving the children of unmarried boyfriends/girlfriends or domestic partners. Like this case shows, the Prosecution may be unlawfully charging defendants with DV crimes when it lacks the authority to do so. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, Evidence, felony, Harassment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Jail Mail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/jail-mail-2/) **Published:** May 5, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Irby](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/759019.PDF)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that an inmate’s [6th Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) rights were violated and has case was prejudiced when jail guards opened and read his confidential “jail mail” letters written to his defense attorney. **BACKGROUND FACTS** In April 2005, Irby was charged with one count of [burglary in the second degree](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.52.030), alleged to have occurred on March 6, 2005, and the following counts alleged to have occurred on March 8, 2005: one count of [aggravated murder in the first degree ](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=10.95.030)with an alternative allegation of [first degree felony murder](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.32.030), one count of [burglary in the first degree](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.52.020), one count of [robbery in the first degree](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.200), three counts of [unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.040), and one count of [attempting to elude a police vehicle](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.024). The latter charges arose out of a robbery and bludgeoning death. In January 2007, a jury found Irby guilty of murder in the first degree with aggravating circumstances, felony murder in the first degree, and burglary in the first degree. Four years later, the [Washington Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) reversed the judgment of conviction and remanded the cause for a new trial in light of the court’s determination that Irby’s due process rights had been violated during jury selection. See [*State v. Irby*, 170 Wn.2d 874, 246 P.3d 796 (2011)](https://cases.justia.com/washington/court-of-appeals-division-i/63056-3.unp.doc.pdf?ts=1323968163). Irby’s retrial was held in 2013. The State prosecuted the same charges that were brought during the first trial and Irby was convicted as charged. Notably, at the retrial, Irby was allowed to proceed *[pro se](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_se_legal_representation_in_the_United_States)*. He also voluntarily absented himself from the trial. We subsequently reversed the judgment of conviction and remanded the cause for yet another new trial because the trial judge had erroneously seated a juror who had demonstrated actual bias against Irby during voir dire. In March 2016, pretrial proceedings began for Irby’s third trial. He was represented by a public defender. In mid-March, the State filed an amended information charging Irby with one count of premeditated murder in the first degree and one count of burglary in the first degree. Two days later, Irby appeared in court and was arraigned on the charges. He entered pleas of not guilty. In mid-March and again in late March, Irby requested to represent himself. Following a colloquy with the trial court in mid-April, Irby’s request was granted. Four months later, Irby filed a pro se motion to dismiss the charges against him. In his motion, Irby alleged misconduct by jail guards, claiming that (during the period of time during which his public defender represented him) they had improperly opened outgoing mail containing privileged legal communication intended for his attorney. The trial court denied Irby’s motion. The trial court did determine that the jail guards had violated Irby’s right to counsel by opening and reading privileged attorney-client communications. Although Irby argued that the trial court’s determination mandated that a presumption of prejudice be imposed, the trial court placed on Irby the burden of proving prejudice and concluded that he did not do so. One month later, Irby informed the trial court that he had decided not to attend the trial and waived his right to be present at trial. After a jury was selected without Irby’s participation, the evidentiary stage of Irby’s third trial began. Irby did not attend the trial. The State presented its case in chief and gave closing argument. No defense or closing argument were presented on Irby’s behalf. The jury returned verdicts finding Irby guilty as charged. Irby was sentenced to concurrent terms of incarceration of 388 months for the murder in the first degree conviction and 54 months for the burglary in the first degree conviction. **ISSUES** 1\. Did a State actor participate in the infringing conduct alleged by the defendant? 2\. If so, did the State actor(s) infringe upon a Sixth Amendment right of the defendant? 3\. If so, was there prejudice to the defendant? That is, did the State fail to overcome the presumption of prejudice arising from the infringement by not proving the absence of prejudice beyond a reasonable doubt? 4\. If so, what is the appropriate remedy to select and apply, considering the totality of the circumstances present, including the degree of prejudice to the defendant’s right to a fair trial and the degree of nefariousness of the conduct by the State actor(s)? **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** First, the Court of Appeals decided the “State actors” engaged in misconduct. “Irby’s motion to dismiss alleged that the confrontation between himself and the State involved conduct by jail guards employed by the county jail in which he was being housed,” said the Court of Appeals. “Thus, Irby established that the conduct underlying his claim involved State actors.” Second, the Court decided that the jail guards’ conduct infringed upon his Sixth Amendment right. “Plainly, a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel is violated when the State intrudes into a privileged attorney-client communication,” said the Court of Appeals. The court reasoned that here, Irby’s motion to dismiss—and accompanying exhibits and addendum—alleged that he had sent 14 pieces of confidential correspondence containing privileged information to his attorney that, he argued, had been improperly opened and read by jail guards in the Skagit County Jail. The correspondence constituted Irby’s handwritten statements on both a “Public Defender Request Form” and jail kites—multi-purpose request forms available to inmates in the [Skagit County Jail](https://www.skagitcounty.net/Departments/Jail/main.htm). Prior to sending the correspondence, Irby folded each piece of paper in half, sealed each piece of paper with tape, and written on the outward facing side, “CONFIDENTIAL,” and “ATTORNEY BOX.” Consequently, the Court of Appeals said the folded and taped pieces of paper were intended to be confidential and included privileged attorney-client information. “Thus, the aforementioned correspondence from Irby to his counsel contained privileged attorney-client information protected by the Sixth Amendment.” Third, the Court of Appeals held that the jail guards’ opening and reading of Irby’s privileged attorney-client correspondence infringed upon his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The parties do not dispute the trial court’s finding that jail guards had opened and read Irby’s privileged attorney-client communications. “Thus, the jail guards—and therefore the State—infringed on Irby’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. This constitutes misconduct, within the meaning of [CrR 8.3.](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=crr&ruleid=SUPCRR8.03)” Finally, the Court of Appeals decided Irby was prejudiced by the misconduct: > “More than half a century ago, our Supreme Court ruled that, when State actors pry into a defendant’s privileged attorney-client communications, prejudice to the defendant must be presumed . . . We must assume that information gained by the sheriff was transmitted to the prosecutor and therefore there is no way to isolate the prejudice resulting from an eavesdropping activity, such as this.” The Court of Appeals further reasoned that recently, our Supreme Court in [*Pena Fuentes*](http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/179wn2d/179wn2d0808.htm) reaffirmed this ruling and, in light of a State actor’s eavesdropping on privileged attorney-client communications, imposed a presumption of prejudice. Furthermore, because the State actors here at issue—jail guards—infringed upon Irby’s Sixth Amendment right, prejudice must be presumed. Thus, the trial court erred by not imposing a presumption of prejudice after it determined that the jail guards had opened and read Irby’s communications containing privileged attorney-client information. With that, the Court of Appeals reversed the order denying Irby’s motion to dismiss and remanded this matter for an evidentiary hearing with instructions to the trial court. My opinion? Excellent decision by the Court of Appeals. It most certainly violates a defendant’s constitutional rights for state actors like jailers, law enforcement and Prosecutors to read mail from an inmate intended for an attorney. Please read my Legal Guide titled [Making Bail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/making-bail/) and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges and are incarcerated awaiting trial. Being in jail is never wise if it can be avoided. Chances are, a qualified and competent attorney can argue for personal release, lowered bail or convince the judge to release the defendant to a family member who is willing to supervise the defendant’s whereabouts. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, Jail, Prison, Search and Seizure, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Warrantless Search & "Community Caretaking"](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/warrantless-search-community-caretaking/) **Published:** May 8, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Boisselle](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/777670.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that the officers’ warrantless entry into a duplex was lawful as the officers were worried that someone might be injured or dead inside, the officers were unable to locate the individuals who were believed to being living in the duplex, the officers did not intend to conduct a criminal investigation inside the duplex, and from the time the officers arrived at the duplex, until entry, the officers individually and collectively worked to ascertain the situation. **BACKGROUND FACTS** In July 2014, Michael Boisselle encountered Brandon Zomalt, an old acquaintance. Zomalt told Boisselle that he was homeless, had nowhere to sleep, and that he needed assistance obtaining a food handler’s permit in order to secure a job. Boisselle offered to let Zomalt stay with him in his duplex unit. With Boisselle’s assistance, Zomalt received his food handler’s permit and began working at a nearby restaurant. However, Zomalt was fired after one week for fighting at work. Zomalt was addicted to alcohol and methamphetamine. He also had a history of violence. Several people, including Zomalt’s mother and two of his former girlfriends, had been granted protection orders against him. After losing his job, Zomalt drank throughout the day. Boisselle did not feel safe around Zomalt and avoided him when possible. The tension in the house culminated into a confrontation. Apparently, Zomalt began to behave strangely. He also drank heavily. One night, Boiselle and Zomalt were home. According to Boiselle, Zomalt held him hostage in their home and threatened Boiselle with a firearm. Later that night, Boiselle managed to reach the gun. He fired the weapon at Boiselle, apparently in self-defense. No witnesses summoned police or heard the firearm. On September 1, 2014, South Sound 911 dispatch received an anonymous telephone call from an individual who reported that “somebody by the name of Mike” stated that he shot someone at the duplex. Shortly thereafter, the [Puyallup Police Department anonymous tip line](https://www.cityofpuyallup.org/1057/Contact-Puyallup-PD) received a telephone call from an individual who reported that “Mike” had “shot someone” and “possibly killed him, and it was in [self-defense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/self-defense/).” Deputies Ryan Olivarez and Fredrick Wiggins were dispatched to the scene. Olivarez and Wiggins knocked on the door of the duplex but received no response. There was, however, a dog inside that was barking aggressively. The deputies walked around the outside of the duplex and attempted to look inside, but all of the windows were closed and covered with blinds. There was a light on in the upstairs western bedroom. The deputies smelled a foul odor coming from the house and the garage. Olivarez thought that “something about it just seemed off’ and was concerned with “trying to figure out if someone needed help.” Olivarez and Wiggins then contacted the neighbors in order to gather more information. Two neighbors informed the deputies that they had not seen anyone coming or going from the duplex for about “four or five days.” With no person apparently able to consent to a police entry of the unit and believing that they did not have a sufficient basis to obtain a search warrant, Adamson and Clarkson made a joint decision to force entry into the duplex. Clarkson broke through the front door. An animal control officer secured the dog. The officers then performed a security sweep of the duplex, looking for anyone who was hurt. Adamson and Clarkson searched the second floor of the duplex while Wiggins and Olivarez searched the first floor. The officers checked all of the rooms, looking in closets and other large spaces for a person or a body but ignoring drawers and other areas where a person could not fit. Sergeant Clarkson believed that the smell was coming from inside of the garage and was consistent with a dead body. Once all of the rooms inside the duplex had been checked, deputies Wiggins and Olivarez forced entry into the garage from inside of the duplex. Once inside the garage, all four officers could see a large, rolled up carpet with a shoe sticking out and maggots pouring out of the bottom. Sergeant Clarkson opened the garage door using the automatic door opener and all four officers went around to the outside of the garage for a clear view of the carpet. From outside of the house, the officers saw an arm hanging out of the front end of the carpet. Clarkson told the other officers that “this is a crime scene now,” and that “it’s time we have to seal this off.” None of the officers collected evidence or touched the carpet. Boisselle was charged with [second degree murder](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/) and [unlawful possession of a firearm](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/). Before trial, he argued a [CrR 3.6 motion to suppress](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6). The judge denied the motion. At trial he was convicted of both charges. On appeal, and among other issues Boisselle contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the search of his home. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals reasoned that the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview) prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. “The [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) does not prohibit ‘reasonable’ warrantless searches and seizures,” said the Court. Furthermore, the Court said the analysis under the Fourth Amendment focuses on whether the police have acted reasonably under the circumstances. Additionally, the Court explained that [Article 1, section 7 of the Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx) is more protective than the Fourth Amendment, particularly where warrantless searches are concerned. “Article 1, section 7 provides that ‘no person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law,'” said the Court. The WA Constitution also prohibits any disturbance of an individual’s private affairs without authority of law. The Court said this language prohibits unreasonable searches. However, the Court also explained that a search conducted pursuant to a police officer’s [community caretaking function](http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2016/04/circumstances-that-permit-search-and-seizure.aspx) is one exception to the warrant requirement; and the community caretaking function was first announced by the [United States Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) in *[Cady v. Dombrowski](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/108850/cady-v-dombrowski/)*. From there, subsequent Washington cases have expanded the community caretaking function exception to encompass not only the search and seizure of automobiles, but also situations involving either emergency aid or routine checks on health and safety. Here, the court reasoned the police officers rightfully conducted a community caretaking search under the circumstances: > “In any event, the record establishes that the officers acted promptly given the circumstances. From the moment they arrived at the duplex, until entry, the officers individually and collectively began to ascertain the situation at hand. This included checking doors and windows to determine whether anyone was inside the duplex, contacting both the owner of the duplex and the individual listed on the lease in attempts to obtain consent to enter, questioning neighbors, and contacting animal control.” The Court emphasized that, ultimately, the officers reached a point where two things were clear: (1) obtaining consent to enter was not possible as no person entitled to consent could be identified, and (2) there was nothing further the officers could do to discern the welfare of any person inside the unit absent entry. “At this point, the officers reasonably concluded that forcible entry was necessary to determine the need for and to render assistance. Given the circumstances, this was an immediate response to a likely emergency,” said the Court. Finally, the Court reasoned the officers’ warrantless search of the duplex was justified pursuant to the community caretaking function exception as considered by a majority of the Supreme Court in [*State v. Smith*](http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/177wn2d/177wn2d0533.htm). “Accordingly, the trial court did not err by denying Boisselle’s motion to suppress,” said the Court of Appeals. With that – and following discussion of other issues – the Court of Appeals affirmed Mr. Boisselle’s conviction. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Community Caretaking, Constitutional Rights, felony, Firearm, Fourth Amendment, Homicide & Manslaughter, law enforcement, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Felony Harassment (DV)](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/felony-harassment-dv/) **Published:** May 14, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Horn](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2048489-7-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held that the trial court’s refusal to admit evidence of the defendant’s and the victim’s engagement and trip taken after the date of a domestic violence offense did not violate the defendant’s [Sixth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) rights. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Horn and Ms. Oubre became romantically involved while Oubre was estranged from another man with whom she had had a relationship. Horn and Oubre began openly dating in January 2015. In January 2015, Horn and Oubre were at Oubre’s residence drinking alcoholic beverages. While Oubre was using her cellphone, Horn grew angry and accused her of texting the man with whom she had been involved. According to Oubre, she had never seen him have “an episode like this before.” Horn grabbed Oubre’s night shirt and ripped it open, hitting her on the chest in the process. Scared that the downstairs neighbor would hear the scuffle, Oubre and Horn went to Horn’s home. Once they arrived and got out of the car, Oubre told Horn that she was going to leave, but Horn grabbed her. They began wrestling when Horn pushed her against a wall and down into a flower bed. He bit her multiple times. Oubre did not call the police. On August 7, 2015, Horn and Oubre were together at her home. Oubre was on her cell phone playing a game. Horn grew aggressive, believing that Oubre was texting an ex-boyfriend. A violent exchange occurred between Horn and Oubre. Horn straddled Oubre on the bed, pointed a gun at himself and Oubre, and gave numerous threats against her life. Later, Oubre went to the hospital. She spoke with the police while at the hospital, and Horn was then arrested. Among other offenses, Horn was charged with [Felony Harassment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/harassment/) [(DV)](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) based on the August incident. Horn posted bail on August 20, 2015. Oubre and Horn got engaged on September 5 and took a trip together. Horn was later charged with [violating a no-contact order](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=26.50.110), to which he pled guilty. As part of the events related to that charge, videotape evidence showed Horn naked while jumping on top of Oubre’s car. Before trial on the felony harassment charge, the State sought to introduce evidence of the January 2015 incident under [ER 404(b)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=ER&ruleid=gaer0404) to show that Horn’s threat to kill Oubre in August 2015 placed her in reasonable fear that the threat would be carried out. One of the elements of felony harassment is that the victim be placed in reasonable fear that a threat will be carried out. Before trial, both the State and defense counsel argued over whether the evidence of the January 2015 incident should be admitted. The defense objected and in the alternative argued that if the State was permitted to introduce this evidence, the defense should be able to introduce evidence of Oubre and Horn’s engagement and trip after August 2015. In the defense’s view, this evidence showed that Oubre did not have a reasonable fear that Horn would carry out his threat to kill her on August 7. The State opposed the admission of evidence of their engagement and trip because “it triggers a bunch of things,” including Horn’s later violation of a no-contact order where he was naked and jumping on top of Oubre’s vehicle. The State also did not believe the evidence was relevant to whether Oubre was fearful in August 2015. The jury found Horn guilty of two counts of [fourth degree assault](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.041), [unlawful possession of](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.040) a firearm, and domestic violence felony harassment. Horn appealed. He argued that his Sixth Amendment right to present his defense was violated because the trial court did not admit evidence of Oubre and Horn’s engagement and trip taken after the August 2015 incident. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** “We review a Sixth Amendment right to present a defense claim under a three-step test,” said the Court of Appeals. First, the evidence that a defendant desires to introduce must be of at least minimal relevance. A defendant only has a right to present evidence that is relevant. Second, if relevant, the burden shifts to the State to show that the relevant evidence is so prejudicial as to disrupt the fairness of the fact-finding process at trial. Third, the State’s interest in excluding prejudicial evidence must also be balanced against the defendant’s need for the information sought, and relevant information can be withheld only if the State’s interest outweighs the defendant’s need. The Court reasoned that to show a violation of the right to present a defense, the excluded evidence, that of Horn and Oubre’s engagement and trip, must first be of at least minimal relevance. Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. The threshold to admit relevant evidence is very low. Impeachment evidence is relevant if: **(1)** it tends to cast doubt on the credibility of the person being impeached and **(2)** the credibility of the person being impeached is a fact of consequence to the action. The court reasoned that here, Oubre’s subsequent engagement and trip with Horn thus would be relevant, if at all, to impeach her testimony that she feared Horn at the time he threatened to kill her. > “With the frightening nature of the threats and violence against Oubre on August 7 and the passage of nearly a month until their engagement, Oubre’s change of heart casts little doubt on her testimony that on August 7, in the face of repeated violence and death threats, she feared for her life.” The court said that for these reasons, especially in combination with the cycles of violence and reconciliation in domestic violence relationahips, the evidence of Oubre’s engagement to and trip with Horn was not relevant. “The trial court’s exclusion of that evidence was neither manifestly unreasonable, based on untenable grounds, nor based on untenable reasons,” said the Court of Appeals. “Thus, under the abuse of discretion standard, the exclusion of this evidence did not deprive Horn of his right to present a defense.” Furthermore, because Horn does not meet the first requirement of the three-step test, his claim that the trial court deprived him of the right to present a defense fails. With that, the Court of Appeals ruled that Horn’s right to present a defense was not violated. Therefore, his convictions were affirmed. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Domestic Violence, felony, Harassment, Right to Present A Defense, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Studies Show Immigration Does Not Increase Violent Crimes](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/studies-show-immigration-does-not-increase-violent-crimes/) **Published:** May 15, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Informative [article](https://www.npr.org/2018/05/02/607652253/studies-say-illegal-immigration-does-not-increase-violent-crime) from [John Burnett](https://www.npr.org/people/1936301/john-burnett) of [NPR](https://www.npr.org/) discusses four academic studies showing that illegal immigration does not increase the prevalence of violent crime or drug and alcohol problems. [Michael Light, a criminologist at the University of Wisconsin](https://ssc.wisc.edu/soc/faculty/show-person.php?person_id=1696), looked at whether the soaring increase in illegal immigration [over the last three decades](https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report/2017/iceEndOfYearFY2017.pdf) caused [a commensurate jump](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1745-9125.12175) in violent crimes: murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault. “Increased undocumented immigration since 1990 has not increased violent crime over that same time period,” Light said in a phone interview. [Those findings are published](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1745-9125.12175) in the current edition of the peer-reviewed journal *Criminology*. In a separate study, [these same researchers previously looked at nonviolent crime](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4450776-Light-Et-Al-AJPH-Published.html). They found that the dramatic influx of undocumented immigrants, similarly, did not drive up rates of drug and alcohol arrests or the number of drug overdoses and DUI deaths. “We found no evidence that undocumented immigration increases the prevalence of any of those outcomes,” Light said. A [third study](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4450775-CATO-Illegal-Immigration-and-Crime-in-Texas.html), by the libertarian [Cato Institute](https://www.cato.org/), recently looked at criminality among undocumented immigrants just in Texas. The state records the immigration status of arrestees, creating a gold mine for criminologists. Cato found that in 2015, criminal conviction and arrest rates in Texas for undocumented immigrants were lower than those of native-born Americans for murder, sexual assault and larceny. Finally, a research paper appearing in the current edition of the [U.K. journal *Migration Letters*](https://www.regents.ac.uk/research-enterprise/research/publications-and-journals/migration-letters) shows that youthful undocumented immigrants engage in [less crime than do legal immigrants or U.S.-born peers](http://journal1.tplondon.com/journal/index.php/ml/article/view/942). According to reporter Burnett, social science has focused on the extent of crime committed by legal immigrants for decades. These new studies are important because they’re among the first to explore the link between crime and illegal immigration. However, Burnett also indicates that the new research may not move the needle in the immigration debate. Texas Republicans, for instance, have potent opinions about undocumented immigrants. A [recent poll](https://www.mystatesman.com/news/opinion/commentary-texas-gop-favors-politics-over-reason-with-immigration/ghPt6lwCbBO6f57aLz3fHN/) showed that 7 out of 10 GOP voters in Texas support the proposition that all undocumented immigrants should be deported immediately regardless of whether they have committed a crime there. My opinion? Immigration certainly is a hot-button political issue. Hopefully, the research is exposing some critical truths which may shed light on the issues and change the narrative. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Immigration, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Violent Crime, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Gun Safes Are Searchable](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/gun-safes-are-searchable/) **Published:** May 16, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Witkowski](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2049490-6-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held that a police search warrant for firearms located in a residence allows officers to search a locked gun safe. **BACKGROUND FACTS** On October 27, 2015, Deputy Martin Zurfluh obtained a search warrant to search the Respondents’ property, including their residence, for evidence of [possession of stolen property](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/possession-of-stolen-property/) and [utility theft](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.61&full=true). The search warrant was limited to a stolen power meter and its accessories. An arrest warrant for Witkowski was also issued. On October 29, officers executed the search and arrest warrants. After this search, Deputy Zurfluh requested an addendum to the search warrant. In his affidavit, Deputy Zurfluh explained that after entering the Respondents’ residence, police found drug paraphernalia, ammunition, one locked gun safe, one unlocked gun safe, a rifle case, and surveillance cameras. Deputy Zurfluh knew that the Respondents were felons and were prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition. The search warrant addendum authorized police to search at the Respondents’ street address for evidence of unlawful possession of a firearm, identity theft, unlawful possession of a controlled substance, and unlawful use of drug paraphernalia. The warrant addendum defined the area to be searched for this evidence as the main residence, a shed, and any vehicles and outbuildings at the street address. The addendum authorized the seizure of evidence including, 1. firearms, firearms parts, and accessories, including but not limited to rifles, shotguns, handguns, ammunition, scopes, cases, cleaning kits, and holsters 2. Surveillance Systems used or intended to be used in the furtherance of any of the above listed crimes. 3. ***Any item used as a container for #1.*** Notably, the addendum did not identify either of the gun safes as items to be seized. When executing the warrant addendum, officers opened the locked gun safe. They found 11 loaded rifles and shotguns with their serial numbers filed off, a handgun, a police scanner, a large quantity of cash, ammunition, and cameras. After the search, the State charged Respondents with numerous counts including [first degree unlawful possession of a firearm](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.040). Witkowski was additionally charged with seven counts of [possession of a stolen firearm](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.310). The superior court [suppressed the evidence](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) found inside the gun safes under the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment). It ruled that the addendum to the warrant did not include the gun safes or containers for firearms and that gun safes are not “personal effects,” so that the search of the safes did not fall within the scope of the search warrant. The superior court later denied the State’s [motions for reconsideration](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=cr&ruleid=supcr59). The State filed [motions for discretionary review](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/div1/caseproc/?fa=atc_div1_caseproc.display&display_id=CaseProc_guide-03) to the Court of Appeals. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court reasoned that a lawful search of fixed premises generally extends to the entire area in which the object of the search may be found and is not limited by the possibility that separate acts of entry or opening may be required to complete the search. Thus, a warrant that authorizes an officer to search a home for illegal weapons also provides authority to open closets, chests, drawers, and containers in which the weapon might be found. “Here, the warrant addendum listed the objects of the search as including firearms and firearm accessories,” said the Court of Appeals. “And Deputy Zurfluh testified that he suspected the close-to refrigerator-sized, locked safe contained firearms because he had found ammunition in the home.” The Court emphasized that Deputy Zurfluh also testified that in his experience, a tall, upright safe would be used to store guns. Additionally, the Court of Appeals emphasized that numerous Washington cases have also expressed the Fourth Amendment rule that a premises warrant authorizes a search of containers in a residence that could reasonably contain the object of the search. > “In sum, federal and state precedent applying the Fourth Amendment show that when police execute a premises warrant, they are authorized to search locked containers where the objects of the search are likely to be found. Thus, the superior court here erred under the Fourth Amendment when it suppressed the evidence in the locked gun safe as exceeding the scope of the warrant addendum.” With that, the Court of Appeals reversed the Superior Court’s suppression of the evidence and remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges involving searches of persons, vehicles and property. Hiring competent criminal defense counsel is the first step toward getting charges reduced or dismissed. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Evidence, felony, Firearm, Fourth Amendment, law enforcement, police, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [How to Delete Your DNA Data From Genetics Companies](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/how-to-delete-your-dna-data-from-genetics-companies/) **Published:** May 19, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Wonderful [article](http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-delete-dna-genetic-data-2018-5) from reporter [Erin Brodwin](http://www.businessinsider.com/author/erin-brodwin) of [Business Insider](http://www.businessinsider.com/) discusses how to delete your DNA data from genetics companies like [23andMe](https://www.23andme.com/) and [Ancestry](https://www.ancestry.com/). The [recent arrest](http://www.businessinsider.com/r-california-man-arrested-in-golden-state-killer-case-suspected-in-12-slayings-2018-4) in one of California’s most infamous serial-killer cases was based in large part on a DNA sample submitted to a genetics website by a distant relative of the suspect. Brodwin writes that, naturally, the news may have you concerned about the [security of your own genetic material.](http://www.businessinsider.com/privacy-considerations-for-dna-tests-23andme-ancestry-helix-2017-12) You may be wondering how to delete it from genetic databases kept by popular genetics testing companies like [23andMe](http://www.businessinsider.com/23andme-depression-adhd-treatments-crowdsourcing-2018-4) and [Ancestry](http://www.ancestry.com). Those two databases were not used by investigators to track down [Golden State Killer suspect Joseph James DeAngelo](http://www.businessinsider.com/r-california-man-arrested-in-golden-state-killer-case-suspected-in-12-slayings-2018-4). Instead, investigators used a service called [GEDmatch](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/04/gedmatch-a-tiny-dna-analysis-firm-was-key-for-golden-state-killer-case/), which lets customers upload a raw DNA signature. Investigators created a profile for the suspect using DNA [sourced](http://www.businessinsider.com/r-california-man-arrested-in-golden-state-killer-case-suspected-in-12-slayings-2018-4) from a long-stored crime scene sample, and found matches between DeAngelo’s crime scene DNA and the DNA of a distant family member. In her article, Brodwin writes that 23andMe, Ancestry, and [Helix](https://www.helix.com/) (National Geographic’s genetics service) only accept saliva samples for genetics testing — an easy way of obtaining DNA. But a similar company called Family Tree DNA could likely accept hair or blood, according to Joe Fox, an administrator for one of the company’s surname projects. Whichever way a company gets your DNA, [privacy advocates say there’s cause for concern](http://www.businessinsider.com/privacy-considerations-for-dna-tests-23andme-ancestry-helix-2017-12). Although genetic data is ostensibly anonymized, companies can and do sell your data to third parties like pharmaceutical companies. From there, it could find its way elsewhere, advocates say. The core service provided by most commercial genetic tests is built on the extraction of your DNA from your spit — that’s how you get the results about your health and ancestry information. Here’s how to delete your data from a few of these services. ***Deleting DNA Test Results from 23andMe.*** After registering your spit sample online with [23andMe](https://www.23andme.com/), the company will ask if you’d like your saliva to be stored or discarded. But you are not asked the same question about your raw genetic data — the DNA extracted from your spit. Based on the wording of [a document called the “Biobanking Consent Document](https://www.23andme.com/about/biobanking/),” it’s a bit unclear what happens to that raw DNA once you decide to have the company either store or toss your spit. Here’s the statement’s exact language: “By choosing to have 23andMe store *either your saliva* sample *or DNA extracted from your saliva*, you are consenting to having 23andMe and its contractors access and analyze your stored sample, using the same or more advanced technologies.” That leaves a bit of a grey area as far as what 23andMe has the ability to keep, and how they can use your DNA information. If your spit or DNA sample is stored, the company can hold onto it for between one and 10 years, “unless we notify you otherwise,” the [Biobanking Consent Document states](https://www.23andme.com/about/biobanking/). Still, you can request that the company discard your spit. To do so, go to its Customer Care page, navigate to “Accounts and Registration,” scroll to the bottom of the bulleted list of options, and select the last bullet titled “Requesting Account Closure.” Once there, you must submit a request to have your spit sample destroyed and/or have your account closed. ***Deleting DNA Test Results from Ancestry.*** If you want to delete your DNA test results with [Ancestry](https://www.ancestry.com/), use the navigation bar at the top of the homepage to select “DNA.” On the page with your name at the top, scroll to the upper right corner, select “Settings,” then go to “Delete Test Results” on the right side column. According to the [company’s latest privacy statement](https://www.ancestry.com/cs/legal/privacystatement), doing this will result in the company deleting the following within 30 days: “All genetic information, including any derivative genetic information (ethnicity estimates, genetic relative matches, etc.) from our production, development, analytics, and research systems.” But if you opted into Ancestry’s informed “Consent to Research” when you signed up, the company says it can’t wipe your genetic information from any “active or completed research projects.” It will, however, prevent your DNA from being used for new research. To have the company discard your spit sample, you must [call Member Services](https://www.ancestry.com/cs/contact-us) and request that it be thrown out. ***Deleting DNA Test Results From Helix.*** In its most recently updated [Privacy Policy](https://www.helix.com/privacy), Helix states that it may “store your DNA indefinitely.” It also keeps your saliva sample, but you can request that it be destroyed by [contacting Helix’s Customer Care via a request form](https://support.helix.com/hc/en-us/requests/new) that looks similar to 23andMe’s. My opinion? Thankfully, the police conducted lawful and highly intelligent investigations leading up to the capture of the Golden State Killer. They should be congratulated. And these highly remarkable techniques remind us that the information we share with the world can be accessed anywhere, any time, by the authorities. Like Brodwin mentions, companies can and do sell your data to third parties like pharmaceutical companies. From there, it could find its way elsewhere. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges involving the authorities accessing DNA. If the search was unlawful, then the evidence can be suppressed. Hiring a competent defense counsel who is familiar with search and seizure law is the first and best step toward getting criminal charges reduced or dismissed. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DNA, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Expert Witnesses & Meth](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/expert-witnesses-meth/) **Published:** May 23, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Richmond](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/341577_pub.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeal](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo)s held that a defense expert witness’s proposed testimony regarding the effects of methamphetamine was properly barred at trial because the expert never met or examined the victim and increased aggression is only one possible effect of methamphetamine ingestion. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Dennis Higginbotham went to Joseph Richmond’s property with two other individuals, Veronica Dresp and Lonnie Zackuse. Ms. Dresp was Mr. Richmond’s estranged girlfriend. Ms. Dresp had asked Mr. Higginbotham and Ms. Zackuse to accompany her to Mr. Richmond’s property so that she could remove some of her belongings. A verbal argument ensued between Mr. Richmond and Mr. Higginbotham. After the verbal argument, Mr. Richmond went into his house. His return to the house was a relief. It appeared the hostility had come to an end. Unfortunately, this turned out not to be true. Instead, Mr. Richmond ran out of his house, armed with a two-by-four piece of lumber that was nearly four feet in length. Mr. Richmond and Mr. Higginbotham then started exchanging more words. Mr. Richmond warned Mr. Higginbotham not to come any closer to him. When Mr. Higginbotham took a step forward, Mr. Richmond struck Mr. Higginbotham with the two-by-four. According to Ms. Dresp and Ms. Zackuse, Mr. Richmond held the two-by-four like a baseball bat and swung it at Mr. Higginbotham’s head. After he was hit, Mr. Higginbotham spun around and fell face first on the ground. When emergency personnel arrived at the scene, it was determined Mr. Higginbotham had suffered severe head trauma. He was unconscious and eventually transported to Harborview Medical Center in Seattle. He died shortly thereafter. Mr. Richmond was charged with [second degree murder](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/). Mr. Richmond lodged a [self-defense theory](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/self-defense/) against the State’s murder charges. In support of this theory, Mr. Richmond sought to introduce testimony from several experts. One of the experts was David Predmore. Mr. Predmore was offered to testify about the general effects of methamphetamine consumption on human behavior. According to the defense, this testimony was relevant because high levels of methamphetamine had been found in Mr. Higginbotham’s system at the time of his death. Although Mr. Richmond was not aware of Mr. Higginbotham’s methamphetamine consumption at the time of the assault, the defense theorized that Mr. Predmore’s testimony was relevant to corroborate Mr. Richmond’s claim that Mr. Higginbotham was behaving aggressively the night of the attack. However, the trial court excluded Mr. Predmore’s testimony as [speculative](https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/speculation) and [irrelevant](https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1030). The jury convicted Mr. Richmond of second degree murder. He appealed. **ISSUE** On appeal, the issue was whether the trial court violated Mr. Richmond’s constitutional right to present a defense by excluding his expert’s testimony. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** “Mr. Richmond argues the trial court violated his constitutional right to present a defense by excluding expert testimony,” said the Court of Appeals. “We disagree.” The Court of Appeals reasoned that [Evidence Rule 702](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=er&ruleid=gaer0702) governs the admissibility of expert testimony. “Under this rule, a witness may provide expert opinion testimony to the jury if **(1)** the witness is qualified as an expert, and **(2)** the witness’s testimony would help the trier of fact,” said the Court of Appeals. > “Expert testimony is helpful if it concerns matters beyond the common knowledge of the average layperson and does not mislead the jury. A proposed expert’s testimony is not helpful or relevant if it is based on speculation.” Furthermore, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the trial court properly excluded Mr. Predmore’s proposed testimony regarding the [effects of methamphetamine](https://www.drugfreeworld.org/drugfacts/crystalmeth/the-deadly-effects-of-meth.html) because it was not shown to be potentially helpful to the jury. “Mr. Predmore had never met or examined Mr. Higginbotham. He had no basis to assess how Mr. Higginbotham’s body may have processed methamphetamine,” said the Court of Appeals. It further reasoned that according to Mr. Predmore’s proposed testimony, methamphetamine can have a wide range of effects. Increased aggression is only one possibility. “It is therefore nothing but speculation to connect Mr. Higginbotham’s methamphetamine use with Mr. Richmond’s claim of victim aggression,” said the Court of Appeals. “The evidence was properly excluded, consistent with long standing case law.” With that, the Court of Appeals upheld the conviction. Please [contact my office if you](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/), a friend or family member are charged with a crime after responding in self-defense. Hiring competent and experienced counsel is the first step toward receiving a just resolution. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, ER 702, Evidence, Expert Testimony, felony, Homicide & Manslaughter, Methamphetamine, Self-Defense, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Definition of "Porn" Vague](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/definition-of-porn-vague/) **Published:** May 28, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Padilla](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/946051.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that a defendant’s parole conditions prohibiting him from possessing or accessing pornographic materials was unconstitutionally vague because the accompanying definition of “pornographic materials” is vague and overbroad. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Mr. Padilla was convicted for [communicating with a minor for immoral purposes](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/). The court sentenced him to 75 days of confinement and 12 months of [community custody](http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/CommunityCustody.aspx), imposing multiple conditions. Padilla challenged the condition prohibiting his possession and access to pornographic materials. The term “pornographic material’ was defined by Padilla’s [Community Corrections Officer (CCO)](http://www.doc.wa.gov/about/jobs/careers-cco.htm) as “images of sexual intercourse, simulated or real, masturbation, or the display of intimate body parts.” **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court reasoned that a legal prohibition, such as a community custody condition, is unconstitutionally vague if **(1)** it does not sufficiently define the proscribed conduct so an ordinary person can understand the prohibition or **(2)** it does not provide sufficiently ascertainable standards to protect against arbitrary enforcement. Furthermore, a vague condition infringing on protected First Amendment speech can chill the exercise of those protected freedoms. A restriction implicating First Amendment rights demands a greater degree of specificity and must be reasonably necessary to accomplish the essential needs of the state and public order. “Padilla notes that the prohibition against viewing depictions of simulated sex would unnecessarily encompass movies and television shows not created for the sole purpose of sexual gratification,” said the Court. “We agree.” > “Films such as [Titanic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic_(1997_film)) and television shows such as [Game of Thrones](https://www.hbo.com/game-of-thrones) depict acts of simulated intercourse, but would not ordinarily be considered ‘pornographic material.’ We agree. The prohibition against viewing depictions of intimate body parts impermissibly extends to a variety of works of arts, books, advertisements, movies, and television shows.” See *[Jenkins v. Georgia](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/109085/jenkins-v-georgia/)*, (the depiction of nudity alone is not enough to make material legally obscene).” The Court further reasoned that, on its face, the plain language of the pornography condition and its relevant definition is ambiguous. In application, the definition does not provide adequate notice of what behaviors Padilla is prohibited from committing and also encompasses the prohibition of constitutionally protected speech. “But also, delegating the authority to determine the prohibition boundaries to an individual CCO creates a real danger that the prohibition on pornography may ultimately translate to a prohibition on whatever the CCO personally finds titillating,” said the Court. “In the present case, Padilla’s sentencing condition and its definition similarly fails to adequately put him on notice of which materials are prohibited and leaves him vulnerable to arbitrary enforcement,” said the Court. “Therefore, the condition is unconstitutionally vague.” With that, the WA Supreme Court reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision upholding the condition and remanded the issue back to the trial court for further definition of the term “pornographic materials” following a determination of whether the restriction is narrowly tailored based on Padilla’s conviction. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member is on parole and allegedly violating certain conditions of their community custody responsibilities. An experienced defense attorney could frame legal arguments showing that, similar to this case, the CCO might actually be enforcing rules and conditions which are too vague to be legal. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Ferrier Warnings, First Amendment, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Inventory Searches of Cars](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/inventory-searches-of-cars/) **Published:** May 29, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[United States v. Johnson](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/05/14/15-30222.pdf)*, the [Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) held that a suspicionless [inventory search](https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/inventory-search/) is only proper when it is performed to secure and to protect an arrestee’s property and to protect the police department against fraudulent claims of lost or stolen property. Evidence removed from the defendant’s car could not be justified under the inventory-search doctrine where the officers explicitly admitted that they seized the items in an effort to search for evidence of criminal activity. **BACKGROUND FACTS** On April 10, 2014, [Multnomah County Sheriff’s](https://www.mcso.us/site/) deputies located Mr. Johnson—who had an [outstanding warrant](https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-is-an-outstanding-warrant.html) for his arrest based on a post-prison supervision violation—at the Clackamas Inn, just south of Portland, Oregon. The deputies followed Johnson to a residence in the nearby town of Gladstone and called [Portland Police Bureau (PPB)](https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/) Officers Corona and Ables for assistance in arresting him. The officers did not approach Johnson at the residence, but instead waited outside. After about 20 minutes, Johnson left, and again the officers followed him. At a nearby intersection, the officers finally stopped Johnson by loosely boxing in his car; one car approached Johnson from behind while another approached from the front, effectively blocking Johnson’s ability to drive away. The cars all came to a stop within a few feet of each other, and although there was enough room for Johnson to pull his car to the side of the road, he instead parked in the lane of traffic, disrupting the flow of passing cars. When approached by the officers, Johnson could not provide proof of insurance for the car, which he was borrowing, nor could he give anything other than the first name of the car’s owner. Johnson did not know how the police could contact the owner. The officers arrested Johnson on the outstanding warrant. After the arrest, the officers searched Johnson and found a folding knife in his front pocket, $7,100 in cash in $20 and $100 denominations in his rear pants pocket, and $150 in cash in his wallet. Johnson said that he had recently inherited the $7,100 and that he planned to purchase a car with it. Because Johnson’s car was blocking traffic and because Johnson could not provide contact information for the car’s owner, the officers ordered it to be towed and impounded, pursuant to PPB policy. Prior to the tow, the officers conducted an inventory search of the car, again pursuant to local policy. From the interior of the car, the officers collected a combination stun gun and flashlight, a glass pipe with white residue, a jacket, and two cellphones. From the trunk, the officers collected a backpack and a duffel bag. Officer Corona testified that, when he moved the backpack and duffel in order to search for other items in the trunk, the bags felt heavy and the backpack made a metallic “clink” when he set it down on the pavement. PPB stored each of the seized pieces of property in the County property and evidence warehouse, and the $7,100 was taken into custody by the County Sherriff’s Office. Officer Corona recorded each item seized on an accompanying arrest report; the Sheriff’s Office prepared a property receipt for the $7,100 in seized cash. A week later, Officer Corona submitted an [affidavit to secure a warrant](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/search-warrants-and-probable-cause.html) to search the seized backpack, duffel bag, and cell phones. The affidavit referred to a 2009 police report (which Corona read after arresting Johnson) that stated Johnson had previously been found with cash, weapons, and drugs in a safe concealed in his vehicle. Officer Corona’s affidavit stated that, based on the circumstances of Johnson’s recent arrest, he had probable cause to believe the bags seized from the trunk would contain similar lockboxes, and that the phones would contain evidence of drug dealing. A warrant was duly signed by a local magistrate judge, and a search of the backpack revealed a small safe containing two bags of methamphetamine, drug-packaging materials, syringes, and a digital scale. The duffel bag contained Johnson’s personal items, and one of the cellphones contained text messages regarding drug trafficking. Johnson was indicted on one charge of [possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in an amount of 50 grams or more](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/841), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(viii). Before trial, Johnson [moved to suppress the evidence](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_41) found in the car and on his person at arrest. Primarily, Johnson challenged the evidence supporting the warrant to search the backpack and cellphones, arguing that it did not amount to probable cause. Johnson also argued that the officers unlawfully manipulated the bags they seized from the car in order to get a sense for what they might contain and that the inventory search of his car was invalid. The federal district court denied the motion, concluding that there was [probable cause](https://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p089.htm) to stop and to arrest Johnson on the outstanding warrant, the officers validly impounded Johnson’s car because it was blocking traffic, the subsequent inventory of the vehicle was “lawful because PPB mandates officers to conduct an inventory of impounded vehicles,” and the search warrant was supported by probable cause. At trial, the government introduced the evidence found in Johnson’s car and on his person, with a particular focus on the items of evidence found in the backpack, the messages from the cellphone, and the $7,100 in cash. The jury found him guilty. Approximately four months later, Johnson filed a [motion for new trial](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_59) on the basis of, among other things, two pieces of supposedly newly discovered evidence: **(1)** evidence showing that Johnson had indeed recently received an inheritance; and **(2)** a receipt from the private company that towed and impounded his car, which stated that they found various additional items of property in the car that were not listed in Officer Corona’s arrest report. After a hearing, the district court denied the motion for a new trial upon the conclusion that none of the supposedly new evidence would have resulted in a likely acquittal. Johnson was sentenced to 188 months in prison, and he now timely appeals. **LEGAL ISSUE** Whether the trial court erred in failing to suppress evidence that was seized by City of Portland police officers during their inventory search of a criminal defendant and the car he was driving at the time of his arrest. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** Johnson argued that the officers’ inspection of his car exceeded the constitutionally permissible bounds for an inventory search. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that as an exception to the warrant requirement of the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) to the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution), police may, without a warrant, impound and search a motor vehicle so long as they do so in conformance with the standardized procedures of the local police department and in furtherance of a community caretaking purpose, such as promoting public safety or the efficient flow of traffic. The purpose of such a search is to produce an inventory of the items in the car, in order to protect an owner’s property while it is in the custody of the police, to insure against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property, and to guard the police from danger. [*Florida v. Wells*, 495 U.S. 1, 4 (1990)](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/495/1/). Thus, the purpose of the search must be non-investigative; it must be conducted on the basis of something other than suspicion of evidence of criminal activity. The search cannot be “a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence.” *[Wells](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/495/1/)*, 495 U.S. at 4. The Court of Appeals further reasoned that an administrative search may be invalid where the officer’s subjective purpose was to find evidence of crime. However, the mere presence of a criminal investigatory motive or a dual motive—one valid, and one impermissible— does not render an administrative stop or search invalid. Instead, the issue is whether the challenged search or seizure would have occurred in the absence of an impermissible reason. “We thus must determine whether Johnson has produced evidence that demonstrates the officers would not have searched and seized items from the car he was driving but for an impermissible motive,” said the Court of Appeals. “Under our circuit’s law, a suspicionless inventory search does not permit officers to search or to seize items simply because they believe the items might be of evidentiary value,” said the Court. It reasoned that as explained above, the purpose of such a search must be unrelated to criminal investigation; it must function instead to secure and to protect an arrestee’s property, and likewise to protect the police department against fraudulent claims of lost or stolen property. “Thus, the officers’ statements directly admitting that they searched and seized items from Johnson’s car specifically to gather evidence of a suspected crime are sufficient to conclude that the warrantless search of the car was unreasonable,” said the Court, citing [*Orozco;*](https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20170601151) a case where the Ninth Circuit found [pretext](http://www.knowmyrights.org/knowledgebase/case-law/whren-pretextual-stops) where the police officers admitted that their subjective purpose was to find evidence of crime. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the officers’ search and seizure of such evidence cannot be justified under the inventory-search doctrine: > “In the face of such evidence, it is clear to us that the officers’ decision to seize the money, bags, and cellphones from Johnson and his car would not have occurred without an improper motivation to gather evidence of crime.” Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that because the government has not offered any justification for the seizure of such property other than the inventory-search doctrine, the district court erred in denying Johnson’s motion to suppress. Therefore, evidence gathered from Johnson and his vehicle was inadmissible. With that, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the federal district court’s denial of Johnson’s motion to suppress the evidence found on his person and in the car he was driving at the time of his arrest is reversed, his conviction and sentence are vacated, and the case is remanded back to the district court for further proceedings. My opinion? Good decision. Clearly, the search conducted by police officers in this case went beyond the scope of a lawful inventory search. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend of family member face criminal charges involving a questionable search. The evidence might be suppressible under a well-argued pretrial motion. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Inventory Searches, Pretext, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Search of Rental Cars](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/search-of-rental-cars/) **Published:** June 8, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[Byrd v. United States](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1371_1bn2.pdf)*, the [United States Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) held that while a car thief does not have right to privacy in a stolen car no matter the degree of possession and control, the driver of a rental car can challenge a warrantless search of the vehicle even if the driver is not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Latasha Reed rented a car in New Jersey while petitioner Terrence Byrd waited outside the rental facility. Her signed agreement warned that permitting an unauthorized driver to drive the car would violate the agreement. Reed listed no additional drivers on the form, but she gave the keys to Byrd upon leaving the building. He stored personal belongings in the rental car’s trunk and then left alone for Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [Pennsylvania State Troopers](http://www.psp.pa.gov/Pages/default.aspx) stopped Byrd for a traffic infraction. They learned that the car was rented, that Byrd was not listed as an authorized driver, and that Byrd had prior drug and weapons convictions. Byrd also stated he had a marijuana cigarette in the car. The troopers proceeded to search the car, discovering body armor and 49 bricks of heroin in the trunk. The evidence was turned over to federal authorities, who charged Byrd with [distribution and possession of heroin with the intent to distribute in violation of 21 U. S. C. §841(a)(1)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/841) and [possession of body armor by a prohibited person in violation of 18 U. S. C. §931(a)(1)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/931). The District Court denied Byrd’s [motion to suppress the evidence as the fruit of an unlawful search](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_41), and the [Third Circuit](http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/) affirmed. Both courts concluded that, because Byrd was not listed on the rental agreement, he lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car. **COURT’S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS** In a unanimous decision favoring Byrd, Justice [Anthony Kennedy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedy "Anthony Kennedy") wrote, “The mere fact that a driver in lawful possession or control of a rental car is not listed on the rental agreement will not defeat his or her otherwise reasonable expectation of privacy.” The Court added that there can be numerous reasons why a driver unlisted on a rental contract may need to drive the rental car, and that the government had not shown that whether the simple breach of the rental contract would affect the expectation of privacy. Also, the Court reasoned that one of the main rights attaching to property is the right to exclude others. Also, one who owns or lawfully possesses or controls property will in all likelihood have a legitimate expectation of privacy by virtue of the right to exclude. “This general property-based concept guides resolution of the instant case,” said Justice Kennedy: > “The Government’s contention that drivers who are not listed on rental agreements always lack an expectation of privacy in the car rests on too restrictive a view of the [Fourth Amendment’s](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) protections. But Byrd’s proposal that a rental car’s sole occupant always has an expectation of privacy based on mere possession and control would, without qualification, include thieves or others who have no reasonable expectation of privacy.” The Court rejected the Government’s arguments that an unauthorized driver has no privacy interest in the vehicle. Byrd, in contrast, was the rental car’s driver and sole occupant. His situation is similar to the defendant in [*Jones v. United States*](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/362/257/case.html), who had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his friend’s apartment because he had complete dominion and control over the apartment and could exclude others from it: > “The expectation of privacy that comes from lawful possession and control and the attendant right to exclude should not differ depending on whether a car is rented or owned by someone other than the person currently possessing it, much as it did not seem to matter whether the defendant’s friend in *[Jones](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/362/257/case.html)* owned or leased the apartment he permitted the defendant to use in his absence.” The Court also rejected the Government’s argument that Byrd had no basis for claiming an expectation of privacy in the rental car because his driving of that car was so serious a breach of Reed’s rental agreement that the rental company would have voided the contract once he took the wheel. “But the contract says only that the violation may result in coverage, not the agreement, being void and the renter’s being fully responsible for any loss or damage,” said Justice Kennedy. “And the Government fails to explain what bearing this breach of contract, standing alone, has on expectations of privacy in the car.” Kennedy’s decision concluded that there remained two issues which the Supreme Court remanded back to the lower courts: **(1)** whether Officer Long had probable cause to search the car in the first place, and **(2)** whether Byrd intentionally used a third party as a straw man in a calculated plan to mislead the rental company from the very outset, all to aid him in committing a crime. With that, the Supreme Court vacated Byrd’s conviction and remanded back to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Fourth Amendment, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [ACLU Sues Whatcom County Jail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/aclu-sues-whatcom-county-jail/) **Published:** June 8, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article212757554.html) by [Denver Pratt](https://twitter.com/denverpratt?lang=en) of the [Bellingham Herald](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/) says the [American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) ](https://www.aclu-wa.org/news/aclu-washington-lawsuit-whatcom-county-jail-violating-ada-refusing-medication-people-opioid-use) filed a [federal civil rights lawsuit](https://www.aclu-wa.org/docs/complaint-kortlever-et-al-v-whatcom-county) Wednesday against the Whatcom County Jail and the [Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office](http://www.whatcomcounty.us/200/Sheriff) for allegedly denying inmates with opioid use disorder access to medication. The lawsuit filed in Seattle in the [U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington](http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/) alleges the jail’s policy of refusing to provide access to medication assisted treatment to treat opioid addiction violates the [Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)](https://www.ada.gov/). Pratt reports that [Opioid Use Disorder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_use_disorder) is classified as a disability under the ADA, and is also a recognized substance use disorder. A person qualifies as having opioid use disorder if they meet two or more criteria that reflect impaired health function over a 12-month period. The lawsuit alleges that the jail has a policy for giving medication, such as [buprenorphine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buprenorphine) (Suboxone or Subutex), or methadone, to pregnant women suffering from opioid use disorder, but has no policy for non-pregnant individuals, forcing them to go into withdrawal once they’re booked. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of two inmates who were receiving medication assisted treatment before they became incarcerated. However, the ACLU is seeking [class-action status](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_23) for all non-pregnant people incarcerated who have Opioid Use Disorder. “Defendants’ policy and practice of denying medications to treat opioid use disorder to non-pregnant individuals is both dangerous and discriminatory,” according to the complaint filed in the case.” It singles out a particularly vulnerable group of disabled people, forces them to suffer unnecessarily from painful opioid withdrawal, and subjects them to an increased risk of relapse and overdose death.” Whatcom County Sheriff Bill Elfo said Thursday he believed several other jails in Washington state are under scrutiny by the ACLU for opioid treatment. He said the county had not been served with the lawsuit yet as of Thursday afternoon, but noted the ACLU has 20 days to do so. Elfo said the 2019 opening of a new [32-bed crisis triage center ](http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article203219064.html)for people suffering from mental health and substance use disorders will provide an alternative to taking people who use opioids to jail, and give them access to treatment. “This is something that’s been asked for for 20 years. I’m glad it’s something that’s finally on the horizon,” he said. The project will expand the current [Crisis Triage Center](https://www.whatcomcounty.us/2075/Crisis-Triage-Center) and will be on Division Street in Bellingham. It will cost up to an estimated $9.5 million. My opinion? First, kudos to Ms. Pratt for her excellent and timely reporting. Second, lawsuits like this reveal the pressing need for Whatcom County to construct a new jail. A larger facility with upgraded services would not only better serve the needs of the incarcerated defendants, but also the jail staff and police officers who work there on a daily basis. I’ve heard the arguments against a new jail. Clearly – and unfortunately – the community has voted down numerous proposals. What most people don’t understand, however, is that the current jail is decrepit, unsafe and virtually inhumane. As a result, we see riots and suicides happen at the jail with unsettling frequency. Good luck to the ACLU. Hopefully, they’ll be instrumental toward making positive changes happen for the inmates and hardworking jail staff here in Whatcom County. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** ACLU, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Jail, Opoids, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Murder Rates Decline](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/murder-rates-decline/) **Published:** June 13, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Wonderful [article](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/12/17453632/violent-crime-murder-2017-brennan-center) by [German Lopez](https://www.vox.com/authors/german-lopez) of [Vox](https://www.vox.com/) discusses how crime and murder rates generally declined in the U.S.’s 30 largest cities in 2017, following two years of sharp increases in the murder rate nationwide. According to a new [report](https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/crime-2017-final-analysis) by the [Brennan Center for Justice](https://www.brennancenter.org/), the overall crime rate fell in the 30 largest cities by 2.1 percent compared to 2016, the violent crime rate by 1 percent, and the murder rate by 3.4 percent. “Large decreases in Chicago and Houston, as well as small decreases in other cities, contributed to this decline \[in the murder rate\],” researchers Ames Grawert, James Cullen, and Vienna Thompkins wrote. One caveat to the findings: Murder rates in some US cities, including Chicago, remain elevated compared to a couple of years ago. “The murder rate in Chicago, which increased significantly in 2015 and 2016, declined by 12.3 percent in 2017, but remains more than 60 percent above 2014 levels,” the report found. And some cities, including Philadelphia, Indianapolis, and Baltimore, did see increases in the murder rate in 2017. This kind of local variance and fluctuation is typical in US crime statistics: Even as national trends head in one direction, that doesn’t mean all cities and states always follow the same path. According to Lopez, the report updated Brennan’s [preliminary findings](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/20/16798308/crime-murder-2017-brennan) from December, broadly reaching the same conclusions. The full official numbers for the entire US, compiled by the [FBI](https://www.fbi.gov/), will come out later this year. Lopez reasons that generally, though, the Brennan Center’s reports have done a good job predicting national trends in the past few years. And the news, overall, is good. Lopez says the past two years’ increases in the murder rate got a lot of attention, with [President Donald Trump](https://www.whitehouse.gov/people/donald-j-trump/) and [Attorney General Jeff Sessions](https://www.justice.gov/ag) often bringing them up in speeches to justify “tough on crime” policies. But before they’ve been able to implement such policies and let them take root (especially in local and state jurisdictions, where [federal policymakers have very limited power](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/30/15591700/mass-incarceration-john-pfaff-locked-in)), these rates appear to be coming down. Lopez says criminologists still aren’t sure *why* murder in particular appeared to spike so much in 2015 and 2016. Some argued that there might have been a [“Ferguson effect,”](https://www.vox.com/2016/5/18/11683594/ferguson-effect-crime-police) named after the city in Missouri that exploded into protests over the [police shooting of Michael Brown](https://www.vox.com/cards/mike-brown-protests-ferguson-missouri): Due to protests against police brutality over the past few years, police were, the theory goes, scared off from doing proactive policing, emboldening criminals. [Other experts](https://www.vox.com/2016/5/23/11722634/ferguson-effect-richard-rosenfeld) argued a different kind of Ferguson effect: Widely reported incidents of police brutality and [racial disparities in police use of force](https://www.vox.com/cards/police-brutality-shootings-us/us-police-racism) led to elevated distrust in law enforcement, which makes it [much harder for police to solve and prevent crimes](https://www.vox.com/2016/8/26/12631962/ghettoside-jill-leovy-black-crime). Yet many criminologists [cautioned](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/6/15743984/us-murder-rate-2016) that it’s also possible the two years’ increases were blips in the data, not a new long-term trend. This isn’t unprecedented; in 2005 and 2006, the murder rate in the US increased before continuing its long-term decline — to new record lows — in the ensuing years. > “It now looks possible — though we’ll need more years of data to confirm — that 2015 and 2016 were replays of 2005 and 2006. If that holds, then perhaps the US isn’t in the middle of the [“American carnage”](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/20/donald-trumps-full-inauguration-speech-transcript-annotated/?utm_term=.4a01ca80116c) that Trump warned about.” Since the murder rate in particular is generally low, it’s prone to big statistical fluctuations. As one example, Brennan found that Las Vegas saw a 23.5 percent spike in its murder rate last year, but that was due to the mass shooting at a country music concert there that killed 58 people. A single event, albeit a *very* bad one, led to a dramatic shift in the murder rate. “That’s why criminologists generally demand several years of data before they declare a significant crime trend,” said Lopez. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Homicide & Manslaughter, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Vehicular Homicide](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/vehicular-homicide/) **Published:** June 19, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Frahm](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2049231-8-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held the defendant was properly convicted of vehicular homicide for the death of a [Good Samaritan](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/good_samaritan_rule) who was struck by another vehicle while rendering assistance to the occupant of the vehicle that was initially struck by the defendant’s vehicle. The defendant’s rear-ending of the first vehicle proximately caused the death of the Good Samaritan. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Shortly before dawn on December 7, 2014, a [Ford F-150 truck](https://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMItfqsub_g2wIVxmF-Ch0DVQALEAAYASAAEgLDL_D_BwE&searchid=757864944|45440575168|297736020454|&s_kwcid=AL!2519!3!272517223157!e!!g!!ford%20f150%20truck&ef_id=WOqFlQAABQCPXC6z:20180619194827:s) driven by Frahm rear-ended a [Honda CR-V](http://shop.honda.com/cr-v.aspx?ef_id=1:1:1&CID=SEARCH_HRM_GOOGLE_EVERGREEN_OTHER_SHOPPERS?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIm-KB8L7g2wIVDtNkCh2TpQxaEAAYASAAEgIOufD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds) sport utility vehicle (SUV) driven by Steven Klase. The impact caused the SUV to spin out of control, strike a concrete barrier in the freeway median, and come to rest partially blocking the left and middle lanes of [I-205](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_205_(Oregon%E2%80%93Washington)). Klase sustained serious injuries and remained in his vehicle. Frahm fled the scene. An eyewitness, Richard Irvine, stopped his vehicle on the right shoulder. Irvine activated his vehicle’s emergency flashers, exited his vehicle, and crossed the freeway on foot. Seeing Klase’s injuries, Irvine called 911. While Irvine spoke with a 911 dispatcher, a [Honda Odyssey](http://shop.honda.com/odyssey.aspx?ef_id=1:1:1&CID=SEARCH_HRM_GOOGLE_EVERGREEN_OTHER_SHOPPERS?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIue2Ypr_g2wIVg8hkCh1Cqw8cEAAYASAAEgLbbvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds) minivan driven by Fredy Dela Cruz-Moreno approached in the left lane. Cruz-Moreno’s minivan struck Klase’s vehicle and propelled it into Irvine. As a result, Irvine died. Later that same day, Frahm, the registered owner of the F-150, contacted police to report his vehicle as stolen. When the police later recovered Frahm’s truck, it had front end damage. The police processed the vehicle, and Frahm’s [DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA) matched DNA taken from the deployed airbag. The police interrogated Frahm, and he maintained both that his truck had been stolen and that he had not been driving at the time of the accident. In February 2015, a witness, Dusty Nielsen, contacted the police. Nielsen provided an alibi for Frahm for the time of the accident. Nielsen lied. Frahm had not been with Nielsen the night of the accident. The two men did not know each other until they met in jail, after the accident. When questioned by police about discrepancies in his story, Nielsen recanted. He insisted that he alone came up with the idea to provide the false alibi. The State charged Frahm with six crimes: [vehicular homicide](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/vehicular-homicide-vehicular-assault/#:~:text=Vehicular%20Assault%20is%20a%20Class,prison%20and%20a%20%2420%2C000.00%20fine.&text=In%20Washington%2C%20a%20person%20who,of%20early%20release%20or%20parole.), [manslaughter in the first degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/), [vehicular assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/vehicular-homicide-vehicular-assault/#:~:text=Vehicular%20Assault%20is%20a%20Class,prison%20and%20a%20%2420%2C000.00%20fine.&text=In%20Washington%2C%20a%20person%20who,of%20early%20release%20or%20parole.),[ hit and run,](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/hit-run/) [false reporting](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.84.040), and [conspiracy to commit perjury in the first degree](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.72.020). At trial, and without objection, the State played an unredacted recording of Frahm’s interrogation by the police. During the interrogation, the police repeatedly accused Frahm of lying. Frahm admitted to drinking the night before the accident but iterated that somebody stole his truck, and that he was not the driver at the time of the accident. The jury convicted Frahm of vehicular homicide, vehicular assault, hit and run, false reporting, and conspiracy to commit perjury. Frahm appealed. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** First, the Court of Appeals held that sufficient evidence supported Frahm’s Vehicular Homicide conviction. It reasoned that a driver is guilty of vehicular homicide when the death of any person ensues within three years as a proximate result of injury [proximately caused](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/proximate_cause) by the driving of any vehicle by any person. Furthermore, “[legal causation](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/but-for_test)” involves a determination of whether liability should attach as a matter of law given the existence of cause in fact. “If the factual elements of the tort are proved, determination of legal liability will be dependent on ‘mixed considerations of logic, common sense, justice, policy, and precedent,” said the Court. The Court further reasoned that a defendant’s conduct is a proximate cause of harm to another if, in direct sequence, unbroken by any new independent cause, it produces the harm, and without it the harm would not have happened. Here, the issue was whether any rational jury could find the essential elements of the crime of Vehicular Homicide beyond a reasonable doubt. > “Although this specific victim may not have been foreseeable, the general field of danger was clearly foreseeable. And the record as a whole supports that a reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Frahm’s rear-ending Klase’s vehicle proximately caused Irvine’s death.” Second, the Court of Appeals held that sufficient evidence supports the charge of Conspiracy to Commit Perjury. The Court said a person is guilty of conspiracy if, with the intent to commit a crime, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such \[criminal\] conduct, and any one of them takes a substantial step in pursuance of such agreement. Consequently, making “materially false” statements to police who are conducting investigations is a crime. “Nielsen and Frahm met in jail,” said the Court of Appeals. “They hatched the plan to provide Frahm with a false alibi.” The Court further explained that Frahm provided Nielsen with the details necessary to make the lie appear more credible, including a description of his truck’s interior on the night of the accident. “When viewing the evidence and its reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the State, sufficient evidence supports Frahm’s conspiracy conviction,” said the Court. Finally, the Court rejected Frahm’s arguments that his defense counsel was ineffective and his speedy trial rights were violated. With that, the Court of Appeals upheld Frahm’s convictions. My opinion? First, my sympathies to all parties involved. This case is tragic for all sides. Second, this case presents an interesting blend of criminal and tort law – specifically, negligence – which is not typically seen in everyday court. Issues of duty, breach of duty, proximate cause and damages rarely arise in criminal statutes. Typically, the State need only probe intent and not negligence. However, the specific language of the vehicular homicide statute includes criminal liability for negligent acts. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges. Hiring competent counsel is the first step toward achieving a just result in court. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Criminal Negligence, felony, Homicide & Manslaughter, Perjury, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Vehicular Homicide, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Outrageous Police Misconduct](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/outrageous-police-misconduct/) **Published:** June 23, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Solomon](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/762982.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that the trial court properly dismissed a charge of attempted rape of a child for outrageous police misconduct, where an officer, posing as a fictional 14-year-old girl sent the defendant nearly 100 messages laden with graphic, sexualized language and innuendo and persistently solicited the defendant to engage in a sexual encounter with the fictional minor, notwithstanding that he had rejected her solicitations seven times over the court of four days. **BACKGROUND FACTS** In this matter, a law enforcement officer anonymously published an advertisement on an online [Craigslist](https://www.craigslist.org/about/sites) classifieds platform reserved for those over the age of 18 and indicated that she was “a young female” seeking an individual interested in a casual sexual encounter. The defendant Mr. Solomon responded to the advertisement. Thereafter, the police officer assumed the guise of a fictional 14-year-old girl and sent Solomon nearly 100 messages laden with graphic, sexualized language and innuendo and persistently solicited him to engage in a sexual encounter with the fictional minor, notwithstanding that he had rejected her solicitations seven times over the course of four days. Mr. Solomon was charged with one count of [communication with a minor for immoral purposes](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.68a.090), one count of [commercial sex abuse of a minor](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.68A.100), and one count of attempted [rape of a child in the third degree](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.44.079). Before trial, Solomon moved to dismiss the charges against him, arguing that the State had engaged in outrageous governmental misconduct in violation of his [due process right to fundamental fairness](https://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fundamental-fairness-doctrine/). The trial court herein found that the actions of the law enforcement officer constituted outrageous misconduct in violation of Solomon’s right to due process and dismissed the charges against him. The State appealed. **ISSUE** Whether the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the case due to outrageous conduct of the investigating law enforcement officer. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** As precedent, the Court of Appeals applied the [*State v. Lively*](http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/130wn2d/130wn2d0001.htm) “totality of the circumstances evaluation,” which identifies five factors to be considered by a trial court deciding issues of whether law enforcement engaged outrageous conduct: **(1)** whether the police conduct instigated a crime or merely infiltrated ongoing criminal activity, **(2)** whether the defendant’s reluctance to commit a crime was overcome by pleas of sympathy, promises of excessive profits, or persistent solicitation, **(3)** whether the government controls the criminal activity or simply allows for the criminal activity to occur **(4)** whether the police motive was to prevent crime or protect the public, and **(5)** whether the government conduct itself amounted to criminal activity or conduct repugnant to a sense of justice. Here, the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court’s analysis that Solomon’s reluctance to commit the crime was manifested by his repeated—seven times—attempts to discontinue the conversation. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals agreed that the State had engaged in persistent solicitation of Solomon, given that the detective continued to solicit Mr. Solomon each of the seven times that he sought to withdraw and, in addition, sent the majority of the over 200 messages exchanged between the two parties. Additionally, the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the investigating law enforcement detective controlled the criminal conduct both by initiating the interaction between her and Solomon and by stringing him along over the course of the four days of exchanges. > “In this way, the court determined that the detective’s use of graphic and highly sexualized language amounted to a manipulation of Solomon that was repugnant to a sense of justice.” “In ruling to dismiss the charges, the trial court did not adopt a view that no reasonable judge would take,” said the Court of Appeals. “Given the court’s finding that law enforcement had initiated and controlled the criminal activity, persistently solicited Solomon to commit the crimes so initiated, and acted in a manner (through the use of language and otherwise) repugnant to the trial judge’s view of the community’s sense of justice, the trial court’s determination was tenable. > “Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering that the charges against Solomon be dismissed. There was no error.” With that, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Mr. Solomon’s charges. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or loved one face criminal charges which are stemmed by questionably actions of law enforcement officers. It’s extremely important to hire competent defense counsel who willing to argue compelling motions to dismiss similar to defense counsel’s motion in this case. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Police Misconduct, Rape, Sex Crimes, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Search Within Curtilage](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/search-within-curtilage/) **Published:** June 24, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[Collins v. Virginia](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1027_7lio.pdf)*, the [United States Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) held that officers may not enter the curtilage of a house without a search warrant in order to remove the tarp from a motorcycle in order to confirm that the motorcycle was stolen. **BACKGROUND FACTS** During the investigation of two traffic incidents involving an orange and black motorcycle with an extended frame, Officer David Rhodes learned that the motorcycle likely was stolen and in the possession of petitioner Ryan Collins. Officer Rhodes discovered photographs on Collins’ [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/) profile of an orange and black motorcycle parked in the driveway of a house, drove to the house, and parked on the street. From there, he could see what appeared to be the motorcycle under a white tarp parked in the same location as the motorcycle in the photograph. Without a search warrant, Office Rhodes walked to the top of the driveway, removed the tarp, confirmed that the motorcycle was stolen by running the license plate and vehicle identification numbers, took a photograph of the uncovered motorcycle, replaced the tarp, and returned to his car to wait for Collins. When Collins returned, Officer Rhodes arrested him. Collins was indicted by a Virginia grand jury for [receiving stolen property](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter5/section18.2-108/). He filed a [pretrial motion to suppress](https://vacode.org/19.2-266.2/) the evidence that Officer Rhodes had obtained as a result of the warrantless search of the motorcycle on the grounds that Officer Rhodes violated the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) when he trespassed on the house’s curtilage to conduct a search. The trial court denied Collins’ motion to suppress the evidence. Collins was convicted as charged. The [Virginia Court of Appeals](http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/cav/home.html) affirmed. The [Virginia State Supreme Court](http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/home.html) also affirmed, holding that the warrantless search was justified under the Fourth Amendment’s automobile exception to the warrant requirement. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Supreme Court held the automobile exception to the warrant requirement does not permit the warrantless entry of a home or its curtilage in order to search a vehicle therein. > “This case arises at the intersection of two components of the Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence: the automobile exception to the warrant requirement and the protection extended to the curtilage of a home.” Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court. First, the court discussed the [automobile exception to the warrant requirement](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/automobile_exception). Basically, under the exception, a vehicle may be [searched](http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/search_0) without a [warrant](http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/warrant) when the evidence or [contraband](http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contraband) may possibly be removed from the scene due to the mobility of a vehicle and it is not practical to secure a [warrant](http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/warrant) without jeopardizing the potential evidence. For instance, the automobile exception allows an officer to make a [warrantless](http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/warrant) [traffic stop](http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/traffic_stop) and [search](http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/search_0) a truck of a vehicle when gun parts were observed in [plain view](http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plain_view) on the front seat of the vehicle. Here, the Supreme Court emphasized that the automobile exception rationales applied *only* to automobiles and *not* to houses, and therefore supported their different treatment as a constitutional matter. “When these justifications are present, officers may search an automobile without a warrant so long as they have probable cause,” said the Court. The court also discussed “[curtilage](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/curtilage).” In short, curtilage includes the area immediately surrounding a dwelling, and it counts as part of the home for many legal purposes, including searches. “Curtilage—the area immediately surrounding and associated with the home—is considered part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes,” said the Court. Thus, when an officer physically intrudes on the curtilage to gather evidence, a Fourth Amendment search has occurred and is presumptively unreasonable absent a warrant. Consequently, the court reasoned that the part of the driveway where Collins’ motorcycle was parked and subsequently searched is curtilage: > “When Officer Rhodes searched the motorcycle, it was parked inside a partially enclosed top portion of the driveway that abuts the house. Just like the front porch, side garden, or area outside the front window, that enclosure constitutes an area adjacent to the home and to which the activity of home life extends.” [*Jardines*](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/569/11-564/opinion3.html), 569 U. S., at 6, 7.” The Court also reasoned because the scope of the automobile exception extends no further than the automobile itself, it did not justify Officer Rhodes’ invasion of the curtilage. “Nothing in this Court’s case law suggests that the automobile exception gives an officer the right to enter a home or its curtilage to access a vehicle without a warrant,” said the Court. “Such an expansion would both undervalue the core Fourth Amendment protection afforded to the home and its curtilage and untether the exception from the justifications underlying it.” This Court also reasoned that just as an officer must have a lawful right of access to any contraband he discovers in plain view in order to seize it without a warrant, and just as an officer must have a lawful right of access in order to arrest a person in his home, so, too, an officer must have a lawful right of access to a vehicle in order to search it pursuant to the automobile exception. “To allow otherwise would unmoor the exception from its justifications, render hollow the core Fourth Amendment protection the Constitution extends to the house and its curtilage, and transform what was meant to be an exception into a tool with far broader application,” said the Court. Furthermore, the Court disagreed with Virginia’s proposed bright line rule for an automobile exception that would not permit warrantless entry only of the house itself or another fixed structure, e.g., a garage, inside the curtilage. “This Court has long been clear that curtilage is afforded constitutional protection, and creating a carve-out for certain types of curtilage seems more likely to create confusion than does uniform application of the Court’s doctrine,” said the Court. “Virginia’s rule also rests on a mistaken premise, for the ability to observe inside curtilage from a lawful vantage point is not the same as the right to enter curtilage without a warrant to search for information not otherwise accessible.” Finally, the Court held that Virginia’s rule automatically would grant constitutional rights to those persons with the financial means to afford residences with garages but deprive those persons without such resources of any individualized consideration as to whether the areas in which they store their vehicles qualify as curtilage. With that, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded Collins’ conviction for receiving stolen property. Justice [Roberts](https://www.oyez.org/justices/john_g_roberts_jr), [Kennedy](https://www.oyez.org/justices/anthony_m_kennedy), [Thomas](https://www.oyez.org/justices/clarence_thomas), [Ginsberg](https://www.oyez.org/justices/ruth_bader_ginsburg), [Breyer](https://www.oyez.org/justices/stephen_g_breyer), [Kagan](https://www.oyez.org/justices/elena_kagan) and [Gorsuch](https://www.oyez.org/justices/neil_gorsuch) joined the majority opinion. Justice Thomas also filed a concurring opinion. Justice [Alito](https://www.oyez.org/justices/samuel_a_alito_jr) filed a dissenting opinion. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member’s house is searched by law enforcement officers who don’t have a search warrant. It’s quite possible to suppress evidence based on an unlawful search and get any criminal charges dismissed. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Evidence, felony, Fourth Amendment, Property Crimes, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Skagit County Criminal Defense, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Cell Site Location Information](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/cell-site-location-information/) **Published:** June 26, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*Carpenter v. United States*](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf), the [United States Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) held that the government generally needs a [search warrant](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/search_warrant) to collect troves of location data about the customers of cellphone companies. **BACKGROUND FACTS** In April 2011, police arrested four men suspected of committing a string of [armed robberies ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-103)at [Radio Shack](https://www.radioshack.com/) and [T-Mobile](https://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phone-plans?cmpid=ADV_PB_ONETI440_43700027788423606&mx_ch=ADV_PB&_vsrefdom=650-692-6502&mchxkw=c:973760317,k:t%20mobile,m:e,p:1t1,d:c,ai:47214082214,ad:241557786437,s:g&gclid=CjwKCAjwyMfZBRAXEiwA-R3gM56QXYthIMWLx0zBg33oAM2Ans_6rmG6damn6rR4TNJ0FIPcGlxCKRoCDqMQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds) stores in and around Detroit. One of the men confessed that the group had robbed nine different stores in Michigan and Ohio between December 2010 and March 2011, supported by a shifting ensemble of 15 other men who served as getaway drivers and lookouts. The robber who confessed to the crimes gave the [FBI](https://www.fbi.gov/) his own cellphone number and the numbers of other participants; the FBI then reviewed his call records to identify still more numbers that he had called around the time of the robberies. In May and June 2011, the FBI applied for three [federal court orders](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2703) from magistrate judges to obtain [“transactional records”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transaction_data) from various wireless carriers for 16 different phone numbers. As part of those applications, the FBI recited that these records included “all subscriber information, toll records and call detail records including listed and unlisted numbers dialed or otherwise transmitted to and from \[the\] target telephones from December 1, 2010 to present,” as well as “cell site information for the target telephones at call origination and at call termination for incoming and outgoing calls.” The FBI also stated that these records would “provide evidence that Timothy Carpenter and other known and unknown individuals” had violated the [Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1951). The magistrates granted the applications pursuant to the [Stored Communications Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored_Communications_Act), under which the government may require the disclosure of certain telecommunications records when “specific and articulable facts show that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.” The government later charged Carpenter with six counts of [aiding and abetting robbery that affected interstate commerce, in violation of the Hobbs Act](https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-2402-hobbs-act-generally), and [aiding and abetting the use or carriage of a firearm during a federal crime of violence](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1951). Before trial, Carpenter and Sanders [moved to suppress](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_12) the government’s cell-site evidence on [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) grounds, arguing that the records could be seized only with a warrant supported by probable cause. The district court denied the motion. At trial, seven accomplices testified that Carpenter organized most of the robberies and often supplied the guns. They also testified that Carpenter and his half-brother Sanders had served as lookouts during the robberies. According to these witnesses, Carpenter typically waited in a stolen car across the street from the targeted store. At his signal, the robbers entered the store, brandished their guns, herded customers and employees to the back, and ordered the employees to fill the robbers’ bags with new [smartphones](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone). After each robbery, the team met nearby to dispose of the guns and getaway vehicle and to sell the stolen phones. Also at trial, the Government admitted [cell-site location information (CSLI)](https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2016-06-07_Cell-Tracking-Primer_Final.pdf) provided by Carpenter’s wireless carriers. The State’s expert witness created maps showing that Carpenter’s phone was within a half-mile to two miles of the location of each of the robberies around the time the robberies happened. Hess used [MetroPCS](https://www.metropcs.com/) call-detail records, for example, to show that Carpenter was within that proximity of a Detroit Radio Shack that was robbed around 10:35 a.m. on December 13, 2010. Specifically, MetroPCS records showed that at 10:24 a.m. Carpenter’s phone received a call that lasted about four minutes. At the start and end of the call, Carpenter’s phone drew its signal from MetroPCS tower 173, sectors 1 and 2, located southwest of the store and whose signals point northeast. After the robbery, Carpenter placed an eight-minute call originating at tower 145, sector 3, located northeast of the store, its signal pointing southwest; when the call ended, Carpenter’s phone was receiving its signal from tower 164, sector 1, alongside [Interstate 94](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_94), north of the Radio Shack. The expert witness provided similar analysis concerning the locations of Carpenter’s phone at the time of a December 18, 2010 robbery in Detroit; a March 4, 2011 robbery in Warren, Ohio; and an April 5, 2011 robbery in Detroit. See Carpenter App’x at 12-15. The jury convicted Carpenter on all of the Hobbs Act counts and convicted him on all but one of the gun counts. Carpenter’s convictions subjected him to four mandatory-minimum prison sentences of 25 years, each to be served consecutively, leaving him with a Sentencing Guidelines range of 1,395 to 1,428 months’ prison. The district court sentenced Carpenter to 1,395 months’ imprisonment. He appealed his convictions and sentences. **COURT’S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS** Justice Roberts delivered the majority opinion of the Supreme Court. Preliminarily, the Court held that the Government’s acquisition of Carpenter’s cell-site records was a Fourth Amendment search. It reasoned that Fourth Amendment protects not only property interests but certain expectations of privacy as well. “Thus, when an individual seeks to preserve something as private, and his expectation of privacy is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable, official intrusion into that sphere generally qualifies as a search and requires a warrant supported by probable cause,” said the Court. > “Tracking a person’s past movements through CSLI partakes of many of the qualities of GPS monitoring considered in [*Jones*](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/565/400/)—it is detailed, encyclopedic, and effortlessly compiled.” The Court further reasoned that cell phone location information is not truly “shared” as the term is normally understood. “First, cell phones and the services they provide are such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life, that carrying one is indispensable to participation in modern society,” said the Court. “Second, a cell phone logs a cell-site record by dint of its operation, without any affirmative act on the user’s part beyond powering up.” Finally, the Court reasoned that the Government did not obtain a warrant supported by [probable cause](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause) before acquiring Carpenter’s cell-site records. It acquired those records pursuant to a court order under the Stored Communications Act, which required the Government to show reasonable grounds for believing that the records were relevant and material to an ongoing investigation. “That showing falls well short of the probable cause required for a warrant,” said the Court. “Consequently, an order issued under §2703(d) is not a permissible mechanism for accessing historical cell-site records. Not all orders compelling the production of documents will require a showing of [probable cause](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause).” Justice [Ginsberg](https://www.oyez.org/justices/ruth_bader_ginsburg), [Breyer](https://www.oyez.org/justices/stephen_g_breyer), [Sotomayor](https://www.oyez.org/justices/sonia_sotomayor), and [Kagan](https://www.oyez.org/justices/elena_kagan) joined. Justice [Kennedy](https://www.oyez.org/justices/anthony_m_kennedy) filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice [Thomas](https://www.oyez.org/justices/clarence_thomas) and [Alito](https://www.oyez.org/justices/samuel_a_alito_jr) joined. Justice [Gorsuch](https://www.oyez.org/justices/neil_gorsuch) also filed a dissenting opinion. It’s imperative to hire competent defense counsel willing to argue motions to suppress information that the Government creatively – and sometimes *illegally* – obtains. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are arrested for crimes involving searches of cell phones and/or cell phone records. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Cell-Site Location Information (CSLI), Constitutional Rights, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Fourth Amendment, Hobbs Act, Probable Cause, Robbery, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Stored Communications Act, Technology, Theft, Uncategorized, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Driving While Black: Some Statistics](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/driving-while-black-some-statistics/) **Published:** June 30, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Recent studies and statistics from American cities show disturbing upward trends in [racial profiling](https://www.aclu.org/issues/racial-justice/race-and-criminal-justice/racial-profiling). ### Kansas City Police Disproportionately Ticket Black Drivers Black drivers in Kansas City, Missouri received 60% of traffic tickets written by the [Kansas City Police Department](http://kcmo.gov/police/thank-an-officer/#.WzeaDdJKhPY) in 2017 even though they comprise only 30% of the city’s population, reports [*The Kansas City Star*](https://default.salsalabs.org/T7d28cc34-6a0c-4709-aacd-f79fbcb469b1/f0a6de94-b9c5-11e7-b163-12c35146c141). [Ken Novak](http://cas.umkc.edu/criminal-justice-and-criminology/about-us/facultystaff-directory/name/ken-novak/), a professor of criminal justice and criminology at the [University of Missouri-Kansas City](https://www.umkc.edu/), attributes this disparity to the concentration of officers in high-crime neighborhoods which have more non-white drivers. [Stacy Shaw](http://stacyshawlaw.com/), an attorney who has represented defendants in over 8,000 traffic-related cases since 2011, says the majority of black drivers’ tickets are economically based, such as for failure to pay insurance, licensing, or tag fees — not for “poor driver crimes.” To address these problems, she suggests the state create a sliding scale for car registration fees and that the city improve public transit. Residents in Missouri are not alone in being financially burdened by fees and fear of ticketing: 41 states and the District of Columbia suspend or revoke driver’s licenses for failure to pay traffic tickets or to appear in court to respond to tickets. Nationally over 7 million people may have had their driver’s licenses suspended for failure to pay court or administrative debt, according to a *[Washington Post](https://default.salsalabs.org/T7a915bf7-7193-418d-b058-20a260667b4a/f0a6de94-b9c5-11e7-b163-12c35146c141)* analysis. In North Carolina, civil rights groups filed a [federal lawsuit](https://default.salsalabs.org/Tabbc0af8-fa34-444d-9823-4495271188e1/f0a6de94-b9c5-11e7-b163-12c35146c141) challenging the constitutionality of the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles’ practice of revoking the driver’s licenses of people who cannot pay for traffic tickets. ### “Driving While Black” in Missouri has Worsened Since Ferguson Four years after the fatal [police shooting of Michael Brown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown) in [Ferguson, MO](https://default.salsalabs.org/Ta696f0e4-8a0b-4b0d-8192-8f1a7ea121da/f0a6de94-b9c5-11e7-b163-12c35146c141) and subsequent protests, black drivers in Missouri are 85% more likely to be pulled over than white drivers, reports [*Mother Jones*](https://default.salsalabs.org/Taebe8c73-9b2b-47b9-b6a4-8e9307e4f0d7/f0a6de94-b9c5-11e7-b163-12c35146c141) and [*St. Louis Public Radio*](https://default.salsalabs.org/T00f8c0a4-43d7-4ec6-a9d9-4a40b3e49ac5/f0a6de94-b9c5-11e7-b163-12c35146c141). This is the [largest disparity](https://default.salsalabs.org/Tdcd3f00f-aa88-4e67-9e68-663e2a31c5f7/f0a6de94-b9c5-11e7-b163-12c35146c141) since the Attorney General’s office began analyzing traffic-stop data in 2000. The report also uncovered significant disparity in how drivers were treated after being pulled over in 2017: Black drivers who were stopped were 51% more likely than white drivers to be searched and Latino drivers were 45% more likely than whites to be searched. Among those searched, white drivers were more often found with contraband. “We have to learn how to stop people fairly, how to treat people fairly, and the racial profiling numbers as they stand, they’re egregious. They’re horrible,” said Sgt. Heather Taylor, president of the [Ethical Society of Police](https://esopstl.org/). At a news conference in response to the report’s findings, the Coalition for Fair Policing [called for updated policies](http://empowermissouri.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Coalition-Statement-Responding-to-VSR-1.pdf) to make changes to consent searches, better data collection, and limiting “hot-spot policing.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member were racially profiled and now face criminal charges. Hiring competent defense counsel is the first and best step toward reaching justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Churches Divest from Police to Protect People of Color.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/churches-divest-from-police-to-protect-people-of-color/) **Published:** July 3, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** According to an [article](https://www.sentencingproject.org/news/race-justice-news-churches-divest-police-protect-people-color/) from [The Sentencing Project](https://www.sentencingproject.org/), [First Congregational Church of Oakland](http://www.firstoakland.org/), a progressive California church, and dozens of its members have vowed to never call the police again except for a shooting or other life-threatening violence, reports the [*Los Angeles Times*](https://default.salsalabs.org/T5a0cc418-5155-4d57-abff-4e6aa91e58af/f0a6de94-b9c5-11e7-b163-12c35146c141) and [National Public Radio](https://default.salsalabs.org/T5821fbdb-7481-4735-99b3-469d6076fe12/f0a6de94-b9c5-11e7-b163-12c35146c141). After the church began displaying a [Black Lives Matter](https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/) sign in response to the [police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown), Vanessa Riles, an African American congregant, asked members: “How can we say black lives matter, and be a church that calls the police on people, especially black people, poor disenfranchised black men?” The church, half of whose congregants are white, recognized that the rare instances in which it called the police were in regard to homeless black men. Rather than relying on police, church leaders secured a $10,000 grant to train its members and other community groups on [de-escalation tactics](http://resources.crisisprevention.com/De-Escalation-Training.html?code=ITG011094072DT&src=Pay-Per-Click&gclid=Cj0KCQjwvezZBRDkARIsADKQyPlbQ3_J70pz197NlFXsob_d7J6nbxNjB6BZ6SUF_g9RaBVE40IVTQEaAguIEALw_wcB) and self-defense. For burglaries, the church will file a report at the police station to satisfy property insurance requirements, rather than have the police come to its neighborhood. While some churches have scoffed at this strategy and conservative media has called it “anti-police,” another church in Oakland and one in San Jose and Iowa City, Iowa have made similar vows and local houses of worship and residents have expressed interest in participating. My opinion? A wonderful idea. First Congregational Church is taking a step the right direction. Nowadays, people are too quick to call police about the most mundane things. Recently, there are numerous high-profile cases where people of color have been racially profiled, confronted by police, and, in some cases, arrested after white business owners, employees, or bystanders viewed them with suspicion. For example, Lolade Siyonbola, who is a graduate student at Yale, [was woken up by the classmate and interrogated](https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/09/us/yale-student-napping-black-trnd/index.html) by law enforcement for 15 minutes. According to Siyonbola, the white student told police that she appeared out of place in the building. In April, two black men, Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson, were arrested for trespassing as they waited [inside a Philadelphia Starbucks](https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/4/14/17238494/what-happened-at-starbucks-black-men-arrested-philadelphia) for a business partner. The men later said they had been inside the Starbucks for mere minutes before the store’s manager called 911 because they sat down without ordering anything. Not long after this, a black woman was [violently arrested](https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/4/23/17271296/waffle-house-video-police-racism) inside a Saraland, Alabama, [Waffle House](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffle_House) and had the front of her shirt pulled down by police officers after a manager called 911 because of a dispute over an extra charge on the woman’s bill. That same month, the owner of a golf club in Pennsylvania called police on a group of black women who he said [were playing too slowly](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/25/us/black-women-golfers-york.html). On April 30, two Native American teenagers [were pulled aside by police](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/colorado-state-university-tour-police-called-native-american-students/) during a tour of Colorado State University after a white parent on the tour called them. And on May 8, the president of [Nordstrom Rack](https://www.nordstromrack.com/?&sid=113687&mid=svOej4kA6|pcrid|104687051425|device|c|pgrid|11721986905|ptaid|kwd-12659021|&utm_channel=search_acq_p&gclid=Cj0KCQjwvezZBRDkARIsADKQyPlIUvMNt_7CRT0AFM6UViMuBxPwxcBcB3NLDUEV7X7Icd9JDwLOR7IaAqicEALw_wcB) issued an apology after employees at a Missouri location [called the police](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/05/08/nordstrom-rack-called-the-police-on-three-black-teens-who-were-shopping-for-prom/?utm_term=.374ad10a23bc) on three black men who were shopping for prom, accusing them of shoplifting. A white customer in the store called the men “a bunch of bums” as they looked through items. Again, kudos to First Congregational Church of Oakland. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member were contacted by police under questionable circumstances. A competent defense attorney can review the facts, interpret the law and humanize a situation much better than fearful witnesses and/or hyper-proactive police officer can. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Celebrate the Fourth of July Responsibly](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/celebrate-the-fourth-of-july-responsibly/) **Published:** July 4, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** When celebrating holidays, many people gather with friends and family, decorating their homes and enjoying time together. However, some holiday celebrations often include consuming substances like [illegal drugs](https://www.centeronaddiction.org/addiction/commonly-used-illegal-drugs) and [alcohol](https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/alcohol-abuse/). In 2016, Americans spent more than $1 billion on cold beverages for their [Fourth of July](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Day_(United_States)) celebrations. That amount was higher than what was spent on burgers and hotdogs, combined. According to [CNBC](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/04/fourth-of-july-spending-by-the-numbers.html), the Fourth of July is the country’s largest beer-drinking holiday. The popular holiday also surpassed [New Year’s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year%27s_Day) as the most dangerous holiday of the year, especially when it comes to traveling on the roadways. According to the [Los Angeles Times](http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-fourth-of-july-deadliest-holiday-20140705-story.html), there was an average of 127 fatal car crashes each year on July 4 between 2008 and 2012. Of those who died, 41 percent of people had elevated blood alcohol levels. So how did the day that was meant to celebrate America’s birthday become a day where people choose to drink? The Fourth of July is a federal holiday, which means that most businesses are closed and the employees of those businesses get to enjoy the day off. [Jeffrey Spring](https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffrey-spring-6a96818), a spokesman for the [Automobile Club of Southern California](http://news.aaa-calif.com/), told the [Los Angeles Times](http://www.latimes.com/) that it’s more than just celebrating a day off of work. “They tend to try to cram a lot into these weekends and that’s where they get into trouble,” Spring said. In other words, a paid holiday is taken to new heights due to the excitement of having a free day to themselves. Some advice? Please remember that beneath all the celebration, the Fourth of July is more than just about alcoholic drinks and setting off fireworks. [In 1776, the thirteen American colonies declared themselves independent from the British Empire](https://history.state.gov/milestones/1776-1783/declaration), thus the United States of America was born. Also known as Independence Day, the day celebrates the birth of the country. It can be commemorated in speeches presented by politicians, celebrities hosting private events, or military personnel saluting the United States at noon on the holiday by shooting off a rifle. The Fourth of July is important to celebrate for its historical significance. This holiday is a time to remind people not only of the hard work and dedication it took to become the country that the United States is today, but to encourage people to live their lives to their fullest potential. Don’t let the Fourth of July become a catalyst for illegal behavior. However, [please call my office i](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/)f you, a friend or family member consume intoxicants this Fourth of July and later find yourselves facing criminal charges. It’s imperative to hire responsive and experienced defense counsel when contacted by law enforcement. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, DUI, felony, Knock & Talk, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Probable Cause, Reasonable Suspicion, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Speeding / Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/speeding-reckless-driving/) **Published:** July 7, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Interesting [article](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article214432144.html) by [Robert Mittendorf](https://twitter.com/bhammitty?lang=en) of the [Bellingham Herald](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/) discusses the increased dangers of speeding and Reckless Driving in Washington and Whatcom County. Apparently, the WA State Patrol has aircraft and personnel dedicated to surveying and catching motorists who drive recklessly. [WA State Patrol Traffic Aircraft](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article214460174.html) According to a [report](https://wallethub.com/edu/strictest-and-most-lenient-states-on-speeding/14211/) from personal finance website [WalletHub](https://wallethub.com/), Washington is first among U.S. states where speeding is automatically considered [Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/), seventh in average cost increase of insurance after one speeding ticket, and tenth for minimum jail time for a first Reckless Driving offense. Mittendorf reports that in Washington, a first-time Reckless Driving is a gross misdemeanor conviction which could result in a year in jail, a $5,000 fine and a suspended license. And according to Mittendorf, even though speeding alone is legally considered reckless driving in Washington, a police officer won’t always add reckless charge to a speeding ticket, said Trooper Heather Axtman of the [Washington State Patrol](http://www.wsp.wa.gov/). Mittendorf also reports that [CarInsurance.com](https://www.carinsurance.com/how-much-insurance-goes-up-for-speeding-ticket.aspx) says a speeding ticket could result in a 10 percent increase in insurance premiums for three to five years, depending on the company and other factors, including how long the policy holder has been a client. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with driving-related crimes in Skagit and Whatcom county. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Reckless Driving, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Traffic Infractions, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Bellingham's Most Dangerous Intersections](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/bellinghams-most-dangerous-intersections/) **Published:** July 9, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Informative [article](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article214198859.html) by [David Rasbach](https://muckrack.com/david-rasbach/articles) of the [Bellingham Herald](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/) reports on statistics provided by the [Bellingham Police Department Traffic Division ](https://www.cob.org/gov/dept/police/about/Pages/traffic-division.aspx)showing Bellingham’s most dangerous intersection. Apparently, at least in terms of the sheer number of accidents, [West Bakerview Road and Northwest Drive](https://www.google.com/maps/search/w+Bakerview+road+%26+northwest+dr./@48.7894541,-122.5154371,17z/data=!3m1!4b1) reigns as the most dangerous intersection in the city. In a distracted driving study conducted by its traffic division from January 2016 through June 2017, Bellingham Police received 1,350 reports of accidents within city limits, regardless of severity or injury. Of those, 43 accidents occurred at the intersection of Bakerview and Northwest — the highest total of any intersection in town. Rasbach also reports that three of the top four most dangerous intersections during the 18-month study were in that same corridor: [West Bakerview Road and Eliza Avenue](https://www.google.com/maps/place/W+Bakerview+Rd+%26+Eliza+Ave,+Bellingham,+WA+98226/@48.7897143,-122.4991545,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x5485a35bb01fe103:0x7e33bb033e034753!8m2!3d48.7897108!4d-122.4969658)had the third highest accident total with 22 wrecks, while [West Bakerview Road and Cordata Parkway](https://www.google.com/maps/place/W+Bakerview+Rd+%26+Cordata+Pkwy,+Bellingham,+WA+98226/@48.7897672,-122.4935283,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x5485a359491747c7:0x2f4b579252761e0f!8m2!3d48.7897637!4d-122.4913396) was fourth highest with 18. The only intersection breaking up Bakerview’s stranglehold on the top of Bellingham’s dangerous intersections list — [Lakeway Drive and Lincoln Street](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lakeway+Dr+%26+Lincoln+St,+Bellingham,+WA+98229/@48.7449684,-122.4646719,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x5485a3ea5effc46b:0xfb39f2f29567a6e1!8m2!3d48.7449649!4d-122.4624832), which had 25 reported accidents — is very similar, with two busy shopping centers and a school occupying three of the four corners. Nearby [Lakeway Drive and King Street](https://www.google.com/maps/search/lakeway+drive+%26+james/@48.7450615,-122.4661257,17z) tied for sixth-most dangerous with [Woburn Street and Barkley Boulevard](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Barkley+Blvd+%26+Woburn+St,+Bellingham,+WA+98226/@48.7711219,-122.4474483,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x5485a47c63c7a4e9:0x175c7053e7301bd4!8m2!3d48.7711184!4d-122.4452596) with 14 reported accidents, each. Also, the lone roundabout at [Cordata Parkway and West Kellogg Road](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lakeway+Dr+%26+Lincoln+St,+Bellingham,+WA+98229/@48.7449684,-122.4646719,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x5485a3ea5effc46b:0xfb39f2f29567a6e1!8m2!3d48.7449649!4d-122.4624832) had 16 accidents reported. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a family member or friend are criminally charged for traffic-related incidents. Unfortunately, it’s very easy to be charged with [DUI](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.502), [Reckless Driving](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.500), [Negligent Driving](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.5249), [Driving While License Suspended](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.342), [Eluding](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.024) and/or numerous traffic citations. Bellingham’s dangerous intersections only exacerbate the situation and make it more likely that an unlawful [pretextual pullover](https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/08/03/how-the-supreme-court-made-it-legal-for-cops-to-pull-you-over-for-just-about-anything) will happen. Most of all, drive safe! ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Driving While License Suspended/Revoked, Driving With Wheels Off Roadway, Drowsy Driving, Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, DUI, Eluding, law enforcement, Physical Control DUI, police, Pretext, Reckless Driving, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Traffic Infractions, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Unlawful Opinion Testimony of Police Officer](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/unlawful-opinion-testimony-of-police-officer/) **Published:** July 13, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Winborne](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/350819_pub.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) held that an officer’s use of the word “reckless” or “eluding” while testifying in a Felony Eluding trial was improper opinion testimony. **BACKGROUND FACTS** The State of Washington charged Tishawn Winborne with [Theft of a Motor Vehicle](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/possession-theft-of-stolen-motor-vehicle/), two counts of [Attempting to Elude a Police Vehicle](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/eluding/), one count of [Second Degree Assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/), and one count of [Third Degree Assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/). The assault charges arise from his resisting of police officers. At the start of trial, Tishawn Winborne made a [motion in limine](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/motion_in_limine) to prohibit the State’s witnesses from testifying regarding ultimate factual issues such as whether Winborne “eluded” or drove “recklessly.” However, the trial court denied the motion. For those who don’t know, a motion in limine is a pretrial [motion](http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/motion) asking that certain evidence be found inadmissible, and that it not be referred to or offered at [trial](http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/trial). During trial, State witnesses repeatedly testified to Tishawn Winborne’s driving “recklessly” or “eluding” law enforcement. At the close of the State’s case, the trial court dismissed the Theft of a Motor Vehicle charge because of insufficient evidence. The jury found Tishawn Winborne guilty of both counts of Attempting to Elude a Police Vehicle, but acquitted Winborne of both assault charges. Winborne appealed. Among other issues, he challenged the trial court’s denial of his motion in limine to prohibit any witness from testifying that Winborne drove “recklessly” or “eluded” police. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals reasoned that no witness, lay or expert, may testify to his or her opinion as to the guilt of a defendant, whether by direct statement or inference. Whether testimony provides an improper opinion turns on the circumstances of the case, including **(1)** the type of witness involved, **(2)** the specific nature of the testimony, **(3)** the nature of the charges, **(4)** the type of defense, and **(5)** the other evidence before the trier of fact. Next, the Court held this case was similar to the controlling precedent of *State v. Farr-Lenzini:* > “The state trooper in State v. Farr-Lenzini did not employ the word “reckless” in his testimony as did officers in Tishawn Winborne’s trial. Nevertheless, the same reasoning behind excluding the testimony applies. An officer can testify to his observations of the driving of the defendant without drawing conclusions assigned to the jury.” Finally, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Tishawn Winborne’s motion in limine. It reasoned that the State’s police officer witnesses testified by direct statements to Tishawn Winborne’s guilt. “Whether Tishawn Winborne drove ‘recklessly’ or ‘eluded’ the officer is an element of attempting to elude a police vehicle,” said the Court. “A law enforcement officer’s improper opinion testimony may be particularly prejudicial because it carries a special aura of reliability.” With that, the Court of Appeals reversed Tishawn Winbome’s convictions for Felony Eluding a Police Officer and remanded for a new trial. My opinion? Good decision. The Court of Appeals is correct in saying that a police officer’s improper opinion testimony may be particularly prejudicial because it carries a special aura of reliability. This is true. Instinctively, most jurors give much weight to the testimony of police officers. And the police officers *know* that. For those reasons, it is imperative for defense attorneys to argue pretrial motions in limine asking the trial judge to prohibit the police officers from offering their opinions at trial and to take exception to the court’s adverse rulings; thus preserving the issue for appeal. Kudos to the defense attorney in this case. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Eluding, ER 704, Jury Trial, Motions In Limine, Opinion Testimony, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Theft of Motor Vehicle, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Accomplices & Drive-By Shooting](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/accomplices-drive-by-shooting/) **Published:** July 22, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Jameison](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/347681_pub.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) held that **(1)** [Drive-By Shooting](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drive-by-shooting/) charges may not be maintained against an accused who merely retrieves a gun from the car in which he arrived to the scene of the homicide but crouches behind another car at the time he returns fire, and **(2)** the defendant’s arming himself and hiding behind a car from the bullets of the other shooter does not amount to accomplice liability with the co-defendant. **BACKGROUND FACTS** This prosecution arises from a confrontation between Kwame Bates and defendant Lashawn Jameison, on the one hand, and Anthony Williams, on the other hand, during which skirmish Williams fired his gun and killed bystander Eduardo Villagomez. A video partially captures the confrontation and shooting. On the night of January 17-18, 2016, Lashawn Jameison and Kwame Bates joined a group of five hundred young adults at the [Palomino Club](https://www.yelp.com/biz/the-palomino-club-spokane) in [Spokane](https://my.spokanecity.org/) to celebrate [Martin Luther King Day](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr._Day). Bates drove Jameison to the club in a white Toyota Camry owned by Bates’ girlfriend, which car gains significance as events transpire. Bates parked the Camry on Lidgerwood Street in front of a [Department of Licensing](https://www.dol.wa.gov/) building adjacent to the club. A Chrysler parked behind the Camry on the street. We do not know the time of night that Bates and Jameison arrived at the celebration. The Palomino Club closed at 2 a.m. on January 18. As Lashawn Jameison and Kwame Bates exited the club at closing, another patron, Anthony Williams, shoved Sierra, a female friend of Bates. The shove began a deadly chain of events. As a result of the push, Bates and Williams argued. Jameison did not participate in the quarrel. Williams jumped a metal fence bordering the club parking lot, retrieved a handgun from a car parked in the adjacent Department of Licensing parking lot, and returned to the entrance of the club. Williams paced to and from the club building, the adjacent lot, and Lidgerwood Street. Both Kwame Bates and Lashawn Jameison, knowing that Anthony Williams possessed a firearm, returned to the white Toyota Camry and armed themselves. Both Bates and Jameison lawfully owned firearms. During this activity, other patrons of the Palomino Club departed the building and walked to their cars parked in the club parking lot, in the adjacent parking lot, and on the street. Lashawn Jameison, with gun in hand, retreated and separated himself from Kwame Bates and Anthony Williams. Jameison hid at the rear of the Chrysler parked behind the Camry while Bates stood by a power pole near the Camry. Bates and Williams, with Williams then in the Department of Licensing parking lot, faced one another as Martin Luther King Day celebrants continued to walk to their cars. According to Bates, he “does not back down” from a fight as long as the fight is fair. Jameison crouched behind the Chrysler. A friend of Anthony Williams drove the friend’s car into the parking lot. Williams stepped behind his friend’s vehicle and discharged his gun in Bates’ direction. The bullet missed Bates and struck Eduardo Villagomez, a bystander walking along the street. Villagomez slumped to the street. Tragically. an unsuspecting driver of a car drove over Villagomez’s stricken body. Villagomez died as a result of the bullet wound and the force of the vehicle. After Anthony Williams’ discharge of gunfire, Kwame Bates ran from the power pole and joined Lashawn Jameison behind the stationary Chrysler. Seconds after Williams fired the first shot, Bates and Jameison stood, returned fire, and crouched again behind the Chrysler. Jameison fired, at most, two shots toward Williams. Williams returned additional shots toward Bates and Jameison. Bates rose again and returned fire as Williams entered the vehicle driven by his friend. The friend drove the vehicle from the parking lot and club. Bates and Jameison entered the Camry and also departed the neighborhood. The State of Washington charged Lashawn Jameison with [first degree murder by extreme indifference](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.32.030) and, in the alternative, [first degree manslaughter](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.32.060) as the result of the death of Eduardo Villagomez. The State acknowledged that Anthony Williams shot Eduardo Villagomez but charged Jameison with [accomplice liability](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.08.020). The State also charged Jameison with fourteen counts of Drive-By Shooting as a result of Jameison’s returning of gunfire. The fourteen charges arise from the presence of at least fourteen club patrons in the vicinity at the time of the shooting. **PROCEDURAL HISTORY** Lashawn Jameison moved to dismiss the homicide charges pursuant to [*State v.*](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/dismissing-cases-through-knapstad-motions/) *Knapstad*. Jameison emphasized that the video of the scene and law enforcement officers’ reports and affidavits demonstrated beyond dispute that Anthony Williams killed the decedent while Jameison ducked behind a car, shielding himself from Williams’ attack. Jameison added that, because he had not fired a shot by the time Williams’ bullet struck Eduardo Villagomez and because he himself was a victim of Williams’ violence, he could not be guilty of murder even as an accomplice. Jameison posited the same arguments for the alternative charge of manslaughter. Lashawn Jameison also moved to dismiss the Drive-By Shooting charges for [insufficient evidence](https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/insufficient+evidence) of recklessness. In the alternative, he argued that all but one count should be dismissed because he fired only one shot. He based the latter argument on law enforcement’s discovering, at the crime scene, only one shell casing matching his gun. The trial court dismissed the first degree murder and first degree manslaughter charges on the basis, in part, that Lashawn Jameison did not cause the death of Eduardo Villagomez. The trial court also ruled that the unit of prosecution for drive-by shooting charges was the number of shots fired by Jameison. Because of a dispute of fact as to whether Jameison fired one or two shots, the trial court dismissed all but two of the fourteen drive-by shooting counts. The State requested and this court granted discretionary review of the trial court’s dismissal of some of the pending charges. After we accepted discretionary review, this court decided [*State v. Vasquez*](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/drive-by-shooting-conviction-reversed/), which delineates the elements of a Drive-By Shooting prosecution. We requested that both parties address Vasquez during oral argument. **LEGAL ISSUES** - Whether an accused, who, in response to an antagonist retrieving a gun, also arms himself and hides behind a vehicle, suffers Accomplice Liability for Homicide when, without the accused shooting his firearm, the antagonist fires his gun and the bullet strikes and kills an innocent bystander. - Whether the same accused may be convicted of a Drive-By Shooting when he retrieves a gun from the car in which he arrived to the scene of the homicide but crouches behind another car at the time he returns fire. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** First, the Court of Appeals described the legal mechanisms of a [CrR 8.3 Motion to Dismiss](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=crr&ruleid=SUPCRR8.03) and a [*Knapstad* ](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/dismissing-cases-through-knapstad-motions/)Motion to dismiss and reasoned that ultimately the two motions are essentially the same. Next, and interestingly, the Court of Appeals engaged a semi-esoteric discussion on how to handle criminal cases involving the accomplice liability of co-defendants who give more than one version of events. “We struggle in the abstract with what assay to employ when adjudging what reasonable inferences we may deduce from established facts,” said the Court. “Therefore, we first comb for definitions and synonyms for our key word ‘inference.'” The Court elaborated that our state high court has defined an “inference” as a logical deduction or conclusion from an established fact. for example, [*State v. Aten* ](http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/130wn2d/130wn2d0640.htm)refers to a “reasonable and logical” inference, again suggesting that a permissible inference must be logical. > “Based on these definitions, we must summon logic, common sense, and experience in surmising additional or circumstantial facts from already established or direct facts. We hope that our experience coincides with common sense and our common sense abides logic.” The Court further reasoned that when evidence is equally consistent with two hypotheses, the evidence tends to prove neither. *“*We will not infer a circumstance when no more than a possibility is shown,” said the Court. “We are not justified in inferring, from mere possibilities the existence of facts.” Moreover, the Court said that Washington law, if not the federal constitution, demands that inferences in the criminal setting be based only on likelihood, not possibility. When an inference supports an element of the crime, due process requires the presumed fact to flow more likely than not from proof of the basic fact. “Whether an inference meets the appropriate standard must be determined on a case-by-case basis in light of the particular evidence presented to the jury in each case.” The Court concluded that we should not draw an inference that Lashawn Jameison agreed to fight with Anthony Williams. “No evidence directly confirms that Jameison concurred in Williams shooting at Jameison’s direction. Experience, common sense and logic easily depict Williams acting on his own without any consent from Jameison or Bates.” The Court of Appeals also said the State in essence portrays Lashawn Jameison and Anthony Williams as agreeing to a duel. “The totality of the undisputed facts, however, leads one to conclude that Jameison never consented to a duel,” said the Court. “Jameison retrieved his firearm only after Williams grabbed his weapon and in order to defend himself. He could have, but never did, shoot at Williams before Williams first shot in his direction. **HOMICIDE & ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY** The Court of Appeals described the accomplice liability statute. In short, a person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of a crime if, with knowledge that it will promote or facilitate the commission of the crime, he or she: (i) solicits, commands, encourages, or requests such other person to commit it; or (ii) aids or agrees to aid such other person in planning or committing it; or (iii) his or her conduct is expressly declared by law to establish his or her complicity. The Court of Appeals held that under Washington case law, an accomplice must associate himself with the principal’s criminal undertaking, participate in it as something he desires to bring about, and seek by his action to make it succeed. Presence and knowledge alone are insufficient, absent evidence from which a readiness to assist or an intent to encourage could be inferred, to support a finding of accomplice liability. Consequently, the Court of Appeals held that Lashawn Jameison never sought to assist Anthony Williams. “He never directly encouraged Williams to shoot either himself or Kwame Bates,” said the Court. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that Williams wanted to shoot or wound Bates or Jameison. Jameison did not seek this goal. Jameison and Williams acted as antagonists. “They entered any fight from opposite poles.” > “We find that the conduct of Jameison in arming himself and hiding behind a car from the bullets of Anthony Williams ineptly fulfills the meaning of “encouragement” and his situation borders on victimhood. In turn, imposing criminal liability on Jameison conflicts with general principles of accomplice liability and disserves policies behind imposing accomplice liability.” **DRIVE-BY SHOOTING** On this issue, the Court of Appeals addressed what constitutes the “immediate area” of a motor vehicle that transported the shooter. The Court reasoned that under Drive-By Shooting statute, a person is guilty of drive-by shooting when he or she recklessly discharges a firearm in a manner which creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person and the discharge is either from a motor vehicle or from the “immediate area” of a motor vehicle that was used to transport the shooter or the firearm, or both, to the scene of the discharge. The Court also turned to [*State v. Vasquez*](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/drive-by-shooting-conviction-reversed/) and [*State v. Rodgers*](http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/146wn2d/146wn2d0055.htm) in fashioning language to assist in measuring the “immediate area” in individual circumstances. In *State v. Vasquez*, the Court ruled that “immediate area” was either inside the vehicle or from within a few feet or yards of the vehicle. Also, the crime of Drive-By Shooting applies to a shooter who is either inside a vehicle or within easy or immediate reach of the vehicle. > “In *State v. Rodgers*, the Supreme Court held two blocks did not fall within the immediate area. In *State v. Vasquez*, we held that a distance of sixty-three feet did not qualify as the immediate area.” Consequently, the Court reasoned that here, When Lashawn Jameison fired his responding shots, Jameison likely stood closer than sixty-three feet of the Toyota Camry, the car in which he traveled to the Palomino Club. “We hold that Jameison did not stand within the immediate area,” said the Court. “The obstacle of an additional car and a telephone pole stood between Jameison and the Camry. The Camry was not within his immediate reach. Jameison stood more than a few feet or yards from the Camry.” **CONCLUSION** With that, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the murder and manslaughter charges and twelve of fourteen drive-by shooting charges brought against Lashawn Jameison. My opinion? This is an excellent decision from the Court of Appeals. It is well written, and clarifies important definitions and legal terms applied to accomplice liability and Drive-By Shooting. Great opinion. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drive-By Shooting, felony, Firearm, Homicide & Manslaughter, Knapstad Motion, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, mou, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Praying While Arrested](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/praying-while-arrested/) **Published:** July 26, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[Sause v. Bauer](https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/062818zr_k425.pdf#page=6)*, the [United States Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) held that a police officer may lawfully prevent a person from praying at a particular time and place, such as when a suspect who is under arrest seeks to delay the trip to the jail by insisting on first engaging in conduct that, at another time, would be protected by the [First Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment). **BACKGROUND FACTS** Petitioner Mary Ann Sause filed this civil rights action under[ U. S. C. §1983](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983), and named the [Louisburg, Kansas, police department](https://www.louisburgkansas.gov/135/Police) as the defendant/respondent in the lawsuit. The centerpiece of Ms. Sause’s complaint was the allegation that two of the town’s police officers visited her apartment in response to a noise complaint, gained admittance to her apartment, and then proceeded to engage in a course of strange and abusive conduct, before citing her for [disorderly conduct](https://law.justia.com/codes/kansas/2013/chapter-21/article-62/section-21-6203) and [interfering with law enforcement](http://rvpolicy.kdor.ks.gov/Pilots/Ntrntpil/IPILv1x0.NSF/865782e7272861a38625655b004e9336/0e7a40f8286ab5cc86257d90005a5d99). At one point, Ms. Sause knelt and began to pray. However, one of the officers ordered her to stop. She also claimed that officers refused to investigate her complaint that she was assaulted by residents of her apartment complex, and that officers threatened to issue a citation if she reported this to another police department. In addition, she alleged that the police chief failed to follow up on a promise to investigate the officers’ conduct. Ms. Sause’s complaint asserted a violation of her [First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/free_exercise_clause) and her [Fourth Amendment right to be free of any unreasonable search or seizure](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment). The defendants moved to [dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted](https://adask.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/frcp-12b6-failure-to-state-a-claim-for-which-relief-can-be-granted/), arguing that the defendants were entitled to [qualified immunity](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity). The Federal District Court granted the motion to dismiss her lawsuit. Ms. Sause appealed, however, the [Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit](https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/) affirmed the decision of the District Court, concluding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. **COURT’S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS** “There can be no doubt that the First Amendment protects the right to pray,” said the Court. “Prayer unquestionably constitutes the “exercise” of religion.” The Supreme Court also reasoned that at the same time, there are clearly circumstances in which a police officer may lawfully prevent a person from praying at a particular time and place. “For example, if an officer places a suspect under arrest and orders the suspect to enter a police vehicle for transportation to jail, the suspect does not have a right to delay that trip by insisting on first engaging in conduct that, at another time, would be protected by the First Amendment.” Furthermore, the Court also reasoned that when an officer’s order to stop praying is alleged to have occurred during the course of investigative conduct that implicates Fourth Amendment rights, the First and Fourth Amendment issues may be inextricable. The court ruled that in this case, it was is unclear whether the police officers were in Ms. Sause’s apartment at the time in question based on her consent, whether they had some other ground consistent with the Fourth Amendment for entering and remaining there, or whether their entry or continued presence was unlawful. The Court found that Ms. Sause’s complaint contains no express allegations on these matters. “Nor does her complaint state what, if anything, the officers wanted her to do at the time when she was allegedly told to stop praying. Without knowing the answers to these questions, it is impossible to analyze petitioner’s free exercise claim.” Despite agreeing with the Government on this issue, the Supreme Court nevertheless reversed the judgment of the Tenth Circuit which dismissed Ms. Sause’s case and remanded her case back to federal court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Disorderly Conduct, First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Obstructing, Qualified Immunity, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Pretext Traffic Stop](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/pretext-traffic-stop/) **Published:** August 6, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Hendricks](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2049823-5-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held that a traffic stop for [Failure to Transfer Title](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.12.650) was not unlawfully pretextual because the stop was initiated based upon running license plates as vehicles passed him and the deputy did not recognize the vehicle’s occupants until after initiating the traffic stop. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Ms. Ciulla was named as a protected party in a [no contact order](https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-is-a-no-contact-order/) issued against Hendricks. On September 8, 2016, the State charged Hendricks with [Violation of a No-Contact Order](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/no-contact-order-violations/), alleging that he knowingly had contact with Ciulla. Hendricks filed a [CrR 3.6 motion to suppress evidence](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) seized from the traffic stop leading to his arrest, asserting that there was no lawful basis for the traffic stop. At the CrR 3.6 hearing, Clallam County Sheriff’s Deputy Federline testified that he was on duty on the evening of September 7, 2016 when he saw a Mazda pickup truck and ran the license plate of the vehicle. Upon his check of the truck’s license plate, Deputy Federline found that more than 15 days had passed since ownership of the vehicle had changed, but the title had not been transferred. When the truck passed, Deputy Federline also saw that the truck’s back license plate was partially obscured by a trailer hitch. Deputy Federline conducted a traffic stop of the truck. When Deputy Federline made contact with the vehicle’s occupants, he recognized Ciulla in the front passenger seat and Hendricks in the back seat. Deputy Federline arrested Hendricks. Following this testimony, Hendricks argued that Deputy Federline lacked authority to stop the truck based either on a failure to timely transfer title or on an obscured license plate. The trial court denied Hendricks’s motion to suppress. Following the trial court’s denial of his CrR 3.6 suppression motion, Hendricks waived his right to a jury trial, and the matter proceeded to bench trial on a stipulated record. The trial court found Hendricks guilty of violation of no contact order. The trial court also found that Hendricks committed his offense against a family or household member. Hendricks appealed from his conviction. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals reasoned that the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) to the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution) and [article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/pages/constitution.aspx) generally prohibit searches and seizures absent a warrant or a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. One such exception to the warrant requirement is an investigative stop as set forth in [*Terry v. Ohio*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1), a landmark search and seizure case which applies to traffic violations. Also, a law enforcement officer may conduct a warrantless traffic stop if the officer has a reasonable and articulable suspicion that a traffic violation has occurred or is occurring. The court rejected Hendricks’s arguments that the failure to comply with RCW 46.12.650(5)(a)’s requirement of transferring title within 15 days of delivery of a vehicle does not constitute a traffic infraction under RCW 46.63.020 because the failure to timely transfer title is not a parking, standing, stopping, or pedestrian offense. > “The plain language of RCW 46.63.020 shows that the legislature intended to treat the failure to timely register a vehicle’s title as a traffic infraction and, thus, the trial court correctly concluded that Deputy Federline had an articulable suspicion justifying his stop of the vehicle in which Hendricks was riding as a passenger.” Next, the Court of Appeals addressed whether the stop was unlawfully pretextual. *Pretextual Traffic Stops* The Court reasoned that Article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution prohibits pretextual traffic stops. *[State v. Ladson](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1440459.html)*, 138 Wn.2d at 358. A pretextual traffic stop occurs when a law enforcement officer stops a vehicle in order to conduct a speculative criminal investigation unrelated to enforcement of the traffic code. [*Ladson*](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1440459.html), 138 Wn.2d at 349. Whether a given stop is pretextual depends on the totality of the circumstances, “including both the subjective intent of the officer as well as the objective reasonableness of the officer’s behavior.” *[Ladson](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1440459.html)*, 138 Wn.2d at 359. I t further reasoned that a traffic stop is not pretextual even where the officer has an additional motivation for conducting the stop apart from a suspected traffic violation, so long as the officer’s purported motive in investigating a suspected traffic violation was an actual, conscious, and independent reason for the stop. [*State v.*](https://casetext.com/case/state-v-arreola-12) *Arreola*, 176 Wn.2d 284, 299-300, 290 P.3d 983 (2012). “Hendricks suggests that Deputy Federline had suspected the vehicle’s occupants of being involved in drug activity and used the failure to timely transfer title as a pretext to investigate the vehicle and its occupants for drug related offenses,” said the Court. “This is pure speculation without any support in the record.” The Court reasoned that Deputy Federline was the only witness at the CrR 3.6 hearing. Furthermore, the deputy testified that he was parked at an intersection running the license plates of southbound traveling vehicles when he saw the vehicle at issue. Deputy Federline began to initiate his traffic stop after finding that the title to the vehicle at issue was not timely transferred following a change in ownership. Finally, Deputy Federline recognized Hendricks and Ciulla only after initiating the traffic stop and contacting the driver of the vehicle. > “In short, Hendricks fails to identify any evidence in the record that would have supported a claim that Deputy Federline’s traffic stop was a pretext to investigate a crime unrelated to a suspected traffic infraction.” Consequently, the Court held that because the record lacked of any evidence supporting a claim that Deputy Federline conducted a pretextual traffic stop, Hendricks can show neither deficient performance nor resulting prejudice from defense counsel’s decision to decline raising the issue at the CrR 3.6 hearing. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed Hendrick’s conviction. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Fourth Amendment, law enforcement, No Contact Order, police, Pretext, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Facebook Photos Admissible](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/facebook-photos-admissible/) **Published:** August 12, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [6th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals](http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/)‘ recent court decision *[United States v. Farrad](http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0141p-06.pdf)* gives a very comprehensive analysis regarding the admissibility of [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/) records. In short, the Court held that **(1)** photographs from a Facebook account were properly authenticated by evidence that the photos in question came from a Facebook account registered to the defendant and the photos appeared to show the defendant in his own apartment, and **(2)** The Facebook photographs were [self-authenticating](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_902) as a [business record](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/business_records_exception). Washington’s evidence rules are either identical to, or extremely similar, to the federal rules discussed in the opinion. **BACKGROUND FACTS** After serving time in prison for a previous felony, Farrad was released from federal custody in January 2013. Farrad came to the attention of local law enforcement sometime after June 10 of that same year, when various confidential informants and concerned citizens evidently reported observing Farrad to be in possession of one or more firearms while in Johnson City, Tennessee. Some time later, a Officer Garrison of the [Johnson City Police Department](http://www.johnsoncitytn.org/police/) used an undercover account and sent Farrad a friend request on Facebook. After Farrad accepted the friend request, Garrison was able to see more of Farrad’s photos. One photo in particular caught his interest: a photo that showed what appeared to be three handguns sitting on a closed toilet lid in a bathroom. The photo was uploaded on October 7, 2013. Garrison brought the photo to the attention of Johnson City police officer and [FBI](https://www.fbi.gov/) task force officer Matthew Gryder, who applied on October 25, 2013, for a [warrant to search](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/search_warrant) Farrad’s Facebook’s records. A federal magistrate judge granted the warrant. The warrant allowed execution “on or before November 6, 2013,” and the return executed by federal law enforcement indicates that the warrant was “served electronically” on Facebook on November 1, 2013. The resulting data yielded a series of additional photos that were central to this case: some show a person who looks like Farrad holding what appears to be a gun, while others show a closer-up version of a hand holding what appears to be a gun. While none of the photos shows a calendar, date, or one-of-a-kind distinguishing feature, the person in the photos has relatively distinctive tattoos, and some of the photos show, as backdrop, the décor of the room in which they were taken. Facebook records revealed that the photos had been uploaded on October 11, 2013. In September 2014, a federal grand jury charged Farrad with having, on or about October 11, 2013, knowingly possessed a firearm, namely, a [Springfield, Model XD, .45 caliber, semiautomatic pistol](https://www.springfield-armory.com/products/xd-service-model-45-acp/). On March 26, 2015, Farrad filed a [pro se](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/pro_se) motion seeking an evidentiary hearing, dismissal of the indictment against him, and suppression of the Facebook photos on [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) grounds. The magistrate judge assigned to Farrad’s case denied that motion on April 9, 2015, on the grounds that Farrad already had appointed counsel and the local rules prohibited a represented party from acting in his or her own behalf without an order of substitution. Farrad’s trial counsel did not renew Farrad’s motion. The parties did, however, litigate the admission of the photos on evidentiary grounds. The Government argued that the Facebook photos qualified as business records under [Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803) and that they were, as such, self-authenticating under [Federal Rule of Evidence 902(11)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_902). In support of its assertion, the Government introduced a certification by a Facebook-authorized records custodian, who attested that the records provided by Facebook—including “search results for basic subscriber information, IP logs, messages, photos, and other content and records for Farrad’s Facebook identity were made and kept by the automated systems of Facebook in the course of regularly conducted activity as a regular practice of Facebook and made at or near the time the information was transmitted by the Facebook user. In addition to disputing admissibility under [Federal Rules of Evidence](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre) [401](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_401), [402](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_402), [403](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_403), [404](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404), [405](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404), and [406](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_406), Farrad’s trial counsel argued that the photos, despite the custodian’s affidavit having been “done correctly under the federal rules,” were “hearsay within hearsay” and did not “authenticate who took the pictures, when the pictures were taken, by whom, at what time. All that the custodian could attest to, trial counsel emphasized, was that at some point these pictures were uploaded to what was allegedly Farrad’s Facebook account, the custodian could not testify as to who took the photos, when they were taken, where they were taken. On June 15, 2015, the district court concluded that it had found no indication of a lack of trustworthiness and that the photos qualified as business records under Rules 803(6) and 902(11). It also determined that the photos were relevant. The jury found Farrad guilty. He appealed his case to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. **ISSUES** Farrad raises seven arguments on appeal: **(1)** that there was insufficient evidence introduced at trial to support his conviction; **(2)** that the Facebook photos should not have been admitted into evidence; **(3)** that Officers Hinkle and Garrison should not have been permitted to testify as experts; **(4)** that the district court should have granted Farrad’s motion for a new trial; **(5)** that Farrad did not in fact qualify as an armed career criminal under the ACCA; **(6)** that finding him to be an armed career criminal at sentencing violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights; and **(7)** that the district court should have excluded the Facebook photos on Fourth Amendment grounds. In this blog post, we focus on the issue of whether the Facebook photos were admissible at trial. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** *Admissibility of Photos* The Court reasoned that like other evidence, photographs must be authenticated prior to being admitted into evidence. To satisfy this requirement, under [federal evidence rule (FRE) 901](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_901), the person seeking to admit the evidence (proponent) must produce evidence proving that the item is what the proponent claims it is. This authentication rule requires only that the court admit evidence if sufficient proof has been introduced so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or identification. The Court further reasoned that under [FRE 902](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_902), some items – like, apparently Facebook posts – are self-authenticating. In other words, they require no extrinsic evidence of authenticity in order to be admitted. This category of self-authenticating evidence includes “certified domestic records of a regularly conducted activity”—that is, a business “record that meets the requirements of [Rule 803(6)(A)–(C)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803), so long as properly certified by a custodian or other qualified person and so long as the evidence is subject to challenge by the opposing party. “The question, then, is the central one: the authentication of the photos,” said the Court. “They appeared to show Farrad, his tattoos, and (perhaps most probatively) distinctive features of Farrad’s apartment, as confirmed by police investigation . . . The district court was correct to admit them.” *Fourth Amendment Suppression* After addressing the admissibility issue, the Court went on to reject Farrad’s claim that admitting the Facebook photos violated the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment). The Court reasoned that while a search made by a private entity acting at the direction of law enforcement agents must comport with the Fourth Amendment, Farrad has pointed to no authority or rationale to suggest that a date of execution similarly binds a third party’s certification of its records for evidentiary purposes. “This argument lacks merit,” said the Court. > “The bottom line in this case—that Farrad has been sentenced to serve 188 months in prison because the Government found Facebook photos of him with what appears to be a gun—may well raise a lay reader’s hackles. There are likewise aspects of Farrad’s trial and > conviction—the date issue, Officer Garrison’s testimony—that are at least debatably troubling from a legal perspective. Nevertheless, we are not empowered to grant relief based on arguments not made or where errors were harmless.” With that, the Sixth Circuit affirmed Farrad’s conviction and sentencing. My opinion? Today’s defense attorney must be proficient in the admissibility of social media evidence. And the answers are fairly straightforward. Although the general rule is that hearsay is not admissible, and that social media evidence is hearsay, some hearsay evidence is admissible under the business record exception. Clearly, anything and everything that social media outlets like Facebook produces – from profiles to posts – are business records, arguably. This is a classic example telling us to watch what we post on Facebook and other social media. Information is private until its not. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** "No-Impeachment" Rule, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Business Record, ER 404(B), Evidence, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Firearm, Fourth Amendment, Search Warrant, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Social Media, Technology, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Inadmissible & Irrelevant Evidence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/inadmissible-irrelevant-evidence/) **Published:** August 14, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Burnam](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/349462_pub.pdf)*, the WA Court of Appeals held that the trial court correctly excluded evidence that the woman the defendant killed had four years earlier dated a man accused of murder and that she had hid the murder weapon. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Mr. Burnam was charged with [first degree murder](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.32.030) or, in the alternative, [second degree murder](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.32.050) and [interfering with the reporting of domestic violence](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.150). As trial approached, Mr. Burnam wanted to testify in support of his [self-defense](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/self-defense/) claim. He also wanted to testify that the victim Ms. Sweet had been involved in a prior homicide. Apparently, four years earlier, Ms. Sweet dated a man accused of murder and she had hid the murder weapon, which was a firearm. Sometime after the homicide, Ms. Sweet briefly gave the firearm away and then attempted to get it back. When law enforcement questioned her, she was evasive and misleading. She was charged and convicted of [first degree rendering criminal assistance](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/rendering-criminal-assistance/) by means of concealing, altering, or destroying the gun. Mr. Burnam claimed that this was character evidence and asked the court to analyze its admissibility under [ER 404(b)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=ER&ruleid=gaer0404). Under this evidence rule, evidence of prior acts can be admissible for certain other reasons, including motive, opportunity, and intent Mr. Burnam made a lengthy offer of proof in support of his motion. He argued that the evidence would help establish the reasonableness of his fear of serious harm or death during his struggle with Ms. Sweet. He repeatedly asserted the jury should know that Ms. Sweet was involved with a homicide or capable of being involved with a person who had committed a homicide. Despite defense counsel’s [offer of proof](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/offer_of_proof), the court nevertheless excluded all evidence of the homicide case that Ms. Sweet was involved in. At trial, Mr. Burnam testified he responded in self-defense to Ms. Sweet. Despite his testimony, the jury found Mr. Burnam guilty of first degree murder and interfering with the reporting of domestic violence. Mr. Burnam appealed on arguments that the court should have admitted evidence that Ms. Sweet was involved in a murder from four years ago. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals reasoned that both the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution) and the [Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/pages/constitution.aspx) guarantee the right to present testimony in one’s defense. Furthermore, a defendant’s right to an opportunity to be heard in his defense, including the rights to examine witnesses against him and to offer testimony, is basic in our system of jurisprudence. However, defendants can present only relevant evidence and have no constitutional right to present irrelevant evidence. If relevant, the burden is on the State to show the evidence is so prejudicial as to disrupt the fairness of the fact-finding process at trial. *Admissibility of Self-Defense Evidence.* The Court further reasoned that in considering a claim of self-defense, the jury must take into account all of the facts and circumstances known to the defendant. “Because the vital question is the reasonableness of the defendant’s apprehension of danger, the jury must stand as nearly as practicable in the shoes of the defendant, and from this point of view determine the character of the act,” said the Court. “Thus, such evidence is admissible to show the defendant’s reason for fear and the basis for acting in self-defense.” Moreover, evidence of a victim’s violent actions may be admissible to show the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the crime and to indicate whether he had reason to fear bodily harm. Thus, a defendant may, in addition to the character evidence, show specific acts of the victim which are not too remote and of which the defendant had knowledge at the time of the crime with which he is charged. Evidence of specific acts may be admissible for the limited purpose of showing the defendant had a reasonable apprehension of danger. Finally, the court reasoned that an offer of proof should **(1)** inform the trial court of the legal theory under which the offered evidence is admissible, **(2)** inform the trial judge of the specific nature of the offered evidence so the court can judge its admissibility, and **(3)** create an adequate record for appellate review. The Court of Appelas concluded that Mr. Burnam’s offer of proof failed to inform the trial judge of the specific nature of the offered evidence. > “Mr. Burnam’s offer of proof was lengthy but repeatedly vague on the specific nature of the offered evidence.” The Court further concluded that Ms. Sweet merely pleaded guilty to rendering criminal assistance by disposing of a firearm used previously in a homicide. Nevertheless, rendering criminal assistance is a nonviolent felony. > “The mere fact that Ms. Sweet dated a man accused of murder and hid the murder weapon does not strongly imply that Ms. Sweet was violent. The prejudicial effect of excluding this questionable evidence is minimal. We conclude the trial court did not violate Mr. Burnam’s constitutional right to present a defense when it excluded this evidence.” Consequently, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision to exclude evidence that Ms. Sweet was indirectly involved in a homicide from four years earlier. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are involved in cases involving assault or self-defense. Generally speaking, evidence that the victim had prior bad acts and/or had violent tendencies is admissible. However, court must undergo a balancing test under the evidence rules to determine if the evidence being offered is relevant, probative and/or unfairly prejudicial. This case was fairly straightforward in determining that the dead victim’s prior conviction for a non-violent crime was irrelevant. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, ER 404(B), Evidence, felony, Homicide & Manslaughter, Jury Trial, Offer of Proof, Self-Defense, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["Can I Have My Case File?"](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/can-i-have-my-case-file/) **Published:** August 27, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Padgett*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/350347_ord.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) held that a defendant’s motion to compel production of his client file and discovery materials is governed by [CrR 4.7(h)(3)](http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR4.07) and [RPC 1.6(d). ](http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=RPC&ruleid=garpc1.06) Although disclosure shall be granted when a criminal defendant requests copies of his or her file, without any showing of need, disclosure is also subject to redactions. **BACKGROUND FACTS** In 2014, Mr. Padgett was convicted of several felonies. In November 2016, during the pendency of his appeal, he filed a [motion to compel](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/arguing-motions-to-compel-pretrial-discovery/) production of his client file. The trial court held a hearing on Mr. Padgett’s motion. However, the prosecutor opposed the motion citing procedural issues and an interest in limiting Mr. Padgett’s access to sensitive information in the discovery file. Ultimately, the trial court sided with the prosecutor and denied Mr. Padgett’s motion. He appealed. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals reasoned that under [CrR 4.7(h)(3)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=crr&ruleid=supCrR4.07), defense counsel is authorized to provide discovery materials to a defendant “after making appropriate redactions which are approved by the prosecuting authority or order of the court.” Furthermore, under [RPC 1.16(d)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=rpc&ruleid=garpc1.16) the professional conduct rules also require defense counsel to “surrender papers and property to which the client is entitled” upon termination of representation unless retention is “permitted by other law.” The Court of Appeals also reasoned that [Washington State Bar Association (WSBA)](https://www.wsba.org/) has issued an ethics advisory opinion interpreting RPC 1.16(d) to mean that “unless there is an express agreement to the contrary, the file generated in the course of representation, with limited exceptions, must be turned over to the client at the client’s request” at the conclusion of representation. > “Under the combined force of CrR 4.7(h)(3) and RPC 1.16(d), some sort of disclosure must be made when a criminal defendant requests copies of his or her client file and relevant discovery at the conclusion of representation. Similar to a public records request, no showing of need is required for disclosure.” Despite its reasoning, the Court also gave limits and parameters. It said that while CrR 4.7(h)(3) and RPC 1.16(d) require disclosure, they do not entitle a defendant to unlimited access to an attorney’s file or discovery. Counsel may withhold materials if doing so would not prejudice the client. That said, examples of papers – the withholding of which would *not* prejudice the client – would be drafts of papers, duplicate copies, photocopies of research material, and lawyers’ personal notes containing subjective impressions such as comments about identifiable persons. In addition, materials may be redacted as approved by the prosecuting attorney or court order, in order to protect against dissemination of sensitive or confidential information. Finally, a protective order may also be entered, if appropriate. Against that background, and given the foregoing rules, the Court of Appeals held the trial court was obliged to grant Mr. Padgett’s motion for disclosure of his client file. It reasoned that if a defendant is denied access to his client file and related discovery materials, he will be deprived of a critical resource for completing a viable appeal. My opinion? Good decision. Personally and professionally speaking, it benefits everyone when all parties are clear and transparent as possible regarding access to a client’s case file. Clients have a right to know and attorneys have a duty to provide. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Discovery, Rules of Professional Conduct, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [California Eliminates Cash Bail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/california-eliminates-cash-bail/) **Published:** August 30, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article](https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/28/us/bail-california-bill/index.html) by [Madison Park](https://www.cnn.com/profiles/madison-park) and [Cheri Mossburg](https://muckrack.com/cheri-mossburg) of [CNN news](http://www.cnn.com) covers how California will end the cash bail system in a sweeping reform for the state. Rather than requiring defendants to pay in order to be released before trial, their release will hinge on an assessment of their risk to public safety. On Tuesday, the [California Money Bail Reform Act,](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB10) also known as Senate Bill 10, passed in the State Senate with a vote of 26-12, and the General Assembly by 42-31. “SB 10 puts all Californians on equal footing before the law and makes public safety the only consideration in pretrial detention. This critical reform is long overdue,” said [Toni Atkins](http://sd39.senate.ca.gov/), Senate president pro tempore. “Today, California reforms its bail system so that rich and poor alike are treated fairly,” [Gov. Jerry Brown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Brown) said in a statement. Brown signed the bill Tuesday, and the new law goes into effect October 1, 2019. California is the first state to eliminate money bail completely, according to the [Pretrial Justice Institute](https://www.pretrial.org/), an organization that advocates for pretrial justice reform. According to reporter Madison Park, critics have long contended that the money bail system perpetuates inequality. While some people are able to quickly get out of jail by posting bail, people who aren’t able to afford it sit in jail until the court takes action, or until they work with a bail bond agent to secure their freedom, which can leave them in debt. “Abolishing money bail and replacing it with a risk-based system will enhance justice and safety. For too long, our system has allowed the wealthy to purchase their freedom regardless of their risk, while the poor who pose no danger languish in jail,” said [Assemblymember Rob Bonta](https://a18.asmdc.org/), one the lawmakers who introduced the bill, in a statement. Under the new law, a pretrial assessment would be done by either court employees or a local public agency that has been contracted to determine a defendant’s risk. That entity would assess the likelihood that the person will not appear in court or commit a new crime while released, and would make a recommendation for conditions of release. The defendant will be assessed as high, medium or low risk. A person who is deemed as high risk, including those arrested for violent felonies, will not be released. Surprisingly, the [ACLU in California](https://www.acluca.org/) expressed disappointment over the bill, saying it “is not the model for pretrial justice and racial equity that California should strive for.” “It cannot guarantee a substantial reduction in the number of Californians detained while awaiting trial, nor does it sufficiently address racial bias in pretrial decision making,” said [the three executive directors of the California ACLU affiliates,](https://www.aclunc.org/news/aclu-california-statement-governor-brown-signs-bail-reform-legislation-opposed-aclu) [Abdi Soltani](https://www.aclunc.org/staff/abdi-soltani) (Northern California), [Hector Villagra](https://www.aclusocal.org/en/biographies/hector-villagra) (Southern California) and [Norma Chávez Peterson](https://www.aclusandiego.org/about-us/board-and-staff-information/) (San Diego & Imperial Counties). “Indeed, key provisions of the new law create significant new risks and problems.” Indeed, the ACLU[ pulled its support for the bill](https://www.aclunc.org/news/aclu-california-changes-position-oppose-bail-reform-legislation) earlier this month as the it underwent changes in the state legislature. My opinion? This is a bold, progressive step. The subject of cash bail has always been a cantankerous subject which underscores how justice applies to the privileged vs. the non-privileged. For the underprivileged, defendants who cannot afford to pay bail are more likely to plead guilty to criminal charges. Jail is a terrible place, and getting out as soon as possible is an overwhelming desire for most defendants who find themselves there. There’s no justice in pleading guilty to crimes that we would otherwise not plead guilty to simply to get out of jail. Let’s wait and see how California does. The success of [California Money Bail Reform Act](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB10) could determine whether other states adopt similar legislation. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges and are held in jail pending the outcome of the case. Chances are, a competent attorney can persuade the judge to lower the bail or even release the defendant without bail on their personal recognizance. For more information, please read my Legal Guide titled, [“Making Bail.”](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/making-bail/) ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bail, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Jail, Legislation, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Backpage.com & Privacy](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/backpage-com-privacy/) **Published:** September 1, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[In re Personal Restraint of Hopper](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/765094orderpubandopin.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that a defendant’s calls and text messages to the phone number listed in a [Backpage.com](http://backpage.com/) advertisement were not private communications protected by the [Washington Privacy Act](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.73). **BACKGROUND FACTS** In December 2012, Mr. Hopper searched Backpage.com with the intent of purchasing sex. Backpage operated an online classified advertising service, Its users created and posted their own ads, including ads in the adult category. This category included ads for prostitution activity, often under the guise of an adult escort or entertainment service. The ads often featured pictures of women identified by false names and ages, along with hourly rates. Hopper saw an advertisement for a woman named “Whisper,” who he later learned was K.H. The ad stated that she was 19 years old. She was actually 16 years old. It listed a phone number that Hopper both called and contacted by text. When he contacted the number by text, he initially believed that he was communicating with K.H. But K.H.’s pimp, identified as Mr. Park, had listed his own number on the ad and was reading and responding to Hopper’s text messages. In December 2012, police arrested Park and, [with a warrant, searched his cell phone](https://practice.findlaw.com/practice-guide/constitutional-limits-to-cell-phone-searches-incident-to-arrest.html). K.H. told police that Hopper had paid to have sex with her and identified him from a photograph montage. The police located Hopper’s home address from the text messages stored on Park’s phone. The State charged Hopper with [commercial sexual abuse of a minor](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.68A.100). In March 2014, a jury convicted Hopper as charged. Hopper appealed his conviction on arguments that his trial counsel gave [ineffective](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ineffective_assistance_of_counsel) assistance by failing to [move to suppress](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) his text messages to K.H., which police found stored on Park’s cellular phone. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The WA Court of Appeals reasoned that a privacy act violation occurs when “**(1)** a private communication transmitted by a device. . . was **(2)** intercepted or recorded by use of **(3)** a device designed to record and/or transmit **(4)** without the consent of all parties to the private communication.” Hopper claims that his text messages to K.H. were “private communications” under the act because he intended them for her alone and they concerned illegal activity. Whether communications are private is a question of fact but may be decided as a question of law where, as here, the parties do not dispute the facts. The Court of Appeals noted the Act does not define “private.” Instead, Washington courts have adopted the dictionary definition. Nevertheless, Washington courts will generally presume that each of the two parties participating in the conversation intends it to be private. “Hopper’s subjective expectation of privacy was objectively unreasonable,” said the Court of Appeals. The Court explained that Hopper responded to an ad on Backpage.com, a website notorious for advertising prostitution activity. The ad was titled “any way you want it 19” and featured an unidentifiable woman with a fictitious name. A reasonable person would not expect that contacting a stranger by text through the phone number listed in this advertisement would provide a legitimate opportunity for a private conversation with a known person. Even Hopper admitted that “the picture wasn’t a good enough picture to clearly identify a specific person.” > “And regardless of whether Hopper was initially aware of K.H.’s pimp, it is common knowledge that prostitutes often have pimps. Thus, even though Hopper subjectively intended for his text messages to K.H. to be private, his communications were not private > because this expectation was unreasonable. Park did not violate the act when he recorded and stored Hopper’s messages to K.H. on his cell phone.” The Court of Appeals concluded that because Hopper does not establish that these text messages were “private communications” under the act, he does not show that his counsel’s performance fell below an objectively reasonable standard of care. His claim failed. The Court of Appeals upheld Hopper’s conviction and found his attorney was not ineffective. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges involving searches of cell phones. Depending on the circumstances, the evidence might be suppressible. And for more information on search warrants, please read my [Legal Guide on Search & Seizure](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/). ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Cell Phone, felony, Ineffective Assistance, Privacy, Prostitution, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Federal Legislation to End Cash Bail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/federal-legislation-to-end-cash-bail/) **Published:** September 11, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [news article](https://theintercept.com/2018/07/25/bernie-sanders-money-bail/) by [Aída Chávez](https://theintercept.com/staff/aidachavez/) of [The Intercept](https://theintercept.com) discusses how [Senator Bernie Sanders](https://www.sanders.senate.gov/) introduced legislation to end money bail on the federal level and create incentives for states to follow suit. According to [Chávez](https://theintercept.com/staff/aidachavez/) , The [No Money Bail Act ](https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/no-money-bail-act-2018?inline=file)is the latest example of the push from the [Democrats](https://www.democrats.org/) to tackle [criminal justice reform](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_reform_in_the_United_States). It would prohibit money bail in federal criminal cases, provide grants to states that wish to implement alternate pretrial systems, and withhold grant funding from states that continue using cash bail systems. Additionally, the bail reform “requires a study three years after implementation to ensure the new alternate systems are also not leading to disparate detentions rates,” according to a [summary](https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/no-money-bail-act-2018-summary?inline=file) of the bill provided by Sanders’s office. “It has always been clear that we have separate criminal justice systems in this country for the poor and for the rich,” the summary reads. “A wealthy person charged with a serious crime may get an ankle monitor and told not to leave the country; a poor person charged with a misdemeanor may sit in a jail cell. And this disproportionately affects minorities — fifty percent of all pretrial detainees are Black or Latino.” In a statement accompanying the release of his bill, Sanders said the following: > “Poverty is not a crime and hundreds of thousands of Americans, convicted of nothing, should not be in jail today because they cannot afford cash bail. In the year 2018, in the United States, we should not continue having a ‘debtor prison’ system. Our destructive and unjust cash bail process is part of our broken criminal justice system – and must be ended.” Also according to [Chávez](https://theintercept.com/staff/aidachavez/), the idea of eliminating money bail is controversial, even among Democrats, so it is unlikely that the legislation will soon be enacted into law. Indeed, [Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif.](https://lieu.house.gov/), introduced a similar measure in the House in [2016](https://lieu.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-ted-w-lieu-introduces-no-money-bail-act-2016-0) and [2017](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1437), but his bills gained little traction. Last year, Sens. [Kamala Harris, D-Calif.](https://www.harris.senate.gov/), and [Rand Paul, R-Ky.](https://www.paul.senate.gov/), introduced a measure [to encourage states to reform bail practices](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rand-paul-kamala-harris-team-reform-bail-practices-n794031), though they did not go as far as calling to eliminate cash bail on the federal level. Still, these efforts represent a growing sense of urgency among lawmakers to address the racial disparities that plague the criminal justice system. [Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer](https://www.schumer.senate.gov/) last month [introduced a bill](https://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/schumer-introduces-marijuana-freedom-and-opportunity-act_-new-legislation-would-decriminalize-marijuana-at-federal-level) to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level, removing the drug from the [Controlled Substances Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act). The House [passed a tepid prison reform bill](http://thehill.com/homenews/house/388888-house-easily-passes-prison-reform-bill-backed-by-trump) that was pushed by President Donald Trump’s son-in-law [Jared Kushner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Kushner) in May, and the Senate has introduced similar legislation. For-profit companies are “making a fortune” off indigent defendants, according to the summary of the Sanders bill. Indeed, the for-profit bail industry makes between $1.4 billion and $2.4 billion a year, the [American Civil Liberties Union wrote in a 2017 report.](https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/059_bail_report_2_1.pdf) An inability to afford bail leaves defendants across the country languishing in pretrial detention bars for extended periods of time; in 2014, about [60 percent](https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/jim14.pdf) of people in U.S. jails had not been convicted of a crime, the [Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics](https://ojp.gov/about/offices/bjs.htm) reported. “Pretrial detention should be based on whether or not someone truly should not be freed before their trial,” the summary continued. “It should not depend on how much money they have, or what kind of mood the judge is in on a given day, or even what judge the case happens to come before. We also must insure that jurisdictions do not eliminate cash bail but find pretexts to continue unfairly locking people up before trial.” State and local governments have made similar efforts in recent years. New Jersey has been at the forefront of the bail reform movement, largely eliminating its cash bail system last year. District attorneys in Brooklyn and Manhattan in January ordered prosecutors not to request bail in most misdemeanor cases. And [Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Krasner) also fulfilled one of his high-profile campaign promises when he announced an end of cash bail requirements for low-level offenses in February. My opinion? The movement to end cash bail seems to be gaining momentum. If so, it’d eliminate a significant hurdle in gaining justice for defendants facing criminal charges. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bail, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Jail, Legislation, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Racial Disparities & Homicide](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/racial-disparities-homicide/) **Published:** September 15, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Homicides involving white victims are significantly more likely to be solved with the arrest of a suspect than homicides involving victims of color, causing racial disparities in capital sentencing to begin as early as police investigations. In a working paper, [“Police, Race, and the Production of Capital Homicides,”](https://default.salsalabs.org/Ta1659774-fc4d-4e10-9374-f61a65f31a7a/08ab329a-a780-4b77-b6cb-2403900a89e7) Jeffrey Fagan of [Columbia Law School](https://www.law.columbia.edu/) and Amanda Geller of the [New York University Department of Sociology](https://as.nyu.edu/sociology.html) examined national homicide data from 1976 to 2009. Researchers have previously shown that black defendants are more likely than their white counterparts to be charged with crimes eligible for capital punishment, to be convicted, and to be sentenced to death—and that racial disparities are largest for the small number of cases involving black defendants and white victims. Fagan and Geller’s analysis concludes that compared to homicides involving white victims, those involving black victims are 23% less likely to be cleared and those involving other victims, mostly Latinos, are 17% less likely. In a [*Washington Post*](https://default.salsalabs.org/Tedafc09a-ebf7-4214-a1dd-d69d55c39955/08ab329a-a780-4b77-b6cb-2403900a89e7) story exploring similar findings, police pointed to urban residents’ concerns about retaliatory violence while [civil rights leader Rev. William Barber](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Barber_II) stated: “There’s no big rush to solve a case when it’s considered ‘black on black.’ But if it is a black-on-white killing, then everything is done to make an arrest.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime and you suspect that the defendant or victim’s race or gender was a contributing factor in the investigation or filing of criminal charges. Our Constitution proclaims justice for all. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, police, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Jury Bias](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/jury-bias/) **Published:** September 21, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[United States v. Kecheczian](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/04/16-50326.pdf)*, the [Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) decided a trial court mistakenly allowed a juror to decide an aggravated identity theft and possession of unauthorized access devices case, when the juror admitted during jury selection that she had her social security number previously stolen and she was unable to explicitly state that she could put her personal biases aside. **BACKGROUND FACTS** After receiving a tip that Mr. Kechedzian was linked to a fugitive operating a large credit card fraud ring, federal agents conducted a trash pull from Kechedzian’s residence. In his trash, they found two counterfeit credit cards and, based on this, the agents obtained a [search warrant](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/search-warrant-basics-29742.html). The resulting search of Kechedzian’s residence and cars uncovered two USB drives containing 1,451 stolen credit card numbers in text files, a Bluetooth-enabled [“skimming device”](https://krebsonsecurity.com/all-about-skimmers/) commonly used to steal credit card information from gas station pumps, and several cards with stolen data re-encoded on the magnetic strips. Bank records revealed that many of the stolen card numbers had been used fraudulently at gas stations and other retail establishments across the United States. Kechedzian was charged with two counts of [possession of 15 or more Unauthorized Access Devices](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1029) and two counts of [Aggravated Identity Theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/identity-theft/). The case proceeded to trial. At the beginning of jury selection, the federal district court judge read a general statement of the case, laying out the charges against Kechedzian. The judge then asked the following: “Does anyone feel, just based on the charges in this case, based on what this case is about, that they could not be fair and impartial to both sides? Does anyone feel that way at this point in time?” Juror # 3 raised her hand. From there, she informed the court she was a past victim of identity fraud. Furthermore, she did not know whether she could put aside her biases. Later, at sidebar, defense counsel sought to have Juror # 3 [excused for cause](https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/criminal-law-basics/reasons-for-rejecting-potential-jurors.html). However, the judge denied the motion. “I think at the end of the day she confirmed or committed to the principles of the presumption of innocence and burden of proof,” said the judge. “I would deny the motion.” Consequently, Juror # 3 sat on Kechedzian’s jury. The jury ultimately returned a guilty verdict, and Kechedzian was sentenced to 65 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. The district court also ordered $114,134.76 in restitution. Kechedzian timely appealed. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & DECISION** The Court of Appeals began by saying the [Sixth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) guarantees criminal defendants a verdict by an impartial jury, and the bias or prejudice of even a single juror is enough to violate that guarantee. Accordingly, the presence of a biased juror cannot be harmless. The error requires a new trial without a showing of actual prejudice. And any doubts regarding bias must be resolved against the juror. One important mechanism for ensuring impartiality is voir dire, which enables the parties to probe potential jurors for prejudice. After voir dire, counsel may challenge a prospective juror for cause, and a partial or biased juror should be removed if there is a showing of either implied or actual bias. “Here, Kechedzian alleges bias under both theories,” said the Court. *Actual Bias Analysis* It explained that actual bias is the more common ground for excusing jurors for cause. [Actual bias](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/jury-selection-criminal-cases.html) is the existence of a state of mind that leads to an inference that the person will not act with entire impartiality. Actual bias involves an inability to act impartially or a refusal to weigh the evidence properly It can be revealed through a juror’s express answers during voir dire, but it can also be revealed by circumstantial evidence during questioning. The Court said that in contrast, implied bias is presumed only in extraordinary cases. “In analyzing implied bias, we look to whether an average person in the position of the juror in controversy would be prejudiced.” *Implied Bias Analysis* This Court described “[implied bias](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/jury-selection-criminal-cases.html)” as applying to those extreme situations where the relationship between a prospective juror and some aspect of the litigation is such that it is highly unlikely that the average person could remain impartial in his deliberations under the circumstances. Furthermore, the implied bias inquiry is an objective one. Even if a juror states or believes that she can be impartial, the court may find implied bias based on the circumstances. The Court noted that here, although Juror # 3 was previously a victim of identity theft, this is not the type of “extreme” situation where we find implied bias. “Thus, we focus our analysis on the actual bias inquiry,” said the Court. The Court reasoned that Juror #3 was ultimately asked if she could set aside her feelings, and act impartially and fairly to both sides of the case. She responded: “I believe so, yes.” The Court said that statement—“I believe so, yes”—appears somewhat equivocal. However, none of Juror #3’s equivocal statements could be understood as affirmative statements of impartiality. The Court reasoned that here, Juror #3 explicitly noted that she was unsure if she could put her personal biases aside. > “A juror can understand the presumption of innocence and burden of proof, yet still let personal prejudice infect her ability to be impartial.” “When a juror is unable to state that she will serve fairly and impartially despite being asked repeatedly for such assurances, we can have no confidence that the juror will lay aside her biases or her prejudicial personal experiences and render a fair and impartial verdict,” said the Court. “Because this is precisely what occurred here, the district court was obligated to excuse Juror #3 for cause under an actual bias theory.” Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial. My opinion? Good decision. In my trial experience, potential jurors who have suffered as victims of crime tend to be pro-prosecution. A potential juror who does not know if they can be fair or impartial should be excused for cause. Period. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Identity Theft, Jury Selection, Jury Trial, Search Warrant, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Policing for Profit](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/policing-for-profit/) **Published:** September 22, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/federal-judge-declares-policing-profit) by Steven Robert Allen , Director of Public Policy, ACLU of New Mexico discusses how a federal judge declared “Policing for Profit” – better known as “[Civil Asset Forfeiture](https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/asset-forfeiture-abuse)” – unconstitutional. For those who don’t know, Civil Asset Forfeiture allows police to seize — and then keep or sell — any property they allege is involved in a crime. Owners need not ever be arrested or convicted of a crime for their cash, cars, or even real estate to be taken away permanently by the government. > “With civil asset forfeiture, police literally accuse your stuff of a crime, and you as the owner have to prove that your stuff is innocent.” – Steven Robert Allen, ACLU Here’s an example: In 2010 Stephen Skinner and his son Jonathan, both African-American, were on a road trip to Las Vegas, Nevada, for a vacation when they were [pulled over](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHABIxwZjBI) by New Mexico State Police for going 5 mph over the speed limit. The trooper searched their rental car and found several thousand dollars in cash and coins in their luggage that the two men had set aside for gaming at the casinos. The trooper called Skinner, then in his late 50s, “boy” and released him with a warning that “it’s not over.” And sure enough, it wasn’t. As they passed through Albuquerque, police and federal agents pulled them over on a pretext once again, went straight to their luggage, and confiscated their cash with no justification other than the racist assumption that two black men traveling with a big wad of cash must have come by it illegally. Neither Stephen or Jonathan were ever actually accused of a crime, much less convicted. Yet now the cops had their vacation money, and this money grab was perfectly legal. In his article, Mr. Allen writes that most people who have property seized in this manner give it up as lost. The cost of hiring an attorney to argue before a judge that your property is “innocent” or, in other words, was not criminally acquired or used in the commission of a crime, often exceeds the value of the property. This is big business for police departments across the United States, who rely on these seized assets to pad their budgets. The Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm, estimates that in 2014 alone the Department of Justice [took in $4.5 billion](https://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit/executive-summary/) in forfeited assets. The assets taken in annually by local and state police departments are doubtless even higher. In 2015, the [ACLU of New Mexico](https://www.aclu-nm.org/), in collaboration with the [Institute for Justice](https://ij.org/), the [Drug Policy Alliance](http://www.drugpolicy.org/), and the [Rio Grande Foundation](https://riograndefoundation.org/), helped pass a bill that abolished civil asset forfeiture, requiring police to obtain a criminal conviction in court before they can take a person’s property. The bill also requires that any forfeited assets must go into a state general fund to reduce the profit motive inherent in this law enforcement practice. The bill passed unanimously, and New Mexico now has the strongest protections against civil asset forfeiture in the nation. One person, Arlene Harjo, finally [filed a lawsuit](http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/31/new-mexico-passed-a-law-ending-civil-for) against the department with the help of the Institute for Justice, and, last week, she won. A federal judge handed down a [landmark ruling](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4621647-Albuquerque-Forfeiture-Suit.html) that Albuquerque’s vehicle seizure program violates residents’ constitutional rights by taking their property before they’ve been convicted of a crime. “This is a major moment in the fight against the unjust practice of civil asset forfeiture,” writes Allen. “Not only will New Mexico law enforcement agencies be forced to comply with our state prohibition against the practice, but this victory establishes an important legal precedent that victims of civil asset forfeiture can use to fight back nationwide.” And indeed, the problem is not just in New Mexico. In 2015, the ACLU [sued](https://www.aclu.org/cases/cox-v-voyles-et-al) an Arizona county attorney and county sheriff challenging that state’s civil asset forfeiture laws, which create perverse and unconstitutional incentives for law enforcement to build multimillion-dollar slush funds that they get to control. My opinion? This is excellent work from the ACLU and a wonderful decision from the federal courts. More than anything, this ruling out of New Mexico is a powerful reminder that brave individuals can still take a stand against systems of injustice, crack their foundations, and bring them tumbling to the ground. All it takes is a few people like Stephen Skinner and Arlene Harjo who say, “Enough. Not today. No more.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** ACLU, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Civil Asset Forfeiture, police, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Violation of No-Contact Order & Defense of Property](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/violation-of-no-contact-order-defense-of-property/) **Published:** September 24, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Yelovich](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/951926.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that a “Defense of Property” jury instruction is not available when there is a valid court order prohibiting the defendant from contacting the protected party. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Mr. Yelovich and Ms. De Armond dated for more than five years. At some point, and during all times relevant to this case, there was a valid [no-contact order](https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-is-a-no-contact-order/) prohibiting Yelovich from contacting De Armond. The order forbids Yelovich from “coming near and from having any contact whatsoever, in person or through others, by phone, mail or any means, directly or indirectly” with De Armond. It also prohibited Yelovich from causing any physical harm or bodily injury to De Armond. On the day in question, Yelovich parked his car in the driveway of his son’s house. He was moving boxes from the garage, and an approximately four-and-a-half-foot wood fence separated him and his car. After about an hour, Yelovich believed he saw someone through the fence, but he could not identify the person. When he went to his car, which had a broken passenger window, he saw that his cell phone and other personal belongings were missing. He saw De Armond walking down the street, and he testified at trial that he “knew then that she did it.” Yelovich was aware that he was prohibited from contacting De Armond, but he thought the police would not arrive in time to recover his phone. Although he admitted it “was an irrational, radical move,” he chased after her in his car. When he found her a few blocks later, he got out of his car and attempted to take her purse because he believed she had put his phone in it. A struggle ensued, and De Armond testified that he was “bouncing her off the ground.” Her testimony was corroborated by a Good Samaritan who intervened. He testified that he “saw a man straddling a female. I saw him striking her,” and “he was lifting her up off the ground and slamming her on the ground.” Both the fire department and police responded to the incident. De Armond was treated for minor injuries, including redness, bruising, and a small laceration. The responding police officer who interviewed De Armond noted she seemed intoxicated and “she had a really hard time keeping herself together.” The State charged Yelovich with one count of [felony violation of a no-contact order](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=26.50.110) predicated on his assault of De Armond and one count of [Bail Jumping](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.76.170). At trial, he argued that he was entitled to a [jury instruction](https://courts.uslegal.com/jury-system/jury-instructions-and-their-purpose/) on defense of property because he was protecting his cell phone, which he believed De Armond had stolen. For those who don’t know, a jury instruction is a guideline given by the judge to the jury about the law they will have to apply to the facts they have found to be true. The purpose of the instructions is to help the jury arrive at a verdict that follows the law of that jurisdiction. AT any rate, the judge refused, reasoning that Yelovich “was acting offensively, not defensively to protect property.” The jury convicted Yelovich as charged. He appealed only his felony violation of the no-contact order on the basis that he was improperly denied a jury instruction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, and Yelovich appealed. **ISSUE** Whether the trial court improperly refuse to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of defense of property. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The SUpreme Court reasoned that under statute, Violation of a No-Contact Order is usually a gross misdemeanor, but it is elevated to a [Class C felony](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.20.021) if the restrained party assaults the protected party during the violation. Therefore, assault is an essential element of the crime of felony violation of a no-contact order, and the State must prove it occurred beyond a reasonable doubt. Yelovich relies on [Washington’s Self-Defense and Defense of Property Statute](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.020) to claim that he may use defense of property as an affirmative defense. The statute states: *“The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful . . . whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary.”* Yelovich argues the statute provides “a valid affirmative defense whenever assault is charged or whenever assault is an element of the charged crime,” and therefore it may be used when the charged crime is felony violation of a no-contact order. However, Yelovich’s position ignores the critical role of the underlying no-contact order in this case. The Court further reasoned that the standard language included in the order warned Yelovich that as the restrained party, he has the sole responsibility to avoid or refrain from violating the order’s provisions. > “By the terms of the order, Yelovich has no power to engage in self-help if doing so brings him into contact with De Armond. This bright line rule ensures that victims are not left wondering whether conduct prohibited by the no-contact order might later be deemed lawful. It therefore furthers the legislature’s goal to provide victims of domestic violence the maximum protection from abuse.” The Court concluded that, in sum, Yelovich had sole responsibility for not violating the terms of a valid court order that forbids him from contacting De Armond, and so he had no authority to chase De Armond when he believed she had taken his phone. Accordingly, Yelovich was not entitled to a jury instruction on defense of property because his conduct violated the court order. My opinion? Although the statute is very clear that mutual violations of the order and Defense of Property is *not* a defense, other defenses do exist. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges for [violating a no-contact order](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/no-contact-order-violations/). Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Defense of Property, Domestic Violence, felony, No Contact Order, Self-Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Violent Crime, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Sexual Assault Kits Remain Untested](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/sexual-assault-kits-remain-untested/) **Published:** October 6, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [Attorney General’s Office](https://www.atg.wa.gov/) has completed its inventory of Washington state’s unsubmitted [sexual assault kits](https://www.rainn.org/articles/rape-kit), finding 6,460 kits that have not yet been submitted for lab testing by local law enforcement agencies. A sexual assault kit is a collection of evidence gathered from a survivor by a medical professional, usually a specially trained sexual assault nurse examiner. A crime lab then tests the evidence for DNA that will help law enforcement find a perpetrator. This month, [Attorney General Bob Ferguson](https://www.atg.wa.gov/about-bob-ferguson) will request the remainder of a federal grant that funds sexual assault kit testing. The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) is currently reviewing the inventory data and working with the Crime Lab to develop a plan for testing the kits, which potentially provide DNA evidence for sexual assault investigations. The AGO obtained [inventory information](https://www.atg.wa.gov/sexual-assault-kit-initiative) from 208 law enforcement agencies across Washington state. These 6,460 kits were collected and booked into evidence by local law enforcement, but were not submitted to a crime lab for a DNA analysis. Consequently, they remain in evidence storage facilities around the state. Many of these unsubmitted kits have been in an evidence storage facility for years. The oldest untested kit reported by local law enforcement to the AGO dates back to 1982. “Sexual assault survivors deserve justice,” said Ferguson. “Each sexual assault kit tells a story from a survivor that must be heard.” The inventory is part of the [AGO’s Sexual Assault Kit Initiative](https://www.atg.wa.gov/sexual-assault-kit-initiative) project. In October 2017, [the AGO won a grant](https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-s-office-wins-3m-federal-grant-process-backlogged-sexual-assault-dna-evidence) for $3 million from the [U.S. Department of Justice](https://www.justice.gov/) to assist law enforcement with testing and investigating untested sexual assault kits. The grant process, part of the [Bureau of Justice Assistance Sexual Assault Kit Initiative](https://www.bja.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?Program_ID=117), was highly competitive. The grant funds a team of investigators within the AGO dedicated to the project. Attorney General Ferguson plans to dedicate $1.5 million to pay for the testing of kits – the maximum allowable under the grant. So far, the AGO has received 25 percent of the $3 million grant in order to inventory the kits. Now that the inventory of unsubmitted kits is complete, Attorney General Ferguson can request the remainder of the funds from Bureau of Justice Assistance. There are two types of sexual assault kit backlogs in Washington state and across the country. The first is the “unsubmitted” sexual assault kit backlog, which consists of kits that sit in a law enforcement evidence storage facility because a DNA analysis was never requested. With today’s announcement, Attorney General Ferguson took the first key step in eliminating Washington’s unsubmitted kit backlog. The second type of backlog occurs in crime lab facilities, and consists of “backlogged” sexual assault kits that have been submitted, but have not yet been tested. The State of Washington has made progress on processing its backlog of sexual assault kits over the past several years, but additional work remains. In 2015, led by [Representative Tina Orwall (D-Burien)](https://housedemocrats.wa.gov/legislators/tina-orwall/), the Legislature gave funds to the Crime Lab to reduce the backlog. According to the Washington State Patrol, more than 3,300 backlogged kits have been submitted to the Crime Lab using this legislative funding. Of those kits, about 1,700 have been tested and about 1,100 are currently in the testing process. These totals do not include the 6,460 unsubmitted kits Ferguson inventoried that are held by local law enforcement. In Washington state, the [State Patrol Crime Lab](http://wsp.wa.gov/forensics/crimlabs.htm) oversees the testing of all of the state’s DNA evidence. The Crime Lab is outsourcing the sexual assault kits to a private lab to complete the DNA testing. The Crime Lab must conduct a peer review of all evidence tested by outside labs and is the only agency permitted to upload DNA profiles into the national forensic DNA database, known as [CODIS](https://www.singularityweblog.com/codis-ndis-using-dna-testing-for-law-enforcement/). Once the kits are tested, local law enforcement can use DNA to reopen cold cases. Testing these kits will identify serial rapists, link cases across the country, provide critical links that could solve homicide cases and provide answers to victims and their families. My opinion? I’m impressed our legislature is appropriating more funding toward testing rape kits. Forensic evidence such as rape kits benefit everyone, including the defendant. The evidence gives information beyond “he said / she said” allegations. Rape kits analyze DNA evidence, reveal the location and extent of injuries/trauma sustained from alleged sexual assaults and may contain notes from interviews with sexual assault nurse practitioners. All of this evidence helps the investigatory process. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Rape, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Racial Profiling of Latinos in LA County](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/racial-profiling-of-latinos-in-la-county/) **Published:** October 6, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-sheriff-latino-drug-stops-grapevine-20181004-htmlstory.html) by [Joel Rubin](http://www.latimes.com/la-bio-joel-rubin-staff.html) and [Ben Poston](http://www.latimes.com/la-bio-ben-poston-staff.html) of the [LA Times](http://www.latimes.com/) examines a disturbing trend. Apparently, more than two-thirds of the drivers pulled over by the Domestic Highway Enforcement Team were Latino, according to a Times analysis of Sheriff’s Department data. And sheriff’s deputies searched the vehicles of more than 3,500 drivers who turned out to have no drugs or other illegal items, the analysis found. The overwhelming majority of those were Latino. Several of the team’s big drug busts have been dismissed in federal court as the credibility of some deputies came under fire and judges ruled that deputies violated the rights of motorists by conducting [unconstitutional searches](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment). The Times analyzed data from every traffic stop recorded by the team from 2012 through the end of last year — more than 9,000 stops in all — and reviewed records from hundreds of court cases. Among its findings: - Latino drivers accounted for 69% of the deputies’ stops. Officers from the California Highway Patrol, mainly policing traffic violations on the same section of freeway, pulled over nearly 378,000 motorists during the same period; 40% of them were Latino. - Two-thirds of Latinos who were pulled over by the Sheriff’s Department team had their vehicles searched, while cars belonging to all other drivers were searched less than half the time. - Three-quarters of the team’s searches came after deputies asked motorists for consent rather than having evidence of criminal behavior. Several legal scholars said such a high rate of requests for consent is concerning because people typically feel pressured to allow a search or are unaware they can refuse. - Though Latinos were much more likely to be searched, deputies found drugs or other illegal items in their vehicles at a rate that was not significantly higher than that of black or white drivers. ![](http://www.trbimg.com/img-5bb297de/turbine/la-me-sheriff-freeway-drugs-20181001-10/800/16x9)![](http://www.trbimg.com/img-5bb297c2/turbine/la-me-sheriff-freeway-drugs-20181001-9/800/16x9) ![](http://www.trbimg.com/img-5bb297f9/turbine/la-me-sheriff-freeway-drugs-20181001-11/800/16x9)![](http://www.trbimg.com/img-5bb2979a/turbine/la-me-sheriff-freeway-drugs-20181001-8/800/16x9) From top to bottom: L.A. County Sheriff’s Deputies search a motorist’s suitcase. Also a deputy uses a device for measuring density to search for hidden drugs and clutches some tools he uses to perform vehicle searches. ([Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times](https://muckrack.com/myung-j-chun)) The [L.A. County Sheriff’s Department](http://www.lasd.org/) said that [racial profiling](https://www.aclu.org/issues/racial-justice/race-and-criminal-justice/racial-profiling) plays no role in the deputies’ work and that they base their stops only on a person’s driving and other impartial factors. In December, [Sheriff Jim McDonnell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_McDonnell_(sheriff)) heaped praise on the team, ticking off its accomplishments in a lengthy statement. “The importance of this mission cannot be overstated,” the sheriff said. But several legal and law enforcement experts said the department’s own records strongly suggest the deputies are violating the civil rights of Latinos by racially profiling, whether intentionally or not. “When they say, ‘We’re getting all these drugs out of here,’ they are not taking into account the cost,” said [David Harris, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh](https://www.law.pitt.edu/people/david-harris) who studies racial profiling by police. “They are sacrificing their own legitimacy in the community as a whole and the Latino community in particular.” [Kimberly Fuentes, research director for the California League of United Latin American Citizens](https://www.linkedin.com/in/kimberly-fuentes-0b6007b7), described The Times’ findings as “extremely disturbing and troubling” and said the advocacy organization would demand a meeting with Sheriff’s Department officials. “These findings risk tarnishing any trust between the Sheriff’s Department and the Latino community,” Fuentes said. My opinion? A pullover and search of your vehicle is unlawful if the reason for the pullover/search is racial profiling. Racial profiling is the practice of targeting individuals for police or security detention based on their race or ethnicity in the belief that certain minority groups are more likely to engage in unlawful behavior. Examples of racial profiling by federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies are illustrated in legal settlements and data collected by governmental agencies and private groups, suggesting that minorities are disproportionately the subject of routine traffic stops and other security-related practices. Also, pretextual searches are also unlawful. Pretext is an excuse to do something or say something that is not accurate. Pretexts may be based on a half-truth or developed in the context of a misleading fabrication. Pretexts have been used to conceal the true purpose or rationale behind actions and words. A pretextual search and arrest by law enforcement officers is one carried out for illegal purposes such as to conduct an unjustified [search and seizure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure "Search and seizure"). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member was charged with a crime after being racially profiled and/or pulled over for unlawful pretext. I provide zealous representation to all defendants facing these circumstances. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, felony, Fourth Amendment, law enforcement, police, Pretext, Race & Law, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [WA State Abolishes Death Penalty](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/wa-state-abolishes-death-penalty/) **Published:** October 16, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/washington-state-supreme-court-tosses-out-death-penalty/) by [Rachel La Corte ](https://www.seattletimes.com/author/rachel-la-corte/)and [Gene Johnson](https://www.seattletimes.com/author/gene-johnson/) of the [Seattle Times](https://www.seattletimes.com/) describes how [Washington’s Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) unanimously struck down the state’s death penalty as arbitrary and racially biased, making it the 20th state to do away with capital punishment. But [the court’s opinion](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/880867.pdf) eliminated it entirely, converted the sentences for the state’s eight death row inmates to life in prison without release, and supported a trend away from capital punishment in the U.S. “The death penalty is becoming increasingly geographically isolated,” said [Robert Dunham](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/staff-and-board-directors), executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based [Death Penalty Information Center](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/). “It’s still on the books in 30 states, but it’s not being used in 30 states. It’s becoming a creature of the Deep South and the Southwest.” Texas continues to execute more prisoners than any other state — 108 since 2010. Florida has executed 28, Georgia 26 and Oklahoma 21 in that time frame. But nationally, death sentences are down 85 percent since the 1990s, Dunham said. In the past 15 years, seven states — [Connecticut](https://www.cnn.com/2012/04/25/justice/connecticut-death-penalty-law-repealed/index.html), [Delaware](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/us/delaware-supreme-court-rules-states-death-penalty-unconstitutional.html), [Illinois](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-illinois-death-penalty-timeline-gfx-20180514-htmlstory.html), [Maryland](https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/05/02/us-maryland-abolishes-death-penalty), [New Jersey](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-jersey-abolishes-death-penalty/), [New Mexico](https://www.amnestyusa.org/new-mexico-abolishes-death-penalty/) and [New York](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_New_York) — have abandoned capital punishment through court order or legislative act, and three — Colorado, Oregon and Pennsylvania — have adopted [moratoriums](http://www.icomdp.org/moratorium/). The concerns cited in those states have ranged from procedural matters, such as the information provided to sentencing jurors in New York, to worries about executing an innocent person or racial and other disparities in who is sentenced to death, as was the case in Washington. “The death penalty is unequally applied — sometimes by where the crime took place, or the county of residence, or the available budgetary resources at any given point in time, or the race of the defendant,” [Chief Justice Mary Fairhurst](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=fairhurst) wrote in the lead opinion. > “Our capital punishment law lacks ‘fundamental fairness.” ~*Chief Justice Mary Fairhurst* According to La Corte and Johnson, defense lawyers had long challenged the death penalty on those grounds. This time, death penalty critics were armed with more data about how capital punishment works, including a [statistical analysis by University of Washington sociologists](https://perma.cc/3THJ-989W). Their report showed that although prosecutors were not more likely to seek the execution of black defendants, juries were about four times more likely to sentence black defendants to death. “Now the information is plainly before us,” Fairhurst wrote. “To the extent that race distinguishes the cases, it is clearly impermissible and unconstitutional.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Death Penalty, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Juvenile Life Sentences Ruled Unconstitutional](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/juvenile-life-sentences-ruled-unconstitutional/) **Published:** October 20, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/washington-supreme-court-rules-life-sentence-without-parole-for-youth-unconstitutional/?fbclid=IwAR0FIxpECAVzxQOS2dZbW0_vLM2elyYYTz1xVq1Iwp450mw9lNava9kzy58) in the [Seattle Times](https://www.seattletimes.com/) by reporters [Paige Cornwell ](https://www.seattletimes.com/author/paige-cornwell/)and [Hannah Rodriguez](https://www.seattletimes.com/author/hannah-rodriguez/) discusses how in [*State v. Bassett*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/945560.pdf), the [Washington State’s Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) ruled that sentencing youth offenders to life in prison without parole is unconstitutional, joining 20 states and Washington D.C. who’ve already outlawed the practice. In 1996, at the age of 16, Mr. Bassett was convicted of three counts of [aggravated first degree murder](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.32.030) for the deaths of his mother, father, and brother. The judge commented that Bassett, still a child, was “a walking advertisement” for the death penalty and sentenced him to three consecutive terms of life in prison without the possibility of parole. At the time, 1996, life without parole was the mandatory sentence under our state statute, former RCW 10.95.030 (1993). The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that trial courts may not impose a minimum term of life, as that would mean a life without parole sentence, for people convicted of committing a crime when they were younger than 18 years old. The sentencing “constitutes cruel punishment,” and doesn’t achieve the legal goals of retribution or deterrence because children are less culpable than adults, it said. Children convicted of crimes, including the highest degree of murder, are also entitled in Washington to special protections from sentencing courts when possible, the court said. The ruling comes on the heels of a unanimous decision by the state’s justices earlier this week that [struck down the death penalty](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/washington-state-supreme-court-tosses-out-death-penalty/), declaring its current application to be in violation of [Washington’s constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx). A pediatric psychologist testified that the teenager had suffered from adjustment disorder and struggled to cope with homelessness after his parents kicked him out of the house. Bassett later said that at the time, he wasn’t able to comprehend the long-term consequences of his actions, according to court records. He hasn’t had any prison violations for 15 years, has earned his [GED](https://ged.com/policies/washington/) and was on the [Edmonds Community College](https://www.edcc.edu/) honor roll. He got married in 2010. Following research on juvenile brain development, [the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012 ruled that automatic life sentences for juveniles were unconstitutional](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._Alabama). The state Legislature responded two years later with a law that allowed youth inmates who were sentenced to life as juveniles to have their sentences reconsidered, although they could still be sentenced to life in prison. Thursday’s ruling eliminates that option for judges. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Homicide & Manslaughter, Juvenile, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Online Research By Juror](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/online-research-by-juror/) **Published:** October 24, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Arndt](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2050118-0-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) upheld a defendant’s numerous high-level criminal convictions even though one of the jurors performed online research against the court’s instructions. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** On February 23, 2014, Ms. Arndt and her boyfriend, Mr. Veeder Jr., spent the night at their friends’ home. Late that night, the house caught fire. Everyone in the home escaped except Mr. Veeder, who died. After an investigation, the State charged Arndt with murder in the first degree with an aggravating circumstance of [arson in the first degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/arson/), [felony murder in the first degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/) with aggravating circumstances, and six counts of [assault in the second degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/). The jury found Arndt guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced Arndt to [life in prison without the possibility of release or parole](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=10.95.030). Months after the verdict, Juror 2 approached a woman whom she did not know was the sister of Arndt’s trial attorney. Juror 2 said that in Arndt’s trial, she struggled with the term “premeditation.” She further related that to better understand the term, she looked it up on the internet. The attorney’s sister told her brother what she had learned. Defense investigator James Harris then met with Juror 2, explained that he worked for Arndt’s trial attorney, and asked to speak with her about her experience as a juror. Juror 2 spoke with Harris and told him that during deliberations she did internet research on the word “premeditation.” Juror 2 provided Harris with additional information, including sites she may have viewed. The State’s investigator also interviewed Juror 2. Arndt moved for a new trial on grounds of juror misconduct. At a hearing on the motion, the court heard testimony from Juror 2 and Harris. Juror 2 testified that she had researched the term “premeditation” and had found different sites, but did not remember whether she had viewed any of the specific sites she had showed Harris when he earlier interviewed her. She said that she looked at a couple different definitions, but it was the word “short” that made her understand. Juror 2 also testified that she had not shared her research with other jurors. Ultimately, the trial court held Arndt should not get a new trial: > “In substance, the Court finds that the definitions viewed by Juror #2 were indistinguishable to the jury instruction and were consistent with the law. Because the known research results, as presented to the Court, were consistent with the jury instruction on premeditation and the law, the Court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Juror #2’s research could not have affected the verdict. Therefore, the motion for a new trial is denied.” Arndt appealed to the WA Court of Appeals. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The WA Court of Appeals reasoned that Juror 2 committed misconduct. Also, the consideration of novel or [extrinsic evidence](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/extrinsic_evidence) by a jury is misconduct and can be grounds for a new trial. Furthermore, juror use of extraneous evidence is misconduct and entitles a defendant to a new trial, if the defendant has been prejudiced. “Once juror misconduct is established, prejudice is presumed,” said the Court of Appeals. “The court must grant a new trial unless it is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the extrinsic evidence did not contribute to the verdict.” The Court of Appeals also reviewed the trial court’s instructions to the jury on the definition of “Premeditation.” It stated the following: > “Premeditated means thought over beforehand. When a person, after any deliberation, forms an intent to take human life, the killing may follow immediately after the formation of the settled purpose and it will still be premeditated. Premeditation must involve more than a moment in point of time. The law requires some time, however long or short, in which a design to kill is deliberately formed.” Finally, the Court of Appeals reasoned that although the exact websites Juror 2 visited and the precise definitions she viewed are unknown, the part of those definitions that had an impression on her and affected her verdict were the word “short” and phrase “however short.” “As the trial court ruled, these definitions were indistinguishable to the jury instruction and were consistent with the law,” said the Court of Appeals. “This ruling is sufficient to satisfy beyond a reasonable doubt that the extrinsic evidence did not contribute to the verdict and to overcome the presumption of prejudice. The court did not abuse its discretion.” With that the Court of Appeals concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that Juror 2’s research did not contribute to the verdict. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed Arndt’s conviction. My opinion? The Court’s decision is frustrating. It placed too much weight on whether the juror’s misconduct prejudiced the defendant. Instead, the Court should have focused on the fact that juror misconduct happened in the *first* place. If you stole a candy bar from a grocery store, would your shoplifting affect the store’s bottom line? Probably not. However, the simple fact that you stole a candy bar is, in fact, a crime which demands an effective and just remedy. Otherwise, a crime which goes unpunished is essentially not a crime, correct? Here, Juror 2 blatantly disregarded the court’s instructions to not perform online research. Did Juror 2’s research affect her decision on the verdict? Did Juror 2 discuss her research with other jurors behind closed doors when they deliberated the case? Therein lies the threat to justice; not only to this defendant, but criminal defendants everywhere. Online research should not be tolerated, even if it can be willed away away as having no impact on the outcome. Bad decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Arson, Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Evidence, Homicide & Manslaughter, Jury Trial, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Rape Kit Backlog Resolved](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/rape-kit-backlog-resolved/) **Published:** November 2, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Survivors of sexual assaults in Washington state can now track the progress of their kits being analyzed through a new online portal. The [Seattle Post-Intelligencer](https://www.seattlepi.com/) reports that the [Washington State Patrol](http://www.wsp.wa.gov/) has implemented this week the online tracking system for sexual assault kits to allow survivors, as well as lawyers, medical staff and law enforcement to follow the testing process. The state completed an inventory of untested sexual assault kits last month, counting 6,460 kits that had not yet been submitted by law enforcement agencies across the state for lab testing. The oldest untested kit dated back to 1982. [Larry Hebert](http://www.wsp.wa.gov/about-us/executive-staff/), director of the patrol’s forensic laboratory services bureau, says a kit can take four to six weeks to process. My opinion? This is a great development in the right direction. Alleged victims who believed they were sexually assaulted should be encouraged to get rape kit examinations as soon as possible; and should also have assurances that the evidence will be handled quickly. Oftentimes, a sexual assault allegations come down to “He said / She said” arguments with very little to virtually no proof of sexual assault. Rape kit exams help solve this problem. Please [contact my office if you](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/), a friend or family member are charged with a [sex offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/). It’s imperative to find a qualified and competent defense attorney who can navigate the investigations, argue pretrial motions, conduct witness interviews and possibly go to trial. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Evidence, felony, Rape, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["Ruse" Searches Held Unconstitutional.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/ruse-searches-held-unconstitutional/) **Published:** November 6, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[Whalen v. McMullen](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/10/30/17-35267.pdf)*, the [Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) held that an officer’s warrantless entry into a home via a ruse such as by asking the homeowner for assistance in a fictitious criminal investigation, violates the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment). A “ruse” entry is when a known government agent misrepresents his purpose in seeking entry. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** While investigating Kathleen Whalen for fraud related to her application for [social security benefits](https://www.disability-benefits-help.org/eval/ssd-eval-24?utm_expid=70863156-37.1iw0GA5cT_qOqk2vuBdIfQ.1&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=social%20security%20benefit&utm_content=234514573633&utm_campaign=SSD+-+Exact+Always&__egma[MatchType]=e&__egma[Network]=g&__egma[Device]=c&__egma[Creative]=234514573633&__egma[Placement]=&__egma[AdPosition]=1t2&gclid=Cj0KCQiAlIXfBRCpARIsAKvManxGyBHTKCTIbKTENrEZ2YuXYpRn_YV6NVvbkJeg3FzgR5TIEfzAJRUaAhaQEALw_wcB&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F), [Washington State Patrol](http://www.wsp.wa.gov/) officer McMullen gained both her cooperation and entrance into her home by requesting her assistance in a fictitious criminal investigation. During his investigation, McMullen secretly videotaped Whalen both outside and inside her home. No criminal charges were ever lodged against Whalen, but the [Washington Disability Determination Services](https://www.dshs.wa.gov/esa/disability-determination-services) division (“DDS”) of the [Washington Department of Social and Health Services](https://www.dshs.wa.gov/) (“DSHS”) used at her social security hearing the footage surreptitiously filmed inside her home. Whalen brought suit against McMullen under [42 U.S.C. § 1983](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983), alleging that McMullen’s entry into her home without a warrant and under false pretenses violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. **LEGAL ISSUES** **(1)** whether McMullen’s warrantless entry into Whalen’s home under false pretenses was an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, and **(2)** whether it was clearly established that such an entry was a Fourth Amendment violation. **COURT’S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS** The Ninth Circuit held that McMullen violated Whalen’s Fourth and [Fourteenth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv) rights, but agreed with the lower federal district court that McMullen had [qualified immunity](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity) from suit because the right was not clearly established. *A. Whether the Officer’s Conduct Violated the Constitution.* The Ninth Circuit explained that the Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, instructs that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. “Without question, the home is accorded the full range of Fourth Amendment protections,” said the Court, citing [*Lewis v. United States*](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/385/206.html). “Indeed, at the very core’ of the Fourth Amendment ‘stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.” Furthermore, the Court reasoned that a Fourth Amendment “search” occurs when a government agent obtains information by physically intruding on a constitutionally protected area. The Court distinguished between “undercover” entries, where a person invites a government agent who is concealing that he is a government agent into her home, and “ruse” entries, where a known government agent misrepresents his purpose in seeking entry. The former does not violate the Fourth Amendment, as long as the undercover agent does not exceed the scope of his invitation while inside the home. However, it also reasoned that a *ruse* entry – one when the suspect is informed that the person seeking entry is a government agent but is *misinformed* as to the purpose for which the agent seeks entr – cannot be justified by consent. This is because access gained by a government agent, known to be such by the person with whom the agent is dealing, violates the Fourth Amendment’s bar against unreasonable searches and seizures if such entry was acquired by affirmative or deliberate misrepresentation of the nature of the government’s investigation. In this case, McMullen identified himself as a law enforcement officer and requested Whalen’s assistance in a fictitious investigation, gaining entry into her home using this ruse. > “McMullen appealed to Whalen’s trust in law enforcement and her sense of civic duty to assist him in his “identity theft” investigation. McMullen’s description of an identity theft investigation was perfectly plausible, and Whalen readily agreed to cooperate. But there was no identify theft investigation underway. McMullen lied to Whalen about his real purpose—to investigate her for possible social security fraud. Whalen’s consent to McMullen’s entry into her home is vitiated by his deception.” Consequently, reasoned the Court, it was entirely immaterial that McMullen could have lawfully searched Whalen’s home by securing her consent without using a ruse. “His argument is akin to justifying a warrantless search on the ground that a warrant would have been issued if one had been sought,” said the Court. Regardless of whether Whalen would have consented to McMullen’s entry into her home if he had not used a ruse, she did not validly consent here. > “Once we add to this the fact that McMullen videotaped his entire visit, any illusion that this was not a Fourth Amendment search evaporates. McMullen had two cameras running while he was talking with Whalen, and at least one of the cameras captured his entire visit inside her home. Of course it was a search: not only was McMullen there to observe Whalen, but he had also been asked specifically to seek evidence concerning Whalen’s use of an electric wheelchair, how wheelchair accessible the house was, were the wheelchairs used, were clothes on them, etc.” With that, the Ninth Circuit concluded that McMullen’s entry into Whalen’s home without consent or a warrant in the course of a civil fraud investigation related to Whalen’s benefits claim was an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. *B. Whether the Violation Was “Clearly Established.”* Here, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to hold McMullen personally liable under § 1983, Whalen’s right to be free from a search in this context must have been clearly established. To be clearly established, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. “The right Whalen asserts was not clearly established,” said the Court. “Therefore, officer McMullen was entitled to qualified immunity from this suit.” My opinion? Good decision, mostly. I’m happy to see the Ninth found that the officer’s ruse violated Ms. Whalen’s constitutional rights. And although I would’ve liked to see the Ninth Circuit award Ms. Whalen damages for the violation of her rights, the reality is that it’s extremely difficult to succeed on suing police for misconduct. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Fourth Amendment, police, Qualified Immunity, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [I-940 Passed By Voters](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/i-940-passed-by-voters/) **Published:** November 8, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/initiative-940-modifying-law-regulating-police-use-of-deadly-force-holds-strong-lead-in-tuesdays-returns/) from [Seattle Times](https://www.seattletimes.com/) reporter [Steve Miletich](https://www.seattletimes.com/author/steve-miletich/) informs us that [Initiative 940](https://www.deescalatewa.org/), the [measure that would remove a 32-year-old barrier in state law](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/initiative-940-would-lift-barrier-to-criminally-charging-police-officers-who-misuse-of-deadly-force-critics-say-it-would-make-police-hesitate/) that has made it virtually impossible to bring criminal charges against police officers believed to have wrongfully used deadly force, has passed with strong support. Passage of the measure means that prosecutors will no longer have to prove law-enforcement officers acted with “evil intent” — or so-called “malice” — when considering whether to file criminal charges such as manslaughter. Washington is the [only state with such restrictive language](https://projects.seattletimes.com/2015/killed-by-police/). The measure passed with 60 percent of the vote statewide. In King County, support exceeded 70 percent. According to Miletich, a spokesperson for the I-940 campaign said the win means “Washington becomes the first state in the nation to pass a police training and accountability measure in response to a national conversation about use of force and relationships between law enforcement and the communities they serve.” I-940 requires proof that a reasonable officer would have used deadly force in the same circumstance and sincerely believed the use of deadly force was warranted. I-940 also requires de-escalation and mental-health training for police; requires officers to administer first aid to a victim of deadly force; and requires independent investigations into the use of deadly force. At one point, state legislators passed a [compromise bill earlier this year](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/assault-weapons-deadly-force-bills-hit-snags-in-washington-legislature/) that addressed concerns raised by some law-enforcement organizations about certain wording in the initiative. I-940 proponents accepted the bill, agreeing to keep the initiative off the ballot. But the state Supreme Court agreed with a challenger that the initiative couldn’t be modified by the Legislature and must be presented to the voters in its original form. My opinion? Excellent. It’s about time. All of us want to ensure our families, communities and law enforcement officers as safe. But last year, more people were killed in encounters with law enforcement than in 45 other states, and almost a third of those killed were experiencing a mental health crisis. No officer wants to find themselves in this situation, but right now officers in Washington aren’t provided with enough training to help them de-escalate a potentially deadly encounter. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Firearm, police, Police Misconduct, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Autopsy Photos Admitted](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/autopsy-photos-admitted/) **Published:** November 10, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Whitaker](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/759248.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that a trial court properly admitted 15 of 100 autopsy photographs over the objection of the defendant who was charged with aggravated murder. The probative value of the photographs in helping to illustrate the medical examiner’s testimony outweighed their prejudicial effect. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** Mr. Whitaker was charged with helping his friend Mr. Anderson and several others kidnap and Ms. Burkheimer, who was Anderson’s ex-girlfriend. Whitaker helped to bind, hide, and transport Burkheimer. He helped to dig her grave, rob her, bury her, and destroy evidence of her murder. At trial, the court admitted 15 autopsy photographs during the testimony of the medical examiner. The [medical examiner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_examiner) testified that around 100 photographs were taken during Burkheimer’s autopsy and that the 15 selected for trial showed the injuries to Burkheimer’s body, what the medical examiner looked at when he decided where the bullet exit and entry wounds were, and how Burkheimer’s injuries related to one another. The jury found Whitaker guilty of [premeditated first degree murder](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/), with an aggravating factor of [Kidnapping ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/kidnapping-unlawful-imprisonment/)and a firearm enhancement, and conspiracy to commit first degree murder. During the trial, Whitaker moved for a [mistrial](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mistrial) several times, alleging numerous errors were made during trial; one of the errors being whether the trial court improperly admitted the photographs of the victim’s autopsy. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The WA Court of Appeals upheld Whitaker’s conviction and reasoned that accurate photographic representations are admissible, even if gruesome, if their probative value outweighs their prejudicial effect. > “A bloody, brutal crime cannot be explained to a jury in a lily-white manner.” “The admission of autopsy photographs is in the sound discretion of the trial court,” said the Court of Appeals. “Photographs have probative value where they are used to illustrate or explain the testimony of the pathologist performing the autopsy. Unless it is clear from the record that the primary reason to admit gruesome photographs is to inflame the jury’s passion, appellate courts will uphold the decision of the trial court.” Furthermore, reasoned the Court, the law requires an exercise of restraint, not a preclusion simply because other less inflammatory testimonial evidence is available. The medical examiner’s testimony explaining the photographs and his conclusions about Burkheimer’s injuries was straightforward and not inflammatory. “There is no doubt that these photographs are disturbing,” said the court. “But this was a brutal crime, and the record does not show that the primary reason for admitting the photographs was to inflame the jury.” Rather, reasoned the Court, the photographs were admitted to support the testimony of the medical examiner. “The State did not offer all 100 of the photographs but instead selected 15 that best illustrated Burkheimer’s injuries,” said the Court. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting them. With that, the Court of Appeals upheld Mr. Whitaker’s conviction and sentence. My opinion? The admissibility of evidence is one of the most important battles in trial practice. Courts conduct balancing tests on this issue under [Evidence Rules 401](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_401), [402](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_402) and [403](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_403). Under these evidence rules, judges can admit evidence which is relevant and probative as long as the evidence is also not prejudicial to the defendant’s case. Prejudicial evidence includes evidence which may inflame the passions of the jury. Understandably, however, the prejudicial effect can be outweighed by the probative value. In this case, the probative value of the medical examiner’s testimony outweighed the prejudicial effect these photos may have had on the jury. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Evidence, felony, Firearm, Homicide & Manslaughter, Jury Trial, Kidnapping, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Courtroom Disruptions](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/courtroom-disruptions/) **Published:** November 14, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Davis](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/768069.PDF)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that a defendant’s [Sixth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) right to question witnesses at trial was violated when the defendant was removed for being disruptive. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** On January 23, 2014, a [King County Sheriff’s](https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/sheriff.aspx) deputy arrested Davis for possession of a stolen Hyundai vehicle. Two and a half weeks later, on February 11,2014, a [Federal Way Police Department](https://www.cityoffederalway.com/police) officer observed a Buick parked near a park-and-ride and saw Davis standing outside the car, making furtive movements. As Davis got into the car to drive away, the officer recorded the license plate. The owner had reported the vehicle as stolen. the officer then initiated a traffic stop and arrested Davis for possession of a stolen vehicle — the Buick. A search of Davis recovered [crack cocaine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_cocaine) in his shirt pocket. On May 19, 2014, the State charged Davis with two counts of [possession of a stolen vehicle](http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9a.56.068), and one count of [possession of a controlled substance](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.4013). Davis motioned for [standby counsel ](https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/standby-counsel/)– an attorney who is appointed to assist a client who has invoked his/her right to self-representation – at numerous times throughout his pretrial proceedings. His requests were denied each time. The court stated Davis must choose between having counsel and representing himself. Davis chose to proceed without a lawyer. The case proceeded to trial. During trial, the The State Prosecutor attempted to continue its examination of a police officer, but Davis repeatedly interrupted to make comments about the water. The trial court temporarily retired the jury. A heated discussion took place to include the following: > THE COURT: Screaming at the top of his lungs, the jury– > THE DEFENDANT: And I’m going to continue to scream. Where’s my fucking water? > (Defendant screaming simultaneously with court) > THE COURT: I need to proceed with the trial, and I am finding that he is voluntarily absenting himself from the rest of these proceedings under State v. Garza, G-A-R-Z-A, and the record should reflect that he continues to speak on top of his lungs, swearing, accusing me of all kinds of things. > THE DEFENDANT: You’re being an asshole, and I can be one, too. > THE COURT: You’re now removed from the court. > THE DEFENDANT: Good. And fuck you very much, asshole. Fuck this kangaroo court shit. At this point, it was after three o’clock in the afternoon. In Davis’s absence, the State continued questioning a police officer who testified as to finding crack cocaine in Davis’s pocket. The State then examined the police officer who had identified the stolen Buick, initiated the traffic stop, and arrested Davis. The court did not give Davis an opportunity to cross-examine either officer. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals ruled that although **(1)** Davis did not have a right to standby counsel, and **(2)** the court properly removed him, it nevertheless violated his Sixth Amendment right to representation by allowing the State to examine two of its witnesses in his absence and not affording him an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. The court reasoned that Davis went unrepresented during the testimony of police officers and was not given the opportunity to cross-examine them. > “He did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to representation and agree to have an empty defense table while the State questioned two critical witnesses.” “This remains the case despite his decision to represent himself,” reasoned the Court of Appeals. “As reflected above, cases from other jurisdictions support this conclusion. We are unaware of authority supporting a contrary result.” Accordingly, the Court of Appeals concluded that leaving Davis without representation at trial violated his Sixth Amendment right to representation and remanded for a new trial. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, police, Possession of Stolen Motor Vehicle, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Midterm Elections Bring Criminal Justice Reforms](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/midterm-elections-bring-criminal-justice-reforms/) **Published:** November 15, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.sentencingproject.org/news/state-criminal-justice-reform-2018-midterms/) from the [Sentencing Project](https://www.sentencingproject.org/) describes how voters in a number of states considered ballot measures during yesterday’s Midterm Election. Criminal justice reform measures ranged from voting rights to sentencing reform. ***Colorado – Abolishing Involuntary Servitude as Punishment*** Coloradans approved [Amendment A](https://default.salsalabs.org/T04add2b9-f929-4382-a556-b317d556add0/2c54afdb-6723-4c13-87c6-782104d6c3df) with 65% support; the measure removes language from the state Constitution that allows slavery and involuntary servitude to be used as punishment for the conviction of a crime. [Abolish Slavery Colorado](https://default.salsalabs.org/T17dd6c88-ebf7-48a4-a74b-34a352970986/2c54afdb-6723-4c13-87c6-782104d6c3df) organized a broad coalition in support of the constitutional change. Supporters included faith groups and civil rights organizations. ***Florida – Expanding the Vote*** State residents expanded voting rights to as many as [1.4 million Floridians with a felony conviction](https://default.salsalabs.org/T9c13dd2b-c72c-485c-af4e-5d6da63f8fa5/2c54afdb-6723-4c13-87c6-782104d6c3df) by approving Amendment 4 with 64% support; support from 60% of voters was required to approve the ballot measure. Justice involved residents now automatically have the right to vote once they complete their prison, probation or parole sentence; persons convicted of homicide and sex offenses are excluded from the measure. The state’s lifetime felony voting ban was among the most restrictive in the country, along with Iowa, Kentucky and Virginia which maintain lifetime voting bans for all felonies unless the governor takes action. The [Florida Rights Restoration Coalition](https://default.salsalabs.org/T8f29b28e-3651-4641-ac7b-caad5d59730a/2c54afdb-6723-4c13-87c6-782104d6c3df), which organized broad support for the measure, was led by directly impacted residents and garnered more than 800,000 signatures to qualify Amendment 4 for the ballot. ***Florida – Retroactivity & Sentencing*** Also in Florida, voters approved [Amendment 11](https://default.salsalabs.org/Td7d14d1c-f75b-4410-9c4f-9fc7a1a66a71/2c54afdb-6723-4c13-87c6-782104d6c3df) with 62% support, a measure that allows sentencing reforms to be retroactive. The amendment repeals language from the state’s ‘Savings Clause’ in the constitution that blocks the legislature from retroactively applying reductions in criminal penalties to those previously sentenced. Statutory law changes are not automatically retroactive; the legislature still has to authorize retroactivity for a particular sentencing reform measure. ***Louisiana – Requiring Unanimous Jury Consideration*** Louisianans approved [Amendment 2](https://default.salsalabs.org/T6beff104-793c-4c18-929e-f66393886efd/2c54afdb-6723-4c13-87c6-782104d6c3df), a constitutional change requiring unanimous juries for all felony convictions. In all other states, except Oregon, a unanimous jury vote is required to convict people for serious crimes; Louisiana was the only state where a person could be convicted of murder without a unanimous jury. Advocacy for Amendment 2 was supported by a [broad coalition that advanced criminal justice reforms](https://default.salsalabs.org/Td85f369a-e98d-4846-b4e3-87795cdf0c12/2c54afdb-6723-4c13-87c6-782104d6c3df) in recent years. The state’s Democratic and Republican parties endorsed Amendment 2, as well as community groups including [Voice of the Experienced](https://default.salsalabs.org/Tf73c4803-459a-4dd8-89f9-574085403b26/2c54afdb-6723-4c13-87c6-782104d6c3df), and Americans for Prosperity. ***Michigan – Authorized Marijuana Possession*** Michiganders approved [Proposal 1](https://default.salsalabs.org/T2fe8a04f-3734-4d95-939f-54714849c859/2c54afdb-6723-4c13-87c6-782104d6c3df), a measure that legalizes marijuana for adult recreational use. The change means residents over age 21 will be able to possess up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana on their person and up to 10 ounces in their home. The newly elected governor [has signaled support to pardon justice](https://default.salsalabs.org/Te60b2327-aa27-4377-bb6c-03f6a02db586/2c54afdb-6723-4c13-87c6-782104d6c3df) involved residents with prior marijuana convictions and [legislation is pending](https://default.salsalabs.org/Tc34730c3-30ad-4762-9eaf-5bdaf07cd559/2c54afdb-6723-4c13-87c6-782104d6c3df) to require judges to expunge misdemeanor marijuana convictions. ***Ohio – Rejected Felony Reclassification Measure*** Ohio residents rejected [Issue 1](https://default.salsalabs.org/Ta0726fec-b087-46c9-a315-6b7de51ddbb0/2c54afdb-6723-4c13-87c6-782104d6c3df), a measure that would have reclassified certain drug offenses as misdemeanors and prohibited incarceration for a first and second offense. The measure failed with 65% voting against the sentencing reform. In recent years, voters in [California](https://default.salsalabs.org/T3f76c04e-c8d6-45c5-a923-a6d0637df37e/2c54afdb-6723-4c13-87c6-782104d6c3df) and [Oklahoma](https://default.salsalabs.org/T9acab7ed-5383-4eaa-ba27-44a93cb94c28/2c54afdb-6723-4c13-87c6-782104d6c3df) approved similar ballot initiatives to reclassify certain felonies as misdemeanors with a goal of state prison population reduction. ***Washington – Strengthening Police Accountability*** Voters passed [Initiative 940](https://default.salsalabs.org/T5da91435-588e-4292-8124-590f89bfd78d/2c54afdb-6723-4c13-87c6-782104d6c3df) and repealed a provision in state law that made it difficult to bring criminal charges against police for deadly force. The Washington law required prosecutors to prove “evil intent” or “malice” when filing charges like manslaughter against police officers. Washingtonians approved the measure with 60% support. I-940 also requires training in de-escalation and mental health for law enforcement officers; requires police to provide first aid to victims of deadly force; and requires independent investigations into the use of deadly force. My opinion? State initiatives provide an opportunity to civically engage communities on criminal justice policies and build momentum to challenge mass incarceration. Midterm voters across the nation have spoken. For the most part, their decisions are a step in the right direction. We see an end to involuntary servitude in prison, granting voting rights to some convicted felons, jury unanimity, the legalization of marijuana and the strengthening of police accountability. Good. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Criminal Justice, Jury Trial, law enforcement, Legislation, marijuana, police, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Voting Rights, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Increased DUI Patrols for Apple Cup & Thanksgiving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/increased-dui-patrols-for-apple-cup-thanksgiving/) **Published:** November 15, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** A [press release](http://www.wsp.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/111318_WSU-ThanksgivingApple-Cup-2018-Emphasis-Patrols.pdf) from the [WA State Patrol](http://www.wsp.wa.gov/) says that troopers shall increase patrols in response to students and sports fans hitting the road. Thanksgiving break for [Washington State University](https://wsu.edu/) is right around the corner, as is the highly anticipated [Apple Cup](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Cup). The emphasis patrols will run Thursday through Nov. 25, focusing on WSU students who are traveling for the Thanksgiving break and the Apple Cup in Pullman Nov. 23. Troopers in [Spokane](https://www.spokanecounty.org/), [Whitman](http://www.whitmancounty.org/), [Adams](http://www.co.adams.wa.us/), Grant and [Kittitas](https://www.co.kittitas.wa.us/) counties will be homing in on speeding-related infractions, including driving too fast for conditions, distracted/impaired driving, and violations that could cause a collision. The patrol says motorists traveling to and from the WSU campus will see an increased presence on state routes 26 and 195, as well as on [Interstate 90 over Snoqualmie Pass](http://www.wsdot.com/traffic/passes/snoqualmie/). “Students traveling across the state should make sure to prepare their vehicles for winter travel conditions. A small emergency kit with water, food, blankets, winter clothing and emergency flares are a good idea,” states the Patrol. “Make sure all the fluids in vehicles are full and the vehicle’s battery is in good working order. Good all-season or snow tires, as well as tire chains are advised and may be required when traveling over the mountain passes.” To check up on road and weather conditions on state highways, visit the Washington State Department of Transportation’s website at [www.wsdot.wa.gov](http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/) or download WSDOT’s mobile app. My opinion? In addition to enforcing DUI emphasis patrols, troopers will also focus on distracted driving violations. [Washington’s new distracted driving law](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.672), which went into effect in July, sets a fee schedule for drivers who are found to be driving while distracted. The law states drivers are not allowed to use a hand-held device while driving, stopped in traffic or at a stoplight. Violators of the law could face a $136 fine. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with crimes or infractions involving [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/), [Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/), [Distracted Driving](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.673), etc. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Cell Phone, Distracted Driving, DUI, Reckless Driving, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Text Messages, Vehicular Assault, Vehicular Homicide, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [WA Supreme Court Changes Race Bias Jury Selection Test](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/wa-supreme-court-changes-race-bias-jury-selection-test/) **Published:** November 18, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Jefferson](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/948534.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) modified the the third step of a [*Batson* challenge ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/batson_challenge)to a [peremptory strike](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_challenge) of a juror in Washington. At the final step, the trial court must ask whether an objective observer could view race or ethnicity as a factor in the use of peremptory strike. If so, then the strike must be denied and the challenge to that strike must be accepted. **BACKGROUND FACTS** On February 14, 2013, Jefferson was involved in a fight over a pair of designer sunglasses. The fight ended with the shooting of Rosendo Robinson. Jefferson was subsequently charged with attempted murder in the first degree, assault in the first degree, and unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree. His defense was that someone else pulled the trigger. [Jury selection](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_selection) began on May 4, 2015. On the second day of jury selection, the State exercised a peremptory strike against Juror 10, the last African-American in the jury pool. Jefferson challenged this strike with a *Batson* motion. After going through the three-step *Batson* analysis, the trial court denied the *Batson* motion and ruled that the State had provided a nondiscriminatory explanation for its peremptory challenge of Juror 10. The trial proceeded and lasted approximately 10 days. The jury convicted Jefferson of [attempted murder in the first degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/), [assault in the first degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/), and [unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/). Jefferson was sentenced to 337.5 months of incarceration. Jefferson appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. He appealed again. This time, the WA Supreme Court granted Jefferson’s appeal and addressed Jefferson then petitioned for review on three issues: **(1)** whether the trial court erred in denying the *Batson* motion to deny the State’s peremptory strike of Juror 10 under the current *Batson* test, **(2)** whether this court should revisit the *Batson* test, and **(3)** whether the trial court erred in denying Jefferson’s motion for mistrial. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The WA Supreme Court described the Batson test. First, the trial court must recognize a *prima facie* case of discriminatory purpose when a party strikes the last member of a racially cognizable group. Second, the burden shifts to the State to come forward with a race-neutral explanation for the challenge. If the State meets its burden at step two, then third, the trial court then has the duty to determine if the defendant has established purposeful discrimination. “We hold that the trial court correctly ruled that there was no purposeful discrimination in the peremptory strike of Juror 10 under *Batson,”* said the Court*.* “However, our *Batson* protections are not robust enough to effectively combat racial discrimination during jury selection.” In fact, said the Court, the *Batson* framework makes it very difficult for defendants to prove discrimination even where it almost certainly exists. > “We need to do better to achieve the objectives of protecting litigants’ rights to equal protection of the laws and jurors’ rights to participate in jury service free from racial discrimination.” Consequently, the Court modified its three-step *Batson* test by replacing *Batson’ s* current inquiry at step three with a new inquiry. > “If a *Batson* challenge to a peremptory strike of a juror proceeds to that third step of *Batson’s* three-part inquiry, then the trial court must ask whether an objective observer could view race or ethnicity as a factor in the use of the peremptory strike. If so, then the strike must be denied and the challenge to that strike must be accepted.” Applying this new standard, the Court found that race could have been a factor in Juror 10’s dismissal. Here, the prosecutor essentially called out Juror 10 with a sarcastic comment for no apparent reason. Taken together with other evidence on the record, the prosecutor lacked racially neutral reasons for striking Juror 10. The strike reflected differential treatment of the sole African-American juror, and hence, the strike supported an inference of implicit bias. The WS Supreme Court quoted the late U.S. Supre Court’s [Justice Thurgood Marshall](https://www.oyez.org/justices/thurgood_marshall), who expressed his concern about such nebulous justifications in the *Batson* opinion: > “A prosecutor’s own conscious or unconscious racism may lead him easily to the conclusion that a prospective black juror is “sullen,” or “distant,” a characterization that would not have come to his mind if a white juror had acted identically. A judge’s own conscious or unconscious racism may lead him to accept such an explanation as well supported.” Furthermore, the WA Supreme Court reasoned that in its [*Saintcalle* ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/862575.pdf)opinion, it recognized the pervasive force of unconscious bias, stating, “People are rarely aware of the actual reasons for their discrimination and will genuinely believe the race-neutral reason they create to mask it.” The Court therefore reversed Jefferson’s convictions and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. My opinion? Excellent decision. Although the facts are against the defendant and are sympathetic toward the victim, race should never play a factor in the administration of justice. The WA Supreme Court’s new *Batson* framework rightfully addresses the problem of [implicit race bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_stereotype). This case is an excellent step in the right direction. Please [contact my office if you](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/), a friend or family member are charged with a crime and there’s some belief that implicit racial bias affects the investigations, prosecution and/or judicial proceedings of the case. It’s very important to hire defense counsel that is sensitive to and familiar with the nuances of racial biases that are implicit throughout the criminal justice system. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Jury Trial, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Violent Crime, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Right to Confront Victim Witnesses At Trial](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/right-to-confront-victim-witnesses-at-trial/) **Published:** November 20, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[United States v. Carter](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/11/02/16-50271.pdf)*, the [Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) held that a victim’s testimony from her hospital bed in Minnesota via two-way video violated the defendant’s [Sixth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) right to confrontation. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Mr. Carter was convicted of forcing seven minor girls into prostitution and trafficking them across state lines. The crimes took place over a ten-year period from 2003 to 2013. For each of the seven victims, Carter was charged with one count of violating [18 U.S.C. § 1591 (sex trafficking of a minor or by force, fraud, or coercion)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1591), and one count of violating [18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) (transportation of a minor in interstate commerce to engage in prostitution)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2423), for a total of fourteen counts. One week before Carter’s April 2016 trial, the Prosecution anticipated bringing the testimony of J.C., the victim for Counts 13 and 14. J.C., who was by then an adult living in Minnesota, was seven months pregnant with a due date in June. The government explained that J.C. had been hospitalized for complications with her pregnancy and that her doctor had instructed her not to travel from Minnesota to California. Accordingly, the government sought to have her testify during trial from Minnesota via live two-way video conference. Carter opposed on Confrontation Clause grounds. Nevertheless, the federal district court granted the government’s application to use two-way video, and the case proceeded to trial. On the second day of trial, Carter again objected to the two-way video procedure. Again, the federal district court denied Carter’s motion. J.C. testified by two-way video at trial. She stated that she met Carter in 2013, when she was 16 years old. She was living in Minnesota at the time, and Carter bought her a bus ticket to Los Angeles under an alias because she was underage. When she arrived in Los Angeles, Carter picked her up and took her to a motel room. There, he photographed her in lingerie and used the photographs in an advertisement on [Backpage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backpage), a website used to advertise sexual services. She then worked as a prostitute for Carter for approximately two weeks. She testified that Carter kept all of her earnings, dictated how much she should charge and what she should wear, and threatened to beat her if she did not comply. Carter was ultimately convicted on all fourteen counts. He appealed. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a defendant’s right to physically confront an adverse witness cannot be compromised by permitting the witness to testify by video unless use of the remote video procedure is necessary and the reliability of the testimony is otherwise assured. The Court reasoned that the victim’s inability to travel to the trial location was due to a temporary pregnancy-related condition. Therefore, a continuance of the trial was a more appropriate solution. Furthermore, testimony from a remote location requires proof that the witness is not being coached or influenced during testimony, that the witness is not improperly referring to documents, that the witness has an adequate view of the courtroom, and that the jury has an adequate view of the witness. Here, none of those proof conditions were met. Because alternatives were available for obtaining a victim-witness’s testimony that would have preserved the defendant’s right to physical confrontation, the use of a remote video was not necessary in this case, and violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. Consequently, the Court vacated the defendant’s convictions on one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1591 (Sex Trafficking of a Minor) and remanded for re-sentencing on remaining counts as to which the panel affirmed the defendant’s convictions in a concurrently-filed memorandum disposition. My opinion? Despite Mr. Carter’s terrible charges, allegations and fact pattern, the Ninth Circuit made the correct decision on his behalf. The Sixth Amendment’s right to face-to-face confrontation ensures the integrity of the fact-finding process and forms the core of the values furthered by the Confrontation Clause. Although exceptions to the Confrontation Clause rightfully exist – for example, if the testifying victim is a child who would suffer significant emotional trauma from being in the same room as their offender – these exceptions are narrow. Remote two-way video cameras can be used and substituted for face-to face contact upon a case-specific finding that **(1)** the denial of physical confrontation is necessary to further an important public policy, and **(2)** the reliability of the testimony is otherwise assured. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Confrontation Clause, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Sex Crimes, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Stricter Immigration Enforcement Will Not Reduce Crime](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/stricter-immigration-enforcement-will-not-reduce-crime/) **Published:** November 29, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Interesting [article](https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/crime/327815-stiffening-immigration-enforcement-is-not-the-answer-to-reducing) released from [The Hill](https://thehill.com/) by authors [Nazgol Ghandnoosh](http://www.nazgolghandnoosh.com/) and [Alex Nowrasteh](https://www.cato.org/people/alex-nowrasteh) claims that [recent research](http://thehill.com/latino/324607-reports-find-that-immigrants-commit-less-crime-than-us-born-citizens) shows that immigrants—regardless of legal status—commit property and violent crimes at lower rates than native-born citizens. This research, conducted independently by [The Sentencing Project](https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/immigration_brief-1.pdf) and [the Cato Institute](http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Immigration-and-Public-Safety.pdf), used different methods but arrived at the same conclusion: Immigrants are less crime-prone than native-born citizens. Overall, non-citizens are actually slightly underrepresented in prisons, comprising six percent of the prison population compared to their seven percent of the total U.S. population. > “Effectively addressing violent and property crime requires approaching the problem with both eyes open and without fear of the facts. Law enforcement has scarce resources. Sending them on wild goose chases to round up undocumented immigrants will only deter those individuals and those close to them from reporting crimes and cooperating with investigations.” Nazgol Ghandnoosh is a research analyst at [The Sentencing Project](https://www.sentencingproject.org/) and the co-author of the report [Immigration and Public Safety](https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/immigration_brief-1.pdf). Alex Nowrasteh is an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute and a co-author of the report [Criminal Immigrants: Their Numbers, Demographics, and Countries of Origin](https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/immigration_brief-1.pdf). My opinion? This certainly is a highly politicized and hot-button topic. Hopefully, we’ll all arrive at solutions which do not unlawfully violate people’s constitutional rights, regardless of their immigration status. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime; regardless of immigration status. Hiring a knowledgeable, effective and experienced criminal defense attorney is the first step toward getting justice in our courts. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Immigration, Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE), Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Was The House a Dwelling?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/was-the-house-a-dwelling/) **Published:** December 1, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Hall](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2050543-6-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) upheld a defendant’s criminal conviction for [Residential Burglary](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.52.025) despite his arguments that the house was not a dwelling. **BACKGROUND FACTS** In October 2014, Mr. Fredson moved his elderly mother Myrtle from her home to live near him because she had been having health problems. Myrtle had lived in the house since 1986, but by 2014 had difficulty managing her affairs. Myrtle left furniture throughout the house, beds in each bedroom, appliances, clothes, and personal belongings in the home she moved away from. However, nobody lived in the house. After Myrtle went to live with her son Mr. Fredson, she visited the prior house once or twice a week. Over time, unknown people broke windows and broke down doors in order to get inside the house. Lloyd eventually boarded up the windows and secured the broken front door to keep people out. He also posted no trespassing and warning signs throughout the property. On February 2, 2016, Mr. Fredson and Myrtle went to her home to check on it. Mr. Fredson suspected that someone was inside the house and called the sheriff. Officers responded and arrested the Defendant Mr. Hall as he came out of the house. Hall was carrying a backpack that contained items that Mr. Fredson and Myrtle identified as possessions that she had left in the house. The State charged Mr. Hall with [Residential Burglary](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/), [Third Degree Theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/), and [Making or Having Burglary Tools](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.52.060). A jury found him guilty of all three counts. Mr. Hall appealed his residential burglary conviction. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the unoccupied house that he burglarized was a “dwelling,” as required to convict for Residential Burglary. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals reasoned that a person commits Residential Burglary “if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, the person enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling.” A “dwelling” is legally defined as “any building or structure which is used or ordinarily used by a person for lodging.” Whether a building is a dwelling turns on all relevant factors and is generally a matter for the jury to decide. Here, however, the Court ruled that the fact that nobody had leaved in a house for 15 months prior to the burglary, that the windows had been boarded up and the broken front door had been secured, and there was no evidence of a plan for someone to resume living in the residence at the time of the burglary, did not prevent the house from being a “dwelling.” Other factors supported a finding that the house constituted a dwelling included that the house had been used for lodging for almost 30 years, the house had never been used for anything other than lodging, the house was fully furnished with furniture in every room and appliances, and the owner of the house left clothing and personal belongings in the house. Finally, the owner, who was forced to leave because of age-related health problems, continued to regard the house as her abode. Consequently, the Court of Appeals upheld Mr. Hall’s conviction. My opinion? These type of cases are tough to defend. People have difficulty justifying the intrusion of *any* home, regardless of whether anyone lived in the home or not. [Years ago, I conducted a jury trial on a Burglary case involving similar facts.](https://www.avvo.com/attorney-edit/98225-wa-alexander-ransom-36846/legal_cases/53545) My Client was a metal scrapper who wandered upon a long-abandoned house. The house was extremely decrepit, its front door was removed and no furniture was in the house. Although the jury ultimately acquitted Client of Burglary, they nevertheless found him guilty of the lesser crime of [Criminal Trespass First Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/criminal-trespass/), a gross misdemeanor. This was a victory under the circumstances. Did I mention these types of cases are tough to defend? Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Burglary, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Theft, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Shackled in Court](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/shackled-in-court-2/) **Published:** December 5, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Lundstrom](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2049709-3-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held that a trial court’s failure to state why a jailed defendant must wear shackles, handcuffs and other restraints to court violates a defendant’s [due process rights](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process). **BACKGROUND FACTS** The State charged Lundstrom with two counts of [unlawful possession of a controlled](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) substance. At a pretrial hearing, Lundstrom appeared in restraints. Before the proceeding ended, defense counsel took exception to Mr. Lundstrom appearing in court with 5-point restraint shackles. The trial court did not respond to defense counsel’s statement or concerns. Lundstrom subsequently filed a motion objecting to the restraints and requesting removal of the shackles. The motion included a certified statement from defense counsel, which stated that he had made a [public disclosure request](https://www.atg.wa.gov/obtaining-records) with the [Clallam County Sheriff’s Office](http://www.clallam.net/sheriff/) (CCSO) for their policies and discovered that CCSO policy 15.106.1 required all inmates to be brought to court in full restraints (waist chain, cuffs, and leg irons) for their first appearance. There is no record showing whether Lundstrom noted the motion for hearing before the trial court, whether the trial court held a hearing on the motion, or whether the trial court ruled on the motion. Ultimately, however, Lundstrom pleaded guilty to two counts of [unlawful possession of a controlled substance](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). On appeal, Lundstrom argued that his pretrial restraint violated his due process rights because the trial court failed to make an individualized determination on the necessity of the restraints. **COURT’S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals agreed with Mr. Lundstrom. It reasoned that under the [WA Constitution, ](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx)the accused shall have the right to appear and defend in person. That right includes the use of not only his mental but his physical faculties unfettered, and unless some impelling necessity demands the restraint of a prisoner to secure the safety of others and his own custody, the binding of the prisoner in irons is a plain violation of the constitutional guaranty. Additionally, under [*State v. Damon*](http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/144wn2d/144wn2d0686.htm), the [Washington Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) has long recognized that a prisoner is entitled to be brought into the presence of the court free from restraints. > “Restraints are disfavored because they may interfere with important constitutional rights, including the presumption of innocence, privilege of testifying in one’s own behalf, and right to consult with counsel during trial.” “But a defendant’s right to be in court free from restraints is not limitless,” said the Court of Appeals. “The right may yield to courtroom safety, security, and decorum. A defendant may be restrained if necessary to prevent injury, disorderly conduct, or escape.” Furthermore, the trial court abused its discretion and committed constitutional error when it failed to address the issue of Lundstrom’s pretrial restraint. By failing to do so and allowing Lundstrom to be restrained, the trial court failed to exercise its discretion and effectively deferred the decision to the jail’s policy. As a result, the trial court abused its discretion and committed constitutional error by failing to make an individualized inquiry into the necessity for pretrial restraints when Lundstrom took exception to the use of pretrial restraints. Therefore, Lundstrom’s due process rights were violated by his pretrial restraints. Interestingly, Lundstrom was not trying to overturn his conviction or seek any other remedy due to the violation of his due process rights. He only wanted the Court of Appeals to address his claim as a matter of continuing and substantial public interest. “Generally, we do not consider claims that are moot or present only abstract questions,” said the Court of Appeals. However, we have the discretion to decide an issue if the question is one of continuing and substantial public interest.” My opinion? Good decision. It’s harsh to see defendants in handcuffs and chains. Indeed, it’s unconstitutional. And for the most part, shackling defendants at court hearings is unnecessary unless there’s reason to believe the defendant may escape or harm others. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, felony, Jail, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Fentanyl Is the Deadliest Drug](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/fentanyl-is-the-deadliest-drug/) **Published:** December 17, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/12/12/fentanyl-now-america-deadliest-drug-overtakes-heroin/2287343002/) by [Doyle Rice](http://www.usatoday.com/staff/782/doyle-rice/) of [USA Today](http://www.usatoday.com) discussed a [recent report](https://www.scribd.com/document/395564090/nvsr67-09-508) from the from the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention](https://www.cdc.gov/) finding that [Fentanyl](https://www.dea.gov/factsheets/fentanyl) is now the deadliest drug in America, with more than 18,000 overdose deaths in 2016, the most recent year for which statistics are available. It’s the first time the synthetic opioid has been the nation’s deadliest drug. From 2012 to 2015, [heroin](https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/heroin) topped the list. For those who don’t know, fentanyl is a [synthetic opioid](http://www.drugpolicy.org/what-are-synthetic-opioids-fentanyl) that is 80-100 times stronger than [morphine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphine). Pharmaceutical fentanyl was developed for pain management treatment of cancer patients, applied in a patch on the skin. Because of its powerful opioid properties, Fentanyl is also diverted for abuse. Fentanyl is added to heroin to increase its potency, or be disguised as highly potent heroin. Many users believe that they are purchasing heroin and actually don’t know that they are purchasing fentanyl – which often results in overdose deaths. On average, in each year from 2013 to 2016, the rate of overdose deaths from Fentanyl increased by about 113 percent a year. The report said fentanyl was responsible for 29 percent of all overdose deaths in 2016, up from just 4 percent in 2011. Overall, more than 63,000 Americans died of drug overdoses in 2016, according to the [report](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr67/nvsr67_09-508.pdf), which was prepared by the [National Center for Health Statistics](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/index.htm), part of the [U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention](https://www.cdc.gov/). That’s an average of 174 deaths a day. The study also said many people who die from overdoses have multiple drugs in their system. “We’ve had a tendency to think of these drugs in isolation,” Dr. Holly Hedegaard, lead author of the report, told [HuffPost](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/multiple-drugs-overdose-deaths-report_us_5c0fe121e4b06484c9ff3b2f). “It’s not really what’s happening.” As an example, roughly 40 percent of people listed as dying of a cocaine overdose also had fentanyl in their system. After fentanyl, heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine were the deadliest drugs in 2016. After declines earlier in the decade, the report said, overdose deaths from both cocaine and methamphetamine were starting to rise again. The study said illegal drugs such as fentanyl and heroin were the primary causes of unintentional overdoses, while prescription drugs such as oxycodone tended to be used in suicide overdoses. ![](https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2018/12/12/USAT/f1ae5c94-b93e-45a2-896b-a04fed6eeb4d-121218-drug-deaths_Online2.png) Drug abuse is terribly destructive and deeply affects addicts, families and society. However, please contact my office if you, a friend or family members are charged with a drug crime. The [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) guarantees the right against unlawful search and seizure. Perhaps some well-argued pretrial motions can become part of an aggressive defense against pending drug charges. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime, including [Drug Charges](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Fentanyl, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["School Search" Held Unconstitutional](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/school-search-held-unconstitutional/) **Published:** December 22, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. A.S.*,](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/768239.pdf) the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that drugs found in a 14-year-old child’s backpack in a search conducted by the vice-principal were rightfully suppressed because the search was not reasonable when the child (1) was not a student of the school, (2) the vice principal knew nothing about the child’s history or school record, (3) there was no record of a drug problem at the school, and (4) there was no [exigent circumstance](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exigent_circumstances) to conduct the search as police officers were already on their way to the school. **BACKGROUND FACTS** On April 11, 2016, [Meadowdale High School](https://mhs.edmonds.wednet.edu/) staff received information about an alleged threat involving then 14-year-old A.S., who was not a Meadowdale student. Meadowdale staff looked up A.S.’s picture using the district’s computer system so that they would be able to identify her should she appear on campus. Later that day, the Vice-Principal of Meadowdale summonsed A.S. to his office, and later, the Principal’s office. A.S. was not very cooperative with being questioned. At some point while A.S. was in Kniseley’s office, the Vice-Principal noticed an odor that he recognized as [marijuana](https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana) emanating from A.S. The Vice-Principal then searched A.S.’s backpack, which was sitting next to her, and found suspected marijuana and drug paraphernalia. A.S. did not say or do anything to resist the search of her backpack. A.S. was later charged with [possession of drug paraphernalia](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.412) and [possession of a controlled substance](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.4013). Prior to trial, A.S. moved to suppress the evidence of the suspected marijuana and drug paraphernalia found in her backpack, arguing that the evidence was the fruit of an unlawful search and seizure. Specifically, A.S. argued that the [“school search exception” to the warrant requirement](https://www.courts.wa.gov/education/lessons/?fa=education_lessons.dspPlan&plan=SearchAndSeizure) did not apply to her because she was not a Meadowdale student when the Vice-Principal searched her backpack and even if the exception did apply, the search was not reasonable. The trial court denied A.S.’s motion and, following a stipulated bench trial, convicted A.S. of both possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of a controlled substance. A.S. appealed. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals reasoned that under both the [Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx) and [U.S. Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution), a [government actor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_actor) must obtain a [search warrant](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/search_warrant) supported by [probable cause](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause) to conduct a search unless an exception applies. Under pre-existing case-law, the exceptions to the warrant requirement are “‘jealously and carefully drawn.” ***School Search Exception*** One of these exceptions is the “school search exception,” which allows school authorities to conduct a search of a student without probable cause if the search is reasonable under all the circumstances. A search is reasonable if it is: **(1)** justified at its inception; and **(2)** reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the interference in the first place. The Court further reasoned that under ordinary circumstances, a search of a student by a teacher or other school official will be ‘justified at its inception’ when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school. And, a search will be permitted in scope “when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction. Finally, Washington courts have established the following factors from [*State v. Brooks*](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1160004/state-v-brooks/) and [*State v. McKinnon*](https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/1977/44376-1.html) as relevant in determining whether school officials had reasonable grounds for conducting a warrantless search: > “The child’s age, history, and school record, the prevalence and seriousness of the problem in the school to which the search was directed, the exigency to make the search without delay, and the probative value and reliability of the information used as a justification for the search.” Here, the search was unconstitutional. First, A.S. was not a student of the school and the Vice-Principal knew nothing about the child’s history or school record. Specifically, nothing in the record suggests that the Vice-Principal, who guessed that A.S. was middle school aged, knew anything about A.S.’s history or school record. Indeed, the Vice-Principal testified that when he looked up A.S. in the district database, he was only interested in her picture. Furthermore, there was no evidence that drug use was a drug problem at Meadowdale. Rather, when asked whether Meadowdale had a drug problem, the Vice-Principal responded, “I don’t believe so.” He also testified that he did not deal with drugs on a regular basis as a school administrator and that Meadowdale had only “occasional incidents” on its campus involving students bringing drugs or drug paraphernalia on campus. Additionally, there was no exigency to conduct the search without delay, given that the police had been called, and A.S.—who had been told that the police were called—gave no indication that she was trying to leave the principal’s office. And finally, the odor of marijuana alone did not create an exigent circumstance, particularly where the Vice-Principal had no other reason to believe that A.S. used marijuana or that her backpack would contain marijuana. For these same reasons, the search of A.S.’s backpack was not justified at its inception. My opinion? Good decision. In an educational context, school officials have a substantial interest in maintaining discipline and order on school grounds. However, the search conducted in this case did not promote that interest. Please read my [Search and Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) Legal Guide and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime involving a questionable search by the authorities. Hiring a competent, experienced and knowledgeable defense attorney is the first step toward gaining justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, marijuana, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Right to Impartial Jury](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/right-to-impartial-jury/) **Published:** December 26, 2018 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Phillips](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/765183.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that the trial court did not violate an African-American defendant’s right to an impartial jury by dismissing a prospective juror despite the juror’s feelings that African American men are more prone to violence. **BACKGROUND FACTS** On July 1, 2016, Mr. Phillips came home late after his wife Ms. Philips was in bed asleep with their infant daughter. Ms. Philips told Mr. Phillips to leave her alone. Their daughter called 911 and reported that Mr. Phillips was hitting Ms. Philips. When Mr. Phillips saw his daughter was calling the police, he knocked the phone from her hands. King County Sheriff’s deputies responded to the 911 call and found the house in chaos. Mr. Phillips was arrested and booked into jail. From jail, Mr. Phillips repeatedly called Mrs. Philips demanding that she get him out and expressing his anger at the police having been called. Mr. Phillips was charged with [Assault in the Second Degree](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.36.021) [Domestic Violence](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=10.99.020) (DV) and [Tampering With a Witness](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.72.120). ***Jury Selection*** During jury selection, the trial judge asked if any of the jurors had personal experience with domestic violence. Juror 10 was among the members who raised their hand. When asked to elaborate, he explained that his sister and his wife’s sister-in-law were both involved in abusive relationships with intimate partners. Juror #10 also revealed an experience in college after an intramural basketball game when an African American player on the opposing team assaulted him. Juror 10 explained, “nothing came of it, but it left an emotional imprint.” He further elaborated, > “And this is an emotional truth. I don’t live this way; I don’t believe this; but I’m also aware that feelings happen in reality that black men are more prone to violence . . . It was also notable that afterwards when, you know, the gym supervisor was called and there was just a huddle on the spot, and then, of course there was denial and, you know, dismissiveness of it. And that’s another narrative; that those who are violent try to get out of it; so those are two personal emotions imprints that are there, as well.” From these comments, both the State Prosecutor and Mr. Philips’ defense attorney asked numerous questions to Juror #10. Ultimately, neither the State nor defense counsel exercised a [peremptory challenge](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/peremptory_challenge) or [moved to strike Juror #10 for cause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_for_cause). Later, Juror #10 served on the jury. Ultimately, the jury found Phillips guilty of second degree assault and found the State prove aggravating circumstances. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the witness tampering charge, and it was dismissed. Mr. Philips was sentenced to 120 months. He appealed. One of the issues was whether Juror #10 should have been struck from serving on the jury panel. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** Ultimately, the Court of Appeals upheld Mr. Philips’ conviction. The Court started by giving a substantial amount of background on the issue of jury selection. It said the [Sixth](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) and [Fourteenth Amendments](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv) of the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution), and [article 1, section 22, of the Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx), guarantee a criminal defendant the right to trial by an impartial jury. Furthermore, in order to ensure this constitutional right, the trial court will excuse a juror for cause if the juror’s views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath. The presence of a biased juror cannot be harmless; the error requires a new trial without a showing of prejudice. Also, at trial, either party has a [statutory right to challenge a prospective juror for cause](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=4.44.130). “Actual bias is a ground for challenging a juror for cause,” said the Court of Appeals. “Actual bias occurs when there is the existence of a state of mind on the part of the juror in reference to the action, or to either party, which satisfies the court that the challenged person cannot try the issue impartially and without prejudice to the substantial rights of the party challenging.” Furthermore, Under [*State v. Irby,* ](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1698374.html)[RCW 2.36.110](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=2.36.110) and [CrR 6.4](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=crr&ruleid=supCrR6.04) it is the judge’s duty to excuse potential jurors from jury service if they have manifested unfitness as a juror by reason of bias, prejudice, indifference, inattention or any physical or mental defect. These court precedents, statutes and court rules give a trial judge an independent obligation to excuse a juror, regardless of inaction by counsel or the defendant. However, the Court of Appeals ultimately reasoned that the present case was distinguishable from *Irby.* Also, the Court of Appeals reasoned that defense counsel was alert to the possibility of biased jurors. “Defense counsel actively questioned Juror #10, including questioning whether, despite juror 10’s concerns, the juror would follow the court’s instructions and base his decision on the evidence presented,” reasoned the court of Appeals. “As a result, defense counsel did not challenge Juror #10. This suggests that defense counsel observed something during *voir dire* that led counsel to believe Juror #10 could be fair.” Furthermore, the Court of Appeals said it was also significant that Phillips used his peremptory challenges to strike several jurors, but had one peremptory challenge remaining when he accepted the jury, including Juror #10. “Again, this suggests that defense counsel either wanted juror 10 on the jury, or did not want one or both the next potential jurors on the panel,” said the Court of Appeals. Consequently, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to excuse Juror #10 for cause and upheld Mr. Philips’ conviction. My opinion? Bad decision. I’ve conducted nearly 40 jury trials, which is more experience than most criminal defense attorneys have. In my experience, potential jurors have a tendency to mitigate, justify, deny, back-pedal and just plain cover up any biases they have. It’s human nature. Therefore, if any juror states they have a biases which prejudice a criminal defendant, then that juror should be excused. Period. Unfortunately, it appears Defense Counsel also failed to strike Juror #10. That is unfortunate as well. As the judge said, however, this may have been strategic. Perhaps Defense Counsel wanted to avoid impaneling a potential juror who was actually *more* biased than Juror #10. We don’t know. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Criminal Justice, Domestic Violence, felony, Jury Selection, Jury Trial, Race & Law, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, Witness Tampering **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Words Alone](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/words-alone/) **Published:** January 1, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Kee](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2050203-8-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held that words alone are not sufficient to make a defendant the primary aggressor in an altercation. **BACKGROUND FACTS** The State charged Ms. Kee with the [second degree assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) of Mr. Ostrander based on an incident on August 1, 2016. Kee punched Ostrander in the face and broke his nose. Apparently, they exchanged words when Kee was walking down the street playing her radio loud. Eventually, they engaged in mutual combat by hitting each other back and forth several times. Although Ostrander struck Kee in the face several times, Kee’s final blow to Ostrander broke Ostrander’s nose. The case proceeded to a jury trial. Kee’s defense was [self-defense](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/self-defense/). At trial, the State proposed a [first aggressor jury instruction](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Ief9fc262e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default). Kee objected to the instruction, arguing that it was not supported by the evidence presented at trial. The trial court disagreed and gave the following first aggressor jury instruction: > “No person may, by any intentional act reasonably likely to provoke a belligerent response, create a necessity for acting in self-defense and thereupon use, offer or attempt to use force upon or toward another person. Therefore, if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the aggressor, and that \[the\] defendant’s acts and conduct provoked or commenced the fight, then self-defense is not available as a defense.” The jury found Kee guilty of second degree assault. She appealed on arguments that the trial court erred because its jury instruction denied her the ability to argue her theory of self-defense. Specifically, Kee argued there was insufficient evidence to justify a first aggressor jury instruction because words alone do not constitute sufficient provocation. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION** Ultimately, the Court of Appeals agreed with Kee. It held that although sufficient evidence supported the first aggressor jury instruction, the trial court nevertheless erred in giving the jury instruction without also instructing the jury that words alone are not sufficient to make a defendant the first aggressor. The Court reasoned that generally, a defendant cannot invoke a self-defense claim when she is the first aggressor and provokes an altercation. Also, a first aggressor jury instruction is appropriate when there is credible evidence from which a jury can reasonably determine that the defendant provoked the need to act in self-defense. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals also reasoned that although there was evidence of a physical altercation, their interaction started with a *verbal* altercation. Therefore, the evidence supported a finding that Kee’s *words*, rather than her physical *acts*, first provoked the physical altercation. “By failing to instruct the jury that words alone are insufficient provocation for purposes of the first aggressor jury instruction, the trial court did not ensure that the relevant self-defense legal standards were manifestly apparent to the average juror,” said the Court of Appeals. “Moreover, the trial court’s instructions affected Kee’s ability to argue that she acted in self-defense.” Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed Kee’s conviction. My opinion? Good decision. I’ve conducted many jury trials involving defendants who acted in self-defense to assault allegations. Under the law, [self-defense](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/self-defense/) is an affirmative defense to assault charges. In my experience, prosecutors combat a defendant’s self-defense theories by trying to prove the defendant was the primary aggressors. If successful, then the jury cannot consider whether the defendant acted in self-defense. The “aggressor “juror instruction exists to nullify, circumvent and/or defeat a defendant’s self-defense claim. *[State v. Kee](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2050203-8-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)* is pertinent to the issue of whether *words alone* exchanged between two participants who willingly fight each other – whether *words alone* – allow the jury to decide if the defendant was the primary aggressor. Of course not! By themselves, words are not enough, and the Court of Appeals agreed. Indeed, words can be quite motivational for people to engage in mutual combat similar to the parties in *[State v. Kee.](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2050203-8-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*[ ](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2050203-8-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)And by the way, mutual combat is lawful because [Washington imposes no duty for either party to retreat from a fight](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Ief9fe97ce10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Jury Trial, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Self-Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Pot Convictions Pardoned](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/pot-convictions-pardoned/) **Published:** January 5, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Informative [article](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/gov-jay-inslee-offers-pardons-for-thousands-with-misdemeanor-pot-convictions/) by [Jim Brunner](https://www.seattletimes.com/author/jim-brunner/) and [Asia Fields ](https://www.seattletimes.com/author/asia-fields/)of the [Seattle Times](https://www.seattletimes.com/) reports that [Gov. Jay Inslee](https://www.governor.wa.gov/) will offer pardons to thousands of people with misdemeanor marijuana convictions, in an effort to help them move on from minor criminal records that can hinder housing and job prospects. Under the plan, Inslee will pardon anyone who has an otherwise clean criminal record but with a sole conviction as an adult for misdemeanor possession of marijuana in Washington state. Such a conviction must have occurred under state law, not a local ordinance, between Jan. 1, 1998, and Dec. 5, 2012, the effective date of Washington’s voter-approved Initiative 502, which [legalized marijuana possession](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/voters-approve-i-502-legalizing-marijuana/) for users age 21 and older. The governor’s office estimates 3,500 people will be eligible for the pardons under its criteria. Inslee announced his plan, called the Marijuana Justice Initiative, Friday morning in SeaTac at the [Washington State Cannabis Summit](https://www.wacannabissummit.org/), an annual conference sponsored by the legal marijuana industry. “We shouldn’t be punishing people for something that is no longer illegal behavior in the state of Washington,” Inslee said at the event. He said he believes there is broad public support for the expedited pardon process. When running for governor as a Democrat in 2012, Inslee [opposed I-502](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/where-inslee-and-mckenna-stand-on-the-issues-taxes-spending-education-legal-pot-and-more/), the marijuana-legalization measure. But he has since grown boosterish about the state’s marijuana trade, boasting to talk-show host [Bill Maher](https://www.hbo.com/real-time-with-bill-maher) last year that “[we’ve got the best weed in the United States of America](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/washington-state-gov-jay-inslee-to-bill-maher-weve-got-the-best-weed/).” [Sheri Sawyer](https://www.governor.wa.gov/office-governor/office/policy-advisors), a senior policy adviser to the governor, said Inslee’s pardon plan was motivated in part by the [disproportionate impact of drug convictions on people of color](http://www.drugpolicy.org/issues/race-and-drug-war). People seeking a pardon can apply by filling out a simple petition form on the [governor’s office’s website](https://www.governor.wa.gov/marijuanajustice). The new pardon process will allow applicants to skip the usual step of making a request to the state’s [Clemency and Pardons Board](https://www.governor.wa.gov/boards-commissions/clemency-pardons-board), which typically reviews requests and makes recommendations to the governor, said Tip Wonhoff, the governor’s deputy general counsel. For people granted pardons, the governor’s office will ask the [State Patrol](http://www.wsp.wa.gov/) to remove those convictions from the criminal-history reports that are available to the public, though the records will remain available to law enforcement, according to a summary of the pardon plan provided by the governor’s office. Records also will remain in court files unless petitioners successfully petition to have them vacated by the court that imposed the sentence. The pardon announcement comes amid Inslee’s [well-publicized explorations of a 2020 presidential run](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/gov-jay-inslee-is-raising-money-to-explore-presidential-run/). While relatively unknown in the field of potential Democratic contenders, Inslee has formed a federal political-action committee and garnered attention for making climate change the centerpiece of his potential national campaign. Inslee’s advisers said he supports more sweeping legislation that would allow anyone with a misdemeanor adult marijuana-possession conviction to have it removed from their records. A bill proposed in 2017 by [Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon, D-Burien](https://housedemocrats.wa.gov/fitzgibbon/), would require sentencing courts to grant any person’s request to vacate such convictions. [The proposal](http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/1260%20HBA%20PS%2017.pdf) received a hearing but did not advance in the Legislature. The city of Seattle has taken action to expunge old marijuana records. After a request by [City Attorney Pete Holmes](https://www.seattle.gov/cityattorney), [Seattle Municipal Court](https://www.seattle.gov/courts) judges last year [moved to vacate](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-court-agrees-to-vacate-misdemeanor-marijuana-convictions-prosecuted-before-legalization/) convictions and dismiss charges for as many as 542 people prosecuted for marijuana possession between 1996 and 2010, when Holmes’ office ceased prosecuting marijuana possession. My opinion? Kudos for Governor Inslee for making a bold step in the right direction. Washington has moved beyond prosecuting people for minor marijuana offenses. It seems right to vacate criminal convictions for these same offenses. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face [Drug Charges](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). Being convicted can limit career, housing and travel opportunities. Hiring qualified counsel is the first step toward gaining justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, marijuana, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Bounty Hunters](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/bounty-hunters/) **Published:** January 12, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/high-adrenaline-bounty-hunter-industry-operates-with-little-oversight-despite-concerns-over-training-tactics/) by [Daphne Congcong Zhang ](https://www.seattletimes.com/author/daphne-congcong-zhang/)of the [Seattle Time](https://www.seattletimes.com/)s reports that obtaining a Bounty Hunter’s license in Washington is relatively easy, and hardly anyone is turned away — even if they have a history of violence. **VIOLENCE BY BOUNTY HUNTERS IS INCREASING** According to Zhang, local bounty hunters have become increasingly violent. For example, in 2016, [a bounty hunter shot and killed a fugitive’s mother in Graham, Pierce County](https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/crime/article71581782.html), in a botched apprehension attempt. The bail-recovery agent in that case obtained a license despite three previous arrests for domestic violence and harassment. That same year, three bounty hunters armed with guns and tear gas stormed a motel room in Spokane, sending other guests fleeing and illegally detaining an occupant who was not their target. One of the bounty hunters had been charged with crimes ranging from aggravated battery to resisting arrest, and had a felony conviction for grand theft that was later vacated — all before he was granted his license. He and another bounty hunter [pleaded guilty to criminal mischief](http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/apr/30/jury-clears-bounty-hunter-for-role-in-spokane-mote/) in the hotel case; the third was acquitted by a jury. **LICENSING REQUIREMENTS TOO LOW?** Washington state law does not prohibit people with criminal histories from becoming bounty hunters. Instead, the [Department of Licensing](https://www.dol.wa.gov/business/bailbonds/bbra.html) reviews the legal histories of applicants case by case to determine whether they should be disqualified. Apparently, the standards for becoming a bounty hunter are somewhat lax. As of June, the department had rejected only two out of nearly 400 new bounty-hunter applications submitted over the past decade. Of 187 licensed bounty hunters as of June, 75 had been charged with a [felony](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.20.021) or [misdemeanor](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.20.021), most before they applied. Of those charges, nearly three-quarters led to criminal convictions that included [felony assault](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.36), [burglary](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.52), [misdemeanor harassment](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9a.46.020), [disorderly conduct](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.84.030) and [driving under the influence](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.502). To get a license, an applicant must take 32 hours of training, which can include self-study, and must pass a 50-question, multiple-choice exam. The state has no formalized curriculum or certification process for instructors. Only the person teaching the firearms portion of the training is required to be certified through the state. Unlike Washington, New York and New Jersey require applicants to have at least three and five years of law-enforcement experience, respectively. New York regulates who can train bounty hunters and approves the curriculum. New York also considers arrests and a history of criminal charges on top of convictions in approving applications, said [Robert McCrie, professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice](https://www.jjay.cuny.edu/faculty/robert-d-mccrie). “If someone has a series of arrests that shows propensity for violence, officials at the Division of Licensing Services can reject them.” **HIGHLY UNREGULATED AND VERY UNTRAINED** Zhang reports that bounty hunters have sweeping powers to apprehend fugitives, in contrast to police officers, thanks in part to the 1872 U.S. Supreme Court case [*Taylor vs. Taintor*](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/83/366/). They can enter homes without warrants; they can break down doors without knocking or announcing themselves; and they can transport fugitives across state lines without extradition orders. “The bail-bonds-recovery industry has been highly unregulated and very untrained,” said [Brian Johnson](https://www.gvsu.edu/cj/brian-johnson-130.htm), a professor studying the American bail-bonds recovery industry at [Grand Valley State University in Michigan](https://www.gvsu.edu/). In most states, commercial bail bondsmen and the bounty hunters they hire are an integral part of the justice system. When suspects are arrested, a judge can [release them on their own recognizance](https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/release-on-ones-own-recognizance/) or on [bail](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bail) to ensure they show up for court. If the defendants can’t afford bail, they can turn to [private bail-bond companies](https://speedyreleasebailbonds.com/how-bail-works/), which will post it for them, typically for a fee of about 10 to 15 percent of the bond. If a defendant doesn’t show up for court, the company is on the hook for the full amount, unless it can apprehend the defendant and return him or her to court. That’s where bounty hunters come in. **INCREASE TRAINING?** Former state [Sen. Adam Kline](http://sdc.wastateleg.org/blog/2014/12/01/retiring-sen-adam-kline-says-farewell/), who sponsored a bill that passed in 2008 increasing mandatory training hours from four to 32, called the department’s background-check system concerning. “The DOL needs to be very clear that no felony and violence-related convictions, even if they have been vacated, should be permitted,” he said. Kline said he also considers the current lack of training oversight troubling, and said the Legislature should strengthen regulations. Please read my Legal Guide titled [Making Bail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/making-bail/) and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime, are out on bail and failed to appear for court. Trust me, quashing a warrant is far easier than dealing with bounty hunters. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Bounty Hunters, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Signalling Turns](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/signalling-turns/) **Published:** January 22, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Brown*,](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/353044_pub.pdf) the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) held that a driver, who moved left from a middle lane to a dedicated left turn lane while signaling his intention to change lanes, is not required to reactive his turn signal before turning left from the reserve lane unless public safety is implicated. Therefore, evidence discovered when a driver is stopped for failing to signal a turn when public safety is not implicated must be suppressed. **BACKGROUND FACTS** On the evening of March 22, 2015, Trooper Acheson of the [WA State Patrol](http://www.wsp.wa.gov/) patrolled the streets of [Kennewick](https://www.go2kennewick.com/). At 10:15 p.m., while traveling eastbound on Clearwater Avenue, Trooper Acheson saw Mr. Brown driving a [Toyota Tundra](https://www.toyota.com/tundra/?srchid=sem:Model_Tundra:GOOGLE:Tundra_General_E::&gclsrc=aw.ds&&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIlf-cj8aC4AIVIx-tBh04NgEqEAAYASAAEgJNiPD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds), turn right from Huntington Street onto Clearwater Avenue. During the turn, the left side tires of the Tundra, a large pickup, crossed the white dashed divider line between the two eastbound lanes by one tire width for a brief moment, after which the vehicle fully returned to its lane of travel. Brown’s diversion across the dividing line did not endanger any travel. Acheson observed Brown’s tires cross the white dashed divider line, and he continued to view Brown’s driving thereafter. Shortly after entering Clearwater Avenue, Mr. Brown signaled his intent to change lanes, and to move to the left or inner eastbound lane, by activating his left turn signal that blinked numerous times. Brown entered the inner lane of the two lanes. Soon, Mr. Brown approached the intersection of Clearwater Avenue and Highway 395, where the eastbound lanes widen to three lanes. The innermost of the three lanes becomes a designated left turn only lane. Brown again wished to change lanes so he could turn left. Brown signaled his intent to move left into the dedicated turn lane. Brown maneuvered his vehicle into the dedicated turn lane, at which point the left turn signal cycled-off. Mr. Brown stopped his vehicle in the dedicated left turn lane while awaiting the light to turn green. He did not reactivate his turn signal. Trooper Acheson pulled behind Brown. No other traffic was present on eastbound Clearwater Avenue. When the light turned green, Brown turned left onto northbound Highway 395. Trooper Mason Acheson then activated his patrol vehicle’s emergency light and stopped Brown. Trooper Acheson stopped David Brown based on Brown’s crossing the eastbound lanes’ divider line during his turn from Huntington Street onto Clearwater Avenue. He did not stop Brown based on Brown’s failure to signal his left turn onto Highway 395. After stopping Brown, Trooper Acheson investigated Brown for suspicion of [driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUI)](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.502). Acheson arrested Brown for DUI. Brown filed a [motion to suppress](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) evidence garnered from the stop of his car by Trooper Acheson. The court concluded that, because Brown violated no traffic law, Trooper Acheson lacked probable cause to initiate the traffic stop. Therefore, the court suppressed all evidence gained from the stop and thereafter dismissed the prosecution. The Prosecutor appealed the dismissal to the superior court. According to the superior court, David Brown violated [RCW 46.61.305(2)](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.305), which requires a continuous signal of one’s intent to turn during the last one hundred feet before turning left. Because Trooper Mason Acheson observed Brown’s failure to continuously signal before turning left onto the highway, Acheson gained reasonable suspicion of a traffic infraction. The superior court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Mr. Brown appealed. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals reasoned that RCW 46.61.305(2) declares that a driver must, “when required,” continuously signal an intention to turn or cross lanes during at least the last one hundred feet traveled before turning or moving lanes. This appeal asks if this statute compels a driver, who moved left from a middle lane to a dedicated left turn lane while signally his intention to change lanes, to reactivate his turn signal before turning left from the reserved turn lane. “We hold that the statute only requires use of a signal in circumstances that implicate public safety. Because the circumstances surrounding David Brown’s left-hand turn from a left-turn-only lane did not jeopardize public safety, we hold that Trooper Acheson lacked grounds to stop David Brown’s vehicle.” With that, the Court of Appeals reversed the superior court, reinstated the district court’s grant of David Brown’s motion to suppress and dismissed the charge of driving while under the influence. My opinion? Good decision. It makes sense that unless public safety is an issue, police officers shouldn’t have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to pull over a vehicle that’s clearly in the left-turn lane even though their vehicle turn signal is not activated. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges of [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/), [Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/), [Driving While License Suspended](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.20.342) or other criminal traffic violations. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, law enforcement, misdemeanor, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Pretext, Probable Cause, Reckless Driving, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Unlawful Vehicle Stops](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/unlawful-vehicle-stops/) **Published:** February 2, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[United States v. Landeros](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/01/11/17-10217.pdf)*, the [Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) held that law enforcement officers may not extend a lawfully initiated vehicle stop because a passenger refuses to identify himself, absent [reasonable suspicion](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_suspicion) that the individual has committed a criminal offense. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Early in the morning of February 9, 2016, police officer Baker pulled over a car driving 11 miles over the speed limit. The stop occurred on a road near the [Pascua Yaqui Indian Reservation](http://www.pascuayaqui-nsn.gov/). Defendant Alfredo Landeros sat in the front passenger seat next to the driver. Two young women were in the back seat. The driver apologized to Officer Baker for speeding and provided identification. Officer Baker wrote in his incident report and testified that he smelled alcohol in the car. The two women in the backseat appeared to him to be minors, and therefore subject to the underage drinking laws. The two women—who were 21 and 19 years old—complied. Officer Baker did not believe that Landeros was underage, and he was not. Nonetheless, Officer Baker commanded Landeros to provide identification. Landeros refused to identify himself, and informed Officer Baker that he was not required to do so. Officer Baker then repeated his demand to see Landeros’s ID.” Landeros again refused. As a result, Officer Baker called for back-up, prolonging the stop. Officer Romero then arrived, and he too asked for Landeros’s identification. The two officers also repeatedly commanded Landeros to exit the car because he was not being compliant. Landeros eventually did leave the car. At least several minutes passed between Officer Baker’s initial request for Landeros’s identification and his exit from the car. As Landeros exited the car, he saw for the first time pocketknives, a machete, and two open beer bottles on the floorboards by the front passenger seat. Under [Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 4-251](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/4/00251.htm), Arizona prohibits open containers of alcohol in cars on public highways. Officer Baker then placed Landeros under arrest. Landeros was arrested both for possessing an open container and for “failure to provide his true full name and refusal to comply with directions of police officers under [Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2412(A)](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/02412.htm). Under that statute, it is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person’s refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person’s true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.” The officers handcuffed Landeros as soon as he exited the car. Officer Romero asked Landeros if he had any weapons. Landeros confirmed that he had a knife in a pocket. Officer Romero requested consent to search Landeros’s pockets, and Landeros agreed. During that search, Officer Romero found a smoking pipe and six bullets in Landeros’s pockets. Landeros was federally indicted for possession of ammunition by a convicted felon, [18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922). He [moved to suppress the evidence](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_41) based on the circumstances of the stop, however, the lower federal district court denied the motion. Landeros then entered into a plea agreement that preserved his right to appeal the denials of the two motions. The district court accepted the agreement and sentenced Landeros to 405 days in prison and three years of supervised release. He appealed. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Ninth Circuit held that law enforcement officers may not extend a lawfully initiated vehicle stop because a passenger refuses to identify himself, absent reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed a criminal offense. The Court reasoned held that because the lower court mistakenly approved the duration of the stop in this case based on *United States v. Turvin* and wrongfully disregarded *Rodriguez v. United States*. > “Applying Rodriguez, we shall assume that Officer Baker was permitted to prolong the initially lawful stop to ask the two women for identification, because he had reasonable suspicion they were underage. But the several minutes of additional questioning to ascertain Landeros’s identity was permissible only if it was (1) part of the stop’s “mission” or (2) supported by independent reasonable suspicion.” The Ninth Circuit also held that any extension of the traffic stop to investigate those matters was an unlawful seizure because there was no evidence that the officer had a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was out past his curfew or drinking underage. As a result, the record does not demonstrate that Officer Baker had a reasonable suspicion that Landeros was out past his curfew or drinking underage. Any extension of the traffic stop to investigate those matters was an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit rejected the government’s arguments that the defendant’s refusal to identify himself provided reasonable suspicion of the additional offenses of failure to provide identification and failure to comply with law enforcement orders. The Court reasoned that here, the officers insisted several times that Landeros identify himself after he initially refused, and detained him while making those demands. “At the time they did so, the officers had no reasonable suspicion that Landeros had committed an offense,” said the Ninth Circuit. “Accordingly, the police could not lawfully order him to identify himself. His repeated refusal to do so thus did not, as the government claims, constitute a failure to comply with an officer’s lawful order . . .” Consequently, reasoned the Ninth Circuit, there was therefore no justification for the extension of the detention to allow the officers to press Landeros further for his identity. The Ninth Circuit concluded that there was therefore no justification for the extension of the detention to allow the officers to press the defendant further for his identity. It reasoned that the bullets the defendant was convicted of possessing cannot be introduced at trial because he was ordered from the car as part of the unlawfully extended seizure and subsequently consented to a search of his pockets. Furthermore, because the stop was no longer lawful by the time the officers ordered the defendant to leave the car, the validity (or not) of the police officer’s order to exit the vehicle did not matter. Good opinion. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Fourth Amendment, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Reasonable Suspicion, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Firearms & Terry Stops](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/firearms-terry-stops/) **Published:** February 5, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Tarango](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/353052_pub.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) held that the presence of a firearm in public and the presence of an individual openly carrying a handgun in a “high-risk setting,” are insufficient, standing alone, to support an investigatory stop. **BACKGROUND FACTS** At around 2:00 in the afternoon on a winter day in 2016, Mr. Matthews drove to a neighborhood grocery store in Spokane, parking his car next to a [Chevrolet Suburban](https://www.chevrolet.com/suvs/suburban-large-suv) in which music was playing loudly. A man was sitting in the passenger seat of the Suburban, next to its female driver. When Mr. Matthews stepped out of his car and got a better look at the passenger, who later turned out to be the defendant Mr. Tarango, he noticed that Mr. Tarango was holding a gun in his right hand, resting it on his thigh. Mr. Matthews would later describe it as a semiautomatic, [Glock-style gun](https://us.glock.com/pistols). As he headed into the store, Mr. Matthews called 911 to report what he had seen, providing the 911 operator with his name and telephone number. The first officer to respond saw a vehicle meeting Mr. Matthews’s description parked on the east side of the store. He called in the license plate number and waited for backup to arrive. Before other officers could arrive, however, the Suburban left the parking area, traveling west. The Suburban was followed by an officer and once several other officers reached the vicinity, they conducted a felony stop. According to one of the officers, the driver, Lacey Hutchinson, claimed to be the vehicle’s owner. When told why she had been pulled over, she denied having firearms in the vehicle and gave consent to search it. After officers obtained Mr. Tarango’s identification, however, they realized he was under [Department of Corrections (DOC)](https://www.doc.wa.gov/) supervision and decided to call DOC officers to perform the search. In searching the area within reach of where Mr. Tarango had been seated, a DOC officer observed what appeared to be the grip of a firearm located behind the passenger seat, covered by a canvas bag. When the officer moved the bag to get a better view of the visible firearm—the visible firearm turned out to be a black semiautomatic—a second firearm, a revolver, fell out. Moving the bag also revealed a couple of boxes of ammunition. At that point, officers decided to terminate the search, seal the vehicle, and obtain a search warrant. A loaded [Glock Model 22](https://us.glock.com/Products/G22) and a [Colt Frontier Scout revolver](https://www.gunbroker.com/All/search?Keywords=colt%20frontier%20scout) were recovered when the vehicle was later searched. The State charged Mr. Tarango, who had prior felony convictions, with two counts of [first degree unlawful possession of a firearm](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/). Because Mr. Tarango had recently failed to report to his community custody officer as ordered, he was also charged with [Escape from community custody](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=72.09.310). Before trial, Mr. Tarango [moved to suppress evidence](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) obtained as a result of the traffic stop, arguing that police lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. However, the trial court denied the suppression motion. Later, at trial, the jury found Mr. Tarango guilty as charged. He appealed. **ISSUE** The issue on appeal was whether a reliable informant’s tip that Mr. Tarango was seen openly holding a handgun while seated in a vehicle in a grocery store parking lot was a sufficient basis, without more, for conducting a [*Terry* stop](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/terry_stop_stop_and_frisk) of the vehicle after it left the lot. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** First, the Court of Appeals held that Mr. Tarango’s motion to suppress should have been granted because officers lacked reasonable suspicion that Mr. Tarango had engaged in or was about to engage in criminal activity. The Court reasoned that warrantless searches and seizures are *per se* unreasonable unless one of the few jealously and carefully drawn exceptions to the warrant requirement applies. “A *Terry* investigative stop is a well-established exception,” said the Court. “The purpose of a *Terry* stop is to allow the police to make an intermediate response to a situation for which there is no probable cause to arrest but which calls for further investigation . . . To conduct a valid *Terry* stop, an officer must have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts known to the officer at the inception of the stop.” Additionally, the Court of Appeals reasoned that in evaluating whether the circumstances supported a [reasonable suspicion](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_suspicion) of criminal conduct, it reminded that [Washington is an “open carry” state](https://perma.cc/M8QJ-QNUJ), meaning that it is legal in Washington to carry an unconcealed firearm unless the circumstances manifest an intent to intimidate another or warrant alarm for the safety of other persons. > “Since openly carrying a handgun is not only not unlawful, but is an individual right protected by the federal and state constitutions, it defies reason to contend that it can be the basis, without more, for an investigative stop.” Here, because the officers conducting the *Terry* stop of the Suburban had no information that Mr. Tarango had engaged in or was about to engage in criminal activity, the officers lacked reasonable suspicion. Consequently, the Court of Appeals ruled that Tarango’s motion to suppress should have been granted. The Court also reversed and dismissed his firearm possession convictions. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, felony, Firearm, Fourth Amendment, law enforcement, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Open Carry, police, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Terry Stop, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Seattle Police Accountability Report: More Use of Force Against African Americans](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/seattle-police-accountability-report-more-use-of-force-against-african-americans/) **Published:** February 7, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/report-seattle-police-use-low-levels-of-force-but-racial-disparity-remains/) by [Steve Miletich ](https://www.seattletimes.com/author/steve-miletich/)of the [Seattle Times](https://www.seattletimes.com/) reports that [Seattle police](https://www.seattle.gov/police) are using force at low levels but still can’t fully explain why it is used against African Americans at disproportionately higher rates, according to the department’s annual report submitted to the federal judge overseeing court-ordered reforms. The Seattle Police Department last week filed its [2019 Use of Force report](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5727984-SPD-Use-of-Force-Report-2018.html), which shows that the use of force by officers remained “extraordinarily low” last year. Officers reported using force at a rate of less than one quarter of 1 percent out of the nearly 400,000 incidents to which they responded, the report said. That’s in line with the rate reported a year earlier. According to Miletich, the report is part of a series to show whether federally-mandated police reforms are being sustained, with an ultimate goal of terminating a court-ordered agreement by 2020. The updates are being provided to [U.S. District Judge James Robart](https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/judges/robart-chambers), who last year [found the city in full compliance](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/seattle-police-found-in-full-and-effective-compliance-with-court-ordered-reforms/) with the main terms of a [2012 consent decree with the U.S. Justice Department](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/spd-faces-new-oversight-scrutiny-of-use-of-force/). Judge Robart’s ruling triggered a two-year period in which the city must demonstrate that it is maintaining reforms to address allegations of excessive force and issues of biased policing. The city took the lead role in carrying out a self-analysis, although the [Justice Department](https://www.justice.gov/) and the court’s monitor, [Merrick Bobb](http://www.seattlemonitor.com/monitor-merrick-j-bobb/), scrutinize the progress. The police department’s use-of-force reports follow Bobb’s key finding in April 2017 that the [department had made a dramatic turnaround](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/in-major-step-federal-monitor-finds-seattle-police-use-of-force-reforms-are-working/). He concluded that overall use of force was down, and that when officers used it, it was largely handled in a reasonable way consistent with department policies. Still, as in the 2018 report, the new figures show a disparity in the use of force against African Americans. Black males represented 32 percent of cases involving males, up from 25 percent a year earlier. Cases involving black females surged to represent 22 percent of incidents where force was used against females, compared with 5 percent in 2017. African Americans make up about 7 percent of Seattle’s population. Racial disparity is a “significant ongoing concern” requiring further discussion and analysis within the limited role of law enforcement, the report said. Yet current sociological and criminal-justice research has not found proven reliable methodology for accounting for all the “multitude of recognized factors” that may combine to result in the disparity, including education, socioeconomic status and family structure, the report said. “In other words, while numbers can identify a disparity, they cannot explain the disparity,” the report said. At any rate, the police department said it would continue to consult academic experts to learn more, including the possible effects of implicit bias. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member had a negative experience which police which turned inappropriately violent. Although police officers have difficult jobs, police misconduct still exists. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, law enforcement, Police Misconduct, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Proposed Legislation Makes It Easier to Remove Criminal Convictions.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/proposed-legislation-makes-it-easier-to-remove-criminal-convictions/) **Published:** February 13, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2019/01/25/38286667/bipartisan-support-in-olympia-for-bill-that-would-allow-more-people-to-clear-their-records?fbclid=IwAR3wyj_rV-zQ_uFCFnAMX5-EuCP0G696iUA-n3kYi1luBz13uO15_h_OCms) by [Lester Black](https://www.thestranger.com/authors/24596439/lester-black) of the [Stranger](https://www.thestranger.com/) reports that a proposed state law, [HB 1041](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1041&Initiative=false&Year=2019), would make it easier for people to remove misdemeanors and felonies from their criminal record. Although certain convictions are already eligible to be vacated, or removed from someone’s record, but this proposed law would greatly expedite the vacation process and expand the types of crimes that are eligible for vacation. An [explanation of the bill](http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2019-20/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/1041%20HBA%20PS%2019.pdf) describes which types of convictions are covered. [Rep. Drew Hansen](https://housedemocrats.wa.gov/hansen/), a Democrat from Bainbridge who is sponsoring the legislation, said he is supporting the bill so old convictions don’t burden people long after they’ve paid their debts to society. > “This bill makes it easier for people to clear their record when people have truly turned their lives around.” ~Representative Drew Hansen Also, [Rep. Morgan Irwin](http://morganirwin.houserepublicans.wa.gov/), a Republican from Enumclaw co-sponsoring the legislation, said the proposed law would give an incentive for people to stay out of the criminal justice system. “This is about giving people that have… made that mistake a reason to not make another one,” Irwin said at a recent legislative hearing. According to *the Stranger* staff reporter Lester Black, the bill would not automatically clear anyone’s criminal record. People would still need to get a judge’s approval for each conviction to be vacated, but the bill would make it easier for people to go through the process and expand the types of criminal convictions that are eligible to be removed from people’s records. Some serious crimes such as [second-degree burglary](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.52.030) and [assault](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.36.021) would now be eligible under the proposed law. There is also no official estimate for how many people could take advantage of vacating convictions, according to a [financial statement](https://fortress.wa.gov/FNSPublicSearch/GetPDF?packageID=53458) attached to the bill. [King County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Satterberg) also spoke in favor of the legislation, noting that the “collateral consequences” a person experiences from a conviction have nothing to do with public safety. Satterberg emphasized that people would still need to convince a judge to vacate their record. “This is a reward for highly motivated people,” Satterberg said. “We shouldn’t stand in their way, we should encourage that.” My opinion? This legislation is a step in the right direction. Convictions are crippling. This type of data limits career opportunities, prevents housing, prevents travel and may be used as impeachment evidence should the convicted offender testify in a court hearing. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Legislation, misdemeanor, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Report Offers Recommendations on Pretrial Release](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/report-offers-recommendations-on-pretrial-release/) **Published:** February 24, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Washington courts have the opportunity, with more information and robust pre-trial services, to safely release citizens who are charged with criminal offenses and awaiting trial, according to a [report](http://www.courts.wa.gov/subsite/mjc/docs/PretrialReformTaskForceReport.pdf) released today by [Washington’s Pretrial Reform Task Force](http://wsac.org/pretrial-reform-task-force/). Washington’s Pretrial Reform Task Force was launched in June, 2017. Its purpose was to examine factors driving pretrial decisions that lead to high detention rates, and to develop recommendations for improving pretrial justice in Washington. “Under current practices in Washington, many courts have limited information about an individual when making pretrial release or detention decisions, and have limited pretrial services to offer as an alternative to jail,” the report states. The [final report](http://www.courts.wa.gov/subsite/mjc/docs/PretrialReformTaskForceReport.pdf) of the Task Force lists 19 recommendations in three categories — pretrial services; risk assessment; and data collection. “It is my hope that the report sparks dialogue within our trial courts on what might be necessary improvements to the pretrial phase of the justice process,” said [Washington Supreme Court Justice Mary Yu,](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=yu) Chair of the [Washington Supreme Court Minority and Justice Commission](https://www.courts.wa.gov/?fa=home.sub&org=mjc), one of three sponsors of the Task Force. “We hope courts will review the recommendations and explore new partnerships in their local communities to reinforce the constitutional presumption of innocence and our court rules that assume pretrial release. We believe the report will encourage alternatives to incarceration. ” The Task Force is also headed by the [Superior Court Judges’ Association](https://www.wascja.com/) and the [District and Municipal Court Judges’ Association](https://www.courts.wa.gov/?fa=home.sub&org=dmcja). “There are a number of steps courts can take, with the help of the Legislature and local officials, to improve safety, promote justice and ensure that we have a pre-trial system that is fair and equitable,” said [King County Superior Court Judge Sean O’Donnell](https://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superior-court/directory/judges/odonnell.aspx), past-president of the Superior Court Judges’ Association and member of the Task Force’s Executive Committee. The report details several major findings: - **Pretrial Services:** Governments should bear the cost of pretrial services rather than the accused: Accused persons cannot and should not be required to incur additional costs or debts as a result of their participation in pretrial services. Pretrial services include, but are not limited to: electronic monitoring, drug and alcohol monitoring, mental/behavioral health treatment, and court reminders. - **Court Reminders:** The available research consistently shows that pretrial court date reminders through texts, emails, mail or phone calls are an effective method to reduce the risk of failure to appear, and should be available to all defendants. - **Voluntary Service Referrals:** Referrals such as mental and/or behavioral health treatment, vocational services, or housing assistance should be offered to assist defendants maintain court attendance and supervision compliance, and prevent re-arrest. Referrals should be individualized, offered voluntarily rather than as a condition of release, and should involve little or no cost to the individual. - **Stakeholder Involvement:** A local stakeholder group can make actionable recommendations to improve the practices and outcomes of the pretrial system, and can ensure the success of reforms by soliciting input from all participants and by making informed decisions as a team, rather than separate and distinct entities. - **Transportation support:** Offering free or subsidized transportation to defendants for court appointments can help ensure low-income people and people with disabilities can attend their court-ordered appointments. “We know courts are already using pretrial risk assessments across Washington,” said [Spokane Municipal Court Judge Mary Logan](https://my.spokanecity.org/news/releases/2015/06/17/spokane-municipal-court-judge-logan-honored/), co-chair of the Trial Court Sentencing and Supervision Committee and a member of the Task Force’s Executive Committee. “Judges should have all the tools necessary to make informed pretrial release decisions. Courts considering use of risk assessment tools should also plan how to monitor impacts and incorporate evidence-based best practices.” Membership in the Task Force includes 55 judges, prosecutors, public defenders, bail business owners, court administrators and officials, community members and researchers. The Task Force received training from the national Pretrial Justice Institute through its [3DaysCount Campaign](https://www.pretrial.org/3dayscount-a-different-kind-of-campaign/), which is working across the U.S. to encourage evidence-based improvements in pretrial practices. My opinion? This is good news. While community safety is a paramount concern for trial judges, defendants are presumed to be released while awaiting trial under [Washington Court Rule 3.2](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=crr&ruleid=supCrR3.2). However, pretrial detention nationwide has been on the rise, with many jail populations containing detainees that can be safely released while awaiting their trial date. Pretrial detention can have severe consequences for accused persons, particularly in the areas of employment, housing and family. Unnecessary detention is also costly for taxpayers and communities, and conflicts with Washington’s constitution and judicial branch rules, which establish a presumption of release with the fewest conditions necessary. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Pretrial Release, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Victim Restitution](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/victim-restitution/) **Published:** February 28, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Romish](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/356434_pub.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) held that a defendant’s obligation to pay a victim’s restitution in possession of stolen property cases is only limited to damage that the State can prove was caused by the defendant’s conduct. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Mr. Romish pled guilty to [possession of stolen property](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/possession-of-stolen-property/) of a [Bobcat tractor](https://www.bobcatpnw.com/?utm_source=reachlocal&utm_medium=ppc&utm_campaign=bobcat&scid=3626663&cid=2720114&tc=EAIaIQobChMImdyp0P3e4AIVtSCtBh2ZuQmSEAAYAiAAEgKhh_D_BwE&rl_key=2e5db450aae3c81d8c36ecf56396aaab&kw=4167499&pub_cr_id=317656083757&dynamic_proxy=0&primary_serv=www.bobcatpnw.com&device=c&network=g&targetid=kwd-300825896623&loc_physical_ms=9033356&rl_track_landing_pages=1&rl_retarget=1). In his guilty plea statement, Mr. Romish admitted to knowingly possessing stolen property, but he denied altering the condition of any of the property in his possession. He also did not indicate *when* he came into possession of the stolen property. At the plea and sentencing hearing, Mr. Romish’s attorney agreed that restitution could be ordered if the State showed a causal connection between the damage to the Bobcat and Mr. Romish’s possession of it, but expressed doubts that the State could establish such a connection. Mr. Romish denied altering the condition of the Bobcat. Counsel also disputed the amount of claimed damages and requested a separate hearing on restitution. A [restitution hearing](https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/restitution-hearing/) was held October 12, 2017. The only witness to testify was the owner of the stolen property. He described the damage that was sustained by the Bobcat as a result of the theft. He also explained that the Bobcat had been repainted in a haphazard manner and that a taillight had been broken. Although there did not appear to be any functional damage, the owner had the Bobcat serviced it, just to make sure. Receipts showed the service, repair and repainting costs totaled $4,897.42. In addition to having the Bobcat repaired and serviced, the owner testified he had to rent replacement equipment during the period that the Bobcat was unavailable for use in his excavation business. Rental fees were incurred not only for the period that the Bobcat was missing as stolen, but also for the time the Bobcat was out of commission for service and repairs. The total rental cost was $4,928.46. On cross-examination, the property owner denied knowing who stole the Bobcat or who had repainted it. The owner testified that the paint on the Bobcat was neither fresh nor wet when it was recovered. And the property owner denied seeing any paint at the location where the Bobcat was recovered. After the close of evidence, the trial court ordered Mr. Romish to pay restitution for all costs associated with the disappearance, repair and repainting of the Bobcat. Although the court recognized Mr. Romish had not been convicted of stealing the Bobcat, it nevertheless reasoned it could find at least by a preponderance of the evidence that the damage to the Bobcat had occurred while it was in Mr. Romish’s possession. The total amount of restitution was set at $9,825.88. Mr. Romish appealed. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals took Mr. Romish’s side. It vacated the trial court’s restitution order and remanded Romish’s matter for a new restitution hearing. “The law of restitution relies on causation . . .” said the Court of Appeals, ” . . . and that reliance creates a distinction between theft and possession of stolen property.” Furthermore, the Court reasoned that culpability for possession of stolen property does not necessarily include culpability for the stealing of the property. “The actual thief is guilty of a different crime.” The Court further reasoned that when a defendant has been convicted of possessing—*but not the theft of*—stolen property, sentencing courts must ensure a true [causal connection](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/but-for_test) links the defendant’s conduct to the victim’s losses. The mere fact that property was recently stolen does not permit inferring causation. “Instead, we require more specific evidence tying the defendant’s conduct to the victim’s losses,” said the Court. Here, the Court held that no such evidence was presented in Mr. Romish’s case: > “Although the Bobcat was found in a barn at Mr. Romish’s residence, there was no evidence of painting supplies or recent painting activities at that location. Nor were there shards of glass or plastic that might signify the tail light had been broken at Mr. Romish’s > residence. In addition, the paint on the Bobcat was not fresh. This suggests that at least some time had passed between the repainting of the Bobcat and the date of its recovery by law enforcement.” Additionally, the evidence presented at the hearing doidnot link Mr. Romish’s criminal conduct to many of the victim’s claimed damages. “No evidence was presented that might lead one to believe the Bobcat would not have been repainted or the taillight broken ‘but for’ Mr. Romish’s possession,” said the Court of Appeals. “In like manner, there is no reason to think Mr. Romish’s possession of the Bobcat was the ‘but for’ cause of the victim’s rental fee expenses prior to the offense conduct date of August 23, 2016. Given these circumstances, the order of restitution must be reversed.” My opinion? This case presented an interesting question regarding causation and damages in a criminal law context. Although the victim’s plight is sympathetic, and although there was substantial evidence that Mr. Romish stole the Bobcat, the Court was correct in its ruling that the State lacked evidence showing that Mr. Romish actually damaged the stolen Bobcat. Theft and property damage require two different levels of proof. Please [contact my office if you](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/), a friend or family member face criminal charges. A defendant’s obligation to pay restitution to the victim of a crime is a huge issue in criminal law. Hiring competent and experienced defense attorney is a step in the right direction. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Possession of Stolen Property, Restitution, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Many Washington Inmates Are Eligible for Release.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/many-washington-inmates-are-eligible-for-release/) **Published:** March 8, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/mar/07/auditors-washington-jails-could-release-4700-inmat/) by reporter [Chad Sokol ](http://www.spokesman.com/staff/chad-sokol/)of [the Spokesman Review](http://www.spokesman.com/) describes how, on any given day, thousands of inmates in Washington jails are eligible to be released based on their likelihood to commit new crimes and show up to court before trial, according to [a new report from the state auditor’s office](https://www.sao.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/Tabs/PerformanceAudit/PA_Reforming_Bail_Practices_ar1023411.pdf). Auditors found roughly one-third of the state’s jail inmates are candidates for pretrial services such as electronic monitoring, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and texts and phone calls that remind people of court dates. The auditors also found the cost of incarceration significantly outweighs the cost of pretrial services, concluding such reforms could save $6 million to $12 million in taxpayer money each year while maintaining public safety. The audit, published last week, makes no policy recommendations but reaffirms what criminal justice activists have been saying for years: The cash bail system disadvantages the poor and fuels recidivism. > “When defendants cannot afford to pay bail, they remain in jail until the trial. Keeping them in jail is costly to the taxpayers . . . Perhaps more importantly, extended jail time before trial can have significant consequences for defendants, as they become more likely to be convicted, more likely to receive a longer sentence, and less likely to gain and maintain future employment.” ~ WA State Auditor’s Office According to reporter Sokol, the state auditors examined 2016 jail inmate data using [the Public Safety Assessment, a risk-assessment tool created by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation](http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/jan/04/after-setbacks-spokane-county-abandons-custom-crim/). About half of the 4,700 inmates deemed eligible for release were considered likely to reoffend without monitoring and services, while the rest were considered low-risk. The auditors specifically examined data from Spokane and Yakima counties, which have made concerted efforts to reduce jail overcrowding and eliminate socioeconomic disparities. The auditors found that defendants given pretrial services reoffended at slightly lower rates than those released on bail, but in Spokane County the difference was not statistically significant. Defendants released through pretrial services in Spokane County, however, were much more likely to show up to court than those released on bail, the auditors found. Failure-to-appear rates for the two groups were 38 percent and 53 percent, respectively. The audit accompanies [another report](http://www.courts.wa.gov/subsite/mjc/docs/PretrialReformTaskForceReport.pdf), published in February by [Washington’s Pretrial Reform Task Force](http://wsac.org/pretrial-reform-task-force/), which makes a range of policy recommendations aimed at safeguarding the presumption of innocence enshrined in the Constitution. The reports found only 28 courts in the state use pretrial services programs. Those include Spokane Municipal Court and Spokane County’s district and superior courts, making the local justice system an outlier in Eastern Washington. “The use of a pretrial services department can be really helpful in assisting people getting to court or remembering court dates,” said [Municipal Court Judge Mary Logan](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_dir/?fa=court_dir.persondetail&indid=2459&orgid=671), who co-authored the task force report with state [Supreme Court Justice Mary Yu](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=yu) and [King County Superior Court Judge Sean O’Donnell](https://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superior-court/directory/judges/odonnell.aspx). Logan noted bail is “not supposed to be a punitive measure,” and with few exceptions, court rules require defendants be released before trial. The task force concluded the government – not defendants – should bear the cost of pretrial services. “Accused persons cannot and should not be required to incur additional costs or debts as a result of their participation in pretrial services,” they wrote. Spokane County’s criminal justice administrator, [Maggie Yates](https://www.spokanecounty.org/directory.aspx?EID=553), said the task force report validates [the county’s reform efforts funded by the MacArthur Foundation](http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/jan/30/macarthur-foundation-grants-another-19-million-for/). My opinion? This is good news. Releasing individuals when it’s appropriate not only makes sense legally, but ethically and financially as well. Individuals facing charges may continue to support their families, pursue and maintain employment, and seek out mental health or substance use treatment while navigating court proceedings. The resulting stability only makes our community safer. Please read my Legal Guide taking [Making Bail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/making-bail/) and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you have a friend or family member who is incarcerated and facing criminal charges. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. [Under CrR 3.2](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=crr&ruleid=supCrR3.2), judges can lower bail or release defendants on their personal recognizance while the charges are pending. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Pretrial Release, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Car Stop & Purse Search](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/car-stop-purse-search/) **Published:** March 9, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Lee](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/770381.pdf)*, the WA Court of Appeals held that a passenger’s consent to a search of her purse was not spoiled by police conduct during the traffic stop. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Defendant Ms. Lee was the front seat passenger in a car driven by Mr. Peterman. Detective Tilleson initiated a traffic stop for two traffic infractions. Detective Tilleson asked Peterman for his identification, learned his license was suspended, and arrested him for [first degree driving while license suspended or revoked](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.342). Peterman consented to a search of the car. Detective Tilleson told Ms. Lee to step out to facilitate his search of the car. She left her purse inside the car. Detective Tilleson ran Lee’s identification information to determine if she had a driver’s license so she could drive the car if it was not impounded. He learned Lee had a valid driver’s license and a conviction for [possession of a controlled substance.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) Lee began to pace back and forth near the car. At some point, Detective Fryberg directed Lee to sit on a nearby curb. During a conversation, Lee told Detective Tilleson the purse in the car was hers. Detective Tilleson asked Lee for permission to search her purse, telling her that he was asking “due to her prior drug conviction.” He also gave Lee warnings pursuant to [*State v. Ferrier*](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1447801.html) that she was not obligated to consent and that she could revoke consent or limit the scope of the search at any time. Lee consented to the search. When Detective Tilleson asked Lee if there was anything in her purse he should be concerned about, she said there was some heroin inside. Detectives found heroin and methamphetamine in her purse, advised Lee of her [*Miranda* ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/miranda_warning)rights, and arrested her for [possession of a controlled substance with intent to manufacture or deliver](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.401). Before trial, Lee [moved to suppress](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) the evidence obtained from the search of her purse. The trial court denied Lee’s motion to suppress the results of the search of her purse. The court found “the testimony of the detectives involved was more credible than the defendant’s testimony. The trial court also determined that all of Lee’s statements were voluntary and that none were coerced. Finally, the court concluded that Lee validly consented to a search of her purse. At the [bench trial](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bench_trial), the judge found Lee guilty as charged. Lee appealed on arguments that she did not validly consent to the search of her purse because the detectives unlawfully seized her. **LEGAL ISSUE** Whether police exceeded the reasonable scope and duration of the traffic stop by asking Ms. Lee’s consent to search her purse while mentioning her prior drug conviction. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The WA Court of Appeals stated that both the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) of the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution) and [article 1, section 7 of the Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx) prohibit a [warrantless search or seizure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrantless_searches_in_the_United_States) unless an exception applies. [Voluntary consen](https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-04/18-consent-searches.html)t is an exception to the warrant requirement. “But an otherwise voluntary consent may be vitiated by an unlawful seizure,” reasoned the court of Appeals. “When analyzing a passenger’s consent to search the purse she left in the car, we start with the traffic stop that led to the search.” Here, the Court said the Fourth Amendment and WA Constitution both recognize an investigative stop exception to the warrant requirement as set forth in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, [*Terry v. Ohio*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1). “The rationale of *Terry* applies by analogy to traffic stops applies by analogy to traffic stops,” said the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals explained that the proper scope of a *Terry* stop depends on the purpose of the stop, the amount of physical intrusion upon the suspect’s liberty, and the length of time the suspect is detained. A lawful *Terry* stop is limited in scope and duration to fulfilling the investigative purpose of the stop. “Once that purpose is fulfilled, the stop must end,” reasoned the Court. Ultimately, the Court found that once the arrested driver consented to a search of the vehicle, it was not unreasonable for the detective to ask the passenger – here, Ms. Lee – if she consented to a search of the purse she left in the car. The detectives legitimately checked Lee’s identification to determine whether she was a licensed driver and could drive the car from the scene following Peterson’s arrest. And the search of the purse occurred roughly 18 minutes after the traffic stop began. > “We conclude Lee’s voluntary consent to search her purse was not vitiated by police conduct at the traffic stop. Specifically, under the totality of the circumstances, the police did not exceed the reasonable scope and duration of the traffic stop.” In addition, the Court reasoned that the mention of Lee’s prior drug conviction must also be considered as part of the totality of the circumstances. “Here, there was a single mention of the conviction in passing,” said the Court. “There was no physical intrusion upon Lee.” With that, the Court of Appeals concluded that the police did not exceed the reasonable scope or duration of the traffic stop under the totality of the circumstances. Therefore, Lee failed to establish that her voluntary consent to search her purse was vitiated by police conduct. Her conviction was affirmed. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime involving a questionable [search and seizure](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) by the police. Hiring competent and experienced defense counsel is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, felony, Fourth Amendment, law enforcement, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Reasonable Suspicion, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Terry Stop, Traffic Infractions, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Marijuana & Necessity](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/marijuana-necessity/) **Published:** March 24, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Ruelas](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/350291_pub.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/350291_pub.pdf) held that a defendant in possession of more than 40 grams of marijuana who asserts a [necessity defense](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Iefa05ea0e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)) must present a medical [expert witness](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/expert_witness) to support the defense. **BACKGROUND FACTS** On November 10, 2015, Sergeant Garcia stopped Mr. Ruelas for [speeding](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.400). Mr. Ruelas rolled down his window and gave Sergeant Garcia his license and registration. Sergeant Garcia smelled [marijuana](https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana) coming from the pickup truck. He asked Mr. Ruelas about the smell and asked him to roll down his rear window. Mr. Ruelas complied, and Sergeant Garcia saw a large garbage bag containing marijuana. Sergeant Garcia then arrested Mr. Ruelas for felony possession of marijuana. Mr. Ruelas said he had a [medical marijuana card](https://www.doh.wa.gov/YouandYourFamily/Marijuana/MedicalMarijuana) but did not provide one. Sergeant Garcia then read Mr. Ruelas his [*Miranda* rights](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/miranda_warning). On February 26, 2016, the State charged Mr. Ruelas with one count of [possession of marijuana over 40 grams.](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.4014) On June 13, 2016, the trial court held a [CrR 3.5 hearing](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=crr&ruleid=supCrR3.5). The court found that Mr. Ruelas’s initial pre-Miranda statement was the result of a routine processing question and that his additional statements were made either spontaneously and not in response to a question likely to produce an incriminating response. The court denied Mr. Ruelas’s suppression motion. After the court’s ruling, Mr. Ruelas requested a continuance to find an expert witness. After two more continuances, on October 18, 2016, Mr. Ruelas filed his final witness list. However, the list did not include a medical expert. On October 25, 2016, trial began. The court addressed [motions in limine](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/motion_in_limine) and questioned Mr. Ruelas about his defense of medical necessity. Mr. Ruelas explained that he was asserting the common law defense of medical necessity, not the statutory defense under the [Washington State Medical Use of Cannabis Act](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.51A). The State objected to the defense on the basis that Mr. Ruelas could not lay a proper foundation without having a medical expert testify. The court agreed, and did not allow testimony from Mr. Ruelas’s expert. The trial resumed, closing arguments were given, and the jury found Mr. Ruelas guilty. He appealed. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION** The WA Court of Appeals found that the Necessity defense required medical testimony. It reasoned that a defendant asserting the necessity defense must prove four elements by a preponderance of the evidence. The four elements are: **(1)** the defendant reasonably believed the commission of the crime was necessary to avoid or minimize the harm, **(2)** the harm sought to be avoided was greater than the harm resulting from a violation of the law, **(3)** the threatened harm was not brought about by the defendant, and **(4)** no reasonable legal alternative was available that is as effective as marijuana. Here, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the defendant was required to show corroborating medical evidence that no other legal drugs were as effective in minimizing the effects of the disease. Furthermore, it reasoned that it made sense that the expert could testify to knowing the qualities of other drugs, not just the personal preference of the defendant. The Court of Appeals also disagreed with Mr. Ruelas’s arguments that the trial court wrongfully disallowed Mr. Ruelas’s expert witness from testifying. In fact, the Court actually addressed whether Mr. Ruelas himself should be sanctioned for violating the discovery rule that parties must disclose their witnesses well before trial begins: > “A trial court may sanction a criminal defendant under CrR 4.7(h)(7)(i) for failing to comply with discovery deadlines by excluding the testimony of a defense witness.” Here, however, the trial court did not sanction Mr. Ruelas’s for the late disclosure of his expert witness. “Our review of the record convinces us that Mr. Ruelas did not act willfully or in bad faith,” said the Court of Appeals. “Mr. Ruelas explained that it was difficult to obtain his mother’s medical records, which Dr. Carter needed to review. Mr. Ruelas also expressed difficulty in communicating with Dr. Carter, who he described as very busy.” Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals also rejected Ruelas’s arguments that the trial court abused its discretion when it precluded Ruelas’s expert witness from testifying. “Mr. Ruelas does not cite any authority that holds that a trial court abuses its discretion when it precludes an expert disclosed during trial from testifying,” said the Court of Appeals. “We presume there is no authority.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Continuance, Discovery, Drug Offenses, Evidence, Expert Testimony, felony, marijuana, Motions In Limine, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Washington Crime Report Released](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/washington-crime-report-released/) **Published:** April 3, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC)](https://www.waspc.org/) just released its [2017 Crime in Washington Annual Report](http://www.co.chelan.wa.us/files/sheriff/documents/2017%20Crime%20in%20Washington.pdf). It was compiled from data submitted to the [Washington State Uniform Crime Reporting Program](https://www.waspc.org/cjis-statistics---reports) of the WASPC by Washington State law enforcement agencies. **FACTS AT A GLANCE** - In 2017, Crimes Against Persons showed an increase of 0.4% with 84,145 offenses reported; compared to 2016 offenses reported of 83,771. - In 2017, Crimes Against Property showed an decrease of 6.7% with 295,274 offenses reported; compared to 316,361 offenses reported in 2016. - In 2017, Crimes Against Society showed an increase of 5.9% with 32,011 offenses reported; compared to 30,230 offenses reported in 2016. - Group A offenses were cleared by arrest or exceptional means 25.6% of the time. - The crime rate (per 1,000 in population) for Group A offenses was 69.1. - The total arrest rate per 1,000 in population was 25.6. - Juveniles comprised of 6.9% of the total arrests. - Domestic Violence offenses made up 50.4% of all Crimes Against Persons. - A total of 25,400 persons were arrested for DUI, including 163 juveniles. - A total of 531 hate crime incidents were reported. - There were a total of 1,643 assaults on law enforcement officers and no officers killed in the line of duty. - Full-time law enforcement employees totaled 15,873; of these 11,078 were commissioned officers. - There were 11,986 arrests for drug abuse violations; of that number, 10.2% were persons under 18 years of age. - Possessing/concealing of marijuana constituted 16.7% of the total drug abuse incidents; the distributing/selling of marijuana accounted for 1.1% of incidents(type of criminal activity can be entered three times in each incident). - Possessing/concealing of heroin constituted 32.2% of the total drug abuse incidents; the distributing/selling of heroin accounted for 4.6% of incidents (type of criminal activity can be entered three times in each incident). - The weapon type of “Personal Weapons” (hands, fists or feet) was reported in 51,817 incidents; firearms were reported in 8,465 incidents (up to three weapons can be reported in each incident). - There were 6,212 sexual assault (forcible and non-forcible) incidents reported in 2017. There were a total of 6,212 victims in these incidents; with a total of 6,300 offenders. - There were a total of 54,294 domestic violence incidents reported; 12,023 of these incidents were Violations of Protection or No Contact Orders. Overall, the data is very interesting. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Domestic Violence, Drug Offenses, felony, Homicide & Manslaughter, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Uncategorized, Violent Crime, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Credit Card Value](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/credit-card-value/) **Published:** April 13, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Sandoval](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2050814-1-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held that an access device (credit card) need not be able to obtain something of value at the time it is found on a defendant. The access device need only be able to obtain something of value at the time it was last in the possession of its lawful owner. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Ms. Sandoval entered into an agreement with a car dealership. The agreement allowed Sandoval to take home and use a vehicle for three days to determine whether she wanted to purchase it. After three days, the dealership lost contact with Sandoval and made unsuccessful attempts to retrieve the vehicle. The dealership reported the vehicle stolen. Eventually, the police found Sandoval and her husband in the stolen vehicle at the address listed in the agreement. The police arrested Sandoval for possession of a stolen vehicle and searched her incident to that arrest. In Sandoval’s purse, the police found a credit card with somebody else’s name on it, Sandoval’s sister’s birth certificate, and a pipe with [methamphetamine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine) residue. The credit card had been stolen in early February. At that time, the card was active and could have been used to buy goods. Shortly thereafter, the card’s owner cancelled the card. The State charged Sandoval with [possession of a stolen vehicle](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/possession-theft-of-stolen-motor-vehicle/), [possession of stolen property in the second degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/possession-of-stolen-property/), [identity theft in the second degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/identity-theft/), and [possession of a controlled substance](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). At trial, the court instructed the jury on the elements of possession of stolen property in the second degree. The court told the jury that the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the stolen property was an access device. The court defined an access device as, “any card, plate, code, account number, or other means of account access that can be used alone or in conjunction with another access device to obtain money, goods, services, or anything else of value. In the same instruction, the court stated, “The phrase ‘can be used’ refers to the status of the access device when it was last in possession of its lawful owner, regardless of its status at a later time. The jury convicted Sandoval on all charges except identity theft in the second degree. The State dismissed that charge. Sandoval appealed on the argument that an access device must be able to obtain something of value at the time it is found on a defendant, not at the time it was last in the possession of its lawful owner. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals reasoned that RCW 9A.56.010(1) defines “access device” as any card, plate, code, account number, or other means of account access that ***can be used*** alone or in conjunction with another access device to obtain money, goods, services, or anything else of value, or that can be used to initiate a transfer of funds, other than a transfer originated solely by paper instrument. Here, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s definition containing the phrase “can be used,” a phrase which is not statutorily defined. It reasoned that under [*State v. Schloredt*](http://courts.mrsc.org/appellate/097wnapp/097wnapp0789.htm), it was irrelevant whether a victim cancelled his or her account prior to a defendant’s arrest in determining whether stolen credit cards were “access devices” under the statute. Similar to the facts in *Schloredt*, it was irrelevant that the credit cards Ms. Sandoval possessed were cancelled by its lawful owner. Also, the Court of Appeals rejected Sandoval’s argument that she received ineffective assistance of counsel when her attorney failed to request a jury instruction for unwitting possession as an affirmative defense for her possession of a controlled substance charge. The Court reasoned that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 22 of the Washington State Constitution guarantee the right to effective assistance of counsel. Furthermore, in an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, prejudice exists if there is a reasonable probability that, except for counsel’s errors, the results of the proceedings would have differed. Here, the Court reasoned that Sandoval testified that she obtained the credit card and methamphetamine pipe at the same time, and both items were found on Sandoval in the same location. Therefore, if the jury found that the State carried its burden in showing beyond a reasonable doubt that Sandoval knowingly possessed the credit card, then it is doubtful that Sandoval could have carried her burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she unwittingly possessed the methamphetamine pipe. > “Thus, we conclude that it was not reasonably probable that the jury would have found Sandoval not guilty of possession of a controlled substance if they had been instructed on the unwitting possession defense.” Therefore, the Court reasoned that Sandoval was not prejudiced by her counsel’s failure to request the instruction. Because Sandoval has not met her burden to prove prejudice, her ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Access Devices, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Identity Theft, Methamphetamine, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Possession of Stolen Motor Vehicle, Possession of Stolen Property, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Books Banned in WA Prisons](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/books-banned-in-wa-prisons/) **Published:** April 20, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://bookriot.com/2019/04/03/book-ban-in-washington-prisons/) by reporter [Kelly Jensen](https://bookriot.com/author/kellyjensen/ "Posts by Kelly Jensen") of [Bookriot.com](https://bookriot.com/) discusses how the [Washington State Department of Corrections](https://www.doc.wa.gov/) adopted a policy which disallows books to be donated to prisons via nonprofit organizations. “So quietly, in fact, that one of the [largest nonprofits that works to get donated materials to prisoners](https://twitter.com/B2PSeattle/status/1111826799627919361) was taken by surprise to discover the change,” reports Ms. Jensen. “They weren’t informed before it was implemented.” Fortunately, [Books to Prisoners](http://www.bookstoprisoners.net/donate/), a nonprofit organization located in Seattle, is ready to fight it. One of the reasons noted for this sudden policy change is the lack of staff in mail rooms to determine whether or not materials sent are appropriate or whether they’re hiding contraband. Likewise, additional funding and resources are not available to the [Washington State Library](https://www.sos.wa.gov/library/) (WSL). “This highlights exactly why Books to Prisoners and similar nonprofits do the work that they do — these facilities are underfunded and that lack of funding impacts the individuals who use those books to improve themselves and their own literacy,” says Jensen. “These book donations, which are thoroughly inspected by those at the nonprofit for suitability, fill a critical role in helping those incarcerated who otherwise lack access to vital educational tools.” Books to Prisoners has sent free books to prisoners across the country since 1973. They note in a tweet “Attempted bans pop up sometimes, most recently by Pennsylvania DOC in 2018, always using same vague “safety” justification. In 45 years, our books have never had contraband.” They added, “Given that we’ve sent books without issue since 1973, and currently send to 12,000 unique prisoners across almost every state in the country each year, it would be bewildering if after 46 years of work as an award-winning nonprofit we decided to start transporting contraband.” According to Jensen, prison libraries are severely underfunded; and there’s a lack of staff as well. And as Books to Prisoners notes, “Furthermore, the reason that we send books directly to the hands of prisoners is that libraries are chronically underfunded and understaffed.” Barring access to literature, which is what this policy does, hinders those who need it most. Other states, including New York, have tried similar bans and [they’ve been rescinded](https://bookriot.com/2018/02/28/ny-rescinds-prison-ban-on-book-donations/). The [ACLU](https://www.aclu.org/) has stepped in in similar [attempted book bans in prison](https://bookriot.com/2018/01/11/prison-libraries-banning/) as well. Criminal justice reform includes ensuring that those who are incarcerated have rights to literature and education, so steps like these by the Washington Department of Corrections are but steps backwards. To combat recidivism, [literacy is one of the crucial steps forward](https://qz.com/796369/to-decrease-recidivism-rates-give-prisoners-more-books/), and yet, situations like these further hinder rehabilitation and self-development of those who most need it. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Department of Corrections, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Necessity Defense vs. Climate Change](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/necessity-defense-vs-climate-change/) **Published:** April 25, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Ward](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/770446.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that a defendant who was charged with burglary in the second degree after he broke into a pipeline facility and turned off a valve, which stopped the flow of Canadian tar sands oil to refineries in Skagit and Whatcom Counties, was entitled to argue a necessity defense to the jury. The defendant contended that his commission of the crime was necessary to avoid harm to the climate, as governments had failed to meaningfully address the crisis of climate change. **BACKGROUND FACTS** [Kinder Morgan](https://www.kindermorgan.com/) transports tar sands oil from Canada into the United States by pipeline. On October II, 2016, Kinder Morgan was notified by telephone that persons “would be closing a valve, one of our main line valves in the Mount Vernon area within the next 15 minutes.” Following the call, Ward cut off a padlock and entered the Kinder Morgan pipeline facility off of Peterson Road in Burlington, WA. Ward then closed a valve on the [Trans-Mountain pipeline](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_Mountain_Pipeline) and placed sunflowers on the valve. At the same time, other protesters closed similar valves in North Dakota, Montana, and Minnesota. Collectively, the protests temporarily stopped the flow of Canadian tar sands oil from entering into the United States. Ward was arrested at the pipeline facility and charged with [burglary in the second degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/), [criminal sabotage](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.05.060), and [criminal trespass in the second degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/criminal-trespass/). Ward admitted his conduct but argued that his actions were protected under a [necessity defense](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Iefa05ea0e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)). The trial court granted the State’s pretrial motion in limine to preclude all witnesses and evidence offered in support of Ward’s necessity defense. Ward’s first trial ended with a [hung jury](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hung_jury). The State then recharged Ward with burglary in the second degree and criminal sabotage. Ward moved for reconsideration of the trial court’s order granting the State’s [motion in limine](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/motion_in_limine). In support of his motion, Ward offered argument, the curriculum vitae for eight proposed expert witnesses, and voluminous scientific evidence documenting the impacts of climate change, that climate change is primarily caused by greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity, and the contribution of burning tar sands oil. The trial court denied Ward’s motion for reconsideration and excluded all testimony and evidence in support of Ward’s necessity defense. A second jury found Ward guilty of burglary but were unable to return a verdict on criminal sabotage. Ward appealed on arguments that the trial court denied his constitutional right to present a defense by striking all testimony and evidence of necessity. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The WA Court of Appeals reasoned that the [Sixth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) to the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution) and [article 1, sections 21 and 22 of the Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx) guarantee a defendant the right to trial by jury and to defend against criminal allegations. If Ward submitted a sufficient quantum of evidence to show that he would likely be able to meet each element of the necessity defense, then the trial court’s exclusion of evidence in support of his sole defense violated Ward’s constitutional rights. *NECESSITY DEFENSE* The Court explained that the Necessity is available when the pressure of circumstances cause the accused to take unlawful action to avoid a harm which social policy deems greater than the harm resulting from a violation of the law. To successfully raise the necessity defense the defendant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: **(1)** they reasonably believed the commission of the crime was necessary to avoid or minimize a harm, **(2)** the harm sought to be avoided was greater than the harm resulting from a violation of the law, **(3)** the threatened harm was not brought about by the defendant, and **(4)** no reasonable legal alternative existed. *THE NECESSITY DEFENSE APPLIES* The Court held that that here, Ward’s necessity defense applies. In short, Ward’s past successes in effectuating change through civil disobedience in conjunction with the proposed expert witnesses and testimony about Ward’s beliefs were sufficient evidence to persuade a fair minded, rational juror that Ward’s beliefs were reasonable. First, Ward offered evidence that he has been working with environmental issues for more than 40 years but that the majority of his efforts failed to achieve effective results. Ward asserted that because of these failures he came to understand that the issue of climate change would require other than incremental change and that direct action was necessary to accomplish these goals. Second, Ward offered sufficient evidence to show that the harms of global climate change were greater than the harm of breaking into Kinder Morgan’s property. Ward asserted that the extent of the harm resulting from his actions were the loss of a few locks and the temporary inconvenience to Kinder Morgan’s employees. Compared to this, Ward introduced “voluminous scientific evidence of the harms of climate change.” > “When civil disobedience and the necessity defense intersect, it is the intent of the protester, not the effectiveness of the protest, that is of the utmost relevance.” Furthermore, the Court of Appeals reasoned that Ward’s actions were not intended to be merely symbolic in nature because the harms that Ward asserted he was trying to alleviate were more than just climate change, generally, but also included both the specific dangers of Canadian tar sands oil and the impacts of sea level rise on Washington. “As such, the evidence he planned to introduce was not solely aimed at inducing jury nullification and the trial court erred in preventing Ward from introducing evidence in support of his necessity defense,” said the Court of Appeals. With that, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded Ward’s conviction. My opinion? I’m proud and impressed that our Court of Appeals allowed such a broad and permissive view of the Necessity defense. Apparently, the harm that climate change brings may necessitate drastic measures. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges where the Necessity Defense could be argued and proven. Cases like *State v. Ward* show that a strong, well-supported defense of Necessity should be liberally given to juries when the facts support the defense. Kudos to Mr. Ward’s defense counsel for taking the case to jury, appealing the judge’s rulings and getting a successful outcome on appeal. Excellent work. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Burglary, Necessity Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Opioid Company Faces Federal Criminal Charges](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/opioid-company-faces-federal-criminal-charges/) **Published:** April 27, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/former-ceo-major-drug-distribution-company-first-face-criminal-charges-n997571) from [NBC](https://www.nbcnews.com/) by [Tom Winter](https://muckrack.com/tom-winter) and [Elisha Fieldstadt ](https://muckrack.com/eli_fieldstadt)describes how a major opioid drug distribution company, its former chief executive and another top executive have been criminally charged in New York. [Rochester Drug Co-Operative](https://rdc.rdcdrug.com/Login), one of the top 10 largest drug distributors in the United States, was charged with [conspiracy to violate narcotics laws](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371), [conspiracy to defraud the U.S.](), and [willfully failing to file suspicious order reports](https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/safety/manual/section10-1.pdf). Laurence Doud III, the company’s former chief executive, and William Pietruszewski, the company’s former chief compliance officer, face these charges. Both Doud, 75, and Pietruszewski, 53, face life in prison. “This prosecution is the first of its kind: Executives of a pharmaceutical distributor and the distributor itself have been charged with drug trafficking, trafficking the same drugs that are fueling the opioid epidemic that is ravaging this country,” U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman said. “Our office will do everything in its power to combat this epidemic, from street-level dealers to the executives who illegally distribute drugs from their boardrooms.” According to the news article, between 2012 and 2016, Rochester Drug Co-Operative is accused of distributing tens of millions of doses of [oxycodone](https://www.dea.gov/factsheets/oxycodone), [fentanyl](https://www.dea.gov/factsheets/fentanyl) and other opioids to pharmacies that its own compliance department found had no legitimate need for them. The company identified about 8,300 “potentially suspicious ‘orders of interest,’ including thousands of oxycodone orders,” between 2012 and 2016, but only reported four, the U.S. attorney said. In that time, Rochester Drug Co-Operative’s sales of oxycodone tablets grew almost nine-fold, from 4.7 million to 42.2 million, prosecutors said. Their fentanyl sales grew from approximately 63,000 dosages in 2012 to more than 1.3 million in 2016. Also during that same time, Doud’s compensation ballooned to $1.5 million a year. Rochester Drug Co-Operative announced it has entered into a plea agreement in the criminal case and a settlement in the civil case. The company has agreed to admit to the accusations, submit to supervision by an independent monitor, reform its compliance program and pay a $20 million fine. My opinion? I hope these companies face justice. [Every day, more than 130 people in the United States die after overdosing on opioids](https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/images/data/OpioidDeathsByTypeUS.PNG). The misuse of and addiction to opioids—including [prescription pain relievers](https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/misuse-prescription-drugs/which-classes-prescription-drugs-are-commonly-misused), [heroin](https://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/heroin), and synthetic opioids such as [fentanyl](https://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/fentanyl)—is a serious national crisis that affects public health as well as social and economic welfare. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime they allegedly committed while under the influence of opioids. The defense of [Diminished Capacity](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/diminished_capacity) may exist to exonerate them of any crimes. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Opoids, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Neuroscience Defense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/neuroscience-defense/) **Published:** April 28, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Incredibly interesting [article](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/blame-my-brain-killer-s-bold-defense-gets-court-hearing-n998676) by reporter [Jon Schuppe](https://www.nbcnews.com/pages/author/jon-schuppe) of [NBC News](https://www.nbcnews.com/) discusses how more criminal defendants are turning to brain science to argue that they shouldn’t face harsh punishment. Mr. Schuppe’s story focused on the criminal defense of a man named Anthony Blas Yepez who was convicted of second degree murder and also suffered from a rare genetic abnormality linked to sudden violent outbursts. Here, Yepez discovered [that a genetic deficiency](https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128043329) — a variant of a gene named [MAO-A](https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/monoamine-oxidase-a-deficiency), which regulates aggressive behavior in men — along with abuse he had suffered as a child were partly to blame for his crime. As of now, the New Mexico Supreme Court is considering whether Mr Yepez’ appeal on the issue of whether he was in control of himself when he committed the crime. The court’s decision — still months away — could accelerate a trend in the criminal justice system: the use of behavioral genetics and other neuroscience research, including the analysis of tumors and chemical imbalances, to explain why criminals break the law. The rapidly developing field is forcing officials to confront new questions about how changes in the brain influence behavior — leading some to rethink notions about guilt and punishment. According to Schuppe’s article, this cutting-edge evidence, collected through [brain scans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroimaging), [psychological exams](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_testing) and [genetic sequencing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_sequencing), has been deployed in a range of ways: to challenge whether a defendant was capable of premeditated murder, whether a defendant was [competent to stand trial](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/competency-stand-trial.html), whether a defendant should be put to death. Most of those attempts to use neuroscience as a defense have failed, researchers say. But some — about 20 percent, according to one study — have worked, winning defendants new hearings or reversals of convictions. Mr. Yepez’s genetic mutation was first documented in 1993 in members of a Dutch family with a severe version that has since been found in a handful of families worldwide. There are less extreme, and less rare, versions that have been linked to an increased risk of criminal convictions — but only among men who also suffered from abuse as children. Some researchers began dubbing MAO-A the “warrior gene,” a term that was picked up by [documentary filmmakers](https://vimeo.com/24659039), [talk show hosts](https://www.drphil.com/shows/1626/) and [consumer-DNA](https://www.familytreedna.com/landing/warrior-gene.aspx) [testing](https://www.genovate.com/product/dna-warrior-gene-test/) [companies](https://www.genebase.com/dna-tests/view/13142/). Mr. Yepez’s defense attorney Ian Loyd went online and found a commercial genetic testing company, [FamilyTreeDNA](https://www.familytreedna.com/), that charges $99 to determine[ if someone has the MAO-A deficiency](https://www.familytreedna.com/landing/warrior-gene.aspx). He had one of his investigators visit Yepez at the Santa Fe County jail, where he swabbed Yepez’s cheek for cells. A few weeks later, the results came back positive. At trial, attorney Loyd tried admitting the evidence to the jury. Unfortunately, the trial judge suppressed the evidence. Afterward, the jury ─ unaware of Yepez’s genetic mutation ─ convicted him of second-degree murder. The judge sentenced him to 22 years in prison. His lawyers said they hope the state Supreme Court will grant him a new trial, this time using the genetic evidence to help explain the killing. Helen Bennett, the lawyer representing Yepez before the state Supreme Court, said the case will test how neuroscience is complicating determinations of whether someone intended to commit a crime. “These genetic markers and the way we’re learning how they operate in the brain makes the determination of intent much more nuanced,” Bennett said. **A GROWING STRATEGY** According to Schuppe’s article, the growth of [neuroscience evidence](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5837991/) — typically in the form of brain scans and psychological tests — dates back about three decades. It has most often been used to seek leniency for juveniles or against the death penalty for killers. But the strategy has expanded to a wider set of cases. Behavior is determined by a multitude of forces within the brain, with genes only providing a starting point, researchers say. A person’s experiences or environment play a large role. And it’s difficult to show a direct cause and effect involving a particular condition. “Year after year, more and more criminal defendants are using neuroscience to bolster their claims of decreased responsibility for their criminal conduct and decreased moral culpability relevant to their sentencing,” said [Nita Farahany, a law and philosophy professor at Duke University](https://law.duke.edu/fac/farahany/) who wrote in [a study](https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024433) published in the January issue of the [Annual Review of Criminology](https://www.annualreviews.org/journal/criminol). Many scientists and researchers point out that prosecutors, too, might one day seize on neuroscientific evidence, using it to argue that a defendant is dangerous and should be punished harshly. My opinion? It’s utterly fascinating how our advancements in science can magnify and cross over into actual defenses in criminal law. Is it nature, nurture or a combination of both which leads people to commit crimes? Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime and a brain abnormality may be the cause. I’ve achieved excellent results for clients having diagnosable brain injuries and/or suffered from other medical issues like [slow-wave sleep](https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/133/12/3494/308009), which is a sleepwalking disorder associated with violent behavior. These medical ailments, and others like them, can support a [Diminished Capacity defense](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Iefa05eace10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?contextData=%28sc.Default%29&transitionType=Default). ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Diminished Capacity, DNA, Evidence, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Suppress Evidence or Dismiss the Case?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/suppress-evidence-or-dismiss-the-case/) **Published:** May 6, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [State v. McKee](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/960356.pdf), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that when an appellate court vacates a conviction that is obtained with illegally seized evidence, the remedy is remand to the trial court with an order to suppress evidence and not out-rightly dismiss the case in its entirety. **BACKGROUND FACTS** A jury convicted Mr. McKee of four counts of possessing [Depictions of Minors Engaged in Sexually Explicit Conduct](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/). The Court of Appeals reversed those convictions on the ground that police had used an overbroad [search warrant](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/search_warrant) to obtain the underlying cell phone photos and videos. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction. Although the Court of Appeals provided no reasoning to justify that remedy, it appears to have thought dismissal was warranted because once the cell phone evidence was suppressed, there would be insufficient evidence to sustain the convictions at a second trial. The State appealed on arguments that the Court of Appeals mistakenly reversed the conviction. It argued that dismissal was inappropriate because that testimony—i.e., the evidence that was not tainted by the invalid search warrant— would be sufficient to sustain the Possessing Depictions convictions on retrial. **LEGAL ISSUE** Whether the Court of Appeals erred when it dismissed the convictions after suppressing the cell phone evidence, thus barring any possibility of a retrial. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The WA Supreme Court held that the typical remedy for a [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) violation is suppression, not dismissal. Furthermore, the remedy of dismissal typically applies only when a conviction is reversed for insufficient evidence or the government’s misconduct has prejudiced the defendant and materially affected the possibility of a fair trial. “The logic underlying this rule is that a reversal for insufficiency is tantamount to an acquittal, but a reversal for any other trial court error is not,” reasoned the WA Supreme Court. “A reversal for insufficiency indicates the government had its chance and failed to prove its case, while a reversal for another trial error indicates only that the defendant was convicted through a flawed process.” This rule applies whenever the erroneous admission of evidence requires reversal, including when error stems from an illegal search or seizure. > “Thus, in a case like this one, an appellate court does not evaluate the sufficiency of the untainted evidence remaining after suppression. Provided the total evidence (tainted and untainted) was sufficient to sustain the verdict, the remedy is limited to reversal and suppression.” With that, the WA Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the order to suppress evidence seized as a result of the faulty warrant. Please read my [Search and Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) Legal Guide and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges involving a questionable search and seizure. Briefing and arguing a well-supported[ 3.6 Motion to Suppress Evidence](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) could ultimately result in the charges getting dismissed. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Fourth Amendment, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["Am I Free To Leave?"](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/am-i-free-to-leave/) **Published:** May 14, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Johnson](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/777203.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that a “seizure” of a person occurs when an officer’s words and action would have conveyed to an innocent person that his or movements are being restricted. Officers need not create a complete obstruction of an individual’s movements in order for the encounter to become a seizure. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Officer Yates and Officer George of the [Lynnwood Police Department](http://www.lynnwoodwa.gov/Public-Safety/Police-Department.htm) were engaged in a proactive patrol late at night in an area known to have a high rate of criminal activity. The officers observed a silver vehicle enter a motel parking lot and park in a stall. After the vehicle came to rest, about a minute and a half passed without any person entering or leaving the vehicle. The officers became suspicious that its occupants were using drugs. The officers, both of whom were armed and in uniform, approached the vehicle on foot and stood on opposite sides adjacent to the driver’s and passenger’s doors. They shined flashlights into the vehicle’s interior to enable them to see the vehicle’s occupants and ensure that neither was holding anything that could put the officers in danger. Because the vehicle was also flanked on both sides by cars parked in adjoining stalls, the officers had minimal space to move. Officer Yates did not see any drugs or drug paraphernalia when he shined his flashlight inside the passenger compartment. Inside were the defendant Mr. Johnson and a female passenger. Officer Yates stood on the passenger side while Officer George stood adjacent to the driver’s door. Yates sought to start a conversation with Johnson, who was in the driver’s seat, and did so by asking, “Hey, is this Taylor’s vehicle?” In fact, there was no “Taylor”; the ruse was intended to make Johnson feel more comfortable, in the hope that he would talk with the officer. Johnson appeared confused by the question, and Yates asked, again, whether the vehicle was “Taylor Smith’s vehicle.” In response, Johnson stated that the vehicle was his own and that he had recently purchased it. Meanwhile, Officer George, who was leaning over the driver’s side door, noticed a handgun placed between the driver’s seat and the door. George alerted Yates to the presence of the firearm, drew his own handgun, opened the driver’s door and removed the weapon from Johnson’s vehicle. Subsequently, Johnson was removed from the vehicle. Meanwhile, police dispatch informed the officers that Johnson’s [driver’s license was suspended in the third degree](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.20.342), and that he had an outstanding arrest warrant and a felony conviction. The officers then informed Johnson that he was being detained but not placed under arrest and advised him of his *Miranda* rights. Eventually, Johnson was charged with [unlawful possession of a firearm in](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.040) the first degree. Before trial, Johnson moved to suppress the evidence of the gun found in his possession, contending that it was found attendant to his unlawful seizure. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted Johnson’s motion. However, the judge did not make a determination as to whether Johnson was seized prior to the discovery and removal of the firearm, instead ruling that the encounter was a “social contact” and that “law enforcement had an insufficient basis to initiate a social contact.” The trial court further acknowledged that granting the motion to suppress essentially terminated the State’s case. The State appeals from the order granting Johnson’s motion. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** > “In a constitutional sense, the term “social contact” is meaningless. The term has been adopted by lawyers and judges to describe circumstances that do > not amount to a seizure.” The Court of Appeals further reasoned that term has been adopted by lawyers and judges to describe circumstances that do not amount to a seizure. It explained, for example, that a social contact is said to rest someplace between an officer’s saying ‘hello’ to a stranger on the street and, at the other end of the spectrum, an investigative detention (i.e., [*Terry* stop](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/terry_stop_stop_and_frisk)). “Fortunately, seizure jurisprudence is well-developed,” said the Court. It said the [WA Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx) does not forbid social contacts between police and citizens. A police officer’s conduct in engaging a defendant in conversation in a public place and asking for identification does not, alone, raise the encounter to an investigative detention. Not every encounter between a police officer and a citizen is an intrusion requiring an objective justification. Thus, the police are permitted to engage persons in conversation and ask for identification even in the absence of an articulable suspicion of wrongdoing. > “However, officers need not create a complete obstruction of an individual’s movements in order for the encounter to become a seizure. The test is whether a reasonable person faced with similar circumstances would feel free to leave or otherwise terminate the encounter.” The Court of Appeals held the [search and seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) unlawful. In the instant case, the defendant was seized when officers asked for proof of his identity under a totality of the circumstances analysis as **(1)** the defendant was seated in a parked car that was flanked by cars parked in each of the adjoining spaces when the two uniformed officers stood adjacent to the vehicle’s doors, such that neither the defendant nor his passenger would have been able to open the doors and walk away from the vehicle without the officers moving or giving way; **(2)** the defendant could not move his vehicle in reverse without risking his car making contact with one or both of the officers and a barrier prevented the vehicle from pulling forward, **(3)** the officers illuminated the interior of the vehicle with flashlights, and **(4)** the officers used a ruse to begin the contact, asking “Is this Taylor’s car?” **(5)** when the officers approached the vehicle and initiated a conversation with Johnson, they saw him seated with a female passenger and neither officer observed any signs of drug use, **(6)** Johnson was cooperative with Officer Yates and answered his questions, and **(7)** beyond the aforementioned hunch, the officers were aware of nothing that constituted a reasonable, articulable suspicion of potential criminal activity. With that, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err in granting Johnson’s motion to suppress evidence of the subsequently discovered firearm. My opinion? Good decision. Please read my Legal Guide titled [Search and Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you a friend or family member are arrested for a crime and believe a questionable search or seizure happened. Hiring an experienced defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Driving While License Suspended/Revoked, Firearm, Fourth Amendment, Jury Trial, law enforcement, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Reasonable Suspicion, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Terry Stop, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [A Snowmobile Is Not a Motor Vehicle](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/a-snowmobile-is-not-a-motor-vehicle/) **Published:** May 18, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Tucker](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/355306_pub.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) held that a snowmobile is not a motor vehicle for purposes of [RCW 9A.56.65](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.065), which makes it a class B felony to commit theft of a motor vehicle. **BACKGROUND FACTS** In February 2016, Ms. Tucker and her accomplice broke into a cabin near [Stampede Pass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stampede_Pass). The cabin was accessible only by snowmobiles. The pair stole several items of personal property, including a snowmobile. The State charged Ms. Tucker with [residential burglary](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/), [second degree theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/theft/), [theft of motor vehicle](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/possession-theft-of-stolen-motor-vehicle/), and [third degree malicious mischief](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/malicious-mischief/). A jury found Ms. Tucker guilty of [first degree criminal trespass](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/criminal-trespass/) and theft of motor vehicle, but could not reach a verdict on the charge of second degree theft. The trial court declared a mistrial on that count, and it later was [dismissed without prejudice](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/dismissal_without_prejudice). Defense counsel, relying on *[State v. Barnes](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1750681.html)*, filed a [motion to arrest judgment](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=clj&set=CrRLJ&ruleid=cljcrrlj7.4) on the theft of a motor vehicle conviction. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that the snowmobile was licensed and has a motor. Ms. Tucker timely appealed this aspect of her conviction. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** In short, the Court of Appeals reviewed existing caselaw under [*State v. Barnes*](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1750681.html) and concluded that, similar to the riding lawn mower in the [*Barnes*](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1750681.html) case, a snowmobile is not a motor vehicle. > “Here, a snowmobile is not a car or other automobile. To paraphrase the *Barnes* lead opinion, the legislature was responding to increased auto thefts, not increased snowmobile thefts.” The Court of Appeals rejected the State’s argument that the stolen snowmobile should be classified as a motor vehicle because at the time and place it was stolen, a snowmobile was the only vehicle capable of transporting people or cargo. It reasoned that transporting people or cargo is not the touchstone agreed to by six justices in the *Barnes* Case. “The concurring justices never stated that transporting people or cargo was a relevant consideration,” said the Court of Appeals. “Also, the lead and concurring justices also required the vehicle to be a car or other automobile. A snowmobile obviously is not a car or other automobile.” The Court of Appeals concluded that because a snowmobile is not a car or other automobile, a snowmobile is not a motor vehicle for purposes of the statute. The Court reversed Ms. Tucker’s conviction for theft of motor vehicle and instructed the trial court to dismiss that conviction. My opinion? Excellent decision. The Court appropriately relied on the *Barnes* decision and made the right decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Burglary, Malicious Mischief, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Theft, Theft of Motor Vehicle, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Cities Can't Criminalize Homelessness](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/cities-cant-criminalize-homelessness/) **Published:** May 21, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article](https://www.curbed.com/2019/4/5/18296772/homeless-lawsuit-boise-appeals-court) by [Patrick Sisson](https://www.curbed.com/authors/patrick-sisson) of [Curbed](https://www.curbed.com/) describes how the [Ninth Circuit’s](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) *[Martin v. City of Boise](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/04/15-35845.pdf)*, held that city law enforcement cannot criminalize homelessness . They cannot arrest or punish people for sleeping on public property unless they provide adequate and relatively accessible indoor accommodations. **BACKGROUND FACTS** The Martin case, which [originated in 2009](https://sf.curbed.com/2018/9/5/17823384/court-ninth-circuit-appeals-homeless-sleeping-boise-sf) when six residents sued the city, argued that laws against sleeping in public and qualifying that action as [Disorderly Conduct](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.84.030) were unconstitutional, specifically discussed reasonable and accessible spots for everyone. That means having beds accessible for the disabled and for pregnant women and families. An important argument in the *Martin* case concerned faith-based services that required those staying there to pray in a certain manner. Judges declared spots that coerced religious observation were not accessible to all. The April 1 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers nine states in the western U.S. including California and Washington, rejects a petition to challenge a September ruling on the case. The 2-1 decision by a panel of three judges means that the earlier decision by the court stands, an affirmation of the theory that criminalizing people for camping of sleeping in public without any place to go is illegal. > “The government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public property, on the false premise they had a choice in the matter.” > > ~Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals The ruling means unless there is enough shelter space for the homeless population of a city such as Seattle or San Francisco, city officials can’t enforce anti-vagrancy laws or prohibitions against camping in public parks or sidewalks. The court can’t force cities to build adequate shelter space or homeless housing, but it can make it unconstitutional for them to criminalize homelessness until that burden has been met. Reporter Patrick Sisson wrote that [Eve Garrow](https://www.aclusocal.org/en/biographies/eve-garrow), a homelessness policy analyst and advocate for the [American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)](https://www.aclusocal.org/en), expects that advocacy groups such as her own will soon engage in proactive public education campaigns to ensure municipalities are aware of the Martin decision and the group’s interpretation of the court ruling. “I do believe if cities and counties continue to enforce in a way that’s now clearly unconstitutional, advocacy organizations will engage in litigation to protect the civil rights of these people,” she says. The legal reasoning grew out of an interpretation of the [Eighth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/eighth_amendment) and its prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, according to Ms. Garrow. “You’re criminalizing someone for behavior that’s unavoidable,” she says. “Everyone has to sleep.” In effect, she says, municipal laws that ban sleeping in public are making it illegal to be poor. [Steve Berg](https://endhomelessness.org/who-we-are/our-people/), vice president of programs and policy for the [National Alliance to End Homelessness](https://endhomelessness.org/), says the decision has gotten a lot of attention, and will hopefully accelerate the movement towards more supportive housing and services. “There are still too many people in local governments who think the right answer to homelessness is arresting people,” he says. Good decision, Ninth Circuit. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** ACLU, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Eighth Amendment, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [38-Year Delay Violates Speedy Trial](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/a-38-year-delay-violates-speedy-trial/) **Published:** June 5, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Ross](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2052570-4-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, the WA Court of Appeals held that a criminal defendant’s constitutional speedy trial rights were violated by a 38-year gap between charging and the defendant’s first appearance in the trial court on the murder charges. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Here, the State charged Tommy Ross in [Clallam County](http://www.clallam.net/) with [aggravated first degree murder](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=10.95) in 1978. But the State did not pursue prosecution of that charge for over 38 years. Instead, the State allowed Ross to be extradited to Canada for trial on another murder charge without ensuring that he would be returned for trial in Clallam County. And then while Ross was incarcerated in Canada the State made no meaningful effort for decades to obtain his return to the United States for trial. The trial court ruled that the State violated Ross’s constitutional right to a speedy trial by not prosecuting the murder charge against him for over 38 years, and the court dismissed that charge. The State appealed. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals reasoned that the analysis for the speedy trial right under [article I, section 22 of the WA Constitution](https://ballotpedia.org/Article_I,_Washington_State_Constitution) is substantially the same as the analysis under the [Sixth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) of the U.S. Constitution. The Court of Appeals used the balancing analysis stated in [*Barker v. Wingo*](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/407/514/) to determine whether the defendant’s constitutional right to speedy trial was violated. Among the nonexclusive factors we consider are the length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant. ***Length of Delay.*** Here, the Court ruled that the The 38-year delay here was extraordinary and significant to the speedy trial analysis. Consequently, the length of delay factor weighs heavily against the State. ***Reason for Delay.*** The court explained that the “reason for delay” factor focuses on whether the government or the criminal defendant is more to blame for the delay. A court looks to each party’s responsibility for the delay, and different weights are assigned to delay, primarily related to blameworthiness and the impact of the delay on defendant’s right to a fair trial. “The State’s deliberate delays will be weighed heavily against it, but even negligence that causes delay will be weighed against the State,” said the Court. Consequently, the Court reasoned that the Prosecutor’s decision to release Ross to Canada without obtaining an enforceable agreement to return him to Clallam County was negligent and weighs against the State. ***State Failing to Request Extradition.*** The Court reiterated the general rule that when a defendant is incarcerated outside of the country, the State has a constitutional obligation for speedy trial purposes to make a good faith, diligent effort to secure his or her return to the United States for trial. Here, the State’s failure after 1980 to seek extradition or even inquire about obtaining Ross’s transfer to Clallam County weighs against the State. ***Assertion of Speedy Trial Right.*** The court explained that during the time he was incarcerated in Canada, Mr. Ross made no effort to facilitate a trial on the murder charge. He never demanded that the State bring him to trial or that the State figure out a way to remove him to the United States. He did not waive extradition or request that Canada transfer him to Clallam County for trial. And when given opportunities to return to the United States and face the murder charge, Ross declined and decided to remain in Canada. This conduct is inconsistent with an assertion of the right to a speedy trial. “Based on Ross’s failure to assert his speedy trial right while incarcerated in Canada, we conclude that the assertion of the right factor weighs against Ross even though his failure is mitigated to some extent,” said the Court. ***Prejudice from Delay.*** The Court of Appeals reasoned that prejudice to the defendant as a result of delay may consist of **(1)** oppressive pretrial incarceration, **(2)** the defendant’s anxiety and concern, and **(3)** the possibility that dimming memories and loss of exculpatory evidence will impair the defense. In general, a defendant must show actual prejudice to establish a speedy trial right violation. However, prejudice will be presumed when the delay results from the State’s negligence and there has been “extraordinary delay.” “Courts generally have presumed prejudice in cases where the delay has lasted at least five years,” said the Court, citing *[State v. Ollivier](http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/178wn2d/178wn2d0813.htm)*. The Court also cited *[Doggett v. U.S](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/647/)*., a case where the U.S. Supreme Court presumed prejudice against the defendant when the State’s inexcusable oversights caused a delay of six years. > “Applying the four-part balancing analysis set out in *Barker*, we also conclude that the extraordinary delay in prosecuting Ross violated his speedy trial right. Accordingly, we are constrained to affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the murder charges against Ross.” In addition, the Court of Appeals found the 38-year length of the delay significant, as was the very strong presumption of prejudice resulting from that lengthy delay. “Considering all the *Barker* factors, we are constrained to conclude that the balancing test weighs against the State,” said the Court. “Accordingly, we hold that the State violated Ross’s speedy trial right under the United States and Washington Constitutions. Dismissal of the charges against the accused is the only possible remedy for a violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial.” Washington Court rule [CrRLJ 3.3(b)(2)](http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&ruleid=cljcrrlj3.3) states that a defendant must be brought to trial within 60 days of arraignment if he is detained in jail and within 90 days if he is not. The purpose of this rule is to provide a prompt trial for the defendant once they are prosecuted. Under the rule, a charge not brought to trial within the time limit will usually be dismissed with prejudice unless the defendant requests continuances. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges and there’s question whether the defendant’s right to a speedy trial were violated. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Dismissal, Due Process, felony, Homicide & Manslaughter, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Speedy Trial & Continuances, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Whatcom County Jail Settles ACLU Lawsuit](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/whatcom-county-jail-settles-aclu-lawsuit/) **Published:** June 10, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** A settlement agreement has been proposed in a [federal civil rights lawsuit](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article212757554.html) filed by the [American Civil Liberties Union](https://www.aclu.org/) last year against the Whatcom County Jail and the Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office, according to a [press release](https://www.aclu-wa.org/news/whatcom-county-jail-provide-medications-necessary-treat-opioid-addiction-landmark-settlement) sent Tuesday from [ACLU’s Washington chapter](https://www.aclu-wa.org/). Filed in [U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington](https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/), the ACLU’s lawsuit, [*Kortlever v. Whatcom County et. al*](https://www.aclu-wa.org/cases/kortlever-et-al-v-whatcom-county), challenged Whatcom County’s refusal to provide people access to MAT even though it provides other clinically appropriate medications to inmates. Singling out a group of people because of their disability and denying them access to medical services to which they would otherwise be entitled is prohibited under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Whatcom County’s willingness to change its policies means that the court will not have to decide whether the previous policy was unlawful. The lawsuit, filed in June 2018, alleged the jail had a policy for giving medication, such as [buprenorphine](https://www.samhsa.gov/medication-assisted-treatment/treatment/buprenorphine) (Suboxone or Subutex) or methadone, to pregnant women suffering from opioid use disorder, but had no policy for non-pregnant individuals, essentially forcing them to go into withdrawal once they were booked, according to court records. Under the settlement, the Whatcom County Jail now will provide people in the jail with [medication-assisted treatment (MAT) services](https://www.samhsa.gov/medication-assisted-treatment) to treat opioid use disorder, according to a press release sent Tuesday from the sheriff’s office. Opioid use disorder is classified as a disability under the [Americans with Disabilities Act](https://www.ada.gov/), and also is a recognized substance use disorder. A person qualifies as having opioid use disorder if they meet two or more criteria that reflect impaired health function over a 12-month period. The disorder is a chronic condition and is often accompanied by changes to brain chemistry, the ACLU release stated. Please read my Legal Guide titled, [Making Bail ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/making-bail/)and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are in jail and face criminal charges. Being incarcerated brings a considerable strain on family, mental health, employment and quality of life. A competent defense attorney can argue a motion to release the defendant or reduce bail. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** ACLU, Bail, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Jail, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Opoids, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Terry Stop Held Unlawful](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/terry-stop-held-unlawful/) **Published:** June 16, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [United States v. Brown](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/06/05/17-30191.pdf), the [Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) held that an anonymous tip that a person saw a black male with a gun does not provide reasonable suspicion to make a [*Terry* stop](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/terry_stop_stop_and_frisk) in Washington, where possession of a firearm is presumptively lawful. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Mr. Brown, who is a black man, had the misfortune of deciding to avoid contact with the police. Following an anonymous tip that a black man was carrying a gun—which is not a criminal offense in Washington State—police spotted Brown, who was on foot, activated their lights, and pursued him by car, going the wrong direction down a one-way street. Before flashing their lights, the officers did not order or otherwise signal Brown to stop. Brown reacted by running for about a block before the officers stopped him at gunpoint. Police pursued Brown for one block before stopping him and ordering him to the ground at gunpoint. The officers placed Brown in handcuffs and found a firearm in his waistband. A further search revealed drugs, cash, and other items. Police seized Mr. Brown even though there was no reliable tip, no reported criminal activity, no threat of harm, no suggestion that the area was known for high crime or narcotics, no command to stop, and no requirement to even speak with the police. Brown [moved to suppress](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_12) the evidence from the searches, arguing that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him under [*Terry v. Ohio*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1). The district court disagreed and denied the motion. **ISSUE** Whether police officers were justified in briefly stopping and detaining Mr. Brown. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals reasoned that an an officer may only conduct a brief, investigatory stop when the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. [*Illinois v. Wardlow*](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/528/119/). > “Here, the lack of facts indicating criminal activity or a known high crime area drives our conclusion. The Metro officers who stopped Brown took an anonymous tip that a young, black man “had a gun”—which is presumptively lawful in Washington—and jumped to an unreasonable conclusion that Brown’s later flight indicated criminal activity. At best, the officers had nothing more than an unsupported hunch of wrongdoing.” With that, the court reasoned that the circumstances of this case fails to satisfy the standard established by *Terry* and *Wardlow*. “The combination of almost no suspicion from the tip and Brown’s flight does not equal reasonable suspicion.” Furthermore, the Court reasoned that in Washington State, it is lawful to carry a gun. Although carrying a concealed pistol without a license is a misdemeanor offense in Washington, the failure to carry the license is simply a civil infraction. Additionally, the Court of Appeals downplayed Brown running from police. “No one disputes that once the Metro officer activated his patrol car lights, Brown fled,” said the Court. “But the Supreme Court has never endorsed a *per se* rule that flight establishes reasonable suspicion. Instead, the Court has treated flight as just one factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis, if an admittedly significant one. “Notably, the officers did not communicate with Brown, use their speaker to talk with him, or tell him to stop before they flashed their lights and then detained him,” said the Court. “Under these circumstances, Brown had no obligation to stop and speak to an officer.” My opinion? Good decision. Please read my [Search and Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) Legal Guide [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime under circumstances where the police may have conducted an unlawful search or seizure. Hiring competent defense is the first and best step toward gaining justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Fourth Amendment, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Race & Law, Reasonable Suspicion, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Terry Stop, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [A Police Vest Is a Uniform](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/a-police-vest-is-a-uniform/) **Published:** June 18, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [State v. Connors](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/357180_pub.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) held that a police vest is a uniform. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Mr. Connors was driving a stolen car when he failed to respond to a signal to stop issued from a police vehicle. Instead of stopping, Mr. Connors sped away to an apartment complex. He then abandoned the stolen car and fled on foot until he was apprehended by the pursuing officer. The officer’s attire at the time of the incident consisted of a black external vest which fit over normal clothes, a Spokane Police patch on the front and reflective letters across the back that says “Police.” Mr. Connors was charged with, and convicted of, [attempting to elude a police vehicle](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/eluding/) and [possession of a stolen motor vehicle](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/possession-theft-of-stolen-motor-vehicle/). He appealed his eluding conviction. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** “A conviction for attempting to elude a police vehicle requires the State to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was signaled to stop by a uniformed police officer,” said the Court of Appeals. The Court further reasoned that when interpreting statutory text, the goal is to discern legislative intent. When a statute does not define a term, courts will give the term “ ‘its plain and ordinary meaning unless a contrary legislative intent is indicated. “Generally, courts derive the plain meaning from context as well as related statutes,” said the Court. “But a standard English dictionary may also be employed to determine the plain meaning of an undefined term.” Here, the Court found that the clothing described during Mr. Connors’s trial readily meets the ordinary definition of a “uniform.” The vest worn by the officer was specific to the Spokane Police Department. It served to notify the public that the officer was an official member of the police department. The fact that the officer wore “normal clothes” under his police vest does not mean he was not wearing a uniform. “Some uniforms are comprehensive from head to toe,” said the Court. “Others are not. The eluding statute makes no preference.” > “So long as an officer deploying the signal to stop is attired in a distinctive garment that clearly identifies him as a member of law enforcement, the statutory requirement of a “uniform” is met.” With that, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime and it’s questionable whether the law enforcement officer was appropriately and/or distinctly uniformed during the stop and arrest. Hiring competent defense counsel is the first and best step toward achieving justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Eluding, felony, law enforcement, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Statutory Interpretation, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [More Women In Prison](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/more-women-in-prison/) **Published:** June 19, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Interesting [article](https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/incarcerated-women-and-girls/) by [the Sentencing Project](https://www.sentencingproject.org/) reveals a profound increase in the involvement of women in the criminal justice system. The article explain this is a result of more expansive law enforcement efforts, stiffer drug sentencing laws, and post-conviction barriers to reentry that uniquely affect women. The female prison population stands nearly eight times higher than in 1980. More than 60% of women in state prisons have a child under the age of 18. Some specific points of interest: - Between 1980 and 2017, the number of incarcerated women increased by more than 700%, rising from a total of 26,378 in 1980 to 225,060 in 2017. - Though many more men are in prison than women, the rate of growth for female imprisonment has been twice as high as that of men since 1980. There are 1.3 million women under the supervision of the criminal justice system. - In 2017, the imprisonment rate for African American women (92 per 100,000) was twice the rate of imprisonment for white women (49 per 100,000). - Hispanic women were imprisoned at 1.3 times the rate of white women (67 vs. 49 per 100,000). - The rate of imprisonment for African American women has been declining since 2000, while the rate of imprisonment for white and Hispanic women has increased. - Between 2000 and 2017, the rate of imprisonment in state and federal prisons declined by 55% for black women, while the rate of imprisonment for white women rose by 44%. - The rate at which women are incarcerated varies greatly from state to state. At the national level, 63 out of every 100,000 women were in prison in 2017.2) The state with the highest rate of female imprisonment is Oklahoma (157) and the state with the lowest incarceration rates of females is Massachusetts (9). - Women in state prisons are more likely than men to be incarcerated for a drug or property offense. Twenty-five percent of women in prison have been convicted of a drug offense, compared to 14% of men in prison; 26% of incarcerated women have been convicted of a property crime, compared to 17% among incarcerated men. - The proportion of imprisoned women convicted of a drug offense has increased from 12% in 1986 to 25% in 2017. - Of the 48,043 youth in residential placement, 15% (7,293) are girls. - As with boys, girls are confined considerably less frequently than at the start of the century. In 2001, 15,104 girls were confined in residential placement settings. By 2015, this figure had been cut in half. - Girls of color are much more likely to be incarcerated than white girls. The placement rate for all girls is 47 per 100,000 girls (those between ages 12 and 17). For white girls, the rate is 32 per 100,000. Native girls (134 per 100,000) are more than four times as likely as white girls to be incarcerated; African American girls (110 per 100,000) are three-and-a-half times as likely; and Latina girls (44 per 100,000) are 38% more likely. - Though 85% of incarcerated youth are boys, girls makeup a much higher proportion of those incarcerated for the lowest level offenses. Thirty-eight percent of youth incarcerated for status offenses (such as truancy and curfew violations) are girls. More than half of youth incarcerated for running away are girls. My opinion? Researchers have consistently found that incarcerated women face different problems than men, and those issues are often exacerbated by incarceration. Women are more likely to have a history of abuse, trauma, and mental health problems when they enter prison, but treatment is often inadequate or unavailable in prisons. The health systems in prison often fail to meet women’s unique physical health needs, including reproductive healthcare, management of menopause, nutrition, and treatment for substance abuse disorders. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Prison, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Washington Is Toughest State to Get a Driver's License](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/washington-is-toughest-state-to-get-a-drivers-license/) **Published:** June 22, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** An [article](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/its-harder-to-get-a-drivers-license-in-washington-than-in-any-other-state-study-finds/) by [Seattle Times](https://www.seattletimes.com/) staff reporter [Christine Clarridge](https://www.seattletimes.com/author/christine-clarridge/) claims that Washington is the toughest state to get a driver’s license. Personal-injury law firm [Siegfried & Jensen](https://www.siegfriedandjensen.com/). Using state handbooks and public documents about the requirements of each state’s tests, the firm examined [a variety of information](https://www.siegfriedandjensen.com/passing-the-test/), including the number of questions on the knowledge portion of the exam and the number of maneuvers tested in the skills portion. The ratings also take into account the cost of getting a license, whether a state offers free retakes and whether a learner’s permit is required for applicants 18 and older, [among other factors](https://www.siegfriedandjensen.com/passing-the-test/). Because the cost of testing in Washington varies by testing location, the study evaluated Washington state based on the typical cost of testing in Seattle, the most populous city. Washington’s difficulty score (80 out of a possible 100) was almost twice that of South Dakota, which was ranked the easiest with a score of 42. The study controlled for mitigating circumstances such as veteran status or disability. [Washington state Department of Licensing](https://www.dol.wa.gov/) (DOL) spokesperson [Christine Anthony](https://www.linkedin.com/in/christine-anthony-27539b162) said no one she talked to at the DOL had heard that Washington had the strictest license requirements in the nation. In Washington, more people fail the written knowledge test than the driving-skills test, according to driving-school instructors, Ms. Anthony and DOL data. In the first four months of 2019, about 77% of people who took the driving-skills portion of the test passed, regardless of whether the test was administered at one of the [state Department of Licensing offices](https://fortress.wa.gov/dol/dolprod/dsdoffices/) or through a [private driver-training school](https://www.dol.wa.gov/driverslicense/testlocations.html). However, only about half of the more than 84,000 people who took the knowledge test in that same time period passed on the first try, according to DOL data. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you a friend or family member face charges of [Driving Without a License](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.20.005) or [Driving While License Suspended](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.20.342). Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Driving While License Suspended/Revoked, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Flowers v. Mississippi: Supreme Court Finds Race-Based Peremptory Strikes Unlawful](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/flowers-v-mississippi-supreme-court-finds-race-based-peremptory-strikes-unlawful/) **Published:** June 27, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[Flowers v. Mississippi](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-9572_k536.pdf)*, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the State’s [peremptory strikes](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/peremptory_challenge) in the defendant’s first four trials strongly supported the conclusion that the State’s use of peremptory strikes in the defendant’s sixth trial was motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Curtis Flowers was tried six separate times for the murder of four employees of a Mississippi furniture store. Flowers is black. Three of the four victims were white. At the first two trials, the State used its peremptory strikes on all of the qualified black prospective jurors. In each case, the jury convicted Flowers and sentenced him to death, but the convictions were later reversed by the [Mississippi Supreme Court](https://courts.ms.gov/) based on [prosecutorial misconduct](https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/prosecutorial-misconduct/). At the third trial, the State used all of its 15 peremptory strikes against black prospective jurors, and the jury convicted Flowers and sentenced him to death. The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed again, this time concluding that the State exercised its peremptory strikes on the basis of race in violation of [*Batson v. Kentucky*](https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-batson-v-kentucky). Flowers’ fourth and fifth trials ended in mistrials. At the fourth, the State exercised 11 peremptory strikes—all against black prospective jurors. No available racial information exists about the prospective jurors in the fifth trial. At the sixth trial, the State exercised six peremptory strikes—five against black prospective jurors, allowing one black juror to be seated. Flowers again raised a [*Batson* challenge](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/batson_challenge), but the trial court concluded that the State had offered race-neutral reasons for each of the five peremptory strikes. The jury convicted Flowers and sentenced him to death. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed. Flowers appealed. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** [Justice Kavanaugh](https://www.oyez.org/justices/brett_m_kavanaugh) delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices [Roberts](https://www.oyez.org/justices/john_g_roberts_jr), [Ginsburg](https://www.oyez.org/justices/ruth_bader_ginsburg), [Breyer](https://www.oyez.org/justices/stephen_g_breyer), [Alito](https://www.oyez.org/justices/samuel_a_alito_jr), [Sotomayor](https://www.oyez.org/justices/sonia_sotomayor) and [Kagan](https://www.oyez.org/justices/elena_kagan) joined. Justices [Thomas](https://www.oyez.org/justices/clarence_thomas) and [Gorsuch](https://www.oyez.org/justices/neil_gorsuch) dissented. Kavanaugh began by discussing the history behind the landmark *Batson v. Kentucky*. In his majority opinion he explained that under *Batson*, once a prima facie case of discrimination has been shown by a defendant, the State must provide race-neutral reasons for its peremptory strikes. The trial judge then must determine whether the prosecutor’s stated reasons were the actual reasons or instead were a pretext for discrimination. “Four categories of evidence loom large in assessing the *Batson* issue here, where the State had a persistent pattern of striking black prospective jurors from Flowers’ first through his sixth trial,” said Justice Kavanaugh. The Court reasoned that here, a review of the history of the State’s peremptory strikes in Flowers’ first four trials strongly supports the conclusion that the State’s use of peremptory strikes in Flowers’ sixth trial was motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent: > “The State tried to strike all 36 black prospective jurors over the course of the first four trials. And the state courts themselves concluded that the State had violated Batson on two separate occasions. The State’s relentless, determined effort to rid the jury of black individuals strongly suggests that the State wanted to try Flowers before a jury with as few black jurors as possible, and ideally before an all-white jury.” The Court also reasoned that the State’s use of peremptory strikes in Flowers’ sixth trial followed the same discriminatory pattern as the first four trials. “Disparate questioning can be probative of discriminatory intent,” said the Court. “Here, the State spent far more time questioning the black prospective jurors than the accepted white jurors—145 questions asked of 5 black prospective jurors and 12 questions asked of 11 white seated jurors.” Consequently, along with the historical evidence from the earlier trials, as well as the State’s striking of five of six black prospective jurors at the sixth trial, the dramatically disparate questioning and investigation of black prospective jurors and white prospective jurors at the sixth trial strongly suggest that the State was motivated in substantial part by a discriminatory intent. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that comparing prospective jurors who were struck and not struck is an important step in determining whether a *Batson* violation occurred. “Here, Carolyn Wright, a black prospective juror, was struck, the State says, in part because she knew several defense witnesses and had worked at Wal-Mart where Flowers’ father also worked,” said the Court. “But three white prospective jurors also knew many individuals involved in the case, and the State asked them no individual questions about their connections to witnesses. White prospective jurors also had relationships with members of Flowers’ family, but the State did not ask them follow-up questions in order to explore the depth of those relationships.” Finally, the Court ruled that the State also incorrectly explained that it exercised a peremptory strike against Wright because she had worked with one of Flowers’ sisters and made apparently incorrect statements to justify the strikes of other black prospective jurors. “When considered with other evidence, a series of factually inaccurate explanations for striking black prospective jurors can be another clue showing discriminatory intent,” said the Court. Consequently, the trial court at Flowers’ sixth trial committed clear error in concluding that the State’s peremptory strike of black prospective juror Carolyn Wright was not motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent. Pp. 26–30. With that, the Supreme Court reversed Flowers’ conviction and remanded the case back to the trial court. My opinion? Good decision. Although the facts and allegations are terrible for Mr. Flowers, prosecutors simply cannot use exercise race-based peremptory challenges to get justice. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Criminal Justice, felony, Homicide & Manslaughter, Jury Selection, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Self-Defense in Jail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/self-defense-in-jail/) **Published:** July 6, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Tullar](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/359565_pub.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) held that a defendant was entitled to a [self-defense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/self-defense/) instruction even though he did not testify that he feared his opponent would badly beat him. The defendant may establish his subjective fear by circumstantial evidence through the testimony of others. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** On December 31, 2017, a correctional officer Millward was making his welfare checks on inmates at the Okanogan County jail. He came across Johnathan Cook’s cell. Officer Millward saw Cook facing away from the door, and Officer Millward could tell something was wrong. Officer Millward asked Cook to turn around, and he noticed bruising and a laceration on Cook’s face, a bloodstained shirt, and bruising on his ear. Officer Millward took Cook to get medical attention. Cook was diagnosed with a fractured nose and a fractured left eye socket. Mr. Cook said he was assaulted by fellow inmate Brandon Tullar. Jail authorities confronted Tullar, who denied fighting Cook. Despite his denials, there were noticeable marks on Tullar’s hands and his elbow, as well as red marks on his neck. The State charged Tullar with [assault in the second degree](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.021). Tullar asserted the defenses of self-defense and mutual combat. Tullar’s case went to trial. He withdrew his claim of self-defense and proceeded with the defense of mutual combat. He then called two fellow inmates who witnessed the fight. According to both inmates, Cook and Tullar were arguing, and Cook challenged Tullar to a fight. Cook and Tullar then went upstairs to Cook’s cell, with Tullar going first. Once inside the cell, Cook hit Tullar from behind. Cook put Tullar in a chokehold, but Tullar escaped. They exchanged punches until Cook gave up. Despite the testimony from witnesses, the trial court denied Tullar’s jury instruction for self-defense because Tullar did not testify. The trial court also noted that self-defense was inconsistent with mutual combat. The jury found Tullar guilty of assault in the second degree. Tullar timely appealed. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals gave background on Washington’s self-defense laws. In Washington, the use of force is lawful when used by a person about to be injured, provided that the force used is not more than necessary. Because self-defense is a lawful act, it negates the mental state and the “unlawful force” elements of second degree assault. Importantly, the Court also reasoned that self-defense does not require testimony from the defendant. > “Evidence of self-defense may come from whatever source and the evidence does not need to be the defendant’s own testimony.” Here, Tullar’s witnesses testified that Cook hit Tullar from behind and then put him in a chokehold. From this, a trier of fact could infer that Tullar reasonably feared that if he did not fight back, he would be rendered unconscious. Additionally, Tullar’s witnesses testified that Tullar stopped fighting when Cook gave up. From this, a trier of fact could find that Tullar used no more force than necessary. A self-defense instruction was warranted to let the finder of fact determine whether it believed Cook or whether it believed Tullar’s witnesses. “The trial court’s decision to not instruct the jury on self-defense virtually guaranteed Tullar’s conviction,” said the Court of Appeals. “The trial court’s refusal to give a self-defense instruction thus prejudiced Tullar.” Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed Tullar’s conviction. My opinion? Good decision. Self-defense is a substantive defense which can guarantee a full acquittal if the court allows the instruction at trial. It shouldn’t matter whether the defendant testifies if trustworthy witnesses can testify and lay the groundwork for the defense. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges and [self-defense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/self-defense/) is a viable defense. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Jail, Jury Trial, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Self-Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Drunk Bicycling](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/drunk-bicycling/) **Published:** July 8, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/traffic/rules-of-the-road/article232326747.html) by traffic reporter [Doug Dahl](https://muckrack.com/doug-dahl/articles) of the [Bellingham Herald](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/) reveals that it’s legal to [text while riding bike](https://www.thewisedrive.com/790-2/) on a public road. In short, [Washington’s distracted driving law](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.672) applies to any person that is driving a motor vehicle on a public highway. “Since a bike isn’t a motor vehicle, this law, as I understand it, doesn’t apply,” says Mr. Dahl. “When it comes to texting (arguably one of the more dangerous behaviors on the road) cyclists get a pass.” Mr. Dahl is correct. While some states do have laws against cycling while impaired, Washington is not one of those states. In [*City of Montesano vs. Wells*](https://courts.mrsc.org/appellate/079wnapp/079wnapp0529.htm), the [WA Court of Appeals](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) reversed the conviction of a man charged with DUI while riding a bicycle and held the original intent of DUI laws did not include bicycles. The Court reasoned that because bicycles do not have the force and speed of cars, a drunk bicyclist is not capable of causing the tremendous “carnage and slaughter” associated with impaired driving. My opinion? Although it’s not a wise decision to text while cycling, police cannot stop or arrest bicyclists for this traffic offense alone. In [*State v. Ladson*](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1440459.html), the WA Supreme Court held that our State Constitution forbid the use of pretext as a justification for a warrantless search or seizure. Applied here, in other words, police cannot pull you over to conduct an unlawful pretext search for weapons, drugs or any other contraband if they see you merely texting while riding a bicycle. Please read my [Search and Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) Legal Guide and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are pulled over, searched and/or arrested for texting while riding a bicycle. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, False Arrest, Fourth Amendment, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Pretext, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Overcoming Implicit Bias](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/overcoming-implicit-bias/) **Published:** July 19, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** ![Image result for implicit bias](https://diversity.lbl.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2016/03/Unconscious-Bias.jpg)In [*State v. Berhe*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/959200.pdf), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) held that a trial court failed to adequately oversee allegations of racism and implicit bias among jurors deliberating in a Shoreline man’s [first degree murder](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.32.030) and [first degree assault](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.011) trial in 2016. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** In 2016, a King County jury convicted Tomas Berhe, then 31, of murder and assault in a [shooting in Seattle’s Eastlake neighborhood](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/suspect-in-eastlake-revenge-slaying-charged-with-murder-assault/). Mr. Behre is African-American. He was convicted of killing 21-year-old Everett Williams, whom Berhe thought had shot his cousin. A second man who was in the Eastlake alley with Williams was also shot. After the trial concluded with a guilty verdict in early 2016, the sixth juror contacted both defense attorneys and the court with concern, according to the opinion. Weeks later, Berhe asked the judge for a new trial and requested an evidentiary hearing to investigate the allegations of racial bias, among other concerns. In a written declaration presented by the defense, the sixth juror said she was the only African American on the jury in the trial of an African American defendant and described being the last holdout among four jurors who had initially leaned against conviction. By the trial’s end, the sixth juror said she only agreed to vote for a guilty verdict because she felt “emotionally and mentally exhausted from the personal and implicit race-based derision from other jurors,” the opinion quotes the declaration as saying. The juror said others had mocked her as stupid and illogical when she suggested that Berhe could have taken the murder weapon from someone else. She described two jurors as taunting her, saying that she would “let him walk,” and said she felt mocked after several jurors interpreted something she’d said as commentary on police misconduct toward African Americans. Responding to the defense’s declaration, prosecutors sent questions to several jurors asking if they themselves, or another juror, had done anything to the sixth juror that was motivated by racial bias during deliberations. Results were not conclusive, and the Superior Court judge found insufficient evidence of juror misconduct and denied a request for a new trial. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** First, the WA Supreme Court described how racial bias harms trial verdicts: > “Unlike isolated incidents of juror misbehavior, racial bias is a common and pervasive evil that causes systemic harm to the administration of justice. Also unlike other types of juror misconduct, racial bias is uniquely difficult to identify.” Second, the Court reasoned that Courts must carefully oversee any inquiry into whether explicit or implicit racial bias influenced a jury verdict. “Rather than permitting the parties alone to investigate allegations of racial bias, once a claim of racial bias is raised, inquiries into the influence of that racial bias on a jury’s verdict must be conducted under the court’s supervision and on the record,” said the Court. “Therefore, as soon as any party becomes aware that there are sufficient facts to support allegations that racial bias was a factor in the verdict, the court and opposing counsel must be notified.” Third, the Court reasoned that the unique challenge of assessing implicit racial bias requires a searching inquiry before a court can decide whether an evidentiary hearing is needed. “Implicit racial bias is a unique problem that requires tailored solutions,” said the Court. “Therefore, when it is alleged that racial bias was a factor in the verdict, the trial court must oversee and conduct a thorough investigation that is tailored to the specific allegations presented before deciding whether to hold an evidentiary hearing and before ruling on a defendant’s motion for a new trial,” said the Court. The Court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to exercise adequate oversight over the investigations into juror 6’s allegations of racial bias and by failing to conduct a sufficient inquiry before denying Berhe’s motion for a new trial without an evidentiaiy hearing. “We therefore vacate the trial court’s order denying Berhe’s motion for a new trial and remand for further proceedings.” My opinion? Excellent decision. Groundbreaking, even. In what could be a first-of-its-kind rule nationwide, the judges’ opinion establishes procedures for trial court judges to investigate implicit racial bias reported during jury deliberations. This isn’t the first time our Supreme Court has openly exercised judicial activism. In April, the state Supreme Court published [General Rule 37](https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme%20Court%20Orders/GR37.pdf), a rule for courts saying that challenges during jury selection based on implicit, institutional and unconscious race and ethnic biases should be rejected, she noted. Now, similar protection from bias extends into the jury room. Excellent decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Homicide & Manslaughter, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Federal Government Seeks Death Penalty](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/federal-government-seeks-death-penalty/) **Published:** July 26, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Reporter [Katie Benner](https://www.nytimes.com/by/katie-benner) of the [New York Times](https://www.nytimes.com/) wrote a compelling [article](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/us/politics/federal-executions-death-penalty.html) stating the federal government seeks the death penalty of death row inmates after a nearly two-decade hiatus, countering a broad national shift away from the death penalty as public support for capital punishment has dwindled. [Attorney General William P. Barr](https://www.justice.gov/ag/bio/barr-william-pelham) announced that five men convicted of murdering children will be executed in December and January at the federal penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana, and additional executions will be scheduled later. The announcement reversed what [had been essentially a moratorium](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/white-house-balks-on-ending-death-penalty.html?module=inline) on the federal death penalty since 2003. Prosecutors still seek the death penalty in some federal cases, including for [Dylann S. Roof](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/dylann-roof-trial-charleston.html?module=inline), the avowed white supremacist who gunned down nine African-American churchgoers in 2015, and [Dzhokhar Tsarnaev](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/16/us/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-death-sentence.html?module=inline), the Boston Marathon bomber. Both were convicted and sentenced to death. President Trump has long supported the death penalty, declaring last year that [drug dealers should be executed](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/us/politics/trump-new-hampshire-opioid-plan.html?module=inline). By applying it to inmates convicted of murdering children, he may make a more politically powerful argument for it amid diminishing public support. But public attitudes toward the death penalty have changed in the ensuing decades. Support for it went from nearly 80 percent in 1996 to a two-decade low three years ago, when just under half of Americans polled backed it for people convicted of murder, [according to the Pew Research Center](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/06/11/us-support-for-death-penalty-ticks-up-2018/). Public backing of capital punishment ticked back up to 54 percent last year, the center found. Capital punishment fell out of favor as researchers questioned whether it deterred people from committing heinous crimes and as more defense lawyers proved that their clients had been wrongfully convicted. Fewer than two dozen executions have occurred annually in the United States in recent years, down from a high of 98 in 1999, according to the [Death Penalty Information Center](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/). Civil rights advocates have also noted the racial disparity among inmates on death row and argued that capital punishment was disproportionately applied to black men. “The death penalty is plagued by racial bias and geographic bias,” said [Cassandra Stubbs](https://www.aclu.org/bio/cassandra-stubbs), director of the [Capital Punishment Project at the American Civil Liberties Union](https://www.aclu.org/other/aclus-capital-punishment-project). “Junk science has played an outsized role in who gets the death penalty and who does not,” she added, pointing to instances of experts overstating hair or fingerprint evidence in court testimony. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a capital crime like [murder or homicide](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/) and the Death Penalty is a possible consequence. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Death Penalty, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Trump Administration, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Fines Increase for Carpool Cheaters](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/fines-increase-for-carpool-cheaters/) **Published:** July 28, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Fines increase for car pool lane cheaters under A new [state law](https://q13fox.com/2019/04/11/drive-in-the-hov-lane-alone-new-bill-could-add-stiff-fines/). The base fine will go up by $50, meaning a first-time violator on freeways or in electronic toll lanes will be fined $186. Second-time violators within two years will receive a fine of $336. Those trying to trick troopers with a dummy or mannequin will have an extra $200 added to their tickets. The Washington State Patrol has said high-occupancy vehicle lane cheating is the top complaint by commuters in Seattle’s King County. Last year in King County alone, troopers handed out more than 11,000 tickets to violators caught in the carpool lane. Carpool violators aren’t an uncommon sight. During an [emphasis patrol](https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/troopers-cited-1671-carpool-lane-violators-in-one-week/281-596740292) last September, the [Washington State Patrol](http://www.wsp.wa.gov/) cited 1,671 drivers in three counties within a week. One driver was caught three times. **HERO Program** Drivers can [report HOV, HOT lane or ferry line violators online](https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/travel/highways-bridges/hov/report-violator) or by calling at 1-877-764-HERO. We will then mail educational materials about HOV, HOT lane and ferry line usage to the registered owner of the vehicle that was seen violating. First-time HOV lane violators are sent an educational brochure. Second-time HOV lane violators are sent a letter from WSDOT. Third-time HOV lane violators are sent a letter from the Washington State Patrol. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are cited for a traffic infraction. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, HOV Lane Violations, law enforcement, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["New Hope Act" Goes In Effect](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/new-hope-act-goes-in-effect/) **Published:** July 29, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Reporter [Andrew Binion](http://www.kitsapsun.com/staff/10056526/andrew-binion/) of the [Kitsap Sun](https://www.kitsapsun.com/) wrote an [informative article](https://www.kitsapsun.com/story/news/2019/07/28/state-law-takes-effect-sunday-giving-those-records-new-hope/1844447001/) stating that bipartisan legislation called the “[New Hope Act](http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2019-20/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/1041-S%20HBR%20FBR%2019.pdf)” streamlines and modifies the process for people with criminal records to vacate convictions after a period of time. Binion reports that [Tarra Simmons](http://archive.kitsapsun.com/news/former-inmate-goes-to-law-school-to-help-other-ex-cons-308c2f95-a676-3641-e053-0100007f6852-375961071.html/), a Bremerton attorney who after serving a prison sentence for drug-related convictions attended law school, said the new law will not only help those who have turned their lives around but also society at large. Despite her criminal history which denied her the opportunity to take the lawyer licensing exam, [the state Supreme Court intervened in 2017](https://www.kitsapsun.com/story/news/2017/11/16/former-inmate-gets-second-chance-state-supreme-court/872780001/), allowing her to take, and pass, the test. Simmons, who is now the executive director of [Civil Survival](https://civilsurvival.org/), an organization that helps people negotiate the hurdles as they reintegrate into society after leaving jail and prison, noted the measure received strong bipartisan support. “People who have spent some time in prison need a chance to get their lives back on track,” [Rep. Drew Hanson](https://housedemocrats.wa.gov/hansen/), D-Bainbridge Island, sponsor of the measure, [said in a statement](https://housedemocrats.wa.gov/hansen/2019/04/19/hansens-new-hope-act-gives-hope-for-a-second-chance/). “This bill removes some of the barriers that are preventing people from rebuilding their lives and gives them hope for a second chance.” [Rep. Michelle Cauldier](http://michellecaldier.houserepublicans.wa.gov/), R-Port Orchard, also sponsored the measure. Previously, multiple felony convictions for some offenses could be vacated, but only one misdemeanor. The new law allows multiple misdemeanors to be vacated. The new law also adds some felony offenses to the list of convictions that can be vacated. Depending on the crime, there is a waiting period of three, five and 10 years of good behavior and repayment of legal fees a person must complete before petitioning to have their convictions vacated. Please read my Legal Guides titled [Vacating a Prior Criminal Conviction](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/vacating-a-prior-criminal-conviction/) and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are considering vacating a criminal conviction. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Vacating Convictions, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Vacate Your Pot Conviction](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/vacate-your-pot-conviction/) **Published:** July 31, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** You can now vacate your pot conviction. On Sunday, June 28th the [Marijuana Justice Initiative](https://www.governor.wa.gov/marijuanajustice) was signed by [Governor Jay Inslee](https://www.governor.wa.gov/). Consequently, many people with misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor marijuana convictions in Washington state can apply to have those convictions wiped from their records. The new law expands on the governor’s pardon offer in a few ways: - A pardon does not vacate a conviction. - People with multiple marijuana misdemeanor convictions are eligible. - The date of the conviction doesn’t matter. - The new law applies to violations of municipal ordinances, not just state law. If you’re looking to get a conviction vacated, and none of the above limitations apply to you, the process is relatively simple: 1. [Find the court where your conviction occurred](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_dir/). If you’ve been convicted in multiple courts, you’ll need to apply in each court separately. 2. Fill out the proper [paperwork](https://www.courts.wa.gov/forms/?fa=forms.contribute&formID=38). The form you’ll submit is called a [Motion and Declaration for Order Vacating Marijuana Conviction](https://www.courts.wa.gov/forms/documents/CrRLJ%2009_0800%20motion-dec%20to%20vacate%20conviction_marijuana_2019%2007.doc). 3. File your motion with the court clerk’s office and ask to schedule a hearing. Follow their instructions from there. Once a court vacates a conviction, the person is clear of all penalties that resulted from it, and it can’t be considered during sentencing for any subsequent conviction, according to a [legislative analysis of the bill](http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2019-20/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/Senate/5605%20SBR%20FBR%2019.pdf). Further, a person who has a conviction vacated can state that they have never been convicted of the crime when applying for housing or employment. My opinion? This is excellent, progressive step toward decriminalizing low-level drug crimes. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a drug crime. Although Washington State passed initiatives which legalized marijuana possession, it’s comforting that our politicians are moving forward with legislation that gives defendants opportunities to vacate low-level marijuana convictions. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face [Drug Charges](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Legislation, marijuana, misdemeanor, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Court Denies "Community Caretaking" Argument](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/court-denies-community-caretaking-argument/) **Published:** August 11, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Beach*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/784641.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) upheld the dismissal of a defendant’s [Possession of Stolen Vehicle](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/possession-theft-of-stolen-motor-vehicle/) charges because the police failed to obtain a [search warrant](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/search_warrant) and the Community Custody Exception to the warrant requirement did not apply. **BACKGROUND FACTS** On November 27, 2017, a person called 911 to report a young child walking by himself. Officer Nixon responded to the 911 report, and took custody of the child. Officer Nixon decided to drive around the neighborhood to look for the child’s home. Eventually, the officer saw a house with its front door open. He ran the license plate of the car in the driveway and learned that the car had been reported stolen. He called for backup. At that point, the officer’s interest in determining whether the child lived at the house was secondary to figuring out if this was a home invasion robbery. Officers arrived. They surrounded the house, with one or two officers going to the back of the house in case someone tried to exit from the back door. Officers knocked loudly on the outside of the house and announced themselves for approximately 30 seconds. When there was no answer, they drew their guns and entered the house, yelling, “This is the Kent Police Department. Come out with your hands up!” Mr. Beach and his girlfriend Ms. Hall emerged from a rear bedroom. They said that they were sleeping. The officers discovered the couple had outstanding warrants. The officers arrested Beach and Hall. While searching Beach upon arrest, the police found a key to the stolen car in the driveway. The State charged Beach with one count of possession of a stolen vehicle. Beach moved to suppress any evidence resulting from the warrantless search. The State argued that the warrantless search was valid under the community caretaking exception because there was real and immediate danger of an ongoing home invasion. The trial court conducted a hearing pursuant to [CrR 3.6](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6). After hearing testimony by officers, the court found that the State had not established that the officers were acting within the scope of their community caretaking function, and suppressed the evidence. Beach moved to dismiss and the court granted the motion. The State appealed. **COURT’S RATIONALE & CONCLUSIONS** The WA Court of Appeals explained that the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/index.html) prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Also, the WA constitution is often more protective than the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment), particularly where warrantless searches are concerned. “Under our state constitution, warrantless searches are per se unreasonable unless one of the narrow exceptions to the warrant requirement applies,” said the Court. “The burden of proof is on the State to show that a warrantless search or seizure falls within one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement.” **A. Community Caretaking Exception to the Warrant Requirement.** The Court said the community caretaking function exception encompasses situations involving emergency aid, and also routine checks on health and safety. Compared with routine checks on health and safety, the emergency aid function involves circumstances of greater urgency and searches resulting in greater intrusion. Under the health and safety check test, the State must show that **(1)** the officer subjectively believed someone needed health or safety assistance, **(2)** a reasonable person in the same situation would believe that there was a need for assistance, and **(3)** there was a reasonable basis to associate the need for assistance with the place searched. Also, the State must also show that the encounter under this exception was reasonable, which depends on a balancing of the individual’s interest in freedom from police interference against the public’s interest in having the police perform a community caretaking function. Finally, the State must show that a reasonable person in the same situation would believe that there was a need for assistance. The Court reasoned that here, there was a 911 report about a child wandering blocks away. When Nixon stopped his police car outside of the residence, the child did not indicate that he had any connection to the house. No connection between the child and the house was established until after the officers entered. “Any concern for the child was not an ongoing emergency that would merit the officers going into the home,” said the Court. And here, the officers did not know of any requests for help from the house before they entered. They did not know anyone was unaccounted for and saw no evidence anyone had been injured. The officers did not see any broken windows, signs of forced entry, or other evidence of a break-in. Once in the doorway, Officer Nixon did not see anything in disarray inside the home that would indicate a struggle or ongoing emergency. When the officers went into the home, the house was in “fine condition.” Consequently, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision that the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement did not apply and suppressed the evidence. Please read my Legal Guide titled [Search and Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime and police conducted their search under the “Community Caretaking” exception to the warrant requirement. Possibly, evidence obtained through the search could be suppressed and the charges dismissed. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Evidence, felony, Fourth Amendment, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Possession of Stolen Motor Vehicle, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Summer DUI Enforcement Patrols Begin](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/summer-dui-enforcement-patrols-begin/) **Published:** August 14, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Be ready. As the deadliest time of the year for DUI crashes nears, police department across Washington will boost DUI patrols starting August 14th.The [Washington Traffic Commission just released data](https://wtsc.wa.gov/summer-dui-enforcement-patrols-begin/) showing the deadliest time of year for DUI crashes tends to be before the [Labor Day weekend](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Day). So starting today, police departments around the state will begin a nearly three-week long DUI emphasis.About 150 departments across the state will participate in patrols between Aug. 14 and Labor Day. Between 2013 and 2017, the deadliest months for DUI crashes were August and September, when 238 and 259 people died in crashes total, according to WTSC data.“We conduct the ‘plan before you party’ campaign during the busy summer travel time because we want everyone to get home safe,” said WTSC impaired driving program manager Mark Medalen in a press release. “Planning ahead for a safe ride is especially important for the small number of Washington drivers who mix alcohol and cannabis.”Along with extra patrols, the WTSC is placing signs in cannabis shops around the state to remind users not to drive impaired — and not to mix cannabis with alcohol. Between 2013 and 2017, about 75 percent of drivers in fatal crashes were also using alcohol or another drug, according to WTSC.From 2013 to 2017 nearly 75 percent of cannabis-positive drivers in fatal crashes were also positive for other drugs and/or alcohol. Poly-drug drivers are now the most common type of impaired driver involved in fatal crashes.Responding to this trend, traffic safety officials are improving techniques used to test drivers for impairment from cannabis. For example, in King County, the [Kent Police Department](https://www.kentwa.gov/residents/public-safety/police-department) is participating in a [Law Enforcement Phlebotomy training and certification program](https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/14222-phlebotomy_toolkit_final-032819-v1a_tag_0.pdf). Police officers are trained to draw and test blood, avoiding a lengthy wait in the hospital where the blood is typically drawn from the suspect. The WTSC is advising everyone in the state to make a transportation plan before consuming alcohol or drugs, whether it’s finding a designated driver or saving money for a ride-share. Otherwise, police in just about every city in Puget Sound — plus [Washington State Patrol](http://www.wsp.wa.gov/) — will be out looking to arrest DUI drivers. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are involved in [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other alcohol-related criminal charges. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Bellingham Police Department Conducts Distracted Driving Emphasis](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/bellingham-police-department-conducts-distracted-driving-emphasis/) **Published:** August 17, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Put the cell phone away. The Bellingham Police Department [tweeted](https://twitter.com/BellinghamPD/status/1162170632206835712?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Eembeddedtimeline%7Ctwterm%5Eprofile%3ABellinghamPD%7Ctwcon%5Etimelinechrome&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cob.org%2Fgov%2Fdept%2Fpolice%2Fnews) and [facebooked](https://www.facebook.com/bellinghampolice/?__tn__=%2Cd%2CP-R&eid=ARBhB_estLKcOazLXt7fMrYGfS_Sg7ypA38wqU0pLvmGVdJQAy8nJkeA1zLEpqAyjdWZqK7Y8cTU9x0J) notice that there will be a distracted driving emphasis on Friday, August 16th from 10:00am-2:00pm. Areas of emphasis are Lakeway/Ellis Streets and Holly Street to State Street. Distracted driving — when drivers eat, put on makeup or text — causes more than 3,000 deaths a year. The [National Highway Traffic Administration](https://www.nhtsa.gov/) says it also [costs $46 billion annually](https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/new-nhtsa-study-shows-motor-vehicle-crashes-have-871-billion-economic-and-societal) for everything from injuries to vehicle repairs, and of course, lost productivity due to death. With the exception of Montana and Arizona, [texting while driving is illegal in every state](http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/cellphonelaws?topicName=distracted-driving), but unless police catch you in the act, it can be very hard to prove. Additionally, depending on the circumstances, officers may develop [probable cause](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause) to conduct a [DUI investigation](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) and/or search your vehicle for contraband or evidence of a crime. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges after being stopped for distracted driving. The charges could be dismissed if the search was pretextual and/or unlawful. Hiring a competent and credible defense attorney who is fluent in pretrial motions practice is the first and best step toward getting justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Cell Phone, Distracted Driving, Fourth Amendment, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Pretext, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Appearance of Fairness](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/appearance-of-fairness/) **Published:** August 23, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Gorman-Lykken*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2051254-8-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held that before allowing a security officer to be stationed next to the witness stand when the defendant testifies, the trial court must **(1)** state case-specific reasons for the need for such a security measure, and **(2)** determine that the need for the security measure outweighs the potential prejudice to the testifying defendant. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Mr. Gorman-Lykken was charged with [Rape in the Second Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/) [(DV)](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/). The State was required to prove that Gorman-Lykken engaged in sexual intercourse with his girlfriend when she was incapable of consent. At trial, Gorman-Lykken wanted to testify. Before he did so, his defense attorney objected to the proximity of the corrections officer assigned to Gorman-Lykken while he was on the witness stand. The trial court responded, “Let me just touch base with the corrections officer.” The corrections officer stated, “If he’s up here, we’re up here.” The trial court then observed on the record that sometimes one to three corrections officers were assigned to a defendant in court and that “sometimes those individuals are large, larger than average.” By contrast, the court noted that the corrections officer assigned to Gorman-Lykken was “not one of our largest corrections officers, and there’s only one of her.” The court also stated that “the policy of the corrections staff is that . . . they are to be in close proximity to somebody who is testifying that’s been accused of a crime.” The court concluded, “I think on the whole I’m comfortable having the officer stay where she’s at.” The jury found Gorman-Lykken guilty as charged. He appealed his conviction on the issue of whether the trial court erred in allowing the corrections officer to be stationed next to him during his testimony as a security measure. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** Preliminarily, the Court of Appeals said that trial courts have broad discretion to make trial management decisions, including provisions for the order and security of the courtroom. However, the Court also acknowledged that trial courts commit reversible error when they base their decisions solely on the judgment of correctional officers who believed that using restraints during trial was necessary to maintain security, while no other justifiable basis existed on the record. Furthermore, Courts have recognized that certain courtroom security measures are inherently prejudicial. This includes shackling, handcuffing, or other physical restraints; gagging the defendant and holding a trial in a jail. Courts must closely scrutinize such measures to ensure that they further essential state interests. “Before allowing a security officer to be stationed next to the witness stand when the defendant testifies, the trial court must **(1)** state case-specific reasons for the need for such a security measure, **(2)** determine that the need for the security measure outweighs the potential prejudice to the testifying defendant,” said the Court of Appeals. Here, however, the Court of Appeals was concerned that the trial court never stated case-specific reasons why this case or this defendant created the need for this security measure. “The court simply stated, ‘I’m comfortable having the officer stay where she’s at,'” said the Court of Appeals. “Accordingly, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the corrections officer to be stationed next to the witness stand when Gorman-Lykken testified.” > “Here, the State does not argue that any error was harmless. And there is no indication that the State could show harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt. Even though stationing an officer next to the witness stand may not be inherently prejudicial, allowing that measure created a risk that the jury might infer that Gorman-Lykken was dangerous or guilty. The State cannot show beyond a reasonable doubt that stationing the officer next to the witness stand did not influence the jury.” The Court also noted that the evidence of Gorman-Lykken’s guilt was not so overwhelming that a guilty verdict was the only rational result. At trial, Gorman-Lykken’s girlfriend testified that she had taken medication that essentially put her to sleep and that she had told Gorman-Lykken not to have sex with her while she was asleep. “But Gorman-Lykken testified that he asked his girlfriend if she was up for sex, that she verbally agreed, and that she was coherent during the sexual activity,” said the Court of Appeals. “Therefore, the jury was presented with conflicting evidence, not evidence that overwhelmingly established Gorman-Lykken’s guilt.” With that, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court’s error in allowing an officer to be stationed next to the witness stand when Gorman-Lykken testified was not harmless. It reversed Gorman-Lykken’s conviction and remanded the case back to the trial court for further consideration. My opinion? Good decision. It’s highly prejudicial to have police and correctional officers standing by defendants as they testify before a jury. It silently says that the defendant is extremely dangerous and volatile. Juries are more likely to convict defendants who appear dangerous. Congrats to the Court of Appeals for deciding this one correctly. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Domestic Violence, felony, Jail, Jury Trial, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Rape, Sex Crimes, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Lawmakers Consider Giving Judges More Discretion](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/lawmakers-consider-giving-judges-more-discretion/) **Published:** August 27, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article](https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/politics-government/article234301847.html) by [James Drew](mailto:jdrew@thenewstribune.com) of the [News Tribune](https://www.thenewstribune.com/) says that over the next 20 months, state legislators shall study, debate, and vote on what could be the first major reform of Washington’s criminal sentencing law since 1981. The starting point of the deliberations is [a stack of recommendations from a state commission](https://sgc.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/SGC/publications/SRA_review_report_rev20190802.pdf) that would give judges more discretion in how they sentence adults convicted of felonies. The change could help the state reduce its reliance on incarceration and move more toward rehabilitation of offenders. The goal of overhauling the criminal sentencing law is to improve the system by simplifying it, but there are key questions looming for lawmakers, said [Rep. Roger Goodman](https://housedemocrats.wa.gov/goodman/), the Kirkland Democrat who is chairman of the [House Public Safety Committee](http://leg.wa.gov/House/Committees/PS/Pages/default.aspx). Disparities — a lack of equality or similarity in a way that is unfair — can occur by race, gender, geography, income and other factors, but the discussion last month touched heavily on race. At a July 16 legislative work session, Sen. Jeannie Darneille, D-Tacoma, questioned whether the [Criminal Sentencing Guidelines Commission](https://sgc.wa.gov/sentencing-guidelines-commission/about-sentencing-guidelines-commission) had studied systems in other countries that would help Washington address concerns throughout the United States about “mass incarceration.” The Legislature adopted the Sentencing Reform Act in 1981 and it took effect three years later. Since then, lawmakers have amended it dozens of times. The state’s three appellate courts and the Supreme Court have issued several rulings interpreting its provisions. Goodman said there are [several recommendations in a July 1 report](https://sgc.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/SGC/publications/sentencing_and_supervision_review.pdf) by the Criminal Sentencing Guidelines Commission that the Legislature can tackle during its 60-day session next year. Drew reported that a person’s greatest risk of committing another crime after release from confinement is within the first three to six months, according to [an analysis by the Council of State Governments.](https://csgjusticecenter.org/nrrc/publications/reducing-recidivism-states-deliver-results-2017/) Under the current system, a judge would have a sentencing range of 12-14 months for a defendant who is convicted of a Class B assault with a deadly weapon — and 36 months tacked on for use of a firearm. The 12-14 month sentence carries a 33 percent off for good behavior in prison, but the 36-month enhancement does not. “The sentence is opaque and difficult for the public to understand and allows almost no discretion for the trial court,” the commission report said. One of the reform proposals from the commission would provide a sentence range from 12-24 months, but any sentence between six months and 30 months would be deemed reasonable. The entire sentence would carry the same good behavior in prison provision to reduce the sentence. My opinion? This is good news. If allowed, a sentencing judge may give more weight to certain intangible factors. For example, a judge may take account of a defendant’s good deeds in other areas of his life, considering whether the crime is an isolated incident or aberration on the record of an otherwise well-intentioned individual or whether the crime is just one chapter in a life filled with deceit. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. Part of my practice includes drafting sentencing memorandums and assembling merit packages for clients convicted or felonies. These merit packages consist of character reference letters, proof of treatment, college transcripts (if applicable) favorable job reviews, security clearances, etc. The goal is to paint a favorable picture of the defendant that describes them beyond the criminal charges. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sentencing, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Exigent Circumstances Support Warrantless Blood Draw](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/exigent-circumstances-support-warrantless-blood-draw/) **Published:** September 4, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Anderson](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/766724.pdf),* the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that [exigent circumstances](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exigent_circumstances) supported a warrantless blood draw at the scene from a driver arrested for vehicular homicide and vehicular assault. **BACKGROUND FACTS** In October 2014, Anderson was living with his high school friend, Mr. Powers. Powers would occasionally let Anderson drive his car. The evening of October 24, 2014, Anderson drank at home and then went to a bar to watch a hockey game. About 12:30 am., Powers heard Anderson’s voice and then heard his car start. Anderson took Powers’s car without his permission. Around 2:00 a.m., Sergeant Jamie Douglas responded to a multivictim car crash in Auburn. At the scene, Douglas saw an “obliterated” car off the roadway, a path of debris, an uprooted tree with an 18-inch base, uprooted utility boxes, and guy wires that had been supporting a telephone pole torn out of the ground. The speed limit on the road was 35 m.p.h. but, based on the scene, Douglas estimated the car was traveling close to 100 mph. Deputy Jace Hoch had observed the car earlier traveling at about 90 mph. but could not catch it. He asked dispatch to let the Auburn Police Department know that the car was heading toward Auburn. Four of the five passengers in the car died. Multiple individuals who responded to the scene smelled alcohol on Anderson. Anderson told paramedic Paul Nordenger that he had had “a few drinks.” Nordenger drew Anderson’s blood at the scene without a warrant. Test results showed that his blood alcohol content (BAC) was 0.19 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood and that he had 2.0 nanograms of THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) per milliliter. Anderson was taken to Harborview Medical Center. Toxicologist Asa Louis testified that a second blood draw taken there showed a BAC of 0.18. The State charged Anderson with four counts of [vehicular homicide](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.520), one count of [vehicular assault](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.522), one count of [reckless driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/), and an a [sentencing aggravator](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.537) for injury to the victim substantially exceeding the level of bodily harm necessary to satisfy the elements of vehicular assault. A jury convicted Anderson as charged. Among other issues, Anderson claimed that exigent circumstances did not exist for officers to conduct a warrantless blood draw at the scene. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals reasoned that as a general rule, warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable, in violation of the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) and [article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/pages/constitution.aspx). A blood test is a search and seizure. A recognized exception to the warrant requirement allows a [warrantless search or seizure](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/unreasonable_search_and_seizure) when exigent circumstances exist. “A court examines the totality of the circumstances to determine whether they exist,” said the Court. “They exist where the delay necessary to obtain a warrant is not practical because the delay would permit the destruction of evidence.” Furthermore, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood may support a finding of exigency in a specific case, for example, when delay results from the warrant application process.” Next, the Court of Appeals’ legal analysis focused on prior cases U.S. Supreme Court and WA Supreme Court cases. It observed that [*Missouri v. McNeely*](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf) upheld the proposition that the presence of other officers weighs against the conclusion that exigent circumstances existed. Also, in [*State v. Inman*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2049174-5-II%20Order%20Publishing.pdf), the WA Court of Appeals held that exigent circumstances for a blood draw existed when Mr. Inman crashed his motorcycle on a rural road, injuring him and his passenger. In that case, Inman had facial trauma; including bleeding and abrasions on the face, and a deformed helmet. A bystander told police that Inman had been unconscious for five minutes before regaining consciousness. A paramedic administered emergency treatment. A responding officer spoke with lnman and smelled intoxicants on him. Finally, Inman admitted that he had been drinking before driving his motorcycle. “The circumstances here are more like those in *Inman*,” said the Court of Appeals. “Similar to *Inman*, the trial court found that Anderson was in a high-impact collision resulting in serious injuries. Here, Mr. Anderson sustained serious injuries that required treatment, multiple responders smelled alcohol on him, he told an officer at the scene that he had been drinking before driving, a paramedic told the first responding officer that the medics would be giving the driver medication and intubating him, the first responding officer knew from his experience in law enforcement and as a paramedic that this emergency treatment could impair the integrity of the blood sample, and that it would take 40 to 90 minutes to obtain a warrant for a blood draw. “A warrant was not practical because the delay caused by obtaining a warrant would result in the destruction of evidence or postpone Anderson’s receipt of necessary medical care,” reasoned the Court of Appeals. “The totality of the circumstances establish that exigent circumstances existed to justify a warrantless blood draw.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) of you, a friend or family member are charged with an alcohol-related driving charge and police execute a warrantless blood draw. Retaining an experienced DUI attorney who is experienced with the legalities of blood draws is the first and best step toward obtaining justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Blood Test, Constitutional Rights, Exigent Circumstances, Fourth Amendment, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Reckless Driving, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Sentencing, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Vehicular Assault, Vehicular Homicide, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Are Long Prison Sentences Necessary?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/are-long-prison-sentences-necessary/) **Published:** September 14, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/03/why-america-needs-to-break-its-addiction-to-long-prison-sentences-227999) in Politico Magazine from Ben Miller and Daniel S. Harawa highlights a pressing related problem in our criminal legal system: the lack of meaningful mechanisms in place to allow people in prison to obtain release once they have proven to [no longer pose a danger to our communities](https://famm.org/stories/), or in some cases, proven to be actually innocent. As the authors succinctly said: > “For decades, while we made it increasingly difficult to obtain release, we have sent people to prison for longer and longer. We became reliant on [extreme sentences](https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/sentencing-laws-and-how-they-contribute-mass-incarceration-0), including mandatory minimums, “three-strike” laws, and so-called truth-in-sentencing requirements that limit opportunities for people to earn time off their sentences for good behavior. As a result, the [United States](https://www.prisonpolicy.org/global/2018.html) laps the world in the number of people it incarcerates, with [2.2 million](https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2019.html) people behind bars, representing a [500 percent](https://www.sentencingproject.org/criminal-justice-facts/) increase over the past four decades, with [1 in 9](https://www.sentencingproject.org/criminal-justice-facts/) people in prison serving a life sentence.” Moreover, the authors argue that legislation is needed at the federal level and in every state to allow everyone after [a certain period](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/2/12/18184070/maximum-prison-sentence-cap-mass-incarceration) in prison the opportunity to seek sentence reductions. Sentence review legislation recognizes that as we have increased the length of prison sentences and limited the ability to obtain release, our prisons have become overwhelmed with people whose current conduct proves further incarceration is not in the public interest. **LONG PRISON SENTENCES DO NOT REDUCE CRIME.** “We increased sentence lengths and made it more difficult for people to be released because we were told it was needed for public safety,” said the authors. “But[ ](https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2016/02/the_effects_of_changing_state_theft_penalties.pdf "Adobe PDF - Opens in a new window")sending people to prison for long periods does not[ ](https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2018/01/16/national-prison-rate-continues-to-decline-amid-sentencing-re-entry-reforms)[reduce crime](https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2018/01/16/national-prison-rate-continues-to-decline-amid-sentencing-re-entry-reforms).” In fact, longer sentences, if anything, [create crime](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/2/12/18184070/maximum-prison-sentence-cap-mass-incarceration). [David Roodman](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/25/16340782/study-mass-incarceration), a senior adviser for [Open Philanthropy](https://www.openphilanthropy.org/), reviewed numerous studies on the impact of incarceration and concluded that “in the aftermath of a prison sentence, especially a long one, someone is made more likely to commit a crime than he would have been otherwise.” Additionally, the authors say that not only are lengthy prison sentences ineffective at reducing crime, but they have [devastated](https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/sentencing-laws-and-how-they-contribute-mass-incarceration-0) low-income and minority communities. As the [Vera Institute](https://www.vera.org/reimagining-prison-web-report) aptly put it: “We have lost generations of young men and women, particularly young men of color, to long and brutal prison terms.” While black people are just 13-percent of the country’s population, they account for [40 percent](https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/2010percent/US_Blacks_2010.html) of the people we incarcerate. If the ineffectiveness of long prison terms or the impact on poor communities of color is not reason enough to revisit lengthy prison sentences, the financial drain of long prison terms is staggering. For example, U.S. prisons spend [$16 billion per year on elder care](https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattstroud/2013/07/01/caring-for-elderly-prisoners/#6bf37bab22f2) alone. Billions of dollars are diverted to prisons to care for the elderly who would pose [no real risk if released](https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/8/12/20802680/illinois-department-of-corrections-prison-elderly-inmates-jennifer-soble-bill-ryan) when that money could be going to our schools, hospitals, and communities. Given this reality, the authors say, we need to pursue every option that would safely reduce our prison population. One proposal by the [American Law Institute](http://www.thealiadviser.org/sentencing/modification-of-long-term-prison-sentences/) recommends [reviewing all sentences](https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/longsentences.html) after a person has served 15 years in prison. Another example is the [bill](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/16/20694757/cory-booker-criminal-justice-reform-second-look-act) [Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.)](https://www.booker.senate.gov/) and [Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.)](https://bass.house.gov/) introduced that would provide sentence review for anyone who has served more than 10 years in prison or who is over 50 years old. Notably, neither proposal is restricted by the type of offense, which is critical, because to combat mass incarceration, to echo the [Prison Policy Initiative](https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2019.html), reform has “to go further than the ‘low hanging fruit’ of nonviolent drug offenses.” And numerous studies have shown that decreasing sentences does not increase crime. [A recent ](https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/between-2007-and-2017-34-states-reduced-crime-and-incarceration-tandem)[Brennan Center for Justice](https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/between-2007-and-2017-34-states-reduced-crime-and-incarceration-tandem) report [documented](https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2019/08/30/fewer-prisoners-lower-crime/6jpFLfXSER7Ox3vBFzXKAI/story.html?event=event12) 34 states that reduced both their prison population and their crime rates, the [Sentencing Project](https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/long-term-sentences-time-reconsider-scale-punishment/) concluded that unduly long prison terms are counterproductive for public safety, and the [Justice Policy Institute](http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/sentencing.pdf "Adobe PDF - Opens in a new window") found little to no correlation between time spent in prison and recidivism rates. My opinion? Some crimes need punishment. However, we have forgotten that our justice system is supposed to rehabilitate people, not just punish them. Our policies should reflect the ability of people to change over the course of years—or decades—of incarceration. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Prison, Race & Law, Sentencing, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Three Strikes Law, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Whatcom County's Inmate Transport & Housing Contracts In Jeopardy](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/whatcom-countys-inmate-transport-housing-contracts-in-jeopardy/) **Published:** September 15, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article235080857.html) by [Denver Pratt](https://muckrack.com/denver-pratt) of the [Bellingham Herald](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/) describes how the Yakima County Department of Corrections will not accept inmates from Whatcom County next year. Years ago, the contracts were negotiated as a way to reduce overcrowding in the downtown Whatcom County Jail, as well as to provide a place for inmates to be sent when [major repairs slated for the facility begin](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article211351959.html). According to Pratt, Yakima County Department of Corrections Director Ed Campbell sent a one-page letter stating the inmate housing agreement for all Whatcom County and its cities was terminated, effective Dec. 31. The letter was sent to Whatcom’s executive, the mayors of Sumas, Lynden, Ferndale, Everson, Bellingham and Blaine’s city manager. No reason was given for the termination. Although negotiations are underway, the decision to terminate was based on several factors. “One factor being related to the time, distance and cost of transportation. Other factors will be discussed with the individual agencies,” Campbell said. Housing an inmate in Yakima costs roughly from $58 to $63 a day. It currently costs $129 per day to house someone in the Whatcom County Jail. My opinion? Whatcom County needs a new jail. Period. The current facility, which was built nearly 40 years ago in the 1980s, is deteriorating and is unsafe when it comes to earthquake and fire hazards. Its decrepit. Renovating the current jail is not a viable solution. No amount of new drywall and retrofitting is going to solve these problems. Additionally, the current jail is not set up to provide the services and treatments available in the 2010s and 2020s for those with mental health and addiction struggles. As a result, suicides happen with disturbing frequency, sparking expensive litigation from the families of inmates who were not observed and/or given a lack of services. Skagit County experienced – and effectively *solved* – similar problems by creating the [Skagit County Justice Center ](https://www.skagitcounty.net/Departments/Jail/duipolicy.htm)two years ago in October 2017. The 400-bed, 100,000-square-foot facility was built to better accommodate the county’s jail population, which averages about 200. Their old jail was built to hold 83. Hopefully, similar to Skagit County, Whatcom County will address its incarceration challenges and simply create a new jail. The sooner, the better. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) if you, a friend or family member face are incarcerated and face criminal charges in Whatcom or Skagit County. Being incarcerated is never pleasant. Attorney Alex Ransom is highly experienced at persuading judges to lower bail or release an inmate without bail. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Jail, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [WA Supreme Court Invalidates "Community Caretaking" Search](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/wa-supreme-court-invalidates-community-caretaking-search/) **Published:** September 24, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Boisselle](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/958581.pdf),* the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) held a police officer’s warrantless entry into the defendant’s duplex in this case violated [article I, section 7 of the WA Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/pages/constitution.aspx) because their emergency aid function search was a unlawful pretext for a criminal investigation as the officers were suspicious, if not convinced, that a crime had taken place before entering the unit. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Law enforcement officers were dispatched to Mr. Boisselle’s home after two anonymous 911 calls reported that a man shot and possibly killed someone at the residence. While responding to the calls, the officers learned that the residence was related to an ongoing missing person/homicide investigation. Unable to determine whether someone was alive inside the home, the officers entered the residence and conducted a warrantless search, discovering evidence of a murder therein. Boisselle was arrested and jailed. Boisselle moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the officers’ warrantless search was unlawfully pretextual under article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution. The trial court denied Boisselle’s motion, concluding that the officers’ search fell within the emergency aid function of the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement. Following a jury trial, Boisselle was convicted of second degree murder and second degree unlawful possession of a firearm. The Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** ***I. The Community Caretaking Exception*** First, the WA Supreme Court agreed that the application of the community caretaking exception has become muddled, and took this opportunity to clarify the appropriate factors in determining whether an officer has exercised his or her emergency aid community caretaking function. “The community caretaking exception is one such exception to the warrant requirement,” said the Court. “Under the community caretaking exception, law enforcement officers may make a limited invasion of constitutionally protected privacy rights when it is necessary for officers to perform their community caretaking functions.” The Court explained this exception recognizes that law enforcement officers are “jacks of all trades” and frequently engage in community caretaking functions that are unrelated to the detection and investigation of crime, including delivering emergency messages, giving directions, searching for lost children, assisting stranded motorists, and rendering first aid. Next, the Court created the following multi-part test for evaluating whether an officer exercised his or her community caretaking function when conducting a warrantless search: **(1)** Was the community caretaking exception used as a pretext for criminal investigation? If the court finds pretext, the analysis ends. If the court determines that the exception was not a pretext, the analysis continues is question is answered negatively, the analysis continues. **(2)(a)** If the search fell within an officer’s **general community caretaking function**, such as the performance of a routine check on health or safety, the court must determine whether the search was “reasonable.” “Reasonableness” depends upon a balancing of a citizen’s privacy interest in freedom from police intrusion against the public’s interest in having police perform a community caretaking function. **(2)(b)** If the search fell within an officer’s **emergency aid function** which arises from a police officer’s community caretaking responsibility to come to the aid of persons believed to be in danger of death or physical harm, the court, before determining whether the search is “reasonable,” must first determine whether: “(1) the officer subjectively believed that an emergency existed requiring that he or she provide immediate assistance to protect or preserve life or property, or to prevent serious injury, (2) a reasonable person in the same situation would similarly believe that there was a need for assistance, and (3) there was a reasonable basis to associate the need for assistance with the place searched.” ***II. The Warrantless Search of Boisselle’s Home Was Pretextual.*** The Court reasoned that an unlawful pretextual search occurs when occurs when officers rely on some legal authorization as a mere pretense to dispense with a warrant when the true reason for the seizure is not exempt from the warrant requirement. When determining whether a given search is pretextual, the court should consider the totality of the circumstances, including both the subjective intent of the officer as well as the objective reasonableness of the officer’s behavior. > “Viewing the totality of the circumstances, we are unconvinced that the officers’ search of Boisselle’s home was not a pretext for a criminal investigation.” The Court reasoned that here, law enforcement’s involvement began because of two anonymous 911 calls reporting a crime. When the officers arrived at Boisselle’s duplex unit, they noticed a smell that could be attributed to a decomposing body, and they sought to confirm whether a crime had been committed or if a crime victim was inside. The officers were eventually able to see into the unit and saw signs of a struggle and missing carpet, which could be a sign that someone sought to cover up a crime scene. “Taken together, these facts demonstrate that the officers were suspicious, if not convinced, that a crime had taken place,” said the Court. “Because of the officers significant suspicions, the search of Boisselle’s home was necessarily associated with the detection and investigation of criminal activity.” Accordingly, the Court held the officers’ warrantless search did not fall under the emergency aid function of the community caretaking exception, and it violated article I, section 7 of the WA Constitution. Thus, the trial court erred in denying Boisselle’s motion to suppress. “We reverse the Court of Appeals and remand to the trial court for further proceedings,” said the Court. My opinion? Grisly as the facts appear to be, the Court reached the right decision. Freedom from government intrusion lies at the very foundation of Western law and culture, and is one of our nation’s most cherished freedoms. That’s why we insist on police obtaining warrants, unless exigent circumstances dictates otherwise. Please read my [Search and Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) Legal Guide and contact my office if you, a friend or family member were charges with a crime involving an unlawful pretextual search. Hiring competent defense counsel is the first and best step toward achieving justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Community Caretaking, Constitutional Rights, felony, Fourth Amendment, Homicide & Manslaughter, law enforcement, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Violent Crime, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Reconsider Long Prison Sentences?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/reconsider-long-prison-sentences/) **Published:** September 29, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.insidesources.com/a-second-look-at-long-sentences-is-the-bold-approach-we-need-on-criminal-justice-reform/) in [Inside Sources](https://www.insidesources.com/) by [Kara Gotsch, ](https://www.insidesources.com/author/karagotsch/ "Posts by Kara Gotsch")director of Strategic Initiatives at [The Sentencing Project](https://www.sentencingproject.org/) argues our society must reconsider long prison sentences. Gotsch writes that a measure of rationality has come to federal sentencing after [President Trump](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump) signed the [First Step Act.](https://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/11/16/what-s-really-in-the-first-step-act) The legislation has led to almost 1,700 people receiving sentence reductions, most of whom have been freed. Ninety-one percent are African American. Douglas and dozens of others sentenced to die in prison are among the beneficiaries. The [U.S. Sentencing Commission](https://www.ussc.gov/) reports that the resentencing provisions of the First Step Act reduced the average sentence of 20 years by an average of six years for those who qualified. “The reductions, while modest, are profound for the people and families ensnared by long prison terms, and who have been generally left out of criminal justice reforms until now,” writes Gotsch. > “Congress should take its next step to address a broader cohort of incarcerated people with lengthy sentences.” Gotsch’s arguments hinge on the fact that lengthy prison sentences seem inappropriate for prison populations that essentially “age out” of crime. Half of the people in federal prisons are serving sentences longer than 10 years. Almost 20 percent of the population is more than 50 years old. “Criminal justice research has long confirmed that people generally age out of crime, so long sentences provide diminishing returns for public safety,” says Gotsch. “Tax dollars that could be used to invest in youth, improve schools, expand drug treatment and medical and mental health care, are instead invested in prisons to incarcerate a growing elder population despite their limited likelihood of recidivism. Policy should reflect the research.” [The Second Look Act](https://famm.org/secondlook/), newly introduced sentencing reform legislation from [Senator Cory Booker](https://www.booker.senate.gov/) and [Representative Karen Bass](https://bass.house.gov/), follows the lead of experts on crime and punishment and offers a transformational approach. The bill seeks to curb long sentences by offering a sentencing review by a federal judge to people with sentences longer than 10 years. Individuals who have served at least 10 years must show they are rehabilitated and are not a threat to public safety to qualify for a sentence reduction. People who are 50 or older would have a presumption of release because of their substantially lower recidivism rates. “For the bipartisan lawmakers in Washington, and the 2020 presidential candidates who have pledged to address the problems in the criminal justice system, a broader approach to challenge mass incarceration and promote public safety is long overdue,” says Gotsch. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges which could include a prison sentence. It’s very important to hire an experienced, competent competent attorney who can either prepare a strong case for jury trial or navigate a plea deal which avoids prison. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, felony, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Prison, Race & Law, Sentencing, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Trump Administration, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Violent Crime Decreased - Except Rape](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/violent-crime-decreases-except-rape/) **Published:** October 3, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/09/30/new-fbi-data-violent-crime-still-falling) by [Jamiles Lartey](http://www.themarshallproject.org/staff/jamiles-lartey) and [Weihua Li ](http://www.themarshallproject.org/staff/weihua-li)of the [Marshall Project](https://www.themarshallproject.org/?ref=nav) describes new evidence showing that despite the fact that violent crime decreased, rape rises for the sixth straight year. The [2018 National Crime Victimization Survey](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6400351-National-Crime-Victimization-Survey-2018.html) (NCVS), released Tuesday, is managed by the [Bureau of Justice Statistics at the U.S. Justice Department. ](https://www.bjs.gov/)According to the authors, the data suggests that the violent crime rate in the U.S. remains on a decades-long downward trend, falling by 3.9 percent in 2018. Overall, the violent crime rate has plunged by more than 50 percent since the early 1990s. The drops came across categories of violent offenses, including murder, non-negligent manslaughter and robbery, and property crimes like burglary, larceny and vehicle thefts, while aggravated assault numbers remained about flat. However, rape and sexual assault crimes are increased slightly for 2018. This follows consistent trends that sexual assault crimes have risen for the last six years. So why the increase? Apparently, in 2013, the FBI [changed its outdated parameters](https://www.vox.com/2014/11/14/7214149/the-fbis-finally-collecting-modern-rape-stats) of rape—then defined as the forcible “carnal knowledge of a female”—to a more modern definition structured around consent, rather than force. Ever since, the rate has been on a steady surge, up more than 18 percent in that period. > “It’s not yet clear why rapes have risen so swiftly. It’s a notoriously underreported crime and [many have theorized that](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/06/nyregion/rape-reports-nyc-me-too.html) the changing social atmosphere, including the [\#metoo movement](https://metoomvmt.org/) and increased awareness around [campus rape](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_sexual_assault), may be prompting survivors to report at a higher rate.” Kristen Houser, a spokesperson for the [National Sexual Violence Resource Center](https://www.nsvrc.org/), said another possible outcome of that social and cultural change is assault survivors being better able to simply understand that what they’ve experienced was in fact a crime. “We may well have more ability to recognize experiences for the crimes that they are and be able to name them, which I don’t think has been true historically. And that’s a result of more people talking about it, reporting on it, reading it, etc.,” Houser said. Please vontact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [sex offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/). These charges are debilitating. Simply being charged negatively impacts reputations, employment opportunities and freedom. Therefore, it’s imperative to hire an experienced and effective defense attorney who will conduct proactive investigations, argue pretrial motions and defend your rights at trial. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Rape, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [NCO's & Double Jeopardy](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/ncos-double-jeopardy/) **Published:** February 22, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Madden*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/803026.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that a defendant who contacted a person with three separate No-Contact Orders (NCO’s) against him may only be punished for a single count of [Violation of a No-Contact Order](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/no-contact-order-violations/). **BACKGROUND FACTS** Mr. Madden Jr. contacted a person with three separate no-contact orders against him. For this single act, the State charged Madden with three counts of [Violating a No-Contact Order](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/no-contact-order-violations/#:~:text=Under%20statute%2C%20a%20violation%20of,well%20as%20mandatory%20DV%20penalties.) [(DV)](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/). The jury found him guilty as charged. Madden appealed on arguments that his three convictions for violation of a no-contact order violated [Double Jeopardy](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/double_jeopardy) principles **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The WA Court of Appeals began with the background that [Article I, section 9 of the WA State Constitution](https://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/Pages/WAConstitution.aspx) and the [Double Jeopardy Clause](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/double_jeopardy#:~:text=The%20Double%20Jeopardy%20Clause%20in,or%20limb%20.%20.%20.%20.%20%22) of the [Fifth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment) to the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/index.html) protect against multiple punishments for the same offense. “When a person is charged with multiple counts of the same offense, each count must be based on a separate and distinct criminal act,” said the Court, quoting [*State v. Mutch*](http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/171wn2d/171wn2d0646.htm). “It must be manifestly apparent from the record, testimony, and argument that identical charges are based on separate acts.” Furthermore – and importantly – the Court of defined what a “Unit of Prosecution” was. “Unless the legislature clearly and unambiguously intends to turn a single transaction into multiple offenses, the [Rule of Lenity](https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/rule%20of%20lenity) requires a court to resolve ambiguity in favor of one offenses,” said the Court. Consequently, the Court reasoned that while Mr. Madden violated multiple court orders, he committed only one act constituting a “violation.” The Court further reasoned that the State cites no case in which a court allowed multiple convictions under a single statute based on a single act. Finally, the court reasoned that when a person is charged with multiple counts of the same offense, each count must be based on a separate and distinct criminal act. “Any other interpretation would lead to an unconstitutional result.” With that, the Court of Appeals reversed counts two and three of Madden’s No-Contact Order Violation convictions. Please read my Legal Guide [Defending Against Domestic Violence Charges](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/defending-against-domestic-violence-charges/) and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Domestic Violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) crimes, including [Assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) and/or [No-Contact Order Violations](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/no-contact-order-violations/). Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Domestic Violence, Double Jeopardy, felony, misdemeanor, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, No Contact Order, Unit of Prosecution, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [The Role of the Prosecutor](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/the-role-of-the-prosecutor/) **Published:** October 5, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Have you ever thought about the role of a prosecutor and their work within the community? Well, look no further. The [National District Attorneys Association](https://ndaa.org/) released a video titled, “The Role of the Prosecutor.” Overall, it’s a good video. It accurately shows how prosecutors go about presenting cases against individuals who are suspected of breaking the law, initiating criminal investigations, conducting trials and recommending the sentencing of offenders. Although defense attorneys and prosecutors are adversaries in the criminal justice system, it’s extremely important for them to develop and maintain cordial relationships. According to the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance, “[The overwhelming majority (90 to 95 percent) of cases result in plea bargaining.”](https://www.bja.gov/Publications/PleaBargainingResearchSummary.pdf) Plea bargains are agreements between defendants and prosecutors in which defendants agree to [plead ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plead)[guilty](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/guilty) to some or all of the [charges](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/charge) against them in exchange for concessions from the [prosecutors](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prosecutor). These agreements allow prosecutors to focus their time and resources on other cases, and reduce the number of [trials ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trial)that [judges](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/judge) need to oversee. In plea bargains, the defense lawyer and prosecutor discuss the case, and one or the other proposes a deal. The negotiations can be lengthy and conducted only after both parties have had a chance to research and investigate the case. Or, they can be minute-long exchanges in the courthouse hallway. Prosecutors usually agree to reduce a defendant’s punishment. They often accomplish this by reducing the number of charges of the severity of the charges against defendants. They might also agree to recommend that defendants receive reduced [sentences](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sentence). In this process, good criminal defense attorneys are persuasively effective at explaining the facts, the law and their defense theory. *Great* criminal defense attorneys, however, have decent working relationships with prosecutors. These relationships are built on years of mutual respect and working on cases together in a straightforward, honest, ethical manner. Often, prosecutors know nothing more than the police reports and criminal histories of the defendants they bring charges against. They lack context and insight into why the parties involved criminal investigations behave certain ways. Based on that working relationship, great criminal defense attorneys are adept at humanizing their clients and persuading an otherwise hardened prosecutor to consider the deeper complexities of a case. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges. It’s important to hire an experienced criminal defense attorney like myself who appreciates the role of the prosecutor and works with them on a regular basis. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Inventory Searches, Automatic Standing, & Stolen Vehicles.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/inventory-searches-automatic-standing-stolen-vehicles/) **Published:** October 26, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Peck*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/960691.pdf), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) found that persons found in possession of a stolen vehicle may challenge the search of that vehicle. However, closed containers, other than items that “possess the same aura of privacy as a purse, shaving kit, or personal luggage” and locked containers, may be opened during an inventory search of a stolen vehicle. The search, of course, must not be used as a pretext for an investigatory search. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Two Kittitas County sheriffs deputies responded to a suspected theft in progress at a home in rural Ellensburg. When the deputies arrived, they discovered two individuals outside the home, along with a pickup truck stuck in the driveway’s unplowed snow. The deputies handcuffed the two men and eventually learned that they were Mr. Peck and Clark Tellvik. Two more deputies then arrived. One of them entered the pickup truck’s license plate into a law-enforcement database and learned that the truck had been reported stolen. Officers impounded the vehicle. They searched the pickup without obtaining a [search warrant](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/search_warrant) because they believed that Peck and Tellvik did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a stolen vehicle. Police discovered methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia inside the vehicle. Peck and Tellvik were charged with several crimes, including [possession of a stolen vehicle](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/possession-theft-of-stolen-motor-vehicle/) and [possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). The defendants moved to suppress the contraband found in the black zippered nylon case. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, finding the inventory search to be proper and finding no evidence of pretext. A jury subsequently convicted each defendant of the charged drug possession and stolen vehicle offenses. Peck and Tellvik were subsequently convicted. Both appealed their controlled substance convictions. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress. The WA Supreme Court granted review. **ISSUES** 1. Whether defendants have standing to challenge the scope of a warrantless inventory search of a vehicle when that vehicle is stolen. 2. Whether a proper inventory search extends to opening an innocuous, unlocked container of unknown ownership found in a stolen vehicle associated with defendants who were apprehended while burglarizing a home. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** 1. *Defendants have standing to challenge the scope of a warrantless inventory search of a vehicle, even when that vehicle is stolen.* First, the WA Supreme Court held the defendants have standing to challenge the search. It reasoned that a defendant has automatic standing to challenge a search if **(1)** possession is an essential element of the charged offense and **(2)** the defendant was in possession of the contraband at the time of the contested search or seizure. And a defendant has automatic standing to challenge the legality of a seizure even though he or she could not technically have a privacy interest in such property. “Peck and Tellvik have automatic standing to challenge the inventory search,” said the Court. It reasoned that the first prong of the test was satisfied because both were charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Furthermore, the second prong is satisfied because Peck and Tellvik were in possession of the truck up until the time of the search. “As such, Peck and Tellvik have automatic standing to challenge the warrantless inventory search of the black zippered nylon case.” 2\. *A proper inventory search extends to opening an unlocked container of unknown ownership found in a stolen vehicle.* The WA Supreme Court began by saying that warrantless searches are unreasonable. Despite that rule, a warrantless search is valid if one of the narrow exceptions to the warrant requirement applies. One of those narrow exceptions is a noninvestigatory inventory search. Inventory searches have long been recognized as a practical necessity. > “To be valid, inventory searches must be conducted in good faith and not as a pretext for an investigatory search.” The court explained that Inventory searches are also limited in both scope and purpose. They are permissible because they **(1)** protect the vehicle owner’s (or occupants’) property, **(2)** protect law enforcement agencies/officers and temporary storage bailees from false claims of theft, and **(3)** protect police officers and the public from potential danger. Unlike a probable cause search and search incident to arrest, officers conducting an inventory search perform an administrative or caretaking function. The Court reasoned that under these circumstances, it was proper for police to do more than merely inventory the unlocked nylon case as a sealed unit. First, the police knew the vehicle was stolen. Second, Peck and Tellvik were arrested while in the process of burglarizing a home and were observed taking items from the home and its surroundings. Responding officers testified that a purpose in conducting an inventory search of the truck was to determine ownership of both the truck and its various contents. Third, the search was not [pretextual](https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/pretext/). And finally, the innocuous nature of the container at issue is important: a nylon case that looked like it contained CDs does not possess the same aura of privacy as a purse, shaving kit, or personal luggage. > “Here, where the vehicle was stolen, Peck and Tellvik were arrested immediately outside of a home that they were currently burglarizing, and the trial court explicitly found no evidence of pretext, the search was proper.” The WA Supreme Court concluded that under the facts of this case, the search was a lawful inventory search. Accordingly, it reversed the Court of Appeals and upheld the denial of the motion to suppress. [Justices Gordon McCloud](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=gordon_mccloud), [Madsen](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=madsen), [Yu](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=yu), and [Chief Justice Fairhurst](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=fairhurst) dissented. Please read my Legal Guide titled [Search and Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) and contact my office if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges involving vehicle searches. It is imperative to hire an experienced criminal defense attorney who will defend your rights. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Evidence, Inventory Searches, Methamphetamine, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Possession of Stolen Motor Vehicle, Property Crimes, Search Warrant, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Some States Are Suppressing BAC Results](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/bac-results/) **Published:** November 6, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** A [New York Times investigation](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/the-weekly/breathalyzer-drunk-driving.html) found that these devices, found in virtually every police station in America, generate skewed results with alarming frequency, even though they are marketed as precise to the third decimal place. The Times interviewed more than 100 lawyers, scientists, executives and police officers and reviewed tens of thousands of pages of court records, corporate filings, confidential emails and contracts. Together, they reveal the depth of a nationwide problem that has attracted only sporadic attention. Judges in Massachusetts and New Jersey have thrown out more than 30,000 breath tests in the past 12 months alone. According to the authors, the invalidated tests in Massachusetts were already used to convict drivers, state records show. This month, the state will begin informing those defendants that they can seek a new trial, and lawyers are bracing for a flood of requests. So are lawyers in New Jersey, where more than 13,000 people were found guilty based on [breath tests from machines that hadn’t been properly set up](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/nyregion/nj-dwi-convictions-court.html?module=inline). This was largely because of human errors and lax governmental oversight. A county judge in Pennsylvania [called it “extremely questionable”](https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1933-schidlt-decision-pa/d785cd5b0e65bdc10755/optimized/full.pdf#page=1) whether any of his state’s breath tests could withstand serious scrutiny. In response, local prosecutors stopped using them. In Florida, a panel of judges described their state’s instrument as a [“magic black box” ](https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1935-orange-county-decision-2014-breath-tests/d785cd5b0e65bdc10755/optimized/full.pdf#page=1)with “significant and continued anomalies.” Even some industry veterans say the machines should not be de facto arbiters of guilt. “The tests were never meant to be used that way,” said John Fusco, who ran National Patent Analytical Systems, a maker of breath-testing devices. Yet the tests have become all but unavoidable. Every state punishes drivers who refuse to take one when ordered by a police officer. “The consequences of the legal system’s reliance on these tests are far-reaching,” say the authors. “People are wrongfully convicted based on dubious evidence. Hundreds were never notified that their cases were built on faulty tests. And when flaws are discovered, the solution has been to discard the results — letting potentially dangerous drivers off the hook.” My opinion? The “science” behind DUI investigations is very suspect. Hand-held portable breath tests like [Alco-Sensor IV](https://www.intox.com/product/alco-sensor-iv/), contain fuel cells that react to the alcohol in exhaled breaths and generate an electric current — the stronger the current, the higher the alcohol level. They are inexpensive and easy to maintain, but their results can be inconsistent. Older women sometimes [have trouble producing enough breath](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10926340) to get the machines to work. Toothpaste, mouthwash and breath mints — [even hand sanitizer](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23406081) and burping — may throw off the test results. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) charges or any other alcohol-related driving charges. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Traffic Infractions, Vehicular Homicide, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Search Incident to Arrest](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/search-incident-to-arrest/) **Published:** November 8, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In[ *State v. Richards*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2051700-1-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held that a search of an arrestee’s person, purses or handbags extends to closed, but not locked containers found on their person at the time of arrest. **BACKGROUND FACTS** On November 11, 2017, a loss protection officer at a retail store in Woodland, observed Richards placing store merchandise into her purse. The officer approached Richards after she left the store without paying for the items in her purse. Two police officers, who were waiting outside, detained Richards and escorted her to the loss protection office. There, the officers arrested Richards and searched her purse. During the search of the purse, the officers discovered the stolen merchandise and a closed, zippered pouch. They opened the pouch and searched it, looking for theft tools used for removing secure access devices. The pouch contained drug paraphernalia, foil residue, straws, and syringes. The State charged Richards with [unlawful possession of heroin](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). Richards filed a [motion to suppress](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) the contents of the pouch found in her purse. The trial court considered the evidence set out above and denied the motion. Richards subsequently was convicted of possession of heroin. She appeals her conviction. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** In short, the Court of Appeals held that officers did not exceed the scope of a lawful search incident to arrest when they searched a closed pouch in Richards’s purse that she was carrying at the time of arrest. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed Richards’s conviction. The Court reasoned that both the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) to the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/index.html) and [article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/pages/constitution.aspx) prohibit warrantless searches unless one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement applies. One exception to the warrant requirement is a [search of a person incident to a lawful arrest](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-4/search-incident-to-arrest) of that person. Under this exception, an officer making a lawful custodial arrest has authority to search the person being arrested as well articles of the arrestee’s person such as clothing and personal effects. “An article immediately associated with the arrestee’s person may be searched if the arrestee has actual possession of it at the time of a lawful custodial arrest,” reasoned the Court of Appeals. “This rule is referred to as the ‘time of arrest’ rule. Based on this rule, an officer may search a purse or a bag in the arrestee’s possession at the time of arrest.” However, the Court of Appeals also reasoned that the search incident to arrest exception did not apply to the search of a locked box inside a backpack an arrestee was carrying at the time of the arrest. For example, in [*State v. VanNess*](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-vanness-unlawful-search-of-a-lockbox-inside-a-backpack/), the court concluded that the locked box in the backpack could not be searched without a warrant because the arresting officer raised no concerns about his safety and there was no indication that the officer believed that the box would contain evidence relevant to the crime of arrest. > “The issue here is whether the same rule applies to a closed, **unlocked** container in Richards’s purse. We conclude that it does not.” Ultimately, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the search of a closed, unlocked pouch in a purse in the arrestee’s possession simply does not implicate the type of significant privacy interests that would render the search of the pouch unlawful. The Court concluded that officers searching a purse or bag incident to arrest may lawfully search closed, unlocked containers within that purse or bag. “Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying Richards’s motion to suppress the evidence discovered in the search of the pouch in her purse.” Please read my [Search and Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) Legal Guide and contact my office if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges involving a search of persons, vehicles or homes. It’s critically important to retain experienced defense counsel like myself who are knowledgeable of Washington’s search and seizure laws. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Fourth Amendment, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [A Cell Phone "Ping" Is a Search](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/a-cell-phone-ping-is-a-search/) **Published:** November 13, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Muhammad*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/960909.pdf), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) held that a cell phone “Ping” is a search under the [WA Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx) and the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment). **BACKGROUND FACTS** Police investigated the rape and murder of Ms. Ina Claire Richardson. The night she was killed, Richardson had shopped at a local grocery store. Security cameras recorded her walking through the parking lot toward a distinctive maroon sedan. Minutes later, the vehicle’s headlights switched on, and the vehicle exited the parking lot, drove onto an access road behind a nearby hotel, and parked. Two individuals appeared in the car, which remained parked for approximately one hour. Police officers later discovered a condom wrapper at this location. On November 10, 2014, a law enforcement officer recognized the unique features of the maroon sedan from the security footage and conducted a traffic stop. The driver was Mr. Muhammad. During the stop, the officer asked Muhammad about his vehicle, asked him whether he had gone to the grocery store or had been in the area on the night of the murder, and obtained Muhammad’s cell phone number before letting him go. After this encounter, law enforcement “pinged” Muhammad’s cell phone without a warrant. The ping placed Muhammad in an orchard in Lewiston, Idaho. Washington and Idaho police arrived, seized Muhammad’s cell phone, and impounded his car. Police also sought and obtained a search warrant for Muhammad’s car. Muhammad was taken into custody. He denied any involvement in the rape and murder and eventually asked for legal counsel. Police later searched Muhammad’s car. They discovered blood on the passenger seat; in the trunk, they found latex gloves and other incriminating evidence. The police also discovered condoms in the trunk of the sedan. These condoms matched the condom wrapper found by the hotel service entrance. Finally, The blood was matched to that of Ms. Richardson. Autopsy swabs of Richardson’s vagina and fingernails revealed a limited amount of [DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA) matching Muhammad’s profile. The police obtained a [search warrant](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/search_warrant) for Muhammad’s cell phone records. These calls he made on the night of the incident connected to multiple cell towers, indicating that Muhammad was moving. One such cell tower placed Muhammad in the location where Richardson’s body was found. Muhammad was arrested and charged with [rape](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.040) and [felony murder](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.32.030). At trial, Muhammad moved to suppress all physical evidence collected as a result of the warrantless ping of his cell phone. After a [CrR 3.6 hearing](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6), the trial court issued a written order denying the motion based in part on exigent circumstances. A jury convicted Muhammad as charged. Muhammad appealed his convictions. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** 1. ***The Cell Phone “Ping” Tracking Was A Warrantless Search.*** The WA Supreme Court held that the “ping” tracking of Muhammad’s cell phone was indeed a search. “When law enforcement loses sight of a suspected individual, officers need merely ask a cellular service carrier to ping that individual’s phone and almost instantaneously police acquire data on the suspect’s past and present location,” said the Court. “This location tracking technique does substantially more than binoculars or flashlights; it enables officers to see farther than even the walls of a home—it pierces through space and time to pinpoint a cell phone’s location and, with it, the phone’s owner.” The Court further reasoned that this type of search was exactly what happened to Mr. Muhammad. “The police could not locate Muhammad,” said the Court. “They knew only that he had likely left the area after officers returned to his apartment complex and found the maroon sedan had disappeared. As Muhammad pointed out, the officers’ senses alone could not locate him unless they converted his phone into a tracking device,” said the Court. > “Historical and real-time [CSLI](https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2016-06-07_Cell-Tracking-Primer_Final.pdf), like text messages, reveal an intensely intimate picture into our personal lives. Our cell phones accompany us on trips taken to places we would rather keep private, such as the psychiatrist, the plastic surgeon, the abortion clinic, the AIDS treatment center, the strip club, the criminal defense attorney, the by-the-hour motel, the union meeting, the mosque, synagogue or church, the gay bar and on and on.” **2. *Exigent Circumstances Exist to Justify the Warrantless Cell Phone Search.*** The Court said that because the State failed to get a warrant prior to pinging Muhammad’s cell phone, the evidence obtained pursuant to the improper search should be suppressed unless the State proves that an exception to the warrant requirement applies. [“Exigent Circumstances”](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exigent_circumstances) is one of those exceptions. To prove exigent circumstances, the State must point to specific, articulable facts and the reasonable inferences therefrom which justify the intrusion. “The mere suspicion of flight or destruction of evidence does not satisfy this particularity requirement,” said the Court. The Court reasoned that under the facts of this case, the State has proved exigent circumstances—specifically that Muhammad was in flight, that he might have been in the process of destroying evidence, that the evidence sought was in a mobile vehicle, and that the suspected crimes (murder and rape) were grave and violent charges. With that, the WA Supreme Court affirmed Muhammad’s conviction. Please read my [Search and Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) Legal Guide and contact my office if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges and the evidence was obtained through a warrantless search of cell phone data and/or location. It is imperative to hire an experienced criminal defense attorney who is well-versed in the law regarding search and seizure of this evidence. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Cell Phone, Cell-Site Location Information (CSLI), Constitutional Rights, DNA, Exigent Circumstances, Fourth Amendment, Homicide & Manslaughter, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Rape, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Violent Crime, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Warrant Quash Day!](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/warrant-quash-day/) **Published:** November 14, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In an effort to address the warrants currently in the system, the [Whatcom County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office](http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/304/Prosecuting-Attorney) will be holding their annual Warrant Quash Day event **Wednesday, November 20, 2019 from 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.** Anyone with an outstanding warrant, issued in Whatcom County, is encouraged to come to the event. Individuals will be issued a notice to appear document with a new court date, so they can take care of their original violation, without fear of arrest. The outstanding arrest warrant for the original charge will be removed from the warrant system. “We are hopeful the annual Warrant Quash Day will provide a pathway for individuals to get their cases back on track,” stated [Eric Richey, Whatcom County Prosecuting Attorney.](http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/1865/Meet-Your-Prosecutor) “We are providing community members with active warrants the opportunity to take control of their current situation.” Participating courts include [Bellingham Municipal Court](https://www.cob.org/gov/court), [Blaine Municipal Court](https://www.ci.blaine.wa.us/166/Municipal-Court), [Everson Municipal Court](http://www.ci.everson.wa.us/municipal-court.html), [Ferndale Municipal Court](http://ferndalecourts.org/), [Lynden Municipal Court](https://www.lyndenwa.org/court/), [Sumas Municipal Court](https://www.cityofsumas.com/sumas-municipal-court/), and Whatcom County courts. My opinion? This is good. I join the Prosecutor’s Office in urging defendants to quash their warrants, especially as the holidays approach. Avoid going to jail on unresolved criminal charges. And please read my Legal Guide Titled, [“Quash Your Bench Warrant”](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/quash-your-bench-warrant/) and contact my office if you, a friend or family member have an open warrant for an unresolved criminal matter. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Bench Warrant, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Unlawful Search Of Electronic Devices at Airports](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/unlawful-search-of-electronic-devices-at-airports/) **Published:** November 20, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Good news. In a major victory for privacy rights at the border, a federal court in Boston [ruled](https://www.eff.org/document/alasaad-v-nielsen-summary-judgment-order) that suspicion less searches of travelers’ electronic devices by federal agents at airports and other U.S. ports of entry are unconstitutional. The ruling came in a lawsuit, [*Alasaad v. McAleenan*](https://www.eff.org/cases/alasaad-v-duke), filed by the [American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)](https://www.aclu.org/), [Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)](https://www.eff.org/), and [ACLU of Massachusetts](https://www.aclum.org/), on behalf of 11 travelers whose smartphones and laptops were searched without individualized suspicion at U.S. ports of entry. “This ruling significantly advances Fourth Amendment protections for millions of international travelers who enter the United States every year,” said [Esha Bhandari](https://www.aclu.org/news/by/esha-bhandari/), staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “By putting an end to the government’s ability to conduct suspicionless fishing expeditions, the court reaffirms that the border is not a lawless place and that we don’t lose our privacy rights when we travel.” “This is a great day for travelers who now can cross the international border without fear that the government will, in the absence of any suspicion, ransack the extraordinarily sensitive information we all carry in our electronic devices,” said [Sophia Cope](https://www.eff.org/about/staff/sophia-cope), EFF Senior Staff Attorney. The district court order puts an end to [Customs and Border Control (CBP)](https://www.cbp.gov/) and [Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)](https://www.ice.gov/) asserted authority to search and seize travelers’ devices for purposes far afield from the enforcement of immigration and customs laws. Border officers must now demonstrate individualized suspicion of illegal contraband before they can search a traveler’s device. The number of electronic device searches at U.S. ports of entry has increased significantly. Last year, CBP [conducted](https://u7061146.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=G62jSYfZdO-2F12d8lSllQB7btI2NeLEFTP9VJVv1mXbp96Uf1KMUECzrOON6QItKPvlJu36FcFg1CiFB-2BJROUulYJglI-2Fa5se6AoV-2FqF0GrVLM-2BA02CoRSB0vaSfqN5RvNiqgCnHzVbk67-2B9Ie3VDuxwstqRoIlfHsGDW2-2FCcYjSoL58HLw5x6IX-2FWaICA5ty7eTuxdjPojuQCsxXZd-2FXBPRLBDQjGl3qrC1wNSKrcIGEmJyGiReQ-2BnaNQIPBGvpxct-2FDJcV0JrOiRdkyDtf9Rw2wL7SWeYVqBxtjP-2FXPbPqeZDuBzTHyUu1muguJrnPA8oySTs-2FmtkrGHt6h2at3Grfdp5r2NPZMxGC50SESZXhXNLMtQajps7mH6C5TGEXJU5KPonbXY17tYUPRvnrj42-2FsF7Ph5A2rNO-2BCmFElBl4Khn7EkAJPR3tn20ESHA8GH0BE-2BHaZYqgkH1zr0SjYP-2BgJkZQLbuQalSsNH6-2FOL8t9pvo-2Fk57zP0NQw6gmZhDwqpfj8LJfo6FVWpQSPEZ6YemmkLriIflEm-2BjMdDS57tiU3i5OQCHgXr3ypWL35EHUuIBVl4VsEP-2Bt0kSBqBLJXBleIyXFrRSoy57ELiO1qGmBy974XSIJRmFMMzJgqOxtuqy2IRDAttIZuPAVg5PksT3iYWVrTEJGOe3LwPyx-2FVnJWfXa3DLcDM5WKfUVQDW0UWAfMmOcDyTQack70qO23s14OniEPLFql4WAeJlw6Y6NsKzoG-2FywyfDvegi6R2wDImw2kb3oPM1-2FMxZX79dop7G3PXImJHFP8IleCnCKLE4CfSYHSeSHmR8EffwniZFZ-2F7ct8aYSA3AyPfe-2FILFrtvxGgkXCcZApeedZ0cBlU86jGvfLBbi5LrlaS-2FxnLV6mv6fduD9yOC-2FshpiPvHHdbbQVPyoCLRQdjt-2F4saWLbeLfkm7K08njLKjzkdcDEdD9VcvAU3-2FyGLmFrjEMxVwMUib6tuddlG-2BNYeS64SI7KdBPvyzJ90nsk5fiV-2Bf4dDQ7S-2BN1zQNY5d63zkFimGgRKqO7CWj8Se-2BKjmPCoYRFuv88GJ5m-2FXE81jMQKd876Sf67KAi72OMNRtiQvC3RJ1wcA-3D-3D_MIAlOzNj2ef5jCurs8gnkbT8439DNjzfRixguSvSSuwOfnVYYsNyHTXDEwJYmybLAUD9uAxFAeOUPyyuLlzCpuKpDODlJiX9rQ8f9j0KGpWNgZHxXDKeNR5R4H3Ge4mX-2BlgX0JslF7RtxxvoyUaP6Gl6ZsjntBK4rAonGy4ZY3Kj3D6FcOYN2ABKcNkPdPZjsmeaDLkXNBK6zAD-2Fhlo8UUWw8YjWB8ew6j4gI2ErYYP150yEByS5cUw-2FxkjXGsgIwlZ7jhayLvhuM2xXusOtNp4d1e526Entanp3HclRR-2BGH4xsK0LFGaS8HUYTUzGPE239W-2BlWAT3cHVjjLDcJ6tQ-3D-3D) more than 33,000 searches, almost four times the number from just three years prior. International travelers returning to the United States have reported numerous cases of abusive searches in recent months. While searching through the phone of Zainab Merchant, a plaintiff in the Alasaad case, a border agent knowingly rifled through privileged attorney-client communications. An immigration officer at Boston Logan Airport [reportedly](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/8/27/incoming-freshman-deported/#.XWTG5epzJI0.twitter) searched an incoming Harvard freshman’s cell phone and laptop, reprimanded the student for friends’ social media postings expressing views critical of the U.S. government, and denied the student entry into the country following the search. Good decision! Please read my [Search and Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) Legal Guide contact my office if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges because law enforcement officers conducted a questionably unlawful search. Hiring competent counsel is the first and best step toward getting justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** ACLU, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Body Camera Evidence Admissible](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/body-camera-evidence-admissible/) **Published:** November 27, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Clayton*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/358844_pub.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) held that police body camera evidence is admissible at trial. It does not violate [Washington’s Privacy Act](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73) because police interactions with a suspect and witnesses or victims of the crime are not private conversations. **BACKGROUND FACTS** The charges arose from a visit by law enforcement to a Spokane home. On the evening in question, multiple officers responded to the residence following a report of shots being fired. Mr. Clayton let officers in the residence and consented to a search. There were six people in the residence in addition to the officers who entered. Three officers had active body cameras recording the investigation, but none of the residents were advised of that fact. An officer discovered two revolvers in a dresser and also observed bullet holes in a couch, wall, and the floor. Upon learning that Mr. Clayton was ineligible to possess the revolvers, officers arrested him for unlawful possession of the weapons. The prosecutor charged two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm based on the October arrest. Clayton’s girlfriend told officers that one month earlier, Clayton had fired a shot in the apartment that struck the couch on which she was sitting. Ultimately, the prosecutor charged Clayton with one count of [second degree assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) and one count of [unlawful possession of a firearm ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/)for the September incident, as well as two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm for the two weapons recovered in October. After conducting a [CrR 3.6 hearing](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) on a defense motion to suppress the recordings, the court permitted the video evidence only to the point where the officer discovered the guns and arrested Clayton. Body camera footage from one of the officers was played for the jury at trial. The jury acquitted Clayton on the assault charge, but convicted him of all three unlawful possession charges. **COURT’S ANALYSIS** On appeal, Mr. Clayton argues that the police body camera recording was made in violation of the “Privacy Act,” rendering the evidence inadmissible. The Court of Appeals ultimately ruled, however, that because the police interaction with Mr. Clayton and his family was not a private conversation, there was no error. The Court described how the Privacy Act prohibits recording a private communication unless all parties to the communication consent. Consequently, any information obtained from unknown recordings is inadmissible in court. More specifically, a communication is private under the act when **(1)** the parties have a subjective expectation that it is private, and **(2)** that expectation is objectively reasonable. Among other things, the subject matter of the calls, the location of the participants, the potential presence of third parties, and the roles of the participants are relevant to whether the call is private. When it comes to body-worn cameras, law enforcement may record people who have been arrested upon **(i)** informing the person that a recording is being made, **(ii)** stating the time of the beginning and ending of the recording in the recording, and **(iii)** advising the person at the commencement of the recording of his or her constitutional rights. In addition, **(iv)** the recording may be used only for valid police or court activities. Finally, the person must be told that he or she is being recorded. However, there is no requirement that the individual consent to the recording. In short, the Court reasoned that conversations with uniformed, on-duty law enforcement officers are typically not private conversations. > “People understand that information they provide to officers conducting an investigation is going to turn up in written police reports and may be reported in court along with the observations made by the officers . . . The conversations took place in his apartment, a place where he had some subjective expectation of privacy, but they also occurred in the presence of five others. The subject matter of the visit—a report of a gun being fired and subsequent search for the weapon—was not a private one.” Consequently, the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress and upheld his convictions. Please read my [Search & Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) Legal Guide titled contact my office if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges and the evidence involves recordings from police body-worn cameras. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Body camera, Evidence, Firearm, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Privacy, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Privacy Act, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Holiday DUI Patrols](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/holiday-dui-patrols/) **Published:** November 30, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** According to an [article](https://www.goskagit.com/anacortes/news/law-enforcement-increase-dui-patrols-today-holiday-alert/article_4373045e-111c-11ea-a60c-4b4b441b9f8d.html) in the [Skagit County Herald](https://www.goskagit.com/), law enforcement agencies across the state are participating in emphasis patrols that search for motorists driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Drivers impaired by alcohol, marijuana and other drugs are involved in half of all traffic deaths in Washington, according to the state [Traffic Safety Commission. From 2013-17, 1,268 people were killed in such crashes.](https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812101) “These tragedies are completely preventable,” commission [Director Darrin Grondel](https://www.ghsa.org/about/bio-grondel) said in a notice of the emphasis patrols. “As a community, we can end DUI-related deaths. We are asking for help. If you are in the position to prevent someone else from driving impaired, please be bold. Offer to call them a ride or give them a safe place to sober up.” In a recent commission survey, 81% of respondents said they would try to prevent someone from [driving impaired](https://wadrivetozero.com/DUI/). The [Washington State Patrol](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/) has investigated 18 fatal collisions year to date with the majority caused by impaired drivers. The [Mobile Impaired Driving Unit (MIDU)](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/driver/duiimpaired-driving/) will also be deployed in a central location for all law enforcement to use during this emphasis. There will be processors on board along with a phlebotomist for search warrant blood draws if necessary. This will allow for the suspected impaired drivers to be dropped off and allow law enforcement to return to patrol for additional impaired drivers. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Blood Test, Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, DUI, marijuana, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State-Created Danger Doctrine and Domestic Violence Victims](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-created-danger-doctrine-and-domestic-violence-victims/) **Published:** December 10, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*Martinez v. City of Clovis*](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/12/04/17-17492.pdf), the [Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) held that police officers investigating a DV crime breached the victim’s Due Process rights by intensifying her peril. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Ms. Martinez was a victim of domestic violence. After reporting an incident to police, the investigating officers took her statement in confidence as to physical and sexual abuse by her boyfriend Mr. Pennington in a hotel and then repeated the substance in the presence of the abuser. That night or the next day, Pennington again attacked Martinez, this time resulting in his arrest. Consequently, Ms. Martinez [recanted](https://family.findlaw.com/domestic-violence/the-recanting-victim-and-domestic-violence.html) her accusations out of fear that she would again be attacked. Later, Ms. Martinez sued the investigating officers and the [Clovis Police Department](https://cityofclovis.com/police/). **LEGAL ISSUE** Whether Ms. Martinez can recover damages under [42 U.S.C. § 1983](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983) from the law enforcement officers who allegedly placed her at greater risk of future abuse. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the State-Created Danger Doctrine applies because actions of the police put Martinez in greater jeopardy than if they had not arrived. It reasoned that officer Hershberger told Mr. Pennington about Martinez’s testimony relating to his prior abuse, and also stated that Martinez was not ‘the right girl’ for him. “A reasonable jury could find that Hershberger’s disclosure provoked Pennington, and that her disparaging comments emboldened Pennington to believe that he could further abuse Martinez, including by retaliating against her for her testimony, with impunity,” said the Court. “The causal link between Hershberger’s affirmative conduct and the abuse Martinez suffered that night is supported by Martinez’s testimony that Pennington asked Martinez what she had told the officer while he was hitting her.” > “A reasonable jury could find that Pennington felt emboldened to continue his abuse with impunity.” The Court further reasoned that the [State-Created Danger Doctrine](https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/legal-doctrine-of-state-created-danger-and-police-liability-38300) applies when an officer praises an abuser in the abuser’s presence after the abuser has been protected from arrest, in a manner that communicates to the abuser that the abuser may continue abusing the victim with impunity. Nevertheless, the Court also decided the officers were entitled to [Qualified Immunity](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity) because the law with respect to state-created danger doctrine was not clearly established. He added: “Going forward, the law in this circuit will be clearly established that such conduct is unconstitutional.” Good opinion. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal [Domestic Violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) allegations. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Domestic Violence, Due Process, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Police Misconduct, Qualified Immunity, Skagit County Criminal Defense, State-Created Danger Doctrine, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Rape By Forcible Compulsion or Consent?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/rape-by-forcible-compulsion-or-consent/) **Published:** December 30, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Knapp*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/359018_pub%20in%20part.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) held a defendant charged with rape by forcible compulsion is not entitled to a jury instruction that requires the State to prove the absence of consent beyond a reasonable doubt. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Mr. Knapp and Ms. Spaulding met in high school and were friends for more than a decade. On February 7, 2016, Ms. Spaulding was preparing to watch the Super Bowl when Knapp came to her home. Ms. Spaulding let him in. The events following this were disputed. According to Ms. Spaulding, Knapp began to make sexual comments toward her and expressed an interest in having sex. Ms. Spaulding denied his advances. Knapp then left, but soon returned to the home, claiming he forgot his bandana. Ms. Spaulding let him in again and while she was sitting on the couch, Knapp threw her to the ground and pulled down her pants. Ms. Spaulding screamed for her neighbors, but they did not hear her. Knapp then used his bandana to gag her. The struggle continued until Knapp pinned her against a wall and raped her. Ms. Spaulding continued to say, “No,” “Stop,” and “Don’t do this.” Knapp left, and Ms. Spaulding called her mother and then the police. Ms. Spaulding was taken to the hospital where she underwent a sexual assault examination. According to Knapp, he and Ms. Spaulding were “friends with benefits” for years and engaged in sex together on and off. After Ms. Spaulding let him in the first time, Ms. Spaulding realized Knapp was high on [methamphetamine](https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/methamphetamine) and she hinted that she wanted some. Knapp refused to give her any. Ms. Spaulding became upset, and Knapp decided to leave. After he left, Knapp realized he forgot his bandana and returned to retrieve it. Ms. Spaulding let him in again, and she pressed Knapp to get her high. Eventually, Ms. Spaulding offered sex for drugs. At that point, Knapp “gave in” and they had sex. Afterward, Knapp could not find the methamphetamine to give to her. Ms. Spaulding became upset and threatened to call the police and falsely accuse him of rape. Knapp left and was later arrested. The State charged Knapp with [rape in the second degree by forcible compulsion](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.050). **THE TRIAL** At trial, Knapp requested a jury instruction that told the jury the State had the burden of proving an absence of consent beyond a reasonable doubt. The State opposed this instruction, arguing it was not a correct statement of the law. The State instead proposed Washington pattern [jury instruction 18.25](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Iefa085b2e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&bhcp=1), which reads, “Evidence of consent may be taken into consideration in determining whether the defendant used forcible compulsion to have sexual intercourse.” The trial court declined to give Knapp’s proposed instruction and instead gave the State’s. The jury found Knapp guilty of second degree rape. The trial court sentenced Knapp to a midrange sentence—110 months to life. Knapp appealed on the issue of whether the jury was properly instructed on the issue of consent. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals began by saying that at trial, each party is entitled to have the jury instructed on its theory of the case when there is sufficient evidence to support that theory. “Jury instructions are sufficient if they are supported by substantial evidence, allow the parties to argue their theories of the case, and when read as a whole properly inform the jury of the applicable law,” said the Court. “Read as a whole, the jury instructions must make the legal standard apparent to the average juror.” Here, both parties relied heavily on *[State v. W.R.](https://casetext.com/case/state-v-wr-2),* a case which apparently offers confusing interpretations of which party in a criminal sex case has the burden of proving consent. The Court acknowledged that Knapp argued that *W.R.* stands for the proposition that the burden to prove consent has now shifted to the State, and the State must prove a lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt. Knapp’s proposed jury instruction read: **“*Consent means that at the time of the act of sexual intercourse there are actual words or conduct indicating a freely given agreement to have sexual intercourse. The Defendant has no burden to prove that sexual intercourse was consensual. It is the State’s burden to prove the absence of consent beyond a reasonable doubt*.”** However, the Court of Appeals disagreed with Knapp: > “The court in *W.R.* focused on whether the burden to prove consent was correctly placed on the defendant. It did not hold that the State must prove the absence of consent.” The Court ruled that the trial court did not commit legal error when it denied Knapp’s proposed instruction. “Knapp’s proposed instruction was an incorrect statement of the law,” it said. “*W.R.* did not hold that the burden to prove an absence of consent shifted to the State. Instead, it held that the burden to prove consent cannot be placed on the defendant.” Furthermore, when read as a whole, the trial court’s instructions allowed Knapp to argue his theory of the case. “Knapp claimed the sexual intercourse was consensual,” said the Court of Appeals. “The court’s instructions on the elements of the offense and consent allowed Knapp to argue his theory of the case—that Ms. Spaulding consented to sexual intercourse and the State failed to prove forcible compulsion beyond a reasonable doubt.” With that, the Court of appeals affirmed Knapp’s conviction. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face a [sex offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/). Consent is a viable defense, and evidence of consent may be considered by the jury. Therefore, it’s imperative to hire a defense attorney knowledgeable of the law surrounding these issues. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Jury Instructions, Jury Trial, Methamphetamine, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Rape, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [New Year's Eve DUI Patrols](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/new-years-eve-dui-patrols/) **Published:** December 31, 2019 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [WA State Patrol (WSP)](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/) issued a [press release](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/New-Years-DUI-emphasis-patrols-002.pdf) stating WSP Troopers will be out looking for impaired drivers this week in preparation for the New Year. Patrols will be increased to include Troopers brought out to supplement regularly assigned patrols. WSP has partnered with five other states to form the Western States Traffic Safety Coalition. Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Nevada and Arizona are working together to save lives by removing impaired drivers from all of our roadways. The message is clear; A New Year but an old truth- There’s no safe place for impaired drivers to hide. These extra patrols will include specially trained troopers to help identify and detect drug impaired drivers. Most WSP troopers receive additional training in drug impaired driver detection. This training, [Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE)](file:///C:/Users/Alex%20Ransom/Downloads/11602-ARIDE%20Revised%20Brochure3-14_051815_v2.pdf) is specifically focused on detecting drivers impaired by drugs. Troopers trained as [Drug Recognition Experts (DRE)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Recognition_Expert) will also be out to assist in identifying and detecting drug impaired drivers. DREs receive training to identify what drugs a driver may be impaired by. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member face [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other alcohol-related driving crimes. It’s imperative to hire an experienced defense attorney who is knowledgeable of DUI defense. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, DUI, law enforcement, marijuana, Methamphetamine, misdemeanor, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Toxicologist, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Sexsomnia](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/sexsomnia/) **Published:** January 11, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Pratt*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2051777-9-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held that [Sexsomnia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_sex) is an abnormal activity, similar to sleepwalking, that involves people engaging in sexual acts during sleep. However, the trial court’s exclusion of expert testimony regarding sexsomnia did not violate the defendant’s [Sixth Amendment right to present a defense](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) because no psychological evaluation could determine whether the defendant suffered from sexsomnia at the time of the offense or that the defendant had the disorder. **BACKGROUND FACTS** The State charged Mr. Pratt with [child molestation in the first degree](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.083) based on an allegation by the juvenile victim MB that Pratt had sexually assaulted her while they were both sleeping in a tent for her cousin’s birthday sleepover party. The party occurred at the home of Pratt’s aunt and uncle. MB is the daughter of Pratt’s aunt’s stepsister. Before trial, Dr. C. Kirk Johnson, a psychologist, evaluated Pratt to determine if he suffered from a sleep disorder called sexsomnia. Sexsomnia is an abnormal activity, similar to sleepwalking, that involves people engaging in sexual acts during sleep. Johnson concluded that a possible explanation for Pratt’s actions included sexsomnia, but he could not confirm it happened. At a pretrial evidentiary hearing, Pratt indicated he wanted Johnson to testify as an expert at trial about sexsomnia. Although Johnson could not conclude that Pratt had the disorder, he would testify that sexsomnia exists. Pratt wanted to use this testimony to support his [general denial defense](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_denial). Pratt wanted to argue at trial that if a person is asleep, they cannot be guilty because any touching would not have been done for the purpose of sexual gratification. Pratt viewed being asleep as a general denial. The State moved to exclude the testimony on grounds of relevance. The judge was concerned that calling an expert to testify about sexsomnia could amount to “a back door [diminished capacity](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/diminished_capacity).” The judge granted the State’s motion to exclude. Pratt waived a jury. At a bench trial, court found Pratt guilty as charged. Over the State’s and the victim’s objections, the court imposed a [SSOSA disposition](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.670). The State appealed the sentence. Pratt [cross-appealed](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/cross-appeal) the exclusion of Dr. Johnson’s testimony. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** First, the Court of Appeals reasoned that in order to be eligible for a SSOSA sentence, a defendant must have a connection with the victim which is independent of the crime. Here, Pratt was not eligible for a SSOSA sentence because it is clear that Pratt did not have an “established connection” with MB. Other than the sexual molestation, their only connections involved Pratt giving MB a skewer with marshmallows and asking MB her name. Second, regarding the defense of Sexomnia, the Court of Appeals reasoned that under [*State v. Utter*](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1158912/state-v-utter/), Washington courts have recognized a defense of involuntary action due to sleepwalking where, at the time of the crime, the offender was clearly unconscious. Furthermore, the defense of involuntary action as a result of being asleep, therefore, should not be treated as one of diminished capacity. Instead, involuntariness due to sleep is an affirmative defense that must be proved by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence. In this case, however, the Court of Appeals reasoned that Dr. Johnson could not testify that Pratt suffered from sexsomnia either on the night of the sexual molestation or ever. > “The fact that this disorder exists is irrelevant without some tendency to make the existence of sexsomnia of consequence to the determination of the action more probable than it would without the evidence. No nexus existed between Pratt, sexsomnia, and his actions on the night of the molestation.” Therefore, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court properly excluded Johnson’s testimony because it was irrelevant to both the general denial defense and to a defense of lack of volition. With that, the Court of Appeals affirmed Pratt’s conviction. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime and the defense involves being unconscious due to sleepwalking, and/or experiencing a medical condition called [“slow wave sleep.”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow-wave_sleep) I’ve successfully obtained dismissal of criminal charges for prior clients who were asleep and/or unconscious during the commission of crimes. Expert testimony might be necessary to educate the jury of a possible [Diminished Capacity](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Iefa05eace10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?contextData=%28sc.Default%29&transitionType=Default) defense. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Child Molestation, felony, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sex Crimes, Sexsomnia, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Support Legislation Ending Felony Charges for Missing a Court Hearing](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/support-legislation-ending-felony-charges-for-missing-a-court-hearing/) **Published:** January 15, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Did you know that a person who misses just one court hearing can be charged with [Bail Jumping](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/bail-jumping/) and be convicted of a new felony simply for missing that court hearing? Fortunately, legislation proposed by WA Representative [Mike Pellicciotti](https://housedemocrats.wa.gov/pellicciotti/) could possibly end this travesty. **THE PROBLEM** When the Legislature enacted the “Bail Jumping” statute, the intent wasn’t to criminalize every missed court date or failure to appear (FTA), rather lawmakers wanted to give the courts a tool to deter people charged with serious crimes from fleeing. The legislature gave discretion to prosecutors to add a felony charge if someone “jumped bail.” Sadly, this prosecutorial discretion is being overused. The charge of “Bail Jumping” has now led to a long list of unintended consequences that disproportionately harm Washington’s low income and most marginalized citizens. Research shows that most people charged with “Bail Jumping” were not intentionally avoiding court. Many had difficult life circumstances that made it hard or impossible to attend a court hearing on a particular day. They were not fleeing from the court, and they wanted to resolve their cases. Research also shows that many people who miss court are experiencing difficulties with transportation, childcare, job disruption, homelessness, health problems, mental illness and other challenges related to poverty. Under current “bail jumping” laws, Washington disproportionally and unjustly allows for longer criminal sentences for people who are low-income or experiencing a crisis for the charge of “Bail Jumping” even though that was never the legislature’s intent. **THE SOLUTION** [WA HB 2231](https://www.billtrack50.com/BillDetail/1152891) is legislation would would amend the current Bail Jump statute in two ways: **(1)** it makes bail jumping a misdemeanor, and **(2)** it requires the state to prove that a person received written notice of the court date that the person missed. [Here is a position paper about the bill](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByfVUWDKPFjhTkQ5MG1uSmNUQ0JWb3Qza0xVN09MV3laTHd3/view?fbclid=IwAR28kqYh1M_EDAG7mMq5ZrowmjaKwp_ZgR60-OeWkcLcFXiXqnG0RhQGb2M). It is supported by the WDA, ACLU, WACDL, the [Northwest Community Bail Fund](https://www.facebook.com/NorthwestBailFund/) and numerous other organizations. This bill sponsored is by [Mike Pellicciotti](https://housedemocrats.wa.gov/pellicciotti/) of the ([Democratic Party](https://ballotpedia.org/Democratic_Party)). He is a member of the [Washington House of Representatives](https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_House_of_Representatives_District_30), representing [District 30-Position 1](https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_House_of_Representatives_District_30). My opinion? This is great legislation. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you face felony charges which include [Bail Jumping](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/bail-jumping/). These charges are often used by prosecutors to coercively leverage a plea. Although there are [substantive defenses](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/I093aafd5a75611dd8931e514b9d4bd12?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)) to the charge, those who face barriers getting to court are frequently subject to this coercive manner of resolving cases that results in an unjust and disproportionate number of convictions for the most vulnerable. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bail, Bail Jumping, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Criminal Justice, felony, Jail, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Prison, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Meth Hurts Opioid Treatment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/meth-hurts-opioid-treatment/) **Published:** January 21, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [*Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment*](https://www.journalofsubstanceabusetreatment.com/) published a [new study](https://www.journalofsubstanceabusetreatment.com/article/S0740-5472(19)30250-8/fulltext) which found that methamphetamine use was associated with more than twice the risk for dropping out of treatment for opioid-use disorder. The origins of the study are interesting. Apparently, [Judith Tsui](https://www.uwmedicine.org/bios/judith-tsui), a UW Medicine clinician specializing in addiction treatment, was seeing more and more patients she was treating for opioid-use disorder also using methamphetamines, a powerful, highly addictive stimulant that affects the central nervous system. She would start the patients on [buprenorphine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buprenorphine), a medication to treat opioid use disorder, but they would often drop out. So she and colleagues wanted to see if this was a common problem. They conducted a large study (799 people) at three sites — [Harborview Adult Medicine Clinic](https://www.uwmedicine.org/locations/adult-medicine-harborview) in Seattle and [Evergreen Treatment Services](https://www.evergreentx.org/) in Olympia and Grays Harbor. “This study confirms anecdotally what we sensed,” said Tsui. “The next step is to build into treatment models how we can help those patients who struggle both with opioids and methamphetamines to be successful.” > “A substantial proportion of these patients are homeless and may use meth to stay awake at night just to stay safe and keep an eye on their belongings.” *~Judith Tsui, UW Medicine Clinician* Dr. Tsui also said patients also tell her the streets are flooded with the drug and it’s hard for them to say no. Some patients have requested treatment with prescribed stimulant medications like Adderall and Ritalin to help them stop using methamphetamines. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges for illegal [possession and/or distribution of unlawful drugs](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). The [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) to the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution) protects individuals against [unreasonable searches and seizures](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/unreasonable_search_and_seizure) by the government. In many cases – including drug cases in particular – the legality of how law enforcement officials obtained the evidence used to support the State’s case is a central and debatable issue. If the government’s conduct violated a person’s rights, the evidence is deemed inadmissible. And without the necessary evidence to prove the criminal charges, the judge may dismiss the State’s case. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Fourth Amendment, Methamphetamine, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Opoids, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Felony Voting Rights Bill Pending in WA Legislature](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/felony-voting-rights-bill-pending-in-wa-legislature/) **Published:** January 28, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/politics-government/article239626853.html) in the [Tacoma News Tribune](https://www.thenewstribune.com/) by reporter [James Drew](https://muckrack.com/jamesjdrew) describes how [Senate Bill 6228](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=6228&Chamber=Senate&Year=2019) would make about 9,000 felons eligible to vote is moving ahead in the [Washington state Legislature](http://www.leg.wa.gov), as Democratic senators vow to expand democracy by removing a barrier they say is rooted in [systemic racism](https://www.raceforward.org/videos/systemic-racism). [Senate Bill 6228](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=6228&Chamber=Senate&Year=2019) would make felons automatically eligible to vote once they are released from state prison. Under current law, they are eligible once they have completed community custody — formerly known as probation — and that can take several years. “The very essence of community custody is to get people back on the right track, to reintegrate them into society and to reduce the chances of re-offending,” said the bill’s sponsor, state [Sen. Patty Kuderer](http://sdc.wastateleg.org/kuderer/), a Bellevue Democrat. “Restoring the right to vote and the right to participate in our democracy is an important tool for that reintegration process.” > “Until someone can show me that there’s a good reason to deprive someone of the right to vote because of the commission of a crime, then I will rethink that. But for now, I have seen zero evidence for that.” ~Senator Patty Kuderer. Stressing that her bill addresses a “major equality and social justice issue,” Kuderer said blacks and Native Americans are overly represented in the criminal justice system. As a result, they are “disproportionately stripped of their voting rights, diminishing their representation,” she said. A Senate committee on Friday approved the bill, putting it one step closer to a vote by the Democratic-controlled Senate. If it becomes law, the measure would take effect in 2021. Senate [GOP Leader Mark Schoesler](http://markschoesler.src.wastateleg.org/), R-Ritzville, is opposed to the bill, saying it removes an incentive for felons to fulfill obligations under community custody such as making restitution to crime victims. The bill states that sanctions for violating community custody requirements or failure to pay court costs, restitution to victims, or fines and fees would not take voter eligibility away from a former inmate. Samuel Merrill, clerk of the criminal justice working group for the Olympia-based [Quaker Voice on Washington Public Policy](https://www.quakervoicewa.org/), said whites after the Civil War and Reconstruction adopted laws targeting former slaves for felonies to deprive them of their voting rights. The practice continued into the voter suppression laws under [Jim Crow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws) — “vestiges of which continue today,” Merrill said. Supporters of the bill include the [Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys](http://waprosecutors.org/), the state [Department of Corrections](https://www.doc.wa.gov/), the [ACLU of Washington](https://www.aclu-wa.org/), and [Attorney General Bob Ferguson](https://www.atg.wa.gov/about-bob-ferguson). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Voting Rights, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [End ICE Courthouse Arrests](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/end-ice-courthouse-arrests/) **Published:** February 5, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://crosscut.com/2020/01/washington-state-looks-end-ice-courthouse-arrests?fbclid=IwAR0CJiD2x5G3vnf4ksS6k6_ifABfmXQiccd0qf59XlHnK_uiz0_6IhnOh84) in [Crosscut](http://www.crosscut.com) by [Lilly Fowler](https://crosscut.com/author/lilly-fowler) describes how [the Washington state Legislature is considering a bill](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=6522&Year=2019) that would prohibit federal immigration agents without a warrant from making arrests within one mile of a courthouse. If signed, the legislation – [SB 6522](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=6522&Year=2019) – would also require judicial warrants to be reviewed by a court before being used. And federal immigration agents would have to check in with local court staff before entering a courthouse. A website monitored by the state Administrative Office of the Courts would track all arrests made at courthouses. Finally, the bill would prohibit court staff, including prosecutors, from sharing information with federal immigration officials. A recent [report](https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2018/11/15/federal-prosecution-criminalization-immigration/) from the [University of Washington Center for Human Rights](https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/) revealed that county prosecutors have been [sharing information with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol agents](https://crosscut.com/2019/10/county-prosecutors-are-sharing-information-ice-and-border-patrol-facilitate-courthouse) to facilitate the arrests of undocumented immigrants at state and local courthouses. As reported by Ms. Fowler, the outcry over immigrants being arrested at courthouses by plainclothes ICE and Border Patrol officials has been persistent. Washington state [Attorney General Bob Ferguson sued the federal government last month](https://crosscut.com/2019/12/calling-it-trap-washington-sues-stop-ice-arresting-people-courthouses) in an attempt to stop such arrests, and the state Supreme Court is looking at rules that would bar the apprehensions. At a hearing on the bill last week before the [House Civil Rights and Judiciary Committee](http://leg.wa.gov/House/Committees/CRJ/Pages/default.aspx), legislators heard testimony in Spanish from a man named Carlos. He told lawmakers he and his wife recently visited the courthouse in Ephrata, Grant County, to renew his car’s license plates. While his wife waited in the vehicle, Carlos stood in line inside the courthouse and noticed a man staring at him. As Carlos exited the courthouse, another man with a gun approached him, introduced himself as a federal immigration official and, in Spanish, said, “*Soy la migra”* (or “I am ICE/Border Patrol”). Carlos was promptly arrested. Although he was eventually released by the ICE agent, the experience left him shaken and terrified. Enoka Herat, an attorney with the [American Civil Liberties Union of Washington](https://www.aclu-wa.org/), said the state would not be the first to protect its court system. In November, the [Oregon Supreme Court barred warrantless arrests at courthouses](https://www.opb.org/news/article/ice-courthouse-arrest-ban-oregon/). [California](https://psmag.com/social-justice/a-new-law-makes-it-harder-for-ice-to-arrest-immigrants-from-courthouses), [New York](https://www.npr.org/2019/04/17/714496186/new-york-courts-tell-ice-not-to-arrest-immigrants-in-courthouses-without-warrant) and [New Jersey](https://whyy.org/articles/new-rules-seek-to-limit-ice-arrests-in-n-j-courthouses/) have also sought similar protections for immigrants. [In Massachusetts](https://www.wbur.org/news/2019/06/20/ice-courthouse-arrests-judge-decision), a federal judge barred courthouse arrests while a lawsuit makes its way through the court system. My opinion? Let’s hope [SB 6522](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=6522&Year=2019) gains support and passes. The bill isn’t about hampering the work of law enforcement. It’s about but ensuring the public can use courts to pay fines, serve as witnesses, seek protection orders and pursue other matters related to the justice system, without the fear of unexpected encounters with law enforcement. Equal access to courts is something both Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree upon. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** ACLU, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Immigration, Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE), law enforcement, Legislation **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Unlawful Jury Selection](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/unlawful-jury-selection/) **Published:** February 8, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Guevara Diaz*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/778111.pdf) the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that seating a juror without questioning regarding her ability to be fair can never be harmless and requires a new trial without a showing of prejudice. **BACKGROUND FACTS** The State charged Mr. Diaz with one count of [second degree rape](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.44.050) and one count of [third degree rape](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.060). At the beginning of trial, the judge explained to the jury that he and the attorneys would be asking them questions, first with a questionnaire and then orally. The judge told the potential jurors that counsel had prepared a questionnaire and pointed out that each juror had “the opportunity to be questioned outside the presence of the other jurors in the event that certain questions are answered yes.” Thirteen jurors stated that they wished to be questioned outside the presence of other jurors. Seven of them had answered they could not “be fair.” Six others, including juror 23, who also answered that they “could not be fair” did not ask to be questioned outside the presence of other potential jurors. At the conclusion of jury selection, the court seated two jurors who said that they could not be fair. One of those jurors included juror 23. The jury found Mr. Diaz guilty of one count of second degree rape and one count of third degree rape (this conviction was later overturned on double jeopardy grounds). On appeal, Mr. Diaz argued that the trial court violated his constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury by allowing a biased juror to serve. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** First, the WA Court of Appeals held that the trial court should not have allowed juror 23 to serve because she expressed actual bias without further inquiry. > “A criminal defendant has a federal and state constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury. Seating a biased juror violates this right. Because the presence of a biased juror cannot be harmless, seating an actually biased juror requires a new trial without a showing of actual prejudice.” Second, the Court held that juror 23 demonstrated actual bias when she answered “No” to the fairness question. The Court explained that the [Sixth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) to the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution) and [article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/Pages/WAConstitution.aspx) both guarantee a criminal defendant the right to trial by an impartial jury. To protect this right, a party may challenge a juror for cause. Actual bias provides a basis to challenge a juror for cause. “The trial court should have addressed this actual bias by questioning juror 23 or allowing defense counsel to question her outside the hearing of other jurors,” said the Court. “Under the circumstances of this case, any court questioning also should have occurred outside the hearing of other jurors because of defense counsel’s viable concern over questioning potentially biased jurors in front of the jury pool.” With that, the Court of Appeals reversed Mr. Diaz’s conviction and remanded his case for a new trial. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an experienced defense attorney with a record of favorable [verdicts and results](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/verdicts-and-results/) is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sex Crimes, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Imprisoned At 7-11](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/imprisoned-at-7-11/) **Published:** February 15, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [ *State v. Dillon*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/785923.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that in [Unlawful Imprisonment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/kidnapping-unlawful-imprisonment/) charges, the State must prove that the defendant knowingly restrained another person, not that the defendant knowingly acted without legal authority. **BACKGROUND FACTS** On December 21 2017, the soon-to-be victim Mr. Favors entered a [7-Eleven](https://www.7-eleven.com/) after he got off his bus. Favors encountered the soon-to-be defendant Mr. Dillon standing near the entrance to 7-Eleven. Favors noticed that Dillon had scratches on his face, was bleeding, and intoxicated. Favors thought that Dillon was panhandling and told him he did not have change. Favors continued into the 7-Eleven. Dillon entered the 7-Eleven 10 to 15 seconds after Favors. Favors finished making his purchase and started walking towards the exit. Dillon was standing three feet in front of the exit. Dillon told Favors in a slurred voice to “get your ass back over there” and threatened to cut and shoot him. Favors feared that the situation would escalate and went to the back of the store. Favors tried to leave a second time and Dillon said “I told you one time; get your ass back over there.” Favors, who is African-American, recalled hearing a racial slur. Favors discreetly called 911. Police arrived and arrested Dillon. At one point he “reared his head back” and hit a police officer on his forehead and the bridge of his nose. The officer recalled that Dillon was intoxicated, his balance was poor, and was making incoherent statements. The State initially charged Dillon with [Third Degree Assault](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.36.031) of the police officer and [Harassment](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.46&full=true) of Favors, but amended the information to include [Unlawful Imprisonment](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.40.040) of Favors. The defense requested a [jury instruction](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_instructions) on [Voluntary Intoxication](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.090) and the State did not object. The jury acquitted Dillon of felony harassment, but convicted him of third degree assault and unlawful imprisonment. Dillon appealed on the issue of whether State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Dillon knowingly acted without legal authority. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The State presented sufficient evidence that a reasonable juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Dillon knew he was acting without legal authority when he committed the crime of Harassment. > “The threats that Dillon made had no lawful purpose. Depending on the level of intoxication, a person under the influence can still form the requisite intent to know that their actions are unlawful.” Dillon made threats to “cut” and “shoot” Favors, both of which demonstrate that Dillon knew he was acting without legal authority. Dillon “jumped” at Favors to prevent him from exiting the 7-Eleven, further supporting a finding that Dillon knew his actions were unlawfully restraining Favors. Regarding the Unlawful Imprisonment conviction, the WA Court of Appeals ruled that Dillon did not say anything that indicated he thought he had legal authority to restrain Favors. Also, the Court denied the argument denied the defense of Escape and held that that Mr. Favors could not have safely departed 7-11 due to Mr. Dillon’s actions: > “Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, Favor’s testimony is sufficient to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Dillon restrained Favors’s movement, in a manner that substantially interfered with his liberty through intimidation, threats of violence, and by blocking the 7-Eleven exit.” With that, the Court of Appeals upheld Dillon’s convictions. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges like [Assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/), [Harassment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/harassment/) or [Unlawful Imprisonment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/kidnapping-unlawful-imprisonment/). It’s imperative to hire an experienced and effective criminal defense attorney who knows the law. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Harassment, Jury Instructions, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Unlawful Imprisonment, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Criminal Justice Bills Passed & Failed in the Senate](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/criminal-justice-bills-passed-failed-in-the-senate/) **Published:** February 20, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Several bills recently passed and failed in the Senate, covering a wide array of issues related to criminal justice. These bills all now head to the House in the coming weeks as the legislative session reaches month two. Here’s a summary of some of the bills that passed and failed. **PASSED BILLS** [Senate Bill 6442](http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2019-20/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6442-S.pdf?q=20200219091152) would ban the operation of private, for-profit prisons in the state, as well as prohibiting the [Department of Corrections (DOC)](https://www.doc.wa.gov/) from contracting with these prisons. The bill also limits the circumstances under which the state can transfer an inmate from a Washington facility to an out-of-state private prison or detention facility. According to the text of the bill, the legislature found that for-profit prisons prioritize shareholder profits over the provision of health care, safety and nutrition to inmates, among other basic human needs, and that the operation of private prisons runs counter to the state’s mandate to ensure health, safety and welfare of those incarcerated in the state’s criminal justice system. If the bill passes, Washington would join 22 other states in banning for profit prisons. [Senate Bill 5488](http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2019-20/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5488-S2.pdf?q=20200219093739) would allow judges greater discretion when deciding cases involving adult defendants who are charged with committing a crime while under age 18. The bill grants judges the authority to consider the defendant’s age, lack of sophistication, susceptibility to peer pressure and age at the time the crime was committed. Judges overseeing these types of cases could refrain from imposing the mandatory sentencing requirements after considering the circumstances surrounding a defendant’s youth at the time the crime was committed, allowing the judge to impose a lesser sentence than what law requires. **FAILED BILLS** [SB 6228](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=6228&Year=2019&Initiative=false), also called the “Felony Voting Rights Bill,” introduced legislation to automatically restore the voting rights of convicted felons when they are released from prison. However, the bill died unexpectedly in the Washington state Senate Wednesday. Majority Democrats abruptly ended debate on the controversial bill Wednesday evening when they realized they lacked the 25 votes needed to pass the measure. ![Image result for felony voting rights](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSPYbsc_VqtCueY2mT4x9YeGYqcveXbdo72Hn2m2GXiweGq3lcU)“We are extremely disappointed that the voting rights restoration bill did not pass,” said the ACLU of Washington in a statement Wednesday evening. “The right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and the time to tear down these barriers is long past due.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an experienced attorney is the first and best step toward achieving justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Department of Corrections, Juvenile, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Prison, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Voting Rights, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Crime Rates By WA Cities](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/crime-rates-by-wa-cities/) **Published:** February 22, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** A recent [report](https://backgroundchecks.org/safest-cities-in-washington.html) from [www.backgrounchecks.org](https://backgroundchecks.org/) ranks Washington cities by crime rates. In short, although Washington cities are [lower than average violent crime](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/crime-and-corrections/public-safety), there’s an increase in property crime. > “In the state’s larger cities such as Seattle and Spokane, you’re more likely to have your car broken into than become the victim of an assault. Still, despite Washington’s property crime issue, there are plenty of communities in the state with an all-around high level of safety.” ~backgroundchecks.org According to the report, the safest city in Washington is **Snoqualmie**. Recording just two violent crimes in 2017, Snoqualmie logged a very low 0.15 violent crimes per 1,000 residents, along with a property crime rate half of the U.S. national average. Backgroundchecks.org uses the most recent FBI crime statistics to create state rankings. There were initially 7,430 cities in the data set. After filtering out the cities with populations of less than 10,000, 2,929 cities remained. The website then calculated violent crime rates and property crime rates by dividing the crime numbers by the population to get rates per 1,000. They also calculated the ratio of law enforcement workers to per 1,000. These were weighted with -50% for the violent crime rate, -25% for the property crime rate, and +25% for the law enforcement rate. The resulting metric gave us a the safety index score. In short, the higher this number more safe the city is. Not every person arrested is guilty of a crime. Other studies show that densely populated cities also have [higher incidence of overall arrests](https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/250109?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents). Therefore, [please contact my](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Property Crimes, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Violent Crime, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [No Interpreter is Court Mismanagement](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/no-interpreter-is-court-mismanagement/) **Published:** February 27, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In[ *State v. Jieta*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/778005.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that a trial court judge may dismiss a criminal prosecution due to the court’s failure to arrange for an interpreter for all scheduled court hearings. **BACKGROUND FACTS** On May 19, 2015, Mr. Jieta was first arraigned on charges of [fourth degree assault](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.041) and [third degree malicious mischief](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.48.090) in [Snohomish County District Court](https://snohomishcountywa.gov/5165/District-Court-and-District-Court-Clerk). The court continued the arraignment after ordering that Jieta be provided a [Marshallese](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshallese_language) interpreter. Over the next 15 months, the court held 14 more pretrial hearings, and the interpreter repeatedly failed to appear telephonically or personally. On August 26, 2016, Jieta moved under [CrRLJ 8.3(b)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.rulesPDF&ruleId=cljcrrlj8.03&pdf=1) to dismiss all charges. On September 12, — another hearing where the interpreter failed to appear — the court [dismissed all charges with prejudice](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/dismissal_with_prejudice) and found the interpreter’s absences “seriously interfered with Mr. Jieta’s right to representation by counsel.” In short, out of 14 pretrial hearings conducted after the court directed the appointment of a interpreter, the interpreter failed to appear 10 times, appeared by phone – ineffectively – two times, and appeared in person two times. The superior court affirmed the dismissal on the State’s appeal. The State sought discretionary review in this court, which was granted on the narrow question whether CrRLJ 8.3(b) can apply when court administration mismanages a case. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** Furthermore, the Court of Appeals explained that CrRLJ 8.3(b) gives courts discretion to dismiss “any criminal prosecution due to arbitrary action or governmental misconduct when there has been prejudice to the rights of the accused which materially affect the accused’s right to a fair trial.” To satisfy the rule, the alleged misconduct “need not be of an evil or dishonest nature; simple mismanagement is sufficient.” The Court also reasoned that the judiciary has a statutory duty of appointing an interpreter to assist the defendant throughout the proceedings: > “Reliable interpreter services are necessary to secure a non-English speaking defendant’s fair trial rights. Thus, to assist a defendant throughout the proceedings, the interpreter must actually deliver translation services throughout the proceedings.” The purpose of CrR 8.3(b) is to ensure fairness to defendants by protecting their right to a fair trial. Thus, when mismanagement by court personnel prevents a defendant from receiving reliable interpreter services and effective assistance of counsel for more than one year, the defendant has a viable claim of “governmental misconduct” consistent with the text and purpose of CrRLJ 8.3(b). Here, the Court of Appeals reasoned that “governmental misconduct” can extend to mismanagement by court administration. “We need not decide the exact types of court mismanagement that could warrant relief or when dismissal is an appropriate remedy for such mismanagement,” said the Court. “On the record before us, the State does not establish that the trial court erred in its conclusion that CrRLJ 8.3(b) may extend to a court’s administrative mismanagement of its statutory obligation to provide translator services.” With that, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of all charges. My opinion? Good decision. Court interpreters are important in legal proceedings, especially when criminal charges are involved. Interpreters ensure that defendants fully understand the charges and the proceedings. Indeed, the constitutional right to simply understand the charges and their maximum consequences is captured under the 6th Amendment. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime and they need an interpreter to move forward in their defense. Hiring a competent, experienced attorney is the first and best step toward achieving justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Dismissal, Interpreter, Malicious Mischief, misdemeanor, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Anti-Swatting Bill](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/anti-swatting-bill/) **Published:** March 5, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The WA Legislature has introduced [SB 6295](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=6295&Year=2019&Initiative=false), which aims to cut down on swatting by increasing criminal penalties for those who make a false report they know is likely to generate an emergency response. For those who don’t know, “swatting” is a criminal [harassment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment "Harassment") tactic of deceiving an [emergency service](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_service "Emergency service") (via such means as [hoaxing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoax "Hoax") an emergency services [dispatcher](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispatcher "Dispatcher")) into sending a police and emergency service response team to another person’s address. This is triggered by false reporting of a serious [law enforcement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement "Law enforcement") emergency, such as a [bomb threat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb_threat "Bomb threat"), murder, [hostage situation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostage "Hostage"), or a false report of a “mental health” emergency, such as reporting that a person is allegedly suicidal or homicidal and may or may not be armed. The legislation is introduced by [Senator Jesse Salomon](http://sdc.wastateleg.org/salomon/). With “swatting” incidents on the rise, local law enforcement agencies like the Seattle Police Department are developing [creative solutions](https://www.seattle.gov/police/need-help/swatting) to address the problem. However, Salomon believes state laws have not kept up with the severity of these crimes and need to be updated. Under the proposed bill, punishments would be increased if there’s a reckless disregard for the safety of others and someone is hurt or killed as a result of the swatting attack. The measure also allows swatting victims to pursue civil damages from their attackers. Senators [Salomon](http://leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/default.aspx#salomon), [Pedersen](http://leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/default.aspx#pedersen), [Carlyle](http://leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/default.aspx#carlyle), [Kuderer](http://leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/default.aspx#kuderer), [Wilson, C.](http://leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/default.aspx#wilsonc), [Randall](http://leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/default.aspx#randall), and [Nguyen](http://leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/default.aspx#nguyen) supported the bill along with companion bill [HB 2632.](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2632&Chamber=House&Year=2019) Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges of [Harassment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/harassment/). Hiring a competent, effective defense attorney is the first and best step toward getting justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Swatting, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Washington State Bans ‘Gay Panic’ Defense of Homicide](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/washington-state-bans-gay-panic-defense-of-homicide/) **Published:** March 7, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** [The Associated Press ](https://www.seattletimes.com/author/the-associated-press/)reports that Washington has become the 10th state to prohibit homicide defendants from claiming a defense based on panic over a victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity. [Gov. Jay Inslee](https://www.governor.wa.gov/) signed [the measure](http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2019-20/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/Senate/1687.E%20SBR%20APS%2020.pdf?q=20200306095326) Thursday. It takes effect in June. Nine other states — California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Nevada, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island — have already banned the use of gay or transgender panic as a legal defense. The Washington state measure is named after [Nikki Kuhnhausen](https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/court-docs-nikolas-nikki-kuhnhausen-strangled-after-revealing-she-was-biologically-male/), a transgender teen who was killed last year, The Columbian reported. [It was approved with bipartisan support in the state House and Senate](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/washington-approves-ban-on-gay-panic-defense-in-homicide-cases/), though some lawmakers questioned if the legislation was necessary since a panic defense has never been used in Washington. Kuhnhausen, 17, disappeared in early June and her remains were discovered Dec. 7, southeast of Battle Ground. A Vancouver man was charged with [second-degree murder](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=9A.32.050) and [malicious harassment](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9a.36.080), which is a hate crime in Washington. He has pleaded not guilty. Authorities said the Vancouver teenager was strangled after her assailant learned she was transgender. The new law blocks a defendant from using a defense based on discovery or disclosure of the victim’s actual or perceived gender identity or sexual orientation and would prevent a claim of [Diminished Capacity](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/diminished_capacity) because the defendant did not fully comprehend the nature and gravity of the alleged crime. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Malicious Harassment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/harassment/) or any other Hate Crimes. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Diminished Capacity, Homicide & Manslaughter, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Study Shows BMW Drivers Are More Rude & Obnoxious](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/study-shows-bmw-drivers-are-more-rude-obnoxious/) **Published:** March 10, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Apparently, the drivers of certain luxury cars that cut you off really *do* suck. A new study in the [*Journal of International Psychology*](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ijop.12642) finds that many owners of high-status luxury cars shows this indisputable fact. > “The answers were [unambiguous](https://eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-01/uoh-ooh012920.php): self-centered men who are argumentative, stubborn, disagreeable and unempathetic are much more likely to own a high-status car such as an Audi, BMW or Mercedes.” ~[researchers](https://www.helsinki.fi/en/news/nordic-welfare-news/the-fast-and-the-furious-research-shows-that-owners-of-high-status-cars-are-on-a-collision-course-with-traffic) in a press release. The study surveyed 1,892 Finnish car owners and also analyzed their personality types, an idea inspired by lead researcher [Jan-Erik Lönnqvist’s](https://researchportal.helsinki.fi/en/persons/jan-erik-l%C3%B6nnqvist) [observation](https://eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-01/uoh-ooh012920.php) that the drivers “most likely to run a red light, not give way to pedestrians and generally drive recklessly and too fast were often the ones driving fast German cars” such as [BMWs](https://www.bmwusa.com/?cid=GOOGLE_G%7CBMW%7CNAT%7CT1%7CAll%7CBrand+Core%7CAO%7CAlways+On%7CExact&tier=tier1&maco=national&ch=paid_search&veh=NA&ds_rl=1255066&gclid=Cj0KCQjw9ZzzBRCKARIsANwXaeIVmctZCW20gFUqgo6fhp2wbR0gYrJ5n4Z8z_iHnCN0TadmbnARr2kaAkomEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds), [Mercedes](https://www.mbusa.com/en/home?sd_campaign_type=Search&sd_digadprov=Resolution&sd_campaign=Brand%7CCorp%7CMisc%7CGeneral%7CExact&sd_channel=GOOGLE&sd_adid=General&sd_digadkeyword=mercedes&gclid=Cj0KCQjw9ZzzBRCKARIsANwXaeJTDoGNUyRJv4N8E9i_qx9ld-hZuH8VkVzhp8pBXqGM5ohXAOisSjwaAntwEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds), and [Audis](https://www.audiusa.com/?csref=t1_sem_google_ao_national_x_x_action_leads_x_x_x_brand_core_2019-11-01&gclid=Cj0KCQjw9ZzzBRCKARIsANwXaeIv0Wp4dmS6FrP5OYeGl9m1u-WIplGIcUWR4tVvI3QoLMGFkiAUpwoaAlQ6EALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds). He knew that previous studies found luxury car drivers more likely to ignore traffic rules and drive “unethically,” but it was unclear why: Was wealth corrupting their behavior? Lönnqvist, a professor of social psychology at the University of Helsinki, instead asked what types of people own these cars. Sure enough, he found that less cooperative, less kind, and less considerate men often drive high-status cars. “The same traits also explain why such people break traffic regulations more frequently than others,” says Lönnqvist. He found no connection between female self-centeredness and luxury cars. Interestingly, the study also found that conscientious men and women—people who are organized, ambitious, respectable, and often high-performing—are also frequent owners of high-status cars, which Lönnqvist says likely reflects an appreciation for quality and an urge to present a self-image of classy reliability. Please contact my office if you are charged with [Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/), [Reckless Endangerment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-endangerment/), [Vehicular Assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/vehicular-homicide-vehicular-assault/) or any other crime involving motor vehicles. Hiring a competent, experienced attorney is the first and best step toward getting justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Reckless Driving, Reckless Endangerment, Road Rage, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Vehicular Assault, Vehicular Homicide, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Coronavirus Suspends Local Jury Trials](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/coronavirus-suspends-local-jury-trials/) **Published:** March 13, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Informative [article ](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article241113626.html)by [Denver Pratt](https://muckrack.com/denver-pratt) of the [Bellingham Herald](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/) reports that several Whatcom County courts are suspending jury trials due to the COVID-19 outbreak. [Whatcom County Superior](http://www.whatcomcounty.us/413/Superior-Court) and [District Courts](http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/420/District-Court) and [Bellingham Municipal Court](https://www.cob.org/gov/court) announced they are suspending all jury trials until early April and May, respectively. Pratt reports that the emergency administrative orders that were signed on Wednesday, March 11, by the courts’ presiding judges are due to concerns over the risk of bringing together jurors in small spaces and large groups of people called for jury duty. Last week, the Washington[ State Supreme Court signed an order](http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme%20Court%20Orders/SC%20Order%20Closure%2025700-B-602.pdf) that gave county courts’ presiding judges the authority to change or suspend court rules as a way to address the public health emergency. On Friday, March 6,[ federal courts in Seattle and Tacoma also suspended jury trials](https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article240974361.html) in response to the novel coronavirus outbreak. Also according to Pratt, Washington state Gov. Jay Inslee[ banned gatherings and events of more than 250 people](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/latest-news/article241095336.html) in King, Snohomish and Pierce counties. The [World Health Organization](https://www.who.int/) also declared Wednesday that the[ global coronavirus crisis is now a pandemic](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/article241087001.html). Whatcom County had its[ first confirmed case](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article241047256.html) of novel coronavirus Tuesday, March 10, and the county[ declared a public health emergency](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article241075056.html). As of Thursday, March 12, afternoon, [Whatcom County had 19 pending tests](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article241131196.html) for COVID-19, which is [down from 21 on Wednesday](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article241094491.html). Please read my Legal Guides titled, [Quash Your Bench Warrant](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/quash-your-bench-warrant/) and [Making Bail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/making-bail/) and contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged and/or incarcerated during this pandemic. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Skagit Courts Respond to Coronavirus](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/skagit-courts-respond-to-coronavirus/) **Published:** March 14, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [Skagit County Superior Court](https://www.skagitcounty.net/Departments/SuperiorCourt/main.htm) is suspending some of its operations in an effort to slow the spread of [COVID-19](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus_disease_2019). These efforts include postponing trials, asking lawyers to only seek hearings on matters that cannot wait and telling those who are showing signs of illness to avoid courtrooms and court offices. “We’re not going to be able to stop,” presiding Skagit County Superior Court Judge Dave Svaren said. “What we can do is reduce the population.” As a result, all 12-person jury trials are suspended for at least two weeks, according to an [administrative order signed Thursday by Svaren](https://www.skagitcounty.net/SuperiorCourt/Documents/COVID%20Administrative%20Order%2020-1.pdf). “Attorneys and pro-se litigants should use their best judgment in deciding whether a matter is emergent taking into consideration the current public health emergency,” the order states. My opinion? Good decision. Although defendants have the [constitutional right to a speedy trial](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-6/speedy-trial), the public health concerns brought by COVID-19 create a risk that the juries can be unnecessarily exposed to the virus. Please read my Legal Guides titled, [Quash Your Bench Warrant](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/quash-your-bench-warrant/) and [Making Bail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/making-bail/) and contact my office if you a friend or family member face criminal charges and are incarcerated during the Coronavirus Pandemic. Hiring an experienced criminal defense attorney is the first and best step towards justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Speedy Trial & Continuances, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Coronavirus Upends Justice System](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/coronavirus-upends-justice-system/) **Published:** March 17, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Across the country, attempts to slow the spread of the deadly coronavirus have thrown the criminal justice system into disarray. Court officials are trying to limit large courthouse gatherings, including juries, while also making sure that people accused of crimes aren’t deprived of their due-process rights. [Recent data collected by the National Center for State Courts ](https://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Files/PDF/Newsroom/Coronavirus%20and%20the%20Courts%20State%20by%20State%20Roundup%203-16-2020%201pm.ashx)reveals that concerns about the outbreak seem to have hit a tipping point, with 27 states under orders to stop jury trials or restrict the number of people who can come to court. Some federal courts, including districts in New York and Washington, [have also postponed trials](https://www.law360.com/articles/1252836/coronavirus-the-latest-court-closures-and-restrictions). “The only time we’ve heard of anything vaguely like this was after 9/11 or a hurricane, but that was only for a few days,” said Bill Raftery, a spokesman for the center. The number of such orders is expected to continue rising in response to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s [recommendation Sunday to avoid gatherings of more than 50 people](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/large-events/mass-gatherings-ready-for-covid-19.html), Raftery said. Schuppe reports that while many aspects of the criminal justice system can be put off, others cannot, such as bail hearings, juvenile detention hearings, requests for temporary restraining orders in domestic violence cases and attempts to remove abused children from their homes. Laws granting defendants the right to a speedy trial generally have provisions that account for emergencies that made quick proceedings impossible, experts said. Fortunately, a small number of jurisdictions have sought to reduce the number of people held in jail before trial. They include Cuyahoga County, Ohio, which includes Cleveland, where judges are holding special sessions [to send more defendants home or to negotiate plea deals](https://fox8.com/news/coronavirus/cuyahoga-county-jail-inmates-being-released-due-to-concern-of-coronavirus-spread/). In Philadelphia, District Attorney Larry Krasner said he is [considering whether to allow more people to be granted bail](https://www.inquirer.com/health/coronavirus/coronavirus-covid-philadelphia-court-stout-criminal-justice-center-cjc-larry-krasner-20200315.html). San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin [is reported to have told his prosecutors](https://theappeal.org/coronavirus-san-francisco-reduce-jail-population/) not to oppose motions to release people facing low-level charges. In other jurisdictions, judges are conducting more bail hearings over video links to keep defendants from congregating in court. [Norman Reimer](https://www.nacdl.org/People/NormanLReimer), executive director of the [National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers](https://www.nacdl.org/), said he hoped the crisis would “accelerate the discussion about mass incarceration and the need to find ways to have fewer people imprisoned.” In the meantime, Reimer said, there is no clear sense in most jurisdictions of how they would deal with an outbreak behind bars. [An inmate at the jail in Nassau County, New York,](https://www.pix11.com/news/coronavirus/inmate-at-nassau-county-jail-long-island-tests-positive-for-coronavirus-officials) is reported to have tested positive for the coronavirus, and an employee of the New York City Department of Correction [has died](https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/coronavirus-blog/2020/03/16/nyc-correction-employee-dies-of-coronavirus), officials said Monday. In both cases, officials said they were tracking who had been in touch with the infected people and working to contain the virus’ spread. Health experts say an outbreak in a jail or a prison [is a question of when, not if](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/coronavirus-could-wreak-havoc-u-s-jails-experts-warn-n1156586). “The ramifications could be catastrophic if not managed properly,” Reimer said. Please read my Legal Guides titled, [Quash Your Bench Warrant](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/quash-your-bench-warrant/) and [Making Bail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/making-bail/) and contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged and/or incarcerated during this pandemic. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Blaine Police Department Asks For ‘Nefarious Behavior to Cease’ Due to Coronavirus](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/blaine-police-department-asks-for-nefarious-behavior-to-cease-due-to-coronavirus/) **Published:** March 17, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Humorous [article](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/coronavirus/article241244101.html) from [David Rasbach](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/profile/218045530#storylink=authorcard) of the [Bellingham Herald](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/) reports a [Facebook post by the Blaine Police Department](https://www.facebook.com/BlainePoliceDepartmentWA/) Monday, March 16, read: “Due to local cases of #COVID-19, [BPD](https://www.ci.blaine.wa.us/175/Police-Operations) is asking all criminal activity and nefarious behavior to cease.” The post went on to thank all criminals in advance for their cooperation: According to Rashbach, the post drew 120 reactions and was shared 66 times in its first 40 minutes. “Schools, restaurants and bars may be closed,” reported Mr. Rashbach. “The Canadians are considering shuttering the border. And it’s almost impossible to find an available pack of toilet paper or a bottle of hand sanitizer anywhere. But one Whatcom County law enforcement agency is still hoping some good can come out of the novel coronavirus pandemic — or at least some good humor.” Well said, Mr. Rashbach! Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges during this harsh time of the [Coronavirus pandemic](https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-latest-news-2020-03-17/). All people faced facing criminal charges have a [constitutional right to the presumption of innocence](https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/presumption-of-innocence-laws.html). Hiring a competent, experienced defense attorney is tantamount to safeguarding these rights. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Coronavirus, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Police Stop Booking Some People Into Whatcom Jail Due To Coronavirus](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/police-stop-booking-some-people-into-whatcom-jail-due-to-coronavirus/) **Published:** March 20, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Whatcom County law enforcement agencies stopped booking people into the Whatcom County Jail for certain crimes on Thursday, March 19, due to the coronavirus outbreak. Apparently, people arrested will be booked and released for everything except certain offenses that represent a serious threat to public safety. Those crimes include [domestic violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/), [violations of a no-contact order](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/no-contact-order-violations/), [felony DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/felony-dui/), [sex offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/), [burglary](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/) and other violent crimes. Those booked for [misdemeanor DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) will be held until sober. The memo suggests officers arrest, book and release people when they can, giving them notice of when to appear in court. And those who are booked on charges that pose a threat to public safety will be held until they see a judge. At this point, [seven Whatcom County residents have been diagnosed](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/coronavirus/article241344656.html) with the respiratory illness, [one of whom died](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/coronavirus/article241305431.html), according to the Whatcom County Health Department. [Whatcom County Sheriff Bill Elfo](https://www.whatcomcounty.us/2212/Sheriff-Bill-Elfo) said the measures are looking out for the health of the people who work in the jail, as well as those incarcerated there. > “They’re in place because of some compelling public safety and public health issues. We want to prevent the spread of COVID-19, but do it in a way that doesn’t minimize public safety. We’re still booking and holding violent people. These are temporary measures . . . We’re trying to take the jail population as low as we can safely and reasonably do under the circumstances.” ~Sheriff Bill Elfo Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges and are jailed indefinitely in the midst of the [Coronavirus Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic). Obviously, getting released as soon as possible is a major priority. And hiring an experienced attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Burglary, Coronavirus, Domestic Violence, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, No Contact Order, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Violent Crime, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["Emergency Order" Laws](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-of-emergency-orders/) **Published:** March 23, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Interesting [article](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/coronavirus/article241432681.html) by [David Rasbach](https://muckrack.com/david-rasbach) of the [Bellingham Herald](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/) provokes some interesting discussion of the laws surrounding [Social Distancing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_distancing) and/or proper distancing to help prevent the spread of [COVID-19 (Coronavirus)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus_disease_2019) when they encounter large groups. Recently, Gov. Jay Inslee [issued a sweeping statewide stay-at-home order](https://medium.com/wagovernor/inslee-announces-stay-home-stay-healthy-order-4891a7511f5e "https://medium.com/wagovernor/inslee-announces-stay-home-stay-healthy-order-4891a7511f5e") to help stem the spread of the deadly coronavirus that [has killed at least 110 in Washington](https://komonews.com/news/coronavirus/washingtons-coronavirus-death-toll-rises-to-95-as-clark-county-reports-new-fatality "https://komonews.com/news/coronavirus/washingtons-coronavirus-death-toll-rises-to-95-as-clark-county-reports-new-fatality"). “This is a human tragedy on a scale we can not project,” Inslee said. “To be socially irresponsible during these times is to risk the lives of our loved ones.” The [emergency proclamation requires](https://www.governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/proclamations/20-25%20Coronovirus%20Stay%20Safe-Stay%20Healthy%20%28tmp%29%20%28002%29.pdf "https://www.governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/proclamations/20-25%20Coronovirus%20Stay%20Safe-Stay%20Healthy%20%28tmp%29%20%28002%29.pdf") people to stay at home for at least two weeks unless it is absolutely necessary to leave for such essentials as groceries or medicine or for an essential job, said a spokesperson for the governor. It also requires a number of businesses to close that have remained open so far. This measure was foreseeable. Emergency proclamations are done in the interest of public safety. According to comments made to Mr. Rasbach by Officer Murphy of the Bellingham Police Department, however, [RCW 43.06.250](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=43.06.250) actually helps police enforce criminal charges against people who do not follow the emergency proclamation. It states: > “Any person upon any public way or any public property, within the area described in the state of emergency, who is directed by a public official to leave the public way or public property and refuses to do so shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” ~RCW 43.06.250 Interesting. By all means, please keep yourself and other people safe from Coronavirus during these trying times. Doing so means following governmental directives when instructed to do so. That said, it seems egregious that failing to disburse or otherwise leave a public or private property under certain circumstances can lead to criminal charges. What are the homeless people supposed to do? What if there’s no intention to break the law? And/or what if there’s an emergency situation necessitating the need to be at a certain place at a specific time? Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges for violating a governmental “State of Emergency” proclamation. Hiring an experienced defense attorney like myself is the first and best step toward getting justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Justice for the Jailed](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/justice-for-the-jailed/) **Published:** March 24, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [Op-ed article](https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/i-cant-do-my-job-as-a-public-defender-in-seattle-and-my-clients-are-suffering/) in the [Seattle Times](https://www.seattletimes.com/) written by public defender [Brandon Davis](https://www.seattletimes.com/author/brandon-davis/) describes the challenges of getting justice for jailed defendants in [the age of Coronavirus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic). Mr. Davis poignantly says that given the scope of this crisis, it is inevitable that the virus will spread in King county’s two jails, where an estimated 2,000 people are currently housed. He says that even the simple act of handcuffing adds a risk — you can’t cover your mouth if you cough while your hands are tied behind your back. Additionally, Mr. Davis potently describes how the shadow cast by CV-19 detrimentally affects his ability to access numerous professionals involved in the justice system: > “I can’t visit my clients in jail without putting myself at risk. I can’t do site visits and interview witnesses. I can’t ask our social workers to meet with clients and put together treatment plans. I can’t negotiate with prosecutors in-person — it’s difficult to even get them on the phone.” Mr. Davis points out that jury trials are suspended until April 24, and it is possible the suspension will last much longer. And once trials resume, there will be a massive backlog. “The [Sixth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) guarantees a right to a speedy trial, but because of the coronavirus, those who are being held on bond amounts they cannot afford are looking at many more months in an unsafe jail. COVID-19 has ground the criminal legal system to a halt, which is understandable in a pandemic of this magnitude, but our clients in jail are the ones left suffering because of it,” says Mr. Davis. He describes a story where, on a Saturday, he had to assist his clients in King County Jail. Before the hearings began, all 20 or so defendants are crammed in “the tank,” which is a small holding cell. Mr. Davis and his colleagues had to enter the tank to talk to each and every one of the incarcerated defendants. “The visuals could not be starker,” wrote Mr. Davis. “The judge and the prosecutor were at a safe remove, but public defenders were working side-by-side with our clients, all of us at risk. Public health concerns the whole public, and whether the court and the prosecutors would like to admit it, people in jail are part of the public, too.” I salute Mr. Davis for sharing his insights and writing such a fantastic article. The Coronavirus pandemic is a terrible blight on our communities. It not only affects the contaminated, but people like Mr. Davis who try to help them, too. Please read my Legal Guides titled, [Making Bail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/making-bail/) and [Quash Your Bench Warrant](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/quash-your-bench-warrant/) and contact my office if you, a friend or family member are presently incarcerated and want help getting released from jail. Under the circumstances, judges and prosecutors might be persuaded to release defendants or lower bail during this terribly volatile and troubling time. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Coronavirus, Jail, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Coronavirus-Related Crimes Increase](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/coronavirus-related-crimes-increase/) **Published:** March 25, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Apparently, [Coronavirus-related fraud](https://www.justice.gov/coronavirus) are on the rise, along with concerns about hate crimes. The [Anti-Defamation League](https://www.adl.org/), which tracks hate groups, blames the virus for elevating racist and anti-Semitic messages, including suggesting that Jews are somehow responsible for the pandemic. Some hate groups have suggested tainting doorknobs or other surfaces with the virus so FBI and police officers fall ill. Hundreds of masks have been stolen in Portland, Oregon, amid shortages for health care workers. Also, a Missouri man who was coughing told two store clerks he had a high fever. He was arrested after police said he threatened to give the employees coronavirus. People in Pennsylvania and Illinois were accused of similar crimes. Texas prosecutors brought charges against someone who falsely claimed on social media to have tested positive for COVID-19. In a memo issued Tuesday, [Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen told prosecutors they could charge people who threaten to spread the new coronavirus under U.S. terrorism statutes because the Justice Department considers it a “biological agent” under the law](https://qz.com/1823788/how-to-protect-yourself-from-coronavirus-fraud/). In such cases, suspects could be charged with a number of offenses, including possessing or developing a biological agent as a weapon, he said. “Threats or attempt to use COVID-19 as a weapon against Americans will not be tolerated,” Rosen wrote in the memo to U.S. attorneys across the country and the heads of all Justice Department agencies, including the FBI. The [World Health Organization (WHO)](https://www.who.int/) and other authorities are also working to debunk spurious claims about possible cures. They include false assertions that silver, bleach, and garlic could protect against the coronavirus, or that bananas prevent it. The WHO also says criminals are increasingly posing as WHO officials in calls and phishing emails to swipe information or money. The United Nations also set up a website to help prevent fraud. Meanwhile, the [United Kingdom’s National Fraud Intelligence Bureau](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Fraud_Intelligence_Bureau) has received more than 100 reports of virus-related scams, with losses totaling more than $1.1 million (970,000 pounds). In the United States, marketing schemers have quickly pivoted to offering “senior care packages” that include hand sanitizer or even a purported vaccine, which doesn’t exist. Some falsely claim that Trump has ordered that seniors get tested. It’s all a trick to get personal information that can be used to bill federal and state health programs, health officials said. “It’s a straight-up ruse to get your Medicare number or your Social Security number under the guise of having a test kit or a sanitary kit sent to you,” [Christian Schrank](https://www.zoominfo.com/p/Christian-Schrank/-845354859), assistant inspector general for investigations at Health and Human Services. Please contact my office if you’re charged with [Identity Theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/identity-theft/), [Malicious Harassment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/harassment/) or any other crimes bearing some relation to the Coronavirus Pandemic. Hiring an experienced criminal defense attorney is the first and best step towards justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [COVID-19 Brings DV Crimes?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/covid-19-brings-dv-crimes/) **Published:** March 30, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Interesting [article](https://www.kpbs.org/news/2020/mar/26/isolation-abuse-activists-fear-explosive-cocktail/) by [Jocelyn Noveck](https://www.ap.org/) of the [Associated Press](https://apnews.com/) describes a possible uptick in [domestic violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) related crimes resulting from couples and families being isolated together by the threat of [COVID-19](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus_disease_2019). According to Ms. Noveck, concern is high in cities everywhere, and meaningful numbers are hard to come by. > “As the world’s families hunker down, there’s another danger, less obvious but just as insidious, that worries advocates and officials: a potential spike in domestic violence as victims spend day and night trapped at home with their abusers, with tensions rising, nowhere to escape, limited or no access to friends or relatives — and no idea when it will end.” “In some cases, officials worry about a spike in calls, and in others, about a drop in calls, which might indicate that victims cannot find a safe way to reach out for help,” says Noveck. In Los Angeles, officials have been bracing for a spike in abuse. “When cabin fever sets in, give it a week or two, people get tired of seeing each other and then you might have domestic violence,” said [Alex Villanueva, the sheriff of Los Angeles County](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Villanueva). “We started getting on this as soon as soon as we started seeing the handwriting on the wall,” said [Patti Giggans, executive director of the nonprofit Peace Over Violence](https://www.peaceoverviolence.org/pattis-pov) in Los Angeles. “One of the key challenges of this health pandemic is that home isn’t a safe place for everyone,” said [Amanda Pyron, executive director of The Network: Advocating Against Domestic Violence](https://the-network.org/about-us/our-team/amanda-pyron/), based in Chicago. “Victims and the abusers have to stay at the scene of the crime.” The group helps run a statewide 24-hour hotline, which has seen a spike in the average number of daily calls, from about 60 to 90, since confinement orders went into effect last weekend. And at the group [Women Safe](https://www.women-safe.org/), there’s been an uptick in calls. One change, said Frederique Martz, who runs the group, is that domestic violence victims are no longer being referred to hospitals which saturated with coronavirus cases. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges involving [Domestic Violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) during these turbulent times. Hiring an experienced criminal defense attorney is the first – and best – step toward achieving justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Child Abuse, Coronavirus, Domestic Violence, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Jail Populations Are At Risk For Spreading CV-19](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/jail-populations-are-at-risk-for-spreading-cv-19/) **Published:** April 1, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great article by [Anna Flagg](http://www.themarshallproject.org/staff/anna-flagg) and [Joseph Neff](http://www.themarshallproject.org/staff/joseph-neff) of the [Marshall Project](https://www.themarshallproject.org/?ref=nav) says describes how jail populations are potentially risky environments for transmitting [COVID-19](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic). For jails across the country, the churn of people moving in and out threatens to accelerate the spread of the disease, endangering the incarcerated, the staff and the larger community. Analysis of a [database](https://github.com/vera-institute/incarceration_trends) of county- and jurisdiction-level jail populations built by the [Vera Institute of Justice](https://www.vera.org/) shows the short-term flow of people through local facilities, including some who were admitted more than once, for an average week in 2017 (the most recent year with available data). Apparently, in a given week, more than 200,000 people are booked into jails across the country; roughly the same number walk out every week. Thankfully – and according to the article – some states and jurisdictions [have responded](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/nyregion/coronavirus-nj-inmates-release.html) by releasing prisoners or cutting jail time. “Jails are transient,” say the authors. “Most there have been charged with crimes but not convicted. Many are waiting to pay bail to be released until trial or can’t afford bail. The rest have misdemeanor convictions with sentences counted in months instead of years.” Preventing the spread of the virus in jails is challenging. Social distancing is crucial, but it’s virtually impossible in dormitories with rows of beds in a common room. The same is true of two people in a single cell, or group showers or bathrooms that serve dozens. All these dangers escalate when jails are [overcrowded](https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/local/2020/02/25/hamblen-county-tennessee-jail-inmates-face-unsanitary-conditions-federal-lawsuit-says/4860221002/), [filthy](https://www.grantky.com/content/kentucky%E2%80%99s-overcrowded-jails-could-be-%E2%80%98petri-dishes%E2%80%99-coronavirus-officials-fear) or [understaffed](https://www.rrstar.com/news/20200222/winnebago-county-jail-a-facility-on-edge). Making matters worse, physical contact between staff and the incarcerated is often unavoidable: Officers fingerprint, handcuff and supervise prisoners, as well as escort them to court and drive them to medical appointments. Many other people also flow in and out of jails, like family members who visit; volunteers who counsel or teach or preach; contractors who stock vending machines; and lawyers who meet their clients. Many jails have cut much of that traffic in response to coronavirus by limiting visits, services and vendors, and by moving to online and phone communication. The authors say that the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidance-correctional-detention.html), the [American Correctional Association](http://www.aca.org/ACA_Prod_IMIS/ACA_Member/Healthcare_Professional_Interest_Section/Copy_of_Coronavirus_COVID.aspx) and other groups offer guidance for corrections departments on containing the virus: Start frequent temperature screenings; take oral medical histories; limit visitors and vendors; increase cleaning; restrict movement; create spaces for isolating; coordinate with health providers; and plan for possible staff shortages. The authors also suggest “de-densifying” our jails by reducing bookings and accelerating releases, something over which sheriffs have limited control. My opinion? Desperate times call for desperate measures. Perhaps persuading judges to set low bond amounts and minimal conditions of pretrial release is a good starting point. Police officers can be persuaded to make mindful decisions when they decide whether to arrest and book a person into jail, or issue a citation with a court date. For the most part, it’s advisable that police officers simply write citations for misdemeanors except for drunken driving and domestic violence charges. Please read my Legal Guides titles, [Making Bail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/making-bail/) and [Quash Your Bench Warrant](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/quash-your-bench-warrant/) and contact my office if you, a friend or family member are jailed and incarcerated during this time of CV-19 outbreaks. And hiring an experienced, effective attorney is the best step toward making that happen. Getting out of jail is a huge priority. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Coronavirus, Jail, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["You're In Contempt!"](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/youre-in-contempt/) **Published:** April 8, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Dennington*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/791605.pdf), the WA Court of Appeals held that a criminal defendant who responded inappropriately to the judge after the judge scolded him for making an inappropriate reference to the prosecutor’s personal appearance was properly found in contempt. **BACKGROUND FACTS** The State charged Dennington with multiple offenses related to vehicle theft. To ensure sufficient time to conduct witness interviews, defense counsel filed a motion to continue Dennington’s trial date, which the court granted over Dennington’s personal objection. At the close of this discussion, Dennington made a reference to the prosecutor’s personal appearance, stating that “she needs to lose weight somehow.” The defendant’s comment prompted the following hostile verbal exchange between the judge and defendant, who turned his back and walked away at least two times during their exchange: **The Court:** *Let’s go. Sir, you need to watch your conduct in my courtroom. Come back here.* **Defendant:** *I don’t respect you. I don’t respect the court.* **The Court:** *I got it—* **Defendant:** *I don’t respect the liars that you entertain in your court.* **The Court:** *But your conduct in my courtroom is important.* **Defendant:** *Do something about it. I don’t care about that.* **The Court:** *All right, I’m going to find you in contempt of court, sir.* **Defendant:** *Thank you.* **The Court:** *I’m going to add 30 days to your sentence, whatever it may be.* **Defendant:** *Add it to my sentence. I’m not guilty.* **The Court:** *You need to do an order on that.* **Prosecutor:** *Thank you, your Honor.* **Defense Counsel:** *Your Honor, I’ll just—* **The Court:** *It wasn’t to his sentence. You may note your objection, but your client’s conduct in this courtroom is unacceptable, so he’s got 30 days in contempt of court.* Dennington later pled guilty to two counts of [taking a motor vehicle without permission in the second degree](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/possession-theft-of-stolen-motor-vehicle/). Dennington appealed from the order holding him in contempt of court. On appeal, he argued that the contempt order must be reversed because **(1)** his actions did not constitute contempt of court under [RCW 7.21.010](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.21), and **(2)** he was never given the statutorily required opportunity to speak in mitigation after the trial court held him in contempt. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals began by describing the [statute defining Contempt of Court](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.21). Contempt of court is defined as intentional **(a)** Disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior toward the judge while holding the court, tending to impair its authority, or to interrupt the due course of a trial or other judicial proceedings; **(b)** Disobedience of any lawful judgment, decree, order, or process of the court; **(c)** Refusal as a witness to appear, be sworn, or, without lawful authority, to answer a question; or **(d)** Refusal, without lawful authority, to produce a record, document, or other object. Also, the court found that the Contempt of Court statute requires that “the person committing the contempt of court shall be given an opportunity to speak in mitigation of the contempt unless compelling circumstances demand otherwise. “This is so because the opportunity to mitigate does not enable the contemnor to avoid the finding of contempt but, rather, permits a contemnor to apologize for, defend, or explain the misconduct that the court has already determined constitutes contempt in an effort to mitigate the sanctions to be imposed,” said the Court, citing [*Templeton v. Hurtado.* ](https://casetext.com/case/templeton-v-hurtado) Here, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the judge properly found the defendant in contempt of court: > “Dennington’s actions—rudely commenting on the prosecutor’s physical appearance and, when admonished to adjust his behavior, turning his back on the judge and explicitly and rudely telling the judge that he did not respect the court or others involved in his case—plainly presented a direct threat to the authority and dignity of the court and to maintaining proper decorum during court proceedings . . . Dennington’s behavior, left unaddressed, could have encouraged others to similarly disrespect the court or similarly disrupt proceedings.” However, the Court of Appeals also ruled that Mr. Dennington was denied his statutory right to speak in mitigation of his contempt. “Second, the court never asked Mr. Dennington if he had anything he wished to say to mitigate his contempt, said the Court of Appeals. “Following the summary contempt finding, the court was statutorily required to offer Dennington the opportunity to [allocute in mitigation](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/teaching-legal-docs/what-is-an-allocution-statement-/) of his contempt before imposing sanctions. Here, the court erred by not doing so.” With that, the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding that Dennington was in contempt, yet reversed the sanction imposed. My opinion? Granted, it’s difficult for many defendants to be under the authority of a judge’s decision. However, respecting the judge is a necessary formality and like most formalities, it has very real purposes. Whether you actually respect the judge is irrelevant. At the end of the day, the judge is the one calling the shots. Therefore, it is symbolically important for everyone to make a showing of deference at the outset of the proceedings. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an experienced attorney is the first and best step toward gaining justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Contempt of Court, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Theft of Motor Vehicle, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Investigative Stop](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/investigative-stop/) **Published:** April 11, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*Kansas v. Glover*](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-556_e1pf.pdf), the [United States Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) held that a police officer’s investigative traffic stop made after running the vehicle’s license plate and learning that the registered owner’s driver’s license has been revoked is reasonable under the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment).[ ](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-556_e1pf.pdf) **BACKGROUND FACTS** A Kansas deputy sheriff ran a license plate check on a pickup truck, discovering that the truck belonged to respondent Glover and that Glover’s driver’s license had been revoked. The deputy pulled the truck over because he assumed that Glover was driving. Glover was in fact driving and was charged with driving as a [habitual violator](https://www.workplacetesting.com/definition/549/habitual-violator). He [moved to suppress](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/motion_to_suppress) all evidence from the stop, claiming that the deputy lacked [reasonable suspicion](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_suspicion). The District Court granted the motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The [Kansas Supreme Court](https://www.kscourts.org/About-the-Courts/Supreme-Court) in turn reversed, holding that the deputy violated the Fourth Amendment by stopping Glover without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** [Justice Thomas](https://www.oyez.org/justices/clarence_thomas) delivered the majority opinion for the Court. His ruling states that an officer may initiate a brief investigative traffic stop when he has a particularized and objective basis to suspect legal wrongdoing. The Court reasoned that the level of suspicion required is less than that necessary for [probable cause](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause) and depends on the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act. > “Courts must therefore permit officers to make commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior.” ~Justice Thomas, U.S. Supreme Court “Here, the deputy’s commonsense inference that the owner of a vehicle was likely the vehicle’s driver provided more than reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop,” reasoned Justice Thomas. Though common sense suffices to justify the officer’s inference, empirical studies demonstrate that drivers with suspended or revoked licenses frequently continue to drive. “And Kansas’ license-revocation scheme, which covers drivers who have already demonstrated a disregard for the law or are categorically unfit to drive, reinforces the reasonableness of the inference that an individual with a revoked license will continue to drive,” said Justice Thomas. The Court said scope of its holding is narrow. “The [reasonable suspicion standard](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_suspicion) takes into account the [totality of the circumstances](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totality_of_the_circumstances),” said the Court. “The presence of additional facts might dispel reasonable suspicion, but here, the deputy possessed no information sufficient to rebut the reasonable inference that Glover was driving his own truck.” With that, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded The Kansas Supreme Court’s decision that the deputy violated the Fourth Amendment by stopping Glover without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. My opinion? The Supreme Court’s decision is not surprising. And in truth, it’s consistent with existing Washington precedent. In [*State v. McKinney*](http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/148wn2d/148wn2d0020.htm), and [*State v. Phillips*](http://courts.mrsc.org/appellate/126wnapp/126WnApp0584.htm), the WA Court of Appeals held that a vehicle may be stopped based upon DOL records which indicate that the driver’s license of the registered owner of the vehicle is suspended. The officer need not affirmatively verify that the driver’s appearance matches that of the registered owner before making the stop, but the [*Terry* stop](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stop_and_frisk) must end as soon as the officer determines that the operator of the vehicle cannot be the registered owner. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with crimes after a questionable [search and seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/). Hiring a competent attorney is the first and best step toward gaining justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Probable Cause, Reasonable Suspicion, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Terry Stop, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Entrapment & Sex Crimes](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/entrapment-sex-crimes/) **Published:** April 15, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Johnson*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2051923-2-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held that a Defendant cannot claim [Entrapment](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.070) for numerous attempted [sex offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/) by responding to a [fake Craigslist add in the “Casual Encounters” section](https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/fashion/19craigslist.html) created by police officers conducting an online sting operation. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Law enforcement created a posting in the [Craigslist](https://www.craigslist.org/about/sites) casual encounters section. Mr. Johnson responded to the ad. His communications with the (as-yet-unknown) police led Mr. Johnson to believe the add was posted by a 13-year-old female named “Brandi” who was home alone. Mr. Johnson was instructed to drive to a minimart and await further instructions via text. Johnson drove to the designated minimart. “Brandi” then gave Johnson the address of the house and he drove toward that location. Law enforcement apprehended Johnson while on his way from the minimart to the house. At the time of his arrest, Johnson was carrying forty dollars. Johnson was charged with **(1)** attempted [second degree rape of a child](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.076), **(2)** attempted [commercial sexual abuse of a minor](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.68A.100), and **(3)** [communication with a minor for immoral purposes](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.68a.090). During trial, he requested the Entrapment Defense via a [jury instruction](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_instructions). However, the trial judge denied Johnson the defense and jury instruction. The jury found him guilty of all charges. Johnson appealed, claiming [ineffective assistance of counsel](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ineffective_assistance_of_counsel) and that the trial judge erred by denying the Entrapment defense. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The court explained that in order to prove the affirmative defense of entrapment, a defendant must show, by a [preponderance of the evidence](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/preponderance_of_the_evidence), that he committed a crime, that the State or a State actor lured or induced him to commit the crime, and that the defendant lacked the disposition to commit the crime. A defendant may not point to the State’s absence of evidence to meet his evidentiary burden for an affirmative defense. Importantly, as a matter of law, the Court also stated the following: > “Entrapment is not a defense if law enforcement merely afforded the actor an opportunity > to commit a crime.” “Here, Johnson points to no evidence to support an entrapment instruction,” reasoned the Court. Here, law enforcement created a Craigslist posting purporting to be a woman looking for a man to teach her how to be an adult. This add, however, was not entrapment on the part of police. The add merely presented an opportunity for Mr. Johnson to incriminate himself and commit a crime: > “Johnson initiated contact by answering the posting. Johnson testified that no one forced him to answer the posting. Although Johnson stated he wanted to be cautious because ‘Brandi’ was underage, he steered the conversation into explicitly sexual territory by graphically explaining his sexual desires to the purported thirteen-year-old. When ‘Brandi’ suggested meeting at a later time, Johnson declined, stating that he was available to meet. There is no evidence that law enforcement lured or induced Johnson.” The court also rejected Johnson’s argument that he was entitled to an entrapment instruction because the State failed to show he had a predisposition to commit the crimes against children, and there was no evidence of a history regarding perverse activity towards children. “But pointing to the State’s absence of evidence does not meet Johnson’s evidentiary burden for his affirmative defense,” said the Court. Instead, explained he Court, the evidence shows that law enforcement merely afforded Johnson the opportunity to commit his crimes. Johnson willingly responded to the posting, steered the conversation to explicitly sexual topics, testified that he wanted to meet the person, and drove to the agreed locations. The Court of Appeals concluded that because Johnson failed to show any evidence entitling him to a jury instruction on entrapment, the trial court did not err by refusing to instruct the jury on entrapment. The court also denied Mr. Johnson’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. My opinion? Entrapment is a very difficult defense to prove under these circumstances. Law enforcement officers are allowed to engage in sting operations, whereby they create circumstances that allow individuals to take criminal actions that they can then be arrested and prosecuted for. These are considered “opportunities” for individuals believed to be involved in criminal behavior to commit crimes. An opportunity is considered very different from entrapment and involves merely the temptation to violate the law, not being forced to do so. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member face [sex offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/) and [Entrapment](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Iefa05ea3e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)) could be a substantive defense. Hiring an experienced criminal defense attorney is the first and best step towards justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Entrapment, Ineffective Assistance, Jury Instructions, Juvenile, law enforcement, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Promoting Prostitution, Rape, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Nearly 1,000 Inmates To Be Released In Washington State](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/nearly-1000-inmates-to-be-released-in-washington-state/) **Published:** April 16, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Apparently, [Gov. Jay Inslee](https://www.governor.wa.gov/) announced that Washington state intends to release up to 950 inmates confined in Washington state prisons — a reduction of about 6 percent, based on 2019 inmate numbers — to stop a potential widespread outbreak of [COVID-19](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html) in the prison. Inslee and the Washington [State Department of Corrections](https://www.doc.wa.gov/) released their emergency plan to keep inmates safe from COVID-19 on Monday, after a back-and-forth of lawsuit responses between the state and [Columbia Legal Services](https://www.washingtonlawhelp.org/organization/columbia-legal-services). Columbia Legal Services had filed a petition in April, with the [Washington Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) on behalf of incarcerated petitioners. It called for the prompt release of thousands of prisoners to prevent the further spread of Covid-19 behind bars. As of April 10, 2020, the department has tested 237 inmates and has had 179 negative results, 8 positive results. Fifty test results are pending. According to the department of corrections, the people tested have been isolated. As of April 10, 161 inmates remain in isolation. Another 912 others are in quarantine. Jaime Hawk, of the [ACLU’s Washington Campaign for Smart Justice](https://www.aclu.org/issues/smart-justice), called the plan a helpful first step, but said it doesn’t remove the dangers of Covid-19 for incarcerated people in Washington state. > “We urge the governor and the Department of Corrections to do more to reduce state prison populations, which is the only way to follow the advice of public health experts and keep those living and working in our correctional facilities safe.” ~Jaime Hawk, ACLU The state’s plan will target people for release who are: • Non-violent inmates, both vulnerable and non-vulnerable, who have a release date within 75 days. • Non-violent inmates and vulnerable inmates who have a release date in 2 to 6 months. They will be released through a re-entry planning process. • Non-violent inmates and vulnerable inmates who have a release date in 6 to 8 months, with an approved release plan. • Non-violent inmates who were jailed for lower level supervision violations • Non-violent inmates who are already on work release and can be freed through the secretary’s furlough authority. Please read my Legal Guides titled [Making Bail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/making-bail/) and [Quash Your Bench Warrant](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/quash-your-bench-warrant/) and contact my office if you, a friend of family member find themselves stuck in jail or prison during the Coronavirus Pandemic. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** ACLU, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Jail, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Prison, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [DUI & Opinion Evidence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/dui-opinion-evidence/) **Published:** April 18, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*City of Seattle v. Levesque*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/783041.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that a police officer, who is not a [Drug Recognition Expert (DRE)](https://www.theiacp.org/drug-recognition-experts-dres), may not give an opinion on whether the defendant was guilty of DUI. **BACKGROUND FACTS** On April 29, 2015, the [Seattle Police Department](https://www.seattle.gov/police) dispatched Officers Hinson and Officer Coe to the scene of an automobile accident involving two vehicles. Levesque had failed to stop his vehicle prior to hitting the vehicle in front of him. The accident caused moderate to severe damage, and Levesque’s vehicle could not be driven. Officer Hinson placed Levesque under arrest for DUI. Although Officer Hinson had received training in [field sobriety tests (FSTS)](http://www.fieldsobrietytests.org/), he did not perform any FSTs at the scene because of Levesque’s symptoms, the absence of any alcohol smell, and the location of the accident and corresponding impracticability of FSTs. Officer Hinson did not perform a [horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN)](http://www.fieldsobrietytests.org/horizontalgazenystagmus.html) test for signs of impairment. Officer Hinson, who is not [DRE certified](https://www.theiacp.org/how-to-become-a-drug-recognition-expert), testified that he attempted to contact a DRE by radio, but no DRE was available. For those who don’t know, a DRE is a police officer trained to recognize impairment in drivers under the influence of drugs other than, or in addition to, alcohol. After arresting Levesque, Officer Hinson transported Levesque to Harborview Medical Center, where he had his blood drawn. The drug analysis results showed that Levesque’s blood contained 0.14 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of amphetamine and 0.55 mg/L of methamphetamine. The City charged Levesque with DUI. Before trial, Levesque [moved *in limine*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_in_limine) to exclude any testifying officer’s opinion on ultimate issues. The trial court granted the motion but ruled that an officer could state “in his opinion, based upon the totality of the circumstances, that Levesque was impaired.” The trial court also granted Levesque’s additional motion to exclude officers as experts but declared that an officer—testifying as a lay witness—could “certainly testify to what he objectively observed during the investigation.” Officer Hinson testified that through his training and experience Levesque showed signs as possibly being impaired by a stimulant. When asked to opine as to whether Levesque was impaired by drugs, Officer Hinson testified that his opinion was that Levesque was definitely impaired at the time of the accident.” Levesque objected to Officer Hinson’s testimony and requested a mistrial outside the presence of the jury following a lunch recess. The court overruled Levesque’s objections. Also at trial, Levesque offered an alternative theory for his perceived impairment. Levesque’s defense theory was that he was prescribed medication for injuries which explain his behavior. In support of this defense, Levesque presented testimony from his physician about treatment and prescriptions that she gave Levesque prior to the accident, her diagnoses, and Levesque’s symptoms. The jury convicted Levesque of driving while under the influence. Levesque appealed his conviction to the superior court, which reversed based on Officer Hinson’s opinion testimony. The city of Seattle (City) appealed. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals reasoned that opinion testimony must be deemed admissible by the trial court before it is offered. Opinion testimony may be admissible under ER 701 as lay testimony or ER 702 as expert testimony. However, when opinion testimony that embraces an ultimate issue is inadmissible in a criminal trial, the testimony may constitute an impermissible opinion on guilt. Furthermore, impermissible opinion testimony regarding the defendant’s guilt may be reversible error. Here, the opinion testimony at issue consists of Officer Hinson’s statements that Levesque showed signs and symptoms of being impaired by a specific category of drug – i.e., a [CNS stimulant](https://www.drugs.com/drug-class/cns-stimulants.html) – and that Levesque was “definitely impaired” at the time of the accident. > “We conclude that because Officer Hinson was not a drug recognition expert (DRE) and lacked otherwise sufficient training and experience, he was not qualified to opine that Levesque showed signs and symptoms consistent with having consumed a particular category of drug.” ~WA Court of Appeals Furthermore, the Court of Appeals reasoned that because the officer’s opinion that Levesque was “definitely impaired” constituted an impermissible opinion of Levesque’s guilt, the trial court’s admission of that testimony violated Levesque’s constitutional right to have the jury determine an ultimate issue. Finally, because Levesque presented an alternative theory for his behavior, the City did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that any reasonable jury would have convicted Levesque. “Therefore, we affirm the superior court’s reversal of Levesque’s conviction,” said the Court of Appeals. My opinion? Excellent decision. And excellent work on behalf of his defense attorney. They did a great job of making a record for not only trying to suppress the officer’s opinion evidence during motions in limine, but also for properly objecting at the right time and preserving the issue for appeal when the officer unlawfully offered the opinion testimony. Under [Evidence Rule 704](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=ER&ruleid=gaer0704), witnesses may not testify to opinions concerning intent, guilt, or innocence in a criminal case; the truth or falsity of allegations; whether a witness has testified truthfully; or legal conclusions. This is because testimony from witnesses on these issues is not probative and is, in fact, prejudicial to criminal defendants. Good opinion. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/alcohol-dui/). Hiring a competent and experienced criminal defense attorney who is well-versed on pretrial motions and the rules of evidence is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Recognition Expert, DUI, Motions In Limine, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Some Crimes Decreasing Amid COVID-19](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/some-crimes-decreasing-amid-covid-19/) **Published:** April 19, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article](https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/some-crimes-are-spiking-in-major-u-s-cities-amid-empty-streets) in [Bloomberg](https://www.bloombergquint.com/) by [Chris Dolmetsch](https://muckrack.com/chris-dolmetsch), [Edvard Pettersson](https://muckrack.com/edvard-pettersson) and [Christopher Yasiejko](https://muckrack.com/yasiejko) reports that in the largest U.S. cities, crime has dropped since the [Coranavirus Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic). In short, car thefts and store robberies are spiking in some municipalities even as crime overall — especially violent offenses — dropped in 10 of the 20 most populated cities, more than halving in San Francisco alone, according to data analysis from 10 major cities. “It’s just a reflection of reduced opportunities for these kind of events,’’ said [Daniel Nagin](https://www.heinz.cmu.edu/faculty-research/profiles/nagin-daniel/), a criminologist and professor of public policy at the H.J. Heinz School of Public Policy and Management at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. “In the case of murders, these often occur in public places in bars and things like that. With those kinds of activities shut down there’s less social interaction. [Car theft](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/possession-theft-of-stolen-motor-vehicle/) is surging New York city, up 49% for the week ended April 12 as compared to the same period a year earlier. It’s risen 53% over the past month and more than 63% year to date. Car theft was the only major crime to show an increase in Los Angeles, rising 11.3% for the the 28 days ending April 11 from the previous period. [Burglaries](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/) are also on the rise in New York, up 26% year-to-date as compared to the same period in 2019. In the week ended April 12, they more than doubled in the southern half of Manhattan, where many stores are now unoccupied. Burglaries jumped almost 34% in Denver in March amid a growing number of break-ins at marijuana dispensaries. In Philadelphia, burglaries were down 6.7% overall, with residential break-ins falling 25% as more people stay home, but unoccupied businesses were hit hard, with commercial burglary rising 71%. [Robberies](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/robbery/) and burglaries dropped more dramatically in Los Angeles than some other major U.S. cities, perhaps because it closed non-essential businesses and told people to stay at home earlier than other cities, said [Charis Kubrin](https://faculty.sites.uci.edu/ckubrin/), a professor of criminology at the University of California, Irvine. > “Property crimes are crimes of opportunity and with most businesses closed, there are simply fewer opportunities.” ~Charis Kubrin, Professor of Criminology Each of the 10 major cities that provided data are showing a decline in [rapes and sexual assaults](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/), with San Francisco posting the biggest drop — more than 50% — as compared to the same period a year earlier. For the most part, [murders](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/) are on the decline, and in cities showing a rise the numbers are low to begin with. A 25% increase in Austin, for example, is the result of one additional homicide, with the number rising from four to five. > “There are fewer opportunities for young people to get together . . . So there’s less chance when there’s alcohol involved for arguments to get out of hand and to result in assaults or homicides.” ~Charis Kubrin, Professor of Criminology According to the article, most cities are showing a decline in [assaults](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/), following the trend in other violent-crimes categories. Notably, the drop-off comes even after the release from prison of thousands of non-violent offenders. That may show that many such offenders need not have been put in jail to start with.” [Theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/theft/) is also down across the board in the cities surveyed. But Kubrin said the drop in street crime may be followed by an increase in white-collar crime, such as price gauging and online fraud. “Opportunities have shifted from the street to online,” she said. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges. Hiring a competent and experienced criminal defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, felony, misdemeanor, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Guilty Verdicts Must Be Unanimous](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/guilty-verdicts-must-be-unanimous/) **Published:** April 23, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*Ramos v. Louisiana*](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf), the [United States Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) held that the [Sixth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) to the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution) requires that guilty verdicts must be unanimous. **BACKGROUND FACTS** In 48 States and federal court, a single juror’s vote to acquit is enough to prevent a conviction. But two States, Louisiana and Oregon, have long punished people based on 10-to-2 verdicts. In this case, the defendant Mr. Ramos was convicted of [second degree murder](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/) in a Louisiana court by a 10-to-2 jury verdict. Instead of the mistrial he would have received almost anywhere else, Ramos was sentenced to life without parole. He appealed his conviction by a nonunanimous jury as an unconstitutional denial of the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** [Justice Gorsuch](https://www.oyez.org/justices/neil_gorsuch) delivered the opinion of the Court, which reversed Ramos’s conviction on the basis that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial—as incorporated against the States by way of the Fourteenth Amendment—requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious offense. First, the Court reasoned that a “trial by an impartial jury” requires that a jury must reach a unanimous verdict in order to convict. > “Juror unanimity emerged as a vital common law right in 14th-century England, appeared in the early American state constitutions, and provided the backdrop against which the Sixth Amendment was drafted and ratified . . . Thus, if the jury trial right requires a unanimous verdict in federal court, it requires no less in state court.” ~Justice Gorsuch, United States Supreme Court Second, the Court reasoned Louisiana’s and Oregon’s unconventional jury trial schemes had a long history of being viewed as unconstitutional. It stated that jury unanimity was essential to the right to a fair trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Furthermore, research has demonstrated that a unanimous jury requirement strengthens deliberations, ensures more accurate outcomes, fosters greater consideration of minority viewpoints, and boosts confidence in verdicts and the justice system. Finally, the Supreme Court overturned its deeply divided decision in [*Apodaca v. Oregon*](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/406/404/), which concluded that jury unanimity was required in federal criminal trials but not in state criminal trials. In short, the Court reasoned that modern empirical evidence and subsequent case law have undermined *Apodaca*’s reasoning and conclusions. My opinion? The Court’s decision was a major victory for protecting the rights of criminal defendants. The Court recognized that jury unanimity has historically been an essential element of the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial trial by jury in criminal cases. Also, the potential impact of *[Ramos v. Louisiana](https://www.mindingyourbusinesslitigation.com/files/2020/04/Ramos-v-Louisiana.pdf)* extends far beyond issues of criminal procedure, as the justices’ spirited debate over when and whether to overturn precedent took center stage and illustrated deep divisions within the Court. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an experienced and competent criminal defense attorney is the best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Homicide & Manslaughter, Jury Trial, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Race & Law, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Miranda & Border Detention](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/miranda-border-detention/) **Published:** April 26, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Escalante](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/972681.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) held that separating a person from the normal stream of traffic and detaining them for five hours in a locked room that was inaccessible to the public or other travelers will create the type of police-dominated environment requires [*Miranda* ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/384/436)warnings. **BACKGROUND FACTS** In August 2017, Mr. Escalante was traveling in a van with a group of friends, heading back into Washington from Canada. They were all returning from the [Shambala Music Festival](https://shambhalamusicfestival.com/) in British Columbia. At the [Frontier Border Crossing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier-Paterson_Border_Crossing), patrol agents searched all vehicles coming from the festival as part of a drug enforcement operation. Escalante and his friends were directed to the secondary inspection area. Border patrol agents took their documents. The secondary inspection lobby was an 11 x 14 foot locked room. It is not accessible to the public or other travelers. Detainees are not allowed to use the bathroom or access water without getting permission from agents and submitting to a pat-down search. Agents patted down all four men and found narcotics on the driver and one passenger, but not on Escalante or the other passenger. Agents kept all the men secured – either in the locked lobby or in the detention cells – for five hours while they searched the van. The search uncovered drug paraphernalia and personal items containing drugs, including a backpack with small amounts of [heroin](https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/heroin) and [lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD)](https://www.drugs.com/illicit/lsd.html). Without giving *Miranda* warnings, agents confronted the men with each item of drug paraphernalia and each item in which drugs were found and asked who owned it. Escalante admitted he owned the backpack. At that time, Escalante and his companion were the only travelers in the secured lobby. Eventually, the Border Patrol Agents summoned local law enforcement and held Escalante until they arrived. These officers formally arrested Escalante and gave him *Miranda* warnings. Escalante was charged in state court with [possession of heroin and LSD](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). He [moved to suppress his statement](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) claiming ownership of the backpack because it was obtained in custody by interrogation without *Miranda* warnings. However, the trial court admitted Escalante’s incriminating statement. Escalante was convicted at trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The case eventually made its way to the WA Supreme Court. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The WA Supreme Court explained that the [Fifth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment) guarantees that individuals will not be compelled by the government to incriminate themselves. In short, the Fifth Amendment protects an individual’s right to remain silent, in and out of court, unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will. The Court also explained that in order to assure an individual freely makes the choice to talk to the police, *Miranda* requires that before custodial interrogation, the police inform a suspect of their right to remain silent and their right to the presence of an attorney, appointed or retained. Evaluating the totality of the circumstances, the Court concluded that a reasonable person in Escalante’s circumstances would have felt their freedom of action was curtailed to a degree associated with formal arrest: > “Agents confiscated Escalante’s documents, routed him to a secondary inspection area, separated him from his belongings, arrested the driver of the van in which he was traveling, and detained him for five hours in a small locked lobby that was not accessible to the public or other travelers. After a lengthy detention, he was questioned using a procedure that communicated agents had found drugs and were suspicious of him. These circumstances created precisely the type of incommunicado police-dominated environment that was the concern of *Miranda*. We hold that Escalante was in custody and his unwarned statements should have been suppressed.” With that, the WA Supreme Court reversed and vacated Mr. Escalante’s convictions. My opinion? Good decision. Escalante should have been informed of his *Miranda* rights. Clearly, that the statements he made resulted from direct interrogation by the officers and were not spontaneous and unsolicited statements of a person who was anxious to explain. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime after giving incriminating statement and/or undergoing a questionable [search or seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/). Hiring a competent and experienced defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Fifth Amendment, Interrogation, Miranda, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Decrease in DV Reporting](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/decrease-in-dv-reporting/) **Published:** May 5, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/coronavirus/article242446851.html) by [Denver Pratt](https://muckrack.com/denver-pratt) of the [Bellingham Herald](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/) reports that Whatcom County agencies helping domestic violence and child abuse victims say they’ve seen a decrease in DV reporting since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to Pratt, the agencies say this is a worrying sign, as it likely means victims are isolated with their abusers and are less likely to be able to access help. Elizabeth Hart, a program manager with [Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Services](https://www.dvsas.org/), said the nonprofit has seen a decrease in the number of calls reported to its 24-hour helpline. Hart said in March they helped 236 clients, as compared to 360 in March of last year. Hart said the decrease suggests to her that people in abusive situations have a limited ability to reach out for help as Washington is under a [“Stay Home, Stay Healthy”](https://www.governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/20-25.1%20-%20COVID-19%20-%20Stay%20Home%2C%20Stay%20Healthy%20Extension%20%28tmp%29.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery) order in an attempt to stop the spread of the new coronavirus. [Gov. Jay Inslee](https://www.governor.wa.gov/) has [extended the order](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/coronavirus/article242434321.html) through May 31. Hart said during a stay-home order, abusive partners have more opportunity to watch and control who their victims talk to and what they do. And as stresses mount in the home, like job loss or having to educate children while schools are closed, the number of abusive incidents could rise or become more dangerous, Hart said. Ms. Hart also said if a victim loses a job, they can become more financially dependent on their abusive partner, making it harder to leave the abusive relationship. Hart said prior to the global pandemic, financial impacts were one of the main reasons a victim would stay with an abusive partner. However, [false reporting](https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/fighting-false-allegations-of-domestic-abuse-6008) and [victim recantations](https://www.apadivisions.org/division-41/publications/newsletters/news/2014/03/recantation) also commonly happen in DV crimes; and are just as likely to exacerbate during these strange and uncertain times. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Domestic Violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) during this [“Stay Home, Stay Healthy”](https://www.governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/20-25.1%20-%20COVID-19%20-%20Stay%20Home%2C%20Stay%20Healthy%20Extension%20%28tmp%29.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery) period. Hiring an experienced criminal defense attorney is the first and best step towards justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Domestic Violence, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Violent Crime, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Disruptive Defendants](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/disruptive-defendants/) **Published:** May 9, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Davis*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/966630.pdf), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) upheld a trial judge’s findings that a disruptive defendant waived his right to be present at trial. **BACKGROUND FACTS** In March 2014, the State charged Davis with two counts of [possessing a stolen vehicle](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/possession-theft-of-stolen-motor-vehicle/) and one count of [possession of a controlled substance](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). He waived his right to counsel. The court found Davis knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel, and he proceeded pro se. Mr. Davis’s path toward trial was rocky. He was incarcerated while the charges were pending. He also had troubles communicating with his investigator, and his motions to continue his case were denied. At the [CrR 3.5 hearing](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.5), Davis again sought a continuance and attempted to withdraw as his own counsel. The judge denied both motions. In response, Davis became irate. He screamed that he wanted a new judge. The court warned Davis that outbursts and disruptions would lead to his removal. Davis said, “You can remove me now. What have we been doing here? I don’t even want to be here. So remove me. I don’t care. I told you that. You can hold your trial without me.” Trial proceeded. Davis returned to court and represented himself without significant incident until the State commenced its case in chief. He took numerous bathroom breaks throughout the day. At one point, however, Mr. Davis returned to the courtroom and discovered his water was removed by court staff. Again, Mr. Davis He grew irate. He began a tirade of expletives, pounding on the table with his fists, and yelling at an extremely loud volume, at one point screaming “F\*\*k you!” to the judge. Davis was warned that he would be removed from the courtroom if he was going to continue to raise his voice and curse. The State attempted to proceed with questioning witnesses, but Davis refused to cease his outbursts. The judge temporarily cleared the jury. Davis repeatedly said, “You can hold your trial without me,” and the court replied, “I’m going to do that.” Davis went as far as to remark, “Thank you. Thank you. Just go ahead with your kangaroo court . . . . I’m done with it.” During this exchange, Davis shouted at the top of his lungs, swearing, and apparently moved to exit the courtroom. The judge stopped Davis in order to make an oral ruling. She found that Davis was voluntarily absenting himself from the proceedings, noting that Davis intentionally drank more water in order to delay trial with bathroom breaks, often during critical portions of witness testimony. After Davis left the courtroom, the jury returned and the State resumed its direct examination. The State questioned officers involved in Davis’s arrest, asking about the cocaine discovered in his possession and his voluntary statements given after arrest. Davis was not present to cross-examine either witness. He was absent for approximately 50 minutes of trial. The following day, Davis returned. The court warned him that any profanity or disruptions would result in his removal. Davis agreed, though he continued to interrupt and ask for standby counsel, which the court denied. Despite Davis’s combative behavior, the trial proceeded with Davis present. Davis was convicted on all counts. Davis appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed Davis’s convictions. The State appealed to the WA Supreme Court. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The WA Supreme Court began by saying The [Sixth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) and the [due process clauses](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process) of the Fifth and [Fourteenth Amendments](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv) to the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/index.html), as well as the [Washington state constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/lawsandagencyrules/documents/12-2010-wastateconstitution.pdf), guarantee the right of the criminal defendant to be present at his or her own trial. However, the Court also said that the United States Supreme Court and this court have held that a defendant’s persistent, disruptive conduct can constitute a voluntary waiver of the right to be present. The Court turned to [*State v. Garza*](http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/150wn2d/150wn2d0360.htm) and [*State v. Thomson*](http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/123wn2d/123wn2d0877.htm) as guidance. These cases give the test necessary to answer the primary question of whether Davis waived his right to be present. In short, the crucial test established in these cases was whether the defendant’s absence was *voluntary*. “In this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Davis waived his right to be present,” said the WA Supreme Court. “The record shows that Davis wanted to leave the courtroom and the trial judge accommodated him. Davis asked and later yelled, repeatedly, that he did not ‘even want to be here. So remove me. I don’t care. I told you that. You can hold your trial without me.’ The court then reminded Davis that he had another of the State’s witnesses to cross-examine, but Davis stated again that he was done.” Furthermore, the court said the trial court properly exercised its discretion when it permitted a contumacious and stubbornly defiant defendant who insisted on leaving the courtroom to absent himself from the proceedings. It emphasized that maintaining order in the courtroom is within the discretion of the trial judge, and the judge properly exercised it here. > “Davis repeatedly stated that he did not want to be in court, that he was done, and that he wished to leave. Coupled with his disruptive outbursts that culminated in an abusive shouting match with the trial court, Davis obtained what he consistently told the court he wanted: leaving the proceedings. We hold that Davis waived his right to be present at trial.” Accordingly, the WA Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, affirmed the trial court’s ruling on voluntary absence and upheld Mr. Davis’s criminal convictions. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges. It’s never a good idea to represent yourself at criminal jury trials. Hiring an attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Due Process, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Possession of Stolen Motor Vehicle, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Inmates Sew Gowns & Masks In Fight Against Coronavirus](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/inmates-sew-gowns-masks-in-fight-against-coronavirus/) **Published:** May 12, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/washington-corrections-center-for-women-inmate-volunteers-sew-gowns-masks-for-coronavirus-fight/) by [Seattle Times](https://www.seattletimes.com/) staff reporter [Scott Hanson](https://www.seattletimes.com/author/cap-scott-hanson/) describes how inmates sew masks and gowns in the fight against [Coronavirus](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html). The group, called the [Sisters of Charity](https://www.facebook.com/WACorrections/posts/the-sisters-of-charity-a-group-of-15-inmates-in-the-washington-corrections-cente/1150364035084268/), formed about 20 years ago at the [Washington Corrections Center for Women (WCCW)](https://www.doc.wa.gov/corrections/incarceration/prisons/wccw.htm) in Gig Harbor – many of whom are serving life sentences – make items from donated materials for about 30 different charities. Reporter Scott Hanson reports that [South King Fire & Rescue](https://www.southkingfire.org/) needed protective gowns for an anticipated surge in coronavirus cases this fall and winter, and the group was happy to help. Not only have they made 700 gowns for South King Fire & Rescue, they also made 300 for the [Gig Harbor Fire Department](https://www.gigharborfire.org/), with 600 more on order. “I think this project meant so much because it was a call to action and an opportunity for them to be part of their community despite the walls,” said Carrie Hesch, WCCW’s recreation and athletic director. “They are absolutely thrilled to be able to do something for the community and stay busy.” In one project home improvement giant [Lowe’s](https://www.lowes.com/) donated [Tyvek](https://www.dupont.com/brands/tyvek.html), a fabric used in protective gear, and the group used an assembly-line process that allowed workers to keep socially distant; two groups of 15 worked in rotating shifts. One gown can be made every 13 minutes, depending on the skill level of the seamstress. In two weeks, the first 700 were made. Then came the 300 for Gig Harbor. The group is also making masks for the incarcerated and has produced more than 4,000. Great job, ladies! Also, excellent reporting from Scott Hanson. His article is one in a periodic Seattle Times series called [Stepping Up](https://www.seattletimes.com/tag/stepping-up/), highlighting moments of compassion, duty and community in uncertain times. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges during the [Coronavirus Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic). Hiring an experienced criminal attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Prison, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Victim's Motive To Testify](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/victims-motive-to-testify/) **Published:** May 18, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In[ *State v. Bedada*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/790366.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/appellateDockets/index.cfm?fa=appellateDockets.showDateList&courtId=a01) held that in a [domestic violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) prosecution involving a citizen-victim and a non-citizen defendant, the trial judge mistakenly suppressed evidence of the victim’s motive to testify. **BACKGROUND FACTS** After a series of alleged incidents of domestic violence, Mr. Bedada was charged with three counts of [assault in the first degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) and one count each of [felony harassment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/harassment/), [witness intimidation, and witness tampering](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/tampering-with-a-witness-intimidation-of-witnesses/). All of these charges were primarily supported by the testimony of Mrs. Haile, who was the defendant’s wife. At trial, the judge excluded evidence of Mr. Bedada’s non-citizen immigration status; and more specifically, that he would be deported if convicted of the crimes. As a result, Mr. Bedada was prevented from cross-examining Haile and revealing a motive for her to fabricate her testimony. Bedada was convicted on all charges except two counts of assault in the first degree. He appeals on the argument that the judge’s decision to suppress his citizenship status was erroneous and without merit. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals explained that the [Sixth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) to the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/index.html) and [article I, section 22 of Washington’s constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/Pages/WAConstitution.aspx) guarantee a defendant’s rights to confront the witnesses testifying against him. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals said that under [Evidence Rule (ER) 401](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.rulesPDF&groupName=ga&setName=ER), evidence is relevant if it tends to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Also, under [ER 403](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=ER&ruleid=gaer0403), relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.” Finally, the court explained that under ER 413(a), evidence of immigration status may only be admitted when the party seeking to admit the evidence follows the procedure set forth under the rule. ER 413(a) states, > “In any criminal matter, evidence of a party’s or a witness’s immigration status shall not be admissible ***unless*** immigration status is an essential fact to prove an element of, or a defense to, the criminal offense with which the defendant is charged, **or to show bias or prejudice of a witness pursuant to [ER 607](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=ER&ruleid=gaer0607)**.” (emphasis supplied). The court analyzed the aforementioned rules and ultimately found that plainly, evidence of a motive to fabricate on the part of Mrs. Haile— whose testimony was the principal evidence supporting every charge against Bedada — *could* affect a fact finder’s analysis as to whether the facts alleged by Haile were true. “No party disputed the reliability of evidence of Bedada’s noncitizenship,” said the court. “To the extent that the trial court engaged in a balancing of the probative value and prejudicial effect of the proffered evidence, it unfortunately omitted or misapplied several critical factors necessary to a proper analysis.” Notably, the Court of Appeals also took issue that neither the Prosecutor nor the trial judge identified any prejudicial effect — specific to this case — that might result from the introduction of evidence of Bedada’s immigration status: > “The State’s assertion did not identify, with any particularity, the prejudice that the State would encounter beyond a generalized concern of immigration as a sensitive political issue. The lack of a specific, as opposed to merely a general, prejudicial effect is significant.” Finally, the Court found it important that Mrs. Haile was the primary witness against Bedada in every charge against him. “She was the State’s most important witness,” said the Court. “Demonstrating bias on the part of the key witness has long been deemed an important element of a defendant’s right to present a defense. For all of these reasons, the Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court’s decision to exclude evidence of Mr. Bedada’s immigration status constituted an abuse of discretion. Consequently, the Court reversed Mr. Bedada’s convictions. My opinion? Good decision. Although I sympathize with the victim’s plight, it is wrong for trial courts to suppress evidence of a victim’s ulterior motives for testifying. it is powerful, relevant and probative evidence establishing motive that the victim knew that the defendant would be deported if she testified against him. Defense counsel did a great job establishing a record for appeal. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are non-citizens charged with crimes, especially deportable offenses like [Domestic Violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/). Hiring an effective and experienced criminal defense attorney is the best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Domestic Violence, Evidence, felony, Immigration, Jury Trial, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [A Snowmobile IS a Motor Vehicle](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/a-snowmobile-is-a-motor-vehicle/) **Published:** May 19, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In an interesting turn – and a razor-thin 5-4 decision – the WA Supreme Court’s *[State v. Tucker](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/972834.pdf)* reversed an [earlier decision](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/355306_pub.pdf) by the WA Court of Appeals and found that a snowmobile IS, in fact, a “motor vehicle” for purposes of [Washington’s Theft of a Motor Vehicle statute](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.065). **BACKGROUND FACTS** I recently blogged about this case last year. In February 2016, Ms. Tucker and her accomplice broke into a cabin near [Stampede Pass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stampede_Pass). The cabin was accessible only by snowmobiles. The pair stole several items of personal property, including a snowmobile. The State charged Ms. Tucker with [residential burglary](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.52.025), [second degree theft](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.040), [theft of motor vehicle](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.065), and [third degree malicious mischief](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.48.090). A jury found Ms. Tucker guilty of [first degree criminal trespass](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.52.070) and theft of motor vehicle, but could not reach a verdict on the charge of second degree theft. The trial court declared a mistrial on that count, and it later was [dismissed without prejudice](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/dismissal_without_prejudice). Defense counsel, relying on *[State v. Barnes](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1750681.html)*, filed a [motion to arrest judgment](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=clj&set=CrRLJ&ruleid=cljcrrlj7.4) on the theft of a motor vehicle conviction. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that the snowmobile was licensed and has a motor. Therefore, her conviction remained unchanged on the theft of a motor vehicle charge. Ms. Tucker appealed the conviction. The WA Court of Appeals reversed the lower court. Relying on *Barnes*, a majority of that court held that the statute criminalizes only theft of “a car or other automobile.” Apparently, the story didn’t end. This time, the State appealed the case to the WA Supreme Court, who seems to have made a final decision on the matter (for now). **COURT’S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS** The WA Supreme Court reasoned that the WA legislature defined “motor vehicle” as a self-propelled device that is capable of moving and transporting people or property on a public highway. The Court reasoned that Washington’s vehicle and traffic laws define [“Motor Vehicle”](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.04.320) as a vehicle that is self-propelled or a vehicle that is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires but not operated upon rails. Also, [“Vehicle”](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.04.670) is further defined as a “device capable of being moved upon a public highway and in, upon, or by which any persons or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway.” > “So a motor vehicle is a self-propelled device (a description of its mechanics) that is capable of moving and transporting people or property on a public highway (a description of its function). Where, as here, the legislature has provided a definition, we are not free to create our own.” It also reasoned that although the trial judge said that a snowmobile is a motor vehicle in part because a snowmobile must be licensed (at least in some situations), the legislature’s definition of “motor vehicle” says nothing about a licensing requirement. “Although such a requirement may provide the courts with a useful test, we cannot simply create a new requirement out of thin air.” Furthermore, reasoned the Court, a “snowmobile” is a self-propelled device that is capable of moving and transporting people or property on a public highway. Here, the court reasoned that although people generally don’t operate snowmobiles – which are designed for use on snow and ice – on public highways, Washington’s [Snowmobile Act](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.10.470) not only makes clear that a snowmobile is capable of moving and transporting people or property on a public highway, at least when the highway is covered with snow or ice, but also makes clear that it is legally permitted to do so. > “In sum, a snowmobile satisfies the definition of “motor vehicle” provided by the legislature.” Accordingly, the WA Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed Tucker’s conviction. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges like [Theft of a Motor Vehicle](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/possession-theft-of-stolen-motor-vehicle/). Hiring an experienced, competent attorney who knows and understand the law is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Theft of Motor Vehicle, Uncategorized, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Virtual Dating & DV](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/virtual-dating-dv/) **Published:** May 21, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** What defines a “virtual dating relationship,” especially in today’s age of technology, smart phones, online profiles, dating apps, etc.? This question is asked quite often. Unfortunately, many people find themselves facing criminal charges before seeking legal advice! In [*C.C. v. J.A.H.*](https://www.njcourts.gov/attorneys/assets/opinions/appellate/published/a4425-18.pdf?c=iTq), a recent and novel case out of the [New Jersey Appellate Division](https://njcourts.gov/courts/appellate.html?lang=eng), a “dating relationship” under [New Jersey’s Prevention of Domestic Violence Act](https://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/agguide/dvpolrsp.htm) can occur where parties never experienced a traditional, in-person “date.” **BACKGROUND FACTS** The parties met at a gym where the Plaintiff was an employee, and the Defendant a member. They interacted flirtatiously, and eventually exchanged phone numbers. This led to a proliferation of text messages between the parties – ***approximately 1100 text messages over a period of one month.*** The Court of Appeals described the text messages as being “exchanged at all hours of the day and night” and as “sexually explicit and suggestive in nature.” The Appellate Division also found that the Defendant declared his romantic interest during the course of these text messages. During this period, the parties continued to interact with one another in person (described as “flirtatious” interaction by the Plaintiff), However, ***both sides agreed that they never went out on a date in the traditional manner.*** The Defendant argued they never went on a date. Accordingly, the Defendant argued, the Plaintiff could not obtain a [No Contact Order](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/restraining_order) under the Act. **COURT’S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS** In short, the New Jersey Appellate Division found that a dating relationship existed. It characterized the issue as subjective rather than an objective analysis. It emphasized that although the interactions between these parties may not bear any semblance to “dating” in the eyes of someone perhaps older and with a more traditional view of what it means to date somebody, for the Plaintiff (who was 22 years old), these interactions were part of a normal 21st century dating life. Ultimately, the sheer volume of the communications and the nature of their content supported the Court’s reasoning: > **“\[T\]he absence of what might be viewed as traditional dating activities and affirmations does not render insignificant the proliferate and exceedingly intimate communications between the parties that underscored their relationship. Indeed, it is the nature and proliferation of those communications that constituted the parties’ “dating activities” and transformed theirs into a “dating relationship.”** New Jersey is not alone. Indeed, [Washington statutes](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=26.50.010) define the term in a manner consistent with the factors that guided the New Jersey Court’s analysis. In Washington, “Dating relationship” means a social relationship of a romantic nature. Factors that the court may consider in making this determination include: **(a)** The length of time the relationship has existed; **(b)** the nature of the relationship; and **(c)** the frequency of interaction between the parties. My opinion? This is certainly a cautionary tale. While the law is perhaps notorious for being behind the times, technologically speaking, this decision represents an appropriate understanding of what it means to be in a dating relationship in this day and age and goes a long way to protecting victims of domestic violence who may not have been on any traditional dates, but nevertheless were involved in a dating relationship. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges involving [Domestic Violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) and/or dating relationships. Hiring an experienced criminal defense attorney is the first and best step towards justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Domestic Violence, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, No Contact Order, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Memorial Day DUI Patrols](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/memorial-day-dui-patrols/) **Published:** May 23, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [WA State Patrol (WSP)](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/) issued a [press release](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/052120-Media-Release-Memorial-Day-2020.pdf) that troopers will be out in full force to ensure motorists have a safe Memorial Day weekend. Extra troopers will be on duty to strictly enforce the [“Rules of the Road”](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/driver/rules-of-the-road) and will pay particular attention to dangerous speed, distracted driving, seat belt usage and impaired driving violations. According to its press release, the WSP has seen a sharp increase statewide in motorcycle fatality collisions over the last few months. In 2020, 12 of the 17 motorcycle fatalities on Washington roads occurred during the month of April. Speeding was a common factor in these almost always preventable collisions. Impaired driving continues to be one of the leading causes of serious injury and fatal crashes in Washington State. > “We will have zero tolerance for drivers who are stopped and are impaired . . . Our troopers will continue to do what it takes to remove these dangerous drivers from our roads.” ~Captain Jeff Otis, WSP District 4 Commander Also, the WSP encourages motorists who see these types of dangerous driving behaviors to call 911. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges like [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/), [Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/), [Vehicular Assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/vehicular-homicide-vehicular-assault/) or any other crimes involving vehicles. Hiring an experienced attorney is the first and best step towards justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, felony, misdemeanor, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Reckless Driving, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Vehicular Assault, Vehicular Homicide, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Suspended License Pullover](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/suspended-license-pullover/) **Published:** May 26, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [ *Kansas v. Glover*](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-556_e1pf.pdf), the [U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) held that the stop of a vehicle is lawful after running the vehicle’s license plate and discovering that the registered owner’s driver’s license was suspended. **BACKGROUND FACTS** A Kansas police officer on traffic patrol performed a computer DOL check and stopped Defendant’s car for the sole reason that the car’s registered owner had a suspended license. The Defendant turned out to be the registered owner, and was arrested. The [Kansas Supreme Court](https://www.kscourts.org/About-the-Courts/Supreme-Court) held that the stop violated the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment). It reasoned that without further suspicion that the current driver was, in fact, the registered owner of the car, a stop solely premised on information that the registered owner had a suspended license violated the Fourth Amendment. Kansas petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review, which was granted. [Justice Clarence Thomas](https://www.oyez.org/justices/clarence_thomas) delivered the opinion of the Court in its 8-1 decision. **LEGAL ISSUE** Whether the Fourth Amendment allows police to stop a car when the only reason police have for the stop is that the car’s registered owner has a suspended license. **COURT’S ANALYSIS** The U.S. Supreme Court reasoned that an officer may initiate a brief investigative traffic stop when he has “a particularized and objective basis” to suspect legal wrongdoing. “Here, the deputy’s common-sense inference that the owner of a vehicle was likely the vehicle’s driver provided more than reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop,” said the Court. “That inference is not made unreasonable merely because a vehicle’s driver is not always its registered owner or because Glover had a revoked license.” The Court further reasoned that empirical studies demonstrate that drivers with suspended or revoked licenses frequently continue to drive. Also, the Court reasoned that Officers, like jurors, may rely on probabilities in the reasonable suspicion context. > “Moreover, the deputy here did more than that: He combined facts obtained from a database and commonsense judgments to form a reasonable suspicion that a specific individual was potentially engaged in specific criminal activity.” ~Justice Thomas, U.S. Supreme Court My opinion? This decision is consistent with existing Washington precedent. Under *[State v. McKinney](http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/148wn2d/148wn2d0020.htm)*, a vehicle may be stopped based upon [DOL](https://www.dol.wa.gov/) records which indicate that the driver’s license of the registered owner of the vehicle is suspended. The officer need not affirmatively verify that the driver’s appearance matches that of the registered owner before making the stop, but the [*Terry* stop](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stop_and_frisk) must end as soon as the officer determines that the operator of the vehicle cannot be the registered owner. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member experience a questionable traffic stop from police. Hiring an experienced and effective criminal defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Department of Licensing, Fourth Amendment, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Terry Stop, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Passive Obstructing](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/passive-obstructing/) **Published:** May 28, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Canfield](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/363147_pub.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) held that a defendant’s feigning sleep when first contacted by police and his repeated refusals to obey commands was “Passive Obstructing, and supported an [Obstructing a Public Servant](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.76.020) conviction. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Law enforcement officers testified that Mr. Canfield feigned sleep when first contacted, disregarded several commands, and tried to start his vehicle as if to drive away from the scene. He also lied about his identity and tried to hide a gun while being arrested. Eventually, he was charged with numerous crimes to include [Possession of Methamphetamine](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/), [Second Degree Unlawful Possession of a Firearm, Possession of a Stolen Firearm](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/), and [Obstructing a Public Servant](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/obstructing/). At trial, the court convicted Mr. Canfield of Obstructing in addition to some of the aforementioned charges. He appealed on numerous issues, including whether there was sufficient evidence to arrest to support a conviction for Obstructing. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION** The Court of Appeals reasoned upheld the lower court’s finding that Mr. Canfield hindered a public servant in the performance of his duties. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals raised and dismissed Mr. Canfield’s argument that his case was similar to *State v. D.E.D.* That case, which was a favorable legal precedent, involved a defendant who passively resisted an investigatory detention. In that case, the Court of Appeals held the defendant’s passive resistance to being handcuffed did not constitute obstructing a public servant. “The comparison fails,” said the Court. It further reasoned that the law imposes a duty to cooperate with an arrest and makes it a crime to resist arrest, and actions that hinder an arrest short of resisting can constitute obstructing a public servant. > “Passive resistance to a lawful arrest can constitute obstructing by itself. Here, there was additional evidence beyond the handcuffing incident, including the repeated refusals to obey commands and feigning sleep. Mr. Canfield did not merely refuse to cooperate with the police. He actively tried to hinder them.” With that, the Court of Appeals concluded the trial court rightfully concluded that Mr. Canfield was guilty of obstructing a public servant. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges of [Obstructing](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/obstructing/). Hiring an experienced and effective defense attorney is the best step towards justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, felony, Firearm, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Obstructing, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [ICE Detainees Getting Coronavirus](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/ice-detainees-getting-coronavirus/) **Published:** May 31, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** [ICE’s](https://www.ice.gov/) practice of transferring detainees around the country is leading to [COVID-19](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html) outbreaks. In the past several months, while most Americans have been ordered to shelter at home, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has shuffled hundreds of people in its custody around the country. Immigrants have been transferred from California to Florida, Florida to New Mexico, Arizona to Washington State, Pennsylvania to Texas. > “These transfers, which ICE says were sometimes done to curb the spread of coronavirus, have led to outbreaks in facilities in Texas, Ohio, Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana, according to attorneys, news reports and ICE declarations filed in federal courts.” According to the article, which includes [data from ICE](https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus), since ICE announced its first case in March, COVID-19 has surfaced in at least 55 of the roughly 200 facilities that ICE uses. More than 1,400 detainees have been infected, roughly half of all those tested. So far, two immigrants and three staffers have died. ICE has a protocol for transfers. Detainees are medically screened and cleared for travel, issued a mask, and in some cases, have their temperatures taken, according to court filings and ICE statements. But it does not routinely test prior to moving detainees from one place to the next. Even before the first ICE detainee was diagnosed with COVID-19, more than 4,000 [doctors signed a letter warning](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eNyNmy-622OjVILFSwgypITPK0eAt5yLgSkS_7_0vv8/edit) ICE an “outbreak of COVID-19 in immigration detention facilities would be devastating.” My opinion? The best method to stop the spread of disease is to release non-dangerous detainees, particularly those with medical issues. Because immigration detention is civil, the agency has wide discretion in who it detains. Fortunately, lawyers and advocacy groups across the U.S. have filed lawsuits in an attempt to force releases. Please read my Legal Guide titled, [Making Bail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/making-bail/) and contact my office if you, a friend or family members are incarcerated during this COVID-19 outbreak. Hiring an attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Immigration, Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE), Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Inslee Names First Black Woman Justice to Serve on WA Supreme Court](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/inslee-appoints-first-black-woman-justice-to-serve-on-wa-supreme-court/) **Published:** June 8, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In April, Gov. Jay Inslee announced today the appointment of [Justice G. Helen Whitener](https://www.courts.wa.gov/index.cfm?fa=home.sub&org=mjc&layout=2&page=bioWhitener) to the [Washington State Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/). She replaces Justice Charles Wiggins, who retired from the bench last month. [Whitener](https://www.courts.wa.gov/index.cfm?fa=home.sub&layout=2&org=mjc&page=bioWhitener&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery) has been a judicial officer since 2013. From 2013 to 2015, she served as a judge on the [Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals](http://www.biia.wa.gov/). Inslee then appointed her to the [Pierce County Superior Court](https://www.co.pierce.wa.us/122/Superior-Court) in 2015, where she has worked as a judge for over five years, retaining her seat in a 2015 election and winning re-election to a full term in 2016. Before becoming a judge, Whitener litigated criminal cases for 14 years as both a prosecutor and defense attorney. Whitener is known for her commitment to justice and equity. She serves as co-chair of the [Washington State Minority and Justice Commission](http://www.courts.wa.gov/?fa=home.sub&org=mjc) and as a member of the [Civil Legal Aid Oversight Committee](https://ocla.wa.gov/). She continues to garner recognition for her work to advance the cause of justice. Last year, Whitener was awarded the [Washington State Bar Association’s C.Z. Smith Excellence in Diversity and Inclusion Award](https://www.wsba.org/news-events/media-center/media-releases/hon.-g.-helen-whitener-receives-charles-z.-smith-excellence-in-diversity-apex-award-sept.-27-2019), the [King County Washington Women Lawyers President Award](https://www.wwl.org/king), the [Tacoma-Pierce County Bar Association’s Diversity Award](https://www.tpcba.com/) and the [Seattle University School of Law’s Woman of the Year Award](https://law.seattleu.edu/newsroom/2019-news/judge-helen-whitener-98-named-woman-of-the-year). In joining a supreme court that has recently driven major criminal justice reform, and that is generally progressive but often divided, Whitener could determine how boldly it proceeds in years ahead. Her appointment has drawn attention for boosting the representation of marginalized groups. She is a Black, gay, and disabled immigrant from Trinidad. With her appointment, Washington’s Supreme Court is [the most diverse appellate court](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/04/grace-helen-whitener-washington-supreme-court.html) in the country. Last year, [a Brennan Center for Justice report](https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/state-supreme-court-diversity) found that most states’ high courts are “overwhelmingly white and male,” including 24 all-white state supreme courts, and 13 states that have “never seated a person of color as a justice.” Whitener has often explained that a diverse judiciary — one that fully reflects the population it serves — is essential to maintaining trust and confidence in the rule of law. “I believe as a marginalized individual, being a Black, gay, female, immigrant, disabled judge, that my perspective is a little different,” [she said in February](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiTMqo3N5cg). “So I try to make sure that everyone that comes into this courtroom feels welcome, feels safe, and feels like they’ll get a fair hearing.” ![Inslee appoints first Black woman justice to serve on WA Supreme ...](https://www.nwnewsnetwork.org/sites/northwestnews/files/styles/x_large/public/202004/helen_whitener_5x7__3_.jpg) Congratulations, Justice Whitener! Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Police Reform Legislation](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/police-reform-legislation/) **Published:** June 8, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/democrats-release-police-reform-bill-after-george-floyd-protests.html) by [Jacob Pramuk](https://www.cnbc.com/jacob-pramuk/) of [CNBC](https://www.cnbc.com/) reports that House Democrats unveiled a bill to overhaul police practices as Americans mass daily to protest excessive use of force and systemic racism. Lawmakers in the House and Senate released the legislation two weeks after [the death of George Floyd](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_George_Floyd#:~:text=(Discuss)%20Proposed%20since%20June%202020.,-(Learn%20how%20and&text=On%20May%2025%2C%202020%2C%20George,face%20down%20on%20the%20street.), the black, unarmed man who died after a Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes. The killing sparked nationwide furor over sustained brutality against black Americans. His death added to a string of recent killings of black men and women that has led to perhaps the biggest reckoning over racism in the U.S. in decades. Before introducing the bill, [Speaker Nancy Pelosi](https://www.speaker.gov/), [Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer](https://www.schumer.senate.gov/), [Congressional Black Caucus Chair Karen Bass (D-Calif.)](https://bass.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-bass-elected-chair-congressional-black-caucus), Sens. [Cory Booker (D-N.J.)](https://www.booker.senate.gov/about-cory) and [Kamala Harris (D-Calif.)](https://www.harris.senate.gov/) and other top Democrats will first gather in the Capitol in silence for 8 minutes and 46 seconds, the amount of time an officer knelt of Floyd’s neck. The Democratic legislation would make sweeping changes designed both to deter police use of force and hold officers more accountable for abuses. The federal bill comes as changes start at the local level: most of the [Minneapolis city council committed to disbanding and replacing the city’s police force](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/majority-at-the-minneapolis-city-council-support-disbanding-police-force.html) Sunday, while [New York City will consider a range of law enforcement reforms.](https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/here-are-city-councils-nypd-reforms-up-for-debate-this-week/2450774/) The bill “establishes a bold, transformative vision of policing in America,” said Congressional Black Caucus Chair Rep. [Karen Bass](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/democrats-release-police-reform-bill-after-george-floyd-protests.html#), D-Calif. She said Americans should not have to witness “the slow murder of an individual by a uniformed police officer.” Bass added that the bill has more than 200 co-sponsors in both chambers of Congress. Here’s some of what congressional Democrats’ bill would do, according to summaries obtained by NBC News and the Associated Press: - Reform “qualified immunity” for officers, making it easier for people whose constitutional rights were violated to recover damages - Change the federal standard of criminal police behavior from “willful” to acting “knowingly or with reckless disregard,” to address the difficulty of prosecuting officers - Start a federal registry of police misconduct and require states to report use of force to the U.S. Justice Department - Ban police use of chokeholds and carotid holds, and condition funding for state and local departments on barring the practices - Stop the use of “no-knock” search warrants in drug cases in the U.S., while also making state and local money contingent on stopping use of the warrants - Give the Justice Department subpoena power to carry out “pattern and practice” investigations into police department conduct - Provide state attorneys general with grants to carry out pattern and practice probes and create a process for independent investigations into uses of force - Require training on racial bias and implicit bias at the federal level, and condition state and local funding on offering training - Curb transfers of military-grade weapons to state and local police - Classify lynching as a federal hate crime According to NBC News, the legislation offers money for only two components: the requirement to track and report use of force and the investigations by state attorneys general, according to NBC News. The Democratic plan did not meet many activists’ demands to slash — or entirely cut — police funding. Senate Minority Leader [Chuck Schumer](https://www.cnbc.com/id/10000412) said that “in the Senate, Democrats are going to fight like hell” to pass the legislation. He called on Senate Majority Leader [Mitch McConnell](https://www.cnbc.com/id/10000479) to bring the bill to the Senate floor and hold a debate on it “before July.” A White House spokesman did not immediately comment on whether President [Donald Trump](https://www.cnbc.com/donald-trump/) would back the legislation. On Monday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said “the president must not stand in the way of justice.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Police Misconduct, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Washington Supreme Court Issues Open Letter Confronting Racial Injustice](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/washington-supreme-court-issues-open-letter-confronting-racial-injustice/) **Published:** June 10, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [Washington Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) issued an extraordinary [open letter](http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme%20Court%20News/Judiciary%20Legal%20Community%20SIGNED%20060420.pdf) urging lawyers to take steps to confront racial injustices in society and in the law. > “Recent events have brought to the forefront of our collective consciousness a painful fact that is, for too many of our citizens, common knowledge: the injustices faced by black Americans are not relics of the past. We continue to see racialized policing and the overrepresentation of black Americans in every stage of our criminal and juvenile justice systems. Our institutions remain affected by the vestiges of slavery: Jim Crow laws that were never dismantled and racist court decisions that were never disavowed.” > > ~WA Supreme Court Among other things, the Court also said “the legal community must recognize that we all bear responsibility for this on-going injustice, and that we are capable of taking steps to address it, if only we have the courage and the will.” According to Scarcella, the Washington Supreme Court has been **[heralded](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/04/grace-helen-whitener-washington-supreme-court.html)** for its diversity. The justices’ letter, a rare public statement from a court about current events, rocketed **[across social media](https://twitter.com/ShannonKilpatri/status/1268687841975918592)** as lawyers weighed the implications of the court’s declaration, which comes amid national outrage over the [police-involved killing of George Floyd](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_George_Floyd) in Minnesota. An officer who knelt on Floyd’s neck for eight minutes while he was handcuffed and on the ground has been charged with second-degree murder. Three other officers also face criminal charges for their alleged roles in Floyd’s death. Kudos to the WA Supreme Court for recognizing that racial injustice exists, and that we, as a legal community, are bound to address it and eradicate it. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges. Hiring a competent and experienced criminal defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Forged Bank Applications](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/forged-bank-applications/) **Published:** June 13, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Smith](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2051946-1-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held that a forged bank application is a “written instrument” under [Washington’s forgery statute](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.60.020). **BACKGROUND FACTS** Smith’s convictions arose from his involvement in certain transactions with his two half-brothers. The transactions involved creating auto dealer businesses and using invalid social security numbers to obtain loans from credit unions to purchase cars from the auto dealers. The men then would deposit the loan amount into a bank account for one of the auto dealer businesses but would not actually complete the car sale. Eventually, Mr. Smith was charged and convicted of one count of [first degree theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/theft/), two counts of [forgery](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/forgery/), and one count of [money laundering](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.83.020). He appealed his convictions. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** 1. ***Legal Principles*** The court held the State gave sufficient evidence of forgery. It reasoned that under the [forgery statute](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.60.020), “A person is guilty of forgery if, with intent to injure or defraud: (a) He or she falsely makes, completes, or alters a written instrument or; (b) He or she possesses, utters, offers, disposes of, or puts off as true a written instrument which he or she knows to be forged.” Also, the court reasoned that under the common law, a “written instrument” is defined as a writing that has legal efficacy. Under this definition, “a writing can support a forgery charge only if the writing would have legal efficacy if genuine.” ***2. Legal Sufficiency of Bank Account Applications*** The Court gave the [statutory definition of a “written instrument”](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.60.010#:~:text=(7)%20%22Written%20instrument%22,right%2C%20privilege%2C%20or%20identification.) as (a) Any paper, document, or other instrument containing written or printed matter or its equivalent; or (b) any access device, token, stamp, seal, badge, trademark, or other evidence or symbol of value, right, privilege, or identification. Under this definition, the Court reasoned that a [bank loan application](http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/loan-application.html) fits the definition of a written instrument: > “In general, bank account applications initiate a contractual relationship between the bank and the depositor that, once accepted by the bank, create rights in and impose obligations on both parties. Depositors give money to the bank in exchange for the bank’s services. The bank services the depositor’s account in exchange for fees and the use of the depositor’s funds.” ~WA Court of Appeals Also, the Court reasoned that the [“Certificate of Authority”](https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/certificate-of-authority.html) portion of the bank application provided that anyone who signed the application certified that he or she was authorized to act with respect to the account and any agreements with Wells Fargo, to make payments from the account, and to give instructions to Wells Fargo regarding the transaction of any business relating to the account. “Therefore, the bank account applications at issue here provided the foundation of legal liability and had legal efficacy under the forgery statute,” said the Court. “Accordingly, we hold that sufficient evidence supports the conclusion that Smith’s bank account applications had [legal efficacy](https://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definition/legal+efficacy).” ***3. The State Established That Bank Account Applications Were Falsely Completed.*** Next, the Court rejected Smith’s arguments that even if the bank account applications had legal efficacy, the State failed to establish that they were falsely completed. It reasoned that a social security number is a form of identification, and Smith’s use of the Indiana child’s social security number misrepresented that someone with that social security number was opening a bank account. > “Smith also did not have the authority to use the social security number of the child in Indiana. Accordingly, we hold that sufficient evidence supports the conclusion that Smith falsely completed the bank account applications.” ~WA Court of Appeals ***4. The Trial Court Lawfully Declined the Defendant’s Proposed Jury Instruction.*** The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err in declining to give Smith’s legal efficacy [jury instruction](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_instructions) because the legal efficacy of Smith’s bank account applications was a question of law for the trial court. Under the [Sixth](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) and [Fourteenth Amendments](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv) to the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/index.html), a criminal defendant is entitled to a jury determination of every element of the charged offense. As a result, the trial court must instruct the jury on all elements of the offense. The Court reasoned that questions of law are for the court, not the jury, to resolve, and that legal efficacy of an instrument involves issues that are uniquely within the province of the court. “This is particularly true for a document like a bank account application,” said the Court. “The jury would have no basis for determining whether a bank account application has legal efficacy. Such a determination requires a legal analysis that could be performed only by the trial court.” Consequently, the Court of Appeals held that the legal efficacy of Smith’s bank account applications was a question of law for the trial court. “Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in declining to give Smith’s legal efficacy jury instruction.” With that, the Court of Appeals affirmed Smith’s convictions. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face [Forgery](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/forgery/) charges. Hiring an experienced and effective criminal defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Forgery, Money Laundering, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Theft, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Illegal Search At Starbucks](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/illegal-search-at-starbucks/) **Published:** June 20, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Martin](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/789589.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that the illegal search of a person in a [Starbucks](https://www.starbucks.com/) store should have been suppressed because the officer was not conducting a [criminal trespass](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/criminal-trespass/) investigation when he removed a metal utensil that was sticking out of the defendant’s pocket. **BACKGROUND FACTS** On December 11, 2017, Officer Bickar responded to a 911 call from a Starbucks employee, requesting assistance with the removal of a sleeping person inside the store. When Bickar arrived, he saw Martin sleeping in a chair. Bickar gestured to the Starbucks employee and received a responsive gesture from the employee that Martin was the person identified in the 911 call. When Bickar approached Martin, he noticed Martin was wearing multiple jackets that had pockets. Bickar attempted to wake Martin, first by raising his voice and then by squeezing and shaking his left shoulder. Martin remained unresponsive. Bickar noticed the end of a metal utensil sticking out of Martin’s pocket. Bickar worried that the metal utensil could be a knife or another utensil sharpened into a weapon. Bickar also expressed concerns about sharp needles. Without feeling the outside of the pocket, Bickar removed the utensil. The utensil was a cook spoon, had burn marks on the bottom, and a dark brown residue on the inside. At that point, Bickar determined that he had probable cause to arrest Martin for [Possession of Drug Paraphernalia](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) and continued searching Martin. While searching Martin, Bickar found methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, and other drug paraphernalia. Martin was arrested. Martin moved to suppress all evidence collected as a result of the unlawful detention and search. The court heard testimony from Officer Bickar and denied Martin’s motion to suppress. Martin proceeded to a stipulated bench trial on the charge of [unlawful possession of a controlled substance](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). The court found Martin guilty. The court sentenced Martin to 30 days of confinement. Martin appealed. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** First, the Court held that the search was not a valid [*Terry* search](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stop_and_frisk). It explained that while *Terry* does not authorize a search for evidence of a crime, officers are allowed to make a brief, non-intrusive search for weapons if, after a lawful *Terry* stop, a reasonable safety concern exists to justify the protective frisk for weapons so long as the search goes no further than necessary for protective purposes. “A reasonable safety concern exists, and a protective frisk for weapons is justified, when an officer can point to ‘specific and articulable facts’ which create an objectively reasonable belief that a suspect is ‘armed and presently dangerous. Here, however, the Court of Appeals found the search was not a justifiable under *Terry:* > “This search fails to meet the requirements under Terry. Starbucks is open to the public. The record does not support the trial court’s finding that Bickar was conducting a criminal investigation for trespass because there is no evidence in the record that Starbucks had trespassed Martin from the premises. Also absent from the record is evidence supporting Bickar’s claim that Martin sleeping created a reasonable safety concern.” ~WA Court of Appeals Consequently, the Court held the search was not lawful under *Terry* because there was no reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed, there was not a reasonable safety concern, and the search exceeded the lawful scope of a frisk. The Court also rejected the State’s arguments that the search was lawful under the [community caretaking](http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/OPA/CPU/CRU-community-caretaking-cheat-sheet.pdf) exception to the warrant requirement. It explained that the community caretaking exception applies when **(1)** the officer subjectively believed that an emergency existed requiring that he or she provide immediate assistance to protect or preserve life or property, or to prevent serious injury, **(2)** a reasonable person in the same situation would similarly believe that there was a need for assistance, and **(3)** there was a reasonable basis to associate the need for assistance with the place searched. “Officer Bickar did not subjectively believe an emergency existed and a reasonable person in the same situation would not believe there was a need for assistance,” said the Court. “Furthermore, even if the community caretaking exception applied to this search, a simple pat-down on the outside of Martin’s coat pocket would have alleviated any concern that the metal utensil was a sharp object or weapon.” Consequently, the Court held that removing the spoon violated Martin’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. With that, the Court of Appeals vacated Martin’s conviction. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges in the aftermath of a questionable [search and seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) of their home, car or person. Hiring an experienced criminal defense attorney is the first and best step towards justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Community Caretaking, Drug Offenses, felony, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Terry Stop, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Consecutive v. Concurrent Sentencing](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/consecutive-v-concurrent-sentencing/) **Published:** June 24, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Clients often ask, “What’s the difference between consecutive and concurrent sentences?” Quite a lot, actually! The question applies to Clients facing criminal charges from numerous jurisdictions. For these clients, sometimes the best approach is to seek a global resolution. This can happen if the prosecutors of the different jurisdictions are willing to coordinate their efforts toward a plea bargain involving reductions and dismissals of some criminal charges in exchange for guilty pleas to other charges. Naturally, a big question in these negotiations is whether the defendant shall serve their jail time under a *consecutive* *sentence* or a *concurrent sentences*. Here’s some definitions: **Concurrent sentences:** When sentences run concurrently, defendants serve all the sentences at the same time. This outcome is favorable to the defendant. **Consecutive sentences:** When sentences run consecutively, defendants have to finish serving the sentence for one offense before they start serving the sentence for any other offense. This sentence outcome is *not* favorable to the defendant. To illustrate the point, in *[State v. Brown](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/799541.PDF)* the WA Court of Appeals recently held that firearm enhancements must be served **consecutively** in cases in which the defendant was 18-years or older when s/he committed the crimes. **BACKGROUND FACTS** A jury convicted Mr. Brown of four counts of [first degree robbery](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/robbery/), one count of attempted first degree robbery, two counts of [second degree assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/), and one count of [attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/eluding/). Five of the convictions included firearm enhancements, which are increased sentencing penalties. At sentencing, the State recommended a sentence of 381 months. The State recommended five firearm enhancements ran consecutively to each other and to Mr. Brown’s base sentence of 129 months. The trial court imposed the State’s recommended sentence. Brown appealed. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals raised and dismissed Mr. Brown’s arguments on appeal. It reasoned that under the [Sentencing Reform Act](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A) – and specifically, [RCW 9.94A.533(3)(e)](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.533) – all firearm enhancements require prison time and shall run consecutively to all other sentencing provisions, including other firearm or deadly weapon enhancements. > “Brown’s sole claim is that he is entitled to resentencing because the sentencing court erroneously believed it lacked the discretion to depart from the required term of confinement for a firearm enhancement. We disagree.” ~WA Court of Appeals To support its reasoning, the WA Court of Appeals relied on [*State v. Brown*](https://casetext.com/case/state-v-brown-202) (no relation) a [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) case which held that Washington law deprives sentencing courts of the discretion to impose an exceptional sentence with regard to firearm enhancements. “In any event, a decision by the Washington Supreme Court is binding on all lower courts of the state,” reasoned the WA court of Appeals. “This court does not have the authority to overrule *Brown*.” With that, the Court of Appeals upheld Mr. Brown’s lengthy prison sentence. My opinion? Again, if a defendant is convicted of a number of crimes that carry lengthy prison terms, the difference between consecutive and concurrent sentences can be tremendous. The same factors that judges tend to consider when deciding on the severity of a sentence (for example, a defendant’s past record) also affect their decisions on whether to give concurrent or consecutive sentences. As you can see, however, some criminal statutes require that the sentence for the crime in question be served consecutively to any other crime committed in the same incident. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges involving the possibility of concurrent or consecutive sentencing. It’s crucial to hire an experienced criminal defense attorney who understands the law. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Consecutive v. Concurrent Sentencing, Eluding, Firearm, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [No Mask? Criminal Charge!](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/no-mask-criminal-charge/) **Published:** June 28, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Last Friday, in the wake of the [Coronavirus Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic), [Governor Inslee](https://www.governor.wa.gov/) and Washington State’s [secretary of health](https://www.doh.wa.gov/AboutUs/Leadership/SecretaryofHealth) have issued a public health order mandating the use of face coverings and/or masks. Inslee said during a [news conference](https://twitter.com/GovInslee/status/1275551891305316352 "(opens new window)") that masks are required in indoor settings, as well as outdoor settings if social distance rules cannot be maintained. Those who willfully violate the mandate will face a [misdemeanor charge](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.20.021), Inslee said. “It is imperative that we adopt further measures to protect us all,” Governor Inslee added. “This is the way we need to look at this, we just cannot wish this virus to go away. We have to use tools that are available to us that we know work.” The only individuals not required to adhere to the policy are those who are deaf or hard of hearing, children under the age of five, people who are eating, and those in other “common sense” situations. Many protesters across the states have been pictured defying social distancing guidance without masks or face coverings. Online, the debate about mask effectiveness still plays out, with some claiming masks are not effective – or enforceable under US law. Please[ contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges for not wearing a mask during the Coronavirus Pandemic. Hiring a competent, experienced defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, misdemeanor, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [(Online!) Organized Retail Theft: No Such Thing](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/online-organized-retail-theft-no-such-thing/) **Published:** July 7, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Lake](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2052204-7-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, the[ WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held that Theft by ordering items online from catalogs will not support a conviction for second degree organized retail theft because the takings are not from a “mercantile establishment;” a phrase which only applies to a *physical* establishment. **BACKGROUND FACTS** In 2017, Ms. Lake was living in a senior living apartment complex. In February 2017, she placed three catalog orders with different companies using the names and accounts of other apartment complex residents. She had the items delivered to her as “gifts.” One of the residents noticed that someone had placed an order using her credit account. She reported the suspicious order to the front office and made a fraud complaint with the police. After an investigation, the State charged Lake with one count of [second degree organized retail theft](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.350), three counts of [first degree identity theft](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.35.020#:~:text=RCW%209.35.020-,Identity%20theft.,aid%20or%20abet%2C%20any%20crime.&text=Identity%20theft%20in%20the%20first%20degree%20is%20a%20class%20B,20%20RCW.), and two counts of [second degree possession of stolen property](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.160). At the close of the State’s case, Lake moved to dismiss the second degree organized retail theft charge because there was no evidence that she obtained goods form a “mercantile establishment” as required for that charge. The trial court denied the motion. The jury found Lake not guilty of one count of first degree identity theft but guilty of the lesser degree offense of second degree identity theft. The jury found Lake guilty of the other five charged counts. Lake appealed her convictions on arguments that her thefts involving online catalog purchases were not from a mercantile establishment. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The WA Court of Appeals concluded that the term “mercantile establishment” was ambiguous, and applied the [Rule of Lenity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_lenity#:~:text=The%20rule%20of%20lenity%20(also,most%20favorable%20to%20the%20defendant.) to hold that Lake’s thefts were *not* from a mercantile establishment. The Court gave the framework for reaching its decision. It reasoned that if the plain language of the statute is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, the statute is ambiguous. > “We first attempt to resolve the ambiguity and determine the legislature’s intent by considering other indicia of legislative intent, including principles of statutory construction, legislative history, and relevant case law . . . If these indications of legislative intent are insufficient to resolve the ambiguity, under the rule of lenity we must interpret the ambiguous statute in favor of the defendant.” With that, the Court of Appeals examined the definition of “mercantile establishment.” In order to prove the charge, the State had to prove that Lake committed theft of property with a cumulative value of at least $750 from one or more “mercantile establishments.” “The question here is whether fraudulently purchasing items online from a catalog constitutes theft from a mercantile establishment, or whether that term is limited to physical retail stores,” said the Court. The court reviewed former [RCW 9A.56.360](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.360) which gave a working definition of “mercantile establishments” as it applied to the crime of retail theft with special circumstances: (1) A person commits retail theft with special circumstances if he or she commits theft of property from a ***mercantile establishment*** with one of the following special circumstances: ***(a) To facilitate the theft, the person leaves the mercantile establishment through a designated emergency exit;*** (b) The person was, at the time of the theft, in possession of an item, article, implement, or device used, under circumstances evincing an intent to use or employ, or designed to overcome security systems including, but not limited to, lined bags or tag removers. Here, reasoned the court, former RCW 9A.56.360 shows that the legislature intended to stop thefts from *physical* retail stores: > “Only a physical store has a ‘designated emergency exit’ and employs security systems that can be overcome by ‘lined bags’ or ‘tag removers.’” ~WA Court of Appeals Consequently, the Court concluded that the statutory term “mercantile establishment” was ambiguous. And because the term “mercantile establishment” remains ambiguous, the Court applied the rule of lenity and interpreted the ambiguous statute in favor of Ms. Lake. “Therefore, we hold that the trial court erred in denying Lake’s motion to dismiss because the evidence was insufficient to convict Lake of second degree organized retail theft,” said the Court. With that, the court dismissed the charges. My opinion? Good decision. The Prosecutor should have sought different charges under these circumstances. Clearly, the organized retail theft statute clearly applies to brick-and-mortar businesses. As a side-note, the Rule of Lenity is a rarely used criminal defense argument. In most cases, the definitions of terms are discussed in the legislative intent of statutes and/or found in the criminal statutes themselves. This case shows that when the Rule of Lenity is correctly applied, it’s quite powerful. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/theft/). Hiring an experienced and competent criminal defense attorney is the best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Organized Retail Theft, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Theft, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Exigent Circumstances for Warrantless Blood Draw](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/exigent-circumstances-for-warrantless-blood-draw/) **Published:** July 10, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Rawley](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2052344-2-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held that [Exigent Circumstances](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exigent_circumstances) justified an emergency DUI blood draw at the scene of a car collision. Here, the driver exhibited the effects of alcohol and a telephonic search warrant could not be obtained. **BACKGROUND FACTS** At 2:55 PM, Deputy Aman responded to a two-car, head-on collision. The defendant Ms. Rawley had crossed the center line, causing her vehicle to collide with another vehicle. Rawley was trapped in her vehicle. As Deputy Aman spoke to Rawley, he noted a strong smell of alcohol and that her speech was slurred and repetitive. Rawley admitted to drinking alcohol. The paramedics freed Rawley from the vehicle and placed her in the ambulance. Deputy Aman went to the ambulance and learned that IV fluids and medications were about to be administered to Rawley. Deputy Aman felt exigent circumstances existed to draw Rawley’s blood to check her blood alcohol content (BAC) before administering IV fluids. The paramedic drew Rawley’s blood at 3:07 PM. IV fluids started at 3:23 PM. The ambulance left for the hospital at 3:23 PM. Rawley’s BAC was .35—over 4 times the legal limit under statute. The State charged Rawley with [felony driving under the influence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/felony-dui/). Before trial, Rawley made a [CrR 3.6 motion to suppress](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) the results of the blood draw. The trial court denied her motion. Following a bench trial, the trial court found Rawley guilty of felony driving under the influence. Rawley appealed on the issues of whether exigent circumstances justified a warrantless blood draw. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court began by stating that warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable and in violation of the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) and [article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution](https://ballotpedia.org/Article_I,_Washington_State_Constitution#:~:text=Section%207,-Text%20of%20Section&text=No%20person%20shall%20be%20disturbed,invaded%2C%20without%20authority%20of%20law.). However, under [*Missouri v. McNeely*](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-v-mcneely-us-supreme-court-says-blood-draws-require-a-warrant/), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized an exception to the warrant requirement allows a warrantless search or seizure when exigent circumstances exist. “Exigent circumstances exist where the delay necessary to obtain a warrant is not practical because the delay would permit the destruction of evidence,” said the Court. “But the natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood may support a finding of exigency in a specific case, for example, when delay results from the warrant application process.” Next, the Court of Appeals addressed whether the warrantless blood draw was lawful under the exigent circumstances based on [*State v. Inman*](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/emergency-blood-draws/), a WA Court of Appeals case involving a DUI motor vehicle injury collision occurring in a rural area with spotty phone service. In *Inman*, the Court held that a search warrant was not required before a blood sample collected under the exigent circumstances exception is tested for alcohol and drugs. > “The circumstances here are like those in Inman. Rawley was in a head-on collision and was trapped inside her vehicle. Her speech was slurred and Deputy Aman could smell intoxicants on her breath. Rawley admitted to drinking. One of the paramedics told Deputy Aman he would be administering IV fluids and then taking Rawley to the hospital. Deputy Aman was aware that IV fluids are generally administered if there is concern for internal injuries. In Deputy Aman’s experience, a warrant request could take on average up to 45 minutes during the day.” ~WA Court of Appeals The Court of Appeals decided *Inman* was similar to the present case and was properly relied upon by the trial court. “Accordingly, the trial court’s findings of fact support the trial court’s conclusion of law that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless blood draw based on *Inman*.” In closing, the Court of Appeals rejected Rawley’s arguments that a police officer must inquire into the type of IV fluid being administered in order to show that exigent circumstance existed because the IV fluids would alter the blood test results. > “There is no binding legal authority requiring police officers to be knowledgeable of medicines and their effect on blood alcohol content.” ~WA Court of Appeals With that, the Court of Appeals affirmed Rawley’s conviction for [Felony DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/felony-dui/). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face [Alcohol DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/alcohol-dui/) charges and evidence was obtained through a warrantless blood draw. Hiring a competent and experienced trial attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Blood Test, DUI, Exigent Circumstances, felony, Fourth Amendment, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search Warrant, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Reasonable Suspicion & 911 Calls](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/reasonable-suspicion-911-calls/) **Published:** July 16, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[United States v. Vandergroen](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/07/07/19-10075.pdf)*, the [9th Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) held that the police’s search of a suspicious person was reasonable under the circumstances when bar patrons called 911 minutes before to report the man had a pistol on him. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Late on a Saturday evening of February 17, 2018, a worker at a bar in California called 911 to report that three patrons had seen a man in the area with a pistol on him. In response to this call, the police stopped the man as he drove away, discovered a pistol in his car, and placed him under arrest. The man, Mr. Vandergroen, argued a [Rule 12 motion to suppress the evidence](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_12). The lower federal court denied the motion. Vandergroen was subsequently convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of [18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922), which is a federal criminal conviction. On appeal, Vandergroen now argues that the 911 call should never have led to his stop in the first place because it did not generate [reasonable suspicion](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_suspicion), and that the evidence of the pistol should therefore have been excluded. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with Mr. Vandergroen. It affirmed the lower court’s denial of Vandergroen’s motion to suppress and upheld his conviction. The Court began by saying that under the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment), an officer may conduct a brief investigative stop only where s/he has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity, commonly referred to as “reasonable suspicion.” The Court further elaborated that while a 911 call may generate reasonable suspicion, it can only do so when, under the totality-of-the circumstances, it possesses two features. First, the tip must exhibit sufficient indicia of reliability, and second, it must provide information on potential illegal activity serious enough to justify a stop. Finally, the Court identified a number of factors that demonstrate the reliability of a tip. These facts include **(1)** whether the tipper is known, rather than anonymous; **(2)** whether the tipper reveals the basis of his knowledge; **(3)** whether the tipper provides detailed predictive information indicating insider knowledge, *id.*; whether the caller uses a 911 number rather than a non-emergency tip line; and **(4)** whether the tipster relays fresh, eyewitness knowledge, rather than stale, second-hand knowledge. With the above in mind, the Court of Appeals delved into its analysis. “The totality of the circumstances in this case demonstrates that the 911 call was sufficiently reliable to support reasonable suspicion,” said the Court. It reasoned that first, the statements by an independent witness were undoubtedly reliable. “Witness #2 provided his name and employment position, making him a known, and therefore more reliable, witness,” said the Court. Second, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the statements by the bar’s patrons were also reliable. “Although the patrons remained anonymous during the call, which generally cuts against reliability, their statements exhibited sufficient indicia of reliability to overcome this shortcoming,” said the Court. Finally, the Court reasoned that the reported activity — possessing a concealed weapon was presumptively unlawful in California and was ongoing at the time of the stop. In conclusion the Court of Appeals held that the 911 call generated reasonable suspicion justifying the stop and the lower court was correct to deny Vandergroen’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the stop. His criminal conviction was upheld. My opinion? Mind you, this is a *federal* opinion. Under Washington law, however, a bare report that someone is in possession of a firearm does not provide reasonable suspicion for an investigative stop. This is because Washington is both an open carry state and liberally grants concealed weapons permits. [*United States v. Brown*.](https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20190605168) In Washington, under [RCW 9.41.300(1)(d)](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.300), a stop may have been permissible in this case if the individual with the pistol had been in that portion of the lounge classified by the state liquor and cannabis board as off-limits to persons under twenty-one years of age. That’s because it is unlawful for any person to enter a bar with a firearm. Please read my [Legal Guide on Search and Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) and contact my office if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges involving a questionable search or seizure of evidence. Hiring a competent and experienced defense attorney is the first and best step towards justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 911 Call, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Firearm, Fourth Amendment, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Reasonable Suspicion, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [True Threats](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/true-threats/) **Published:** July 22, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. D.R.C](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/368211_pub.pdf)*., the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) held that a 17-year-old girl’s text messages to friends which aired her grievances about her mother after they verbally argued did not constitute “true threats” for purposes of proving [Harassment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/harassment/). **BACKGROUND FACTS** The case against 17-year-old juvenile defendant D.R.C. began with a mother-daughter dispute over whether D.R.C. violated house rules by possessing gang-colored clothing. The argument took place in D.R.C.’s bedroom, and at some point D.R.C. slammed her door shut. D.R.C.’s mother responded by removing the door from its hinges. During the argument with her mother, D.R.C. was on her phone and texting with several friends, indicating she wanted to kill her mother. The texts were vaguely worded and peppered with smiling emojis and the initialism “LOL.” After removing D.R.C.’s bedroom door, the mother confiscated D.R.C.’s phone and turned to leave the room. As she was leaving, D.R.C.’s mother heard a loud noise. D.R.C. had punched her bedroom wall, leaving a hole in it. D.R.C.’s mother called the police. The police arrived and talked to D.R.C. and her mother, but did not take further action. Later that night, D.R.C.’s mother reviewed D.R.C.’s phone and discovered the text messages. D.R.C.’s mother shared the text messages with the police. The State charged D.R.C. with felony harassment in juvenile court. The case proceeded to trial. The juvenile court found D.R.C. guilty of harassment. D.R.C. appealed under arguments that the State failed to meet the additional burden of proving a true threat. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals reasoned that in order to penalize a defendant for harassment, the State must prove not only the elements of the offense but also that the defendant’s words were not the type of speech protected by the [First Amendment.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment) “A true threat is a serious threat,” said the Court. “It is not an idle statement, a joke, or even a hyperbolic expression of frustration.” The court further reasoned that when analyzing whether a statement is a “true threat” it looks carefully at the context of the inflammatory statement in order to avoid infringement on the precious right to free speech. > “The focus of the true threat analysis is on the speaker. But we do not look at the speaker’s actual intent . . . Instead, the test is objective . . . We ask whether a reasonable person in the speaker’s position would foresee their statement would be interpreted as a serious expression of intent to cause physical harm.” ~WA Court of Appeals Next, the Court of Appeals examined whether D.R.C.’s friends thought the threats were “true threats.” It reasoned that D.R.C.’s past conversation with one friend supports D.R.C.’s testimony that she tended to use hyperbolic language with her friends. “In the prior text between D.R.C. and Lexy, D.R.C. accompanied her statements about harming or killing a mutual acquaintance with ”Lmfao”; the face with tears of joy emoji, ; a shrug emoji, ; a smiling face with horns emoji, ; a zany face emoji, ; and a heart emoji,” said the Court of Appeals. “The combination of the initialism and emojis conveyed an unmistakable message of sarcasm, as opposed to a serious intent to cause harm or death.” > “The language used by D.R.C. was distastefully violent, but it was not as disturbing as some of the past statements held to fall within First Amendment protections.” ~WA Court of Appeals The Court of Appeals reversed D.R.C.’s conviction – but not without warning: > “While we rule in D.R.C.’s favor, our disposition should not be interpreted as approval of D.R.C.’s choice of language . . . We, like the trial court, find nothing funny in the texts. Nevertheless, the First Amendment protects all sorts of speech, even when the sentiment is hurtful or vile.” ~WA Court of Appeals My opinion? I’ve gained jury acquittals in similar cases. In proving harassment charges, the State must prove that a reasonable person would have felt the threats were true threats under the circumstances. That’s a high burden to prove. Many people – indeed, *most* people – are guilty of making threats during or after an emotional situation. However, simply uttering threats does not logically mean that the threat is intended to be carried out out. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Harassment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/harassment/). Hiring an experienced criminal defense attorney like myself is the first and best step towards justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, First Amendment, Harassment, Juvenile, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Shackling Defendants In Court - Without Reason - Is Unconstitutional.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/shackling-defendants-in-court-without-reason-is-unconstitutional/) **Published:** July 29, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Jackson](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/976813.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) held that shackling in court without analyzing whether the shackles are necessary violates the defendant’s constitutional rights. **BACKGROUND FACTS** In 2017, Mr. Jackson, was charged with [assault in the second degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/), [domestic violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/), for strangling his fiancée. At every court appearance, Jackson was forced to wear some form of restraints pursuant to jail policy. The trial court did not engage in any individualized determination of whether restraints were necessary for courtroom safety but, instead, filed a consolidated opinion adopting the jail policy for all superior court appearances for all incarcerated defendants. After a jury found Jackson guilty, he appealed, arguing that his constitutional right to due process was violated when he was forced to wear restraints without an individualized inquiry into their necessity. The Court of Appeals held that the shackling of Jackson without an individualized inquiry into whether shackles were necessary violated his constitutional rights. However, it also held that this violation was harmless; thus leaving Jackson with a constitutional violation without a remedy. Both the Prosecutor and Mr. Jackson appealed to the WA Supreme Court. Jackson argued that the Court of Appeals did not apply the constitutional “harmless error test” correctly. The State, on the other hand, cross-petitioned for review of the constitutionality of the use of pretrial restraints. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The WA Supreme Court reviewed the history of defendants wearing pretrial restraints in court: > “The problems in the history of shackling in early America are not limited to the courts and incarcerated individuals . . . The use of shackling as a means of control and oppression, primarily against people of color, has run rampant in the history of this country . . . Shackles and restraints remain an image of the transatlantic slave trade and the systematic abuse and ownership of African persons that has endured long beyond the end of slavery. > > Shackles and restraints also represent the forced removal of Native people from their homelands through the Trail of Tears and the slave labor of Native people. We recognize that although these atrocities occurred over a century ago, the systemic control of persons of color remains in society, particularly within the criminal justice system.” ~WA Supreme Court Next, the Court reasoned that under the [Sixth](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) and [Fourteenth Amendments](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv) to the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/index.html) and [article I, section 22 of the Washington State Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/Pages/WAConstitution.aspx#:~:text=1%20Section%2022%20RIGHTS%20OF,face%20to%20face%2C%20to%20have), it is well settled that a defendant in a criminal case is entitled to appear at trial free from all bonds or shackles except in extraordinary circumstances. That said, the WA Supreme Court also mentioned that the right to be free from restraint is not absolute, and trial court judges are vested with the discretion to give measures that implicate courtroom security, including whether to restrain a defendant in some capacity in order to prevent injury. Next, the court identified several factors under [*State v. Hartzog*](https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/1981/47265-3-1.html) which help a trial court determine if a defendant needs to be shackled: > “The seriousness of the present charge against the defendant; defendant’s temperament and character; his age and physical attributes; his past record; past escapes or attempted escapes, and evidence of a present plan to escape; threats to harm others or cause a disturbance; self-destructive tendencies; the risk of mob violence or of attempted revenge by others; the possibility of rescue by other offenders still at large; the size and mood of the audience; the nature and physical security of the courtroom; and the adequacy and availability of alternative remedies.” ~WA Supreme Court quoting *State v. Hartzog* The Court reasoned that a trial court *must* engage in an individualized inquiry into the use of restraints prior to every court appearance. Furthermore, the State does not meet this burden by simply establishing that no jurors observed the restraints during trial. “When the State does not meet its burden to prove that the use of restraints at trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is entitled to a new trial and the defendant may only be restrained or shackled during any stage of the proceedings after the court makes an individualized inquiry into whether shackles or restraints are necessary,” said the Court. With that, the WA Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals on harmlessness and remanded for a new trial with instructions that at all stages of court proceedings, the court shall make an individualized inquiry into whether shackles or restraints are necessary. My opinion? Good decision. The manner in which the justice system treats people in these public settings matters for the public’s perception, including that of the defendant. Practices like routine shackling are inconsistent with our constitutional presumption that people who have not been convicted of a crime are innocent until proven otherwise. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Domestic Violence, felony, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Excessive Parking Fines](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/excessive-parking-fines/) **Published:** August 6, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[Pimentel v. City of Los Angeles](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/07/22/18-56553.pdf)*, the [Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) held that the [Eighth Amendment’s](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/eighth_amendment) [Excessive Fines Clause](https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-08/02-excessive-fines.html) applies to excessive parking fines. **BACKGROUND FACTS** The City of Los Angeles imposes civil fines for parking meter violations. Under an [ordinance](https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2008/08-1604_rpt_atty_06-17-2008.pdf), if a person parks her car past the allotted time limit, she must pay a $63 fine. And if she fails to pay the fine within 21 days, the City will impose a late-payment penalty $6300. In sum, a person who overstays a parking spot faces a fine of $63 – $181. Appellant Mr. Pimentel and the other appellants sued the City of Los Angeles under [42 U.S.C. § 1983](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983), asserting that the fines and late payment penalties violate the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause and the California constitutional counterpart. The case made its way through the lower federal district court. The lower court ordered that the initial parking fine was not grossly disproportionate to the offense and thus survives constitutional scrutiny. The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit, however, who issued its own opinion below. **COURT’S REASONING & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals held that although the initial parking fine was not disproportionate to the offense, the the City’s late fee runs afoul of the Excessive Fines Clause. The Court said the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment limits the government’s power to extract payments, whether in cash or in kind, as punishment for some offense. Also, the Court reasoned that the Excessive Fines Clause traces its lineage back to at least the Magna Carta which guaranteed that a free man shall not be fined for a small fault. “For centuries, authorities abused their power to impose fines against their enemies or to illegitimately raise revenue,” said the Ninth Circuit. “That fear of abuse of power continued to the colonial times. During the founding era, fines were probably the most common form of punishment, and this made a constitutional prohibition on excessive fines all the more important.” The Court extended the four-factor analysis found in [*United States v.* *Bajakajian*](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/524/321/) to decide whether a fine is “grossly disproportionate” to the offense: **(1)** the nature and extent of the crime, **(2)** whether the violations was related to other illegal activities, **(3)** the other penalties that may be imposed for the violation, and **(4)** the extent of the harm caused. The Court reasoned that under the first [*Bajakajian*](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/524/321/) factor— the nature and extent of the crime — the plaintiffs were indeed culpable because there was no factual dispute that they violated the parking infraction code for failing to pay for over-time use of a metered space. However, the Ninth Circuit also found the the parking transgressions were small: > “But we also conclude that appellants’ culpability is low because the underlying parking violation is minor. We thus find that the nature and extent of appellants’ violations to be minimal but not de minimis.” The Court further reasoned that the second [*Bajakajian*](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/524/321/) factor — whether the violations was related to other illegal activities — was not as helpful to its analysis: “We only note that there is no information in the record showing whether overstaying a parking meter relates to other illegal activities, nor do the parties argue as much.” Similarly, the Court said that the third [*Bajakajian*](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/524/321/) factor — whether other penalties may be imposed for the violation — also did not advance its analysis. “Neither party suggests that alternative penalties may be imposed instead of the fine, and the record is devoid of any such suggestion.” Finally, the Court turned to the fourth [*Bajakajian*](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/524/321/) factor — the extent of the harm caused by the violation. “The most obvious and simple way to assess this factor is to observe the monetary harm resulting from the violation,” said the Court. Ultimately, it reasoned that while a parking violation was not a serious offense, the fine is not so large, either, and likely deters violations. With that, the Ninth Circuit held that the City’s initial parking fine of $63 was not grossly disproportional to the underlying offense of overstaying the time at a parking space. Nevertheless, the Court also held that the 100% late fee on the initial fine must be remanded back to the lower district court for the City to justify: > “The government cannot overstep its authority and impose fines on its citizens without paying heed to the limits posed by the Eighth Amendment. Yet in its brief to this court, the City of Los Angeles did not even bother addressing the constitutionality of its late fee. Based on the record, we do not know the City’s justification for setting the late fee at one hundred percent of the initial fine.” With that, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals gave the case back (remanded) to the lower court for a further analysis on this issue. My opinion? Good decision. At the end of the day, paying a 100% late fee for a parking fine is truly excessive. The case is novel because we don’t see much litigation surrounding the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. We do know, however, that the Eighth Amendment also encompasses the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, which is the most important and controversial part of the Amendment. The issues relating to that constitutional amendment are, in some ways, shrouded in mystery. What does it mean for a punishment to be “cruel and unusual”? How do we measure a punishment’s cruelty? And if a punishment is cruel, why should we care whether it is “unusual”? Again, good decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Eighth Amendment, Excessive Fines Clause, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Traffic Infractions, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Alcohol Consumption Increases During Coronavirus Pandemic](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/alcohol-consumption-increases-during-coronavirus-pandemic/) **Published:** August 9, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** A recent study from [RTI International](https://www.rti.org/) found that “Pandemic Drinking” has increased in direct response to the surging [Coronavirus Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic). According to the article, the start of the COVID-19 pandemic forced many people into their homes, where they were encouraged to shelter in place for weeks. And, while many restaurants and bars closed as a result of the pandemic, a new study finds that people – especially women, those who are unemployed, Black people and parents – have actually been drinking more than they did before COVID-19 hit. The results of the study came from a poll conducted in May on about 993 people from various regions of the country. Overall, it found that a person’s average drinks per day increased 27 percent, while the increased frequency of exceeding “drinking guidelines” increased by 21 percent and binge drinking by 26 percent. Drinking guidelines established by the [National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism](https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/) say that men should consume no more than four drinks per day and/or 14 drinks per week, while women should consume no more than three per day or seven per week. But while on average Americans are drinking more, researchers found that minorities and women are more likely to be drinking more since the pandemic began. The study also found: - 16 percent of respondents increased their usual quantity by an average of two drinks; and - 27 percent increased the total number of drinks consumed on “more than usual” days by 4.5 drinks. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/), [Domestic Violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) or other alcohol-related crimes during the Coronavirus Pandemic. It’s very easy to become dismayed, distracted and depressed in these times. Hiring an experienced criminal defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Federal Government Encourages Men to Limit Drinking to Once a Day](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/federal-government-encourages-men-to-limit-drinking-to-once-a-day/) **Published:** August 19, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/government-men-one-drink-per-day) by [Cortney Moore](https://www.foxnews.com/person/m/cortney-moore) of [Fox News](https://www.foxnews.com/) sheds light on how the federal government is advising men to not drink more than [one drink per day ](https://www.foxnews.com/food-drink) as it finalizes the [2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans](https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2019-03/Public%20Participation%20Handout%20FINAL.pdf). This new guidance, which is updated every five years, is lower than the recommended [serving](https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle) limit the U.S. government issued in its previous iteration, which was set at two drinks per day. “If alcohol is consumed, it should be in moderation,” the report stated at the time, which was jointly written by the [U.S. Department of Agriculture](https://www.usda.gov/) and [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services](https://www.hhs.gov/). “For those who choose to drink, moderate alcohol consumption can be incorporated into the calorie limits of most healthy eating patterns.” Ms. Moore reported that during the [Coronavirus Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic), alcohol consumption has notably increased. Days after the [World Health Organization](https://www.who.int/) declared the virus a pandemic, alcohol sales rose by 55 percent in the week of March 21, according to market research from [Nielsen](https://apnews.com/c407ecb931c6c528b4cceb0ecc216f0c). By June, alcohol sales were reportedly up by around 27 percent. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges with alcohol being a factor. Any increases in alcohol use during the pandemic could be a cause for concern. It can be very tempting to seek alcohol in an attempt to cope with negative emotions associated with the crisis. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Prosecutor's "War On Drugs" Comments Deprived Defendant of a Fair Trial](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/prosecutors-war-on-drugs-comments-deprived-defendant-of-a-fair-trial/) **Published:** August 29, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Loughbom](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/974438.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) held that the Prosecutor’s comments during trial advocating the [“War on Drugs”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs) amounted to Prosecutor Misconduct and deprived the defendant of a fair trial. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** In May 2017, Mr. Loughbom was charged with three counts of various [drug crimes](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). In October of 2017, Loughbom’s case proceeded to jury trial. During trial, the prosecutor referenced the “War on Drugs” three times: 1\. During his opening statement, the prosecutor said, “The case before you today represents yet another battle in the ongoing ***war on drugs*** throughout our state and throughout our nation as a whole. I’ve been tasked with presenting the evidence against the defendant, Gregg Loughbom, of the crimes of Delivery and Conspiracy to Deliver a Controlled Substance.” 2\. The prosecutor began his closing argument by stating, “The case before you represented another battle in the ongoing ***war on drugs*** throughout our state and the nation as a whole. I have been tasked with presenting the evidence against the defendant, Gregg Loughbom, of the crimes of delivery of controlled substances . . . and conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance.” 3\. During the State’s rebuttal argument, the prosecutor stated that “law enforcement cannot simply pick and choose their Confidential Informants to be the golden children of our society to go through and try and complete these transactions as they go forward in the, like I said, the ongoing ***war on drugs*** in this community and across the nation.” Although the jury found Mr. Loughbom not guilty of one drug charge, he was found guilty of [delivery of methamphetamine](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=69.50.401#:~:text=(1)%20Except%20as%20authorized%20by,or%20deliver%2C%20a%20controlled%20substance.&text=(e)%20A%20substance%20classified%20in,punishable%20according%20to%20chapter%209A.) and [conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance other than marijuana](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.28.040). The trial court sentenced Loughbom to 40 months in prison and 12 months of community custody. Loughbom appealed on arguments that the prosecutor’s repeated comments about the war on drugs constituted flagrant and ill intentioned misconduct. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Supreme Court began by saying We presume prosecutors act impartially “in the interest of justice.” At the same time, we expect prosecutors to “‘subdue courtroom zeal,’ not to add to it, in order to ensure the defendant receives a fair trial.” State v. Walker, 182 Wn.2d 463, 477, 341 P.3d 976 (2015) (quoting Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d at 443). Justice can be secured only when a conviction is based on specific evidence in an individual case and not on rhetoric. We do not convict to make an example of the accused, we do not convict by appeal to a popular cause, and we do not convict by tying a prosecution to a global campaign against illegal drugs. > “We agree with Loughbom and hold that the prosecutor’s remarks about the war on drugs were improper and rise to the level of being flagrant and ill intentioned. The prosecutor’s repeated invocation of the war on drugs was a thematic narrative designed to appeal to a broader social cause that ultimately deprived Loughbom of a fair trial.” ~WA SUpreme Court The Court also reasoned that the prosecutor’s repeated references to the war on drugs were erroneous, and that framing Loughbom’s prosecution as representative of the war on drugs violated his right to a fair trial. With that, the WA Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remand for a new trial. My opinion? Excellent decision. Clearly, the prosecutor’s repeated appeals to the war on drugs caused incurable prejudice. It is deeply troubling that the State employed the war on drugs as the theme of Loughbom’s prosecution and reinforced this narrative throughout his trial. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face [Drug Offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, felony, Jury Trial, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Improper Opinion Testimony](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/improper-opinion-testimony/) **Published:** September 4, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Hawkins](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/798979.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that a police officer gave improper opinion testimony regarding the defendant’s guilt and credibility. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** The Defendant Mr. Hawkins was arrested and charged with [assault in the third degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) for briefly strangling Mr. Ali, a [King County Metro](https://kingcounty.gov/depts/transportation/metro.aspx) bus driver, over a fare dispute. The incident was witnessed by a passenger who did not speak English and a passenger who saw an argument occur, but did not witness actual physical touching. The State’s only other witnesses were Deputy Baker and Deputy Garrison, the King County Sheriff’s detective that reviewed Baker’s initial investigation and referred Hawkins’s case for prosecution. Over defense counsel’s repeated objections, the prosecutor tried to elicit opinion testimony from both deputies concerning whether they believed whether the bus driver Ali was a credible witness. Several of the defense’s objections were sustained, but the court eventually allowed Officer Baker to answer. Although Deputy Baker’s answer was couched in probable cause to arrest, Baker’s answer implied he believed Ali’s version of events over Hawkins. Deputy Garrison’s answers also gave an opinion about credibility. Garrison stated he would only refer a case for prosecution if there was “some credible ability to prosecute.” The jury convicted Hawkins as charged. On appeal, Hawkins contends that the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct by eliciting opinion testimony from police witnesses concerning witness credibility. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The WA Court of Appeals reasoned that a prosecutor must enforce the law by prosecuting those who have violated the peace and dignity of the state by breaking the law. A prosecutor also functions as the representative of the people in a quasi-judicial capacity in a search for justice. The Court said the prosecutor owes a duty to defendants to see that their rights to a constitutionally fair trial are not violated. Thus, a prosecutor must function within boundaries while zealously seeking justice. Also, the Court of Appeals emphasized there are some areas of opinion testimony that are inappropriate in criminal trials. “This is particularly true when the opinion testimony is sought from law enforcement,” said the Court of Appeals. “Officer testimony has an aura of special reliability and trustworthiness.” The Court of Appeals said the State’s case was weak. > “There is no question that the State’s case against Hawkins was weak. There was no physical evidence, there was no surveillance footage, and Ali had no visible injuries and declined medical attention. The State offered no firsthand witnesses other than Ali.” ~WA Court of Appeals As a result, the Court reasoned that the State’s case inappropriately focused on the police officers’ opinion of the bus driver Ali’s credibility: > “Because the State’s case was weak, eliciting the officers’ opinions that they believed they had a credible witness in Ali had a clear prejudicial effect on Hawkins’s right to a fair trial.” ~WA Court of Appeals The Court ruled the Defendant’s case was prejudiced and overturned his conviction. My opinion? Good decision. A prosecutor functions as the representative of the people in the search for justice. The prosecutor also owes a duty to defendants to see that their rights to a constitutionally fair trial are not violated. It is inappropriate in a criminal trial for the prosecutor to seek opinion testimony as to the guilt of the defendant, the intent of the accused, or the credibility of witnesses. This is particularly true where the opinion sought is that of a law enforcement officer. Please review my [Legal Guide on Prosecutorial Misconduct](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/prosecutorial-misconduct-the-rules/) for more information on this subject. And please [contact my office ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/)if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges. Hiring an experienced and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Opinion Testimony, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Cloud Storage & Privacy](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/cloud-storage-privacy/) **Published:** September 8, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** **Cloud Storage & Privacy.** In *[State v. Harrier](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2052544-5-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/resources/?fa=newsinfo_jury.display&altMenu=Citi&folderID=jury_guide&fileID=appeals#P28_1785) held that a person holds no privacy interest in images obtained by an internet cloud storage service provider who then gives the images to law enforcement. **BACKGROUND FACTS** [Synchronoss Technologies, Inc.](https://synchronoss.com/) is an [internet cloud storage](https://aws.amazon.com/what-is-cloud-storage/#:~:text=Cloud%20storage%20is%20a%20cloud,your%20own%20data%20storage%20infrastructure.) provider that provides cloud based storage for Verizon Wireless customers. The defendant Mr. Harrier had a [Verizon](https://www.verizon.com/) account and subscribed to Synchronoss Cloud storage. Synchronoss ran a cursory search of all stored digital files and found six digital images with hash values matching those of known instances of child pornography. Synchronoss reported this information via [CyberTip](https://report.cybertip.org/) to the [National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC)](https://www.missingkids.org/HOME) who forwarded the information to local police for investigation. The police opened and viewed the six image files and confirmed that the images were child pornography. Police then obtained search warrants based on the descriptions of the images and served them on Verizon and Synchronoss. The search warrant directed Synchronoss to provide “all information” held by Synchronoss associated with the suspect telephone number associated with the images. Police received information from Verizon that confirmed that Harrier was the subscriber/account holder for the suspect telephone number. Synchronoss also gave police a thumb drive containing account data associated with the suspect telephone number. Law enforcement obtained a search warrant for Harrier’s residence. They seized Harrier’s cell phone. The cell phone was determined to be the same phone associated with the Verizon account and the Synchronoss files that were the basis of the initial search warrant. Law enforcement interviewed Harrier after advising him of his constitutional rights prior to asking questions. He made incriminating statements. Harrier was later charged with two counts of [first degree possession of depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.68A.070#:~:text=(1)(a)%20Except%20as,sexually%20explicit%20conduct%20as%20defined) and three counts of [second degree possession of depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.68A.070#:~:text=(1)(a)%20Except%20as,sexually%20explicit%20conduct%20as%20defined). Prior to trial, Harrier filed a [3.6 motion to suppress](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) the evidence against him, and the trial court denied the motion. The parties proceeded to a bench trial. Harrier was found guilty as charged. Harrier appealed on arguments that the police, by opening and viewing the images from NCMEC, exceeded the scope of Synchronoss’ lawful search of the images and thus, the opening and viewing of the images was unlawful, and the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** In short, the WA Court of Appeals held that Harrier had no privacy interest in the images obtained by Synchronoss and delivered to the police; therefore, the police’s viewing of the images was not a warrantless search. The Court reasoned that the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) protects a person’s subjective and reasonable expectation of privacy. Also, the [WA Constitution in article I, section 7](http://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/Pages/WAConstitution.aspx) provides that no person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law. However, the Court reasoned that if a private affair is not disturbed, then there is no Constitutional violation. Also, the Court rejected Harrier’s arguments the [Private Search Doctrine](https://olemiss.edu/depts/ncjrl/pdf/PrivateSearchDoctrine.pdf) prohibited the police from obtaining contraband: “The Private Search Doctrine is based on the rationale that an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy is destroyed when the private actor conducts his search,” said the Court of Appeals. “Our Supreme Court held in [*Eisfeldt* ](http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/163wn2d/163wn2d0628.htm)that the private search doctrine is inapplicable under our State Constitution.” The court also recognized that when a private party hands evidence over to the police, there is no privacy interest in that evidence: > “We know from the hash values that the files Synchronoss found were child pornography and that this information, the images, and the CyberTip are reliable . . . Because a private party conducted the search and the images are contraband, Harrier did not have a privacy interest in them. Thus, the police’s opening and viewing the images from a private party was not unlawful. Accordingly, Harrier’s arguments fail.” ~WA Court of Appeals. The Court concluded that the trial court did not err by denying Harrier’s motion to suppress and affirmed Harrier’s convictions. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member were arrested after police found incriminating evidence from a questionable search of cyber account information. And please review my [Legal Guide on Search & Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/). Hiring an experienced criminal defense attorney is the first and best step towards justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, felony, Fourth Amendment, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Privacy, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Study Finds Police Misconduct Leads to Wrongful Convictions](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/study-finds-police-misconduct-leads-to-wrongful-convictions/) **Published:** September 15, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** A recent study finds police misconduct leads to wrongful convictions. The misconducts included witness tampering, violent interrogations and falsifying evidence. Titled, [Government Misconduct and Convicting the Innocent: The Role of Prosecutors, Police and Other Law Enforcement](https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Government_Misconduct_and_Convicting_the_Innocent.pdf?_ga=2.147010743.145333845.1599969487-1574050928.1563305697), researchers from the [National Registry of Exonerations](https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx) studied 2,400 convictions of defendants who were later found innocent over a 30-year period and found that 35% of these cases involved some type of misconduct by police. More than half – 54% – involved misconduct by police or prosecutors. The study comes as protests over racial injustice and police brutality spread across many cities for several months following the [May 25 death of George Floyd](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/us/george-floyd-investigation.html) in police custody. Researchers found that misconduct by police and prosecutors is among the leading causes of disproportionate false conviction of Black defendants. For example, 78% of Black defendants who were wrongly accused of murder were convicted because of some type of misconduct. That number is 64% for white defendants, according to the study. An even wider gap: 87% of Black defendants later found innocent who were sentenced to death were victims of official misconduct vs. 68% for white defendants. The study found that hiding evidence that is favorable to defendants is the most common type of misconduct. Researchers cite five murder trials in which prosecutors concealed evidence about the cause of death. In one case, a woman was convicted of killing her boyfriend, but prosecutors did not disclose a medical report that found he had died of suicide. > “In a few rape exonerations, the authorities concealed evidence that the complainants had a history of making false rape allegations . . . And in at least a dozen child sex abuse cases, police, prosecutors and child welfare workers concealed statements by the supposed victims that they had not in fact been molested.” ~National Registry of Exonerations In some cases – according to the study – police officers falsely claimed they were victims of assaults by defendants. In one such case, police officers from Chattanooga, Tennessee, beat a defendant at a reentry facility because he defended himself. Adam Tatum was sentenced to two years in prison for assaulting officers but was later exonerated after video showed that officers attacked him without provocation. Tatum sued and later [settled for $125,000](https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2013/dec/11/city-settles-police-beating-lawsuit/126265/). Also, police officers were disciplined or convicted of crimes in only 19% of exonerations that involved some type of misconduct, according to the study. That’s a rate five times higher than those for prosecutors, whose misconduct account for 30% of the cases. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime and evidence appears to have been withheld. Hiring an experienced and effective criminal defense attorney is the best step toward justice. Experienced attorneys regularly file and argue [Motions to Compel](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/arguing-motions-to-compel-pretrial-discovery/) and/or a[ *Brady* Motions](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule); both of which force the Prosecutor to give exculpatory evidence and release discovery that they otherwise wouldn’t. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Discovery, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Police Misconduct, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Crime Fell In First 6 Months of COVID](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/crime-fell-in-first-6-months-of-covid/) **Published:** September 16, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** According to a [recent FBI Report](https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/overview-of-preliminary-uniform-crime-report-january-june-2020), crime fell in the first 6 months of Covid. More specifically, violent and property crime both plunged across the United States in the first six months of 2020 as the [coronavirus pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic) swept the country. Even though lockdowns to prevent the spread of Covid-19 were inconsistent and non-existent in some areas, [murders](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/) fell 14.8 percent from a year earlier and [rapes](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/) dropped 17.8 percent, according to preliminary data compiled by the FBI. Violent [robbery](http://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/robbery/) fell 7.1 percent, and non-violent thefts and larceny fell by slightly more from the first half of 2019, the FBI said. But [arson](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/arson/) jumped in the first half of this year, especially in large cities and in West, it said. Arson cases rose more than 52 percent in cities with populations over one million, and were up 28 percent in the western part of the country. The FBI did not offer any explanation of the decline in crime overall, or the surge in arson. But the period covered by the data coincides with the country’s response to the[ coronavirus pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic), including the declaration of a national emergency on March 13, California’s stay-at-home order on March 19, and New York issued a stay-at-home order on March 20. Violent crime of all types fell in the period by 4.8 percent in the northeast and by smaller levels in the West and Midwest. But violent crime increased compared to 2019 in the South, by 2.5 percent. Generally southern states lagged others in taking serious steps to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges. Hiring an experienced criminal defense attorney is the first and best step towards justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, felony, misdemeanor, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Privacy & Text Messages](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/privacy-text-messages/) **Published:** October 8, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** **Privacy & Text Messages.** In [*State v. Bowman*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/790234.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that a police officer violates a defendant’s constitutional rights by sending a text message to the defendant from an unfamiliar phone number while impersonating a known contact of the defendant. **BACKGROUND FACTS** A [Department of Homeland Security (DHS)](https://www.dhs.gov/) agent sent a series of text messages to Mr. Bowman. The DHS agent claimed to be someone named Mike Schabell, a person to whom Bowman had sold methamphetamine earlier that day, and indicated he wanted to buy more drugs. The ruse led to charges of [possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). The trial court denied his [motion to suppress](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) the drugs and drug paraphernalia on his person and in his vehicle. At trial, Mr. Bowman was found guilty. On appeal, Bowman argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence that flowed from his text message conversation with the DHS Agent. Specifically, he argues that DHS Agent’s impersonating a known contact of his through text messages violated his right to privacy under the Washington Constitution. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals reasoned that under [article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution](http://leg.wa.gov/lawsandagencyrules/documents/12-2010-wastateconstitution.pdf), no person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law. “Interpretation of this article requires a two part analysis,” said the Court. “First, we must determine whether the action complained of constitutes a disturbance of private affairs,” said the Court. “If we determine that a valid private affair has been disturbed, we then must determine whether the intrusion is justified by authority of law.” ***The DHS Agent’s Actions Disrupted Mr. Bowman’s Private Affairs.*** The Court of Appeals began by defining “Private affairs” as those privacy interests which citizens of this state have held, and should be entitled to hold, safe from government trespass without a warrant. Based on that, the Court reasoned Mr. Bowman did not talk with someone he thought was a stranger. Rather, he conversed with a person who represented himself as someone that Bowman knew. Therefore, reasoned the court, Bowman had a reasonable expectation of privacy for that conversation. The DHS agent invaded that right of privacy. ***The DHS Agent Was Not Acting Under Authority of Law.*** The Court of Appeals reasoned that although Mr. Schabell consented to the search of his phone, there was no proof that he consented to being impersonated. “Therefore, Dkane was not acting under authority of law, and violated Bowman’s right of privacy,” said the Court. “The trial court erred by failing to suppress the evidence obtained by that violation of privacy.” With that, the Court of Appeals reversed Mr. Bowman’s conviction and remanded for a new trial, with instructions to suppress evidence obtained in violation of Bowman’s right to privacy. My opinion? Good decision. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, felony, Methamphetamine, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, Text Messages, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [ACLU Sues DOL](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/aclu-sues-dol/) **Published:** October 8, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In a [press release](https://www.aclu-wa.org/news/aclu-washington-files-lawsuit-against-washington-department-licensing-suspending-licenses), the ACLU of Washington acknowledges filing a lawsuit on behalf of individuals who have had their driver’s licenses suspended by the [Washington Department of Licensing (DOL)](https://www.dol.wa.gov/) because they were unable to pay fines and fees for moving violations. The complaint claims that [Washington’s law authorizing automatic and mandatory license suspensions for failure to pay moving violation fines](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.342) violates the state constitution’s rights to [due process](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process) and [equal protection](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection). The lawsuit also alleges that license suspension for failure to pay a ticket is an [unconstitutionally excessive punishment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#:~:text=The%20Eighth%20Amendment%20(Amendment%20VIII,as%20of%202019%2C%20excessive%20fines.). According to the ACLU’s press release, the plaintiffs in the case come from throughout Washington and have suffered a variety of negative consequences due to the loss of their license—consequences that individuals with an ability to pay traffic fines would not face. These include loss of employment and income; the inability to take children to school; and the inability to care for family members. These additional barriers compound the root problems that make it difficult for people with low or no income to pay fines and fees. “Washington’s law authorizing automatic and mandatory license suspensions not only violates basic fairness for people with low or no income, it violates the state constitution,” said [ACLU of Washington Staff Attorney Lisa Nowlin](https://www.linkedin.com/in/lisa-nowlin-0840baa1). > “Ability to pay must be considered when suspending a license, because no one should suffer additional penalties for a moving violation because of poverty.” ~Lisa Nowlin, ACLU Staff Attorney “The American legal system is founded on the principle that everyone, regardless of means, is treated the same under the law. Washington’s license suspension laws violate that principle,” said [Donald Scaramastra](https://www.foster.com/people-donald-scaramastra), cooperating attorney from [Foster Garvey, PC.](https://www.foster.com/) My opinion? It’s about darn time . . . Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** ACLU, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Driving While License Suspended/Revoked, Due Process, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Assault or Swim Lesson?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/assault-of-a-child-or-swimming-lesson/) **Published:** October 13, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Loos*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/800167.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that although the defendant repeatedly submerged a toddler in a river during an impromptu swimming lesson, there was a lack of evidence proving the defendant’s actions were [Assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/). **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** Defendant Ms. Loos was babysitting J.T.S., a nonverbal, speech-delayed two-and-a-half-year-old toddler whom she had cared for throughout his infancy. Loos and a friend, Ms. Tetzlaff, decided to take a group of seven children to swim in the Jordan River that day. While swimming in the river, Tetzlaff became concerned about Loos’s conduct. Tetzlaff testified that Loos picked up J.T.S. and said “it’s time to swim.” For the next minute – which was caught on camera – Loos engaged an impromptu swim lesson and tried teaching J.T.S. a swim technique called [“infant self-rescue”](https://www.infantswim.com/lessons/isr-lessons.html) by teaching him to float on his back. In the 51-second video, Loos can be seen holding J.T.S. on his back in the water, and is heard telling him “when we scream, we go under.” After a moment, J.T.S. was submerged in the water for a few seconds and Loos pulled him back up out of the water. Loos repositioned J.T.S. on his back, at which point he began to struggle and tried to pull away. Loos told J.T.S. again not to scream and he was again submerged. This time, Loos had one hand under J.T.S. and one hand on his chest. At trial, Tetzlaff testified that Loos was “holding him under the water.” T.L. similarly testified he saw Loos push J.T.S. under water, and T.L. could see J.T.S. flailing his arms while submerged. When Loos lifted him out of the water, he came up coughing and screaming. Eventually, Loos ended the swim lesson. On December 1, 2017, approximately two and a half years later, the State charged Loos with one count of [assault of a child in the third degree](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.140#:~:text=(1)%20A%20person%20eighteen%20years,(f)%20against%20the%20child.). During trial, Loos moved to dismiss the charge for insufficient evidence. The trial court denied this motion, although it acknowledged its decision was a “close call.” The jury found Loos guilty. She appealed on the grounds of insufficient evidence. **COURT’S RATIONALE & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals began by saying due process of law requires that the State prove every element of a charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt in order to obtain a criminal conviction. Furthermore, the court cited *[State v. Green](https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/1980/44705-1.html)* in saying that in order to evaluate whether sufficient evidence supports a conviction, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the State to determine if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. “Dismissal with prejudice is required when there is insufficient evidence at the close of the prosecution’s case in-chief to sustain a charged offense,” said the Court of Appeals. Next, the court gave the [statutory definition](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.04.110) of “bodily harm” as “physical pain or injury, illness, or an impairment of physical condition,” And that this pain or impairment must be accompanied by “substantial pain.” Finally, the Court of Appeals reasoned whether there was sufficient evidence that T.J. suffered substantial pain from the swimming incident. “J.T.S.’s coughing when pulled out of the water caused him some physical pain,” said the Court. “But neither the testimony nor the 51-second video of the incident supports any contention that J.T.S. was unable to quickly and easily eliminate the water from his throat or that he remained in any pain once he did so.” > “The evidence was undisputed that J.T.S. did not require CPR, did not vomit, did not lose consciousness, did not appear to have any swelling of his belly, did not sustain any lung injury, and needed no medical treatment. There is no evidence J.T.S. was inconsolable as a result of any ongoing pain or that any momentary pain he may have experienced lasted for any period of time after he coughed and Loos removed him from the water.” ~WA Court of Appeals The Court of Appeals concluded by saying that no reasonable jury would find that J.T.S. suffered substantial pain that extended for a period sufficient to cause considerable suffering. With that, the Court of Appeals reversed Loos’s conviction. My opinion? Good decision. The trial court erred when it denied Ms. Loos’ [Motion to Dismiss](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/dismissing-cases-through-knapstad-motions/) pursuant to *[State v. Green](https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/1980/44705-1.html)*. Better known as a *Green* Motion, this tactical trial maneuver allows defendants to request the judge dismiss criminal charges after the Prosecution has presented its evidence and rested its case. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Child Abuse, Evidence, felony, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Right to Present a Defense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/right-to-present-a-defense/) **Published:** October 21, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Jennings*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2052275-6-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf#search=jennings), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held the trial court’s exclusion of a shooting victim’s [toxicology report](https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/features/the-truth-about-toxicology-tests#1) indicating the victim had [methamphetamine](https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/methamphetamine) in his body at the time of his death did not violate the defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense. **BACKGROUND FACTS** On the date of the incident, the defendant Mr. Jennings accompanied his friend Mr. Redman to get Redman’s car from a mobile home in Puyallup, Washington. Redman had been living there, but had recently been kicked out. Drug activity occurred there. Jennings was there to defuse any hostilities between Redman and others at the house. Jennings armed himself with bear spray and a gun. When they arrived, Jennings was on high alert. He knew violent events had recently occurred there. His friend Mr. Redman got into an argument with Mr. Burton, an individual at the house. Redman had his gun out. Jennings was familiar with the behavior of people who consumed methamphetamine. He realized that both Redman and Burton were high on methamphetamine and acting aggressively. Burton and Redman argued about Redman’s car and then began to scuffle, wrestling in the foyer of the house. Jennings sprayed his bear spray at them to break up the fight. Burton then turned around and started walking toward Jennings, who backed up. Jennings believed Burton had Redman’s gun. Jennings feared for his life. He was afraid Burton was reacting violently because he was high on methamphetamine. Jennings fired his gun and hit Burton twice. Burton died at the scene shortly after the shooting and before the ambulance arrived. Jennings was arrested the next day. He was charged with second degree intentional murder ([RCW 9A.32.050(1)(a)](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.32.050)), second degree felony murder predicated on second degree assault ([RCW 9A.32.050(1)(b)](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.32.050)), and [unlawful possession of a firearm](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.040). At trial, Jennings claimed at trial that he shot Burton in [self-defense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/self-defense/). However, the judge excluded the toxicology report showing that Burton had methamphetamine in his body at the time of his death. A jury found Jennings guilty of second degree felony murder. Jennings appealed on numerous issues, including arguments that the trial court violated his constitutional right to present a defense by excluding a toxicology report showing that Burton had methamphetamine in his body at the time of his death. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals began by emphasizing that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to present a defense under the [Sixth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment). Furthermore, evidence of self-defense must be assessed from the standpoint of the reasonably prudent person standing in the shoes of the defendant, knowing all the defendant knows and seeing all the defendant sees. Finally, the court reasoned that evidence that might impact a defendant’s assessment of the danger presented, like the victim’s prior specific violent acts, is admissible only if known to the defendant when the incident occurred. “In analyzing the Sixth Amendment right to present a defense, we balance the State’s interest in excluding the toxicology report against Jennings’s need for evidence showing that his subjective fear was reasonable,” said the Court of Appeals. The Court further reasoned that in this case, the toxicology report did not have extremely high probative value and it did not constitute Jennings’s entire defense. “At trial, Jennings testified that what he observed on the day of the shooting gave rise to his subjective fear . . . his belief that Burton was high on methamphetamine,” said the Court. “Jennings has not shown that there was a reasonable probability that any additional corroboration from the toxicology report would have materially changed the result at trial,” said the Court. “We hold that even if the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the toxicology report under ER 401 and 402, this ruling was harmless error.” With that, the Court of Appeals upheld Mr. Jennings’ conviction. My opinion? Evidentiary and legal issues aside, these facts are terribly tragic. My heart goes out to the friends and families of all who were impacted by this. From a legal standpoint, however, It appears the WA Court of Appeals conducted a basic balancing test under Washington’s Rules of Evidence and determined that the toxicology report of the victim’s meth/blood levels was neither probative nor relevant at trial. Under [Washington’s Rules of Evidence](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.list&group=ga&set=ER), relevant evidence is defined in [ER 401](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/ER/GA_ER_04_01_00.pdf) as “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. [ER 402](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/ER/GA_ER_04_02_00.pdf) provides that evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. Finally, [ER 403](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/ER/GA_ER_04_03_00.pdf) provides that relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by, among other things, the danger of unfair prejudice. Here, the Court of Appeals was convinced that Mr. Jennings’ self-defense theory was properly supported by his testimony that he responded in self-defense to the victim’s meth-induced attack. Therefore, no other evidence was necessary to admit more evidence that the victim was high on meth. Jennings’ testimony, by itself, was enough. Any additional evidence on that issue was therefore cumulative, repetitive, unnecessary and potentially prejudicial to the State’s case under ER 403. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges and self-defense is a possible defense. It’s important to hire an experienced criminal defense trial attorney who understands the law, the rules of evidence and how both contribute to trial defenses. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, ER 401, ER 402, ER 403, Evidence, felony, Firearm, Homicide & Manslaughter, Methamphetamine, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Self-Defense, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Toxicologist, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Coronavirus Crime Trends](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/coronavirus-crime-trends/) **Published:** November 2, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent and informative [article](https://www.safewise.com/blog/covid-19-crimes/) in [Safewise.com](https://www.safewise.com/) written by lead safety reporter and in-house expert [Rebecca Edwards](https://www.safewise.com/blog/author/rebecca-edwards/ "Posts by Rebecca Edwards") gives us updates on the latest crime statistics and trends in the major cities throughout the [Coronavirus pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic). The gist? > “It depends on who you ask. From a research standpoint, it’s difficult to make a sweeping assumption—even after six months of living in a COVID-19 world. But there are consistent signs across the country that certain crimes have seen jumps during the global pandemic. The biggest increases have been in violent crimes, particularly murder, aggravated assault, and shooting incidents.” ~Rebecca Edwards, Lead Safety Reporter, Safewise.com Edwards gives the statistics in violent crime and trends during the pandemic: - Preliminary [FBI data](https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/overview-of-preliminary-uniform-crime-report-january-june-2020) for the first six months of 2020 shows murder and non-negligent homicide as up nearly 15% compared to the same time period last year. - A [report](https://cdn.ymaws.com/counciloncj.org/resource/resmgr/covid_commission/DESIGNED_FINAL.pdf) by the Council on Criminal Justice (CCJ) paints an even more dire picture—showing a 53% jump in homicides in 27 major US cities this summer, compared to the last. - FBI data also shows a 4.6% jump in aggravated assaults between January and June 2020, versus the same period in 2019. - Aggravated assault rose 14% summer over summer, according to the CCJ analysis. - Gun violence has been relentless for much of 2020, particularly in major cities like [Chicago](https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2020/9/27/21458287/chicago-weekend-shooting-gun-violence-homicide-september-25-28), [New York City](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/03/nyregion/nyc-shootings.html), and [Philadelphia](https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/11/us/philadelphia-shootings-homicides-2020/index.html). - As of September 28, the Gun Violence Archive (GVA) has recorded [13,641 homicides](https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/), murders, and unintentional gun-related deaths for 2020. That’s almost 90% of the total recorded for all of 2019. “It’s not all bad news, though,” reports Edwards. “There are plenty of other crimes that have dropped dramatically amid stay at home orders, physical distancing, and other pandemic conditions.” She gives us the following data: - Counts of rape have dropped, according to FBI data—falling almost 18% year over year. - Robberies have also been on the decline, dropping 7% for the first half of 2020. - Overall, property crimes have been on a downward trajectory this year. - According to a [preliminary FBI report](https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/overview-of-preliminary-uniform-crime-report-january-june-2020), property crime saw an 8% decrease nationwide between January and June 2020, compared to the same timeframe last year. - The FBI shows burglaries down across the board by nearly 8% year over year, although cities like [Seattle](https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2020/05/burglaries-and-car-prowls-continue-to-plague-locked-down-capitol-hill-and-east-precinct-according-to-spd-stats/) and [San Francisco](https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Burglaries-San-Francisco-increase-homes-15594895.php) have seen drastic increases. - Larceny thefts also dropped by nearly 10% in the first half of 2020, according to FBI data. - Car thefts and break-ins have been on the rise during the pandemic. The FBI shows a 6% climb in vehicle thefts between January and June 2020, compared to the same time in 2019. - Cities like [Los Angeles](https://abc7.com/car-theft-auto-los-angeles-coronavirus/6327050/), [Denver](https://www.9news.com/article/news/crime/automobile-thefts-metro-denver-covid-19/73-609978e2-2ec0-4abb-944f-71e8a0ff43ec), and [Scarsdale, New York](https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2020/09/03/westchester-county-car-thefts-scarsdale-rye-rye-brook-anthony-scarpino-jr/) have broken records for the number of cars stolen so far in 2020. - The FBI also reports a drastic jump of 19% in arson offenses nationwide. The majority (52%) of that increase came from cities with more than one million residents. Edwards also gives statistics on Washington State: - Seattle had 32 more burglaries per 100,000 people between March 16 and April 12, compared to the same time period last year. - One Seattle precinct saw an [87% jump in burglaries in March](https://mynorthwest.com/1802378/rantz-seattle-crime-up-after-coronavirus/), as businesses shuttered due to the pandemic. Overall, the city has seen 21% more burglaries. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges during the Coronavirus Pandemic. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, felony, misdemeanor, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [FBI Releases 2019 Hate Crime Statistics](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/fbi-releases-2019-hate-crime-statistics/) **Published:** November 16, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In a [press release](https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2019-hate-crime-statistics) issued today, the [FBI](https://www.fbi.gov/) gave [*Hate Crime Statistics, 2019*](https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2019), which is the [Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program’s](https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr) latest compilation about bias-motivated incidents throughout the nation. The 2019 data, submitted by 15,588 law enforcement agencies, provide information about the offenses, victims, offenders, and locations of hate crimes. Law enforcement agencies submitted incident reports involving 7,314 criminal incidents and 8,559 related offenses as being motivated by bias toward race, ethnicity, ancestry, religion, sexual orientation, disability, gender, and gender identity. **Victims of Hate Crime Incidents** - According to the [report](https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2019.), there were 7,103 single-bias incidents involving 8,552 victims. A percent distribution of victims by bias type shows that 57.6% of victims were targeted because of the offenders’ race/ethnicity/ancestry bias; 20.1% were targeted because of the offenders’ religious bias; 16.7% were victimized because of the offenders’ sexual-orientation bias; 2.7% were targeted because of the offenders’ gender identity bias; 2.0% were victimized because of the offenders’ disability bias; and 0.9% were victimized because of the offenders’ gender bias. - There were 211 multiple-bias hate crime incidents, which involved 260 victims. **Offenses by Crime Category** - Of the 5,512 hate crime offenses classified as crimes against persons in 2019, 40% were for intimidation, 36.7% were for [simple assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/), and 21% were for [aggravated assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/). Fifty-one (51) [murders](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/); 30 [rapes](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/); and three offenses of [human trafficking (commercial sex acts)](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.40.100) were reported as hate crimes. The remaining 41 hate crime offenses were reported in the category of other. - There were 2,811 hate crime offenses classified as crimes against property. The majority of these (76.6%) were acts of destruction/damage/vandalism. [Robbery](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/robbery/), [burglary](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/), [larceny-theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/theft/), [motor vehicle theft](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.065), [arson](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/arson/), and other offenses accounted for the remaining 23.4% of crimes against property. - Two hundred thirty-six (236) additional offenses were classified as crimes against society. This crime category represents society’s prohibition against engaging in certain types of activity such as [gambling](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.46&full=true), [prostitution](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/prostitution/), and [drug violations](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). These are typically victimless crimes in which property is not the object. In Washington, [Malicious Harassment](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.080) is a crime you may face in addition to any other existing charges if the prosecution has deemed that there is sufficient cause to believe that your actions were motivated by personal bias or bigotry. Malicious Harassment is a [Class C Felony](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.20.020). The statute reads: “(1) A person is guilty of malicious harassment if he or she maliciously and intentionally commits one of the following acts because of his or her perception of the victim’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap: ***(a) Causes physical injury to the victim or another person;*** ***(b) Causes physical damage to or destruction of the property of the victim or another person; or*** ***(c) Threatens a specific person or group of persons and places that person, or members of the specific group of persons, in reasonable fear of harm to person or property. The fear must be a fear that a reasonable person would have under all the circumstances. For purposes of this section, a “reasonable person” is a reasonable person who is a member of the victim’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation, or who has the same mental, physical, or sensory handicap as the victim. Words alone do not constitute malicious harassment unless the context or circumstances surrounding the words indicate the words are a threat. Threatening words do not constitute malicious harassment if it is apparent to the victim that the person does not have the ability to carry out the threat.”*** The jury must put themselves into the shoes of what the statute defines as a reasonable individual, rather than their own mindset. From a defense standpoint, the prosecutor’s burden of proof may be difficult to properly enact if the jurors are not members of the group that the alleged hate crime has offended. Moreover, not all crimes that occur between people of different races and nationalities are necessarily hate crimes. Please contact my office if you or a loved one is currently facing charges for a hate crime, and/or [Malicious Harassment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/harassment/). Defending against these allegations is difficult, and there is very little room for negotiation. Hiring competent and experienced defense counsel is your first and best step towards justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Arson, Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Burglary, Drug Offenses, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, felony, Hate Crimes, Homicide & Manslaughter, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Promoting Prostitution, Race & Law, Rape, Robbery, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Theft of Motor Vehicle, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Constructive Possession](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/constructive-possession/) **Published:** November 18, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** “How can I be arrested for possessing drugs when I didn’t have the drugs anywhere on my body?” A recent case handed down from the [Washington Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/appellateDockets/index.cfm?fa=appellateDockets.showDateList&courtId=a02) succinctly answers that question in the context of an [unlawful possession](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) case involving the [search and seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) of drugs from a vehicle. In [*State v. Listoe*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2052893-2-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf), the Court held that sufficient evidence existed to establish the defendant had [constructive possession](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/constructive_possession) over the illegal drugs discovered on the back floorboards of the car he was driving. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** On May 11, 2018, Deputy Andrew Hren observed a black car parked at a 7-Eleven convenience store. On running the license plate, Hren discovered that the car’s registration had expired. The car pulled out of the 7-Eleven parking lot, Hren got behind it and pulled it over. Listoe, who was driving the car, did not pull over immediately but traveled for about 1,000 feet first, which Hren believed was uncommon. As Hren approached the car, he could see Listoe making a series of movements with his hands. Listoe opened the door and began to step out, but Hren ordered him to get back in the car. Hren observed Listoe making additional “furtive movements” in his lap area. Hren then ordered Listoe to place his hands on the steering wheel, and Listoe complied. Hren informed Listoe of the reason for pulling him over, and Listoe responded that the car was not his and that he did not know the registration was expired. A passenger named Ms. Lemon was sitting in the car’s passenger seat. After briefly speaking to Lemon, Hren told Lemon that she was free to leave, and she left. Lemon was not searched during the encounter. Hren ordered Listoe out of the vehicle and placed Listoe under arrest. During the search incident to Listoe’s arrest, Hren found a plastic bag that contained a white crystalline substance on Listoe’s person. The substance appeared to be [methamphetamine](https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/methamphetamine). Listoe also had $221 in his wallet. A [K-9 unit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_dog) alerted to the presence of controlled substances in the car Listoe was driving. Due to the K-9 alert, Hren obtained a search warrant to search the interior of the vehicle for additional evidence of controlled substances. Police found numerous items associated with drug dealing activities: a notepad with a name and phone number, a digital scale, a plastic Tupperware container that had white residue, a factory packaged plastic bag with syringes, and a mint container that contained shards of a white crystalline substance that Hren believed was methamphetamine. Listoe was charged with [one count of possession of methamphetamine with intent to](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) [manufacture or deliver and one count of possession of a controlled substance (Suboxone)](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). The jury found him guilty as charged. On appeal, Listoe claims that there was insufficient evidence that he had constructive possession over the methamphetamine and Suboxone discovered on the back floorboards of the car he was driving. Listoe asserts that evidence was insufficient because **(1)** the car was not his, **(2)** the officers did not find evidence proving that Listoe had dominion and control over the car and its contents, and (3) the drugs on the rear floor of the car could have reasonably belonged to Lemon. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** In short, the Court of Appeals held that We hold that the evidence was sufficient to establish that Listoe had constructive possession over the items the officers discovered in the back of the car. “The facts that **(1)** Listoe was driving the vehicle, **(2)** Listoe had methamphetamine on his person, which is one of the same drugs found in the back of the vehicle, and **(3)** Deputy Hren observed Listoe making furtive movements while taking an uncommonly long time to pull over, provide sufficient evidence of constructive possession to support Listoe’s convictions.” ~WA Court of Appeals The Court reasoned that under [*State v. Reichert,* ](https://casetext.com/case/state-v-reichert)possession can either be actual or constructive. It also reasoned that under [*State v. George*,](https://casetext.com/case/state-v-george-6) whereas actual possession requires an individual to have physical custody of a given item, constructive possession may be shown where the individual has “dominion and control” over that item. Control need not be exclusive to establish possession, and more than one person can be in possession of the same item. “We examine the totality of the circumstances and look to a variety of factors to determine whether an individual has dominion and control over an item,” said the court. The court further said for example, that it may consider whether the individual could readily convert the items to his or her actual possession and/or the defendant’s physical proximity to a given item. Finally, the court said it may also consider whether the defendant had [dominion and control](https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/dominion-and-control) over the broader premises in which the item was located. In cases where the defendant was driving a vehicle that the defendant owned, courts have found sufficient evidence that the defendant had dominion and control over the vehicle’s premises and its contents. With that, the Court rendered its decision. “The fact that Listoe was driving the car weighs in favor of finding that Listoe had dominion and control over the vehicle and its contents,” said the court. The court also reasoned that the fact that fruits and vegetables, which are perishable items, were discovered in the same reusable black grocery bag as the white bag containing the contraband, shows that these items likely belonged to either Listoe or Lemon. “It is unlikely that perishable items were left in the car by a prior driver or passenger,” said the Court. “Further, Listoe’s furtive hand movements on two occasions, as well the fact that Listoe drove an uncommonly long distance before pulling over, raise an inference that the was handling the contraband at that time, or possibly strategizing about where to hide it.” The Court believed this same fact could also support a reasonable inference that Listoe could convert dominion and control over the items in the vehicle into his actual possession. In addition, because Hren found methamphetamine on Listoe’s person during the search incident to arrest, and methamphetamine was also discovered in the back of the vehicle, a rational trier of fact could infer that the methamphetamine in the back of the vehicle belonged to Listoe as well. Finally, the Court of Appeals reasoned that while the above facts may not have been sufficient to establish constructive possession in isolation, taken together, they would lead a rational trier of fact to find that Listoe had constructive possession over the items in the back of the vehicle he was driving. ” Ultimately, although the court found that Listoe’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence, it reversed his conviction on the technicality that the trial court improperly applied [GR 37](https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme%20Court%20Orders/GR37.pdf) when considering his objection to the State’s [peremptory challenge](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/peremptory_challenge) of a non-white juror. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges involving the [search and seizure of vehicles, homes and/or persons](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/). Sometimes, police officers violate people’s Constitutional rights during the course of a search. Hiring an experienced criminal defense attorney who knows the law is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Constructive Possession, Drug Offenses, felony, Methamphetamine, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [President-elect Joe Biden on the U.S. Drug Epidemic](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/president-elect-joe-biden-on-the-u-s-drug-epidemic/) **Published:** December 1, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/28/bidens-other-health-crisis-a-resurgent-drug-epidemic-440771) in [Politico](https://www.politico.com/) by staff reporters [Dan Goldberg](https://www.politico.com/staff/dan-goldberg) and [Brianna Ehley](https://www.politico.com/staff/brianna-ehley) discusses how [President-elect Joe Biden](https://buildbackbetter.gov/) will emphasize drug treatment and prevention, not law enforcement, in addressing a drug epidemic that’s only grown more dire during the [Coronavirus Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic). According to the article, Biden will take office at a crucial moment in the fight against drug addiction. Some states are contending with double-digit spikes in overdose deaths, sparse public health workforces are already stretched thin fighting the coronavirus and widening budget deficits brought on by the pandemic could force states to make painful cutbacks to public services. Also, more than 76,000 people died of a drug overdose between April 2019 and April 2020, according to the most recent preliminary federal data, the most ever recorded during a 12-month period. Federal health officials say the drug crisis has only been amplified by months of social isolation, high unemployment and the diversion of resources to combat the virus. Biden, who often spoke during the campaign about [his son Hunter’s struggles with substance abuse](https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2019/07/236780/hunter-crack-cocaine-drug-addiction-new-yorker-joe-son), has called for record investments in drug prevention and treatment while also holding drug companies accountable for their role in the opioid epidemic. According to the article, it’s staggering how much the pandemic has exacerbated the drug crisis this year. [Ohio recorded 543 overdose deaths in May](https://www.harmreductionohio.org/may-2020-deadliest-month-ever-for-overdose-death/), the most ever in a single month. Overdose deaths in the state this year may even surpass a record 4,800 in 2017, said Dennis Cauchon, president of Harm Reduction Ohio. > “I never thought we could top 2017 levels of death and I was wrong . . . It’s a slaughter out there.” ~[Dennis Cauchon, president of Harm Reduction Ohio](https://www.harmreductionohio.org/487-2/#:~:text=Dennis%20Cauchon%2C%20President%2C%20Harm%20Reduction%20Ohio%20Mar%2018%2C,based%20on%20science%2C%20health%20compassion%20and%20human%20rights.). [Oregon](https://www.oregon.gov/oha/ERD/Pages/OHA-sees-70-percent-increase-in-Oregon-opioid-deaths-during-April-May.aspx) reported a 70 percent increase in the number of overdose deaths in April and May compared to the same two months in 2019. In [Maine](https://www.maine.gov/ag/news/article.shtml?id=3484620), overdose deaths during the first half of 2020 were up 27 percent from the previous year. Spikes have also been documented in Colorado, [Kentucky](https://www.news-expressky.com/news/article_1b0f3e4c-d304-11ea-9b6b-4f593d08594a.html) and [Louisiana](https://ldh.la.gov/index.cfm/page/3192). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face drug charges. The [search and seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) of the drugs may have violated the defendant’s Constitutional rights. Hiring an experienced and effective criminal defense attorney is the first and best step towards justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Biden Administration, Coronavirus, Drug Offenses, felony, Fentanyl, law enforcement, marijuana, Methamphetamine, misdemeanor, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Animal Cruelty Has Risen](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/animal-cruelty-has-risen/) **Published:** December 3, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Animal Cruelty Has Risen. According to the [Seattle Times](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/animal-cruelty-cases-spike-in-king-county-prosecutors-and-animal-service-organizations-consider-pandemics-role/) and [Q13 Fox Seattle](https://www.q13fox.com/news/king-county-prosecutors-report-rise-in-animal-cruelty-cases), the [King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office](https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/prosecutor.aspx) had filed 19 animal cruelty cases so far this year. These case include 12 counts of first-degree felony animal cruelty. In comparison, the office filed only nine cases in 2019 and 10 in 2018. King County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Tali Smith chimed in on the subject. “It’s concerning when we’re filing (more cases) in one month this year … than (all of) last year,” she said. And we’re concerned about these animals and the neglect or violence they’re suffering from.” The office has also filed two felony animal fighting charges, the most recent case involving 91 roosters. > “My guess is that the pandemic has been hard on a lot of people, both in terms of their resources and their mental health. And so it’s kind of a pressure-cooker situation. You have people that are angry and they’re at home a lot. That anger can be taken out on an animal.” ~King County Deputy Prosecutor Tali Smith. Smith added, however, that there’s no definitive evidence of the [coronavirus pandemic’s](https://www.q13fox.com/shows/coronavirus-in-washington) effect on animal abuse cases. “It’s just what we know about people, what we know about violence and these cases,” she said. “And we’ve seen violence increase in the other areas of our office. It makes sense that with this other vulnerable population, we also see an increase.” Prosecutors are reporting animal cruelty cases in King County, like cases in [other categories of crime such as homicides, domestic violence and shootings](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/homicides-assaults-with-firearms-spike-in-king-county-reflecting-national-trend-prosecutors-say/), have increased this year, raising concern among law enforcement and animal agencies and prompting them to remind residents to report any issues they might see involving animal care. The prosecuting attorney’s office filed 1,103 felony domestic violence cases between January and October, including assaults and homicides – an increase from the 983 cases filed during the same period last year. The increase in animal cruelty cases has also worried prosecutors who have studied the connection between violence against animals and violence against people, Smith said. According to the news articles, the [Animal Legal Defense Fund](https://aldf.org/article/the-link-between-cruelty-to-animals-and-violence-toward-humans-2/), which aims to protect animals in the legal system, said animal abusers are five times as likely to also harm people. The organization references a 2013 study that found 43% of people involved in “school massacres” have also committed violence against animals, usually dogs and cats. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family face Animal Abuse charges. Hiring an [experienced and effective criminal defense attorney](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/about-alex/) is the first and best step towards justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Animal Abuse, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [The Consequences of Arrest Leads to Different Outcomes for Black, White Youth](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/police-contact-by-middle-school-leads-to-different-outcomes-for-black-white-youth/) **Published:** December 4, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** For black youth, the Consequences of Arrest by eighth grade predicts they will be arrested by young adulthood – but the same is not true for white youth, a new [University of Washington study finds](https://academic.oup.com/socpro/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/socpro/spaa042/5953172?redirectedFrom=fulltext). The study, titled, [*The Usual, Racialized, Suspects: The Consequences of Police Contacts with Black and White Youth on Adult Arrest*](https://academic.oup.com/socpro/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/socpro/spaa042/5953172?redirectedFrom=fulltext), finds that Black young adults are 11 times more likely to be arrested by age 20 if they had an initial encounter with law enforcement in their early teens than Black youth who don’t have that first contact. In contrast, white young adults with early police contact are not significantly more likely to be arrested later, compared with white peers without that history. The study also found that Black youth are more likely than white youth to be treated as “usual suspects” after a first encounter with police, leading to subsequent arrests over time. Even as white young adults report engaging in significantly more illegal behavior, Black young adults face more criminal penalties, the study finds. Researchers also said it’s not just the number of stops, but what transpires during a police stop that sets the tone for future interactions with police. “What we know about police contacts and youth generally is that Black youth are more likely to be stopped by police to begin with, and are more likely to have a negative experience when that happens,” said first author [Annie McGlynn-Wright](https://mcglynn-wright.com/), a postdoctoral fellow at Tulane University who led the study while pursuing her doctorate at the UW. “What we haven’t known previously is the long-term effects of police contacts in terms of criminal justice outcomes.” [Racial differences ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3868476/)in who is stopped, why and for what penalty have been well documented, the researchers said. Also, police stops have been [linked](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1466802505050977) to individuals’ later run-ins with law enforcement. While the data was collected in Seattle, researchers say the patterns they found are likely occurring in cities around the country — Seattle is “more like every other town” than some larger metro areas like Chicago and Philadelphia, where many criminal justice studies are located, noted co-author [Robert Crutchfield](https://soc.washington.edu/people/robert-crutchfield), a professor emeritus of sociology at the UW. > “When police interact with communities, and young people in communities, they have to be especially mindful of the nature and substance of the encounters, and police really need training to avoid negative interactions. What we found is that contact matters. In this study, we couldn’t parse out the nature of the interactions, but I suspect most kids experienced the interaction in a negative way. The message is, cops need to do better to minimize unnecessary contacts, and when they do contact people, to treat them better.” ~[Robert Crutchfield](https://soc.washington.edu/people/robert-crutchfield), UW Professor Emeritus of Sociology. For this study, UW researchers wanted to examine the effects of the first stop on the lives of Black and white adolescents, and whether a stop in the early teen years is associated with “secondary sanctioning,” or a “usual suspects” treatment by police that plays out over future stops and/or arrests. The study is among the first to explore the racial differences in police contact over time. It also comes during a period of significant reckoning over race and policing in the United States, after a series of law enforcement killings of Black people around the country. As communities grapple with how to address institutionalized racism, police procedures and accountability, many school districts, [including Seattle](https://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/police-presence-at-seattle-public-schools-halted-indefinitely/), have ended their contracts with law enforcement agencies for school resource officers, the personnel who are assigned to specific school buildings. Research has shown that [students of color are disproportionately subject to discipline and monitoring](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1525/sop.2004.47.3.269?journalCode=spxb) by school resource officers. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged and arrested and race might play a factor in the charges. Hiring an [experienced criminal defense attorney](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/about-alex/) is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, misdemeanor, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Survey Finds Binge Drinking Increased Nearly 20% Every Week of COVID Lockdowns](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/survey-finds-binge-drinking-increased-nearly-20-every-week-of-covid-lockdowns/) **Published:** December 7, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Apparently, binge drinking increases during Coronavirus lockdowns. According to a [survey](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/12/201207091306.htm), adults consume more alcohol when lodged in their homes during coronavirus lockdowns. Nearly 2,000 Americans over 18 years old completed the online questionnaire. It identified binge drinkers as those who consume five or more drinks within two hours for men and four or more drinks for women within the same period. The survey found that the odds of consuming heavy amounts of alcohol jumped an extra 19% every week of lockdown. > “Increased time spent at home is a life stressor that impacts drinking and[ the COVID-19 pandemic may have exacerbated this stress](https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-12/tfg-nss120320.php),” ~survey/study author Sitara Weerakoon, an epidemiology PhD candidate at the University of Texas. On average, every respondent was in lockdown for four weeks, spending 21 hours at home each day, with the majority (72%) working from home. Survey participants’ average age was 42, with the majority being white and female. The odds of picking up a bottle of booze among binge drinkers were more than double that of regular alcohol consumers — 60% and 28%, respectively, according to the survey. Binge drinkers also reported downing four drinks per drinking session, sometimes drinking a maximum of seven drinks. Meanwhile, regular alcohol drinkers consumed an average of two drinks per session, often capping out after that second beverage. The researchers also found that living with children reduced the odds of drinking by 26% for people, in general, the release said. My opinion? The [Coronavirus Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic) – mixed with the holiday season and the general uncertainty of politics and rampant unemployment – seems to have Americans turning to alcohol. Unfortunately, [Domestic Violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) and [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) cases tend to rise in situations like these. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member face criminal charges and alcohol is a factor. Hiring an experienced and effective criminal defense attorney is the first and best step towards justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Domestic Violence, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Twitch Cracks Down on Hate Speech & Harassment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/twitch-cracks-down-on-hate-speech-and-harassment/) **Published:** December 11, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/09/technology/twitch-harassment-policy.html) by reporter [Kellen Browning](https://www.nytimes.com/by/kellen-browning) of the [New York Times](https://www.nytimes.com/) reports that Livestreaming platform [Twitch](https://www.cnet.com/tags/twitch/) stops hate speech by releasing [updates to its Hateful Conduct and Harassment Policy](https://blog.twitch.tv/en/2020/12/09/introducing-our-new-hateful-conduct-harassment-policy/) aimed at better protecting its community of gamers and users from hate speech, sexual harassment and other harmful online attacks. > “We know that many people on Twitch — particularly women, members of the LGBTQIA+ community, Black, Indigenous, and people of color — unfortunately continue to experience a disproportionate amount of harassment and abuse online, including on our service. . . Not only is this blatantly unacceptable, it also undermines the community we’re building on Twitch and threatens the long term viability of streaming as a career for everyone who wishes to pursue it.” [~Twitch Post Regarding Updates to Its Hateful Conduct and Harassment Policies](https://blog.twitch.tv/en/2020/12/09/introducing-our-new-hateful-conduct-harassment-policy/) The changes make several aspects of Twitch’s current policy clearer and more explicit, banning actions like encouraging people to [doxx](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing) another user, repeatedly commenting on someone’s physical appearance if you’ve been asked to stop, or displaying the Confederate flag. The new policy will take effect on Jan. 22, 2021. Until then, Twitch’s team will continue to moderate content using its [existing guidelines](https://www.twitch.tv/p/legal/community-guidelines/harassment/), the post said. Interesting. Apparently, Twitch is responding to the call for more and better moderation/management of its online platforms. In all likelihood, the [recent presidential elections ushered an increase in all types of harassment](https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/public-safety/story/2020-10-31/hate-crimes-surge-presidential-elections), including [Hate Crimes](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/harassment/) and [Felony Harassment.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/harassment/) These crimes are felonies in the State of Washington. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family are charged with Hate Crimes and [Felony Harassment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/harassment/). Not all commentary is abusive, bullying and/or hate speech. Indeed, most content is protected by the [First Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment). Hiring an experienced and effective criminal defense attorney is the first and best step towards justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Harassment, Hate Crimes, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Social Media, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Prosecuting Poverty?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/should-we-be-prosecuting-crimes-of-poverty/) **Published:** December 14, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Should we be prosecuting poverty? Great [article](https://www.kuow.org/stories/seattle-looks-at-new-poverty-defense-for-misdemeanors) by [Amy Radil](https://www.kuow.org/authors/amy-radil) of [KUOW](https://www.kuow.org/) reports that Seattle lawmakers are considering a law that would excuse suspects from most misdemeanor crimes if they can be linked to poverty or mental illness. If approved, it would make the Emerald City the nation’s first to have such a measure on the books. > “Good prosecutors don’t take any satisfaction in prosecuting that type of offense.” ~Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes The Seattle City Council said the proposal, crafted with input from local public defenders, would excuse suspects from minor crimes like [theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/theft/), [trespassing](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/criminal-trespass/), or [assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) — but not in cases of [domestic violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) or [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/), [KUOW-TV reported](https://www.kuow.org/stories/seattle-looks-at-new-poverty-defense-for-misdemeanors). “In a situation where you took that sandwich because you were hungry and you were trying to meet your basic need of satisfying your hunger, we as a community will know that we should not punish that,” [Anita Khandelwal, King County Director of Public Defense](https://www.kingcounty.gov/council/news/2018/November/11-05-Khandelwhal.aspx), told KUOW. “That conduct is excused.” Anita Khandelwal said the “poverty defense” isn’t meant to ignore the needs of businesses and others harmed by these offenses. She said the current system doesn’t provide them redress either, and it does more harm to offenders. > “It’s meeting nobody’s needs. This is not that we don’t care about the business community or about people who have experienced harm. It is that we know that this process – this processing of human beings through the system – is harmful to our clients and again very racially disproportionate, and also not getting business owners what they need either.” ~ [Anita Khandelwal, King County Director of Public Defense](https://www.kingcounty.gov/council/news/2018/November/11-05-Khandelwhal.aspx), The push comes as [crime has spiked in Seattle](https://nypost.com/2020/11/30/seattle-homicides-highest-in-over-a-decade-as-council-cuts-police-budget/) this year, including during the [Capitol Hill Occupied Zone protests](https://nypost.com/2020/07/02/seattle-sees-525-percent-spike-in-crime-thanks-to-chop-mayor-durkan/) in the city, Fox affiliate [WSFX-TV reported](https://foxwilmington.com/politics/seattle-considers-excusing-misdemeanors-including-assault-for-homeless-drug-addicts/). At the same time, the city’s homeless population has risen by 5 percent since last year. However, not everyone in the Northwest city is on board with the proposed law change. “It sends this powerful signal that as a city government, we don’t really care about this type of criminal behavior in our city,” former city councilman Tim Burgess told KUOW. Burgess called the proposal “a defense lawyer’s dream.” [Briefing documents](http://seattle.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=8996660&GUID=014145D6-69F4-417E-A39C-D8CA87728FDF) say the Council would need to define whether the new affirmative defense applies only to someone meeting immediate basic needs, like stealing a sandwich in order to eat, or to items that are stolen for resale “so the defendant can pay rent.” Herbold says her committee will continue its work on the proposal in January. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime like [Theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/theft/), [Possession of Stolen Motor Vehicle](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/possession-theft-of-stolen-motor-vehicle/), etc., and the Poverty Defense might apply. Hiring an experienced criminal defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, misdemeanor, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Poverty Defense, Property Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Theft, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Average Washingtonian Drinks Six Days in a Row During Holidays](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/average-washingtonian-drinks-six-days-in-a-row-during-holidays/) **Published:** December 17, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** A survey from the [Addiction-treatment.com](https://addiction-treatment.com/) shows that among 3,000 state residents 21 and older, the average Washingtonian drinks for six days in a row over the holiday season, without having a day off. It could be wine, beer, cider, or whatever a particular person’s choice is. That puts Washington drinkers at the top of the list of states, according to the group. [The average American drinks for four days in a row over the holidays, it says.](https://addiction-treatment.com/surveys/the-12-days-of-christmas) Some may be drinking to celebrate the end of 2020 but others may be drinking due to loneliness, depression and isolation. Here’s some other highlights from the organization’s [12 Days of Christmas infographic](https://addiction-treatment.com/surveys/the-12-days-of-christmas): - Almost half of respondents say drinking at Christmas is a family tradition. - Over 1 in 3 say they give alcohol as a gift to loved ones at Christmas. - A quarter admit they spike their morning coffee with alcohol during the holidays**.** “It’s important that people not use the pandemic or the holidays to justify [excessive drinking](https://addiction-treatment.com/addiction/alcohol),” Brittney Morse, a spokesperson for [Addiction-Treatment.com](https://addiction-treatment.com/), said in a statement. > “We know that overindulgence in alcohol can start the process for bad habits and lead to unhealthy coping skills that could ultimately result in alcohol dependence. Now is a great time to establish new, healthy traditions that are not centered around the consumption of alcohol. This ensures every family member, even those in recovery, can enjoy the holiday traditions together.” ~Brittney Morse, a spokesperson for [Addiction-Treatment.com](https://addiction-treatment.com/) Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [drug crime](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or [alcohol-related crime](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) over the holidays. The temptation to imbibe is especially pronounced these days due to the [Coronavirus Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic). Hiring an experienced criminal defense attorney is the first and best step towards justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Drug Offenses, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [DUI's Raise Insurance](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/duis-raise-insurance/) **Published:** December 29, 2020 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article](https://www.thedailyworld.com/news/celebrating-the-new-year-with-drinks-if-you-get-a-dui-you-could-pay-for-it-for-years/) by [Andrew Hammond](https://muckrack.com/andrew-hammond-2) of the [Tacoma News Tribune](https://muckrack.com/media-outlet/newstribune) says that according to the [Northwest Insurance Council](https://www.nwinsurance.org/), extra patrols will be deployed to look out for impaired motorists this holiday season. And unfortunately, it doesn’t stop there. Hammond also reports that [NW Insurance Council President Kenton Brine](https://www.nwinsurance.org/about-us/kenton-brine) said, “Long after the arrest, conviction, possible jail time and fines, the consequences of having a [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/alcohol-dui/) citation can continue to increase the cost of insurance for offenders.” > “To an insurer, having a DUI indicates a highly risky driving history, which is a primary factor insurers use to determine auto insurance premiums. Insurance companies may review a motor vehicle report upon renewal of an auto policy to discover any citations, including a DUI. Drivers with an infraction for DUI would likely see a premium increase or surcharge, or their policy may not be renewed.” ~Kenton Brine, President of the Northwest Insurance Council. [DUIs](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/drug-dui/) can be caused by the use of [marijuana, prescription drugs and even over-the-counter drugs](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) like Nyquil and Ambien as well as alcohol. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, DUI, marijuana, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Covid & Drug Overdoses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/covid-drug-overdoses/) **Published:** January 2, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://news.yahoo.com/2020-drug-overdose-in-america-154115211.html) by [Adriana Belmonte](https://www.yahoo.com/author/adriana-belmonte) of [yahoo!news](https://news.yahoo.com/) reports that the [Coronavirus Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic) has had [devastating mental health effects](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/were-all-impacted-by-this-cdc-report-highlights-troubling-mental-health-survey-data-121126386.html) on Americans, and drug abuse is hitting record levels. [New data](https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p1218-overdose-deaths-covid-19.html) from the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)](https://www.cdc.gov/) revealed that over 81,000 drug overdose deaths occurred in the U.S. in the 12-month period ending in May 2020. That’s the highest number ever recorded by the CDC. > “This pandemic and all that’s come along with it has really just exacerbated those vulnerabilities and the shortcomings of our own approach to treating those people.” ~Dr. Ryan Marino, a medical toxicologist and emergency physician based out of Ohio. Ms. Belmonte reports that in San Francisco, the number of overdose deaths (621) [outpaced](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california/articles/2020-12-19/overdose-deaths-far-outpace-covid-19-deaths-in-san-francisco) COVID-related deaths (173) in 2020. And more than 40 states reported annual increases in opioid overdose deaths, “as well as ongoing concerns for those with a mental illness or substance use disorder,” according to the [American Medical Association](https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-12/issue-brief-increases-in-opioid-related-overdose.pdf). According to Belmonte, a [CDC survey](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6932a1-H.pdf) in June found that 40.9% of Americans reported at least one adverse mental or behavioral health condition, with 13.3% of respondents having started or increased substance use to cope with stress or emotions related to COVID-19: Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member face criminal allegations such as [Drug Charges](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/), [Assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) or [Domestic Violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/). Chances are, the various compounding stresses brought by the Coronavirus Pandemic could factor into the allegations. Hiring and experienced and effective criminal defense attorney is the first and best step towards justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, felony, misdemeanor, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Poverty Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Jail Phone Calls](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/jail-phone-calls/) **Published:** January 17, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** My clients in jail often ask me whether their phone calls from jail are recorded by the jail staff. In short, yes, they are. A recent case gives helpful insight to this issues. In [ *State v. Koeller*](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/799142.pdf), the WA Court of Appeals held that a jail inmate’s phone call with counsel that was recorded and was accessed by a deputy prosecuting attorney (DPA) did not establish a basis for dismissal of charges. The DPA was the only person who accessed the 15-minute long call, and he stopped listening to the call after 8 seconds when he recognized defense counsel’s voice. **BACKGROUND FACTS** The defendant Mr. Koeller was alleged to have sexually abused his stepdaughter for years. The State also alleged aggravating circumstances of domestic violence and of an ongoing pattern of sexual abuse. The Island County jail records incoming and outgoing phone calls, except for calls from attorneys. On October 11, 2017, Defense Counsel Mr. Platt provided his cell phone number to the Island County jail so the automated recording system would not record any calls made between him and the defendant Mr. Koeller. The jail failed to do so. The next day, Island County chief criminal deputy prosecutor (Prosecutor) checked the automated recording system and saw Koeller made an outgoing, 15-minute phone call that day. Prosecutor began playing the call and heard Defense Counsel’s voice, so he shut off the recording. Prosecutor heard only eight seconds of the phone call. He immediately told Defense Counsel about the recording and told the jail to register Defense Counsel’s phone number because it had failed to shield Platt from being recorded. On March 26, 2019, about one week before the scheduled start of trial, Koeller filed a [CrR 8.3(b) motion to dismiss](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=crr&ruleid=SUPCRR8.03) as a result of the recording. The court denied the motion. In its ruling, the court found no one else “in connection with the State of Washington listened to the conversation.” At trial, Koeller was convicted of multiple charges, including [first degree child molestation](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/). He appealed on arguments that the trial court mistakenly denied his Motion to Dismiss. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals reasoned that a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to confer privately with Defense Counsel. Where the government violates this right, it creates a rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the defendant. Here, however, Prosecutor heard only eight seconds of the call between Koeller and Defense Counsel. He heard no substance of the conversation and no one else in connection to the Prosecutor’s Office listened to the conversation. The State did not obtain any information material to the defense. > “Although Koeller argues the court abused its discretion because the State did not prove Chief Briones did not listen to the call, the trial court found otherwise, and its finding is supported by substantial evidence. Because the court’s findings support its conclusion that Koeller was not prejudiced, the court did not abuse its discretion by denying the CrR 8.3(b) motion to dismiss.” ~WA Court of Appeals. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Jail, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [WA: Bad State to Drive](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/wa-bad-state-to-drive/) **Published:** January 19, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Apparently, Washington is one of the nation’s worst states to drive in, according to a [new study](https://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-states-to-drive-in/43012) released Tuesday. The study, by personal finance website [WalletHub](https://wallethub.com/), found that Washington ranks as the third-worst state for drivers, thanks mainly to steep gas prices, high rates of car theft, poor overall road quality, traffic congestion and other factors. The only states with a worse rating than Washington are California and Hawaii, the report found. The best state for drivers is Texas, followed by Indiana at No. 2 and North Carolina at No. 3, according to the analysis. The study arrived at the rankings by comparing all 50 states across 31 key metrics, such as traffic congestion, gas prices, auto maintenance costs, [car theft rate](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/possession-theft-of-stolen-motor-vehicle/) and number of days with precipitation. Specifically, the analysis found that Washington has the third-highest gas prices in the nation, the eighth-worst roads and ninth-highest car theft rate. The only categories in which Washington was rated above average were its overall safety ranking, the number of car dealerships per capita and the number of auto repair shops per capita. The study also found that traffic congestion costs U.S. drivers $88 billion per year and wastes 99 hours of their time. It’s also heartening to officials with [Washington State Patrol](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/) and the [Washington Traffic Safety Commission](https://wtsc.wa.gov/), which are among the agencies working toward [Target Zero](http://targetzero.com/), a statewide effort to eliminate all fatal and serious injury traffic incidents by 2030. Critics of strict enforcement of speed limits charge that the link between speed and safety is exaggerated because of biases embedded in data collection and inaccuracies found in some police reporting on accidents. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a driving-related crime like [Distracted Driving](https://app.leg.wa.gov/Rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.673), [Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/), [Vehicular Assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/vehicular-homicide-vehicular-assault/#:~:text=Vehicular%20Assault%20is%20a%20Class,prison%20and%20a%20%2420%2C000.00%20fine.&text=In%20Washington%2C%20a%20person%20who,of%20early%20release%20or%20parole.), [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Reckless Driving, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Vehicle Prowl, Vehicular Assault, Vehicular Homicide, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Ending Money Bond](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/ending-money-bond/) **Published:** January 21, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Illinois is poised to become the first state in the country to end the use of wealth-based pre-trial detention. The change has been a long time in the making – so long that one of the first organizers working to change the Illinois bail system six years ago got elected to the state senate and became a co-sponsor of the [Pre-trial Fairness Act](https://endmoneybond.org/pretrialfairness/). In courtrooms across the US, pre-trial release payments, called bond or bail, create dual systems of justice – one for the wealthy who can pay their way out of pre-trial incarceration and another for those who can’t afford it. Studies have also shown that hundreds of thousands of Americans like Mayes end up pleading guilty or receiving [harsher sentences](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273881407_Bail_and_Sentencing_Does_Pretrial_Detention_Lead_to_Harsher_Punishment#:~:text=Results%20Our%20analyses%20reveal%20that,receiving%20a%20sentence%20if%20incarceration.) because of unaffordable bonds, whether or not they are guilty. My opinion? Let’s see what happens. [Numerous studies](https://bja.ojp.gov/library/publications/unsecured-bonds-effective-and-most-efficient-pretrial-release-option) have shown that bail does little to achieve its intended purpose of ensuring court attendance – people released on their own recognizance were just as likely to come back to court for their trials as people who posted money bond and no more likely to reoffend awaiting trial. Wealth-based detention is at its core, a racial justice issue. Across the country, Black, Latino and indigenous people are detained pre-trial at far higher rates than people of other ethnicities. If given a money bail, Black people receive significantly higher bail than all other ethnic and racial groups and are less likely to be able to post the bail amount. Bail is usually set by judges in less than a minute and people with almost identical charges are often assigned bails that differ by tens of thousands of dollars. Please read my Legal Guide titled [Making Bail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/making-bail/) and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bail, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [No More Police Chokeholds](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/house-bill-1054/) **Published:** January 26, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.yaktrinews.com/wa-lawmaker-proposes-bill-that-would-prohibit-police-tactics-like-chokeholds-and-tear-gas-prohibit-use-of-military-equipment/) by [Melissa Luck](https://www.yaktrinews.com/author/melissa-luck/) of the [yaktrinews.com](https://www.yaktrinews.com/) reports that [House Bill 1054](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1054&Year=2021&Initiative=false) would limit law enforcement officers from using controversial police tactics like chokeholds and tear gas. The bill was pre-filed by [Democrat Rep. Jesse Johnson](https://housedemocrats.wa.gov/johnson/) from Federal Way. House Bill 1054 states that peace officers could not use chokeholds or neck restraints; unleashed police dogs for the purpose of arresting or apprehending someone or tear gas. The bill also states law enforcement agencies cannot acquire or use military equipment, defined as “firearms and ammunition of .50 caliber or greater, machine guns, silencers, armored vehicles, armed vehicles, armed aircraft, tanks, mine resistant ambush protected vehicles, long range acoustic hailing devices, rockets, rocket launchers, bayonets, grenades, grenade launchers, missiles, directed energy systems and electromagnetic spectrum weapons.” If agencies have that equipment, the bill requires them to return it to the federal agency from which it was obtained. It also states that uniformed officers can not intentionally cover, conceal or obscure their badge or badge number while on duty. In addition, HB 1054 requires agencies to provide updated training on vehicular pursuits. It also would change what is allowed in those pursuits, specifically saying officers have to be able to prove “the safety risks of failing to apprehend or identify the person are considered to be greater than the safety risks associated with the vehicular pursuit.” It also says officers are prohibited from firing into a moving vehicle unless necessary to protect against an imminent threat of serious physical harm from the operator’s or a passenger’s use of a deadly weapon, not including the vehicle itself. My opinion? I hope it passes. Clearly, one of the themes of this year’s legislative session will be police reform and accountability. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Police Dogs, Police Militarization, Police Misconduct, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Banning Armed Protests](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/banning-armed-protests/) **Published:** January 27, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [Washington State Capitol](https://des.wa.gov/services/facilities-leasing/capitol-campus) has long been the site of armed and unarmed protests. Until recently, armed protests at the Capitol have taken place without violence, bloodshed or gunfire. In December, however, shots were fired at two clashes between demonstrators who were pro-former President Donald Trump and counterdemonstrators near the Capitol grounds, injuring one person. Consequently, lawmakers are considering a bill that would ban the open carry of firearms on Capitol grounds and at other public demonstrations. [Senate Bill 5038](http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2021-22/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/Senate/5038%20SBA%20LAW%2021.pdf?q=20210126130932) would make it a [gross misdemeanor](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.20.021) to open carry firearms and other weapons at the state Capitol campus, legislative meetings and within 1,000 feet of a public demonstration. The bill’s prime sponsor, [Sen. Patty Kuderer, D-Bellevue](https://senatedemocrats.wa.gov/kuderer/), said that an increase in armed vigilantism is becoming an alarming trend. Kuderer argues that her bill would ensure that weapons are not used to intimidate peaceful demonstrators, and would decrease the potential for lethal violence. > “The purpose of open carrying a weapon at a protest is to intimidate people . . . It only serves to increase the risk of violence or death. And we’ve seen over the past several years armed groups engage with peaceful protestors, and sometimes with deadly consequences.” ~Sen. Patty Kuderer According to Washington State Patrol spokesperson Chris Loftis, there have been 149 unpermitted demonstrations or events at the Capitol since COVID-19 restrictions went into effect in the spring. Washington is an open-carry state, but the Capitol would be added to a list of places where firearms are already banned, including jails, courtrooms, airports, schools and mental health facilities. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime involving [firearms](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/). Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Firearm, Legislation, misdemeanor, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Domestic Violence: The Pandemic Within the Pandemic](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/domestic-violence-the-pandemic-within-the-pandemic/) **Published:** February 5, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://time.com/5928539/domestic-violence-covid-19/) by [Jeffrey Kluger](https://time.com/author/jeffrey-kluger/) of [Time](https://time.com/) discusses how growing evidence shows the [Coronavirus Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic) has made [Domestic Violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) more common—and often more severe. Surveys around the world have shown domestic abuse spiking since January of 2020—jumping markedly year over year compared to the same period in 2019. According to the*[ American Journal of Emergency Medicine](https://www.ajemjournal.com/article/S0735-6757(20)30307-7/fulltext)* and the United Nations group[ U.N. Women](https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/in-focus/in-focus-gender-equality-in-covid-19-response/violence-against-women-during-covid-19), when the pandemic began, incidents of domestic violence increased 300% in Hubei, China; 25% in Argentina, 30% in Cyprus, 33% in Singapore and 50% in Brazil. The U.K., where [calls to domestic violence hotlines](https://time.com/5922566/technology-domestic-abuse-coronavirus-pandemic/) have soared since the pandemic hit, was particularly shaken in June by [the death of Amy-Leanne Stringfellow](https://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/news/army-tribute-doncaster-murder-victim-and-afghanistan-war-veteran-amy-stringfellow-2885536), 26, a mother of one and a veteran of the war in Afghanistan, allegedly at the hands of her 45-year-old boyfriend. In the U.S., the situation is equally troubling, with police departments reporting increases in cities around the country: for example, 18% in San Antonio, 22% in Portland, Ore.; and 10% in New York City, according to the[ *American Journal of Emergency Medicine*](https://www.ajemjournal.com/article/S0735-6757(20)30307-7/fulltext). One[ study in the journal *Radiology*](https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/radiol.2020202866) reports that at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, radiology scans and superficial wounds consistent with domestic abuse from March 11 to May 3 of this year exceeded the totals for the same period in 2018 and 2019 combined. And as the pandemic has dragged on, so too has the abuse. Just as the disease continues to claim more lives, quarantine-linked domestic violence is claiming more victims—and not just women in heterosexual relationships. Intimate partner violence occurs in same-sex couples at rates [equal to or even higher](https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/coronavirus-restrictions-highlight-lgbtq-domestic-abuse-crisis-n1186376) than the rates in opposite sex partners. What’s more, the economic challenges of the pandemic have hit same-sex couples especially hard, with members of the LGBTQ community likelier to be employed in highly affected industries like education, restaurants, hospitals and retail, [according to the Human Rights Campaign Foundation](https://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/COVID19-IssueBrief-032020-FINAL.pdf). That means higher stress and, concomitantly, the higher risk that that stress will explode into violence. Please read my Legal Guide titled [Defending Against Domestic Violence Charges](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/defending-against-domestic-violence-charges/) and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a DV crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Domestic Violence, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Decriminalize Personal Use](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/decriminalize-personal-use/) **Published:** February 9, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** On Thursday, Washington lawmakers introduced[ House Bill 1499.](http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2021-22/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1499.pdf?q=20210204122555) This bill would work to decriminalize personal use of drug possession and expand treatment and support services. The bill is sponsored by [State Rep. Lauren Davis](https://housedemocrats.wa.gov/davis/), a 32nd District Democrat from Shoreline, who represents portions of Edmonds, Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace. According to the [Washington State Department of Health, an average of two people die from an opioid overdose every day in the state.](https://www.doh.wa.gov/DataandStatisticalReports/HealthDataVisualization/OpioidDashboards) HB 1499, called the Pathways to Recovery Act, was introduced by Davis and co-sponsor Rep. Kirsten Harris-Talley, D-Seattle, It’s supported by various medical advocacy and civil rights organizations like [Treatment First Washington](https://www.treatmentfirstwa.org/), [Care First Washington](https://individual.carefirst.com/individuals-families/home.page) and [Washington Recovery Alliance](https://washingtonrecoveryalliance.org/). > “The opposite of addiction is not sobriety, it’s connection . . . In all my years of work in this field, I can say that what keeps people from seeking treatment boils down to two things: one, they don’t believe recovery is possible for them, and two, they don’t believe they’re worthy of recovery.” ~WA State Rep. Lauren Davis In short, the bill itself decriminalizes personal-use amounts of drugs. The decriminalization part is based on the widening belief that jail time and legal consequences often present more problems than rehabilitative solutions for people suffering from addiction, creating a vicious cycle. “The Legislature finds that substance use disorder is among the only health conditions for which a person can be arrested for displaying symptoms.” the bill reads. “People use drugs to escape the painful reality of their lives and circumstances, including trauma that’s never had a chance to heal.” According to Davis, building this new continuum of care would be funded piecemeal from a federal substance abuse block grant, money obtained through opioid manufacturing lawsuits and state general funds saved from expected reductions in the [Department of Corrections](https://www.doc.wa.gov/) budget needs. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face [drug charges](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Department of Corrections, Drug Offenses, felony, Fentanyl, Legislation, marijuana, Methamphetamine, misdemeanor, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Opioid Overdoses Spiked](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/opioid-overdoses-spiked/) **Published:** February 11, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** A [new study](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2775991) indicates that the opioid crisis in the US is deepening. According to latest research, the opioid epidemic did not disappear. Rather, it lurked in the shadows of the [coronavirus pandemic](https://abcnews.go.com/alerts/coronavirus), growing in strength and taking advantage of a society now more susceptible than ever. In a large cross-sectional study published in [JAMA Psychiatry](https://jamanetwork.com/) on that analyzed nearly 190 million emergency department (ED) visits, researchers found significantly higher rates of visits to Emergency Departments for opioid overdoses during the months of March to October 2020 when compared against the same dates in 2019. The study found that, from mid-April onward, the weekly rates of ED visits for drug overdoses increased by up to 45% when compared against the same period in 2019. The study is not an anomaly. [In December, the Center For Disease Control said that the rate of overdose deaths was accelerating during the pandemic](https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p1218-overdose-deaths-covid-19.html), driven by synthetic opioids, which rose 38.4% during the year leading up to June 2020. This same JAMA Psychiatry study found that emergency department visits for mental health conditions, [domestic violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/), and child abuse and neglect increased during the same time period as did suicide attempts. The rates of family violence are rising fast, and women and children are disproportionately affected and vulnerable during this time. My opinion? While many lives were saved with stay-at-home orders, these savings were not without cost. And while vaccines appear to have provided a light at the end of this COVID-19 tunnel, America will need to face its growing problem of anxiety, social isolation and mental illness. For some, stressors may be the fear of contracting COVID-19. For others, the stress of losing a job. And still others, the boredom of being trapped in your home with nothing to do. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face [Domestic Violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) and/or [Drug Charges](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Drug Offenses, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Opoids, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Prison Inmates Retaliated Against for Getting COVID-19](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/prison-inmates-retaliated-against-for-getting-covid-19/) **Published:** February 16, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://crosscut.com/news/2020/12/wa-inmates-say-theyre-retaliated-against-getting-covid-19) by [Lilly Fowler](https://crosscut.com/author/lilly-fowler) of [Crosscut](https://crosscut.com/) reports that prisoners, attorneys and other advocates said the [WA Department of Corrections](https://www.doc.wa.gov/) has not only been careless with protocols meant to keep [COVID-19](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html) cases in check, but has also lashed out at those who become ill. They accuse the department of stigmatizing those who become sick with the virus, even as cases skyrocket in prisons and work release facilities across the state. Critics blame the department’s lack of an organized response for the rapid spread of the virus. Apparently, the [Office of the Corrections Ombuds](https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Foco.wa.gov%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7C6c1ad19d38e24e8e3f1608d8a05f7271%7C11d0e217264e400a8ba057dcc127d72d%7C0%7C0%7C637435679082874890%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=7tW8HPIyWk9LRsNkeVC2pY0p1XleYmnydS6WzhdPrVA%3D&reserved=0), the state’s watchdog, has already found fault with the Department of Corrections’ response to the COVID-19 outbreak at the Coyote Ridge Corrections Center in Central Washington. Two people there died in June, and [more than 300 prisoners and 100 staff have been infected](https://www.doc.wa.gov/corrections/covid-19/data.htm#confirmed). Coyote Ridge houses approximately 2,500 inmates. In a report about the COVID-19 outbreak at [Coyote Ridge](https://doc.wa.gov/corrections/incarceration/prisons/crcc.htm), investigators said that in addition to guards not wearing masks and failing to isolate symptomatic prisoners, inmates had delayed reporting symptoms because they feared harsh conditions in solitary confinement. The two prisoners who died had waited days to report difficulty breathing, according to the investigation. That same summer, families of prisoners accused the Department of Corrections of retaliating against six men who contracted the virus and were housed at [Reynolds Work Release](https://prisonroster.com/prisons/washington/state/reynolds-work-release/) in downtown Seattle. Similar to other inmates at the [Bishop Lewis Work Release](https://www.doc.wa.gov/corrections/incarceration/work-release/locations.htm) facility, the so-called Reynolds six were sent back to prison. Although they were eventually released, the men had been singled out in part because they are Black, Muslim or Indigenous, their families said. According to reporter Lilly Fowler, critics say the situation at Bishop Lewis shows that the Department of Corrections’ response to the pandemic isn’t improving even nearly a year into the public health emergency. Instead, the same patterns are emerging. They argue it’s time for [Gov. Jay Inslee](https://www.governor.wa.gov/) to reconsider doing more to reduce the prison population, or at the very least ensure those who become ill and speak up aren’t retaliated against. My opinion? The [Coronavirus Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic) has threatened to turn jail sentences into death sentences. Therefore, anyone involved in the criminal justice system should do their very best to avoid jails and prisons. Convicted defendants who are sentenced to jail should seek jail alternatives. And anyone who is in jail facing criminal charges who *can* make bail *should* make bail, or at least get bail lowered to an affordable amount. Please review my Legal Guide titled [Making Bail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/making-bail/) and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Department of Corrections, Jail, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Prison, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Unwitting Possession](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/unwitting-possession/) **Published:** March 1, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Blake*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=968730MAJ) , the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/SupremeCourt/) held that [Washington’s Drug Possession Statute](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=69.50.4013) exceeds the state’s police power by imposing harsh felony consequences on innocent non-conduct. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** In 2016, police executed a search warrant in Spokane, Washington, seeking evidence of stolen vehicles. They arrested three people on the property, including the Defendant Ms. Blake. At the jail, a corrections officer discovered a small baggy containing [methamphetamine](https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/methamphetamine) in the coin pocket of Ms. Blake’s jeans. The State charged Blake with [Possession of a Controlled Substance](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=69.50.4013). At her [bench trial](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bench_trial), Blake relied on the judicially created affirmative defense of [Unwitting Possession.](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Iefad08dae10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?contextData=%28sc.Default%29&transitionType=Default#:~:text=Possession%20of%20a%20controlled%20substance%20is%20unwitting%20if%20a%20person,the%20substance%20was%20possessed%20unwittingly.) She testified that a friend had bought the jeans secondhand and given them to Blake two days before Blake’s arrest. Blake also said she had never used methamphetamine and did not know the jeans had drugs in the pocket. She acknowledged that the drugs had been “on her” on the day of her arrest. Blake’s boyfriend also testified that Blake did not use drugs and that she had received the jeans from a friend. Despite her defense, the trial court found that Blake had possessed methamphetamine on the day in question and found Blake guilty. On appeal, Blake argues that requiring her to prove unwitting possession to the charged offense violates due process. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The WA Supreme Court held that Washington’s felony drug possession statute – which is a essentially a strict liability statute – exceeds the state’s police power by imposing harsh felony consequences on innocent non-conduct with no mental state to commit the crime. “The basic drug possession statute at issue in this case states, ‘It is unlawful for any person to possess a controlled substance'”, wrote Justice McCloud. “The State need not prove any *mens rea* (mental state) element to secure a conviction for this crime.” The Court reasoned that the [Due Process Clause](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process) protections limit the Legislature’s police power to criminalize wholly innocent and passive non-conduct. Stated differently, a defendant’s passive and innocent non-conduct falls outside the State’s power to criminalize: > “Does this strict liability drug possession statute with these substantial penalties for such innocent, passive conduct exceed the legislature’s police power? The due process clauses of the state and federal constitutions, along with controlling decisions of this court and the United States Supreme Court, compel us to conclude that the answer is yes—this exceeds the state’s police power.” ~Justice Gordon McCloud, WA Supreme Court. The Court further reasoned that the State’s police power is not infinite. “If it were, the result would be a police state, and the legislative branch of the government would be omnipotent,” said Justice McCloud. Finally, the Court reasoned that the statute criminalizes innocent and passive possession, even by a defendant who does not know, and has no reason to know, that drugs lay hidden within something that they possess. “The legislature’s police power goes far, but not that far,” said the Court. Accordingly, the Court held that [RCW 69.50.4013(1)](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=69.50.4013)—the portion of the simple drug possession statute creating this crime—violates the due process clauses of the state and federal constitutions and is void. With that, the WA Supreme Court vacated Ms. Blake’s conviction. My opinion? Excellent decision, Finally, the courts are giving teeth to the [Unwitting Possession Defense](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Iefad08dae10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?contextData=%28sc.Default%29&transitionType=Default#:~:text=Possession%20of%20a%20controlled%20substance%20is%20unwitting%20if%20a%20person,the%20substance%20was%20possessed%20unwittingly.). In this defense, a person is not guilty of possession of a controlled substance if the possession is unwitting. Possession of a controlled substance is unwitting if (1) a person did not know that the substance was in their possession or (2) did not know the nature of the substance. The burden is on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the substance was possessed unwittingly. Preponderance of the evidence means that you must be persuaded, considering all of the evidence in the case, that it is more probably true than not true. Up until now, Washington’s felony drug possession statute essentially circumvented the Unwitting Possession defense. Thankfully, the WA Supreme Court put a stop to that. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Drug Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, felony, Methamphetamine, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Strict Liability Offenses, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [A Return to Jury Trials](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/32240-2/) **Published:** March 4, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** [Whatcom County Superior Court](https://www.whatcomcounty.us/413/Superior-Court) will resume 12-person jury trials starting March 15, according to a Wednesday afternoon press release from Whatcom County Superior Court Judge Rob Olson. Several Whatcom County courts, including the Superior Court, used emergency administrative orders to [suspend jury trials](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article241113626.html) in mid-March 2020 [due to the COVID-19 pandemic](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article241308736.html). Judge Robert Olson’s March 3 news release said “extensive new” safety precautions have been put in place to protect the safety of jurors and the public in order for trials to resume. > “The suspension of jury trials was needed to protect the public and court staff, and it gave us the opportunity to redesign our jury processes with the input of public health experts, trial participants, and other stakeholders . . . Now it is critical that we re-start jury trials, which are key to the fair administration of justice.” ~Whatcom County Superior Court Judge Robert Olson. Prospective jurors will have their temperature checked and be screened for health problems on arrival. Safe distancing will be maintained during the selection process and no food, drink or reading materials will be provided for safety. Just one trial will be conducted at a time using both large courtrooms to allow for safe distancing, and all trial participants will have to wear masks. Anyone showing symptoms of COVID-19 or other health problems will be excused from jury duty. My opinion? Excellent news. Conducting jury trials during the Coronavirus Pandemic has posed significant practical and legal challenges for courts. Hopefully, our courtroom safeguards will help chart a trustworthy path to safely resuming jury trials soon. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Jury Trial, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Drug Cases Dismissed](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/drug-cases-dismissed/) **Published:** March 8, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Informative [article](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/crime/article249736383.html) by [Denver Pratt](https://muckrack.com/denver-pratt) of the [Bellingham Herald](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/) reports that more that 150 Whatcom County cases are dismissed due to the WA Supreme Court’s ruling on drug possession cases in [*State v. Blake*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/968730.pdf). In my blog titled [Unwitting Possession](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/unwitting-possession/), I discussed how [*Blake* ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/968730.pdf)held the [state’s felony drug possession law was unconstitutional](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/crime/article249525510.html) because — unlike the laws of every other state — it did not require prosecutors to prove someone knowingly or intentionally possessed drugs. Ms. Pratt reports that [under *Blake*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/968730.pdf), law enforcement agencies won’t be able to take enforcement action for people engaged in narcotics use or simple possession, [according to Whatcom County Sheriff Bill Elfo](https://www.facebook.com/57880267186/posts/10157885928432187/). Apparently, the ruling also limits investigative and diversion and treatment strategies, Elfo said in an earlier story. Pratt also reports that as of Friday, March 5, 160 cases have been dismissed in Whatcom County Superior Court, Whatcom County Prosecuting Attorney Eric Richey said. Because the decision from the state Supreme Court makes the law unconstitutional, Richey said his office was required to dismiss the cases and to take action quickly. My opinion? Perhaps we’re realizing that some drug cases should be treated as medical problems and not criminal justice problems. Incarcerating, fining and convicting people of felony drug offenses has not worked. We’ve been fighting the [War on Drugs](https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs) since I was child. [However, numerous studies show this “war” is a failure](https://www.healthline.com/health-news/war-on-drugs-a-failure-un-concludes#:~:text=The%20war%20on%20drugs%20is%20a%20failure%20that,health%20ramifications%20of%20the%20current%20international%20drug%20policy.). Maybe it’s time for another approach. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Drug Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Dismissal, Drug Offenses, felony, Methamphetamine, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [COVID-19 Impact on Trials](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/covid-19-impact-on-trials/) **Published:** March 10, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent article in Time magazine by reporter [Melissa Chan](https://time.com/author/melissa-chan/) discusses the [Coronavirus Pandemic’s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic) impact on our criminal justice system. Since COVID-19 was declared a national emergency in March 2020, [every state](https://www.justia.com/covid-19/50-state-covid-19-resources/court-operations-during-covid-19-50-state-resources/) and Washington, D.C., has canceled or scaled back in-person criminal court proceedings to stem the spread of the virus. The snarled justice system has left hundreds of thousands of families waiting for trials and other resolutions, while creating a cascade of civil rights issues for the accused. According to Chan, more defendants – especially those with health problems – are striking plea deals to avoid sitting in jail for an undetermined amount of time, defense attorneys say. And virtual courts are exposing the [disadvantages of the poor,](https://time.com/5800930/how-coronavirus-will-hurt-the-poor/) who are less likely to afford Internet access for court dates, as a staggering number of new criminal cases stack up. The [first few courts](https://time.com/5803037/coronavirus-courts-jury-duty/) in the U.S. to stop jury selection and postpone new criminal and civil trials did so around March 2020. At that time, health officials began urging millions of Americans to stay at home and keep 6 ft. away from others when venturing out. Even the U.S. [Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/pr_03-16-20) postponed oral arguments for the first time in more than 100 years. By fall 2020, some criminal jury trials had resumed with restrictions, including in areas of New York State, where each county was allowed to hold one criminal trial at a time in courtrooms outfitted with [plexiglass barriers](https://www.nycourts.gov/covid-archive.shtml) and jury seats spaced several feet apart. But the reopening was short-lived, reports Chan. A surge in COVID-19 cases around the holidays forced another round of [court restrictions](http://www.nycourts.gov/whatsnew/pdf/JT_Memo_Nov13-001.pdf). At the end of November, about two dozen U.S. district courts nationwide resuspended jury trials and grand jury proceedings, marking a “significant pause” in efforts by federal courts to resume full operation, court officials [said](https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2020/11/20/courts-suspending-jury-trials-covid-19-cases-surge). Today, even in jurisdictions where in-person proceedings have resumed, limits on how many people can be in a courtroom at the same time for things like jury selection continue to slow the system. In a pre-pandemic world, state courts typically resolved 18 million felony and misdemeanor cases annually, according to an NCSC [study](https://www.ncsc.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/53218/Timely-Justice-in-Criminal-Cases-What-the-Data-Tells-Us.pdf) in August 2020, and an estimated 8 million to 10 million U.S. citizens reported for jury duty each year. > “We’re in sort of this holding period.” ~[Paula Hannaford-Agor](https://www.ncsc.org/staff-directory/staff/paula-hannaford-agor), director of the Center for Jury Studies at the National Center for State Courts [(NCSC)](https://www.ncsc.org/). Apparently, jury trials returning to any semblance of normality until at least 2022. My opinion? The courts are doing their best to open again, albeit safely. Nobody wants a jury trial to become a [super-spreader](https://www.medicinenet.com/super_spreader/definition.htm). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Jury Trial, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Women Are Reportedly Drinking More During COVID Pandemic](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/women-are-drinking-more/) **Published:** March 16, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/03/16/973684753/sharp-off-the-charts-rise-in-alcoholic-liver-disease-among-young-women) by reporter [Yuki Noguchi](https://www.npr.org/people/96022165/yuki-noguchi) of [NPR](https://www.npr.org/) describes how cases of [alcoholic liver disease](https://www.clevelandclinicmeded.com/medicalpubs/diseasemanagement/hepatology/alcoholic-liver-disease/) — which includes milder fatty liver and the permanent scarring of cirrhosis, as well as alcoholic hepatitis — are up 30% over the last year at the University of Michigan’s health system, says [Dr. Jessica Mellinger](https://ihpi.umich.edu/our-experts/jmelling), a liver specialist there. More startling, the increase disproportionally impacts young women. Alcoholic liver disease often takes years to manifest. But it [can become a threat for women more quickly](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/03/23/393651417/rethinking-alcohol-can-heavy-drinkers-learn-to-cut-back) because [their bodies process alcohol somewhat differently than men’s](https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa46.htm). So why the increased drinking? The reasons are clear. Noguchi reports that women have [borne the brunt of many new pressures of pandemic life](https://www.npr.org/2020/10/28/928253674/stuck-at-home-moms-the-pandemics-devastating-toll-on-women), from virtual school and increased responsibilities at home, even as ads and pop culture have continued to validate the idea of drinking to cope: [Mommy Juice](https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/covid-19-drinking-spawns-new-mommy-juice-memes-truth-isn-ncna1239860), Rosé All Day, [Wine Down Wednesdays](https://www.pinterest.com/cavitwines/wine-down-wednesday/). On top of that, eating disorders and underlying trauma from physical or sexual violence often add fuel to the fire, fanned by social isolation. Just the sheer amount of trauma is really, really tragic,” said psychiatrist [Dr. Scott Winder,](https://medicine.umich.edu/dept/psychiatry/g-scott-winder-md) a clinical associate professor at the University of Michigan who treats patients with alcoholic liver disease. As stay-at-home orders began in some US states as a mitigation strategy for [COVID-19](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19) transmission, [Nielsen IQ reported](https://nielseniq.com/global/en/insights/2020/rebalancing-the-covid-19-effect-on-alcohol-sales/) a 54% increase in national sales of alcohol for the week ending March 21, 2020, compared with 1 year before; online sales increased 262% from 2019.[1](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2770975#zld200164r1) Three weeks later, the World Health Organization warned that [alcohol use during the pandemic may potentially exacerbate health concerns and risk-taking behaviors](https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/disease-prevention/alcohol-use/news/news/2020/04/alcohol-does-not-protect-against-covid-19-access-should-be-restricted-during-lockdown). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you a friend or family face alcohol related charges like [DUI ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/)or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Drug Offenses, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Prosecutor Opposes Suspending Driver’s Licenses for Failure to Pay Traffic Tickets](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/prosecutor-opposes-suspending-drivers-licenses-for-failure-to-pay-traffic-tickets/) **Published:** March 19, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In an [Open Letter](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article250054469.html) released by the [Bellingham Herald](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/), [Whatcom County Prosecutor Eric Richey](https://www.whatcomcounty.us/1865/Meet-Your-Prosecutor) wants to stop using courts and laws to act as debt collectors. “I am opposed to the current practice of suspending Washingtonians driver’s licenses for failure to pay traffic tickets,” wrote Eric Richey. “This year, the Washington legislature has an opportunity to eliminate this harmful policy.” Richey explains how [Senate Bill 5226](https://legiscan.com/WA/bill/SB5226/2021), sponsored by [Sen. Jesse Salomon (D-Shoreline)](https://senatedemocrats.wa.gov/salomon/), will eliminate the practice of suspending licenses for non-public safety reasons while strengthening accountability measures. Currently, the measure has already passed in the Senate with support from both sides of the aisle. The bill rights past wrongs by reinstating individuals’ licenses who were suspended for a reason entirely unrelated to public safety: failing to have the money to pay a court fine. Richey believes [Senate Bill 5226](https://legiscan.com/WA/bill/SB5226/2021) helps focus the prosecutor’s office – and law enforcement’s resources – on protecting the public’s safety, instead of criminalizing poverty. > “My office and I are committed to continuing to protect the safety of Whatcom County. However, to effectively do so, we must stop using courts and laws to act as debt collectors, and instead use them to protect our residents and hold individuals accountable. Senate Bill 5226 will do that: keeping our roads safe without penalizing residents for an inability to pay court fines and fees. I urge the legislature to pass this bill and continue working in future sessions to decriminalize poverty by eliminating the remaining paths to suspending driver’s licenses, such as missing hearings related to payment plans, that are not covered within SB 5226.” ~ Eric Richey, Whatcom County Prosecutor Well said. Our current practice of suspending Washingtonians driver’s licenses for failure to pay traffic tickets is outdated. It essentially criminalizes poverty. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Driving While License Suspended/Revoked, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [COVID-19 Leads to Backlog of Criminal Cases](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/covid-19-leads-to-backlog/) **Published:** March 22, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent article by [Denver Pratt](https://muckrack.com/denver-pratt) of the [Bellingham Herald](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/) discusses how [Whatcom Superior Court](https://www.whatcomcounty.us/413/Superior-Court) now faces a considerable backlog of unresolved cases due to the [Coronavirus Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic). “For prosecuting attorneys and for public defenders, this means higher caseloads and for defendants and victims, it means delayed justice,” reported Pratt. According to Pratt’s article, we’ve seen a decreased number of cases that would normally resolve at trial by dismissal or plea bargain. Caseloads have risen. According to Pratt – who interviewed [Whatcom County Prosecutor Eric Richey](https://www.whatcomcounty.us/1865/Meet-Your-Prosecutor) – the eight felony prosecutors had caseloads of roughly 150 open cases prior to the pandemic. They now have around 250 cases each. Also, according to [Stark Follis](https://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/1472/Starck-Follis#:~:text=Starck%20Follis%20is%20the%20Director,practice%20involving%20primarily%20criminal%20defense.) [– the Director of Whatcom County Public Defender’s Office](https://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/1472/Starck-Follis#:~:text=Starck%20Follis%20is%20the%20Director,practice%20involving%20primarily%20criminal%20defense.) – of the 11 felony attorneys on his staff, each one has a caseload of 100 or more cases. Some attorneys now carry twice their pre-pandemic caseloads. > “There’s an old saying that justice delayed is justice denied and there’s a certain amount of truth to that. Victims don’t want to wait for cases to be resolved, defendants don’t want to wait for cases to be resolved, and the more pending cases you have in front of you, the less time you have to spend on any one particular case. There’s nothing good that comes from a backlog.” ~Whatcom County Public Defender Starck Follis. My opinion? All of the above is true. Since COVID-19 was declared a national emergency, [every state](https://www.justia.com/covid-19/50-state-covid-19-resources/court-operations-during-covid-19-50-state-resources/) has canceled or scaled back in-person criminal court proceedings to stem the spread of the virus. This has resulted in literally thousands of Defendants waiting for trials and other resolutions, while creating a cascade of civil rights issues for the accused. More defendants – especially those with health problems – are striking plea deals to avoid sitting in jail for an undetermined amount of time. And virtual courts are exposing the [disadvantages of the poor,](https://time.com/5800930/how-coronavirus-will-hurt-the-poor/) who are less likely to afford Internet access for court dates, as new criminal cases stack up. We need to resolve these cases. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Pot Sales Boomed in Washington During COVID-19 Pandemic](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/pot-sales-boomed-in-washington-during-covid-pandemic/) **Published:** March 24, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** A [new Leafly report](https://www.leafly.com/news/industry/marijuana-sales-data-americans-bought-more-weed-to-survive-2020) shows that national sales boomed during the [COVID-19 Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic) in 2020, including in Washington, leading to growth in revenue and jobs. Also, Leafly’s more recent [Jobs Report](https://www.leafly.com/news/industry/cannabis-jobs-report#:~:text=Cannabis%20now%20an%20%2418.3%20billion,newly%20legal%20states%20coming%20online.) shows that nationally, cannabis sales saw a 71% surge between 2019 and 2020. And Americans bought $18.3 billion worth of pot products in 2020, according to the report. “Despite a year marked by a global pandemic, spiking unemployment, and economic recession, the legal cannabis industry added 77,300 full-time jobs in the United States,” Leafly’s 2021 jobs report says. “That represents 32% year-over-year job growth, an astonishing figure in the worst year for US economic growth since World War II.” Legalization of marijuana in some form or another is rapidly catching on in most U.S. states. While some states that recently legalized recreational or medicinal use of marijuana added more jobs than Washington in 2020, its industry has continued to grow steadily since 2012, the report says. Washington’s cannabis sales increased by 17% in 2020, with customers spending $1.42 billion on marijuana products, leading to a boom in employment, the report says. The state has 19,873 cannabis industry jobs, which is 524 more than 2019. As one of the pioneering states in the sale of recreational marijuana, Washington has the fifth-most cannabis jobs and some of the highest sales number in the U.S., according to the report. **WHY THE SURGE?** When the Covid-19 pandemic hit the United States in March, many in the cannabis industry worried about a massive industry-wide shutdown. Instead, governors in most states declared cannabis an essential product. Dispensaries and retail stores responded by offering online ordering, curbside pickup, and delivery as Covid-safe options for their customers. Customers, in turn, responded by stocking up for those weeks of stay-at-home advisories. After a brief dip in late-March revenue, most stores saw a significant bump in April—and then the bump became a plateau. My opinion? Whether it or not it ends up being a coping mechanism for COVID-19 pandemic, it looks like cannabis has become how many people are making it through. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face [Drug Charges](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, marijuana, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Lesser Included Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/32634-2/) **Published:** March 30, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Coryell*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/982562.pdf), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that a defendant is entitled to a [lesser included offense instruction](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-lesser-included-offense.html) under the [*Workman* test](http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/090wn2d/090wn2d0443.htm) when a jury could reasonably find, based on evidence submitted and the jury’s decision about whether it is credible or not, that the defendant committed only the lesser offense. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Mr. Coryell and his girlfriend Hart’Lnenicka lived together. One morning, the couple argued. Hart’Lnenicka accused Coryell of cheating on her with an ex-girlfriend. While they were talking, Coryell was playing a video game, and Hart’Lnenicka unplugged the game console, threatening to break it. Coryell took the console from Hart’Lnenicka and set it on the coffee table. At some point, Coryell pushed Hart’Lnenicka to the ground. Eventually, police responded and arrested Coryell. The parties gave different versions of the incident. Ms. Hart’Lnenicka told police that Coryell kicked her out of the apartment, choked her, thrown her to the ground, and slammed her head into the laundry room doors. Coryell confirmed the sequence of events but denied ever grabbing Hart’Lnenicka around the neck. Ultimately, Coryell was charged with [Assault Second Degree](https://app.leg.wa.gov/Rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.021) and [Assault Fourth Degree](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.041). At trial Officer Malone also stated that he saw no [Petechial Hemorrhaging](https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/petechial-hemorrhage) in the photographs presented at trial and that he observed no signs of it on Hart’Lnenicka on the day of the alleged assault. Nevertheless, the trial court declined to give the requested fourth degree assault instruction. The jury convicted Coryell on both counts. Coryell appealed his conviction. Although the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision denying a lesser degree instruction, the WA Supreme Court granted review. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court began by saying that [RCW 10.61.003](https://app.leg.wa.gov/Rcw/default.aspx?cite=10.61.003) provides that where an offense consists of different degrees, “the jury may find the defendant not guilty of the degree charged in the indictment or information, and guilty of any degree inferior thereto.” Additionally, a defendant “may be found guilty of a lesser included offense, the commission of which is necessarily included within that with which he or she is charged in the indictment or information.” “The reason lesser included instructions are given is to assist the jury in weighing the evidence, determining witness credibility, and deciding disputed questions of fact,” said the Court. “If the evidence permits a jury to rationally find a defendant guilty of the lesser offense, a lesser included offense instruction should be given.” Consequently, the Court held that the trial court erred when it denied a lesser degree instruction on fourth degree assault: > “The evidence supported an inference that Coryell assaulted, but did not strangle, his girlfriend, and thus, he was entitled to a lesser degree instruction. This is consistent with the test in *Workman* and with the legislature’s directive in RCW 9A.04.100(2), which provides, ‘When a crime has been proven against a person, and there exists a reasonable doubt as to which of two or more degrees he or she is guilty, he or she shall be convicted only of the lowest degree.'” Accordingly, the WA Supreme Court vacated Coryell’s conviction. My opinion? Great decision. It’s fair to allow the defense to argue different theories of what happened based on the lack of evidence. Here, the lack of [Petechial Hemorrhaging](https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/petechial-hemorrhage) suffered by the victim raises reasonable doubt on the issue of whether she was strangled. However, the lack of evidence does not mean she was not a victim of a lesser offense – here, Assault Fourth Degree. The defense should be allowed to argue this point and request a lesser-included jury instruction accordingly. I’m very pleased the WA Supremes finally put in writing that Assault Fourth Degree is a lesser-included offense to Assault Second Degree. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Lesser Included Jury Instruction, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Lawsuit Seeks COVID-19 Vaccines for Inmates](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/lawsuit-seeks-covid-19-vaccines-for-inmates/) **Published:** April 1, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/lawsuit-demands-immediate-covid-19-vaccinations-for-people-incarcerated-at-washington-prisons/) by [Jim Brunner](https://www.seattletimes.com/author/jim-brunner/) of the [Seattle Times](https://www.seattletimes.com/) reports that a legal-aid group in Washington state has sued the state [Department of Corrections](https://www.doc.wa.gov/), demanding that all state prison inmates immediately receive COVID-19 vaccines. [The class-action lawsuit](https://columbialegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Rush-v.-WA-State-Dept-of-Corrections-Complaint.pdf) filed in Thurston County Superior Court by [Columbia Legal Services](https://columbialegal.org/) also seeks an order banning direct contact with incarcerated people by DOC employees and contractors who refuse vaccines. The lawsuit claims the state’s refusal to promptly vaccinate about 15,000 inmates violates the U.S. Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. It also claims the coronavirus infection rate in prisons is more than eight times higher than in the general population. According to the article, since the pandemic began in March 2020, more than 6,000 inmates have tested positive for COVID-19 and 14 people have died, department officials said. More than 1,000 workers have tested positive and two have died. [Department of Corrections](https://www.doc.wa.gov/) spokesperson [Jacque Coe](https://www.doc.wa.gov/news/2021/03012021p.htm) said the agency will continue to follow the state Department of Health’s (DOH) [published vaccine phase schedule](https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcoronavirus.wa.gov%2Fnews%2Fcovid-19-vaccine-distribution-update-washington-state-department-health-9&data=04%7C01%7Cjbrunner%40seattletimes.com%7C0037b104a6434aabf67e08d8f3a93056%7Cfc2b8476b7f0473d82fbe0a89fd99855%7C0%7C1%7C637527255291179313%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=w8WhdPjim8S%2FG5mLSzbbBh8T4N8XWwA5QNfvQ3ma9Sk%3D&reserved=0). Coe said the schedule would allow for vaccinations for “all incarcerated individuals and staff in corrections facilities, based upon supply of the vaccine received” as of March 31. > “We will be working with the Office of the Attorney General to assess and respond to the lawsuit by Columbia Legal Services.” ~ Department of Corrections Spokesperson Jacque Coe. The lawsuit names plaintiffs Washington Corrections Center for Women in Gig Harbor inmate Candis Rush, Clallam Bay Corrections Center inmate Gregory Steen and Monroe Corrections Center inmate Justin Autrey. They claimed that prison employees do not follow social distancing guidelines and have refused vaccinations. [Columbia Legal attorney Tony Gonzalez](https://www.linkedin.com/in/tony-gonzalez-92297162) said the Department of Corrections should work with “authentic, respected voices in the community to help spread accurate information and build trust around the vaccine.” My opinion? Excellent. I hope the lawsuit gets somewhere. Incarcerated people are infected by the coronavirus at a rate [more than five times](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768249) higher than the nation’s overall rate, according to research reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The death rate of inmates (39 deaths per 100,000) is also higher than the national rate (29 deaths per 100,000). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Department of Corrections, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [COVID-19 Increased Crime](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/covid-19-increased-crime/) **Published:** April 6, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Informative [article](https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/03/us/us-crime-rate-rise-2020/index.html) by [reporters Emma Tucker](https://muckrack.com/emmatucker) and [Peter Nickeas](https://muckrack.com/peter-nickeas) of [CNN](https://www.cnn.com/) finds that the U.S. saw a significant crime rise across major cities in 2020 during the [Coronavirus Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic). Worse, it doesn’t appear to be letting up. Major American cities saw a 33% increase in [homicides](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/) last year as a pandemic swept across the country, millions of people joined protests against racial injustice and police brutality, and the economy collapsed under the weight of the pandemic — a crime surge that has continued into the first quarter of this year. Sixty-three of the 66 largest police jurisdictions saw increases in at least one category of violent crimes in 2020, which include [homicide](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/), [rape](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/), [robbery](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/robbery/), and [aggravated assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/), according to a [report produced by the Major Cities Chiefs Association](https://majorcitieschiefs.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/MCCA-Violent-Crime-Report-2020-and-2019-Year-End-Final.pdf). Baltimore City, Baltimore County and Raleigh, North Carolina, did not report increases in any of the violent crime categories. It’s nearly impossible to attribute any year-to-year change in violent crime statistics to any single factor, and homicides and shootings are an intensely local phenomenon that can spike for dozens of reasons. But the [increase in homicide rates](https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/01/us/homicides-2020-increase-coronavirus/index.html) across the country is both historic and far-reaching, as were the pandemic and social movements that touched every part of society last year. **A PERFECT STORM OF FACTORS** Experts point to [a “perfect storm” of factors](https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/16/us/violent-crime-soars-confidence-in-police-takes-hit/index.html) — economic collapse, social anxiety because of a pandemic, de-policing in major cities after protests that called for abolition of police departments, shifts in police resources from neighborhoods to downtown areas because of those protests, and the release of criminal defendants pretrial or before sentences were completed to reduce risk of Covid-19 spread in jails — all may have contributed to the spike in homicides. Covid-19 seemed to exacerbate everything — officers sometimes had to quarantine because of exposure or cases in their ranks, reducing the number of officers available for patrol, investigations or protest coverage. It was difficult-to-impossible to keep physical distance during protests. Through the first three months of 2021, a number of major cities have indicated they are [still experiencing high rates of violent crime](https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/01/us/homicides-shootings-spike-us-cities/index.html), according to Laura Cooper, executive director of the [Major Cities Chiefs Association](https://majorcitieschiefs.com/). “Some cities are set to outpace last year’s numbers,” she said. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, felony, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Openly Carrying A Sword](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/openly-carrying-a-sword/) **Published:** April 16, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*Zaitzeff v. City of Seattle*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/804367.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that while a sword is constitutionally protected as an “arm,” the Defendant’s conviction for violating a [Seattle’s Ordinance](https://library.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT12ACRCO_SUBTITLE_ICRCO_CH12A.14WECO_12A.14.080UNUSWE) prohibiting the carrying of a dangerous weapon was valid. **BACKGROUND FACTS** In May 2018, Mr. Zaitzeff walked around [Green Lake Park](https://www.seattle.gov/parks/find/parks/green-lake-park) with a sheathed sword hanging from his neck. A citizen called 911. The caller said Zaitzeff was wearing a thong, approaching women, and taking photos of them. When police officers arrived, they confirmed he had a sword, which measured about 24 inches long. Zaitzeff acknowledged he was aware of the ordinance against fixed blade knives and that he was not hunting, fishing, or going to or from a job requiring a sword. The officers took the sword and cited him. The City charged Zaitzeff with [Unlawful Use of Weapons under SMC 12A.14.080(B)](https://library.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT12ACRCO_SUBTITLE_ICRCO_CH12A.14WECO_12A.14.080UNUSWE). Zaitzeff moved to dismiss the charge, challenging the ordinance as unconstitutional as applied to his case. The Seattle Municipal Court denied the motion, concluding that the sword is not a constitutionally protected arm. Zaitzeff went to trial. Despite arguing a [Necessity Defense](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Iefa05ea0e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?bhcp=1&contextData=%28sc.Default%29&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=StatuteNavigator&viewType=FullText) that he carried the sword because he was assaulted in the past, the court found Zaitzeff guilty as charged. Zaitzeff appealed to King County Superior Court. However, the court concluded that sufficient evidence supported the conviction. Zaitzeff appealed to the WA Court of Appeals on the issues of the constitutionality of the ordinance and his ability to present a defense. The Court of Appeals granted review. **COURT’S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals held that the federal and state constitutions protect Zaitzeff’s sword as an arm: > “Historically, swords have been weapons of offense used to strike at others. And while law-abiding citizens do not typically carry swords for lawful purposes today, as further discussed below, swords were common at the time of founding . . . As law-abiding citizens traditionally used swords for self-defense, we conclude that both constitutions protect Zaitzeff’s sword as an arm.” ~WA Court of Appeals Nevertheless, the Court also engaged a lengthy constitutional analysis and held that Seattle’s ordinance was reasonably necessary to protect public safety and welfare. Furthermore, the ordinance was substantially related to the goal of preventing sword-related injuries and violence: > “The ordinance does not severely burden his constitutional rights as it allows the defendant to purchase a sword and, in a secure wrapper, carry it home, carry it to be repaired, and carry it to abodes or places of business.” ~ WA Court of Appeals. Next, the WA Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s rejection of Zaitzeff’s Necessity defense. It reasoned that Zaitzeff’s concession that there was no one imminently threatening him that particular day prevented him from proving his defense. Woth that, the Court of Appeals upheld Zaitzeff’s conviction. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Dangerous Weapon, misdemeanor, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Necessity Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Senate Passes Bill to Recriminalize Drug Possession](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/senate-passes-bill-to-recriminalize-drug-possession/) **Published:** April 16, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article](https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/politics-government/article250713744.html) by [Sara Gentzler](https://www.thenewstribune.com/profile/232085107) of the [News Tribune](https://www.thenewstribune.com/) reports that the [Washington State Senate](https://leg.wa.gov/Senate/pages/default.aspx) approved a bill Thursday that would make drug possession a gross misdemeanor and require diversion to treatment for a person’s first two offenses. The measure comes in response to the [WA State Supreme Court’s](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) so-called [*Blake* decision](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/968730.pdf) in February that made the state’s simple [drug possession law](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) unconstitutional. While the proposal captured enough votes to move over to the [House of Representatives](https://leg.wa.gov/House/Pages/default.aspx) for more consideration, it did not amass broad support and laid bare disagreements among lawmakers. A majority of justices on the state Supreme Court found the state’s law was unconstitutional because it didn’t require prosecutors to prove an accused person knowingly or intentionally had drugs. The decision, known as *State v. Blake*, was released in the middle of the legislative session to [immediate, widespread impact](https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/politics-government/article250173505.html). The 28-20 Senate vote on Thursday reflected the lack of consensus among legislators in how best to proceed The original, struck-down law made possession of controlled substances a class C felony. The amended bill that passed out of the Senate would take that down to a gross misdemeanor. The first two times someone is arrested for possession, the bill would require them to be diverted to a treatment program. If they’re arrested for possession again, treatment would be encouraged but not required. The bill also would allow court commissioners to help resentence people convicted under the law that was deemed unconstitutional. The bill now moves to the House, where Democrats this week introduced their [own proposal](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1578&Year=2021&Initiative=false) to address the Supreme Court decision. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [COVID Increases Overdoses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/32878-2/) **Published:** April 26, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/04/22/989833102/overdose-deaths-surged-in-pandemic-as-more-drugs-were-laced-with-fentanyl) by [Brian Mann](https://www.npr.org/people/935764762/brian-mann) from [NPR](https://www.npr.org/) says that researchers have seen a significant rise in overdose deaths from street drugs laced with deadly synthetic opioids including [Fentanyl](https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/opioids/fentanyl.html). “We’ve seen a very significant rise in mortality,” said Dr. [Nora Volkow, ](https://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida/directors-page/biography-dr-nora-volkow)head of the [National Institute of Drug Abuse](https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/nih-almanac/national-institute-drug-abuse-nida), who spoke Thursday as part of an on-line gathering of the [American Society of Addiction Medicine](https://www.asam.org/education/2021-annual-conference). The trend contributed to a stark rise in overdoses that left more than 90,000 Americans dead during the 12-month period ending in September 2020, according to the latest data. According to preliminary figures released earlier this month by [the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/drug-overdose-data.htm), synthetic opioid fatalities rose by an unprecedented 55% during the twelve months ending in September 2020. Deaths from methamphetamines and other stimulants also surged by roughly 46%, an increase Volkow said is linked to fentanyl contamination. In all more than 90,000 Americans died from overdoses in the latest 12-month period for which preliminary data is available. That compares to roughly 70,000 drug deaths during the same period a year earlier. As the CDC has updated its fatal overdose estimates during the pandemic, the upward trend has shown no sign of slowing. [As recently as October, data suggested the country was on track for at least 75,000 overdose deaths](https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/10/14/923721544/sharp-rise-in-drug-overdose-deaths-seen-during-1st-few-months-of-pandemic) in 2o2o. That would have been a grim new record, but the latest figures make it clear the toll will be far higher. Preliminary data for the full year won’t be available until mid-summer. Studies have also shown a significant increase in the number of Americans using alcohol or drugs to cope with the pressures of the pandemic. [One team of CDC researchers found roughly 13% of people](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6932a1.htm#contribAff) surveyed either began using drugs during the pandemic or increased their use of illicit substances. “COVID-19 has made us aware how negative the stigmatization of substance use disorders has been over time,” Volkow said. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face [Drug Offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Drug Offenses, Fentanyl, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Deliberate Cruelty](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/deliberate-cruelty/) **Published:** April 30, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Burrus*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/808494.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held there was sufficient evidence the defendant demonstrated deliberate cruelty to the victim when he poured gasoline on the victim, lit a flare and set the victim on fire. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Mr. Burrus poured gasoline on victim Mr. Busch and threw a lit flare at him, causing him to catch fire. Busch suffered second and third degree burns on 30 percent of his body. The State charged Burrus with attempted first degree murder with the aggravating factor that his conduct manifested deliberate cruelty. The jury found Burrus guilty as charged. Based on the jury’s finding of deliberate cruelty, the trial court imposed an exceptional upward sentence. The trial court found that the aggravating factor of deliberate cruelty was a compelling reason to justify an exceptional sentence and imposed a sentence of 300 months. On appeal, Mr. Burrus argued the the trial court erred in imposing an exceptional sentence based on the jury’s finding of deliberate cruelty. **COURT’S RATIONALE & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals stated that under the [Sentencing Reform Act](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.505), generally, a court must impose a sentence within the standard range. A court may [depart from the guidelines](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcW/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.535) and impose a higher sentence if it finds substantial and compelling reasons. The existence of an aggravating factor may support an exceptional sentence. Next, the court addressed the issue of whether the lack of comparative evidence meant there was insufficient evidence to supported the jury’s finding of deliberate cruelty. “Burrus says insufficient evidence supports the jury’s finding of deliberate cruelty,” said the Court of Appeals. “He contends that because the State failed to provide comparative evidence of typical attempted first degree murders, the jury had insufficient evidence to determine whether the facts here were atypical.” However, the Court of Appeals disagreed with Burrus and held that the State is not required to provide the jury with examples of typical attempted first degree murders: > “It is within a jury’s capability, based on their common sense and common experience, to determine that dousing a person in gasoline, lighting them on fire, and then leaving them to burn is deliberately cruel.” ~WA Court of Appeals Consequently, the Court also reasoned that Mr. Burrus cannot assert a [vagueness challenge](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/section-1/clarity-in-criminal-statutes-the-void-for-vagueness-doctrine) to the deliberate cruelty aggravator, either. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Deliberate Cruelty, Exceptional Sentencing, felony, Homicide & Manslaughter, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sentencing, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Right to Present A Defense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/right-to-present-defense/) **Published:** May 11, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Cox*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/372065_pub.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.genorders&div=III) held that the trial court mistakenly excluded evidence pursuant to the [Rape Shield Statute](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.020) that the victim flirted with the defendant and sat on his lap at the party where the unlawful sexual contact occurred. **BACKGROUND FACTS** The incident occurred in the early morning hours at the complaining witness’s house after her birthday party. The complaining witness testified that after she fell asleep in her bed, she was awakened by the defendant digitally raping her. The State presented evidence that Mr. Cox’s DNA was found on the complaining witness’s undergarments. Mr. Cox denied the accusation entirely and testified that the complaining witness was intoxicated and that he had rejected her advances. Nevertheless, he was charged and convicted of Rape in the Second Degree. **COURT’S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals reasoned that the Rape Shield Statute does not apply to behavior that is contemporaneous with the alleged rape. Here, the victim flirted with the defendant and sat on his lap at the party. That evidence should not have been suppressed. In addition, the statute does not apply to evidence, which was offered to explain how the victim’s intoxication affected her behavior and memory of that night and that there may have been an innocent explanation for the DNA transfer. > “The excluded evidence in this case was not past behavior; it was contemporaneous with the alleged rape. Nor was it being introduced to show consent. And while it was being introduced to discredit the victim’s credibility, the focus was on her level of intoxication, not on allegations of promiscuity. Thus, application of the Rape Shield Statute in these circumstances was untenable and an abuse of discretion.” ~ WA Court of Appeals. The Court also decided the trial court wrongfully suppressed evidence of the alleged victim’s behavior with the Defendant at the party: > “Evidence that the victim was highly intoxicated, acting in a manner that was uncharacteristically flirtatious, and sitting on Mr. Cox’s lap in a dress, was ‘highly relevant’ to his theory of the defense. The prejudicial value of this evidence, if any, was low.” ~ WA Court of Appeals. Also, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the trial court erred by sustaining an objection to a hypothetical question that defense posed to the State’s DNA expert during cross-examination. Here, Mr. Cox tried to present expert testimony evidence that it was possible for his DNA to be transferred to the complaining witness’s underwear through innocent, non-sexual contact such as sitting on his lap. The Court of Appeals disagreed, and held that an expert witness may be cross-examined with hypotheticals yet unsupported by the evidence that go to the opponent’s theory of the case. > “The lap-sitting incident provides an explanation as to how Mr. Cox’s DNA might have been transferred to the complaining witness. The witness’s inability to recall this incident calls into question her ability to remember other events from that night. And her flirtatious behavior with Mr. Cox supports his version of events.” ~ WA Court of Appeals. Next, the Court of Appeals reasoned the trial court’s exclusion of the Defendant’s reputation evidence on the particular character trait of sexual morality was wrong. “Contrary to the trial court’s position, “this type” of evidence is explicitly admissible under [ER 404(a)(1)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=ER&ruleid=gaer0404#:~:text=RULE%20ER%20404%20CHARACTER%20EVIDENCE,(a)%20Character%20Evidence%20Generally.&text=It%20may%2C%20however%2C%20be%20admissible,absence%20of%20mistake%20or%20accident.),” said the Court. With that, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court’s errors mentioned above were not harmless. It reversed Mr. Cox’s conviction and remanded for a new trial. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Sex Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DNA, ER 401, ER 402, felony, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Rape, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [New Law Offers Prison Alternatives for Mentally Ill](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/new-law-offers-prison-alternatives-for-mentally-ill/) **Published:** May 12, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Reporter [Austin Jenkins](https://www.nwnewsnetwork.org/people/austin-jenkins) of the [Northwest News Network](https://www.nwnewsnetwork.org/) wrote an [article](https://www.nwnewsnetwork.org/post/alternative-prison-be-allowed-washington-some-who-have-mental-illness) reporting that [Washington Gov. Jay Inslee](https://www.governor.wa.gov/) has signed a measure that will soon offer an alternative to prison for people with a serious mental illness who commit a crime. Under the new law signed Monday by Inslee, judges will have the option to sentence a person to community supervision and treatment in lieu of prison. Washington already offers sentencing alternatives for certain [drug offenders](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.660) and certain [sex offenders](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.670). The program — which takes effect July 25 —will be open to individuals who are convicted of a felony crime that is not a serious violent offense or a sex offense. The person would have to be willing to participate in the sentencing alternative, the court would have to determine the individual would benefit from community-based supervision and treatment, and the opinion of the person’s victim would also be considered. If the person were to violate the conditions of the sentencing alternative, they could be sent to prison to serve their sentence. My opinion? Excellent idea. Data suggests that people in the criminal justice system are more likely to suffer from mental health problems than the general population. Our sentencing should be sensitive to these problems. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime and mental health is an issue. Substantive defenses such as [Diminished Capacity](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Iefa05eace10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?contextData=%28sc.Default%29&transitionType=Default) are helpful. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Diminished Capacity, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Emergency Exception to the Warrant Requirement](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/emergency-exception-to-the-warrant-requirement/) **Published:** June 1, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*United States v. Holiday*](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/05/27/20-50157.pdf), the [9th Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) held that the police officer’s opening of the defendant’s unlocked front door constituted a search that was not justified by [Exigent Circumstances exception to the warrant requirement](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exigent_circumstances) because officers had no reason to believe that an emergency existed. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Mr. Holiday was tried and convicted for seven counts of armed robbery and three instances of attempted armed robbery under [18 U.S.C. 1951](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1951). The federal district court sentenced him to a mandatory minimum term of eighty-five years’ imprisonment. At his trial, the Government sought to admit police body camera footage taken during an unrelated police encounter at the defendant’s home in connection with the report of child abuse in a vehicle registered to the defendant’s home. In the footage, the defendant was wearing shoes that matched the description of the shoes the suspect was wearing at an ARCO gas station in one of the robberies. The body camera footage was taken on February 7, 2017. It was taken after police received a report that a man was hitting a child in the backseat of a blue Jaguar. In a “contemporaneous line” of actions from the report of the incident, police ran the license plate and found it was registered to a person with the initials M.B. The bodycam video shows that when the officers arrived at the defendant’s address, one of them knocked on the front door, tried the handle, and found it was unlocked. The officer pushed the door open but remained standing on the threshold. Holiday and his wife were on their way to the door when the officer opened it. They told the officers that their children were at school and that they did not own a blue Jaguar. There is no indication that the officers saw a blue Jaguar at or near Holiday’s residence. The officers took Holiday’s name and left. Mr. Holiday [moved to suppress](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/motion_to_suppress#:~:text=In%20the%20United%20States%2C%20a,certain%20evidence%20from%20the%20trial.&text=A%20motion%20to%20exclude%20evidence,called%20a%20motion%20in%20limine.) the bodycam footage of this exchange on the ground that it was collected in violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, the federal district trial court denied Mr. Holiday’s motion to suppress the aforementioned bodycam evidence. Later, Holiday was found guilty. The court sentenced him to a mandatory minimum term of eighty-five years’ imprisonment. Holiday appealed on grounds that the trial court errored by denying his motion to suppress the body camera footage of him. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** First, the 9th Circuit reasoned that The San Diego Police Department did not obtain a warrant to search Holiday’s home in connection with the report of child abuse in a blue Jaguar registered to Holiday’s address. “Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable and therefore violate the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment), unless subject to an established exception,” said the 9th Circuit, quoting [*Kentucky v. King*, 563 U.S. 452, 459 (2011)](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/563/452/#:~:text=King%2C%20563%20U.S.%20452%20(2011)&text=Respondent%20entered%20a%20conditional%20guilty,evidence%20from%20a%20warrantless%20search.). Next, the 9th Circuit addressed the Government’s argument that the search was legal because it was pursuant to the Emergency Exception to the Warrant Requirement (Exigent Circumstances). Ultimately, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with the Government. The court reasoned that the officers’ opening of the unlocked front door constituted a search that was not justified by the emergency exception as the officers had no reason to believe that the child victim was is the home at the address where the Jaguar was registered. There was no indication that the incident in the Jaguar had ended, and no blue Jaguar was at the address when the officers arrived. > “The officers’ conduct does not fall within the scope of the emergency exception to the warrant requirement.” ~ 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 9th Circuit concluded, however, that the error in admitting the body camera evidence was harmless because of the strength of the other evidence that the defendant committed the ARCO robbery. Please review my [Search and Seizure Legal Guide](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime and the police search/seizure might be unlawful. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Exigent Circumstances, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Fourth Amendment, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Robbery, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Supreme Court Sides with Police Officer who Improperly Searched License Plate Database](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/supreme-court-sides-with-police-officer-who-improperly-searched-license-plate-database/) **Published:** June 4, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*Van Buren v. United States*](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf), the [U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) held that defendant Nathan Van Buren, a Georgia police officer Buren, did not violate [the nation’s top computer crime law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act) when he searched a license plate database for non-official purposes. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Former Georgia police sergeant Nathan Van Buren used his patrol-car computer to access a law enforcement database to retrieve information about a particular license plate number in exchange for money. Van Buren agreed. The requestor – a third party who offered to pay him to search the database – was an undercover FBI informant. Van Buren used his own valid credentials to perform the search. However, his conduct clearly violated a department policy against obtaining database information for non-law-enforcement purposes. Again, unbeknownst to Van Buren, his actions were part of a FBI sting operation. Van Buren was charged with a felony violation of the [Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act), which subjects to criminal liability anyone who “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access.” [18 U. S. C. §1030(a)(2)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030). A jury convicted Van Buren, and the lower federal District Court sentenced him to 18 months in prison. Van Buren appealed his conviction to the [Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/), arguing that the “exceeds authorized access” clause applies only to those who obtain information to which their computer access does not extend, not to those who misuse access that they otherwise have. Consistent with Eleventh Circuit precedent, the panel held that Van Buren had violated the CFAA. Van Buren appealed again, this time to the U.S. Supreme Court. **COURT’S RATIONALE & CONCLUSIONS** In [a 6-3 majority opinion](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf) penned by [Justice Amy Coney Barrett](https://www.oyez.org/justices/amy_coney_barrett), the Court held that Van Buren’s conduct did not violate the CFAA when he searched a license plate database for non-official purposes. Justice Barrett wrote that Van Buren’s conduct “plainly flouted” his department’s policy, which authorized him to obtain database information only for law enforcement purposes. “The parties agree that Van Buren accessed a computer with authorization and obtained information in the computer,” wrote Justice Barrett. “They dispute whether Van Buren was entitled so to obtain that information.” Regarding that specific issue, Justice Barrett reasoned the provision of the law at issue does not cover those who have improper motives for obtaining information that is otherwise available to them. And regarding the issue of whether Van Buren violated the CFAA – the truly *important* legal issue of the case – Justice Barrett wrote “he did not.” > “The relevant question, however, is not whether Van Buren exceeded his authorized access but whether he exceeded his authorized access as the CFAA defines that phrase. For reasons given elsewhere, he did not.” ~U.S. Supreme Court Justice Barrett, Majority Opinion “To top it all off,” she wrote, the government’s expansive interpretation of the law “would attach criminal penalties to a breathtaking amount of commonplace computer activity.” Simply checking personal email or reading the news on a work computer would be considered a crime, Barrett added. > “The Government’s interpretation of the “exceeds authorized access” clause would attach criminal penalties to a breathtaking amount of commonplace computer activity. For instance, employers commonly state that computers and electronic devices can be used only for business purposes. On the Government’s reading, an employee who sends a personal e-mail or reads the news using a work computer has violated the CFAA.” ~U.S. Supreme Court Justice Barrett, Majority Opinion Finally, Justice Barrett reasoned that the Government’s prosecution would also inject arbitrariness into the assessment of criminal liability, because whether conduct like Van Buren’s violated the CFAA would depend on how an employer phrased the policy violated. With that, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Van Buren’s criminal conviction. **THE DISSENT** In his dissent, Justice Thomas compared Van Buren’s actions to a valet charged with parking a car, writing that the law should have covered the police officers’ actions. The valet, Thomas wrote, may “take possession of a person’s car to park it, but he cannot take it for a joyride,” Thomas wrote. He noted that Van Buren had permission to retrieve license plate information, but only for “law enforcement purposes.” > “When the police officer accessed the database in exchange for a bribe from an acquaintance, he exceeded authorized access under the law . . . Without valid law enforcement purposes, he was forbidden to use the computer to obtain that information.” ~ U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thomas, Dissenting Opinion. In another example, Thomas said that an employee may be entitled to pull the alarm in the event of a fire, “but he is not entitled to pull it for some other purpose, such as to delay a meeting for which he is unprepared.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Computer Fraud, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Discarded DNA Admissible](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/discarded-dna-admissible/) **Published:** June 5, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Bass*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/801562.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.genorders&div=I) held the admission of [DNA profiles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_profiling) developed from a plastic cup and a soda can that the defendant discarded in a garbage can at his place of employment was proper. **BACKGROUND FACTS** In November 1989, 18-year-old Amanda Stavik, a freshman at Central Washington University, returned home to rural Whatcom County to celebrate Thanksgiving with her family. On Friday, November 24, 1989, Stavik decided to go for a run with the family dog, Kyra. Her route took her down the defendant Timothy Bass’s residence. She never returned home. On Monday, November 27, 1989, law enforcement found Stavik’s naked body in shallow, slow-moving water of the Nooksack River. During the autopsy, Whatcom County medical examiner Dr. Gary Goldfogel found semen in Stavik’s vagina and, based on the sperm count, concluded sexual intercourse had occurred no more than 12 hours before her death. This evidence led the State to conclude that someone had kidnapped and raped Stavik while she was out on her Friday afternoon run and that she had died while fleeing her captor. Dr. Goldfogel preserved the samples he collected and sent them to the FBI and the Washington State Patrol Crime Lab for analysis. The Crime Lab developed a male deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) profile from the sperm. The police investigation led to several suspects whom they later excluded when their DNA did not match the DNA in the sperm sample. Eventually, the case went cold. In 2009, Detective Kevin Bowhay reopened the investigation and began asking for DNA samples from anyone who lived in the area or who may have had contact with Stavik near the time of her death. Over the course of the investigation, Det. Bowhay and his team collected more than 80 DNA samples for testing. In 2013, Det. Bowhay asked Bass for a DNA sample. When Det. Bowhay indicated he was investigating Stavik’s death, Bass acted as if he did not know who she was, “looked up kind of, um, kind of like he was searching his memory” and said “oh, that was the girl that was found in the river.” Bass told Det. Bowhay that he did not really know Stavik and initially said he did not know where she lived. Bass refused to provide a DNA sample. Bass’s refusal of a DNA sample raised suspicions. At this time, Bass was working as a delivery truck driver for Franz Bakery. Detective Bowhay reached out to Kim Wagner, the manager of the Franz Bakery outlet store. The detective informed Wagner he was looking for items that Bass might cast off that may contain his DNA. In August 2017, Ms. Wagner saw Bass drink water from a plastic cup and throw the cup away in a wastebasket in the bakery’s employee break room. She collected that cup and stored it in a plastic bag in her desk. Two days later, she saw Bass drink from a soda can and, again, after he discarded it in the same trash can, she retrieved it and stored it with the cup. Det. Bowhay did not direct Wager to take any items and did not tell her how to handle or package these items. Wagner contacted Det. Bowhay via text to let him know she had two items Bass had discarded in the garbage. Det. Bowhay met Wagner in the Franz Bakery parking lot, picked up the items, and sent them to the Washington State Crime Lab for analysis. The Crime Lab confirmed that the DNA collected from Bass’s soda can and cup matched the male DNA collected from the semen in Stavik’s body. The State arrested Bass and charged him with [first degree felony murder](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/), [rape](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/) and [kidnapping](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/kidnapping-unlawful-imprisonment/). In pretrial motions, the trial court denied Bass’s motion to suppress the DNA evidence obtained from items Wagner collected at the Franz Bakery. In 2019, a jury convicted Timothy Bass of all charges. On appeal, Bass challenged, among other things, the admissibility of DNA evidence linking him to the crime. His argument on appeal was that Wagner acted as a state agent when she collected his discarded items without a warrant. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The WA Court of Appeals began by saying the [Exclusionary Rule](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exclusionary_rule) – a law that prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial – does not apply to the acts of private individuals. However, evidence discovered by a private citizen while acting as a government agent is subject to the rule. > “To prove a private citizen was acting as a government agent, the defendant must show that the State in some way ‘instigated, encouraged, counseled, directed, or controlled’ the conduct of the private person.” ~WA Court of Appeals. The Court further reasoned that the mere knowledge by the government that a private citizen might conduct an illegal private search without the government taking any deterrent action \[is\] insufficient to turn the private search into a governmental one. For an agency relationship to exist, there must be a manifestation of consent by the principal \[the police\] that the agent \[the informant\] acts for the police and under their control and consent by the informant that he or she will conduct themselves subject to police control. Consequently, the Court of Appeals rejected Bass’s argument and upheld the trial court’s findings that Ms. Wagner was *not* an agent at the time she pulled Bass’s cup and soda can from the trash and gave it to police: > “Det. Bowhay and Wagner both testified that Det. Bowhay did not ask or encourage Wagner to look for items to seize and did not tell her what type of items to take. Wagner testified Det. Bowhay did not instruct her to find an item containing Bass’s saliva; she made that assumption based on her husband’s experience in doing an ancestry DNA test and on watching television crime shows. Wagner confirmed that Det. Bowhay did not encourage her to find Bass’s DNA and gave her no guidance in how to do so.” ~WA Court of Appeals. The co-worker who pulled the cup and soda can from the trash, was not acting as a government agent when she retrieved the items. The co-worker, not the detective, conceived of the idea of watching the defendant to see whether he discarded any items at work and the detective did not tell her how to handle any items collected. With that, the Court concluded that Detective Bowhay did not direct, entice, or control Wagner and Wagner was not acting as a state agent when she retrieved Bass’s cup and soda can from the workplace trash can. “These findings in turn support the legal conclusion that Wagner’s seizure of Bass’s discarded items and the DNA evidence was not the fruit of an unlawful search.” The Court upheld Bass’s convictions. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime involving [search and seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) issues. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DNA, Evidence, felony, Homicide & Manslaughter, Kidnapping, law enforcement, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Rape, Search and Seizure, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [U.S. Prison Trends](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/u-s-prison-trends/) **Published:** June 7, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [Sentencing Project](https://www.sentencingproject.org/) devised a [fact sheet](file:///C:/Users/Alex%20Ransom/Downloads/Trends-in-US-Corrections.pdf) which provides a compilation of major developments in the criminal justice system over the past several decades. Some highlights are as follows: - **Mass Incarceration** – The United States is the world’s leader in incarceration with 2 million people currently in the nation’s prisons and jails — a 500% increase over the last forty years. - **Drug Policy** – At the federal level, people incarcerated on a drug conviction make up nearly half the prison population. At the state level, the number of people in prison for drug offenses has increased nine-fold since 1980, although it has begun declining in recent years. - **Racial Disparities** – Black men are six times as likely to be incarcerated as white men and Latinos are 2.5 times as likely. For Black men in their thirties, about 1 in every 12 is in prison or jail on any given day. - **Youth** – Although youth detention populations are declining, youth of color enter the system much more frequently than white youth and are more likely to be sentenced to harsher terms of punishment. In addition, young people are transferred to the adult system each year and tried as if they were adults, and many are sent to adult prisons and jails to serve their sentences. - **Felony Disenfranchisement** – As of 2020, 5.2 million Americans were unable to vote due to state felony disenfranchisement policies. - **Life Sentences** – The number of people serving life sentences endures even while serious, violent crime has been declining for the past 20 years. This population has nearly quintupled since 1984. One in seven people in prison are serving life with parole, life without parole, or virtual life (50 years or more). The [Sentencing Project ](https://www.sentencingproject.org/)is a non-profit agency that promotes effective and humane responses to crime that minimize imprisonment and criminalization of youth and adults by promoting racial, ethnic, economic, and gender justice. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Jail, Juvenile, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Prison, Race & Law, Sentencing, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [As Lumber Prices Increase, Theft May Follow](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/as-lumber-prices-increase-theft-may-follow/) **Published:** June 11, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Interesting [article ](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/a-man-is-caught-stealing-32-pieces-of-wood-as-lumber-prices-increase-theft-may-follow/)by reporter [Christine Clarridge](https://www.seattletimes.com/author/christine-clarridge/) of the [Seattle Times](https://www.seattletimes.com/) reports that the increase in lumber prices have [more than tripled over the past year](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/skyrocketing-lumber-prices-add-costs-for-new-seattle-area-homes-will-buyers-continue-to-pay/). Therefore, it was only a matter of time before thieves took note, said the [King County Sheriff’s Office](https://kingcounty.gov/depts/sheriff.aspx). Earlier this month, deputies arrested a man trying to get away with more than $2,300 worth of wood from a locked lumber yard, the sheriff’s office said Thursday in a [Facebook post](https://www.facebook.com/KingCountySheriff/posts/4108596422556390). “We’ve seen this with copper prices a number of years ago,” King County sheriff Sgt. Tim Meyers told KING 5. “We saw this with catalytic converter thefts as those minerals spiked, and our concern is that lumber thefts are going to be the [new catalytic converter thefts](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/catalytic-converter-thefts-still-up-its-a-stubborn-crime-police-say/) as thieves try to profit in this spike in cost.” Catalytic converters, however, don’t usually require a truck to cart away. According to the article, on June 1, an employee of [Dunn Lumber](https://www.dunnlumber.com/) on North 185th Street in Shoreline called dispatchers around 3:30 a.m. The employee was watching a live camera feed of the lumber yard, where a suspect could be seen taking 32 pieces of lumber from the locked space and stacking them up near an entry point where a Dodge Durango sat waiting, police said. The man was arrested and booked into the King County Jail for investigation of [commercial burglary](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/). As lumber prices hit all-time highs, theft seems to be on the rise – and not just in Washington. In early May, a [Texas man was arrested for stealing an amount of lumber](https://www.woodworkingnetwork.com/news/woodworking-industry-news/man-charged-timber-fraud-timber-theft-grows-texas) greater than $500 but less than $20,000. In April, Tennessee’s Department of Agriculture [warned landowners to secure their properties](https://www.woodworkingnetwork.com/news/woodworking-industry-news/timber-thefts-rise-tennessee-prices-increase) as lumber thefts are rising in the state. On May 21, 144 sheets of plywood – valued at over $10,000 – [were stolen from a job site in Florida. ](https://www.woodworkingnetwork.com/news/woodworking-industry-news/two-more-lumber-robberies-reported-prices-peak) Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/theft/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Theft, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [New Whatcom County District Court Judge To Be Appointed](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/new-whatcom-county-district-court-judge-to-be-appointed/) **Published:** June 14, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** News reporter [Robert Mittendorf](https://muckrack.com/robert-mittendorf) of the [Bellingham Herald](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/politics-government/article252011818.html) reports that [Whatcom County Council](https://www.whatcomcounty.us/268/County-Council) members will soon appoint a new District Court judge. Applications are being accepted for a vacancy on the Whatcom County District Court that opened this month when Judge David Grant recently retired before his term ended. Whatcom County District Court consists of two judges, an appointed commissioner and their staff. The court hears cases that include criminal misdemeanors, general civil actions and small claims, infractions including traffic and code violations, and miscellaneous other cases, according to the Whatcom County website. Grant was a deputy prosecuting attorney in Whatcom County for 18 years before his appointment to the District Court bench in 2004, according to elections records. He ran unopposed in 2006, 2010, 2014 and 2018. “With the aid of jail staff and administration, the (District) Court has been able to implement an array of alternatives to traditional incarceration,” Grant wrote in the 2018 voter pamphlet. > “Sentenced offenders typically serve sentences on electronic home detention or on community service or work programs. For those requiring some form of pretrial supervision, many are released pending trial with minimally invasive forms of electronic or personal reporting alternatives delivered through jail or probation staff. I am proud to be a part of this effort.” ~Judge David Grant Judge Grant was an excellent judge. I’ve had numerous trials before him, the most memorable ones involving allegations of [Assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) and [Domestic Violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/). Judge Grant ruled with empathy, discipline, humor and evenhandedness. I truly enjoyed conducting trials in his courtroom. Judge Grant, you’ll be missed! Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, misdemeanor, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Tackle or Terry Stop?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/tackle-or-terry-stop/) **Published:** June 18, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Pines*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/804502.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that police officers exceeded the scope of a [*Terry* Stop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop#:~:text=A%20Terry%20stop%20in%20the,as%20a%20stop%20and%20frisk.) when, with no observations or information from which to believe the suspect was carrying a weapon, they followed the suspect into a restaurant, tackled him to the ground, held him down by the neck and head, and handcuffed him. **BACKGROUND FACTS** On March 23, 2018, Officer Sausman was in his vehicle when he identified the defendant Mr. Pines driving a black BMW. Sausman recognized Pines and was aware that Pines had a warrant for [Residential Burglary](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/) and [Domestic Violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) charges. Sausman also knew that Pines was previously convicted of a felony. Sausman followed Pines to Columbia City, where Pines parked his vehicle and entered a Pagliacci Pizza restaurant. Sausman advised the uniformed arrest team that Pines was in the restaurant. Detective Miller was one of three uniformed officers that entered the restaurant to contact Pines. As the officers entered, Pines began moving toward the other door. The officers tackled Pines to the ground, holding him down by the neck and head, and handcuffed him. The officers then frisked Pines and found a handgun in his jacket pocket. The State charged Pines with [Unlawful Possession of a Firearm in the First Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/). Pines moved to suppress the handgun during a pretrial [CrR 3.6](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) hearing. The trial court denied Pines’s motion to suppress. Later, during a bench trial, the trial court found Pines guilty and imposed a sentence of 24 months in prison. Pines appealed on arguments that that the trial court erred in finding that the search and discovery of his firearm was a lawful *Terry* Stop, and thus denying his motion to suppress. Pines contends that his seizure amounted to a custodial arrest and that the police lacked probable cause at the time of his arrest. **COURT’S RATIONALE & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals said that under the Washington Constitution, warrantless searches are per se unreasonable unless one of the narrowly drawn exceptions to the warrant required applies. Furthermore, said the court, if the evidence was seized without authority of law, it is not admissible in court. Finally, it reasoned that a person is seized when an officer, by physical force or show of authority, restrains the person’s freedom of movement. The restraint must be such that a reasonable person would not believe they were free to leave. “The State argues, and the trial court agreed, that Pines’s seizure and subsequent search was the result of a valid *Terry* Stop,” said the Court of Appeals. “We disagree.” The Court of Appeals elaborated that under [*Terry v. Ohio*](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/67), a police officer may temporarily detain a person based on a reasonable suspicion that the person is or has been involved in a crime. “In evaluating the reasonableness of an officer’s suspicion, we look to the totality of the circumstances known to the officer,” said the Court of Appeals. “We determine the reasonableness based on an objective view of the known facts, not the officer’s subjective belief or ability to correctly articulate his suspicion in reference to a particular crime. The detention must not exceed the duration and intensity necessary to dispel the officer’s suspicions.” The Court relied on [*State v. Mitchell*](http://courts.mrsc.org/appellate/080wnapp/080wnapp0143.htm) – an important Washington case on Terry Stops – to determine whether the officer’s interactions with Mr. Pines was lawful: > “Here, in stark contrast with Mitchell, the arresting officers did not observe Pines carrying a weapon. Indeed, as Detective Miller testified, they had no reason to contact Pines except for their belief that he might have a warrant. > > Further, unlike Mitchell, where the officer was alone at night, there were three uniformed police officers along with Detective Sausman at the scene. No officer testified that they feared for their safety prior to Pines’s seizure or that they had seen a weapon prior to their search. And finally, unlike Mitchell where the defendant was told to lie down without contact from the officer, the three uniformed officers forcefully took Pines to the ground and handcuffed him, while Detective Sausman yelled that Pines was under arrest on a felony warrant.” ~WA Court of Appeals With that, the WA Court of Appeals held that a reasonable person in Pines’s situation would consider themselves under custodial arrest. “Pines’s seizure exceeded the scope of a valid *Terry* Stop. The trial court erred in concluding the search was valid under *Terry*.” The Court of Appeals also reasoned that although the officer’s knowledge of a month-old arrest warrant would support a properly limited *Terry* detention, it was insufficient to provide probable cause for arrest. “The month gap between the officer learning of the arrest warrant and the arrest was too long – the suspect could have been arrested and posted bail during the 30-day interval,” said the Court. The Court dismissed Pines’s conviction with prejudice. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime involving [Search and Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/). Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Firearm, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Terry Stop, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Exigent Circumstance DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/exigent-circumstance-dui/) **Published:** June 28, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*Lange v. California*](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-18_cb7d.pdf), the [United States Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) held that the pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) suspect does not always qualify as an [Exigent Circumstance](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exigent_circumstances#:~:text=Exigent%20circumstances%20%2D%20%22circumstances%20that%20would,some%20other%20consequence%20improperly%20frustrating) justifying a warrantless entry into a person’s garage. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** One night, the Defendant Mr. Lange drove by a [California highway patrol](https://www.chp.ca.gov/home) officer while playing loud music. The officer followed Lange and soon after turned on his overhead lights to signal that Lange should pull over. Rather than stopping, Lange drove a short distance to his driveway and entered his attached garage. The officer followed Lange into the garage. He questioned Lange and, after observing signs of intoxication, put him through field sobriety tests. A later blood test showed that Lange’s blood-alcohol content was three times the legal limit. The State charged Lange with the misdemeanor of DUI. Lange moved to suppress the evidence obtained after the officer entered his garage, arguing that the warrantless entry violated the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment). The Superior Court denied Lange’s motion, and its appellate division affirmed. The California Court of Appeal also affirmed. It reasoned that the pursuit of a suspected misdemeanant was always permissible under the [exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exigent_circumstances#:~:text=Exigent%20circumstances%20%2D%20%22circumstances%20that%20would,some%20other%20consequence%20improperly%20frustrating). The California Supreme Court denied review. The United States Supreme Court (USSC) granted it. **ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The USSC held that under the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment), pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect does not always—that is, categorically—justify a warrantless entry into a home. The Court began by saying the [Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) ordinarily requires that a law enforcement officer obtain a judicial warrant before entering a home without permission. But an officer may make a warrantless entry when the exigencies of the situation, considered in a case-specific way, create a compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant. The Court has found that such exigent circumstances may exist when an officer must act to prevent imminent injury, the destruction of evidence, or a suspect’s escape. The Court reasoned that misdemeanors run the gamut of seriousness, and they may be minor. States tend to apply the misdemeanor label to less violent and less dangerous crimes. Furthermore, it reasoned that when a minor offense (and no flight) is involved, police officers do not usually face the kind of emergency that can justify a warrantless home entry. “Add a suspect’s flight and the calculus changes—but not enough to justify a categorical rule,” said the Court. It further reasoned that in many cases, flight creates a need for police to act swiftly. But no evidence suggests that every case of misdemeanor flight creates such a need. > “When the totality of circumstances shows an emergency—a need to act before it is possible to get a warrant—the police may act without waiting. Those circumstances include the flight itself. But pursuit of a misdemeanant does not trigger a categorical rule allowing a warrantless home entry.” ~United States Supreme Court. The Court followed up by saying In short, the common law did not have — and does not support — a categorical rule allowing warrantless home entry when a suspected misdemeanant flees. With that, the Court vacated Mr. Lange’s criminal conviction. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crime involving [search and seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) issues. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Exigent Circumstances, Fourth Amendment, misdemeanor, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Federal Executions Halted](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/federal-executions-halted/) **Published:** July 2, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [Department of Justice reports](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-merrick-b-garland-imposes-moratorium-federal-executions-orders-review) that [Attorney General Merrick Garland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland) ordered a temporary stop Thursday to scheduling further federal executions. In a memo to senior officials, he said serious concerns have arisen about the arbitrariness of capital punishment, its disparate impact on people of color, and “the troubling number of exonerations” in death penalty cases. > “The Department of Justice must ensure that everyone in the federal criminal justice system is not only afforded the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States but is also treated fairly and humanly.” ~Attorney General Merrick Garland Court fights over the traditional three-drug memo for carrying out lethal injections, and a shortage of one of those drugs, brought federal executions to a halt for nearly two decades. But in 2019, under the Trump Administration then-Attorney General William Barr [directed federal prison officials](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/ag-barr-orders-reinstatement-federal-death-penalty-n1034451) to begin carrying lethal injections using a single drug — a powerful sedative. Using that method, 13 people on federal death row were executed between July 2020 and January 2021. Garland ordered a review of the revised lethal injection protocol and directed the [Bureau of Prisons](https://www.bop.gov/) to stop using that method while that is underway. He also said the department would study a Trump administration regulation that allowed federal prisons to carry out executions in any manner authorized by the state where the death sentence was imposed. Garland’s memo did not address whether the federal government would continue to seek the death penalty in criminal cases. However, no federal executions will be scheduled while the reviews are pending. The Attorney General’s memorandum can be found [here.](https://www.justice.gov/opa/page/file/1408636/download) Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Death Penalty, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Operation Dry Water](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/operation-dry-water/) **Published:** July 5, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [Washington State Parks](https://www.parks.state.wa.us/) released a [News Flash](https://www.parks.state.wa.us/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=710) regarding [Operation Dry Water](http://www.operationdrywater.org/) — a nationally coordinated effort that focuses on [Boating Under the Influence (BUI)](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=79A.60.040) awareness and enforcement. In short, boaters will notice an increase in patrols July 2- 4, across Washington state. The Washington State Parks Boating Program, safety advocates and law enforcement agencies are asking boaters to help keep everyone safe by not consuming alcohol or marijuana while out on the water — especially when operating a boat or paddle craft. “Operating any vehicle or vessel under the influence is illegal and unsafe,” said Matt Stowers, Marine Law Enforcement coordinator for the Boating Program. “However, it’s arguably more dangerous on the water. Research shows it takes less alcohol to impair you on the water than it does on land — one beer on land equals three beers on the water.” According to the U.S. Coast Guard, Boating Under the Influence is the leading known contributing factor in fatal recreational boating accidents. In Washington state, it’s illegal to use any substance that impairs a person’s ability to operate a boat. Similar to [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/), Washington BUI law applies to all boats, including kayaks, canoes, rowboats, stand-up paddleboards, and inflatable fishing rafts. Some key things for boaters to know: - State law allows law enforcement officers to require boaters suspected of operating a boat while intoxicated to submit to a breath or blood test. - Refusing to submit to a test is a civil infraction with a maximum fine of $2,050.00. - The penalty for operating a boat under the influence is a gross misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of $5,000 and 364 days in jail. - Additionally, a BUI is considered a prior offense if there are later convictions for driving under the influence (DUI). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Boating Under the Influence, misdemeanor, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Operation Dry Water, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [DOJ Settles ADA Lawsuit](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/33452-2/) **Published:** July 6, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [U.S. Department of Justice](https://www.justice.gov/) issued a [press release](https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/doj-and-whatcom-county-resolve-multiple-complaints-regarding-violations-americans) saying it reached agreements with Whatcom County to ensure individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing are able to effectively communicate during encounters with the criminal justice system. Two agreements resolved claims that the [Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office](https://www.whatcomcounty.us/200/Sheriff) and the [Public Defender’s Office ](https://www.whatcomcounty.us/311/Public-Defender)failed to ensure effective communication with a defendant who is deaf during the investigation, arrest, and advice of counsel phases of his criminal justice experience. The resolution calls for the aforementioned offices to make a number of changes to the way in which they interact with people who are deaf or hard of hearing. These changes include developing written policies, monitoring and logging interactions, contracting with sign language interpreters and reporting back to DOJ on their compliance with the agreements. > “When a person’s freedom is at stake, protecting rights guaranteed by the Americans with Disabilities Act is paramount . . . I’m pleased the Whatcom County Public Defender’s Office and the Sheriff’s Office are taking these steps to make sure they protect the rights of all area residents who are deaf or hard of hearing.” ~U.S. Assistant Attorney Tessa M. Gorman According to the settlement agreement with the Whatcom County Sheriff, a Whatcom County resident filed a complaint that his rights under the [Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)](https://www.ada.gov/) were violated when he was questioned and arrested by Sheriff’s deputies after a dispute with his tenant. The investigation found that the deputies knew the complainant was deaf and communicated via [American Sign Language (ASL)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Sign_Language). Nevertheless, when investigating a complaint from the man’s tenant, they failed to use an interpreter and instead relied on hand-written notes to communicate. The complainant was arrested and taken to jail without effective communication with law enforcement and without an ability to tell his side of the story. As part of the settlement the Sheriff’s Office is paying the complainant $60,000. Under the terms of the settlement with the Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office (WCSO), there will be significant improvements in its ADA policies. The WCSO will hire an ADA coordinator to ensure implementation and monitoring of new policies. WCSO will train staff on the policies and compile logs on interactions with residents who need auxiliary services such as sign language interpretation. The WCSO will enter into contracts with ASL service providers so that interpretation services are available at all times. The WCSO will prominently post information on interpreter services and the contact information for ADA services. Every six months for a two-year period WCSO will report back to the U.S. Attorney’s Office on the requests for and use of interpreter services. The agreement also calls for WCSO to modify its handcuffing policy for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing. Such individuals are to be handcuffed in the front of their body unless there is a reasonable safety risk. In each instance where a staff member maintains there is such a risk, the interaction must be logged and reported to DOJ in the six-month review. Under the terms of the resolution with Whatcom County, the Public Defender’s Office will ensure that, among other things, there is a contract in place for interpreter services in person or via video to ensure that defendants who are deaf or hard of hearing are able to effectively communicate with their attorneys. My opinion? These new policies are a step in the right direction. It violates civil rights for deaf people to be denied interpreter services and/or access to an attorney when confronted by police. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member have a disability and are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Crime Increased in 2020](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/crime-increased-in-2020/) **Published:** July 12, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Overall crime in Washington State increased in 2020 according to a [report](https://www.waspc.org/assets/CJIS/Crime%20In%20Washington%202020-small.pdf) released this week by the [Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC)](https://www.waspc.org/). The annual report tracks crime and arrest data from contributing law enforcement agencies throughout Washington. The Crime in Washington 2020 report is compiled with data from 233 state, county, municipal, and Tribal agencies and is published in conjunction with the [FBI](https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us), which will compile and release national data based upon state reports later this year. The report is designed to give residents, elected officials, and law enforcement data-driven information about crime in their communities. The report shows that in 2020 murders were up almost 47% and have increased overall 67% since 2016. Manslaughter went up 100%, fraud increased by 131%, while drug and narcotic offenses, and reported hate crimes were down slightly. The total number of commissioned officers statewide was down from 1.24 per thousand to 1.19 per thousand people. Washington is ranked 51st out of the 50 states and District of Columbia for the number of officers per thousand people. Reported cases of officers assaulted was up 6% in 2020 and has increased 67% since 2016. **FACTS AT A GLANCE** - The total population for the State of Washington is 7,656,066. - There were 302 [murders](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/) in 2020; this is an increase of 46.6% compared to 206 murders in 2019. Murders have increased overall 66.9% since 2016. - There were 59,134 fraud offenses in 2020; this is an increase of 131.3% compared to 25,562 fraud offenses in 2019. The significant increase in fraud activity in 2020 was due in part to fraudulent unemployment claims related to the pandemic. - A total of 468[ hate crime](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/harassment/) incidents were reported, down slightly from 2019 (a decrease of 13.1%). - A total of 22,070 persons were arrested for [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/), including 172 juveniles. - Drug and narcotic abuse incidents were lower in 2020 (a decrease of 22.7%). - There were 8,200 arrests for Drug/Narcotic violations; of that number 4.2% were persons under 18 years of age. - [Possessing/concealing of heroin](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) constituted 23.6% of the total drug abuse incidents; the distributing/selling of heroin accounted for 3.5% of incidents (type of criminal activity can be entered three times in each incident). - Full-time commissioned officers totaled 11,231. - There was a total of 2,047 assaults on law enforcement officers, this is an increase of 6.2% compared to 1,927 assaults in 2019. - Two officers were killed in the line of duty, Washington State Trooper Justin Schaffer and Bothell Officer Jonathan Shoop. - There was a total of 59,289 [Domestic Violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) offenses reported; 13,909 of these offenses were [Violations of Protection or No Contact Orders](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/no-contact-order-violations/). - Domestic Violence offenses made up 49.7% of all Crimes Against Persons and 2.7% of all Crimes Against Property. - There were 5,432 [Sexual Offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/) (forcible and non-forcible) reported in 2020. There was a total of 5,432 victims in these incidents: with a total of 5,026 offenders. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, misdemeanor, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Crime Moves Up the Agenda](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/crime-moves-up-the-agenda/) **Published:** July 12, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Interesting [article](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/561439-the-memo-democrats-face-vulnerability-as-crime-moves-up-voters-agenda) by [Niall Stanage](https://thehill.com/author/niall-stanage) of [The Hill](https://thehill.com/) says that a [recent poll](https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1221a1CrimeandRacialJustice.pdf) shows the latest proof that crime is becoming a crucial issue for American voters. According to Stanage, the new survey from [The Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/) and [ABC News](https://abcnews.go.com/) found more Americans than at any time in the past 20 years believe crime is an “extremely serious” or “very serious” problem in the area where they live. It also found that 59 percent of adults believe crime is extremely or very serious in the United States as a whole — the highest figure in three years. Crime had been a pivotal topic in American politics a generation ago, especially during the worst days of the crack epidemic. But its relevance fell, along with the murder rates, from the closing years of the last century until very recently. [Murders](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/) nationwide rose by about 25 percent last year, and many major cities fared worse still. In New York City, for example, homicides rose about 45 percent in 2020. Other cities including Miami and Atlanta have seen spikes this year. Also according to Stanage, although crime rates rose sharply last year, the politics of the issue remained mostly on the back burner as the nation dealt with the [COVID-19 Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic) and the question of how to get Americans back on their feet economically. Stanage challenges Joe Biden to address the issue: > “There are other reasons for [President Biden](https://thehill.com/people/joe-biden), in particular, to worry about the poll’s findings. It indicated that 48 percent of adults disapprove of the way he is dealing with crime, while only 38 percent approve.” ~Reporter Niall Stanage, [The Hill](https://thehill.com/) Biden laid out a strategy to deal with crime in a June 23 speech at the White House. The president focused largely on trying to disrupt the trade in illicit firearms. He also emphasized that local authorities could use COVID-19 relief funds to hire additional law enforcement officers. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Cell Site Location Info](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/cell-site-location-info/) **Published:** July 14, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Denham*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/985910.pdf), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held there was a sufficient nexus between the defendant’s seized phone records and the suspected criminal activity to support the issuance of a [search warrant](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/search_warrant). **BACKGROUND FACTS** A valuable diamond was stolen from a jewelry store. Within days, the Defendant Mr. Denham sold that diamond. Police suspected Denham committed the burglary and got a warrant for his cell phone records. Cell site location information included in those phone records placed Denham’s phone near the jewelry store around the time of the burglary. Mr. Denham was charged and ultimately convicted with [second degree burglary](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/) and [first degree trafficking in stolen property](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/possession-of-stolen-property/). At Denham’s bench trial, The trial judge cited the fact that Denham had made phone calls that were routed through the cell tower in the parking lot of the jewelry store around the time of the burglary. Ultimately, the trial judge found Denham guilty as charged. Mr Denham appealed his case to the WA Court of Appeals. He challenged the admissibility of the search warrant and the evidence it produced. His argument was that the warrant based on generalizations and did not establish that evidence of wrongdoing would likely be found in his phone records. The WA Court of Appeals agreed with Mr. Denham. The State, however, filed its own appeal. And Mr. Denham’s was heard in the WA Supreme Court. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The WA Supreme Court began by discussing the admissibility of cell phone records. “Our constitutions protect individual privacy against state intrusion,” said [Justice Gonzalez](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=gonzalez), who authored the opinion. He said that under the [U.S. Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/index.html) and [WA State Constitution](https://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/Pages/WAConstitution.aspx), police must have either the authority of a warrant or a well-established exception to the warrant requirement to lawfully intrude into an individual’s private affairs. “This constitutional protection extends to cell phone location information held by cell phone companies,” said Justice Gonzalez. He acknowledged that [time-stamped data](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timestamp) contained in cell phones provides an intimate window into a person’s life, revealing not only his particular movements, but through them his familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations. Next, Justice Gonzalez described how a search warrant should be issued only if it shows probable cause that the defendant is involved in criminal activity and that evidence of the criminal activity will be found in the place to be searched. “There must be a nexus between criminal activity and the item to be seized and between that item and the place to be searched,” he said. “The warrant must also describe with particularity the place to be searched and the things to be seized.” With that, Justice Gonzalez reasoned that the search warrant affidavits were proper: > “These affidavits present reasonable grounds to believe that the phones associated with the phone numbers belonged to Denham based on Denham’s own use of the numbers with his probation officers and with various businesses, that Denham had the phones around the time of the burglary because of specific facts suggesting he had the phones days before and after the date in question, that Denham burgled the store, and that Denham trafficked distinctive pieces stolen from the store. They also allege that Denham had both phones at the time of the burglary and used one to arrange the sale of the diamond that was the basis of the trafficking charge. > > > > Taken together, this is sufficient to raise a reasonable inference that evidence of burglary would be found in the cell site location information . . . The fact that there are some generalizations in the inferential chain does not defeat the reasonableness of the inference.” ~Justice Gonzalez, WA Supreme Court Justice Gonzalez concluded by holding that the search warrant contained sufficient detail to conclude that evidence of a crime would more likely than not be found in the cell site location information in telephone company records of Denham’s cell phones. Accordingly, the WA Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed Denham’s convictions. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Burglary, Cell Phone, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Possession of Stolen Property, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Jury Questions](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/jury-questions/) **Published:** July 17, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Sutton*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/368041_pub.pdf), the WA Court of Appeals held that, when answering a deliberating jury’s questions, a trial court has a responsibility to ensure that the jury understands the law. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Law enforcement executed a search warrant looking for evidence of drug trafficking at an address on in Newman Lake, Washington. At the property, they found the defendant Ms. Sutton and numerous co-defendants. The ensuing investigation led to Sutton and the co-defendants being arrested for the [Kidnapping](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/kidnapping-unlawful-imprisonment/) and [Murder](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/). The State charged Sutton with first degree felony murder predicated on kidnapping, first degree kidnapping, and [Leading Organized Crime](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.82.060). With respect to the charge of Leading Organized Crime, the State alleged that Sutton did intentionally organize, manage, and direct three or more persons with the intent to engage in a pattern of criminal profiteering activity, to-wit: [Delivery of a Controlled Substance.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) Sutton testified in her defense. She admitted she sold drugs, but denied she sold drugs or directed the co-defendants to commit any crimes. During deliberations, the jury forwarded a written question to the judge. “For instruction #25, must the defendant have organized (etc.) all three of the listed persons specifically, or just any 3 or more persons (as instruction #24 states)?” The judge asked counsel for suggestions on how it should respond to the jury’s question. Both the Prosecutor and Defense Counsel agreed the answer was, “Yes.” Ultimately, the trial judge decided that the best answer was to simply direct the jury to refer back to its instructions. Soon after, the jury returned guilty verdicts. Sutton appealed her conviction on arguments that the trial court abused its discretion by declining the proposed defense jury instruction that accurately stated the law. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals began by saying that Defendants are guaranteed a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which requires jury instructions that accurately inform the jury of the relevant law. Furthermore, CrR 6.15(f)(1) permits trial judges to give the jury supplemental written instructions on any point of law after deliberations begin. This is done to ensure a jury is informed of the relevant law. > “A trial court should ensure that the jury understands the law . . . When it is apparent the jury does not understand the law, the trial court may and should issue a supplemental written instruction. A failure to do so is inconsistent with its responsibility to ensure the jury understands the law and risks the jury rendering a verdict contrary to the evidence.” ~WA Court of Appeals Next, the Court of Appeals addressed whether the trial court should have given a supplemental instruction to clarify the law. It raised and dismissed Mrs. Sutton’s arguments that under *[State v. Backemeyer](https://casetext.com/case/state-v-backemeyer?resultsNav=false)*, a trial court should ensure that the jury understands the law. “*Backemeyer* is distinguishable from this case,” said the Court of Appeals. “There, it was clear that the jury misunderstood the law. Here, the to-convict instruction was clear.” The Court further reasoned that the jury’s question did not create an inference that the entire jury was confused or that any confusion was not clarified. > “At a minimum, the jury’s question showed that some jurors wanted assurance they need not be concerned about the different wording in instruction 24. And because the trial court has a responsibility to ensure that the jury understands the law, it should have answered the jury’s question. It could have answered: ‘To convict Sutton of leading organized crime, the State must prove the elements of that crime as set forth in Instruction 25 beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Nevertheless, the trial court’s decision not to answer the jury’s question was not an abuse of discretion.” ~ WA Court of Appeals. With that, the Court of Appeals upheld Sutton’s conviction. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Jury Trial, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Trial Security](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/trial-security/) **Published:** July 24, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Bejar,*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/811665.pdf) the[ WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held it was not prejudicial to the defendant’s case for jurors to go through enhanced courtroom security screening on a jury trial involving a gang murder. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Mr. Bejar, Jr. was charged with [murder in the first degree with a firearm enhancement](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/) and [unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/). The shooting involved a gang war in South King County that was instigated by gang members disrespecting each other over social media. Mr. Bejar was the alleged shooter, and a member of the South Side Locos gang. The victim was a member of the the United Lokotes gang. At trial, the judge ordered secondary screening strictly for any courtroom observers. “There’s been allegations of witnesses being assaulted as a result of this ongoing gang war, and in particular Facebook posts that I read provided here refer to different people as being snitches,” said the trial judge. Consequently, he issued the following secondary screening rules: 1. Persons entering the courtroom may be subjected to secondary screening, including use of a magnetometer, handheld metal detector, and pat down searches. Persons who fail to comply with screening requirements will not be permitted access to the courtroom. 2. Except as specifically authorized in this document or by separate order of the Court, no cell phones, cameras, or other electronic devices capable of audio or video recording, or component parts of such devices, will be permitted in the courtroom. Persons entering the courtroom may be required to leave such devices with security personnel . . . The jury convicted Bejar of all crimes as charged. He appealed on arguments that requiring jurors to go through secondary screening was inherently prejudicial. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals began by saying that the presumption of innocence is a basic component of a fair trial under our system of justice. In order to preserve a defendant’s presumption of innocence before a jury, the defendant is entitled to the physical indicia. This includes the right of the defendant to be brought before the court with the appearance, dignity, and self-respect of a free and innocent individual. “Measures which single out a defendant as a particularly dangerous or guilty person threaten his constitutional right to a fair trial,” said the Court of Appeals. “Such measures threaten a defendant’s right to a fair trial because they erode his presumption of innocence; these types of courtroom practices are inherently prejudicial.” That said, the Court also reasoned that the average juror takes for granted security screenings in courthouses and other similar government buildings. The court emphasized that jurors are used to passing through security screening, including metal detectors and pat down searches, when entering government buildings or government-controlled spaces within buildings, including airports and other transportation hubs, federal buildings, and courts. > “The fact that there was a secondary screening outside the courtroom in the hallway for cell phones did not suggest particular official concern or alarm; it was not an invasive search or conducted by guards with unusual weaponry or armed presence.” ~WA Court of Appeals Furthermore, reasoned the Court, the secondary screening allowed for a wide range of inferences, including that such screening was designed to guard against disruptions emanating from outside the courtroom. “The jurors only had to pass through the secondary screening on the first day of trial,” said the Court. “On all subsequent days, jurors were allowed to bypass the secondary screening with their juror badges. These factors all served to minimize any potential prejudice to the defendants.” With that, the Court of Appeals ruled that the secondary screening of the jurors on the first day of trial was not inherently prejudicial. > “These secondary security measures did not single out a defendant as a particularly dangerous or guilty person or threaten his constitutional right to a fair trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in adopting such measures.” ~WA Court of Appeals With that, the Court of Appeals affirmed Bejas’ conviction. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Uncategorized **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Policing Mental Health](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/policing-mental-health/) **Published:** August 6, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.theolympian.com/news/state/washington/article253289628.html) in [the Olympian](https://www.theolympian.com/) by reporter[ Brandon Block ](mailto:bblock@theolympian.com) describes how the [Washington State Attorney General’s Office](https://www.atg.wa.gov/) is refuting claims by police departments that new reform legislation – [HB 1310](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1310&Year=2021&Initiative=false) – prevents them responding to non-criminal calls. A [confidential memo](https://housedemocrats.wa.gov/tmp/2021/08/Attorney-Client-Privilege-Bill-1310-002.pdf) issued by an Assistant Attorney and a Deputy Solicitor states the following: > “Washington statutes and case law recognize responding to community caretaking calls as part of a law enforcement officer’s duties . . . Bill 1310 does not prohibit peace officers from responding to community caretaking calls, including mental health calls.” ~Assistant Attorney General Shelley Williams and Deputy Solicitor General Alicia O. Young Police departments across the state have announced drastic cuts to service and characterized those decisions as a response to a series of [police reform and accountability laws that went into effect on July 25](https://www.king5.com/article/news/politics/new-laws-go-into-effect-sunday/281-440b95f3-4622-4d36-b02b-640a4cd03daf). Much of the discrepancy in interpretations has centered on [HB 1310](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1310&Year=2021&Initiative=false), which sets a statewide standard for police use of force and establishes an expectation of “reasonable care” for officers. HB 1310 allows police to use physical force when necessary to make an arrest or prevent an escape, or when there is “an imminent threat of bodily injury” to the officer, person in question, or someone else. It directs officers to exhaust all possible de-escalation tactics before using force. It also directs police to use the least amount of force needed to overcome resistance, and take into account the characteristics of the person, such as whether they are pregnant, a minor, or are cognitively impaired. The bill offers a list of possible tactics, including taking as much time as needed, repositioning, calling for backup or additional resources such as mental health workers, or leaving the scene “if there is no threat of imminent harm and no crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed.” Some law enforcement officials — including the police chiefs in Olympia and Lacey — have interpreted those limitations on use-of-force as instructions not to engage with people until they witness a crime being committed. “Nothing in the statute’s plain language indicates that specifying permissible uses of force prohibits an officer from responding to community caretaking calls,” the memo reads. “An interpretation that Bill 1310 limits or prohibits law enforcement officers from responding to calls that do not involve a crime — such as community caretaking calls to render aid — is contrary to legislative intent to preserve and protect all human life.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Consensual Seizures](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/consensual-seizures/) **Published:** August 12, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Meredith*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/812033.pdf), the WA Court of Appeals held that a bus passenger consents to a warrantless search and seizure consisting of a bus fare enforcement officer requests the passenger provide proof of payment. **BACKGROUND FACTS** The defendant Mr. Meredith was riding the [Swift regional transit bus](https://www.communitytransit.org/aboutswift) in Everett late one morning. Two officers from the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office boarded to conduct fare enforcement. When conducting fare enforcement, officers would board a bus at a stop and then ask individual passengers for proof of payment while the bus was driving from one stop to the next. A “chase vehicle” would follow the bus to help with identifying and processing anyone ordered off the bus for nonpayment. Officer Dalton moved to the back of the bus. He began working his way forward and saying “proof of payment or ORCA card” to each passenger in a conversational tone. His partner moved to the front of the bus and worked backward. The bus drove to its next stop while the officers checked for proof of payment. Officer Dalton requested “proof of payment or ORCA card” from Meredith, who began to check his pants and backpack. Failure to provide proof of payment could result in a notice of infraction or arrest. The bus continued along its route, and Meredith searched for four or five minutes without producing proof of payment. Officer Dalton ordered him to disembark at the next stop, and they left the bus together. Officer Dalton asked Meredith for his name and identification. Meredith gave a fake name. Officer Dalton radioed dispatch to run the name, and it produced no returns in either Washington or Colorado. Officer Dalton suspected Meredith gave a fake name. Officer Zelaya arrived to help determine Meredith’s identity. Officer Zelaya used a mobile fingerprint reader to scan Meredith’s fingerprints. He learned Meredith’s real name and that he had two outstanding felony warrants. Meredith was arrested on his warrants and for committing [third degree theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/theft/) of services for nonpayment of fare. He was charged with [Making a False Statement to a Public Servant](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.76.175). Pretrial, Meredith [moved to suppress evidence](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/motion_to_suppress) resulting from Officer Dalton’s fare enforcement. The trial court denied the motion. A jury found Meredith guilty of making a false statement. Meredith appealed under arguments that his constitutional rights were violated by the officers when they executed an unauthorized and warrantless seizure. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals said the Washington Constitution provides, “No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.” Furthermore, the WA Constitution protects against unauthorized seizures by government, despite not using the word “seize.” However, the Court emphasized that Meredith did not allege his privacy was violated. It reasoned that the analysis does not not depend upon the “privacy” of information requested when police merely request proof of payment on public transit. Therefore, a person can be unlawfully seized without a violation of their privacy. Next, the Court analyzed whether Meredith validly consented to being seized. “We consider whether his consent was voluntary, whether the seizure was limited to the scope of the consent granted, and whether consent was granted by a party with authority to do so,” said the Court. “We determine whether consent was voluntary by considering the totality of the circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable—meaning innocent—person.” > “Here, Meredith freely chose to contract with Swift Transit for transportation. He agreed to pay and provide proof of payment. And as a reasonable rider, he necessarily understood his duty to pay his fare and provide proof of payment when asked. Thus, like the civilian base visitor in [*Farkas*](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/14-55756/14-55756-2016-05-24.html), Meredith was aware of the possible seizure of his person and consented to it.” ~WA Court of Appeals The Court concluded by saying Meredith voluntarily consented to Officer Dalton’s initial contact. With that the Court affirmed Meredith’s conviction. Please review my [Search & Seizure Legal Guide](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, misdemeanor, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Theft, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Access Devices](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/access-devices/) **Published:** August 14, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Arno*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/372685_pub.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals Division III](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.genorders&div=III) held that a paper check presented to a bank is excluded from the definition of an “access device.” Such a paper check will not support a conviction for [Second Degree Possession of Stolen Property](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/possession-of-stolen-property/#:~:text=Possession%20of%20Stolen%20Property,-In%20Washington%2C%20possession&text=Possessing%20Stolen%20Property%20in%20the,prison%20and%20a%20%2420%2C000.00%20fine.). **BACKGROUND FACTS** The defendant Mr. Ibrahim Arno brought a forged check for $1,000 to a [Wells Fargo Bank](https://www.wellsfargo.com/) in May 2018. He was charged with [Forgery](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/forgery/) and [Possession of Stolen Property](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/possession-of-stolen-property/#:~:text=Possession%20of%20Stolen%20Property,-In%20Washington%2C%20possession&text=Possessing%20Stolen%20Property%20in%20the,prison%20and%20a%20%2420%2C000.00%20fine.). While his charges were pending, Mr. Arno missed a court date. He was later charged with [Bail Jumping](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/bail-jumping/). The case proceeded to trial. The check was nominally written and bore a signature from the victim Mr. Pinnow. He testified that a box of checks had been stolen from his house in 2017 and that the check in question was one of those that had been stolen. He denied writing the check, and the signature on the check did not match the bank’s records. The account the check was drawn on had been closed earlier after several of the stolen checks were fraudulently cashed. Regarding the Bail Jumping Charge, Mr. Arno testified that he received a scheduling order with several dates crossed out and was “confused.” A jury found Mr. Arno guilty of all charges. He appealed the Possession of Stolen Property conviction because the statutory definition of “access device” specifically excludes paper checks from its definition. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals began by saying a person is guilty of second degree possession of stolen property if he “possesses a stolen access device.” An “Access device” is defined as “any card, plate, code, account number, or other means of account access that can be used . . . to initiate a transfer of funds, *other than a transfer originated solely by paper instrument*.” “Mr. Arno argues that the statute’s plain language excludes an attempt to transfer funds by presenting a bad check for payment,” said the Court of Appeals. “We agree. If the exclusion is to mean anything, it clearly applies to the presentation of a paper check at a bank.” The Court of Appeals rejected the State’s arguments that that it was prosecuting Mr. Arno for possessing an account number, not for presenting a forged check. “The record belies the State’s argument,” said the Court. “In addition, it is clear that the State was not charging Mr. Arno for possessing bank account numbers; it was charging him with possession of a stolen check.” > “We hold that a paper check presented to a bank is excluded from the definition of an access device as ‘a transfer originated solely by paper instrument.’ RCW 9A.56.010(1). Thus, there is insufficient evidence to support Mr. Arno’s conviction for second degree possession of stolen property.” ~ WA Court of Appeals Nevertheless, the Court of appeals affirmed Mr. Arno’s convictions for forgery and bail jumping. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Access Devices, Bail Jumping, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Evidence, felony, Forgery, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Possession of Stolen Property, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [COVID-19 Outbreak At Jail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/covid-19-outbreak-at-jail/) **Published:** August 19, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Reporter [David Rasbac](https://muckrack.com/david-rasbach)h from the [Bellingham Herald](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/) reports the [Whatcom County Jail in downtown Bellingham has seen a COVID-19 outbreak](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/coronavirus/article253590029.html) the past few days. The present outbreak has spread to 10 corrections deputies and one person housed at the jail. Rasbach reports that since late in 2020, all corrections deputies at the jail have been tested for COVID weekly. One of the deputies tested positive on Saturday, Aug. 14. “Over the following three days, additional corrections deputies tested positive during their weekly screening,” said Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office spokesperson Deb Slater. “We began working with the Whatcom County Health Department to track down the source of the infection. Apparently, several corrections deputies contracted COVID while booking an individual who was uncooperative. This individual refused to answer any health-related questions or take a rapid COVID-19 test and demonstrated uncontrolled behavior during the booking process. The sheriff’s office’s Corrections Bureau has since increased its rapid testing of deputies to daily, and additional personal protective equipment protocols have been put in place, according to Slater. In January, the [Work Center had an outbreak that affected 37 people](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/coronavirus/article248651810.html), leading to some of the testing protocols now in place at the jail. My opinion? A jail sentence should not become a death sentence. And yet our jails and prisons are filled with people with [preexisting medical conditions](https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5219) that put them a heightened risk for complications from COVID-19. Our jails and prisons house large numbers of people with chronic diseases and complex medical needs who are more vulnerable to COVID-19. At the beginning of the pandemic,[ jails cut their populations by as much as 30%, helping to protect many of these people](https://www.prisonpolicy.org/virus/virusresponse.html). But states and counties abandoned their efforts to keep jail populations low as the pandemic wore on. Please review my Legal Guide titled [Making Bail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/making-bail/) and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are jailed and charged with a crime during this [COVID-19 Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic). Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the best step toward justice. Nowadays, it may save your life. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Jail, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Offender Score Post-Blake](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/offender-score-post-blake/) **Published:** August 19, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Markovich*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/814231.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that an out-of-state conviction for drug possession may not be included in the calculation of an offender score. There is no longer a comparable Washington offense after [*State v. Blake*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/968730.pdf) declared Washington’s strict liability simple possession statute to be unconstitutional. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** In the early morning hours of July 13, 2017, police officers broke down the door of an apartment in Everett while executing a search warrant. The defendant Mr. Markovich was sitting on a couch in the front room of the apartment. Officers noticed digital scales, loaded and unloaded syringes, baggies, burnt aluminum foil, and a small stack of cash near the couch. Markovich was handcuffed and led outside the apartment. He had a small “baggie” containing a white substance in his pocket. The substance was later determined to be less than a gram of methamphetamine. In the bedroom, officers also discovered a black fabric bag containing a larger quality of methamphetamine, heroin, and related drug paraphernalia. Markovich was charged with [Possession of Methamphetamine and Heroin With Intent to Deliver or Manufacture](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). At trial, Markovich was convicted as charged. The court imposed a high-end standard range sentence of 108 months in prison followed by 12 months of community custody. Markovich appealed on numerous grounds. While this appeal was pending, the [Washington Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) decided [*State v. Blake*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/968730.pdf), holding that Washington’s drug possession statute, RCW 69.50.4013(1), violated the due process clauses of the state and federal constitutions and was void. 197 Wn.2d at 186. Markovich filed a motion for resentencing in superior court, arguing that he was entitled to resentencing in light of [*Blake* ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/968730.pdf)because his two prior out-of-state convictions for drug possession were included in the calculation of his offender score. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** On this issue, the Court of Appeals reasoned that a prior conviction based on a constitutionally invalid statute may not be considered when calculating an offender score. “A sentence that is based upon an incorrect offender score is a fundamental defect that inherently results in a miscarriage of justice,” said the Court, quoting *[In re Pers. Restraint of Goodwin](https://casetext.com/case/in-re-personal-restraint-of-goodwin)*. The Court emphasized that the remedy for such a defect is resentencing under the correct offender score: > “In [*Blake*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/968730.pdf), the Supreme Court declared Washington’s strict liability drug possession statute unconstitutional and void. Because penalties imposed under the invalid statute are void, defendants who were sentenced based on an offender score that included prior convictions under this unconstitutional statute are entitled to resentencing.” ~WA Court of Appeals. Consequently, although the Court agreed with Markovich on this issue and re-sentenced his accordingly, it nevertheless denied his remaining claims on appeal. My opinion? Good decision, overall. Our Court’s are dutifully re-calculating offender scores in the wake of the [*Blake* ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/968730.pdf)decision. However, this opinion dealt only with convictions from other states. A specific statute, [RCW 9.94A.525(3)](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.525) treats federal convictions for crimes for which there is no clearly comparable offense under Washington law as a class C felony equivalent in the offender score. Federal simple drug possession felonies should, therefore, continue to be included in the offender score. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, felony, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Another Jail Outbreak](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/another-jail-outbreak/) **Published:** August 23, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article](https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/crime/article253677648.html) by [Stacia Glenn](https://muckrack.com/stacia-glenn) of the [News Tribune](https://www.thenewstribune.com/) discusses how a [COVID-19](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19) outbreak in [Pierce County Jail](https://www.piercecountywa.gov/1932/Pierce-County-Jail) has up to 35 inmates testing positive. The outbreak means the jail will only allow people arrested on suspicion of violent crimes to be booked. That includes [murder](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/), [manslaughter](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/), [first-degree assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/), [rape](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/), [child molestation](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.083), [kidnapping](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/kidnapping-unlawful-imprisonment/), [child assault](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.120), [domestic violenc](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/)e and [possessing explosive devices](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=70.74.180#:~:text=Any%20person%20who%20has%20in,state%20prison%20for%20a%20term). Pierce County jail staff medically screens every person before they are booked. Inmates are provided with masks and given daily screenings and temperature checks, according to the [jail’s website](https://www.piercecountywa.gov/6806/COVID-19). And apparently, all three vaccines are also offered at the jail’s health clinic. Ms. Glenn reports that since the pandemic started through June 2021, at least 398,627 people in prisons have tested positive for COVID-19, according to [The Marshall Project](https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/05/01/a-state-by-state-look-at-coronavirus-in-prisons). However, Ms. Glenn also reports that number is believed to be less than accurate. Most recently, there are approximately 6,254 positive tests for inmates in Washington state. Prisons and jails frequently suffer from overcrowding. Even in the best of times they are, by definition, facilities where people are placed in close contact with each other on a near-constant basis. Factor in the [unique health challenges](https://www.vera.org/publications/on-life-support-public-health-in-the-age-of-mass-incarceration) faced by incarcerated people and the [limited availability of quality healthcare](https://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/02/25/how-bad-is-prison-health-care-depends-on-who-s-watching), and it’s no surprise that correctional facilities are uniquely vulnerable to diseases such as Covid-19. Correctional administrators have limited control over how long people spend incarcerated, but they can use what authority they possess to release people outright or direct people to less restrictive forms of confinement. They can also ease conditions of confinement and increase access to health products. Some correctional authorities have already begun this work. As the coronavirus pandemic continues to ravage the country, and particularly its incarcerated populations, government actors have turned their attention to vaccine distribution as the solution to this health crisis. Though some states have explicitly included incarcerated individuals in their vaccination plans, many have [not yet provided information](https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/12/08/covid-vaccination-plans/) as to how and when those behind bars will be granted access to this protection. Please review my Legal Guide titled [Making Bail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/making-bail/) and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are jailed and charged with a crime during this [COVID-19 Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic). Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the best step toward justice. Nowadays, it may save your life. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Jail, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Tox Lab Contaminated](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/tox-lab-contaminated/) **Published:** August 25, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/more-meth-cocaine-contamination-found-at-washington-state-toxicology-lab/) by reporter [Lewis Kamb](https://muckrack.com/lewiskamb/articles) of the [Seattle Times](https://www.seattletimes.com/) reports that recent samplings at the [Washington’s forensic toxicology laboratory](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/crime/crime-and-forensic-laboratory-services/) found areas contaminated with methamphetamine and cocaine. This raises further skepticism among defense lawyers about the integrity of blood testing being performed at a lab relied upon in thousands of criminal cases and death investigations statewide. Apparently, residual levels of cocaine on five sites and meth on four sites within the lab — mostly ceiling vents and air intake systems, [a report posted this month](https://wsp.wa.gov/forensics/docs/toxicology/Notifications/NIST%20Study%20Environmental%20Test%20Results.pdf) on the lab’s website shows. Samples of three additional sites also tested presumptively positive for other drugs. Kamb reports that defense attorneys are seeking more transparency from the state about the lab’s ongoing contamination problems since last year. The latest sampling only underscores the need for the state to own up to and fix a problem that potentially throws all of the lab’s blood testing into question. The latest sampling results come after the Tox Lab had [falsely detected meth in blood samples tested for 11 cases since 2019](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/washingtons-toxicology-lab-ran-tests-in-space-contaminated-by-meth-possibly-jeopardizing-cases/). The problems surfaced after the lab expanded its operations in March 2018 across a hallway and into an annex work area where scientists with the State Patrol’s crime lab once had set up makeshift meth labs for training purposes. But the contamination problems have persisted, with false meth results showing up in[ two of the 11 cases ](https://wsp.wa.gov/forensics/docs/toxicology/PID_Methamphetamine/meth_result_discrepancies_identified_during_testing.pdf)this year. The results found detectable levels of both [methamphetamine](https://www.drugabuse.gov/drug-topics/methamphetamine) and [cocaine](https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/cocaine) in samples collected from ceiling vents and the air intake for a lab table in the main laboratory. Cocaine also was found separately in a sample taken from the air intake of a sink in the lab. Three additional samples garnered presumptive positive results for other drugs, including the diuretics [Mannitol](https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DB00742) and [Sorbitol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorbitol), detected on a lab refrigerator, as well as [Nicotine](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/240820) and the psychotropic drug [Mitragynine](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-56106-6), commonly known as [Kratom](https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/kratom), found on a lab workbench and on a floor tile outside the entrance to an office. More samples from Washington’s tox lab will be sent to [NIST](https://www.nist.gov/) for its study, and the lab is planning an on-site assessment from the [National Institute for Occupational Safety and Healt](https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/index.htm)h in November — the earliest the federal workplace safety agency could visit. “The lab’s refusal to take corrective action is problematic,” added Magda Baker of the [Washington Defender Association](https://defensenet.org/), a group that assists public defenders statewide. “It indicates to me that they asked for the NIST study (perhaps to signify concern about contamination) without intending to take corrective action regardless of the study’s results.” Kamb reports that internal documents about the Tox Lab’s contamination and expert testimony have helped at least three defendants with meth detected in their blood. All of these defendants denied using the drug and beat DUI charges. And [a judge in a Pierce County case ruled](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21013504-pierce-county-judges-ruling-on-tox-lab) in March that the Tox Lab’s testing in a contaminated area amounted to “gross governmental mismanagement.” My opinion? Unfortunately, these problems are nothing new for the Tox Lab. In 2007, former Tox Lab Director Anne Marie Gordon was [accused of falsely certifying quality-assurance samples used in DUI breath-testing](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/no-criminal-charge-for-manager-of-state-toxicology-lab/). She later resigned. However, Gordon’s denials supported arguments from defense lawyers who later got dismissals on DUI charges. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Methamphetamine, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Toxicologist, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Has Crime Increased?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/has-crime-increased/) **Published:** September 3, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Very interesting [article](https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/570098-the-downside-of-criminal-justice-reform) from freelance reporter [Robert Cherry](https://muckrack.com/robert-cherry) of [The Hill](https://thehill.com/). It posits that although many individuals have benefitted from justifiable changes in [bail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/making-bail/) and sentencing, crime has also increased. Hill reports that in 2020, Philadelphia [homicides](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/) [totaled 499](https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia-gun-violence-homicides-shootings-pandemic-2020-20210101.html) — 40 percent above the previous year and just below a peak number of 500 in 1990, when the city’s population was virtually the same as today. And through July, Philadelphia is [on pace](https://www.phillyvoice.com/philly-homicides-2021-300-shootings-record-gun-violence/#:~:text=Philadelphia%20has%20hit%20a%20mark%20of%20300%20homicides,are%20fatal%20shootings%2C%20but%20overall%20shootings%20have%20) to break its homicide record. Also according to Hill, in January 2021 alone, there were [59 car-jackings](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/carjackings-spike-dramatically-in-philly-breaking-records-this-year/ar-BB1dkyVD), up from 18 at the same time last year, according to the Philadelphia Police Department — a more than threefold increase. There were 404 car-jackings in 2020, up from 225 in 2019 and 230 in 2018, according to the department. A similar dynamic occurred in Chicago. As [reported](https://www.city-journal.org/html/chicago-violence-16098.html) in 2018, Car-jackings have nearly tripled since 2015, with an increasing share committed by juveniles, thanks to a law exempting young carjackers from adult penalties. Has crime increased? Yes, according the [U.S Department of Justice](https://www.justice.gov/). It released a [report](https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv19.pdf) stating that crime increased significantly in 2020. And according to an [article from CNN](https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/03/us/us-crime-rate-rise-2020/index.html), major American cities saw a 33% increase in homicides last year. The reasons? The [Coronavirus Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic), protests against racial injustice and police brutality, and the economy collapsing are all factors. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["Unlawful" Isn't "Knowing"](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/unlawful-isnt-knowing/) **Published:** September 9, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Level*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/374637_pub.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) held that the term “Knowledge” cannot be inferred from the use of the term “Unlawfully” in the context of a [Possession of Stolen Motor Vehicle ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/possession-theft-of-stolen-motor-vehicle/)charge. **BACKGROUND FACTS** A police officer stopped Mr. Level for driving a moped without wearing a helmet. The condition of the moped led the officer to suspect it was stolen. A review of the moped’s VIN confirmed this suspicion. The State charged Mr. Level with possession of a stolen motor vehicle. The Prosecutor’s charging documents, in pertinent part, said the following: “The crime of [Possession of a Stolen Motor Vehicle](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/possession-theft-of-stolen-motor-vehicle/), Count 5, the maximum penalty for which is 10 yrs. imprisonment and/or $20,000 fine, plus restitution, assessments and court costs, in that the said Jacob Daniel Level in the County of Stevens, State of Washington, on or about July 22, 2019, did unlawfully possess a stolen motor vehicle, to-wit: a Taotao Scooter, the property of (victim’s name omitted); Contrary to RCW 9A.56.068(1), and against the peace and dignity of the State of Washington.” A jury convicted Mr. Level of the stolen vehicle charge. He timely appealed on arguments that the charge failed to apprise him of any component of knowledge. Consequently, this violated his constitutional right to notice and required reversal of his conviction. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals agreed with Mr. Level. “The crime of possession of a stolen motor vehicle includes an element of knowledge,” said the Court. “The type of knowledge required has two components: the defendant must both knowingly possess the motor vehicle and also act with knowledge that the motor vehicle had been stolen.” The Court raised and dismissed the State’s arguments that allegations of “‘unlawful and felonious’” conduct sufficient imply guilty knowledge in the context of drug and firearm offenses. “But none of our decisions have held that knowledge can be inferred from the use of “unlawfully” in the context of a possession of stolen property charge,” said the Court. Furthermore, the court reasoned that proof of knowledge is multifaceted. The State must not only prove knowing possession, but also that the defendant knew of the object was stolen. > “Given the state of the law, an information’s allegation that the defendant acted unlawfully is insufficient to convey an inference that the conduct was done with a mental state of knowledge.” ~WA Court of Appeals Thus, reasoned the Court, the inclusion of the adverb “unlawfully” in the charges does not satisfy the requirements of sufficient notice. Next, the Court held that the remaining language in the State’s charges was insufficient to fill in the gaps. Although the State tried to salvage its charges by pointing to the allegation that the moped was the property of someone other than Mr. Level, that contention was inadequate. “It says nothing about Mr. Level’s knowledge. It merely confirms that the moped was stolen,” said the Court. With that, the Court reversed Mr. Level’s conviction. My opinion? Good decision. In criminal law, the defendant must have both the [*Mens Rea* ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mens_rea#:~:text=Overview,defendant%20of%20a%20particular%20crime.)and *[Actus Reus](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/actus_reus#:~:text=Definition,crime%20as%20required%20by%20statute.)* to commit the crime. *Mens Rea* refers to criminal intent. The literal translation from Latin is “guilty mind.” A *mens rea*​ refers to the state of mind statutorily required in order to convict a particular defendant of a particular crime. *Actus Reus* refers to the [act ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/act)or [omission ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/omission)that comprise the physical elements of a [crime](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/crime) as required by [statute](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/statute). The only exception is if the charged crime is a [Strict Liability](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_liability) crime. Strict liability exists when a defendant is liable for committing an action, regardless of what his/her intent or mental state was when committing the action. Crimes like [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/), possession crimes and statutory rape are all examples of strict liability offenses. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Possession of Stolen Motor Vehicle, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Not a Toy, Still a Gun](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/not-a-toy-still-a-gun/) **Published:** September 16, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Gouley,*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2054468-7-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf) the WA Court of Appeals held that an antique shotgun that was missing a bolt action was still a “firearm.” The State merely has to establish that the shotgun was a real gun, not a toy gun. The State was not required to prove that the firearm could be rendered operational with reasonable effort and within a reasonable period of time. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** Gouley was convicted of a felony and was under community supervision when he missed an appointment with his community corrections officer. Because of Gouley’s failure to report, the Department of Corrections issued a warrant for Gouley’s arrest. Several officers attempted to locate Gouley at his listed residence to execute the warrant. The officers found Gouley asleep in his bedroom. In searching the bedroom, the officers discovered a shotgun under Gouley’s bed. Gouley was previously convicted of a serious offense and was prohibited from possessing a firearm. After Gouley was placed in the squad car, he said the shotgun was given to him by his great uncle. The shotgun was a 20-gauge bolt action shotgun made by Kessler Arms. Although the company was out of business, the shotgun is not rare and is relatively inexpensive. When the shotgun was discovered under Gouley’s bed, it was missing a bolt action assembly and was not operable in that condition. The State charged Gouley with one count of First Degree Unlawful Possession of a Firearm and one count of Escape from community custody. At trial, the judge instructed the jury on the definition of “inoperable firearms.” The instruction said that a “temporarily inoperable firearm that can be rendered operational with reasonable effort and within a reasonable time.” Also, a “disassembled firearm that can be rendered operational with reasonable effort and within a reasonable time” met the definition of a firearm. Gouley consented to the use of this instruction. The jury convicted Gouley as charged. Gouley appealed on arguments that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals defined the term “firearm” under the [statute](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.010). A “firearm” is a “weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.” Furthermore, a firearm need not be operable in order to qualify as a firearm [under the statute](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.010). Instead, the inquiry is whether the firearm is a “gun in fact” rather than a “toy gun.” The Court reasoned the evidence sufficient to show that the device at issue was a firearm because it was a gun in fact and not a toy. “Although the shotgun was missing a bolt action, Schoeman testified that the gun could be made operable and could fire if a bolt or bolt assembly is inserted into the receiver.” The Court raised and dismissed Gouley’s argument the firearm was inoperable. Gouley pointed to the fact that there was something wrong with the firing pin of that firearm or maybe the trigger spring, or the firing pin spring. > “However, the fact that the shotgun was defective or inoperable when it was discovered does not mean that the shotgun was a toy, or anything other than a “gun in fact.” And whether the device was a gun in fact is the only relevant determination that the jury had to make.” ~WA Court of Appeals Ultimately, the Court reasoned the evidence established that the firearm possessed by Gouley met the definition of firearm. With that, the Court of Appeals upheld Gouley’s conviction. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Evidence, felony, Firearm, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [No More Traffic Heroes](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/no-more-traffic-heroes/) **Published:** September 22, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** According to [Kiro 7 News](https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/wsdot-hang-up-764-hero-hov-violator-program/XG6TCVJBOZBQZHGM5URHIEUTJM/), after 37 years, the “764-HERO” program used to report carpool lane violators will end on Sept. 22. The [Washington State Department of Transportation](https://wsdot.wa.gov/) began the program in 1984 to educate high-occupancy lane violators about the purpose, rules and benefits of the freeway lanes. The goal was to encourage travelers to call 1-877-764-HERO to help enforce HOV lane rules in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties. It was expanded in 2010 to include Washington State Ferries waiting lanes. After receiving reports from the phone number, WSDOT mails first-time violators educational materials. Second-time HOV lane violators are sent a letter from WSDOT, and third-time violators are sent a letter from the [Washington State Patrol](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/). According to Kiro 7 News, the program is ended because most drivers are familiar with how HOV lanes and ferry lines work. The Washington State Patrol will continue to issue violations. Over the next few months, crews will begin removing the “764-HERO” signs across King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. The signs will be gradually replaced with signs showing the fine for improperly using HOV lanes. Violators could be fined $186 for the first offense. Repeat offenders face up to $536. Increased fines also apply to motorists who have a mannequin, doll or dummy. My opinion? An HOV ticket may not seem serious. The fine is usually fairly small and you may just be tempted to pay the infraction. However, HOV tickets are moving violations. Your insurance company could raise your rates as a result. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime to include [Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/). Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Reckless Driving, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Language App Helps Police](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/language-app-helps-police/) **Published:** September 24, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** [Tacoma police officers](https://www.cityoftacoma.org/cms/one.aspx?pageId=11953) are now using a language translation tool to assist during emergency responses. [Q13 Fox News](https://www.q13fox.com/news/tacoma-police-are-using-an-app-that-gives-them-access-to-translators-for-240-languages) reports that all officers have access to [Language Line Solutions](https://www.languageline.com/interpreting/on-demand/interpreter-app), a translator app on their phones. In the past, officers used neighbors or even family members, like kids, to translate. Lydia Zepeda, who is a member of the Commission on Immigrant and Refugee Affairs, worked with the Tacoma Police Department to introduce a better way for officers to help people in crisis. > “A lot of these people are experiencing domestic violence, they may have been sexually assaulted, or they may be some other victim of a crime and we certainly don’t want children to have to interpret for something like this.” ~Lydia Zepeda, Commission on Immigrant and Refugee Affairs. “Language Line Solutions allows the Tacoma Police Department to offer equitable services to all members of the community,” said officer Wendy Haddow with the Tacoma Police Department. The app offers translators for 240 different languages with voice options, and for some languages, video chat options. When you open the app, you can scroll or use the search feature to find the language you are looking for. “This app is really, really important,” said Zepeda. She says this new tool, gives people going through an emergency an easier way to be heard, and get the help they need. She says it also protects children from having to be involved. “It minimizes trauma.” My opinion? The language line app is an excellent use of police resources which serves everyone. In an emergency, getting information quick is vital. However, challenges arise when responding officers and the caller do not speak the same language. Language barriers are the source of much litigation. In [*State v. Prok*](http://courts.mrsc.org/appellate/042wnapp/042wnapp0166.htm), the WA Court of dismissed a DUI case against a Cambodian [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) defendant because the police officer failed to advise Mr. Prok of his right to counsel in language easily understood. By itself, *State v. Prok* assisted defense attorneys who argued [Motions to Suppress](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/motion_to_suppress#:~:text=A%20motion%20to%20suppress%20is,certain%20evidence%20from%20the%20trial.) evidence based on language barriers between police and defendants. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Race & Law, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [LGBTQ Training for Police](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/lgbtq-training-for-police/) **Published:** September 26, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article](https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/police-departments-us-are-mandating-lgbtq-training-rcna2250) in [NBC News](https://www.nbcnews.com/?icid=nav_bar_logo) by reporter Finbarr Toesland says police departments across the U.S. are mandating [LGBTQ](https://gaycenter.org/about/lgbtq/) training. Some departments are doing so voluntarily, while others are being required to do so following lawsuits. According to Toesland, there’s growing reports of police allegedly using excessive force against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people. There have also been numerous [incidents](https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/LGBT-Discrimination-by-Law-Enforcement-Mar-2015.pdf) in which LGBTQ individuals said members of law enforcement made disparaging remarks about their sexual orientation or gender identity, according to news reports, lawsuits and academic studies. These incidents — along with the historically fraught relationship between law enforcement and the LGBTQ community — have led a growing number of police departments across the country to introduce LGBTQ awareness and cultural competency training for their officers. With trainings found from Washington, D.C., to Palo Alto, California, there’s no one-size-fits-all approach; rather, departments are crafting programs that take into consideration their specific communities. Toesland explains that throughout much of modern U.S. history, police officers were bound to enforce explicitly anti-gay laws. They ranged from local measures [outlawing](https://www.adl.org/blog/anti-transgender-legislation-frequently-asked-questions) men from “impersonating a female” to the widespread criminalization of same-sex sexual activity. In fact, it wasn’t until the landmark 2003 Supreme Court case [*Lawrence v. Texas*](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/02-102) that gay sex was decriminalized throughout the country. **THE REPORTS, SURVEYS & STUDIES** - A 2015 [report ](https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/LGBT-Discrimination-by-Law-Enforcement-Mar-2015.pdf)highlights the numerous surveys, court cases and academic studies that document the alleged discrimination and harassment of LGBTQ people by law enforcement. - The National Center for Transgender Equality’s [2015 U.S. Transgender Survey](https://www.ustranssurvey.org/) found 58 percent of trans respondents who said they interacted with police in the previous year alleged they had been harassed by law enforcement. The survey also found 57 percent of respondents said they were uncomfortable contacting police for help. - A [study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33840546/) published in June in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found 43 percent of Black sexual minority men experienced police discrimination in the past year. This unequal treatment had a range of negative effects on this community, including high levels of depression and anxiety. - Another [study](https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/lgbq-people-six-times-more-likely-than-general-public-to-be-stopped-by-police/) published by the Williams Institute in May that found lesbian, gay, bisexual and queer people are six times more likely than the general public to be stopped by police (data about transgender individuals were not available in the datasets analyzed). **THE NEED FOR TRAINING** Toesland explains that a number of law enforcement departments have proactively decided to add LGBTQ programs to their arsenal of training courses. In fact, the [largest local police departments](https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/lpd16p.pdf) in the U.S. — [New York City](https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/p0624a/celebrating-pride-nypd-goal-highlight-progress-lgbtqia-), [Chicago](https://blockclubchicago.org/2021/06/17/chicago-polices-lgbtq-liaison-team-expands-from-1-to-6-officers-as-police-try-to-build-trust-with-queer-communities/), Los Angeles, Philadelphia, [Houston](http://www.outsmartmagazine.com/2021/01/meet-houston-police-departments-lgbtq-liason/) and Washington, D.C. — all offer some form of LGBTQ training. The Metropolitan Police Department in Washington — the [sixth largest local police department](https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/lpd16p.pdf) in the U.S. — has been offering LGBTQ training since 2000, though it expanded its curriculum in 2015. Sgt. Nicole Brown, who has been a supervisor for the department’s [LGBT liaison unit](https://mpdc.dc.gov/page/lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-liaison-unit-lgbtlu) for the past three years, said her department was the first in the nation to offer such training. California became the first state to introduce mandatory training on sexual orientation and gender identity for incoming police officers, after former California Gov. Jerry Brown signed [Assembly Bill 2504](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB2504) into law in late 2018. The bill requires new recruits to undertake training in five unique areas, including understanding the differences between sexual orientation and gender identity and how these aspects of identity intersect with race, culture and religion, as well as learning appropriate terminology around sexual orientation and gender identity. My opinion? The increase in LGBTQ-specific police training is a positive step forward. Not only can training help the LGBTQ community, but it can help police departments do their job better, especially those that are really invested in community policing. These trainings can really help get to a place where LGBTQ communities feel comfortable working with law enforcement, and actually enable police to do their jobs better and more safely. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are LGBTQ and are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, law enforcement, LGBTQ, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Washington Department of Corrections Ends Solitary Confinement](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/washington-department-of-corrections-ends-solitary-confinement/) **Published:** October 1, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** People incarcerated at [Department of Corrections (DOC)](https://www.doc.wa.gov/default.htm) facilities will no longer be subjected to disciplinary segregation — being put in solitary confinement as a punishment — after state officials determined it is not effective. Individuals in solitary confinement are locked in a cell for 22–24 hours per day with no social contact. The effects of solitary confinement on the human mind and body range from anxiety, depression, and heart palpitations to deteriorating eyesight, paranoia, and psychosis. The [Bureau of Justice Statistics](https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/use-restrictive-housing-us-prisons-and-jails-2011-12) reports that approximately 25% of people in prison and 35% of those in jail who had spent 30 days or longer in solitary confinement during the previous year had symptoms of serious psychological distress. The rates were similar for those who only spent 1 day in isolation. “This is indeed a historic moment in the department,” said [DOC Secretary Cheryl Strange](https://www.dshs.wa.gov/meet-cheryl-strange). “This is definitely a key step in becoming a human-centered organization by advancing proven correctional practices and methods that support individuals in change. “The science is clear on this, and the science says stop doing it,” Strange said, adding that the practice has not been effective at deterring negative behavior. The DOC refers to the practice as “disciplinary segregation,” and says the term “solitary confinement” is archaic and does not reflect the fact that incarcerated individuals receive programming and other benefits. The agency made the change after collecting data on the practice of isolating incarcerated people for punishment. It found that of the 2,500 incidents where people were subjected to disciplinary segregation from Sept. 1, 2019 through Aug. 31, 2020, the majority — 57% — were disciplined for nonviolent infractions. People who received disciplinary segregation on average spent from 11 days to 16 days in isolation. Many had already been subjected to administrative segregation, which involves isolating a person for the safety of themselves or others, while their disciplinary hearing was pending. Since most received credit for that time served in administrative segregation — which will remain in effect — the actual time spent in disciplinary segregation was relatively short, the DOC said. Gov. Jay Inslee said the DOC’s decision “is the right thing to do.” My opinion? Good decision. Perhaps the most disturbing consequence of solitary confinement is its [skyrocketing effect on rates of self-harm and suicide](https://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/spike/this-is-solitary/1245/) among incarcerated individuals: Though only 3–8% of the incarcerated population in the United States is in solitary confinement, they represent [50% of prison suicides](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/health/solitary-confinement-mental-illness.html). Prison should be avoided. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Prison, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["At The End Of The Day, It’s Race."](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/at-the-end-of-the-day-its-race/) **Published:** October 1, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [Washington Courts website](https://www.courts.wa.gov/) presented its [findings](https://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/?fa=newsinfo.pressdetail&newsid=46225) on unequal treatment in the criminal justice system. According to data collected by the [Task Force 2.0: Race and Washington’s Criminal Justice System,](https://law.seattleu.edu/centers-and-institutes/korematsu-center/initiatives/task-force-20-x24772#:~:text=Task%20Force%202.0%20picks%20up,in%20Washington's%20criminal%20justice%20system.&text=The%20organizations%20and%20individuals%20reflect,within%20the%20criminal%20justice%20system.) bias and the legacy of historically racist laws and practices contribute significantly to racially disproportionate treatment and outcomes in Washington’s criminal justice system. From more frequent police stops, [searches](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/), use of force, arrests, longer sentences, fewer non-prison sentencing alternatives, higher or more frequent fines, and higher rates of deaths at the hands of police, people of color are treated more harshly than White people from the first contact with the justice system. The Task Force presented their findings to the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) over Zoom on Wednesday, Sept. 29, and released their [report](https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/korematsu_center/116/) to the public. The presentation was broadcast live on TVW and [recorded](https://www.tvw.org/watch/?clientID=9375922947&eventID=2021091198) for future viewing. In addition to gathering data from the many points of contact throughout the justice system, Task Force researchers worked to identify reasons for disparities, often comparing “similarly situated” persons (those with similar crimes and criminal histories) and documenting differential treatment. > “At the end of the day, it’s race. At the end of the day, we see that disproportionalities persist in the criminal justice system.” ~Seattle University School of Law Professor Robert Chang The Task Force report examines data on policing, prosecutorial decision-making, pre-trial release, sentences, incarceration, Legal Financial Obligations (court fines and fees), driver license suspensions, community supervision and reentry from incarceration, and more. The study also addresses the extensive impacts of contact with the criminal justice system on people’s mental and physical health, families, future employment, housing, and more. Examples of Task Force findings include: - From 2013 to 2020 in Washington state, 253 people were killed by police. Based on each group’s relative population, Black people were killed at a rate 3.6 times greater than that of non-Hispanic White people; Indigenous people were killed at a rate 3.3 times greater; Latinos were killed at a rate 1.3 times greater; and Pacific Islanders were killed at a rate 3.3 times greater. - Data from four major Washington cities found that Black persons were 3.9 times to 10.6 times more likely to be subjected to use of force by police than White persons. - In fiscal year 2019 felony sentencing for non-drug offenses, Black, Indigenous and other people of color (BIPOC) received significantly longer sentences than White defendants for the two most serious offense levels, and the disproportionality was pronounced for BIPOC defendants with lower criminal history scores. - Black persons, Indigenous persons, and Latina/os are sentenced to court fines and fees (Legal Financial Obligations, or ‘’LFOs’’) more frequently and at higher rates than White and Asian persons. Even after controlling for relevant legal factors, Latina/os are sentenced to significantly higher LFOs than similarly situated White defendants. The Task Force was launched in mid-2020 by the deans of Washington’s three law schools following the [death of George Floyd.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_George_Floyd) The Task Force will release recommendations for action by the end of the year, along with another report from a “task force within a task force” examining the state’s juvenile justice system. Speakers during the presentation pointed to the need for greater transparency and information sharing in all areas of the justice system, the need to examine the role and impacts of incarceration itself, the need for leaders from all branches and levels of government to be involved, and the need to acknowledge that even with neutral laws and policies, implicit bias influences the unequal application of those laws throughout the criminal justice system. > “We need to be intentional . . . Seven decades I’ve been dealing with this. And if we don’t make space for these hard conversations, 70 years from now we’ll be in the same place.” ~[Retired King County](https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/courts/superior-court/docs/judges/saintclair-bio.ashx?la=en) [Superior Court Judge J. Wesley Saint Clair](https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/courts/superior-court/docs/judges/saintclair-bio.ashx?la=en) [Washington Supreme Court Chief Justice Steven González](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=gonzalez), who was involved in the 2010 task force before he joined the Supreme Court, closed the presentation by thanking the presenters and the members of the task force for their ongoing work: > “We regret that this work is still needed, but we recognize that it is.” ~WA Supreme Court Chief Justice Steven González More background on the work of Task Force 2.0 can be found [here](https://law.seattleu.edu/centers-and-institutes/korematsu-center/initiatives/task-force-20-x24772). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime and race is an issue. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Courts Are Clogged](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/courts-are-clogged/) **Published:** October 5, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** [Excellent article ](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/coronavirus/article254507597.html)by [Denver Pratt](https://muckrack.com/denver-pratt) of the [Bellingham Herald](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/) describes how Whatcom County will use federal relief funds to aid courts in the growing backlog of cases that have transpired since the Coronavirus Pandemic. According to Pratt, Whatcom County approved spending nearly $600,000 of federal relief funds to address the backlog of cases burdening the Whatcom County court system. The Whatcom County Council approved $598,319 for the county’s criminal justice and court system from the [American Rescue Plan Act](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1319/text), the nearly $2 trillion pandemic relief measure that U.S. President Joe Biden signed in March. [Whatcom County will see roughly $44.5 million](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/coronavirus/article253721978.html) from the coronavirus pandemic relief measure. The funds are able to be used for three years. The money was part of a [$1.6 million budget amendment ](https://whatcom.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=E2&ID=818314&GUID=AEDAD1EE-1CFF-4944-A2E0-FD9F82D0D168) that the [Whatcom County Council](https://www.whatcomcounty.us/268/County-Council) passed. Apparently, Whatcom County’s court system is facing a [growing backlog of unresolved court cases](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/coronavirus/article249907358.html) stalled by the [Coronavirus Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic). The money approved by the county council is an attempt to address those issues. According to Pratt, the $598,319 will get distributed as follows: ▪ Whatcom County Clerk’s Office will receive $18,611 for a specialty court clerk. ▪ Whatcom County District Court will receive $88,178 for a clerk and a receptionist. ▪ The Whatcom County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office will receive $99,419 for two attorneys, one victim-witness coordinator and one legal assistant. ▪ The Whatcom County Public Defender’s Office will receive $262,506 for four attorneys, two investigators, one behavioral health specialist and two legal assistants. ▪ Whatcom County Superior Court will receive $129,605 for a court commissioner and a judicial assistant. Due to an overload of cases, the [Whatcom Public Defender’s Office](https://www.whatcomcounty.us/311/Public-Defender) has had to return cases to the county’s Office of Assigned Counsel for the first time. From January 2020 through July of this year, the public defender’s office sent back 609 felony cases and 115 District Court cases. That’s a marked increase from years prior, where in 2018, 34 cases total were returned, and 2019, 118 cases total were returned, the data shows. Pratt also reports that the county also has 11 attorneys on contract to provide outside indigent defense, which includes lawyers from outside Whatcom County for the first time, The Herald previously reported. The return of cases of the Office of Assigned Counsel has led to the county’s budget for contracted indigent defense being almost used up as of mid-August. My opinion? The Public Defender’s Office has skilled, hardworking attorneys. And obviously, they’re an extremely busy office. Criminal charges are nothing to contend with or take lightly. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. It’s important to hire an effective and competent defense attorney with the time and capacity to work your case. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Police Dying of COVID-19](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/police-dying-of-covid-19/) **Published:** October 6, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://thedaily.case.edu/study-finds-more-active-duty-police-officers-died-of-covid-19-in-2020-than-all-other-causes-combined/) by [Colin McEwen](https://muckrack.com/colin-mcewen) of [the Daily](https://thedaily.case.edu/) says that of the 264 police officers who died in the line of duty in 2020 across the United States, more than half died of [COVID-19](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic). These findings come on the heels of [new data compiled by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund](https://dailymedia.case.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/02214818/2020-LE-Officers-Fatalities-Report-opt.pdf) (PDF) (NLEOMF). [Mark Singer](https://case.edu/socialwork/about/directory/mark-i-singer), the Leonard W. Mayo Professor in Family and Child Welfare at the [Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences](https://case.edu/socialwork/), also discussed some possible solutions during his recent lecture in Cleveland. “COVID-19 is absolutely devastating police departments around the country,” said Singer, also deputy director of the [Begun Center for Violence Prevention Research and Education](https://case.edu/socialwork/begun/) at the Mandel School. “I’m certain there are local departments that have been ravaged by this disease, as well as our hospitals’ staff, firemen and EMS. We need to do everything we can to promote healthy, safe first responders.” The data does not include how many police officers were forced to miss work days because of COVID-19. However, the NLEOMF report noted that 145 police officers nationally died from complications related to the novel coronavirus. The organization verifies each reported death, [according to its website](https://nleomf.org/memorial/nomination-and-approval-process). According to the data, COVID-19-related fatalities were the single highest cause of officer line-of-duty deaths in 2020. The data—which includes federal, state, military, tribal and local law enforcement officers—highlighted an increase in fatalities by 96% from the 135 officers killed during the same 12-month period in 2019. Singer noted that, in typical years, the causes of death for police officers are varied, ranging from automobile crashes and heart attacks to gun violence and other physical violence. He said there are several key factors why COVID-19 is the current leading cause of police officer deaths. According to the article, Singer also suggested police officers should be moved to the front of the line for vaccinations. “These first responders have to deal with this extra worry, in what’s already a tension-filled job,” said Singer, who was recognized for his role with the Partnership for a Safer Cleveland in 2018 at the grand opening of the [Five Communities exhibit at the National Law Enforcement Museum](https://case.edu/socialwork/about/news-publications/dr-mark-singer-featured-national-law-enforcement-museums-cleveland-exhibit) in Washington, D.C. He also touted the [Safeguarding America’s First Responders Act of 2020](https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3607) as a success, which guarantees law enforcement officers and their survivors federal benefits if an officer is killed or disabled by COVID-19. > “I think it’s important to recognize some of the unique dangers that police officers are facing,” Singer said . . . They want to come home from work from a dangerous job and be safe.” ~Jack Singer, Professor in Family and Child Welfare. My opinion? I agree with Singer that police officers should be moved to the front of the line for vaccinations. Unfortunately, [other news reports](https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/05/02/police-low-vaccination-rates-safety-concerns/) indicate their vaccination rates are lower than or about the same as those of the general public. The reluctance of police to get vaccinated threatens not just their own health, but also the safety of people they’re responsible for guarding, monitoring and patrolling, experts say. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Ban Invasive Policing Technology](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/ban-invasive-policing-technology/) **Published:** October 15, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** On November 2, 2021, Bellingham voters have an opportunity to vote on important initiatives affecting people’s liberty and freedom. [Initiative No. 2021-02](https://www.whatcomcounty.us/DocumentCenter/View/58584/COB-Resolution-2021-19) concerns the use of facial recognition technology and predictive policing technology. Face surveillance is the most dangerous of the many new technologies available to law enforcement. This measure would prohibit the City from the following: - Acquire or use facial recognition technology. - Prohibit the City from contracting with a third party to use facial recognition technology on its behalf. - Prohibit the use of predictive policing technology. - Prohibit the retention of unlawfully acquired data. - Prohibit the use of data, information, or evidence derived from the use of facial recognition technology or predictive policing technology in any legal proceeding. - Authorize private civil enforcement actions. A **facial recognition system** is a technology capable of matching a [human face](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_face "Human face") from a [digital image](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_image "Digital image") or a [video frame](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_frame "Film frame") against a [database](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database "Database") of faces, typically employed to [authenticate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authenticate "Authenticate") users through [ID verification services](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ID_verification_service "ID verification service"), works by pinpointing and measuring facial features from a given image. Facial recognition systems are employed throughout the world today by governments and private companies. Their effectiveness varies, and some systems have previously been scrapped because of their ineffectiveness. The use of facial recognition systems has also raised controversy, with claims that the systems violate citizens’ privacy, commonly make incorrect identifications, encourage [gender norms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_role "Gender role") and [racial profiling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_profiling "Racial profiling"), and do not protect important biometric data. These claims have led to the [ban of facial recognition systems in several cities in the United States.](https://gcn.com/articles/2020/06/10/ibm-quits-facial-recognition.aspx) [According to the ACLU](https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/face-recognition-technology), facial recognition systems are built on computer programs that analyze images of human faces for the purpose of identifying them. Unlike many other biometric systems, facial recognition can be used for general surveillance in combination with public video cameras, And it can be used in a passive way that doesn’t require the knowledge, consent, or participation of the subject. The biggest danger is that this technology will be used for general, suspicionless surveillance systems. State motor vehicles agencies possess high-quality photographs of most citizens that are a natural source for face recognition programs and could easily be combined with public surveillance or other cameras in the construction of a comprehensive system of identification and tracking. My opinion? **Vote YES on Initiative 2021-02.** The technology itself can be racially biased. Groundbreaking research conducted by scholars Joy Buolamwini, Deb Raji, and Timnit Gebru snapped our collective attention to the fact that yes, algorithms can be racist. Buolamwini and Gebru’s 2018 [research](http://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a.html) concluded that some facial analysis algorithms misclassified Black women nearly 35 percent of the time, while nearly always getting it right for white men. A subsequent [study](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/24/technology/amazon-facial-technology-study.html) by Buolamwini and Raji at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology confirmed these problems persisted with Amazon’s software. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and experienced criminal defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** ACLU, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Jail: A Good Place to Die](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/jail-a-good-place-to-die/) **Published:** October 16, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** A [new report by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics](https://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/media/document/sljsfp0019st.pdf) finds more than 200 people have died by suicide in Washington and Oregon jails since 2000. This puts the Northwest states above the national average for jail suicides, according to From 2000 to 2019, the average rate of suicide in jails nationally was 43 per 100,000 inmates. By contrast, Oregon’s jail suicide rate during that same time period was 48 per 100,000. In Washington it was 57 per 100,000. In Oregon, the study found, the jail suicide rate leapt up to 70 per 100,000 from 2015 to 2019. Washington logged its highest rate, 79 per 100,000, during the 2010 to 2014 timeframe. Among Western states, Arizona and California reported the lowest rates of jail suicides during the same time period. Nationally, suicide accounted for 24 percent to 35 percent of deaths in local jails between 2001 and 2019, the report said. In 2019, nearly 30 percent of U.S. jail deaths were due to suicide. The peak came in 2015 when the suicide rate in U.S. jails reached 52 per 100,000 inmates. But overall, the national rate of suicide in jails was mostly unchanged in 2019 as compared to 2000. Here are some other findings: - Nationwide, white inmates were five times more likely to die by suicide in jail than Black inmates, and 3.5 times more likely than Hispanic inmates. - Most jail suicides happened within the first 30 days of a person being behind bars. - Hanging or strangulation was the most common manner of death. - Nearly 77 percent of the people who died by suicide in U.S. jails had not been convicted. Jails are the entry point to the criminal justice system and often hold individuals who are awaiting trial. The quality of health care in jails can also vary greatly despite the fact jails house some of the most complex and vulnerable people in society, including those with acute mental health and substance use disorders. In Oregon, jails must adhere to a set of statewide standards and are subject to outside inspection. By contrast, Washington jails are required to develop their own standards to ensure the health, welfare and safety of inmates. This year, Washington [enacted a law](https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2021-22/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/Senate/5119-S.E%20SBR%20FBR%2021.pdf?q=20211007123230) that requires jail officials to conduct a fatality review anytime a person in custody dies unexpectedly. Those reviews must be completed within 120 days and be posted to a public website maintained by the state Department of Health. My opinion? Jail is a dangerous place. Please read my Legal Guides titled, [Quash Your Bench Warrant](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/quash-your-bench-warrant/) and [Making Bail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/making-bail/) and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if your friends or family are jailed. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Detention, Jail, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [WA State Patrol Employees Lose Jobs For Refusing to Vaccinate](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/wa-state-patrol-workers-lose-employment-for-refusing-to-vaccinate/) **Published:** October 19, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Today’s [press release](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Press-Release-WSP-Announces-Final-Numbers-on-Separations-Due-to-Vaccine-Mandate.pdf) from the [WA State Patrol](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/) reports that 127 people employed by WSP were separated from employment for refusing to get [COVID-19](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic) vaccines. Those leaving include 67 troopers, six sergeants, one captain and 53 civil servants, according to the announcement. The departures from the State Patrol are spread across the state. Over the next few days, leaders plan to gauge the impact of the departures and move resources where necessary. The State Patrol plans to make similar adjustments for departures from its civilian jobs and is looking to fill vacancies “as soon as possible.” Longer term, the WSP will continue recruiting and plans to fill three classes of police academy cadets in the coming months. WSP Chief John R Batiste said the State Patrol will do its best to keep staff from becoming overburdened from the departures. “We have the responsibilities of the agency to carry forward and I am not going to ask you to do more with less,” said Batiste in the press release. About two weeks ago, WSP said 93 percent of its 2,200 employees had been vaccinated against COVID-19, according to the Seattle Times. Gov. Jay Inslee’s office said last week that across Washington, more than 90 percent of state workers had been vaccinated. Inslee announced in August that state employees, health care employees and school workers must be vaccinated or provide proof of medical or religious exemption by Oct. 18. According to the Associated Press, the mandate is believed to be among the strictest in the nation and covers more than 800,000 workers. In [other related news](https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20211018/police-officers-should-get-vaccinated-fauci), [Anthony Fauci, MD](https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/director), director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said that police officers should get vaccinated against COVID-19 to protect themselves and others. Police unions across the country have urged members to resist [vaccine](https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/covid-19-vaccine) requirements for their jobs. But Fauci said police officers should view vaccination as a key part of their job: > “Think about the implications of not getting vaccinated when you’re in a position where you have a responsible job, and you want to protect yourself because you’re needed at your job, whether you’re a police officer or a pilot or any other of those kinds of occupations.” Dr. Anthony Fauci, [ *Fox News Sunday*](https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/fox-news-sunday-on-october-17-2021)*.* Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Needle-Spiking](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/needle-spiking/) **Published:** October 23, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** According to an [article](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/22/world/europe/needle-spiking-uk.html) in the New York Times by reporters [Megan Specia](https://www.nytimes.com/by/megan-specia) and [Isabella Kwai](https://www.nytimes.com/by/isabella-kwai), Britain has witnessed a disturbing spate of violence against women. Apparently, women are being injected with drug-filled syringes at crowded pubs and nightclubs. This is a variation of “spiking,” in which drugs are dropped into someone’s drink, a crime that often targets women. This phenomenon, called “needle spiking,” includes 12 incidents in Nottinghamshire. Police in Scotland are looking into similar reports. Some who reported being spiked had effects “consistent with a substance being administered,” [the police said in a statement.](https://www.nottinghamshire.police.uk/news-article/update-joint-effort-tackle-spiking-reports) According to the article, female students have made the majority of reports. However, some young men say they also have been victimized. The Nottinghamshire police say no other offenses, including [sexual assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/), have been linked to the reports of being injected. Also, there have been no known arrests for injecting someone. Regardless, authorities say they are stepping up patrols and working with local universities and hospitals to investigate. But as these stories — and the fears surrounding them — have spread, young women have called for a boycott of clubs and also launched [a petition](https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/598986?fbclid=IwAR2grKv9Y1i2ULRvemUBBJQagHYawfcTSVy4DlRMIrXOkqfcRzYS6Ontp1s) calling for clubs to be required to search people on entering. To many women, the idea that they could be victimized by someone wielding a syringe at a nightclub is horrifying. In England, concerns about drinks being covertly laced with drugs have long been an issue. [A 2019 ](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50508559)BBC investigation revealed more than 2,600 cases of drink spiking in England and Wales since 2015. [In Washington State, spiking someone else’s drink with drugs is illegal](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.40.030). It’s considered such a serious crime that it’s categorized as a Class B felony. In a 2016 study, [researchers found](https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2016/05/drink-spiking) that nearly 8% of 6,064 university students surveyed said their drinks had been spiked. Also, 1.4% said they’ve been the one spiking drinks or knew someone who did so. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Blake Case & Bail Jumping](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/blake-case-bail-jumping/) **Published:** October 25, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Ever since the WA Supreme Court decided [*State v. Blake –* ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/968730.pdf)which held [Unlawful Possession of Controlled Substance ](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.4013)charges and convictions unconstitutional – I’m Read More inundated with questions from defendants on what that *means*. Can other charges filed alongside the drug charge get dismissed? Are [Bail Jumping](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/bail-jumping/) charges dismissible, too? Fortunately, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) decided the issue and answered these questions. In *[State v. Stacy](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2056110-7-II%20Unpublished%20Opinion.pdf)*, the Court of APpeals found that the invalidation of the defendant’s conviction for a [Drug Possession](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) charge does not affect the validity of his [Bail Jumping](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/bail-jumping/) convictions. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Here, Mr. Stacy seeks relief from personal restraint imposed following his 2019 plea of guilty to one count of [Unlawful Possession of Controlled Substances](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.4013) (UPCS) and two counts of Bail Jumping, committed while charged with [UPCS](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.4013). He argues that under [*State v. Blake*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/968730.pdf), which held [UPCS ](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.4013)charges and convictions unconstitutional, he is entitled to have all convictions vacated. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals’ decision is captured in two sentences below: > “The State concedes that under *Blake*, Stacy is entitled to have his conviction for unlawful possession of controlled substances vacated. *But the invalidation of his conviction for unlawful possession of controlled substances does not affect the validity of the bail jumping convictions.* State v. Downing, 122 Wn. App. 185, 193, 93 P.2d 900 (2004).” ~WA Court of Appeals In other words, Mr. Stacy’s Bail Jumping conviction was upheld despite the fact his UPCS – were later found unconstitutional. The Court’s usage of *[State v. Downing](https://casetext.com/case/state-v-downing-6)* was notable. In *Downing*, the WA Court of Appeals upheld the defendant’s Bail Jumping charges even though his underlying [Unlawful Issuance of Bank Check](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.060) charges were dismissed. It reasoned that although no Washington cases addressed whether the charge underlying an allegation of Bail Jumping must be valid, the State is not required to prove that a defendant was detained under a constitutionally valid conviction. With that, the Court of Appeals in Mr. Stacy’s case dismissed his UPCS convictions and upheld his Bail Jump convictions. Please read my guide on [Making Bail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/making-bail/) and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bail Jumping, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Attorney-Client Communications During COVID](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/attorney-client-communications-during-covid/) **Published:** October 30, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** This is an interesting case that arose in the early days of the [COVID-19 Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic). In *[State v. Anderson](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/375901_pub.pdf),* the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) held that courts must try to ensure that criminal defendants are able to confidentially communicate with counsel throughout court proceedings. Failure to provide a confidential means to communicate may be grounds for reversal on appeal. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** In 2016, a Franklin County jury convicted Mr. Anderson of multiple felonies including [murder](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/), [assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/), and [unlawful possession of a firearm](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/). Mr. Anderson received a sentence of 1,126 months’ imprisonment with 36 months’ community custody, and was assessed $75,430.49 in restitution. A portion of the restitution was imposed jointly and severally with two codefendants. Three specific issues were identified for resentencing: a vague community custody condition, two scrivener’s errors, and imposition of discretionary legal financial obligations in light of Mr. Anderson’s indigence. A re-sentencing hearing was scheduled to address some concerns Mr. Anderson raised. His resentencing took place in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Washington’s governor declared a state of emergency on February 29, 2020. Shortly thereafter, our Supreme Court began issuing a series of emergency orders addressing court operations during the pandemic. On April 29, 2020, the Supreme Court issued an order that specified as follows: Courts must allow telephonic or video appearances for all scheduled criminal and juvenile offender hearings whenever possible. For all hearings that involve a critical stage of the proceedings, courts shall provide a means for defendants and respondents to have the opportunity for private and continual discussion with their attorney. Mr. Anderson attended the May 12 resentencing hearing via video. His attorney appeared telephonically. The hearing was very brief, generating only seven substantive pages of a report of proceeding. During the hearing, there was no discussion regarding whether Mr. Anderson had consented to appear via video. Nor was there any clarification about whether Mr. Anderson and his attorney were able to communicate throughout the hearing. The parties agreed to modify the judgment and sentence according to the three issues identified in our prior decision. When addressed by the court, Mr. Anderson confirmed he agreed with the modifications. At the hearing’s close, the court asked Mr. Anderson if he had been able to hear and understand the proceedings. Mr. Anderson responded affirmatively, but also asked how he was supposed to pay the outstanding restitution. The court instructed Mr. Anderson to confer with his attorney. Mr. Anderson subsequently asked the court how long he had to appeal the decision. The court told him that he had 30 days to make a direct appeal, and that he should speak to his attorney regarding the process. The hearing then adjourned. Mr. Anderson filed a timely notice of appeal. He argues the videoconference resentencing hearing deprived him of his right to be present and to confer with counsel. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals began by saying the right to counsel applies to all critical stages of criminal proceedings, including resentencing. “The constitutional right to counsel demands more than just access to a warm body with a bar card,” said the Court. “Among other things, it requires individuals charged with crimes to be able to confer privately with their attorneys at all critical stages of the proceedings.” It further reasoned that the ability for attorneys and clients to consult privately need not be seamless, but it must be meaningful. “It is the role of the judge make sure that attorneys and clients have the opportunity to engage in private consultation.” The Court relied on [*State v. Gonzalez-Morales*](https://casetext.com/case/state-v-gonzales-morales-1), a WA Supreme Court case with similar issues. In *Gonzalez-Morales*, the defendant’s rights were violated when the trial court failed to give him an interpreter to communicate with his attorney. “Mr. Anderson argues his case fails to meet the constitutional standard recognized in Gonzales-Morales,” said the Court of Appeals. “We agree.” > “Unlike what happened in Gonzales-Morales, the trial court here never set any ground rules for how Mr. Anderson and his attorney could confidentially communicate during the hearing. Nor were Mr. Anderson and his attorney physically located in the same room, where they might have been able to at least engage in nonverbal communication. > > Given Mr. Anderson participated by video from the jail and his attorney was appearing by telephone from a separate location, it is not apparent how private attorney-client communication could have taken place during the remote hearing. It is unrealistic to expect Mr. Anderson to assume he had permission to interrupt the judge and court proceedings if he wished to speak with his attorney.” ~WA Court of Appeals Despite the communication obstacles, the Court nevertheless held Mr. Anderson was not entitled to relief because of [harmless error](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/harmless_error). It also said that although Mr. Anderson was not entitled to relief, this case is a cautionary tale for trial judges administering remote criminal proceedings: > “The COVID-19 pandemic has complicated the administration of justice in innumerable ways. Videoconferencing has been an essential component of continued court operations. But courts must ensure videoconferencing occurs in a way that allows for private attorney client consultation. The best method is to arrange for attorneys and clients to be located in a shared physical space, with access to additional communication technologies (such as text messaging devices) if necessary to maintain physical distancing.” My opinion? The [COVID-19 Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic) has certainly increased the difficulty of practicing law. Courtroom proceedings went virtual or were put on hold, causing delays in justice. Law schools and bar exams were upended. The shift was dramatic. We’ve had to learn new technologies and skills. We’ve had to revolve our practice to adhere and comply with new Executive Orders from our courts. And In the face of change and challenge, we do what American lawyers have done since lawyers helped found this country: we choose to get to work to help to solve the problems before us. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sentencing, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Crowded Jail Cells](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/crowded-jail-cells/) **Published:** November 5, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article](https://www.newsweek.com/coronavirus-sentencing-project-jails-democrats-1491771) by senior reporter [Brendan Cole ](https://www.newsweek.com/authors/brendan-cole)for [Newsweek](https://www.newsweek.com/) reports that crowded cells in jails across the U.S. could help the rapid spread of [Coronavirus](https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019). Top Democratic senators have accordingly asked prison authorities to reveal what contingency plans there are to tackle any outbreak. According to the article, [The Sentencing Project](https://www.sentencingproject.org/) has called on public officials to release people in jail who do not pose a public safety risk. This jail population includes those housed in pre-trial detention or rehabilitated people. > “Existing unsanitary and overcrowded prison and jail conditions will exacerbate the spread of the new coronavirus . . . Elderly incarcerated people often pose little public safety risk but disproportionately suffer from chronic medical conditions and thus are at the highest risk of dying from COVID-19.” ~The Sentencing Project senior research analyst Nazgol Ghandnoosh Ghandnoosh emphasized that time is of the essence to avert a public health catastrophe in the United States’ prisons and jails. The sentiment echoes concerns voiced by other prisoners’ rights advocates, who fear the implications the virus will have for the 2.2 million people living in the U.S. penal system. Last week, [National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers](https://www.nacdl.org/) president Nina Ginsberg said in a statement that, given the spread of the virus: “There is every reason to question whether American detention facilities, as a whole, are up to this challenge.” Meanwhile, Maria Morris of the [American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) National Prison Project](https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-national-prison-project) wrote in an op-ed this week that jails were not closed environments, and had staff and visitors coming into the facilities and returning home, posing a considerable risk. Also, top Democrats signed a letter asking the [Federal Bureau of Prisons](https://www.bop.gov/) about its coronavirus plans. presidential contender Senator Bernie Sanders, and former primary candidates Senators Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren were among the signees. The letter, which was also addressed to prison operators GEO Group, CoreCivic, and Management and Training Corporation, asked if staff and inmates who may be vulnerable have been identified, how they will be treated if they test positive and how staff shortages caused by the virus will be dealt with. My opinion? Kudos to those involved in these efforts. Protecting incarcerated people during a contagious health crisis by expediting releases would reduce the burden on prison staff. It would also reduce demand for limited hospital resources which are shared with the broader public. Please read [Making Bail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/making-bail/) and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged and jailed. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Jail, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Prison, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Ban Low-Level Traffic Stops](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/ban-low-level-traffic-stops/) **Published:** November 9, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article](https://www.npr.org/2021/11/08/1052957246/why-philadelphia-has-banned-low-level-traffic-stops) in NPR by [Jonaki Mehta](https://www.npr.org/people/842041232/jonaki-mehta) says Philadelphia’s new Driving Equity Act bars police officers from pulling over drivers for minor traffic violations. This is done to close racial disparities in traffic stops. Last Wednesday, Mayor Jim Kenney signed the Driving Equity Act, making Philadelphia the first major city in the U.S. to ban low-level traffic stops. The law, which also requires city police to gather and publicly release data on traffic stops, goes into effect early next year. [A bevy](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0858-1) of [studies show ](https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/AA3BCD1FA526712521025BDB6B791E4C/9781108429313c1_1-34.pdf/suspect_citizens.pdf)that Black drivers get pulled over for low-level infractions more often than other drivers in the United States. Civil rights groups often decry such stops as “pretextual” — as cover for racial profiling or fishing for more serious crimes. The 2016 police killing of Philando Castile, a Black man pulled over in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area for a missing taillight, drew national attention to the enforcement of low-level traffic stops. The new legislation bans stops for: - Driving with a single broken brake light - Driving with a single headlight - Having a registration plate that’s not clearly displayed, fastened, or visible - Driving without an inspection or emissions sticker - Bumper issues - Minor obstructions (like something hanging from a rearview mirror) - Driving without vehicle registration within 60 days of the observed infraction While these low-level offenses will no longer lead to interactions between police and drivers, such infractions will still result in a ticket that is either left on the driver’s windshield or mailed. According to the article, other [state and local governments ](https://www.npr.org/2021/04/16/988200868/cities-looking-to-reform-police-traffic-stops-to-combat-fishing-expeditions)have introduced similar legislation. The state of Virginia enacted a law in March which includes a ban on stopping and searching drivers for reasons including defective taillights, loud exhaust or the smell of marijuana. The city of Minneapolis, near where Philando Castile was stopped and killed, has [implemented a policy change ](https://www.mprnews.org/story/2021/08/17/minneapolis-police-ending-pretextual-traffic-stops-in-effort-to-reduce-racial-profiling)to scale back on such police stops. My opinion? Philadelphia’s new Driving Equity Act is courageous legislation. Studies show that black and Latino drivers are more likely to be pulled over and have their vehicles searched by police. Fortunately, any evidence derived from unlawful searches can be suppressed. For more information, please review my [Legal Guide on Search and Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/). And please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Washington Rated 8th Worst State for Auto Theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/washington-rated-8th-worst-state-for-auto-theft/) **Published:** November 9, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Informative [article](https://www.king5.com/article/news/crime/washington-among-10-worst-states-auto-theft-vehicle-stolen-crime/281-dade1906-86a9-4733-9515-7bbcf1c33548) from [King 5 News](https://www.king5.com/) says [auto theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/possession-theft-of-stolen-motor-vehicle/) increased by nearly 10% in 2020 compared to 2019. According to the latest [National Insurance Crime Bureau’s (NICB)](https://www.nwinsurance.org/hot-topics/auto-theft) Hot Spots Report, auto thefts increased from 34,172 vehicles in 2019 to 37,465 in 2020, the report found. NICB said, “The auto theft *rate*, which measures the number of vehicles stolen per 100,000 residents, also increased in Washington in 2020, from 331.06 to 368.46 – the nation’s 8th highest theft rate.” According to the article, the annual report showed an increase in auto thefts across the entire country. NICB said that vehicle theft is fairly widespread, and the crime increased significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the U.S., a car is stolen every 36 seconds. That makes it the most common property crime, according to the FBI, costing citizens about $6 billion in 2019. The [Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC)](https://www.waspc.org/) says that property crime is the most common type of crime reported in the state, representing 73.7% of all reported offenses. Some [easy ways to prevent someone from stealing your vehicle](///C%3A/Users/cmiller/Downloads/LayeredApproachFactSheet10.2016%20(1).pdf) in addition to locking your car include parking in a well-lit area, getting an audible alarm, using a smart key and getting a GPS tracker in your car. According to the article, Vehicle Theft wasn’t the only crime Washington saw go up in 2020. Murder increased 50% and property crimes increased by 13.8%, according to a [crime report by the WASPC](https://www.king5.com/article/news/crime/crime-up-in-washington-law-enforcement-report-shows/281-e2a439c6-1667-4ba8-8001-4626740d6953). Washington, D.C. took the top spot for worst vehicle theft rate with near 563 thefts per 100,000 residents, an increase of 40% from 2019 to 2020. The nation’s capital was followed by Colorado, California, Missouri and New Mexico. Vehicle Theft crimes are serious. Penalties will depend on the nature of the theft. It could range from a lesser crime, or [misdemeanor](https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/classes-of-misdemeanors.html), to a [felony](https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/felonies.html). Felonies have varying degrees of seriousness, with accordingly varying degrees of punishment. Felonies are generally punished by incarceration, and so may be more serious misdemeanors. Fines are likely also involved for someone convicted of vehicle theft. The amount of both the fine and jail time are based on a number of factors, including: - How much the car was worth; - Whether someone occupied the vehicle at the time of the theft; - Whether the thief used a weapon in committing the crime; - Whether anyone was hurt during the act of the theft of vehicle; and - Whether the accused thief has been convicted of previous crimes. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [auto theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/possession-theft-of-stolen-motor-vehicle/) or any othercrime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Possession of Stolen Motor Vehicle, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Mapped: Countries by Alcohol Consumption Per Capita](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/mapped-countries-by-alcohol-consumption-per-capita/) **Published:** November 12, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-countries-by-alcohol-consumption-per-capita/) in [Visual Capitalist](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/) by [Omri Wallach](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/author/omri/) describes the phenomenon of world-wide alcohol consumption. Alcohol might be one of the oldest and most frequently used recreational substances in the world, but examining countries by alcohol consumption shows that usage is not equal. Consumption levels, and types of alcohol consumed, vary widely based on location. Furthermore, the availability of [fruits and grains](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-the-uses-of-corn/) used in alcohol production impacts which drinks are more commonly consumed, as does the predominant culture. Some cultures see alcohol consumption as a pleasurable experience, while others see intoxication as a sin. There’s also the question of economics and availability. It’s strange, but in some regions of the world, industrially mass-produced alcohol can flood markets and become cheaper than other beverages, including water. When we map alcohol consumption by capita, and by different types of alcohol, these local and cultural stories come to light. The above maps use recorded consumption data from [WHO](https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-details/GHO/alcohol-recorded-per-capita-(15-)-consumption-(in-litres-of-pure-alcohol)) for 2019, in liters of pure alcohol. **EUROPE LEADS IN PER CAPITA ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION** The top 10 countries by alcohol consumption highlight the prominence of alcoholic beverages in European culture. **Eight of the 10** countries with the top alcohol consumption per capita were in Europe. Primarily, they were Eastern and Central European countries, including #2 **Latvia**, #3 **Czech Republic**, #4 **Lithuania**, and #5 **Austria**. But the crown of alcohol consumption per capita goes to the **Cook Islands**, which leads the world with an annual per capita consumption of 13L (3.4 gallons) of alcohol. Per capita consumption of alcohol also highlights clear regional preferences in amount and type, or a lack of interest. The biggest consumers of alcohol are countries in Central Europe, the South Pacific, and parts of the Caribbean. In Europe, [beer](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-much-does-a-beer-cost-in-your-country/) and wine are kings, with most of the top consumers also being top producers such as **France** and **Germany**. Spirits like rum, meanwhile, are dominant in the Cook Islands and much of the Caribbean, which has **four of the 12** top spirit consumers. The others are mainly in Eastern Europe and Russia, which get most of their alcohol consumption from vodka. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Give Them An Inch . . .](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/give-them-an-inch/) **Published:** November 19, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Boman*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/990620.pdf), the WA Supreme Court held that a cell phone owner who gave consent for police to search text messages also gave police the authority to use his phone to set up a “ruse” drug bust sting. The subsequent police ruse using lawfully obtained information does not constitute a privacy invasion or trespass in violation of either our state constitution or the United States Constitution. **BACKGROUND FACTS** A [Department of Homeland Security (DHS)](https://www.dhs.gov/) agent sent a series of text messages to Mr. Bowman. The DHS agent claimed to be someone named Mike Schabell, a person to whom Bowman had sold methamphetamine earlier that day, and indicated he wanted to buy more drugs. The ruse led to charges of [possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). The trial court denied his [motion to suppress](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CrR&ruleid=supCrR3.6) the drugs and drug paraphernalia on his person and in his vehicle. At trial, Mr. Bowman was found guilty. On Appeal, the [WA Court of Appeals reversed Bowman’s conviction](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/privacy-text-messages/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=privacy-text-messages). The Court reasoned that the DHS Agent (1) disrupted Mr. Bowman’s private affairs and (2) was not acting under authority of law. With that, the Court of Appeals reversed Mr. Bowman’s conviction. **WA SUPREME COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** However, the WA Supreme Court found that police did *not* violate Mr. Bowman’s constitutional rights. The Court reasoned that under [*State v. Hinton*](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1658746.html), Bowman did indeed have a privacy interest in the text messages he sent to a third party’s device. That said, Schabell’s consent to search his phone gave police the necessary authority of law to view the text message conversation. Furthermore, police did not commit an unconstitutional trespass by sending text messages to Bowman’s cell phone as part of a ruse. > “Consistent with long-standing precedent, we hold that a cell phone owner’s voluntary consent to search text messages on their phone provides law enforcement with the authority of law necessary to justify intruding on an otherwise private affair. We also hold that a subsequent police ruse using lawfully obtained information does not constitute a privacy invasion or trespass in violation of either our state constitution or the United States Constitution.” ~WA Supreme Court “That he misunderstood the identity of the person he was texting does not transform the unsolicited incoming message into an unconstitutional trespass,” said the WA Supreme Court. “The risk of being betrayed by an informer or deceived as to the identity of one with whom one deals is probably inherent in the conditions of human society.” With that, the WA Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated Bowman’s conviction. My opinion? This issue, and many other related issues, will likely require further consideration if such investigatory tactics continue to be used in Washington. Please review my [Search and Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) guide and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Cell Phone, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Thanksgiving DUI Patrols](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/thanksgiving-dui-patrols/) **Published:** November 19, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** **Thanksgiving Weekend DUI Patrols** The [Washington State Patrol (WSP)](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/) issued a [press release](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/WSU-Thanksgiving-Emphasis-Patrols.pdf) stating that[ DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) emphasis patrols are now happening in Pullman as WSU students travel this Thanksgiving holiday. According to the press release, troopers in Spokane, Whitman, Adams, Grant and Kittitas counties will be focusing on speeding to include driving too fast for conditions, distracted/impaired driving and [other collision-causing violations during the emphasis](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/). Motorists traveling to and from WSU will see an increased WSP presence on State Routes 26 & 195 as well as Interstate 90 over Snoqualmie Pass. “We encourage travelers to pay close attention to posted speed limits and to be prepared for changing road and weather/winter driving conditions,” said the press release. “You can find current road and weather conditions on all state highways by going to the website or mobile apps provided by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT).” **Thanksgiving Day Holiday Period Estimate for 2021** According to the [National Safety Council (NSC)](https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/), [515 people may die on U.S. roads this Thanksgiving holiday period](https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/holidays/thanksgiving-day/). If this estimate holds true, Thanksgiving 2021 will experience the most deaths since 2007. Holidays are traditionally a time of travel for families across the United States. Many choose car travel, which has [the highest fatality rate](https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/deaths-by-transportation-mode/) of any major form of transportation based on fatalities per passenger mile. Holidays are also often cause for celebrations involving [alcohol consumption](https://www.nsc.org/road-safety/safety-topics/impaired-driving), a major contributing factor to motor-vehicle crashes. **Because of the unprecedented impact COVID-19 is having on social activities, the uncertainty of this year’s estimate is increased.** Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Reckless Driving, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [New Car Tech May Stop DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/new-car-tech-may-stop-dui/) **Published:** November 27, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** According to an [article](https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2021-11-09/congress-mandates-new-car-technology-to-stop-drunken-driving) in [US News](https://www.usnews.com/), President Biden will sign legislation which has new cars monitor and stop intoxicated drivers. It’s an auto safety mandate aimed at stopping road fatalities included within the $1 trillion infrastructure package. The technology would roll out in all new vehicles as early as 2026. The Transportation Department must assesses the best form of technology to install in vehicles and give automakers time to comply. For now, the legislation doesn’t specify the technology. It must merely “monitor the performance of a driver of a vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver is impaired.” In all, about $17 billion is allotted to road safety programs, the biggest increase in such funding in decades. “It’s monumental,” said [Alex Otte](https://www.madd.org/press-release/madd-announces-new-national-president), national president of [Mothers Against Drunk Driving](https://www.madd.org/). Otte called the package the single most important legislation in the group’s history that marks the beginning of the end of drunk driving. “It will virtually eliminate the No. 1 killer on America’s roads,” she said. Last month, the [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration](https://www.nhtsa.gov/) reported an estimated 20,160 people died in traffic collisions in the first half of 2021, the highest first-half total since 2006. The agency has pointed to speeding, impaired driving and not wearing seatbelts during the coronavirus pandemic as factors behind the spike. Each year, around 10,000 people are killed due to alcohol-related crashes in the U.S., making up nearly 30% of all traffic fatalities, according to NHTSA. **THE NEW TECHNOLOGY** According to the article, the most likely system to prevent drunken driving is infrared cameras that monitor driver behavior. That technology is already being installed by automakers such as General Motors, BMW and Nissan to track driver attentiveness while using partially automated driver-assist systems. The cameras make sure a driver is watching the road, and they look for signs of drowsiness, loss of consciousness or impairment. If signs are spotted, the cars will warn the driver. If the behavior persists, the car would turn on its hazard lights, slow down and pull over. The voluminous bill also requires automakers to install rear-seat reminders to alert parents if a child is left inadvertently in the back seat, a mandate that could begin by 2025 after NHTSA completes its rulemaking on the issue. Since 1990, about 1,000 children have died from vehicular heatstroke after the highest total in a single year was 54 in 2018, according to [Kidsandcars.org](https://www.kidsandcars.org/how-kids-get-hurt/heat-stroke/). My opinion? This is an interesting development. is the technology reliable? There’s certainly good argument over whether the technology could backfire, or prove ineffective in detecting impairment. Is your car searching you by passively monitoring your physical condition? Clearly, there’s [Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) issues, involved in this too. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Expert Witnesses on Domestic Violence & Recanting Victims](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/expert-witnesses-on-domestic-violence-recanting-victims/) **Published:** December 3, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Harris](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/820095.pdf)*, the WA Court of Appeals held that expert testimony in DV cases is not required to accompany evidence of a prior assault. However, a court may allow expert testimony on general characteristics or conduct typically exhibited by survivors of domestic violence. **BACKGROUND FACTS** The defendant Mr. Harris and the victim Ms. Bohannan have had a long romantic relationship. Bohannan has two young children, the youngest of which is the biological child of Harris. Due to prior domestic violence, there was a no-contact order prohibiting Harris from contacting Bohannan directly or indirectly, or coming within 300 feet of her residence. Bohannan was against the existence of the no-contact order. On June 28, 2020, Harris went to Bohannan’s Everett apartment. Bohannan’s neighbor called police after hearing thumping and screams for help. Police arrived shortly afterward. Bohannan eventually allowed the officers inside, where they noticed what appeared to be fingerprints on her neck. A later body check revealed red marks on Bohannan’s arms and body. Bohannan said that Harris assaulted her, but did not want the statement in writing or photos of her injuries. Shortly thereafter, Harris was arrested nearby the residence. While incarcerated, Harris had repeated telephone and video-call contact with Bohannan. The jail system that monitors calls captured the communications. Harris was charged with three counts of [Violation of a No-Contact Order](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/no-contact-order-violations/). Prior to trial, the State introduced Harris’s prior conviction for assaulting Bohannan under [Evidence Rule ER 404(b)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=ER&ruleid=gaer0404#:~:text=Rules%20of%20Evidence,(a)%20Character%20Evidence%20Generally.&text=It%20may%2C%20however%2C%20be%20admissible,absence%20of%20mistake%20or%20accident.). Admitting the evidence was done to assist the jury in evaluating her credibility. Harris moved to exclude this prior conviction. The court denied Harris’ motions to exclude. The jury found Harris guilty as charged. He appealed on arguments that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of a prior assault. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals began with an in-depth discussion of ER 404(b). It said this evidence rule prohibits a court from “admitting evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts . . . to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.” Additionally, evidence of a defendant’s prior assault of a victim is generally inadmissible if the defendant assaults the victim on a later occasion. However, the Court of Appeals also said that evidence may become admissible for reasons such as assisting the jury in judging the credibility of a recanting victim. Before admitting ER 404(b) evidence, a trial court must **(1)** identify the purpose for which the evidence is sought to be introduced, **(2)** determine whether the evidence is relevant to prove an element of the crime charged, and **(3)** weigh the probative value against its prejudicial effect. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals reasoned the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Harris’s prior assault of Bohannan. “The trial court determined that the State could prove the assault by a preponderance of evidence,” said the Court of Appeals. “The court also identified the purpose of introducing the prior assault—to challenge Bohannan’s credibility. Finally, the court properly balanced the probative versus prejudicial value of introducing the prior assault, and delivered a limiting instruction to the jury. These actions do not rise to an abuse of discretion.” Next, the Court of Appeals reasoned that expert witnesses may testify on general characteristics or conduct typically exhibited by survivors of domestic violence. However, such testimony must not state that a specific victim witness exhibits the responses or characteristics of a crime victim or state the expert’s opinion of the victim’s credibility. > “Based on our review of Washington precedent, we decline to adopt a requirement that expert testimony must accompany evidence of prior assault to assist assessment of witness credibility. We do not, however, expressly prohibit such expert witness testimony. Rather, it is within the purview of the trial court to assess the proposed introduction of expert testimony and its adherence to requisite evidentiary rules.” ~WA Court of Appeals. With that, the WA Court of Appeals upheld Harris’s conviction. My opinion? This case captures how the State may use expert testimony from a witness trained in DV-related issues. If qualified, the expert provides information on how DV affects a victim’s perceptions and actions. Testimony may be introduced at any stage in the process, including grand jury hearings, plea negotiations, trials, sentencing, and clemency or parole hearings. The most widely accepted use of DV experts is in traditional [self-defense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/self-defense/) cases when a victim of DV victim injures or kills the abuser. DV experts are also used to explain why a victim commits a crime under orders from an abuser. They can discuss why a DV victim fails to report an abuser’s crimes, or does not prevent or intervene in the abuse of their children. Experts are often needed to explain why victims do not report, change their stories, recant testimony, or assist in the prosecution of perpetrators. In my trial experience, expert witnesses may testify on general characteristics or conduct typically exhibited by survivors of domestic violence. However, such testimony must not state that a specific victim witness exhibits the responses or characteristics of a crime victim or state the expert’s opinion of the victim’s credibility. Please read [Defending Against DV Charges](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/defending-against-domestic-violence-charges/) and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face [DV charges](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) or any other crimes. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Uncategorized **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Racial Disparities & Traffic Stops](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/racial-disparities-traffic-stops/) **Published:** December 6, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/study-yields-mixed-results-racial-disparities-during-washington-state-patrol-traffic-stops/SC5ORWSJCRGHXEZKJKVQP3RB74/?outputType=amp) by [Nick Bowman](https://muckrack.com/nick-cannata-bowman) of [MyNorthwest.com](https://mynorthwest.com/) reports on a [new study](https://s3.wp.wsu.edu/uploads/sites/96/2021/12/WSU-WSP-Traffic-Stop-Data-Report-to-WSP-12-2-21-1.pdf) regarding racial disparities in traffic stops. Apparently, the study provides five years of data on traffic stops made by [Washington State Patrol. ](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/)Ultimately, it gives mixed results. According to Bowman, the study comes courtesy of researchers at [Washington State University.](https://wsu.edu/) It analyzed over 3.4 million traffic stops, 47,000 calls for service, and 175,000 collisions between January of 2015 and December of 2019. While it says that it found “no evidence for intentional, agency-level racial bias,” it also showed some disparities in racial demographics most likely to be pulled over, cited, and searched. Over the five-year period it pulled data from, 5.7% of all traffic stops involved a Black driver, despite that demographic making up roughly 4.4% of the state’s population. The highest rate of racial disparities involving Black drivers was seen in [Pierce County](https://www.piercecountywa.gov/), comprising 12.7% of traffic stops despite making up 7.7% of the county’s population. That was followed by [King County](https://kingcounty.gov/), where Black motorists — comprising 7% of the county’s population — made up 11.5% of traffic stops. White drivers made up 74.4% of traffic stops statewide, while comprising 78.5% of Washington’s population. Native American, Asian, Pacific Islander, and Hispanic drivers were stopped by troopers at lower rates compared to their population. Disproportionate practices were seen among the racial groups most likely to be searched. While Native American, Hispanic, and Black drivers were more likely to be searched than white drivers, so-called “hit rates” — the rate at which searches turned up contraband — were lower among the former group compared to searches of the latter. “Particularly for Black and Hispanic motorists, searches were less productive (10% difference in contraband found) which may indicate that probable cause standards are lower for searches of these groups,” the study notes. In terms of traffic citations, “white motorists received the most, but their overall proportion of total citations fell over the five-year period.” Native American and Black drivers were found to be less likely to be cited compared to white drivers, while Asian/Pacific Island and Hispanic drivers were more likely to be cited. Please review my [Search and Seizure Legal Guide](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/). And please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other driving-related crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Reckless Driving, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Car Crash Deaths Have Surged During COVID-19 Pandemic.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/car-crash-deaths-have-surged-during-covid-19-pandemic/) **Published:** December 10, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-12-08/traffic-deaths-surged-during-covid-19-pandemic-heres-why) in the [Los Angeles Times](https://www.latimes.com/) by reporters [Emily Baumgaertner ](https://www.latimes.com/people/emily-baumgaertner)and [Russ Mitchell ](https://www.latimes.com/people/russ-mitchell)discussed a tally that shocked experts. In short, there were 38,680 deaths on U.S. roadways last year, [the most since 2007](https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/2020-fatality-data-show-increased-traffic-fatalities-during-pandemic). The increase in accidents happened even though pandemic precautions had dramatically reduced driving. Experts say this driving behavior is likely a reflection of widespread feelings of isolation, loneliness and depression. The rise in motor vehicle deaths also lines up with other pandemic-era trends. Alcohol sales have soared, [drug overdoses](https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-11-18/drug-overdose-deaths-reached-a-record-high-heres-what-drove-it-there) have set new records, and [homicides](https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-09-19/la-na-homicides-america-milwaukee) have seen their biggest increase on record. According to the article, before the pandemic, safety on U.S. roadways had been improving for decades. Even as the number of people on the roads increased and many states raised their speed limits, annual fatalities fell from around 55,000 in 1970 to 36,096 in 2019. Then came the 7.2% rise in 2020, followed by an [18% jump in the first six months](https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813199) of this year, based on preliminary figures from the federal government. According to the article, for every 100 million miles driven last year, 1.37 people died. This is an increase of 23% rise from 2019. There’s also an increase in deadly accidents involving speeding, illegal substances or a failure to wear a seat belt. Jonathan Adkins, executive director of the [Governors Highway Safety Assn.](https://www.ghsa.org/), chimed in on the subject. He suggested that people’s disregard for themselves and others on the road is part of a national decline in civility that accelerated during the pandemic. > “Anecdotally, we hear from governors’ offices around the country that it’s a symptom and a sign of the overall lack of consideration we’re showing for other citizens, whether it be wearing masks, or not getting vaccinated, or how we drive . . . It’s very aggressive. It’s very selfish.” ~Jonathan Adkins, Executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Assn. In California, which saw a 5% increase in fatalities last year, Highway Patrol officers issued nearly 28,500 tickets for speeds over 100 mph, almost double the 2019 total. They arrested 232 people for reckless driving — a 150% rise — and are on pace to exceed that this year. Research based on crash investigations has shown that even a slight speed increase — say, from 50 mph to 56 mph — is enough to [increase](https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/2218) a driver’s risk of death. Since the start of the pandemic, a larger share of accident victims — including those who survived — have been [ejected from their vehicles,](https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2021-10/Traffic-Safety-During-COVID-19_Jan-June2021-102621-v3-tag.pdf) typically because they were not wearing seat belts. The increase in ejections was seen just as lockdowns began last year. Men have accounted for a disproportionate share. Making the roads even more dangerous is rising drug and alcohol use. In [one survey,](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457521003559?via%3Dihub) over 7% of adults said they were more likely to drive while impaired than they were before the pandemic. Federal researchers who looked at accidents in which drivers were killed or seriously injured found that the proportion who [tested positive for opioids](https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/50941) nearly doubled after the pandemic began. Marijuana use also rose considerably. Finally, more drivers are distracted. Researchers used GPS and other data to [determine](https://www.cmtelematics.com/measuring-and-pricing-phone-distraction-risk-2/) that drivers used their phones [more frequently](https://live.zendrive.com/collision-report) after the pandemic began, and that the problem only worsened over time. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a driving crime. [Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/), [Reckless Endangerment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-endangerment/), [Eluding](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/eluding/) and [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) are typical examples of crimes involving motor vehicles. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Uncategorized **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Pandemic Gun Sales](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/pandemic-gun-sales/) **Published:** December 14, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article](https://www.thetrace.org/2021/12/atf-time-to-crime-gun-data-shooting-pandemic/) in the [thetrace.org](https://www.thetrace.org/) by reporter [Champe Barton](https://www.thetrace.org/author/champe-barton/) discusses new data suggesting a connection between [Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic) gun sales and increased violence. In March 2020, as the first COVID-19 outbreaks rippled across the U.S., Americans flocked to gun stores. In total, civilians purchased some 19 million firearms over the next nine months — [shattering](https://www.thetrace.org/2020/08/gun-sales-estimates/) every annual sales record. At the same time, shootings across the country soared, with dozens of cities setting [grim records](https://www.thetrace.org/2020/12/shootings-data-philadelphia-cleveland-chicago-gun-violence/) for homicides. Fresh data from the [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)](https://www.atf.gov/) provides some of the first evidence that a relationship exists. [ATF data](https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/firearms-trace-data-2020) shows that in 2020, police recovered almost twice as many guns with a short “time-to-crime” — in this case, guns recovered within a year of their purchase — than in 2019. Law enforcement officials generally view a short time-to-crime as an indicator that a firearm was purchased with criminal intent. This is because a gun with a narrow window between sale and recovery is less likely to have changed hands. Altogether, more than 87,000 such guns were recovered in 2020, almost double the previous high. And almost 68,000 guns were recovered in 2020 with a time-to-crime of less than seven months. This means they were less likely to have been purchased the previous year. Put more plainly, thousands of guns purchased in 2020 were almost immediately used in crimes — some as soon as a day after their sale. That was the case of the 9mm Beretta pistol purchased by an Arlington man from Uncle Dan’s Pawn Shop and Jewelry in Dallas, according to police records. Officers seized the gun from its owner during a drug arrest 24 hours later. In another example, a Laredo, Texas, man assaulted his mother, then [opened fire on police](https://web.archive.org/web/20210306084211/https://www.lmtonline.com/news/article/Laredo-man-arrested-for-allegedly-shooting-at-15424091.php) with his Smith & Wesson M&P 15-22 rifle in July 2020. The gun had been purchased at a Cabela’s in Ammon, Idaho, just three months earlier. The research shows that immediate booms in access to firearms almost always lead to corresponding spikes in violence. [Dr. Garen Wintemute](https://health.ucdavis.edu/team/search/241/garen-wintemute---emergency-medicine-sacramento) directs the [Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis](https://health.ucdavis.edu/vprp/). He wasn’t surprised that the largest increase in access to firearms in history happened alongside a parallel surge in violence. > “It can be difficult or impossible statistically to sort out the contributions that any one of these \[phenomena\] made” to the rise in violence . . . But the bottom line is, if the prior research holds up and increases in access are associated with increases in violence, we’re in for a very rough time ahead.” ~Dr. Garen Wintemute Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member face [firearm offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/) or any other crimes. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Firearm, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Rape By Forcible Compulsion](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/rape-by-forcible-compulsion/) **Published:** December 22, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Gene](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/825461.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that for a charge of [Rape in the Second Degree by Forcible Compulsion](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.44.050), the force must be directed at overcoming the victim’s resistance. If a victim is unconscious or unable to respond there is no resistance to overcome. **BACKGROUND FACTS** The defendant Mr. Gene and K.M. had a “brother-and-sister-like friendship.” During the summer of 2018, they hung out almost all the time every weekend together with a group of their friends. On the evening of August 29, 2018, Gene and two of his friends, Jesus Montano and Sedrick Hill, went to K.M.’s apartment. K.M.’s friend Rachel Charles was already present. The group used the hot tub in K.M.’s apartment complex, consumed alcohol, and listened to music. At some point during the evening, they went up to K.M.’s apartment and played a drinking game. Eventually, K.M. began to feel unstable and sick. She went to the bathroom and began vomiting. Still feeling nauseous and dizzy, K.M. went to her bedroom to sleep. K.M. felt uncomfortable and nauseous in her bed, so she took a comforter and slept in a fetal position on the floor. At trial, K.M. testified that Gene sexually assaulted her while she slept on the floor. Gene was charged with numerous counts of [Rape in the Second Degree by Forcible Compulsion](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.44.050). A jury found Gene not guilty of Counts 1 and 3, and guilty of Count 2. Gene appealed his sole conviction on arguments that insufficient evidence existed to support it. **COURT’S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS** The WA Court of Appeals began by defining “Forcible compulsion” under the statute. In short, “Forcible compulsion” means physical force which overcomes resistance, or a threat, express or implied, that places a person in fear of death or physical injury to herself or himself or another person, or in fear that she or he or another person will be kidnapped. Next the Court interpreted WA’s case law. Quoting [*State v. McKnight*](https://casetext.com/case/state-v-mcknight-11), it said that in order for there to be forcible compulsion, there must have been force that was “directed at overcoming the victim’s resistance and was more than that which is normally required to achieve penetration.” Furthermore, the resistance that forcible compulsion overcomes need not be physical resistance, but it must be reasonable resistance under the circumstances. > “Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, K.M. did not resist the penetration of her vagina by Gene’s penis. K.M.’s testimony, set forth in full above, was that she was unconscious or unable to respond when Gene engaged in sexual contact with her. Because K.M. was unable to respond, she could not resist the penile-vaginal assault and there was no resistance for Gene to overcome.” ~WA Court of Appeals Accordingly, under these circumstances, no reasonable juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Gene resorted to forcible compulsion to engage in penile penetration of K.M.’s vagina. Thus, the evidence was insufficient. With that, the Court of Appeals reversed Gene’s conviction and remanded for further proceedings. However, the Court of Appeals also mentioned Gene for rape in the second degree by means of engaging in sexual intercourse with a person who is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless or mentally incapacitated. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [sex ofense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/) or any other crime. The Fourteenth Amendment due process clause both requires that every element of a charged crime be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and guarantees a defendant the right to a unanimous jury verdict. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Evidence, felony, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Rape, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Parents in Prison](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/parents-in-prison/) **Published:** December 24, 2021 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** A [fact sheet](file:///C:/Users/Alex%20Ransom/Downloads/Parents-in-Prison.pdf) from [the Sentencing Project](https://www.sentencingproject.org/) gives key facts on parents in prison. It illustrates the policies that impede their ability to care for their children when released from prison. Here’s an overview: - In 2016, 47% of people in state prisons and 57% in federal prisons were parents of minor children. - Most parents in prison are fathers (626,800 fathers compared to 57,700 mothers). - The number of fathers in prison increased 48% and the number of mothers in prison increased 96% between 1991 and 2016. Also according to the article, 2.7 million children have a parent serving time in prison or jail on any given day, and over 5.2 million have had an incarcerated parent at some point during their lives. Furthermore, the percentage of children who have experienced parental incarceration varies widely state to state, from a low of 3% in New Jersey to a high of 13% in Kentucky. The prevalence of parental incarceration also varies considerably by race. In 2018, 20% of Native children, 13% of Black children, 6% of Latinx children, and 6% of white children had experienced parental incarceration at some point in their lives. According to the [National Institute of Justice](https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/hidden-consequences-impact-incarceration-dependent-children), the impacts of parental incarceration on children bring terribly negative consequences. They include psychological stress, antisocial behavior, academic suspension or expulsion, economic hardship, and criminal activity. The growth and decline of the number of children with imprisoned parents mirrors the changing incarceration rates of the past few decades. Between 1972 and 2009, the U.S. prison population increased nearly 700%, due to policy changes including long mandatory sentences, the declining use of parole, and more punitive responses to substance use disorders. The arrest of a parent can be traumatic for many children. As noted in a [comprehensive review of research on children with incarcerated parents](https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/15158/AECasey_Children_IncParents.pdf?sequence=2), the arrest and removal of a mother or father from a child’s life forces that child to confront emotional, social and economic consequences that may trigger behavior problems, poor outcomes in school and a disruption or severance of the relationship with the incarcerated parent that may persist even after the parent is released from prison. I work hard to reunite families separated by the criminal justice system. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Prison, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [2021: Deadly for Drivers](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/2021-deadly-for-drivers/) **Published:** January 1, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/2021-was-the-deadliest-on-washington-roads-in-15-years-puzzling-experts/) by journalist [David Kroman](https://muckrack.com/david-kroman) found that 2021 was the deadliest on Washington roads in 15 years. Washington for the year saw 540 fatal crashes, which killed more than 600 people, according to data from the [Washington State Department of Transportation](https://wsdot.wa.gov/). Not since 2006 have the numbers been that high. In 118 of the year’s fatal crashes, a bicyclist or pedestrian was killed. An additional 2,411 crashes in 2021 resulted in likely serious injury — also the most since 2006 and 16% more than in 2020. [Alcohol- and drug-influenced](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) serious and fatal crashes remained high in 2021, sustaining a harrowing 25% jump from 2019 to 2020. Speed, too, continued to play an outsized role after climbing nearly 18% in 2020. Kroman reports that in Seattle, 31 people were killed in car crashes in 2021, according to preliminary data from the [Seattle Department of Transportation](https://www.seattle.gov/transportation). That, too, is the most since 2006. Jim Curtain, project development director at SDOT, said 19 of those deaths were pedestrians, and nearly half involved [hit-and-runs](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/hit-run/). The city has also seen a jump in [impaired driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/), Curtain said. **INTERPRETING THE DATA** Kroman reports that early in the [pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic), reports from[ state troopers](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/) suggested behavior behind the wheel had become more extreme. There was a rise of speed-related crashes and so-called “aggressive drivers.” As the roads emptied, drivers could more easily hit triple digits on their speedometers. Combined with a rise in alcohol and [drug use](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/), collisions that may have been moderate in 2019 became serious or deadly in 2020. As traffic returns, 2021’s picture is less obvious. Speed and distraction are almost certainly at the trend’s core, said [Mark Hallenbeck, director of the Washington State Transportation Center at the University of Washington](https://escience.washington.edu/people/mark-hallenbeck/). But there’s another, more nebulous cause that’s even more difficult to track. > “We have a pissed-off society . . . When you are in your big metal box of a car, you have an awful lot of ability to act out your frustrations both with accelerator and brake.” ~Mark Hallenbeck, director of the Washington State Transportation Center **HOW WASHINGTON COMPARES** Washington’s 6% rise in serious and fatal crashes from 2019 to 2020 was close to average for the country that year, which saw a national 7% spike, according to the [National Safety Council](https://www.nsc.org/). Maine, Arkansas and Washington, D.C., experienced the sharpest jumps, each over 30%. Rhode Island saw a 24% increase. My opinion? The stressors of 2020-21 — isolation, uncertainty, fear — remain. And with them comes an environment still conducive to risk, substance abuse and high speeds. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/), [Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Driving While License Suspended/Revoked, Driving With Wheels Off Roadway, Drug Offenses, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Reckless Driving, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Vehicular Assault, Vehicular Homicide, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Political Violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/political-violence/) **Published:** January 4, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Wonderful [article](https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/03/politics/jan-6-capitol-riot-political-violence-what-matters/index.html) from CNN reporter [Paul LeBlanc](https://www.cnn.com/profiles/paul-leblanc) discusses the rising acceptance of political violence in the aftermath of the January 6th riot. According to LeBlanc, [two recent polls ](https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/02/politics/january-6-poll-violence-against-government/index.html)on this issue show our country is deeply divided on political lines. Thirty-four percent of Americans think violent action against the government is sometimes justified, according to a [poll from The Washington Post and the University of Maryland](https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/dec-17-19-2021-washington-post-university-of-maryland-poll/2960c330-4bbd-4b3a-af9d-72de946d7281/?itid=lk_inline_manual_2) released Saturday. The survey, conducted December 17-19, revealed stark partisan splits. Apparently, 40% of Republicans and 41% of independents said violence against government is sometimes justified, compared with 23% of Democrats. **Our New Normal?** Listen to what David Frum, a veteran of the George W. Bush White House,[ told CNN’s Brian Stelter this weekend](https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2022/01/02/david-frum-on-political-violence-and-americas-new-normal.cnn/video/playlists/business-reliable-sources/) about the mentality of Trump’s allies and followers a year after the Capitol attack. LeBlanc also discusses a recent survey from [the Institute of Politics at the Harvard Kennedy School](https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/01/politics/harvard-poll-young-americans/index.html) that found most American adults younger than 30 are concerned about the US and its democracy. Young adults say, by 55% to 44%, that they’re more fearful than hopeful about the future of America. This shows a shift from earlier in 2021, when most said they were hopeful. Only about one-third describe the US as a healthy or even “somewhat functioning” democracy, with 52% saying it’s a “democracy in trouble” or that it’s failed altogether. Young Republicans are especially pessimistic. 70% say American democracy is in trouble or failed, compared with 45% of young Democrats who say the same. > “After turning out in record numbers in 2020, young Americans are sounding the alarm . . . When they look at the America they will soon inherit, they see a democracy and climate in peril — and Washington as more interested in confrontation than compromise.” ~John Della Volpe, Director of the Institute of Politics Polling My opinion? There’s a fine line between freedom of speech and political violence. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Harassment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/harassment/), [Resisting Arrest](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/resisting-arrest/), or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, First Amendment, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Should We Criminalize "Big Lies?"](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/should-we-criminalize-big-lies/) **Published:** January 9, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Gov. Jay Inslee supports legislation to make it a gross misdemeanor for politicians to issue [false statements](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.76.175) about election outcomes. Inslee announced his support for the legislation during a [legislative preview event hosted by the Associated Press ](https://www.tvw.org/watch/?clientID=9375922947&eventID=2022011020&startStreamAt=7142)which coincided with the anniversary of the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of former President Donald Trump. The three-term Democratic governor, in his most extensive comments on the subject to date, spoke passionately about his concern for the state of democracy in the United States and his belief that Trump is engaged in an ongoing coup attempt. He called for politicians on both sides of the aisle to speak out more forcefully against the former president and his allies. > “It should not be legal in the state of Washington for elected officials or candidates for office to willfully lie about these election results, and unfortunately they are doing that . . . This needs to be made illegal . . . The violence of January 6 of last year is just a warning of what is coming and the basis of it is the ‘Big Lie’ . . . That’s why I’m calling on all elected officials of both parties to join together arm-in-arm and call that out.” ~Governor Jay Inslee [The “Big Lie” ](https://www.npr.org/2022/01/04/1070337968/why-is-the-big-lie-proving-so-hard-to-dispel)is a reference to the false assertion by Trump and his supporters that the 2020 election was stolen. “The defeated president and his allies, including some legislators in Washington state, are perpetuating the belief that this election was stolen from them,” Inslee said. “What do you think is going to happen if you perpetuate that belief? Of course violence can be happening as a result of that.” Regarding his proposal to criminalize false statements about elections, Inslee said the “finishing touches” were being put on a draft of the bill and that his office was talking to lawmakers about sponsoring it. The proposal would be narrowly tailored to target “lies about free and fair elections when it has the likelihood to stoke violence.” Inslee defended the idea of criminalizing unsupported claims of election fraud and stolen elections — if they’re likely to result in violence — as not a violation of [freedom of speech](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech). The governor likened the rhetoric about elections being stolen to “yelling fire in a crowded theater.” “The defeated president as recently as an hour ago is yelling fire in the crowded theater of democracy,” Inslee said, [referring to statements Trump issued Thursday](https://www.npr.org/live-updates/jan-6-anniversary-events#trump-issues-a-series-of-conspiracy-laden-statements-in-lieu-of-a-speech). Those statements included: “Never forget the crime of the 2020 Presidential Election. Never give up!” My opinion? Many believe the incendiary rhetoric of political leaders makes political violence more likely. It gives violence direction, complicates the law enforcement response, and increases fear in vulnerable communities. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime involving political speech. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, First Amendment, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Do Increased Gun Sales Bring More Homicides?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/do-increased-gun-sales-bring-more-homicides/) **Published:** January 13, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/621196/) by reporters [Jeff Asher ](https://www.theatlantic.com/author/jeff-asher/)and [Rob Arthur](https://www.theatlantic.com/author/rob-arthur/) show that a [massive increase in gun sales](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/10/responsible-gun-ownership-is-a-lie/619811/) in early 2020 seems to have contributed to the recent rise in [homicides](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/). Researchers began searching for a definitive explanation why [murders in the United States](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/2020-homicide-spike-was-real/620183/) soared to more than 21,000 in 2020.New [data](https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/firearms-trace-data-2020) from the [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)](https://www.atf.gov/) suggests that newly purchased weapons found their way into crimes much more quickly and often last year than in prior years. This data may prove that new guns led to more murders. The ATF data are the result of tracing nearly 400,000 firearms in 2020. [According to](https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/firearms-trace-data-2017) the bureau, firearms are traced only “at the request of a law enforcement agency engaged in a bona fide criminal investigation where a firearm has been used or is suspected to have been used in a crime.” Not all guns recovered by law enforcement are traced, and many guns that are used in crimes are never recovered by law enforcement to begin with. But the ATF’s data are the most robust source available for evaluating the increased use of firearms in the United States in 2020. Reporters Asher and Arthur discuss the degree to which firearms purchased in 2020 featured in crimes committed in 2020. They say the ATF’s data set includes a measure known as the “time to crime” of each gun traced. Technically, this is the time from when a firearm was legally purchased to when it was recovered after a crime. On this metric, an enormous shift is apparent: The number of traced guns whose time to crime was a year or more increased by less than 1 percent in 2020 compared with 2019, but the number of guns whose time to crime was six months or less increased by 90 percent. No data exist on exactly how many guns were sold in 2020. The best proxy is the number of firearm background checks performed by the FBI, which indicates an attempted purchase but [doesn’t necessarily mean](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-sales-are-surging-but-background-checks-arent-keeping-up/) a completed one. These background checks surged dramatically in 2020, first when coronavirus cases began to appear in the U.S. and again after Floyd’s murder at the end of May. Background checks remained remarkably high for the first few months of 2021 but came down a bit during the second half of the year. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [firearm offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/) or any other crimes. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [The Feds Increased Prosecution of Domestic Terrorism](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/the-feds-increased-prosecution-of-domestic-terrorism/) **Published:** January 14, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/domestic-terrorism-justice-threat/2022/01/11/dfd8d82c-72eb-11ec-8b0a-bcfab800c430_story.html) by [Matt Zapotosky ](https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/matt-zapotosky/) and [Devlin Barrett ](https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/devlin-barrett/)discusses how the [Justice Department](https://www.justice.gov/) formed a new domestic terrorism unit. The announcement came from Matthew G. Olsen, the head of the Justice Department’s national security division. Mr. Olson announced the creation of the unit in his opening remarks before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said the number of FBI investigations of suspected domestic violent extremists had more than doubled since the spring of 2020. > “This group of dedicated attorneys will focus on the domestic terrorism threat, helping to ensure that these cases are handled properly and effectively coordinated across the Department of Justice and across the country.” ~Matthew G. Olsen, Justice Department’s National Security Division Olsen sought to assure lawmakers that the Justice Department is investigating and prosecuting all of those who committed crimes, no matter what motivated them. Olsen said authorities had arrested and charged more than 725 people. Charges included more than 325 felonies in conneced to the [January 6th attack on the Nation’s Capitol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_United_States_Capitol_attack#:~:text=On%20January%206%2C%202021%2C%20a,that%20would%20formalize%20President%2Delect). According to the article, the FBI is seeking to identify and arrest more than 200 additional suspects. The Justice Department and the bureau have faced criticism in recent years for not focusing as intensely on [domestic terrorism](https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2021/domestic-terrorism-data/?itid=lk_inline_manual_35 "www.washingtonpost.com") as they do internationally inspired threats, though officials have insisted they take both matters seriously. Last year, the White House [released a national strategy](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/biden-strategy-domestic-extremism/2021/06/14/d88250c8-cd4e-11eb-9b7e-e06f6cfdece8_story.html?itid=lk_inline_manual_36 "www.washingtonpost.com") to address the problem, calling for, among other things, new spending at the Justice Department and FBI to hire analysts, investigators and prosecutors. It is believed the Capitol attack will spur [broad crackdown on domestic extremists](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/capitol-attack-domestic-extremists/2021/01/23/1bc981c0-59b5-11eb-a976-bad6431e03e2_story.html). Historically, domestic terrorism investigations come with more procedural and legal hurdles than cases involving suspects inspired by groups based outside the United States, such as the Islamic State or al-Qaeda. The charge of material support for a foreign terrorist group, for instance, has no legal equivalent for someone eager to commit violence in the name of domestic political goals. My opinion? Obviously, the breach of the Capitol has spurred new political and policy debates abouthow the government combats domestic terrorism. This may trickle down to more localized prosecutions. State prosecutors may become emboldened to prosecute [Hate Crimes](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.080) and other crimes involving speech, race or political affiliations. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Domestic Terrorism, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, felony, Hate Crimes, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense --- ### [Don't Talk to Jurors!](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/dont-talk-to-jurors/) **Published:** January 26, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Hall](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/809962.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that improper communication between the jury and court bailiff impacts the right to a fair and impartial jury. Don’t talk to jurors. **BACKGROUND FACTS** The State charged Hall with [sex offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/). A jury trial in Snohomish County Superior Court began on October 15, 2019. The case was submitted to the jury on October 23, 2019. On the eighth day of deliberations, November 1st, the bailiff received a question from the jury. The bailiff described the event as follows: > “So I received the juror question asking me if Juror 4 could be dismissed. The juror stated that she was not ill but just wanted to leave, and they asked if they could call in the alternate. I told them that if they did that, they’d have to start over and that generally that’s not what the alternate is for, but they told me to ask it anyway.” – Court Bailiff After this exchange, the judge, prosecutor and defense counsel engaged a heated debate on the propriety of the bailiff’s remarks. At some point, defense counsel moved for a mistrial based on juror misconduct over the exchange with the bailiff. Defense Counsel also took issue with the juror’s potential discussion of the case outside of deliberations. Rather than decide on the motion, the court proposed polling the jury. Later, within 10 minutes of the jury returning to deliberations, the trial court received notice that juror 4 wanted to be excused. Defense counsel again expressed her concerns that juror 4 may be hastened or coerced. The court declined to dismiss juror 4 and instructed them to continue deliberating with the other jurors. Fourteen minutes later, the jury returned a verdict finding Hall guilty of two sex offenses. Following the verdict, Hall moved for a new trial. He argued that the bailiff’s communications to the jury had a prejudicial impact on his trial. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The court began by stating that [RCW 4.44.300](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=4.44.300) forbids a bailiff from communicating with the jury during its deliberations, except to inquire if they have reached a verdict. “The statute was designed to insulate the jury from out-of-court communications that may prejudice their verdict,” said the Court of Appeals. It emphasized that the bailiff is in a sense the “alter-ego” of the judge. Therefore, improper communication between the court and the jury is an error that impacts the right to a fair and impartial jury. “It is at least possible that the bailiff’s comments resulted in juror 4 being pressured to reach a verdict,” said the Court of Appeals. Relying on [*State v. Christensen*](https://www.leagle.com/decision/197793917wnapp9221805), and examining the record as a whole, the Court reasoned that the bailiff’s remarks had a prejudicial effect on the jury. With that, the Court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial. My opinion? Good decision. I’m sure the bailiff was simply trying to be helpful. Nevertheless, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I echo the excellent advice from the [Washington Courts](https://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/resources/?fa=newsinfo_jury.jury_guide#:~:text=DON'T%20talk%20to%20anyone,feel%20obligated%20to%20do%20so.) given to potential jurors: **DON’T** talk to *anyone* about your deliberations or about the verdict until the judge discharges the jury. After discharge, you may discuss the verdict and the deliberations with anyone, including the media, the lawyers, or your family. But **DON’T** feel obligated to do so. And please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Jury Trial, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Housing & Criminal Record](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/housing-criminal-record/) **Published:** January 27, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article](https://www.theolympian.com/news/politics-government/article257748893.html) by [Shauna Showersby](https://muckrack.com/shauna-sowersby) reports on legislation that would prevent landlords from denying housing based on a person’s criminal record. [House Bill 2017](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2017&Year=2021&Initiative=false) was introduced by [Rep. Lauren Davis](https://housedemocrats.wa.gov/davis/), D-Lynnwood, and has 10 other Democratic sponsors. Davis said the majority of those benefitting from the legislation are in recovery for mental illness or substance abuse. She said many end up in the legal system to begin with because of untreated behavioral health needs. Committee member [Rep. Andrew Barkis](https://andrewbarkis.houserepublicans.wa.gov/), R-Olympia, who owns Hometown Property Management, opposes the legislation: > “I completely agree that people in recovery who are working through all that absolutely need housing. Unfortunately there’s the other side of the spectrum when it comes to housing.” ~[Rep. Andrew Barkis](https://andrewbarkis.houserepublicans.wa.gov/), R-Olympia He said because this is a broader bill, it’s important to know the data behind it and what percentages of people would actually be affected. Some of those in support testified. Predictably, several landlords testified against the legislation. HUD guidelines suggest that landlords and property managers take a more individualized approach to screening applicants by considering the specific circumstances of an individual’s criminal history. However, the organization acknowledges that blanket policies which deny people housing based on past records do not serve a legitimate purpose. HUD also noted that over 100 million of U.S. adults, or nearly one-third of the population, have a “criminal record of some sort.” The report said that even those who were convicted of crimes but not incarcerated face “significant barriers to securing housing, including public and other federally subsidized housing because of their criminal history.” Additionally, because African-Americans and Hispanics are arrested at a disproportionate rate, they are more likely to encounter barriers to secure housing. If passed, [HB 2017](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2017&Year=2021&Initiative=false) would go into effect 90 days after the legislature adjourns. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. A criminal history can affect one’s eligibility for both public housing and private housing. An arrest – even before anyone is found guilty – can often trigger eviction of you or your entire household from public or private housing. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Are Court Fines Sensible?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/are-court-fines-sensible/) **Published:** February 2, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** According to a [press release](https://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/?fa=newsinfo.pressdetail&newsid=48540) from the [Washington Courts, ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/)a new report sheds new light on court practices regarding the imposition of fines and fees. The report, titled [“The Price of Justice: Legal Financial Obligations in Washington State,”](https://www.courts.wa.gov/subsite/mjc/docs/MJC_LFO_Price_of_Justice_Report_Final.pdf) was issued by the Washington State Minority and Justice Commission. It found that more than 80 percent of criminal defendants in Washington courts are indigent. Also, courts had imposed approximately $223 million in fines and fees but within a three-year period had collected approximately $11.5 million. A companion report discusses the consequences of LFOs and how court debt can plague the lives of individuals with little or no ability to pay. The Commission’s study on court fines and fees — called “legal financial obligations” or LFOs – was the result of a three-year grant from the U.S. Department of Justice awarded to five states for exploring LFO practices and issues of fairness and equity. The grant led to creation of the first statewide [LFO Stakeholder Consortium](https://www.courts.wa.gov/subsite/mjc/docs/2018/LFO%20Stakeholder%20Consortium%20Progress%20Report.pdf); presentation to the state Supreme Court of a [comprehensive symposium](https://tvw.org/video/washington-state-supreme-courtminority-justice-commission-symposium-2018061018/?eventID=2018061018) on LFO practices and impacts across Washington; the development in partnership with Microsoft of a unique [LFO calculator](https://lfocalculator.org/) for use by judges and the public; the Price of Justice study and report; a [companion report](https://www.courts.wa.gov/subsite/mjc/docs/LwC_Cost_of_Justice_Report_Final.pdf) describing significant impacts of LFOs on individuals; and [ongoing legislative](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1412&Year=2021) work to reform LFO policies. > “A great deal of time was spent learning about our own court practices regarding the imposition of fines and fees and trying to trace collection and allocation of these funds . . . We hope this new resource will contribute to the discussion on how we might further our mission to dispense justice fairly by finding another way to fund our courts; one that is more fair and equitable.” ~[Washington Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=yu) [Justice Mary Yu](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=yu), co-chair of the Minority and Justice Commission. Findings from the study report, “The Price of Justice: Legal Financial Obligations in Washington State,” and recommendations from the companion report, “The Cost of Justice: Reform Priorities of People with Court Fines and Fees,” include: - The vast majority of criminal defendants who come to court, 80-90 percent, are indigent. - Washington’s system of LFOs is complicated and extensive, with more than 155 separate and distinct court fines and fees that can be imposed. Some LFOs are mandatory and must be imposed regardless of ability to pay. - Surveys with prosecutors and defense attorneys indicated a great deal of statewide inconsistency in how LFOs are imposed, and how defendants’ ability to pay is assessed. - Though LFO reform was passed by state lawmakers in 2018 with ESSHB 1783, providing some avenue for relief from LFOs for low-income persons, many of them don’t know that relief is available or how to access relief. Many jurisdictions have no formal process to help people with court debt understand the options they have. - From 2014 – 2016, Washington superior courts imposed approximately $130 million in LFOs and collected roughly $7 million. - In the same time period, Washington district and municipal courts imposed roughly $88 million in LFOs and collected about $4 million. - Juvenile courts in that time imposed approximately $5.3 million in fines and fees and collected about $494,000. - Nearly all Washington district and municipal courts (courts of limited jurisdiction) utilized collection agencies for collection of unpaid court debt. The collection agencies are authorized to impose sizeable interest and fees, and are not required to consider ability to pay. - Other fees and costs beyond LFOs are added on to persons involved in the criminal justice system that are collected by other court-related entities, such as warrant issuance fees, jail booking fees, intake or supervision fees, and more. - There was a decline in the number and amount of LFOs imposed by courts following 2014. - Important steps are needed to continue reforming Washington’s LFO system, according the Living With Conviction companion report. Those improvements fall into four categories – 1) reducing barriers to achieving relief from LFOs, 2) reducing barriers to paying off LFOs, 3) reducing the amount of LFOs imposed, and 4) conducting additional research into personal experiences with impacts of court debt, inequities in the system, and more. **New Court Rule Opens a Path to LFO Relief** During the study period, notable improvements to Washington’s LFO system were adopted by state lawmakers through the passage of [ESSHB 1783](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1783&Year=2017) and by the judicial branch through adoption of [Court Rule GR 39](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/GR/GA_GR_39_00_00.pdf). Late King County Superior Court Judge David Steiner drafted an important statewide court rule, [GR 39](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.proposedRuleDisplay&ruleId=5796), making it easier for people with LFOs to seek relief in court. In addition to the 2018 legislation and the court rule change, new court forms have been created to help people seek LFO relief from courts. And additional reform legislation — [HB 1412](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1412&Year=2021) — has been proposed by state Representative Tarra Simmons for the upcoming session of the state Legislature. My opinion? While much as been done, there is still much work to do. This is an area of our justice system that can be overlooked. Unfortunately, it has a serious and long lasting impact on people’s lives for many years. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring a competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward avoiding criminal convictions and court fines. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Legal Financial Obligations, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Fleeing a Crime Scene](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/fleeing-a-crime-scene/) **Published:** February 10, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Are Washington’s new [search and seizure](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/search_and_seizure) laws allowing suspects to flee crime scenes? According to journalist [Amy Radil](https://www.kuow.org/authors/amy-radil), [police may regain authority to use force to stop people fleeing crime scenes](https://www.kuow.org/stories/wa-lawmakers-may-restore-police-power-to-use-for). The newly proposed [HB 2037 ](https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2021-22/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2037.pdf?q=20220127124623)allows police to use physical force if people flee from these brief investigative detentions. [HB 2037 ](https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2021-22/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2037.pdf?q=20220127124623)arrives after [HB 1310](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1310&Year=2021&Initiative=false) was recently enacted to regulate use-of-force tactics by police. [HB 1310](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1310&Year=2021&Initiative=false) forbids police officers from using force to detain someone unless they have enough evidence to arrest them. Before last year’s reforms, police could use force, including handcuffs, to detain someone briefly while they sought out more evidence. Law enforcement officials say [HB 1310](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1310&Year=2021&Initiative=false) prevents them from investigating a crime scene before people scatter. However, defenders of [HB 1310](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1310&Year=2021&Initiative=false) say people might run from police out of fear, not guilt, and racial bias could play a role in their detention. Radil reports that Angelina Smalls is the sister of [Bennie Branch, who was killed by Tacoma police in 2019](https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/bennie-branchs-family-raises-concerns-about-2019-deadly-tacoma-police-shooting-report/GGMTDKEILRGKZLMVPBM2DLRAFU/). She spoke against the new bill at the legislature this week. > “Because Bennie fled, under HB 2037, police would have authority to use force to stop him . . . I think House Bill 2037 is an invitation for abuse by police officers. Legislators should be protecting communities from needless violence, not creating more opportunities for police to harm people.” ~Angelina Smalls DeRay McKesson, co-founder of the national police reform group [Campaign Zero](https://campaignzero.org/), also spoke against the bill. He said physical force still turns into deadly force too easily, and police can track down the person when they have more evidence. Democrats who helped pass the police reform laws say they’ve been traveling the state, hearing from law enforcement, victims of crime and affected families. Please review my [Search and Seizure Legal Guide](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) for more information on this topic. And please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Protecting Pot Shops](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/protecting-pot-shops/) **Published:** February 15, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** [Senate Bill 5927](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5927&Year=2021&Initiative=false) adds a year to a prison sentence of someone convicted of [first- or second-degree robbery](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/robbery/) of a cannabis retailer. It’s the same sentence that is given to someone who robs a pharmacy. The passage of the bill in the Senate follows [rising concerns over violent robberies at cannabis shops](https://www.king5.com/article/news/crime/washington-pot-shops-call-on-the-state-to-improve-protection-from-violent-robberies/281-20fc84ad-d287-4990-bc1b-7ca96875d6f1). This bill would make improvements for not just the benefit of the retailers themselves, but for the public safety of the community as a whole. > “When people would ask the infamous bank robber Willie Sutton why he robbed banks, Sutton simply replied, ‘Because that’s where the money is.’ Well, that’s why people rob marijuana retailers. Due to federal banking rules, these businesses are almost entirely cash-only operations, making them a target for robberies and a magnet for criminals.” ~Bill sponsor [Sen. Jim Honeyford (R-Sunnyside)](https://jimhoneyford.src.wastateleg.org/) Tom Bout, the founder of the Cannabis Professionals Network, made a spreadsheet tracking the crimes he could find records for. He counted more than 30 crimes since November 2021. A spokesperson for the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board said it has been working to communicate safety guidelines with business owners. The state Liquor and Cannabis Board said it is communicating these safety tips with cannabis retailers: - Hire armed security guards - Make frequent cash deposits so there isn’t much cash available in shops - Post signs in businesses explaining that staff don’t have access to much cash - Clearly communicate safety guidelines with staff so they know what to do in the event of a robbery. Bout said the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board is not doing enough to protect cannabis retailers. “They have not communicated with the stores. Like, you’d think that they would put on an alert to let everyone know that this has happened,” he said during a previous interview. Interesting times, no? Years ago, selling and possessing marijuana was illegal. Nowadays, we’re passing laws bringing enhanced penalties to people who rob our pot shops. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Court, felony, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Robbery, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Animal Cruelty Can Be DV](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/animal-cruelty-can-be-dv/) **Published:** February 18, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Abdi-Issa](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/995818.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that Animal Cruelty may be designated as a crime of [Domestic Violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/). **BACKGROUND FACTS** Ms. Fairbanks began dating Mr. Abdi-Issa shortly after she moved to Seattle with her dog, Mona. Mona was a small Chihuahua and Dachshund mix. Fairbanks testified she was close to Mona. Abdi-Issa, however, had a history of disliking Mona. Abdi-Issa was abusive toward Fairbanks and Mona, even threatening to kill them both. One evening, while they were out in Seattle’s International District, Abdi-Issa insisted Fairbanks let him take Mona on a walk. Fairbanks objected, but Abdi-Issa ignored her and left with Mona. Not long after he left, Abdi-Issa called Fairbanks claiming that Mona had gotten out of her harness and that he could not find her. Fairbanks did not believe him, as Mona had never gotten out of her harness before. Abdi-Issa refused to tell her more. Fairbanks began to panic after she heard Mona yelping over the phone. Around that same time, bystanders heard a sound of great distress. One of the bystanders was Ms. Ludin. She followed the sound and saw Abdi-Issa beating and making “brutal stabbing” motions toward Mona. She also saw Abdi-Issa kick Mona so hard that she went up into the air and into the bushes. Each time Mona was struck she made a screeching, screaming, pained, sound that was at last followed by silence. Seattle Police Officers responded to the 911 call. Mona was found, still alive, underneath a bush. Officers transported Mona to an emergency veterinary clinic. Mona arrived at the clinic nearly comatose. She had severe swelling in her brain, bruising on her chest, and a wound to the top of her head. By the time Fairbanks arrived at the veterinary clinic Mona had died. A necropsy found that Mona had died from multiple instances of blunt force trauma. The State charged Abdi-Issa with [First Degree Animal Cruelty](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=16.52.205#:~:text=(1)%20A%20person%20is%20guilty,or%20forces%20a%20minor%20to) and sought a [domestic violence designation](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=10.99.020). The State also charged two [sentencing aggravators](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.535): **(1)** that the crime had a destructive and foreseeable impact on persons other than the victim, and **(2)** that Abdi-Issa’s conduct during the crime of domestic violence manifested deliberate cruelty or intimidation of the victim. Abdi-Issa unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the domestic violence designation and aggravators multiple times. The jury found Abdi-Issa guilty of animal cruelty. The jury also found that Abdi-Issa and Fairbanks were in a domestic relationship prior to the crime. This allowed for a domestic violence designation. The court imposed the maximum 12-month sentence for the crime of animal cruelty, and an additional 6 months for the aggravator, sentencing Abdi-Issa to an 18-month prison sentence. Based on the domestic violence designation, the court also imposed a no-contact order prohibiting Abdi-Issa from having contact with Fairbanks. However, the Court of Appeals vacated the domestic violence designation, the no-contact order, and the sentencing aggravator. The State appealed. The WA Supreme Court granted review and addressed the State’s appeal. **COURT’S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS** ***1. Animal Cruelty as a Crime of Domestic Violence*** First, the WA Supreme Court decided that Animal Cruelty may be designated a crime of domestic violence. At first, the Court said Abdi-Issa correctly argued that Animal Cruelty is not a [designated DV crime](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=10.99.020). “But the list of crimes is explicitly nonexclusive,” wrote Justice Gonzalez. The court further reasoned that many of the designated DV crimes, including [Burglary](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/) and [Malicious Mischief](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/malicious-mischief/), are against a victim’s property. > “Pets, as a matter of law, are considered personal property. Here, Fairbanks was directly harmed as a result of Abdi-Issa’s violent killing of her beloved pet and companion. She is plainly a victim of Abdi-Issa’s crime.” ~[Justice Steven C. Gonzalez](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=gonzalez), WA Supreme Court ***2. Sentencing Aggravator—Impact on Others*** Next, the Court addressed whether the “Impact on Others” sentencing aggravator was appropriate. Here, defendants face increased consequences if the offense involves a “destructive and foreseeable impact on persons other than the victim.” Justice Gonzalez emphasized how Ms. Ludin, the bystander who witnessed the attack on Mona, was deeply affected by the incident. > “Ludin made the 911 call and was very distressed when the police arrived. Ludin testified that she had a severe panic attack that night, sitting in her car for a long time before she was calm enough to drive herself home. She continued to have flashbacks, had trouble sleeping, and would go into a state of panic whenever she heard a ‘high pitched, squeaky sound.’ Abdi-Issa’s act had a destructive and foreseeable impact on Ludin. > > Abdi-Issa’s actions impacted someone other than Fairbanks. This emotional and psychological trauma will be something that Ludin and Fairbanks continue to carry. The sentencing aggravator was properly applied in this case.” ~[Justice Steven C. Gonzalez](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=gonzalez), WA Supreme Court Consequently, the Court held that Animal Cruelty can be designated as a DV crime and that the sentencing aggravators were appropriate. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Domestic Violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Animal Abuse, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Domestic Violence, felony, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sentencing, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Crime Rate Increases in Whatcom County](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/crime-rate-increases-in-whatcom-county/) **Published:** February 28, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [reporting](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article258664468.html) from the Herald by [Robert Mittendorf](https://muckrack.com/robert-mittendorf/articles) discusses rising crime rates in Whatcom County. According to Mittendorf – who took comments from [Whatcom County Sheriff Bill Elfo](https://www.whatcomcounty.us/2212/Sheriff-Bill-Elfo) – Whatcom County is also seeing a temporary shortage of deputies. As a result the agency is taking on extra work because of staffing shortages at other police agencies. Apparently, Elfo said that Washington state [accountability legislation](https://medium.com/walawlibrary/historic-police-reform-in-washington-a-summary-of-2021-legislation-1d0bb994465c) aimed at law enforcement agencies that was enacted in 2021 was prompting officers to leave the state. Elfo made these comments on Tuesday, Feb. 22, after he briefed the Whatcom County Council’s Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee about a recent shooting that left two deputies wounded. “Another fallout we are seeing is some good officers in Washington [are leaving the profession](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/politics-government/article257297727.html) and moving on to other states,” Elfo said. “We are working on backfilling these positions as quickly as possible without compromising hiring standards, but there are inherent delays in the selection and training program,” Elfo said. Training can take months, even for “lateral hires” who are experienced peace officers, he said. A State Patrol statement in October 2021 said that [74 officers “separated” from the department](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/2021/10/19/washington-state-patrol-announces-final-numbers-on-separations-due-to-vaccine-mandate/) because of Gov. Jay Inslee’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate. Elfo offered a list of “index crimes” and [cited statistics showing the rapid rise in crime](https://whatcomcounty.us/3442/Crime-Stats) over a six-month period. ▪ [Burglaries](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/) up 71%, from 125 to 198. ▪ [Robberies](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/robbery/) up 700%, from 0 to 7. ▪ [Theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/theft/) up 34%, from 202 to 272. ▪ [Car Theft](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.065) up 112%, from 53 to 111. “The situation in Whatcom County mirrors trends that are being seen statewide with regard to more crime,” Elfo said. My opinion? Mittendorf and Elfo’s comments are correct. Undoubtedly, [many police officers simply don’t want to get vaccinated](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/police-refuse-comply-vaccine-mandates/2021/11/12/56672428-4261-11ec-9ea7-3eb2406a2e24_story.html). And in lieu of [Black Lives Matter](https://blacklivesmatter.com/) protests, there’s a popular refrain echoing through urban police precincts, rural sheriff’s offices and city halls everywhere in between: Officers are [fleeing America’s police forces in big numbers](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/24/us/police-resignations-protests-asheville.html), officials say. And the timing couldn’t be worse, amid a [rise in murders and shootings](https://www.themarshallproject.org/2021/04/08/murders-rose-last-year-black-and-hispanic-neighborhoods-were-hit-hardest). Many argue [cities must hire more police](https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2021/07/20/dallas-mayor-eric-johnson-city-hire-police-officers-next-year/), but against the backdrop of nationwide scrutiny of police killings, [morale has dropped](https://www.axios.com/police-morale-suffers-recruiting-down-fb25f81e-b423-41fe-9d5f-242d43ebf337.html) to the point that few people want to be officers. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Auto Dealership Burglaries Are On the Rise](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/auto-dealership-burglaries/) **Published:** March 6, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Apparently, auto dealers and repair shops are increasingly becoming a target of burglars around the Puget Sound region. Car thieves have become more brazen and aggressive in their attempts to profit from auto dealerships, whether stealing whole cars or stripping them of valuable parts. Journalist [Nicole Jennings](https://mynorthwest.com/author/njennings/) [reports](https://mynorthwest.com/3371921/auto-dealers-burglaries-western-washington/amp/) that Western Washington burglars are reportedly breaking into dealerships and mechanics’ shops, often by ramming their cars into service entrances. Also, journalist [Sebastian Robertson](https://muckrack.com/sebastian-robertson) reported that [a car dealership in Fife has suffered multiple break-ins](https://www.king5.com/article/news/crime/thefts-from-car-dealerships/281-19f49834-8382-4fb5-98d2-cba2ffff474d). In one case, suspects made off with several sets of keys, only to return days later. The object of the burglary usually appears to be the keys to the cars on site — either the dealership’s own cars or the keys that people drop off when having their cars worked on. The criminals steal the cars at the time of the burglary, or return later for them. This [recently happened](https://komonews.com/news/local/suspects-slam-car-into-olympia-auto-dealership-to-burglarize-it) at [Nissan of Olympia](https://www.olympianissan.com/finance/), when burglars rammed a car into the service entrance to get in. The [Puget Sound Auto Theft Task Force](https://twitter.com/pugetsoundattf), made up of police officers from different agencies, is putting a special emphasis toward catching the burglars. PSATT is dedicated to investigating prolific auto theft offenders through multi-agency cooperation. The task force is recommending that auto dealers and repair shops put any keys dropped off after hours in a safe or similar secure storage system, so they could not be easily accessed by trespassers. The task force also suggests upgrading video systems and keeping parking lots well-lit. Here are the [Top 10 Burglary Statistics is 2022](https://www.bankrate.com/insurance/homeowners-insurance/house-burglary-statistics/) according to Bankrate.com: 1. Over 1 million burglaries are committed each year in the US, according to the FBI. 2. Most recently, 1.1 million burglaries took place in 2019, down 9.5% since the previous year. 3. One burglary happens every 25.7 seconds, so approximately 3,300 per day. 4. The average value of property taken during burglaries is about $2,600, making the total cost of burglaries in 2019 about $2.9 billion. 5. Burglars are drawn to homes that do not have home security systems. Homes that don’t have a security system are 300% more likely to be burglarized (Alarms.org). 6. Unfortunately, less than 30% of homes have an effective security system installed (Security.org). 7. [27% of the time](https://www.alarms.org/burglary-statistics/), a person is home while the burglary occurs; 26% of those people home are harmed. 8. Someone was injured in [7.2% of all burglaries](https://www.alarms.org/burglary-statistics/) committed. 9. In 85% of burglaries, [the crime is committed by amateurs](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130516160916.htm), often done by someone who is desperate. It is assumed these amateurs are more unpredictable and dangerous than professional thieves. 10. Despite the grim statistics burglaries have declined by 49% in the last 20 years, according to FBI data. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Burglary, ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/)[Vehicle Theft](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.065) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Burglary, felony, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Gasoline Theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/gasoline-theft/) **Published:** March 10, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** King5.com [reports](https://www.king5.com/amp/article/news/local/everett/everett-police-gas-thefts-prices/281-84ca2b3f-0861-4c63-8be0-22d97733cbe4) that local police departments are [warning residents of a potential increase in gas thefts](https://www.facebook.com/EverettPoliceWA/posts/334406592064810). In Everett alone, at least seven gas thefts have been reported in the past six months. Some gas thieves are using rubber hoses to siphon the fuel out while others are using power tools to drill holes in gas tanks. Residents are advised to park their vehicles in well-lit areas or in garages to deter thieves. Other communities in western Washington are also reporting gas theft. In Lacey, a suspect was seen siphoning gas out of a minivan on surveillance video. This took place at the Lacey Veterans Service HUB, according to the Lacey Police Department. Gas prices hit an average of $4.79 Wednesday in the Seattle-Bellevue-Everett area and an average of $4.63 statewide, [according to AAA.](https://gasprices.aaa.com/?state=WA) Nationally, a gallon of gas costs about $4.25 according to data from AAA. This is the highest price it’s been since 2014, as the country was pulling out of the 2008 recession. > “This is a sign of the times, you know . . . It’s thieves looking for ways that they can make money by stealing what is becoming an increasingly more expensive and valuable commodity, gasoline.” ~Doug Shupe, Corporate Communications Manager, AAA The surge in price is being spurred on partially by high demand as the country begins to return to normal after the omicron surge of COVID-19, global oil instability thanks to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and renewed worries about domestic production after President Joe Biden announced a total ban on Russian energy imports as punishment for the invasion. Theft of gas poses serious danger risks. Interfering with gas pipes or gas meters is a dangerous crime, putting personal safety on the line and the safety of other people and neighboring properties. Gas theft can also carry hefty repercussions for those found guilty. Gasoline theft is a type of theft where the criminal steals gasoline from another without paying market value for it. Gasoline theft is more common when oil prices rise. It typically occurs in one of two ways: pump and run and siphoning. Pump and runs occur when the criminal pumps gas at a gas station and leaves without paying. Most gas stations require payment prior to pumping, so this type of gas theft is no longer very common. Siphoning is a method of stealing gas from someone’s car. The perpetrator siphons off the gas by sticking a hose into another car’s gas tank and sucking the gas out. The thief siphons the gas into their gas can. Gas is usually siphoned from parked cars. For a criminal to be found guilty of gas theft, three elements must be proven: 1. The defendant knowingly took the gasoline; 2. The gasoline belonged to another person or entity (such as a gas station); and, 3. The defendant intended to deprive the owner of its use. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/theft/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Gas Theft, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Theft of Motor Vehicle, Vehicle Prowl, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Whatcom Superior Court Relaxes COVID-19 Mask Requirements](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/whatcom-superior-court-relaxes-covid-19-mask-requirements/) **Published:** March 11, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In a [press release](https://www.whatcomcounty.us/DocumentCenter/View/64798/Judicial-Press-Release) and new [Administrative Order](https://www.whatcomcounty.us/DocumentCenter/View/64797/29th-Admin-Order), Whatcom County Superior Court has officially ended to its face-covering requirement starting March 12, 2022. This comes pursuant to information provided in [Governor Jay Inslee’s press conference on February 28, 2022](https://www.theolympian.com/news/local/article258887758.html). According to the press release, face coverings in Superior Court controlled offices and common spaces will be optional. However, everyone who enters the Superior Court is encouraged to wear facial coverings for their own protection and the protection of others. While facial coverings are no longer mandatory in Superior Court, there are the following exceptions: - Jury trials, during which all participants, including jurors, judicial officers, court staff, parties, witnesses and the public must wear facial coverings at all times; - Whenever determined to be necessary by a judicial officer. All participants to court proceedings should bring a facial covering to the courthouse for all hearings, in case it is determined by a judicial officer that one is necessary. The court will have limited supplies of masks available for those who need one. Children under 5 years of age, people with medical or mental health conditions or disabilities that prevent them from wearing a facial covering are not required to wear a facial covering at any time. **FEDERAL COURTS ALSO GO MASKLESS** The news comes as a growing number of courts from coast to coast are going maskless amid a nationwide decline in COVID-19 cases. Since the beginning of March, more than a dozen federal district courts have issued orders relaxing or dropping requirements for people to wear face coverings aimed at reducing COVID-19’s spread. “The Court sincerely hopes that this downward trend in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations will continue,” [Chief U.S. District Judge Ricardo Martinez](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_S._Martinez) in Seattle [wrote in a Thursday order.](https://tmsnrt.rs/35HgqZV) The changes came after the [CDC](https://www.cdc.gov/) on Feb. 25 [dramatically eased its COVID-19 guidelines for masks,](https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/new-us-covid-guidelines-allow-most-americans-go-mask-free-indoors-2022-02-25) shifting from a focus on the rate of coronavirus transmission to monitoring local hospitalizations, hospital capacity and infection rates. My opinion? Excellent. Our local courts were very responsive and responsible in the face of the COVID-19 Pandemic. I speak for us all – judges and attorneys alike – who say, “Let’s get back to work!” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [DUI Emphasis Patrols Start Again At WSU](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/dui-emphasis-patrols-begin-again-in-wsu/) **Published:** March 11, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [WA State Patrol (WSP)](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/) just [announced](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/2022/03/10/wsu-spring-break-emphasis-patrols-2/) it will conduct [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) emphasis patrols starting March 10-20 as [Washington State University (WSU)](https://wsu.edu/) students travel across the state for Spring Break. District 4 troopers in Spokane, Whitman and Adams counties and District 6 troopers in Grant and Kittitas counties, will be focusing on speeding to include driving too fast for conditions, distracted/impaired driving and other collision-causing violations during the emphasis. The press release advises students traveling across the state should make sure to prepare for winter travel conditions. A small emergency kit with water, food, blankets, winter clothing and emergency flares are a good idea. “Our primary mission is to ensure that everyone travels during Spring Break without incident,” said WSP District 4 Commander Captain Jeff Otis. Motorists traveling to and from WSU will see an increased WSP presence on State Routes 26 & 195 as well as Interstate 90 over Snoqualmie Pass. > “We encourage travelers to pay close attention to posted speed limits and to be prepared for changing road and weather conditions.” ~WA State Patrol The WSP, WSU, and other state and local officials will be working hard throughout the break to ensure everyone heading to and from Pullman has a safe and enjoyable vacation. WSP public information officers will be updating information throughout the emphasis using the hashtag **\#BeSafeCougs.** Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["Lustful Disposition" Legal Term of Art Abandoned by WA Supreme Court](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/lustful-disposition-legal-term-of-art-overruled-by-wa-supreme-court/) **Published:** March 15, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Crossguns](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/993963.pdf),* the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) disapproved of the prosecution’s use of the term “lustful disposition.” **BACKGROUND FACTS** The case involved allegations that the defendant, Mr. Crossguns Sr., sexually abused his daughter R.G.M. At trial, prosecutors presented evidence that Mr. Crossguns Sr., had previously abused the victim from July 2015 to August 2016. At trial, the State also sought to admit testimony from family members regarding these incidents. Crossguns opposed admitting the evidence, arguing that it was improper propensity evidence. The trial court concluded the probative value outweighed any risk of unfair prejudice and ruled the evidence was admissible under [ER 404(b). ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/ER/GA_ER_04_04_00.pdf) More specifically, the court was persuaded that the Prosecutor demonstrated Crossguns’s “intent, plan, motive, opportunity, absence of mistake or accident, lustful disposition toward R.G.M. Ultimately, the judge admitted the testimony under arguments that Crossguns’ had a “lustful disposition toward” the child. Crossguns was convicted of [sex offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/) to include second-degree rape of a child and second-degree child molestation. appealed on argument that the prosecutor’s **(1)** use of the term “lustful disposition” was improper, and **(2)** statements in closing, asking the jury to decide if the witnesses were telling the truth, constitute misconduct. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** Justice Montoya-Lewis wrote the majority opinion and made short work of the “Lustful Disposition” issue: > “We conclude that the term ‘lustful disposition’ is archaic and reinforces outdated rape > myths and misconceptions of sexual violence . . . Therefore, we now reject the ‘lustful disposition’ label and hold that ‘lustful disposition’ is not a distinct or proper purpose for admitting evidence. To the extent our precedent indicates otherwise, it is disavowed.” ~[WA Supreme Court Justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=montoyalewis). In nixing its use in Washington, the Supreme Court wrote that the term “reinforces the myth of the pathological, crazed rapist who is a stranger to the victim.” > “The term ‘lustful disposition’ is an outmoded, inaccurate term that reinforces myths about sexual assault . . . We abandon this term because it is incorrect and harmful.” However, Justice Montoya also reasoned that rejection of the label “lustful disposition” does not modify our established doctrine of allowing “evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts” pursuant to ER 404(b). Therefore, the trial court’s reference to lustful disposition in its decision admitting the evidence was harmless. “Further, we conclude that the prosecutor’s statements constitute misconduct, but the prejudice could have been corrected by an instruction,” reasoned the Court. Therefore, the WA Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals in part and reversed in part, and remand to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. My opinion? Good opinion. It showed a forward-thinking and significant departure from inflammable terms of art which are historically prejudicial. Generally, evidence of a person’s character is not allowed to be used to prove that in the alleged crime the person acted in accordance with their character. There are many exceptions, including if the evidence speaks to a defendant’s motive, opportunity, intent or plan. And, until Thursday, if the evidence spoke to a defendant’s “lustful disposition,” it was fair game. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Child Molestation, ER 404(B), Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [AGO Allocates $177,000.00 For Sexual Assault Kit Initiative](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/ago-allocates-177000-00-from-sexual-assault-kit-initiative/) **Published:** March 22, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** A [press release](https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-ferguson-provides-funding-53-law-enforcement-agencies-expanded-storage-sexual) from the [WA Attorney General’s Office](https://www.atg.wa.gov/) confirms that the office will provide 53 local law enforcement agencies across the state with funding for refrigeration units to store evidence from sexual assault investigations. A sexual assault kit is a collection of evidence gathered from a survivor by a medical professional, usually a specially trained sexual assault nurse examiner. A crime lab then tests the evidence for DNA that could help law enforcement find a perpetrator. Ferguson is providing the new units as part of his [Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI)](https://wasaki.atg.wa.gov/) — a campaign to improve Washington’s response to sexual assault and end the state’s rape kit backlog. The Attorney General’s Office is allocating $177,204.73 of its federal SAKI grant funding to local law enforcement for the purpose of purchasing refrigeration units to store sexual assault kits. The Attorney General’s Office heard from local law enforcement that this is a major need. These resources will help ensure that sexual assault evidence, including evidence that needs to be refrigerated, does not expire due to lack of capacity. “More storage means more evidence can be tested, and more crimes can be solved,” Ferguson said. “These resources will bring justice to survivors.” This increased storage capacity will help law enforcement agencies comply with a 2020 law, [House Bill 2318](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2318&Year=2019), that requires “unreported” sexual assault evidence to be stored for at least 20 years. This includes a sexual assault kit and all associated evidence for an assault that a victim has not yet reported to law enforcement. An unreported sexual assault kit is taken at a hospital and stored by law enforcement, should a victim choose to file a report. Evidence from reported assaults must be stored for 100 years. The Blaine Police Department, Ferndale Police Department and Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office are receiving new units. There are two types of sexual assault kit backlogs in Washington and across the country. The first is the “unsubmitted” sexual assault kit backlog, which consists of kits that sit in a law enforcement evidence storage facility because a DNA analysis was never requested. The second type of backlog occurs in crime lab facilities, when sexual assault kits have been submitted to the lab, but have not yet been tested. Once the kits are tested, local law enforcement can use DNA to reopen cold cases. A significant type of evidence in sexual offense cases is the DNA recovered from rape kits. Rape kits are the physical evidence and notes from an assault victim’s examination. The physical evidence usually contains DNA such as hair, blood, bodily fluids, clothes and belongings of the victim, and physical evidence from the crime scene. In some cases, the rape kit findings are the primary evidence used against a defendant. However, rape kit findings do not necessarily equate with forced or unlawful sexual conduct. courts will evaluate the probative value of DNA findings and if the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [sex offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [How Will the New Gun Laws Affect Washingtonians?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/how-will-the-new-gun-laws-affect-washingtonians/) **Published:** March 24, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** [Gov. Jay Inslee](https://www.governor.wa.gov/) signed three new pieces of legislation into law on Wednesday concerning new regulations on guns. - [Senate Bill 5078](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5078&Year=2021&Initiative=false) concerns “high-capacity” magazines in the state. The law will prohibit importing, distributing, manufacturing, selling or offering for sale of high-capacity magazines, which are defined as magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. - [House Bill 1705](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1705&Initiative=false&Year=2021) concerns untraceable firearms, also known as “ghost guns.” The law will prohibit “manufacturing, causing to be manufactured, assembling, causing to be assembled, selling, offering to sell, transferring, or purchasing” of untraceable firearms. - [House Bill 1630](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?billnumber=1630&year=2022) adds restrictions to where Washingtonians can carry weapons. Open carrying weapons will now be prohibited at local government facilities, or locations where local government meetings take place. Possession of weapons will also now be prohibited at school board meetings and election-related facilities. Among those in attendance at the ceremony were Attorney General Bob Ferguson, Democratic state legislators and individuals who’ve been affected by gun violence. The Attorney General’s office also [points to studies](https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-ferguson-historic-house-vote-legislature-bans-sale-high-capacity-magazines) that have concluded that gun magazine limits reduce the incidence of mass shootings and save lives. **WHAT HAPPENS IF I CURRENTLY OWN A “HIGH-CAPACITY” MAGAZINE?** Nothing. The legislature got rid of the language in the bill that would have regulated possession, so anyone in the state of Washington who currently owns, or who purchases high-capacity magazines before the law goes into effect will still be within the law. Once the law goes into effect, Washingtonians can no longer purchase high-capacity magazines in-state, online, or from another state. The law bans the importation, distribution, manufacture, sale or offer for sale of high-capacity magazines. **IS ANYONE EXEMPT FROM THE NEW LAWS?** Yes. Licensed firearms dealers can still sell high-capacity magazines to all branches of the military and to law enforcement agencies. Exemptions for who can carry weapons at certain facilities include federal, state and local law enforcement officials. **WHEN DO THESE LAWS GO INTO EFFECT?** The ban on high-capacity magazines goes into effect 90 days after the adjournment of the session, which ended on March 10. That means it goes into effect June 8. The “manufacturing, causing to be manufactured, assembling, causing to be assembled, selling, offering to sell, transferring, or purchasing” of untraceable firearms will be prohibited after June 30. Restrictions on guns at school board meetings, local government meetings and election facilities goes into effect 90 days after the adjournment of the session, or June 8. **WHAT ARE THE PENALTIES FOR BREAKING THE NEW LAWS?** Violations of the firearms magazine ban are punishable by a gross misdemeanor. These crimes carry a maximum sentence of 364 days in jail and $5,000 fine. Violators of the ban on ghost guns can expect to pay $500 for the first offense. Second offenses can expect a misdemeanor, while three-time offenses can lead to a gross misdemeanor. Anyone who is caught with three or more ghost guns at once could potentially face a gross misdemeanor. Violations of weapons restrictions at certain locations can expect a misdemeanor on the first offense, and a gross misdemeanor on the second offense. My opinion? A constitutional challenge to the gun magazine law is likely. On Wednesday, the Nevada-based [Firearms Policy Coalition](https://www.firearmspolicy.org/) announced it’s seeking plaintiffs to lead a lawsuit against the new law. Ferguson, however, expressed confidence the courts will uphold the law. [Last November](https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/story/2021-11-30/9th-circuit-upholds-large-capacity-gun-magazine-ban), a panel of judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a similar ban enacted by California. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Firearm Offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/) or any other crimes. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Confrontation, Video Testimony & COVID](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/confrontation-video-testimony-covid/) **Published:** March 26, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Milko](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2055267-1-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held that a defendant has a right to have witnesses present in the courtroom. However, that right can be overcome. Here, the trial court lawfully allowed witnesses to testify by video when they had health related concerns about contracting COVID-19. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** In 2018, Milko on five separate occasions contacted women who were paid escorts. He arranged to meet them at houses in Puyallup that he did not live in or own. When each woman arrived, Milko displayed a knife in an attempt to take their money or to rape them. The State charged Milko with 12 felony offenses related to five incidents and five victims. The charges included [Burglary](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/), [Robbery](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/robbery/) and [Sex Offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/). Milko’s trial was set for July 2020. At the time, COVID-19 had been declared a global pandemic and a national emergency in the United States. In February 2020, Governor Jay Inslee had proclaimed a state of emergency in Washington. He issued a number of proclamations designed to help curb the spread of COVID-19. The Supreme Court ordered all courts to follow the most protective public health guidance applicable in their jurisdiction and to use remote proceedings for public health and safety whenever appropriate. Also, the CDC and the Washington Department of Health recommended social distancing measures of at least six feet between people and encouraged vulnerable individuals to avoid public spaces. The CDC encouraged people to avoid traveling because travel increased a person’s chance of getting infected and spreading COVID-19. The CDC noted that older adults and people of any age with serious underlying medical conditions, such as diabetes and asthma, were at a higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19. The trial court granted the State’s request to allow two State’s witnesses to testify remotely. One witness was SANE nurse Ms. Biddulph. The other witness was victim JA. At trial, the five victims and several investigating officers testified in person about the incidents giving rise to the charges. Biddulph testified by two-way video about examining BP and completing a rape kit for her. JA testified by two-way video about Milko contacting her for her paid escort services in Florida and raping her at knifepoint. The trial court instructed the jury that the State was offering JA’s testimony only to establish identity, a common scheme or plan, and/or modus operandi. The jury found Milko guilty of all charges except for attempted first degree robbery. He appealed on arguments that the trial court violated the confrontation clause by allowing witnesses to testify by video because of COVID-19 concerns. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The WA Court of Appeals (COA) explained that the [Confrontation Clause](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/right_to_confront_witness#:~:text=The%20Confrontation%20Clause%20found%20in,depositions%20or%20ex%20parte%20affidavits)) of the [Sixth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) to the [U.S. Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/index.html) provides that a person accused of a crime has the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Nevertheless, the COA quoted [*Maryland v. Craig,*](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1989/89-478) and other cases holding that video testimony does not violate the confrontation clause if it ensures the reliability of the evidence by subjecting it to rigorous adversarial testing and thereby preserves the essence of effective confrontation. Here, the COA upheld the trial court’s findings that Biddulph’s traveling to Washington would place her and her children at risk of negative health consequences regarding COVID-19 were warranted. Biddulph in particular had health concerns about her one year-old daughter, who had compromised health. And the court made a finding that Biddulph’s health care provider “advised against travel in order to protect the health of Ms. Biddulph and her small child.” The court’s ultimate finding was that Biddulph could not travel to Washington to testify because travel will place her at a significantly higher risk of exposure to the virus. “Accommodating Biddulph’s health concerns was more than a matter of convenience,” said the COA. In addition, it reasoned that concern for the health of a third person may be sufficient to support a finding of necessity. “This is especially true in a pandemic. Given the nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, the risk to the health of Biddulph and her child if Biddulph was required to travel to Washington was significant and more than de minimis.” The COA also found that the trial court found that JA’s health concerns due to her diabetes and asthma were warranted. These conditions would “place her at a higher risk of suffering severe health consequences if she were to contract COVID 19.” Further, the COA upheld the trial court’s findings that JA’s conditions “make it difficult, if not impossible, to wear a face mask for an extended period of time, including on a cross-country flight.” The court’s ultimate finding was that “J.A.’s health is currently compromised, and she is at a higher risk of serious medical complications should she contract COVID-19.” > “We conclude that these findings support the conclusion that video testimony was necessary to protect JA’s health. Accommodating JA’s health conditions was more than a matter of convenience. Given the nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, the risk to JA’s health if she was required to travel to Washington was significant and more than de minimis.” ~WA Court of Appeals. The COA concluded that the trial court did not err in allowing Biddulph and JA to testify remotely by video and their testimony did not violate Milko’s confrontation right. Consequently, the COA affirmed Milko’s convictions and sentence. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Burglary, Confrontation Clause, felony, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Robbery, Sex Crimes, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Why Pot Shops Get Robbed](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/why-pot-shops-get-robbed/) **Published:** March 29, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The news bombards us with [frequent reminders](https://mynorthwest.com/3330404/pot-shops-armed-robberies/) of WA marijuana retailers getting [robbed](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/robbery/) and [burglarized](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/). Pot shops up and down the I-5 corridor, from Bellingham to Vancouver, are increasingly becoming the target of armed robberies. And some of those robberies have even left employees with gunshot wounds. One reason why pot shops are hit so often is that the businesses are cash-only. Because marijuana is federally illegal,[ federal law prohibits the stores from taking credit or debit card payments](https://www.practicalecommerce.com/the-state-of-cannabis-payments-in-u-s). Transactions in the U.S. involving the purchase or trade of marijuana are not permitted on credit card networks until federal law allows. As a result, credit card companies have distanced themselves from facilitating marijuana -based transactions. Banking has been a sticking point for the legal cannabis industry for much of its existence. Even where legal, banks are often hesitant to get involved with cannabis businesses. That extends to cannabis credit card processing: a card network ban on cannabis transactions has locked state-legal [THC licensees](https://fincann.com/industry-client-services/thc-licensees/) out of merchant processing services, preventing them from transacting with debit and credit cards. Credit unions are also leery of marijuana transactions for many of the same reasons. The National Credit Union Association (NCUA) [reports](https://www.nafcu.org/faqs-marijuana-banking-credit-unions) that under federal law and regulations, there are some “worst case scenarios” that may occur. First, a credit union could face criminal liability for banking a business that engages in a federally illegal activity, i.e., the sale of marijuana. Second, the NCUA could pull the credit union’s charter, thus, potentially leaving the credit union’s members temporarily without services and requiring that credit union to be absorbed into a different credit union. Third, the NCUA could terminate the credit union’s share insurance account, which would force that credit union to find a private insurance provider. Fourth, the credit union could lose access to its Federal Reserve master account. And finally, should a credit union’s member(s) be prosecuted, their funds could be tied up in asset forfeiture proceedings, which could be labor-intensive and impact the credit union’s balance sheets. My opinion? When cannabis becomes legal in the U.S. federally, all merchants — ecommerce and brick-and-mortar — can expect an explosion of legitimate payment providers. Until then, cash is king. And as such, unfortunately, marijuana retailers may continue to be victims of crime. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, marijuana, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Fentanyl-Filled Pills Seized by US law Enforcement up 4,850%](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/fentanyl-filled-pills-seized-by-us-law-enforcement-up-4850/) **Published:** April 4, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article](https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2022/mar/31/fentanyl-overdose-us-law-enforcement) by [Erin McCormick](https://www.theguardian.com/profile/erin-mccormick) discusses how [a new study](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2022.109398) found that more than two million counterfeit pills were confiscated in the last quarter of 2021 alone. And over the past four years, the number of counterfeit pills containing fentanyl that have been seized by US law enforcement jumped by 4,850%. [The new study](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2022.109398) shows an alarming surge in the deadly drug is putting people at increasing risk for accidental overdose. Using a first-of-its-kind, real-time analysis of federal data, the study found that more than 2m fake pills were seized by officials in the last quarter of 2021 alone. This was a drastic increase up from 42,000 in the first quarter of 2018. Researchers also found that the number of individual seizures involving fentanyl pills increased by 834%. The study’s authors say this reflects the huge supply of these pills. Apparently, criminal drug networks manufacture the pills to look like legitimate pharmaceutical tablets sold on the streets. > “These look just like prescription pills. That’s the scary part. One pill that contains fentanyl literally can kill you.” ~Study’s lead author, [Joseph Palamar](https://med.nyu.edu/faculty/joseph-j-palamar),[ ](https://med.nyu.edu/faculty/joseph-j-palamar)professor of population health at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. The study comes at a time when the number of overdose deaths in the US has exploded to more than 100,000 a year due to the huge amounts of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids saturating the nation’s drug supply. Fentanyl is as much as 100 times more potent than morphine and, as Palamar notes, one small baggie of the stuff can contain enough of the drug to kill hundreds of people. In a two-month period in 2021, the [US Drug Enforcement Agency announced](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-announces-dea-seizures-historic-amounts-deadly-fentanyl-laced-fake-pills#:~:text=The%20amount%20of%20deadly%20fentanyl,the%20last%20two%20years%20combined.) it had arrested 810 drug traffickers across the United States and seized enough fentanyl-filled pills to kill more than 700,000 Americans. Researchers said the number of drug seizures is a reflection of the huge amount of fentanyl on the streets and warned of the dangers it can pose to unknowing members of the public, particularly young people who may be unwittingly buying fentanyl-tainted pills online or from friends. “Pills can disguise the risk,” said study coauthor Dr Daniel Ciccarone, a professor specializing in addiction medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. “A pill can be taken by a college student who is trying to stay up all night to study for an exam and doesn’t know whether his buddy is selling him real Adderall or fake Adderall. A pill can be taken by a kid who goes to a club and thinks he’ll have more fun if he takes the party drug MDMA – and instead he gets fentanyl.” Ciccarone and Palamar said people should avoid any pill that isn’t prescribed by their own doctor – including medicines given to them by friends or bought over social media or on the street. At the very least, users of illicit drugs should consider testing them with fentanyl detection strips, available through many health departments and needle exchange groups, they said. “The street pill is now much more dangerous than it was for earlier generations,” said Cicarrone. “That is the problem.” The study’s innovative methodology analyzed real-time federal data on the drugs being seized by law enforcement on streets and at border crossings around the nation, in what researchers hope can become an early warning system for spotting new drug dangers on the market and even heading off overdose deaths. “An increase in illicit pills containing fentanyl points to a new and increasingly dangerous period in the United States,” said [Dr. Nora Volkow](https://nida.nih.gov/about-nida/directors-page), director of the [National Institute on Drug Abuse](https://nida.nih.gov/), which funded the study. “Pills are often taken or snorted by people who are more naive to drug use, and who have lower tolerances. When a pill is contaminated with fentanyl, as is now often the case, poisoning can easily occur.” Young people have been particularly hard hit by recent drug overdose deaths. An [earlier analysis](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/22/teen-fentanyl-deaths-pills-social-media) showed youth under 24 account for the fastest rise in drug deaths, with 7,337 youth dying in 2020 alone. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [drug offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) of any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Fentanyl, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [WA State Patrol Lacks Diversity, Seeks Active Recruitment of Minority Officers](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/wa-state-patrol-lacks-diversity-seeks-active-recruitment-of-minority-officers/) **Published:** April 9, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** [King5](https://www.king5.com/) journalist [PJ Randhawa](https://muckrack.com/pj-randhawa) [reports](https://www.king5.com/amp/article/news/community/facing-race/washington-state-patrol-diversity/281-2bbeffcb-970d-4a2f-b8b4-f95c3de1669e) that diversity in the [Washington State Patrol (WSP)](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/) has been lacking for years. A new state law is putting pressure on the agency to attract and retain cadets of color. WSP data shows the majority of state troopers are white men. Department of Justice and state data found diversity in the state patrol has declined. Compared with 2003, the patrol now employs fewer Black, Asian and Native American troopers. A new state law looks to change the narrative. In March, Gov. Jay Inslee signed a bill that puts pressure on WSP to attract and retain cadets of color. The measure will cost the state patrol $1.3 million. It includes the commission of an independent study into retention and recruitment efforts in addition to setting agency benchmarks and providing legislative oversight of WSP’s progress. **THE PROBLEM IS SYSTEMIC AND BEGINS AT RECRUITING** A 2021 state study into WSP’s retention and recruitment practices showed cadets of color were failing the agency’s psychological evaluation at a higher rate than their white counterparts. And there’s a lot at stake – if you flunk the psychological evaluation, you’re out. According to data compiled in the report, 36% of white candidates didn’t pass WSP’s psychological evaluation compared to 44% of Latinx candidates, 67% of Asian candidates and 60% of Black candidates who didn’t pass the psychological examination. Dr. Daniel Clark, WSP’s longtime psychologist, was the man responsible for administering the tests. [Clark faced criticism](https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/580108-washington-state-patrol-replaces-psychologist-amid-concerns-about/) from lawmakers after that [2021 state report](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/washington-state-patrols-hiring-under-fire-as-agency-failed-to-diversify-over-decades/) showed candidates of color were rejected from the patrol at high rates. The report found, “Every focus group and multiple key executives reported concerns of bias in the psychological evaluation process.” Clark kept his job. He’s been reassigned at the state patrol and now deals with counseling and training. **THE WSP’S COMMITMENT TO DIVERSITY** [Last year, WSP announced](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/2021/05/26/chief-batiste-signs-30x30-pledge-advancing-women-participation-in-law-enforcement/) they had signed onto the [30×30 pledge](https://30x30initiative.org/), a nationwide effort within police departments to increase representation in all ranks and promote gender equity. According to the WSP, “The ultimate goal of the 30×30 Initiative is to reach 30 percent of women in police recruit classes by 2030 and to ensure policing agencies are truly representative of the jurisdiction the agency serves. While 30×30 focuses on advancing women in policing, these principles are applicable to all demographic diversity, not just gender.” According to a [statement provided by WSP](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/2021/05/26/chief-batiste-signs-30x30-pledge-advancing-women-participation-in-law-enforcement/), high vacancy rates across all law enforcement agencies have increased competition for candidates of color. They say they continue to modify their hiring and training practices to eliminate any unintended barriers for candidates of color. My opinion? I agree with [recent studies ](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abd8694)showing that diversity in law enforcement may improve policing. Compared to white officers, Black and Hispanic officers made far fewer stops and arrests — and used force less often — especially against Black civilians. Also, female officers used less force than their male counterparts. Apparently, de-escalation tactics and a decrease in unnecessary pullovers benefits everyone. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, law enforcement, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Ketanji Brown Jackson to Serve on the US Supreme Court](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/ketanji-brown-jackson-to-serve-on-the-us-supreme-court/) **Published:** April 12, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Last week, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was confirmed as the first Black woman to serve on the [U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/). She won by a 53-47 vote, with the support of 50 Democratic senators and three Republicans. This is excellent news. Justice Jackson deepens the Court with her vast experience in criminal law. She is a former federal judge and public defender. ## Who Is Ketanji Brown Jackson? Ketanji Brown Jackson, born Ketanji Onyika Brown in 1970, is a former federal judge and public defender nominated by President [Joe Biden](https://www.biography.com/us-president/joe-biden) to become an associate justice on the Supreme Court. She was the first Black woman to be nominated—and confirmed—for a seat on the high court. Jackson grew up in Miami and [shared](https://miami.cbslocal.com/2022/02/25/president-joe-biden-nominate-judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-supreme-court/) in her high school yearbook her goal to eventually receive a judicial appointment. She obtained both her undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard and is married to a fellow Harvard alum. ## Supreme Court Nomination On February 25, 2022, President Biden announced he was nominating Jackson to fill the Supreme Court seat left open by the retirement of Justice [Stephen Breyer](https://www.biography.com/law-figure/stephen-breyer). The U.S. Senate voted to confirm her on April 7, 2022. Once she’s sworn in, Jackson will be the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court. She will also be the [first](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/02/25/president-biden-nominates-judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-to-serve-as-associate-justice-of-the-u-s-supreme-court/) federal public defender to sit on the court and the first justice[ ](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-is-ketanji-brown-jackson-what-to-know-biden-supreme-court-pick/)[since](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-is-ketanji-brown-jackson-what-to-know-biden-supreme-court-pick/) [Thurgood Marshall](https://www.biography.com/law-figure/thurgood-marshall) to represent criminal defendants. ## Legal Career Though Jackson worked for several private law firms, she spent most of her legal career as a public servant. After earning her law degree from Harvard in 1996, she clerked for two federal judges. She held a Supreme Court clerkship for Justice Breyer during the 1999-2000 term. Jackson took a job with the bipartisan U.S. Sentencing Commission in 2003, the first of her two stints on the commission. From 2005 to 2007, she worked as an assistant federal public defender in Washington, D.C. Her caseload included representing indigent clients and some detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. Jackson returned to private practice before being selected to serve as vice-chair of the U.S. Sentencing Commission in 2010. She was seen as a[ ](https://www.npr.org/2021/03/30/977919229/ketanji-brown-jackson-bidens-pick-is-viewed-as-potential-supreme-court-justice)[consensus builder](https://www.npr.org/2021/03/30/977919229/ketanji-brown-jackson-bidens-pick-is-viewed-as-potential-supreme-court-justice) in shaping federal sentencing policy at a time when federal prisons were[ ](https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/02/politics/ketanji-brown-jackson-profile/index.html)[over capacity](https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/02/politics/ketanji-brown-jackson-profile/index.html). The commission came to[ ](https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/02/politics/ketanji-brown-jackson-profile/index.html)a [unanimous](https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/02/politics/ketanji-brown-jackson-profile/index.html) agreement to lower federal drug sentences and granted this relief retroactively. ## Ascension to the Bench In 2012, Jackson was[ ](https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/02/profile-of-a-potential-nominee-ketanji-brown-jackson/)[nominated](https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/02/profile-of-a-potential-nominee-ketanji-brown-jackson/) by President [Barack Obama](https://www.biography.com/us-president/barack-obama) to join the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. The Senate confirmed her by[ ](https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article258467833.html)[voice vote](https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article258467833.html) in March 2013. On this court, Jackson’s notable cases included a 2019 ruling that President [Donald Trump](https://www.biography.com/us-president/donald-trump)‘s former White House counsel could not use executive privilege to avoid a congressional subpoena. Her decision[ ](https://www.npr.org/2019/11/25/782705643/federal-judge-rules-that-mcgahn-must-testify-delivering-blow-to-white-house)[noted](https://www.npr.org/2019/11/25/782705643/federal-judge-rules-that-mcgahn-must-testify-delivering-blow-to-white-house), “Presidents are not kings.” On April 19, 2021, President Joe Biden nominated Jackson to join the U.S. Court of Appeals. Her Senate confirmation hearing had some contentious moments, such as when one senator[ ](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/26/us/politics/ketanji-brown-jackson-supreme-court.html)[asked](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/26/us/politics/ketanji-brown-jackson-supreme-court.html) if Jackson had been concerned that her role as a public defender had returned criminals to the streets. Jackson answered that her work had been a crucial part of the justice system. ## Family Background Jackson’s[ ](https://www.local10.com/news/local/2022/02/26/ketanji-brown-jacksons-mother-thanks-the-community-for-supporting-her-daughter/)[interest](https://www.local10.com/news/local/2022/02/26/ketanji-brown-jacksons-mother-thanks-the-community-for-supporting-her-daughter/) in pursuing a legal career stretches back to seeing her father leave his job as a history teacher to enroll in law school. As her father studied legal texts, a preschool-age Jackson colored next to him. Jackson’s father obtained his law degree and went on to be the chief attorney for the Miami-Dade school system. Her mother was also a teacher before she became the principal of a magnet public high school. Jackson’s younger brother served as a police officer and in the military before also becoming a lawyer. An uncle was Miami police chief in the 1990s. Jackson has another uncle who got involved in drug-related crime. By[ ](https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/25/politics/who-is-ketanji-brown-jackson-biden-soctus-nominee/index.html)[1989](https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/25/politics/who-is-ketanji-brown-jackson-biden-soctus-nominee/index.html), he’d received a life sentence thanks to a[ ](https://www.npr.org/2021/03/30/977919229/ketanji-brown-jackson-bidens-pick-is-viewed-as-potential-supreme-court-justice)[three-strikes law](https://www.npr.org/2021/03/30/977919229/ketanji-brown-jackson-bidens-pick-is-viewed-as-potential-supreme-court-justice). His sentence was[ ](https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/25/politics/who-is-ketanji-brown-jackson-biden-soctus-nominee/index.html)[commuted](https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/25/politics/who-is-ketanji-brown-jackson-biden-soctus-nominee/index.html) in November 2016. Jackson referred her uncle to a law firm known for handling clemency petitions but otherwise was[ ](https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/02/politics/ketanji-brown-jackson-profile/index.html)[not involved](https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/02/politics/ketanji-brown-jackson-profile/index.html) in the commutation of his sentence. We should certainly celebrate and support Jackson for this historic selection. It is always difficult to be the first in anything. She is the first Black woman – a historically discriminated and persecuted demographic – to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States. Despite these challenges, I have the utmost confidence that Jackson is up to the task and that our country will be ready to embrace her. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [New Washington State Patrol Trooper Class the 'Most Diverse' in the Agency's History](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/new-washington-state-patrol-trooper-class-the-most-diverse-in-the-agencys-history/) **Published:** April 19, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** [King5 News reports](https://www.king5.com/amp/article/news/local/washington-state-patrol/281-12d74aa1-7df0-4e43-bc60-ce65ba7557c1) that the latest class of graduates from the [Washington State Patrol Academy (WSP)](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/wsp-academy/) is the agency’s most diverse. Of the 44 cadets sworn into service Wednesday, 43% come from populations considered [historically underrepresented](https://www.king5.com/article/news/community/facing-race/washington-state-patrol-diversity/281-2bbeffcb-970d-4a2f-b8b4-f95c3de1669e). Two of the new troopers are women, six are Hispanic, four are Asian, two are Black, and five identified themselves as representing two or more of those groups. However, it’s reported that the agency still does not reflect the diversity of the state’s population. Not counting the recent graduating class, 90% of WSP’s commissioned officers are male, and 85% are white. That lack of diversity prompted state legislators to pass a law requiring oversight of the agency’s minority hiring practices. WSP spokesperson Chris Loftis said the agency’s recent class is proof WSP was working on the issue before legislative action. “We’re really seeing the fruits of our labor,” said Loftis. “It’s targeted recruitment, it’s community engagement, but it’s also increasing the allure and respect for law enforcement.” My opinion? This is good news. And arrives on [other reporting](https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/washington-state-patrol-wsp-struggles-to-recruit-diverse-employees/281-ddd3579f-f095-4722-83bf-42909975a883) that it’s difficult to hire cadets from diverse backgrounds: > “This is a profession in particular over the course of the last many years that has struggled with regards to community acceptance to some degree as a profession, which has made it a lot more difficult to recruit folks within the diverse communities.” ~WSP Chief John Batiste. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [WA Supreme Court Rules Against Edmonds Gun Storage Law](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/wa-state-supreme-court-rules-against-edmonds-gun-storage-law/) **Published:** April 22, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[Bass v. City of Edmonds](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/995966.pdf)*, the [Washington Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) struck down an Edmonds gun storage ordinance in a court order reaffirming state law that local governments can’t impose their own firearms regulations. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** After robust debate following a mass shooting at the nearby Marysville Pilchuck High School, the Edmonds City Council adopted an ordinance requiring residents to safely store their firearms when not in use. Ordinance 4120, codified as Edmonds City Code (ECC) chapter 5.26. The ordinance contains two operative provisions. Under the “storage provision,” > “It shall be a civil infraction for any person to store or keep any firearm in any premises unless such weapon is secured by a locking device, properly engaged so as to render such weapon inaccessible or unusable to any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user.” > > “Notwithstanding the foregoing, for purposes of this section, such weapon shall be deemed lawfully stored or lawfully kept if carried by or under the control of tthe owner or other lawfully authorized user.” ECC 5.26.020. Under the “unauthorized access” provision, > “It shall be a civil infraction if any person knows or reasonably should know that a minor, an at-risk person, or a prohibited person is likely to gain access to a firearm belonging to or under the control of that person, and a minor, an at-risk person, or a prohibited person obtains the firearm.” Violation of either provision carries a civil fine of as much as $10,000 if an at-risk person or child gained access to an unsecured gun. At around the same time, Washington voters enacted Initiative 1639. This initiative, among many other things, criminalizes unsafe storage of firearms but in more limited circumstances than Edmonds’ ordinance. Unlike the City of Edmonds ordinance, the voter initiative – later codified as [RCW 9.41.360](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.360) – specifically did not mandate how or where a firearm must be stored. The [legality of the Edmonds’ ordinance was challenged](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/nra-second-amendment-foundation-sue-city-of-edmonds-over-gun-control-law/) and eventually made its way to the WA Supreme Court. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** First, the Court found that the plaintiffs had legal standing to challenge the ordinance. Next, the Court turned to the issue of whether existing statute under [RCW 9.41.290](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290) preempts this ordinance. The statute reads the following, in part: > “The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW [9.41.300](http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.300), and are consistent with this chapter.” ~RCW 9.41.290 Ultimately, the court ruled that Washington state law [RCW 9.41.290](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290) “fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state.” Thursday’s ruling was a victory for gun rights organizations, such as the [National Rifle Association](https://home.nra.org/) and the Bellevue-based [Second Amendment Foundation](https://www.saf.org/), both of which participated in the legal challenge. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [firearm offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Firearm, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Where You Live May Determine Whether You Get Stuck in Jail Before Trial](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/where-you-live-may-determine-whether-you-get-stuck-in-jail-before-trial/) **Published:** April 25, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/getting-stuck-in-jail-before-trial-may-depend-on-where-in-washington-you-live/?amp=1) by [Wilson Criscione](https://www.seattletimes.com/author/wilson-criscione/) discusses a recent movement by legal professionals to release more defendants from jail while they await trial. These advocates, judges and public defenders in Washington pushing argue that alternative measures such as drug and alcohol testing, electronic home monitoring, and referrals to behavioral health treatment can help lift those accused of crimes out of the legal system. Law enforcement and prosecutors are slow to embrace the idea. They fear that people released from jail while awaiting trial will commit more crimes in the community. According to the article, the availability and cost of these pretrial services in Washington depends heavily on where an alleged crime occurs. Many rural counties in Eastern Washington and along the Olympic Peninsula don’t have a pretrial services program at all, filling their jails with defendants awaiting trial. Among those that do have such programs, most jurisdictions contacted by InvestigateWest require the accused to pay fees associated with their pretrial release — a barrier that disproportionately punishes poorer defendants and prevents some from being released from jail. It’s what Ali Hohman, director of legal services for the nonprofit Washington Defender Association (WDA), calls “justice by geography.” “Where you’re at in the state will dictate your bail amount, and it will dictate your ability to access pretrial services.” ~Ali Hohman, Director of WDA Right now, Washington gives local control to jurisdictions to attempt their own reforms. Yakima County in 2016 began releasing low-risk offenders while providing pretrial services, and a study on the program found similar results to what New Jersey found: More people were released, there was less racial disparity in those kept in jail, and most did not go on to commit new crimes. Other jurisdictions don’t have the resources to create those programs. Several years ago, the Legislature commissioned a task force to examine the issue. It released a [report in 2019](https://sao.wa.gov/performance_audit/reforming-bail-practices-in-washington/) that found gaps in the availability of pretrial services, most notably that 21 counties had no pretrial service programs at all. Even where pretrial services existed, jails were still filled with people awaiting trial. Nationwide, two-thirds of all local jail inmates were awaiting trial, according to federal statistics, and Black and Native American people were jailed at much higher rates than white people. But in Washington’s largest counties, pretrial defendants in 2019 made up an even larger portion of the jail population. More than three-quarters of people in jails in King, Pierce and Spokane counties were there for a crime they hadn’t been convicted of, indicating pretrial reform efforts were still in early stages. Those figures have been dramatically altered during the pandemic, with jails releasing defendants to prevent COVID-19 outbreaks. King County, for instance, has [mostly stopped jailing people accused of misdemeanors](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/officials-ask-for-fewer-bookings-as-covid-staffing-shortages-worsen-king-county-jail-conditions/). Seattle and King County have since seen a small increase in crime, [particularly violent crime](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/not-seeing-it-slow-down-at-all-seattle-hits-grim-mark-of-13-homicides-in-1st-quarter-of-2022/), but those are trends in line with the rest of the country. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. [Making bail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/making-bail/) and hiring a competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bail, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Biden Expands Second Chance Opportunities for Formerly Incarcerated Persons](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/biden-expands-second-chance-opportunities-for-formerly-incarcerated-persons/) **Published:** April 26, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Journalist [Brett Samuels](https://thehill.com/author/brett-samuels/) for the Hill [reports](https://thehill.com/news/administration/3463214-biden-announces-first-use-of-clemency-powers-second-chance-initiatives/) that President [Biden](https://thehill.com/people/biden/) granted pardons and commutations to people convicted of nonviolent crimes. Biden also announced the rollout of new efforts that aid former inmates in reentering the work force. > “America is a nation of laws and second chances, redemption, and rehabilitation. Elected officials on both sides of the aisle, faith leaders, civil rights advocates, and law enforcement leaders agree that our criminal justice system can and should reflect these core values that enable safer and stronger communities . . . During Second Chance Month, I am using my authority under the Constitution to uphold those values by pardoning and commuting the sentences of fellow Americans.” ~President Joe Biden In addition to the clemency announcements, the White House detailed a multistep effort as part of Second Chance Month to reduce recidivism and make employment more accessible for those who have previously served time. According to a [White House press release](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/04/26/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-expands-second-chance-opportunities-for-formerly-incarcerated-persons/), the departments of Justice and Labor are announcing a $145 million investment in job skills training and individual employment plans for inmates in Bureau of Prisons facilities. The Small Business Administration will make changes to reduce barriers for those with criminal records to receive loans, and the Office of Personnel Management is adjusting its rules to make it easier for formerly incarcerated individuals to work in the federal government. Finally, the Education Department will select dozens of schools to expand its Second Chance Pell Initiative, a program first established in 2015 that provides Pell Grants to incarcerated individuals so they can take college courses. My opinion? I’m thrilled that the Biden Administration acknowledges the importance of [Second Chance Month](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chance_Month). This Administration is affirming their support for removing the unnecessary barriers that prevent those with a criminal record from becoming productive members of society. I advocate for those who have paid their debt to society. And I believe the approximately 70 million Americans with criminal records—that’s one in three people—are more than their worst choices. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Prosecutor's "Gorilla Pimp" Comment Admonished by High Court](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/prosecutors-gorilla-pimp-comment-admonished-by-high-court/) **Published:** May 5, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. McKenzie](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/385558_pub.pdf)*, the WA Court of Appeals reversed the defendant’s convictions because the prosecutor improperly injected race into the trial and used the term “gorilla pimp” to describe the defendant. **BACKGROUND FACTS** In 2018, the defendant Mr. McKenzie, a 27-year-old Black man, was perusing the dating application [Skout](https://www.skout.com/) when he came across the profile for a white female named “‘Samantha.’” Samantha’s profile listed her age as 18, and stated “‘Fun Times. My age is wrong. Daddy wanted.’” Samantha was actually a fictional person created by Detective Rodriguez of the [Washington State Patrol’s missing and exploited children’s task force](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/crime/mectf/). They conduct undercover investigations to find sexual predators in part by using fictional profiles on social media and dating websites. The profile picture Mr. McKenzie viewed was that of an undercover female officer who was at least 22 years old. The two continued to chat on Skout and then moved to text messaging on their phones. During the text messaging, Samantha asked Mr. McKenzie if he was interested in being her pimp to which he replied, “Oh nah im not doing all that,” “Thats low. I dont need that & dont have time for all that. If you have a way to get money I support that,” and “But pimping? No thanks missed me with that one.” Samantha made repeated suggestions that she and Mr. McKenzie meet up. The two discussed where to meet and Mr. McKenzie expressed concern that Samantha was “setting him up.” Later Mr. McKenzie asked Samantha about whether she had condoms. Mr. McKenzie drove from Seattle to Puyallup and waited for Samantha at an agreed meet location for just under 30 minutes. Unbeknownst to Mr. McKenzie, he was under surveillance the entire time he waited. After Mr. McKenzie messaged Samantha that he was giving up and leaving, law enforcement surrounded Mr. McKenzie’s car and placed him under arrest. A search of Mr. McKenzie’s car revealed a box of condoms on the passenger seat. The State charged Mr. McKenzie with sex offenses to include one count of attempted second degree rape of a child and one count of communication with a minor for immoral purposes. Mr. McKenzie exercised his right to a jury trial. At trial, Detective Rodriguez took the witness stand. The prosecutor initiated the following exchange: > Q: Are you familiar with the terms gorilla pimp and romance pimp? > A: Yes. > Q: What are those? > A: A gorilla pimp is someone who is very aggressive. They’re very direct. They’re going to tell you what they want. “This is what you’re going to do.” I’ve had them try to get me or the people they’re victimizing to pay them for that. For them to be sexually exploited, they actually want the victim to pay them for it. As far as a romance pimp, they’re going to come across as your boyfriend or your friend. They’re going to romance you, get you into the situation where then they have control. They can continue to play the romance role or they can switch to a more aggressive pimp or they can go back and forth. > Q: So they’re not mutually exclusive? > A: No. > Q: The romance pimp angle can be used to gain confidence with a young person. And then once you’re engaged with them, the roles can change? > \[DEFENSE COUNSEL\]: Your Honor, leading. > THE COURT: Sustained. > Q: Can the roles change once they’re engaged? > A: Yes. > Q: Do Mr. McKenzie’s answers about, “I’m not into that. I would treat you right,” all of those kind of things, do they negate the possibility that he is looking to put Sam out? > A: No. The defense never voiced a specific objection to the gorilla pimp concept. The prosecutor made no further reference to it. A jury found Mr. McKenzie guilty as charged. The court subsequently imposed a standard range sentence of 76.5 months to life in prison. Mr. McKenzie appealed on arguments that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by injecting the racially charged term “gorilla pimp” into the trial. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The WA Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant’s conviction. It reasoned that use of the term “gorilla pimp” by the State was not harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. The court said that when a prosecutor improperly injects race into a criminal trial, a court will generally reverse the conviction. > “Racist rhetoric has no place in our justice system. It is hurtful, thwarts due process, and undermines the rule of law. ~WA Court of Appeals The Court discussed the State’s argument that the term used was actually “guerrilla pimp.” However, that argument was unpersuasive to the court, which found the analogy of a “gorilla” to be particularly concerning: “At this point in our history we should not have to belabor the point that using a gorilla analogy when discussing human behavior, specifically the behavior of a Black man, is clearly racist rhetoric,” said the Court of Appeals. It reasoned that individuals involved in criminal enterprises use racialized language that is sometimes offensive. However, that is no excuse for outsiders to do the same. > “The only purpose served by referencing the gorilla pimp concept was to tap into deepseated racial prejudice by comparing Black human beings to primates. The State cannot prove that this racist rhetoric was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We therefore reverse Mr. McKenzie’s conviction.” ~WA Court of Appeals My opinion? Great decision. The type of racist rhetoric invoked by the Prosecution appears to have especially strong pull. A [six-year study](https://news.stanford.edu/pr/2008/pr-eber-021308.html) of undergraduates at Stanford University and Pennsylvania State University showed young people are swayed by Black-ape associations, even when they claim to know nothing about the historical context of racist simianization. According to this study, undergraduates who were exposed to words associated with apes were more likely to condone the beating of those in police custody when they thought the suspect was Black. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime, especially one involving race or [Prosecutorial Misconduct](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/prosecutorial-misconduct-the-rules/). Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Race & Law, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [More Guns Are Being Stolen Out Of Vehicles](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/more-guns-are-being-stolen-out-of-vehicles/) **Published:** May 10, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** According to [NBCnews.com](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna26691), more guns are being stolen out of vehicles in many U.S. cities. [New data analysis](https://everytownresearch.org/gun-thefts-from-cars-the-largest-source-of-stolen-guns/) reveals this alarming trend as shootings rise nationwide, propelled in large part by firearms obtained illegally. Journalist [Melissa Chan](https://muckrack.com/melissakchan) reports that from 2019 to 2020, at least 180 cities saw a rise in gun thefts from vehicles. This now makes up the largest source of stolen guns, according to the nonprofit [Everytown for Gun Safety](https://everytownresearch.org/gun-thefts-from-cars-the-largest-source-of-stolen-guns/). The study analyzed FBI crime data from 2011 to 2020, spanning up to 271 small-to-large cities across 38 states. The nonprofit, which advocates gun violence prevention, found that in 2020, an estimated 77,000 guns were reported stolen in these 271 cities alone. Of those, more than half were taken out of vehicles — a stark difference from a decade ago, when the majority of gun thefts were from burglaries and less than a quarter were from cars, according to Everytown. The trend can be seen in states and cities across the country. In South Carolina, gun thefts from motor vehicles climbed to more than 5,100 in 2021, from roughly 4,200 in 2019, according to the statewide data provided by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division. In Hampton, Virginia, the number of motor vehicle larcenies in which a firearm was stolen jumped to 142 incidents in 2021, from 88 in 2019, Police Chief Mark Talbot said. Many of the stolen firearms have turned up at crime scenes. While it’s too soon to definitively say what’s driving the shift, experts said it’s likely exacerbated by many factors, including a surge in firearm purchases during the pandemic. In 2020, the FBI conducted nearly 40 million firearm background checks, more than any year on record, [according to the agency’s data](https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf/view). During that time, experts said, Covid also kept more people at home and made easier targets of unoccupied and less-used cars. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. [Theft of a Firearm](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.300) and other [Firearm Offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/) are debilitating felonies. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Firearm, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Theft, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Drug Overdose Deaths Hit Highest Level On Record](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/drug-overdose-deaths-hit-highest-level-on-record/) **Published:** May 12, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** According to [provisional data](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/drug-overdose-data.htm) from the [US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention](https://www.cdc.gov/), drug overdoses in the United States were deadlier than ever in 2021. Nearly 108,000 people died of drug overdoses in 2021, and about two-thirds of those deaths involved fentanyl or another synthetic opioid. Overdose deaths have been on the rise for years in the US, but surged amid the [Covid-19 Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic). Annual deaths were nearly 50% higher in 2021 than in 2019, CDC data shows. The spike in overdose deaths in the second year of the pandemic wasn’t as quite as dramatic as in the first year: Overdose deaths were up about 15% between 2020 and 2021, compared with a 30% jump between 2019 and 2020. But the change is still stark. In 2021, about 14,000 more people died of overdose deaths in than in 2020, the CDC data shows. > “This is indeed a continuation of an awful trend. Rates of overdose deaths have been on an upward climb for decades now, increasing at unprecedented rates right before the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic in the U.S.” ~Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The pandemic accelerated trends that were already heading in the wrong direction, and experts say that reversing course will require concentrated efforts — and it will take time, both strategically and ideologically. Treatment for drug abuse was lacking even before the pandemic. In 2019, more than 20 million people ages 12 and older reported having a substance abuse disorder, only 10% of whom reported receiving care, according to a [report](https://www.samhsa.gov/data/report/2019-nsduh-annual-national-report) from the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. And a [report](https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/substance-use-issues-are-worsening-alongside-access-to-care/) from the Kaiser Family Foundation cites evidence that access and utilization of these services has gotten even worse during the pandemic. The illicit drug supply in the US has also seen a “massive shift” over the past two decades. Increasing use of synthetic drugs caught the attention of experts before Covid-19 hit, but the pandemic may have exacerbated the problem. With international travel limited, synthetics that are easier to manufacture and more concentrated were likely more efficient to smuggle across borders, Volkow said. Overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids such as [fentanyl](https://www.dea.gov/factsheets/fentanyl), psychostimulants such as methamphetamine, and cocaine all increased between 2020 and 2021, according to the new CDC data. Deaths involving natural or semi-synthetic drugs, such as prescription drugs, fell slightly from the year prior. My opinion? This is a devastating milestone in the history of the overdose epidemic in America. When we report numbers, we must remember that each number represents an individual, their families, and their communities. Compounding the issue is the fact that the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) struck down Washington felony drug possession law. In the wake of the [*Blake* decision](https://www.aclu-wa.org/pages/q-blake-decision) on February 25, people can no longer be arrested for simple drug possession in Washington state. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Drug Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Drug Offenses, felony, Fentanyl, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Website Assists In Whether Criminal Conviction Can Be Removed](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/website-assists-in-whether-criminal-conviction-can-be-removed/) **Published:** May 13, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [reporting](https://www.theolympian.com/news/state/washington/article261355742.html) by [Shauna Sowesrby](https://muckrack.com/shauna-sowersby) describes a new website allowing Washington residents to determine whether they are eligible to have some criminal convictions vacated from their record. When a court “vacates” a conviction, it **withdraws a guilty verdict and dismisses the case**. If a conviction is vacated, a person is permitted by law to say that he or she has never been convicted. The free [Vacation Eligibility Calculator](https://www.clearviction.org/) quickly helps users check the status of their eligibility through a series of questions, and the website then provides steps to vacating a conviction if the person is eligible. The calculator is timely because the 2019 Washington Legislature unanimously passed The [New Hope Act](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1041&Year=2019&Initiative=false), which modified the vacation process for those with past convictions, making more Washingtonians eligible to remove convictions from their records. Under the law, some misdemeanors, gross misdemeanors and felonies can be vacated. For charges not involving certain domestic violence offenses, there is a three-year waiting period after completing all conditions of a sentence. Misdemeanors resulting from certain domestic violence offenses have a five-year waiting period, as long as orders were not violated in the wait period and those individuals are not currently the subject of an order. The group behind the civic tech project, [Clearviction](https://www.clearviction.org/about), is composed of all volunteers. In a news release, the group said the mission of the project “is to benefit individuals with criminal convictions and decrease lifelong collateral consequences.” The news release said they created the online tool to support that mission by helping others navigate the process. As Clearviction notes on their website, past criminal convictions can be a barrier to housing, employment and education. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are [convicted of a crime](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/vacating-a-prior-criminal-conviction/). Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. The State of Washington limits on what offenses qualify for expungement. For example, it allows expungement only for arrests and [misdemeanor ](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/crimes-felonies-misdemeanors-infractions-classification-33814.html "Felonies, Misdemeanors, and Infractions: Classifying Crimes")convictions but not for felony convictions. Some states provide a list of ineligible offenses. Common ineligible offenses include [violent felony offenses](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-serious-violent-felony.html "What Is a "Serious" or "Violent" Felony?"), [homicides](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/), [sex offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/), and [DUI.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [WA Supreme Court Rules People Can Be Cited for DUI While Driving High](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/wa-supreme-court-rules-people-can-be-cited-for-dui-while-driving-high/) **Published:** May 14, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Fraser*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/988960.pdf), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that people can be cited for [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) for driving while high. The decision upholds the state’s decade-old law regulating marijuana use behind the wheel of a car. **BACKGROUND FACTS** A Washington State Patrol trooper pulled Mr. Fraser after seeing him speeding alone in an HOV lane, changing lanes erratically and cutting off other drivers. When the trooper approached the car, he noticed Fraser was wearing an employee badge from a local cannabis dispensary. The trooper said Fraser was shaking, sweating and had dark circles under his eyes. According to the trooper, Fraser said he had smoked “half a day” earlier but that he no longer felt impaired. After performing several field tests, the trooper arrested Fraser on suspicion of DUI. A blood test later showed Fraser had a THC blood concentration of 9.4 nanograms per milliliter, with a margin of error of 2.5. That put his THC blood concentration above the state’s 5 ng/ml limit. Fraser went to trial. He was convicted of DUI. On appeal, Fraser challenges the constitutionality of the DUI statute. He claimed that the THC limit was not correlated to any real measure of impairment. Therefore, it was arbitrary, vague and unconstitutional. He backed his opinion with testimony from a doctor who said the effect of a given level of THC can vary significantly from person to person. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION** All nine justices rejected Douglas Fraser’s argument that his 2017 DUI was based on an arbitrary and vague standard for THC levels in the blood. The justices acknowledged that the correlation between THC levels and impairment is challenging to pinpoint. However, they found that blood measurements nevertheless provide a useful and constitutionally acceptable measurement. > “Although this limit may not be perfect in terms of identifying degree of impairment for all individuals, it is reasonably and substantially related to recent consumption, which is related to impairment.” ~WA Supreme Court Justice G. Helen Whitener And while driving and cannabis use are both legal, neither is a right, the justices said. The impairment caused by 5 ng/ml of THC in the blood may vary. However, the limit serves its purpose by discouraging drivers from taking to the roads after using marijuana. > “The laws aim to deter people who have consumed cannabis from driving when there is a possibility they could be impaired, thus promoting some public interest of highway safety.” ~WA Supreme Court Justice G. Helen Whitener It’s reasonable to assume the law will continue to do just that, Whitener wrote, and “the highways will be safer because of it.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, DUI, marijuana, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [High Court Decides COVID-19 Trial Restrictions Violated the 6th Amendment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/high-court-decides-covid-19-trial-restrictions-violated-the-6th-amendment/) **Published:** May 17, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*U.S. v. James David Allen II*](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/05/16/21-10060.pdf), the [Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) vacated a defendant’s [Firearms Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/) conviction because COVID-19 protocols had precluded the public from observing his trial. **BACKGROUND FACTS** In July 2020, police officers were dispatched to a residential street in Pinole, California. Police found Mr. Allen asleep in a stolen car, with weapons. An [inventory search](https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/inventory-search/) uncovered a loaded AR-15 style rifle. The officers arrested Allen. Apparently, Allen traveled from Washington State to California and intended to harm a San Francisco stockbroker. Allen later told the court that a drug relapse led to his life unraveling. He was subsequently indicted on federal charges of being a [felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922). At the height of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, the federal district court prohibited members of the public from attending court hearings. During trial, the federal court denied the defendant’s suppression hearing and rejected his request for video-streaming of the proceedings. Allen was found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to six years in prison. On appeal, he argued the court’s order violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** In a 3-0 decision, the 9th Circuit decided the lower federal court violated Mr. Allen II’s Sixth Amendment rights. The Court explained that the “public trial” guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment is impaired by court rules that precludes the public from observing a trial in person. The violation of rights happens regardless of whether the public has access to a transcript or audio stream. Consequently, the lower court’s order effected a total closure. All persons other than witnesses, court personnel, the parties and their lawyers were excluded from attending the suppression hearing or trial. “Although a listener may be able to detect vocal inflections or emphases that could not be discerned from a cold transcript, an audio stream deprives the listener of information regarding the trial participant’s demeanor and body language,” the court found. “Nor can a listener observe the judge’s attitude or the reactions of the jury to a witness’s testimony, or scan any visual exhibits.” > “We conclude that the district court’s order was not narrowly tailored, in part because courts throughout the country, facing the same need to balance public health issues against a defendant’s public trial right, consistently developed COVID protocols that allowed some sort of visual access to trial proceedings.” ~9th Circuit Court of Appeals As a remedy, the 9th Circuit remanded Allen’s case back to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for a new trial. It also ordered that Allen be given a new pretrial hearing to argue for the suppression of certain evidence. My opinion? Good decision. Defendants have a right a public trial, period. No amount of court restrictions should violate that right. However, it is unclear what potential implications the appeals court’s ruling could have on other cases held under similar COVID-19-related restrictions. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Firearm Offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Firearm, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Bellingham Residents Express Concern Over Rising Crime Rates](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/bellingham-residents-express-concern-over-rising-crime-rates/) **Published:** May 19, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** [KGMI reports](https://kgmi.com/news/007700-bellingham-residents-express-concern-over-rising-crime-rates/) that the Bellingham City Council, mayor and other leaders heard from residents about their concerns about public safety at a [virtual community](https://meetings.cob.org/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=2683&doctype=1) meeting held on Monday, May 16th. Residents expressed concerns about housing prices, drug deals in their neighborhoods and rising crime rates. Chief Deputy for the Bellingham Police Department Don Ahlmer told the meeting that while crime rates are up, the numbers have to be viewed with perspective. > “If you look at the numbers for aggravated assault, if a seven year average is 124, the last three-year average is roughly 50 more a year. You’re looking at one more assault a week . . . So, numbers are numbers . . . But I don’t want the public or anybody watching this to think, oh my gosh, there’s like a hundred extra assaults a day.” ~ Deputy Almer, Bellingham Police Department Mayor Seth Fleetwood said the city needs more police officers. “We’re fortunate to have a police department that is exceptional, made up of capable, caring, highly confident, trained professionals,” said Fleetwood. “But our staffing levels are down and we’re doing all we can to staff back up. And I know that we’re going to get there.” [Click here](https://youtu.be/zbiBI9nI-9M) to watch a YouTube video of the meeting. My opinion? The concerns of Bellingham’s citizens reflect [national trends](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/18/briefing/crime-surge-homicides-us.html) that crime – especially [homicides and manslaughter](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/) – has increased. Covid disrupted every aspect of life in the past two years. Social services and supports that help keep crime down vanished overnight. Schools could no longer keep unruly teens safe and distracted. A broader sense of disorder and chaos could have fueled a so-called moral holiday, in which people disregard laws and norms. Citizens are righteously concerned with crimes happening in their backyards. And yes, we need solutions. The solutions involve training and hiring police officers who are not [racially biased](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01846-z). We need police officers who won’t conduct [illegal searches/seizures](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/). And we need police officers who won’t go about [policing poverty](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/25/us-policing-is-far-less-about-fighting-crime-than-controlling-the-poor). These practices strain the criminal justice system. They also burden impoverished people with fines for minor offenses and fracture the relationship between police and minorities. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Police Militarization, Police Misconduct, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [U.S Supreme Court Could Soon Expand the Right to Carry Guns.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/u-s-supreme-court-could-soon-expand-the-right-to-carry-guns/) **Published:** May 23, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Journalist [Amber Philips](https://muckrack.com/byamberphillips) [reports](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/19/supreme-court-gun-case/) that the U.S Supreme Court could soon drastically expand the right to carry guns. *[New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen](https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-bruen/)* will be the court’s first major [Second Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment) case in more than a decade. It takes place amid rising [national gun violence ](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/04/21/mass-shooting-guns/?itid=lk_inline_manual_2)and [an uptick in gun sales](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/02/03/gun-sales-january-background-checks/?itid=lk_inline_manual_2) in recent years. In short, what the justices decide could unravel laws across the nation restricting who can carry guns in public. **BACKGROUND FACTS** For 108 years, New York State Law law holds that anyone who wants to carry a gun in public must adhere to specific guidelines. They must apply for a license, be at least 21, have no criminal record, and have “good moral character.” This is the part really being challenged — a demonstrated need to carry the gun beyond average public safety fears. This is known as “proper cause.” Two men from Upstate New York challenged the state’s law when they applied to carry a gun at all times but received allowances only for hunting or going to and from work. They sued, arguing the strict law violated their Second Amendment rights to “keep and bear arms.” Even though the law has been on the books for so long, it’s at risk of being knocked down now by a newly cemented conservative Supreme Court majority. And depending on how widely the justices rule, they could knock down other state laws like it. **Supporters of New York’s Law** Mostly liberal states such as California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Jersey have similar public carry restrictions, and so do several big cities. Supporters of these laws argue that they’re necessary in high-density areas and that the Constitution allows states to govern themselves. Supporters also argue that such restrictions have been around for centuries. By itself, this shows the value society has placed on public safety over gun rights in public places. **Opponents of New York’s Law** Critics say requiring people to justify why they need to carry a gun in public puts a burden specifically on the Second Amendment’s right to “bear” arms. Challengers to the law told the Supreme Court that a person should not have to show a “special need” to exercise a constitutional right. According to journalist Amber Philips, this case has mixed up traditional political lines on guns. Several Republican lawyers filed a brief supporting laws like New York’s, arguing that specifically in the District of Columbia, public carry restrictions “may well have prevented a massacre” at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Meanwhile, a group of public defenders in New York City [argue](https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/10/we-are-public-defenders-new-yorks-gun-laws-eviscerate-our-clients-second-amendment-rights/) that the law disproportionately affects the constitutional rights of Black and Latino New Yorkers. **This Case Could Affect Gun Laws Across the Nation** The Supreme Court hasn’t weighed in recently on whether the Second Amendment protects carrying guns outside the home. In 2008’s [*District of Columbia v. Heller*](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290), the court said the Second Amendment protects the right to own a gun for self-defense in the home, and in [*McDonald v. Chicago*](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-1521) in 2010, it made clear that state and local gun control measures (and not just federal ones) also must respect that right. New York City officials fear that the Supreme Court could force the state to allow more people to carry more guns in public places. Gun violence there has doubled in recent years, from their historic lows in the years before the pandemic. > “In a densely populated community like New York, this ruling could have a major impact on us.” ~New York Mayor Eric Adams Washington’s firearms laws are codified in [chapter 9.41 RCW](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41). Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may also have certain laws and ordinances affecting the use, possession or sale of firearms. You can contact your sheriff’s office or police department through the local city or county government to determine if any local laws have been adopted. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Firearm Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Firearm, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Washington Police Say Drivers Aren't Stopping For Them](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/washington-police-say-drivers-arent-stopping-for-them/) **Published:** June 1, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Journalist [Austin Jenkins](https://muckrack.com/austinjenkinsn3) [reports](https://www.nwnewsnetwork.org/2022-05-26/see-ya-washington-police-say-drivers-arent-stopping-for-them-cite-pursuit-restrictions) that drivers are increasingly refusing to stop for [Washington State Patrol](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/) troopers. troopers – and other law enforcement agencies also say this is becoming a common occurrence. The [Northwest News Network reports](https://www.nwnewsnetwork.org/2022-05-26/see-ya-washington-police-say-drivers-arent-stopping-for-them-cite-pursuit-restrictions) that from January 1 to May 17 of this year, the agency logged 934 failure-to-yield incidents. While the patrol didn’t track this in the past, veteran troopers say there’s been a dramatic uptick in drivers fleeing traffic stops. > “Something’s changed. People are not stopping right now. It’s happening three to five times a shift on some nights and then a couple times a week on day shift.” ~WA State Patrol Sgt. Darren Wright. Many blame recent [police reform laws](https://housedemocrats.wa.gov/blog/2022/01/28/house-passes-bills-to-clarify-police-reform-laws/) passed in response to [the murder by police of George Floyd in Minneapolis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_George_Floyd) and other high-profile police killings — reforms aimed at addressing racial disproportionality in policing. Minority Republicans in the Legislature criticized many of the changes, including the pursuit law [House Bill 1054](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1054&Year=2021&Initiative=false), and said they jeopardized public safety. Under [House Bill 1054](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1054&Year=2021&Initiative=false), police officers can’t give chase unless there’s reasonable suspicion to believe the driver is impaired or the higher standard of probable cause to believe they’re an escaped felon or have committed a violent crime or a sex crime. Even then there are restrictions on when officers can pursue. Officers must balance whether the person poses an “imminent threat” and whether the safety risks of the person getting away outweigh the danger of engaging in a high-speed chase. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/), [Eluding](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/eluding/) or any other crimes. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Washington Traffic Fatalities Hit 20-Year High](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/washington-traffic-fatalities-hit-20-year-high/) **Published:** June 2, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [artice](https://www.columbian.com/news/2022/jun/01/washington-traffic-fatalities-hit-20-year-high-in-2021/) by journalist [Becca Robbins](https://muckrack.com/becca-robbins) reports that Washington traffic fatalities hit a 20-year high in 2021. This comes as [recent data](https://wtsc.wa.gov/washington-traffic-deaths-reach-20-year-high/) from the [Washington Traffic Safety Commission](https://wtsc.wa.gov/) shows last year’s total traffic deaths was 633 people. That rate outpaces 574 fatal crashes in 2020 and 538 in 2019, the [agency’s data shows](https://wtsc.wa.gov/washington-traffic-deaths-reach-20-year-high/). Of those killed in 2021, 300 of them were drivers, 141 were pedestrians, 108 were passengers and 93 were motorcyclists. Clark County also continued to see high rates of fatal crashes, with 36 people killed last year. In 2020, 40 people died locally in car crashes and 26 died in 2019, data from the commission shows. In the county, 13 drivers were killed in 2021, as well as 10 passengers, seven pedestrians and six motorcyclists. The commission said in a news release that statewide data from the first quarter of this year shows 2022 is on track to surpass last year’s record rate. It is promoting a “community-based” approach to curb the increase in fatal crashes and encourages people to talk about traffic safety with each other. The agency is beginning a summer ad campaign, which it says coincides with the time of year that sees an increase in crashes. > “The increase in deaths on our roads is tragic, but we all have the power to reverse the trend . . . Most of us use roads safely, and we can also influence the smaller number of people who engage in risky behavior. Take an extra step and help someone close to you be safe, too. It’s as simple as reminding them to buckle their seat belt or put their phone away when they drive.” ~Mark McKechnie, Director of External Relations, Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC) Traffic deaths have spiked nationally, with nearly 43,000 people killed on U.S. roads last year, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The tally marked the highest number in 16 years. The 10.5 percent jump over 2020 numbers was the largest percentage increase since the NHTSA began its fatality data collection system in 1975. Nearly 118 people died in U.S. traffic crashes every day last year, according to the agency’s figures. **WHY THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIS DEATHS?** The NHTSA has blamed [reckless driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/) behavior for increases during the [COVID-19 pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic), citing behavioral research showing that speeding and traveling without a seat belt have increased. Before 2019, the number of fatalities had fallen for three straight years, The Associated Press reported. [Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg](https://www.transportation.gov/meet-secretary/secretary-pete-buttigieg) has pledged help and released a national strategy earlier this year, aimed at reversing the trend, which he calls a crisis. He told AP in January his department over the next two years will provide federal guidance, as well as billions in grants under President Joe Biden’s new infrastructure law, to spur states and localities to lower speed limits and embrace safer road design, such as dedicated bike and bus lanes, better lighting and crosswalks. The strategy also urges the use of speed cameras, which the department says could provide more equitable enforcement than police traffic stops. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Reckless Driving, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Vehicular Assault, Vehicular Homicide, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [GR 37 Challenges to Striking a Potential Juror](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/gr-37-challenges-to-striking-a-potential-juror/) **Published:** June 7, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Booth](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/820397.pdf),* the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that a trial court’s decision to deny a defendant’s [peremptory challenge](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/peremptory_challenge) was not reversible error. [*Booth* ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/820397.pdf)captured an interesting scenario where the State – and not the defendant – made a race-based challenge to the opposition’s reasons for striking a potential juror. **BACKGROUND FACTS** On August 9, 2017, Ms. Booth went to a [Metallica](https://www.metallica.com/) concert in Seattle with her cousin. After the concert ended around 11:00 p.m., Booth and her cousin went to his hotel room to talk and catch up. While they were talking, Booth’s cousin—a “very big guy”— began to say things that made Booth uncomfortable. He tried to kiss her. That caused Booth to panic and flee to her car, feeling like she “just had to get out of there.” She began driving without knowing where she was going. According to Booth, she drank a single glass of wine at the concert and had another serving of wine at her cousin’s hotel. Around 3:30 a.m., Washington State Patrol Trooper saw a car remain stopped at a traffic light the entire time the light was green. When the car drove, it was drifting over lane lines and failed to stop even after he turned on his patrol car’s emergency lights. After the car stopped and the driver rolled down her window, Trooper Roberts smelled a very strong odor of alcoholic beverages coming from within the car. Booth was driving. Her eyes were bloodshot and watery, and she had a glazed stare on her face. She struggled to answer Trooper Roberts’ questions, seeming very forgetful. Trooper Roberts arrested Booth on suspicion of [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). Booth did not consent to sobriety tests. Her blood-alcohol content was never measured. Trooper Roberts decided against getting a warrant for a blood draw because he thought she was obviously intoxicated. The case moved on to trial. Booth’s defense theory was that her appearance and behavior resulted from memories of past sexual trauma being triggered by her cousin’s unwanted physical advance. Booth sought to testify about the details of the assaults that traumatized her. The court limited Booth’s testimony about her past to stating she had a history of victimization, and it allowed testimony about her mental state after her cousin’s unwanted advance. **VOIR DIRE** During voir dire – jury selection – Ms. Booth tried to exercise a peremptory challenge to a prospective juror who is a member of a cognizable racial minority. However, the State made a [General Rule (GR) 37](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/GR/GA_GR_37_00_00.pdf) objection, arguing race “could” have been a factor underlying the peremptory challenge. The trial court agreed. It denied Ms. Booth’s peremptory challenge and concluded GR 37 prohibited the striking of the juror. The jury found Booth guilty both of DUI and of refusing to submit to a breath test. Booth appealed on arguments that the trial court mistakenly refused to grant her peremptory challenge. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** Ultimately, the WA Court of Appeals reasoned that peremptory challenges are not required by the federal or state constitutions. The error here does not fit within the narrow class of *per se* reversible errors. Also, there was no showing of any prejudice from the erroneous seating of an otherwise competent, unbiased juror. Therefore, a reversal of Booth’s conviction and a retrial of her case was not required. The court reasoned that in order to bring a GR 37 challenge, the party alleging the violation must establish a prima facie case demonstrating that the struck juror is from cognizable racial group. The burden than shifts to the non-moving party to provide a race-neutral justification. The court than determines whether “an objective observer could view race or ethnicity as a factor in the use of the peremptory strike.” A court evaluates the reason for the peremptory under the totality of the circumstances. The court also reasoned that in this case, defense made a motion to strike a juror, the State objected under GR 37 and the trial judge denied the peremptory strike. Under these circumstances, the Court held that an objective observer could not find race as the basis for the motion to strike. When a juror is wrongly impaneled, it implicates the constitutional rights of the defendant. However, erroneous denial of peremptory is not a *per se* reversible error, as it merely results in the improper seating of a competent and unbiased juror. > “Booth does not explain how juror 6’s presence on the jury made a difference. She does not argue juror 6 could have been challenged for cause, and, in fact, the trial court explained it would not have sustained a for-cause challenge to juror 6, given his answers. And, assuming the jury found Trooper Roberts credible, his testimony provided overwhelming evidence of Booth’s guilt. Thus, Booth fails to show prejudice because the record does not suggest juror 6’s absence would have changed the outcome.” ~WA Court of Appeals. My opinion? Interesting decision. You don’t often see the State challenging a defendant’s peremptory challenges on the basis of race. You typically see the reverse: the defendant challenging the State’s peremptory challenge as race-based. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, GR 37, Jury Trial, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [High Court: Race Must be Considered in Determining Legality of Police Stops and Seizures](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/race-must-be-considered-in-determining-legality-of-police-stops-and-seizures/) **Published:** June 11, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Sum*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/997306.pdf), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that a person’s race – and law enforcement’s long history of discrimination against people of color – should be taken into account when determining the legality of police seizures. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** The case concerns Palla Sum, a person of color who identifies himself as Asian/Pacific Islander. Mr. Sum was sleeping in his car in Tacoma one morning in April 2019 when police came upon him. Deputy Rickerson An officer ran his plates. The car was not stolen. There is no indication that it was parked illegally. Nevertheless, the car attracted the deputy’s attention because “it was parked there.” The officer knocked on the window, asked Sum questions and asked him for identification. Sum gave a false name and the officer went back to his cruiser to check records. Sum then drove off, crashed into a front lawn and was caught as he attempted to run away. Sum was subsequently charged with Making a False Statement, [Eluding](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/eluding/) and [Unlawful Possession of a Firearm](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/), after a gun was found in his car. Sum filed a pretrial motion to suppress pursuant to CrR 3.6. He argued that he was unlawfully seized without reasonable suspicion when Deputy Rickerson requested Sum’s identification while implying that Sum was under investigation for car theft. The court denied Sum’s motion to suppress. It ruled that because Sum was not seized when Rickerson asked him to identify himself, because the did not retain Sum’s physical identification to conduct his records check. Sum was convicted of all three charges by a jury. Although the [WA Court of Appeals upheld his conviction](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2053924-1-II%20Unpublished%20Opinion.pdf), Sum again appealed to the WA Supreme Court. He argued that there is no justification—aside from unacceptably ignoring the issue of race altogether—for courts considering the totality of the circumstances to disregard the effect of race as one of the circumstances affecting evaluation of police contact. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The WA Supreme Court discussed the standard of review for addressing similar cases. It reasoned that the search and seizure inquiry is an objective test. An allegedly seized person has the burden to show that a seizure occurred. It further clarified that a person is seized if, based on the totality of the circumstances, an objective observer could conclude that the person was not free to leave, to refuse a request, or to otherwise terminate the encounter due to law enforcement’s display of authority or use of physical force. The Court also took its “objective analysis” test a step further: > “For purposes of this analysis, an objective observer is aware that implicit, institutional, and unconscious biases, in addition to purposeful discrimination, have resulted in disproportionate police contacts, investigative seizures, and uses of force against Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (BIPOC) in Washington.” ~Justice Mary Yu, WA Supreme Court Furthermore, wrote the Court, if the person shows there was a seizure, then the burden shifts to the State to prove that the seizure was lawfully justified by a warrant or an applicable exception to the warrant requirement. Next, the Court applied its now race-conscious test to the facts of the case. It reasoned that based on the totality of the circumstances, Mr. Sum was seized when Deputy Rickerson requested Sum’s identification while implying that Sum was under investigation for [car theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/possession-theft-of-stolen-motor-vehicle/). “As the State properly concedes, at that time, the deputy did not have a warrant, reasonable suspicion, or any other lawful authority to seize Sum,” wrote Justice Yu. “As a result, Sum was unlawfully seized, and the false name and birth date he gave to the deputy must be suppressed. We therefore reverse the Court of Appeals and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.” My opinion? Good decision. In an amicus brief, public defender and civil rights groups argued that law enforcement’s history of discriminating against people of color needs to be reflected in how the law is interpreted. The groups, including the [King County Department of Public Defense](https://kingcounty.gov/depts/public-defense.aspx) and the [ACLU of Washington](https://www.aclu-wa.org/), wrote the following: “Centuries of violence and dehumanizing treatment of people of color have required BIPOC communities to develop survival strategies that demand over-compliance with law enforcement . . . For courts to continue to blind themselves to that reality when evaluating the freedom an individual would feel to unilaterally terminate a law enforcement contact is to further enshrine existing racial disparities into the legal system.” Please review my [Search & Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) guide and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** ACLU, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Eluding, felony, Firearm, Making False Statements, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Race & Law, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Offender Scores Include Bail Jumping Even When the Underlying Conviction Was Dismissed Under State v. Blake](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/offender-scores-include-bail-jumping-even-when-the-underlying-conviction-was-dismissed-under-blake/) **Published:** June 15, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Paniagua](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/382745_pub.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) held that convictions for [Bail Jumping ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/bail-jumping/)are appropriately included in the offender score even when the offender failed to appear at a scheduled hearing for a pending charge of [*Blake-*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/968730.pdf)related [Drug Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** This appeal considered one of many consequences attended to the Washington Supreme Court’s landmark decision in charge of [*State v. Blake*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/968730.pdf). The decision held Washington’s possession of a controlled substance criminal statute unconstitutional. In turn, Washington courts have removed, from offender scores, earlier convictions for possession of a controlled substance. This appeal travels further down the path and asks whether a court should remove, from the offender score, a former conviction for bail jumping when the offender failed to appear at a scheduled hearing while on bail pending charges for possession of a controlled substance. Victor Paniagua only challenges his sentence for his 2018 convictions for [Homicide](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/) and other crimes. The relevant facts begin, however, with earlier convictions. In 2007, the State of Washington convicted Victor Paniagua with [unlawful possession of a controlled substance](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.4013). In 2011, the State again convicted Paniagua with possession of a controlled substance and the additional charge of [bail jumping](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.76.170). The bail jumping charge arose from Paniagua’s failure to appear at a court hearing on the 2011 possession charge. In June 2018, a jury found Victor Paniagua guilty of [second degree murder](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/), [second degree assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/), [unlawful possession of a firearm](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/), and [witness tampering](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/tampering-with-a-witness-intimidation-of-witnesses/). The trial court calculated Paniagua’s offender score at 8 for the murder and assault charges. It also calculated a 7 for the unlawful firearm possession and witness tampering charges. The offender score calculation included one point each for the 2007 and 2011 possession of a controlled substance convictions and one point for the 2011 bail jumping conviction. As a result, the court then sentenced Paniagua to 453 months’ total confinement. After the issuance of State v. Blake, Mr. Paniagua requested resentencing. He argued the superior court should resentence him and reduce his offender score by three points. Ultimately, the superior court deducted only two points from Paniagua’s offender score. The superior court resentenced Paniagua to 412 months’ total confinement. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court began by saying that *State v. Blake* held that Washington’s [drug possession statute](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.4013) violated the due process clause. The statute penalized one for passive, innocent, or no conduct without requiring the State to prove intent. “The Washington Supreme Court also did not address, in *State v. Blak*e, the retroactivity of its decision,” said the Court of Appeals. “Nevertheless, the State and other courts have operated on the assumption that *Blake* should be applied retroactively. If a statute is unconstitutional, it is and has always been a legal nullity.” Next, the Court of Appeals decided whether the bail jumping conviction was invalid on its face. When a defendant is convicted of a nonexistent crime, the judgment and sentence is invalid on its face. Here, however, the State did not convict Mr. Paniagua of a nonexistent crime when convicting him of bail jumping. “The crime remains in existence today,” said the Court of Appeals. “The conviction is not facially invalid.” Next, the court raised and dismissed Paniagua’s arguments that the State convicted him of bail jumping while facing charges brought pursuant to an unconstitutional statute: > “Still, he cites no decision supporting the proposition that being convicted or held, under an unconstitutional criminal statute, renders escaping from jail or bail jumping permissible. To the contrary, under the universal rule, the unconstitutionality of a statute under which the defendant was convicted or charged does not justify escape from imprisonment . . . We find no decision addressing bail jumping when facing charges under an unconstitutional statute.” ~WA Court of Appeals. With that, the Court of Appeals affirm the superior court’s inclusion of Victor Paniagua’s 2011 conviction for bail jumping in his offender score and affirmed his resentencing. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bail Jumping, Bellingham, Drug Offenses, Firearm, Homicide & Manslaughter, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sentencing, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Proposed Federal Law Prohibits "Stealthing," Non-Consensual Condom Removal](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/proposed-federal-law-prohibits-stealthing-nonconsensual-condom-removal/) **Published:** June 16, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/06/15/condom-stealthing-bill-congress/) by journalist [Anne Branigin](https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/anne-branigin/) reports that “[Stealthing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-consensual_condom_removal),” the act of removing a condom during intercourse without the other partner’s consent, is gaining attention among lawmakers. Fair warning: the following subject matter discusses [sexual offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/). Sexual assault is both a common and a very serious crime. It is investigated by the police with an intensity second only to that of [homicide and manslaughter](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/). Yes, there are defenses to these charges that are discussed later in this blog. **However,** **sexual consent should always be clearly communicated. There should be no question or mystery**. **Silence is not consent.** And it’s not just important the first time you’re with someone. Couples who’ve had sex before also must to consent before engaging the act every time. **“Stealthing” Defined.** “Stealthing,” is the practice of a man removing a [condom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom "Condom") during [sexual intercourse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_intercourse "Sexual intercourse") without consent, when his sex partner has only [consented](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_consent "Sexual consent") to condom-protected sex. While victims of stealthing tend to be clear about its harms, what has been less clear is how to define it. Is it assault? And could — or rather, would — the law do anything about it? **Fedeal Legislation is Proposed to Outlaw “Stealthing.”** This month, federal legislation was introduced offering clarity and a legal remedy for survivors of stealthing. One bill introduced last month would explicitly name stealthing as a form of sexual violence and [create a legal pathway for victims to sue perpetrators](https://maloney.house.gov/sites/maloney.house.gov/files/Final%20Stealthing%20Bill.pdf) for damages and relief. A separate bill, called the[ Consent Is Key Act](https://maloney.house.gov/sites/maloney.house.gov/files/Consent%20is%20Key%20Act%20%281%29.pdf), would encourage states to pass their own laws authorizing civil damages for survivors by increasing funding for federal [domestic violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) programs in states that pass those laws. The federal legislation mirrors [a first-of-its-kind California law](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/09/09/california-secret-condom-law/?itid=lk_inline_manual_8) passed in October. That law expanded the definition of sexual battery in the state’s civil code to include removing a condom without verbal consent. The U.S. House bill defines stealthing as removing any “sexual protection barrier” without the consent of each person involved in the sexual act. “Stealthing is a grave violation of autonomy, dignity, and trust that is considered emotional and sexual abuse,” reads the House bill, titled the [Stealthing Act of 2022](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/BILLS-117hr7920ih). **What Do Studies on Stealthing Suggest?** In the last several years, a number of researchers have attempted to quantify how many people experience nonconsensual condom removal. [In one Melbourne study](https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/one-in-three-women-victim-to-stealth-condom-removal-20190603-p51ty5.html), which surveyed more than 2,000 people visiting a local clinic over a three-month period in 2017, nearly one in three of the women surveyed said they had been “stealthed” at some point in their life. About 19 percent of men who had sex with other men said this had happened to them. [Another 2019 study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30826133/) — which recruited women 21 to 30 with “increased sexual risk characteristics”— found that 12 percent of respondents said a partner engaged in stealthing (nearly half said they had experienced some form of coercive resistance to condoms). [One narrow 2019 study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31259595/) that recruited 626 men who were “inconsistent condom users” between the ages of 21 and 30 found that 10 percent said they had removed a condom without their partner’s consent; men with greater hostility toward women and more severe sexual aggression had “significantly higher odds of engaging in nonconsensual condom removal behavior,” the study’s author wrote. **Is Stealthing a form of Sexual Assault?** The growing narrative says “Yes.” Katie Russell, a spokesperson for the advocacy and support organization Rape Crisis, said the following: > “Ultimately what we’re talking about is rape . . . It’s not something that’s a bit cheeky or naughty to try to get away with — this is something serious that can have really damaging impacts for other person’s whole life and health.” ~Katie Russell, Spokesperson for Rape Crisis. **Defenses to Sex Crimes.** Sex crimes are very serious and being accused of committing one should be taken very seriously. While there aren’t very many, there are a few defenses to such an accusation: he or she is innocent; he or she engaged in consensual sexual activity, or he or she can’t be held guilty due to mental disease or defect. 1. **Actual Innocence.** Like all crimes, the most widely used defense is innocence. To prove innocence, an individual must generally be able to prove that it would be a physical impossibility to be guilty since they were at another location at the time or by providing a credible alibi. It’s the burden of the prosecution to prove that a defendant is guilty. The defendant will want to establish reasonable doubt. If he or she can do so then under the law the jury should acquit him or her. In cases concerning an alleged victim’s intoxication, [RCW 9A.44.030 offers a defense](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.030#:~:text=(1)%20In%20any%20prosecution%20under,the%20defendant%20reasonably%20believed%20that) if the defendant reasonably believed that the victim was not mentally incapacitated and/or physically helpless. Again, this statutory defense exists if the alleged victim is drunk/intoxicated beyond the point of consent. The defendant must prove this defense by a preponderance of the evidence. **2. Consensual Act.** [Consent](https://govt.westlaw.com/wciji/Document/Iefaba958e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Default)) is also a substantive defense. If a defendant can prove that the act was consensual, a crime does not exist. Consent means that at the time of the act of sexual intercourse and/or contact, there are actual words or conduct indicating freely given agreement to have sexual intercourse/contact. However, it’s important to understand whom – and who cannot – provide legal consent. Those without legal capacity cannot consent no matter what. This includes minors. If an individual engages in sexual activity with a minor, it is statutory and there can be no legal consent – even if there is verbal consent. The fact that majority of assailants are known to the victims and that a large numbers of cases are associated with drinking alcohol complicates the picture. **Hire an Attorney As Soon As Possible When Facing a Potential Sex Offense.** Merely being charged with a sexual offense is devastating. An allegation of sexual misconduct can cost someone their employment, their family, their loved ones and their home. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [sex offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Whatcom County Jail Tightens Booking Restrictions](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/whatcom-county-jail-tightens-booking-restrictions/) **Published:** June 21, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Journalist [David Rasbach](https://muckrack.com/david-rasbach) of [The Herald](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/) reports the Whatcom County Jail has stopped booking people suspected of low-level offenses. **JAIL POPULATIONS HAVE INCREASED** in a letter to local leaders, Sheriff Bill Elfo explained the main reason behind less bookings was an increase in the jail population. > “Since the beginning of 2022, populations at both the Downtown Jail and Work Center have steadily climbed despite increased booking restrictions that were put into place in October of 2021.” ~Whatcom County Sheriff Bill Elfo. According to recent reports, the current jail population has grown 28% in the last three months. And it’s grown 44% larger than six months earlier. Today’s population shows an increase over the previous two years during the [COVID-19 Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic). We’re at or above the levels seen the two summers before the pandemic. **OFFENDER CHARACTERISTICS HAVE CHANGED** “In addition to the number of offenders, the characteristics of the offender population has also changed,” Elfo wrote. He states that approximately 83% of the jail population is now being held on suspicion of a pending felony offenses. Additionally, approximately 42% of the people housed in the jail have been diagnosed with a serious mental illness. Adding to the despair, 80% have an existing substance use disorder. These behavioral issues has led to an increase in assaultive or self-harming behavior. As a result, fewer people in the jail can be housed with others. **OVERWORKED JAIL CORRECTIONS STAFF** In addition to a growing jail population, Elfo reported that workloads for corrections staff ARE stretched past all reasonable limits due to COVID protocols. There’s also an increasing need for care of vulnerable people housed in the jail, growth of the [Medication for Opioid Use Disorder program](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article229855664.html), more fights and assaults among the jail population and of staff and problems created by an aging and sometimes failing facility. Whatcom County is currently trying to fill [11 correction deputy vacancies](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article261786032.html), or approximately 16% of the full-time staff that it is budgeted for. According to Elfo, this has created the need for mandated unvolunteered overtime and mandatory callbacks to work. The current workloads, a perceived sense of apathy and new demands have taken their toll. To help mitigate some of the challenges Elfo mentioned in the letter, he reported that Whatcom County is negotiating to contract for 45 beds in Snohomish County. Elfo wrote that he anticipated an agreement soon and would submit an interlocal agreement and supplemental budget request to the Whatcom County Executive and county council in June. My opinion? It’s in our best interests for Whatcom County to construct a new, better jail. We must hire more jail deputies and train them to manage today’s jail population. And we must improve conditions for all, including the jail staff who oversee the incarcerated. Buck up, taxpayers. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime and incarcerated. [Making bail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/making-bail/) and hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bail, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Jail, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Kitsap Judges' Ruling Could Invalidate DUI Convictions Statewide](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/kitsap-judges-ruling-could-invalidate-dui-convictions-statewide/) **Published:** June 23, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Journalist [Matt Markovich](https://www.q13fox.com/person/m/matt-markovich) [reports](https://www.q13fox.com/news/kitsap-judges-ruling-could-eventually-invalidate-tens-of-thousands-dui-convictions-statewide) that the [Kitsap County District Court](https://www.q13fox.com/tag/us/wa/kitsap-county) invalidated the results of a breathalyzer test (BAC Test) used by police. This ruling could have state-wide implications in thousands of [DUI ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/)cases. All four judges of the court agreed the state toxicologist violated state law when she approved software for the [Dräger breathalyzer.](https://www.draeger.com/en-us_us/Productselector/Alcohol-and-Drug-Testing/Breathalyzer?page=1) This device is commonly used to test a person’s blood-alcohol level. The Dräger breathalyzer has been in the field since 2015 and is now used by nearly every law enforcement agency in the state. ***Background Facts*** On May 9, 2020, Mr. Keller was involved in a single-vehicle crash in Bremerton. Court records showed a Kitsap County sheriff’s deputy responded and smelled alcohol on Keller’s breath. He gave Keller a field sobriety test and Keller submitted to a blood alcohol test in the field using the portable Dräger breathalyzer. The test resulted in a 0.132 blood alcohol level. The legal limit in the state is .08. Keller was arrested and is awaiting trial for [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). On pretrial motion, his defense attorneys argued a [CrRLJ 3.6 Motion to Suppress](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/CrRLJ/CLJ_CRRLJ_03_06_00.pdf) the BAC Test. And apparently, they were successful. ***How the Dräger Functions*** The Dräger machine takes four samples of a person’s breath and then calculates the median, the center point of all four results. It then provides a median number that is truncated to several decimal points. State law said the machine needs to truncate to four decimal points and then round up or down to three decimal points. Because the rounding was not part of the final calculation, any result the machine produced using the software approved by the state toxicologist violated state law. ***The Court’s Ruling & Analysis*** The judges reasoned that the [Washington State Patrol](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/) oversees the State Toxicology Lab and is responsible for distributing the Dräger breathalyzer with the proper software to all local law enforcement in the state. However, the software approved by then-state toxicologist did not follow the calculations [mandated by state law](https://www.q13fox.com/tag/us/wa/kitsap-county). The judges issued two rulings. First, they wrote an 89-page ruling explaining their decision to their findings that the software did not follow state law. Second, they issued a court order stopping the use of results of the Dräger machine as evidence in all cases in Kitsap County. Kudos to the defense attorneys[George Bianchi](https://www.seattleduilawyer.com/) and [Tom Weaver.](https://tomweaverlaw.com/) They fought hard for justice. Thankfully, other defense attorneys in other counties can use the Kitsap County ruling in their own DUI cases. The state toxicologist approved software that was used in the Dräger machine across the entire state of Washington. Clearly, the software did not have the proper calculations and is presently being used by prosecutors and police. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [U.S. Supreme Court Expands Gun Rights](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/u-s-supreme-court-expands-gun-rights/) **Published:** June 28, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22066611-high-court-strikes-down-ny-gun-law)*, the [U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) held that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for [Self-Defense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/self-defense/). Their ruling marks a major expansion of gun rights after a series of mass shootings. It’s also a ruling likely to lead to more people legally armed. **BACKGROUND FACTS** The state of New York passed a law requiring a person to show a special need for self-protection in order to to receive a license to carry a firearm outside their home. Robert Nash and Brandon Koch challenged the law after New York rejected their concealed-carry applications based on failure to show “proper cause.” A federal district court dismissed their claims, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court took the issue up on appeal. **LEGAL ISSUE** Does New York’s law requiring that applicants for unrestricted concealed-carry licenses demonstrate a special need for self-defense violate the Second Amendment? **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** **Holding**: New York’s proper-cause requirement for obtaining an unrestricted license to carry a concealed firearm violates the Fourteenth Amendment. It prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion and said the following: > “The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees. The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self- defense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.” ~Justice Thomas, United States Supreme Court With that, the Supreme Court reversed the lower federal court’s holding. The Court’s split was 6-3 with the court’s conservatives in the majority and liberals in dissent. [Justice Alito](https://www.oyez.org/justices/samuel_a_alito_jr) filed a concurring opinion. [Justice Kavanaugh](https://www.oyez.org/justices/brett_m_kavanaugh) filed a concurring opinion, in which [Chief Justice Roberts](https://www.oyez.org/justices/john_g_roberts_jr) joined. [Justice Barrett](https://www.oyez.org/justices/amy_coney_barrett) filed a concurring opinion. [Justice Breyer](https://www.oyez.org/justices/stephen_g_breyer) filed a dissenting opinion, in which [Justices Sotomayor](https://www.oyez.org/justices/sonia_sotomayor) and [Justice Kagan](https://www.oyez.org/justices/elena_kagan) joined. In a dissent joined by his liberal colleagues, Justice Stephen Breyer focused on the toll from gun violence. He wrote that since the beginning of this year, there have already been 277 reported mass shootings — an average of more than one per day. He accused his colleagues in the majority of acting “without considering the potentially deadly consequences” of their decision. He said the ruling would “severely” burden states’ efforts to pass laws “that limit, in various ways, who may purchase, carry, or use firearms of different kinds.” Several other conservative justices who joined Thomas’ majority opinion also wrote separately to add their views. Justice Samuel Alito criticized Breyer’s dissent, questioning the relevance of his discussion of mass shootings and other gun death statistics. Alito wrote that the court had decided “nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun” and nothing “about the kinds of weapons that people may possess.” “Today, unfortunately, many Americans have good reason to fear they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves.” The Second Amendment, he said, “guarantees their right to do so.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, noted the limits of the decision. States can still require people to get a license to carry a gun, Kavanaugh wrote, and condition that license on “fingerprinting, a background check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force, among other possible requirements.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Firearm Offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/) or any other crimes. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Firearm, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Lawsuit: Washington State Patrol Misused Breathalyzer Tests, Misconstrued Readings](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/lawsuit-washington-state-patrol-misused-breathalyzer-tests-misconstrued-readings/) **Published:** June 30, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** A recently filed lawsuit claims that the [Washington State Patrol](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/) official responsible for ensuring the consistency and reliability of breath-test machines violated the rights of drunk driving suspects who later had their licenses revoked. I discussed this in an earlier [blog ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/kitsap-judges-ruling-could-invalidate-dui-convictions-statewide/)where a panel of District Court judges had already found breath machine results inadmissible in all Kitsap County cases. The four District Court judges tossed the breath machine results in all drunken-driving cases before the court. The judges also found that Fiona Couper, the WA State Patrol Forensics Lab, “submitted false or misleading testimony by declaration in tens of thousands of cases.” About 81,000 people were tested over the past decade. **THE LAWSUIT** The lawsuit was filed by [David LaCross](https://www.lacrossandmurphy.com/About-Us/David-Lacross.html) on behalf of plaintiff Nicholas Kori Solis, 29, of Bremerton. The respondent is Ms. Couper. The lawsuit claims that Ms. Couper filed false statements vouching for the legality of the machines and “deprived the plaintiff of due process.” The lawsuit specifically criticizes Washington’s procedures for revoking drunk driving suspects’ licenses. This process is administrative, not criminal, and the breath test results are admitted to prove the driver was impaired to allow the state to revoke their driver’s license. The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of money for damages, among other remedies. **BACKGROUND** Mr. Solis was arrested March 19 by a State Patrol trooper who observed him driving 88 mph on Highway 3. In addition to signs of impairment, the trooper tested Solis using the [Dräger breath test machine. ](https://www.draeger.com/en-us_us/Safety/Alcohol-And-Drug-Testing)The machine found Solis had a blood alcohol content reading of about .10. Solis was charged with DUI in Kitsap County District Court. He pleaded not guilty and entered a diversion agreement with prosecutors. **LEGAL ISSUE** The legal issue is whether Washington’s BAC machine accurately processed the results of breath tests. The state limit for blood alcohol content is .08. As the machines perform the required calculations, however, they produce results that contain more than two digits. State law says the numbers are to be “rounded” but instead the software had been “truncating” them, or cutting off the numbers at a certain decimal point, a fact the judges found Couper knew or should have known. The practical results of truncation vs. rounding can actually benefit defendants – as rounding a number could result in it increasing and showing a person was perhaps more intoxicated, something that cannot happen when the numbers are simply cut off. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Due Process, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["Operation Dry Water" Works to Reduce Boating Under the Influence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/operation-dry-water-2/) **Published:** July 4, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** According to [Kiro 7](https://www.yahoo.com/now/operation-dry-water-run-july-233909125.html?guccounter=1), police are looking for alcohol and drug-impaired boaters this [Fourth of July weekend](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Day_(United_States)). [Washington State Parks](https://www.parks.wa.gov/1214/Operation-Dry-Water) supports a nationally coordinated effort called [Operation Dry Water](https://www.nasbla.org/operationdrywater/home). This large-scale effort works to reduce [boating-under-the-influence (BUI)](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=79A.60.040) accidents and fatalities. As part of the campaign, emphasis patrols are conducted annually around the Fourth of July. Independence Day is known for increased boating activities, use of alcohol, and an increase in the number of boating accidents and fatalities. Operation Dry Water includes the Coast Guard and local, state and federal law enforcement agencies. There will be an increase in patrols on Puget Sound waters. Similar to [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/), a BUI outlaws the use any substance that impairs a person’s ability to operate a vessel in the state. A “vessel” includes kayaks, canoes, paddleboards and other watercraft. It is also illegal to operate a vessel with a blood alcohol content level of 0.08 or higher, the same as a vehicle. Below are some things for boaters to know: - State law allows law enforcement officers to require boaters suspected of operating a boat while intoxicated to submit to a breath or blood test. - Refusing to submit to a test is a civil infraction with a maximum fine of $2,050. - The penalty for operating a boat under the influence is a gross misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of $5,000 and 364 days in jail. - Additionally, a BUI is considered a prior offense if there are later convictions for driving under the influence (DUI). In 2021, more than 570 local, state and federal agencies participated in Operation Dry Water, which resulted in nearly 640 BUI arrests and more than 42,440 citations and warnings for safety violations that were issued. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [BUI](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=79A.60.040), [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Boating Under the Influence, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [WA State Cracks Down on Organized Retail Theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/wa-state-cracks-down-on-organized-retail-theft/) **Published:** July 5, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** [King5 News reports](https://www.king5.com/article/news/crime/washington-retail-theft/281-0957fde5-1151-4d47-b5e6-641e59de3441) that the [Organized Retail Crime Theft Task Force](https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/attorney-general-ferguson-convenes-washington-organized-retail-crime-theft-task) was recently formed. [State Attorney General Bob Ferguson](https://www.atg.wa.gov/about-bob-ferguson) says the Task Force will focus on sophisticated, organized crime rings and work to stop them. According to the [Retail Industry Leaders Association](https://www.rila.org/), organized theft cost Washington’s retailers around $2.7 billion last year. Given the magnitude of losses, State Attorney General Bob Ferguson says it’s vital that multiple agencies and retailers work together because organized retail theft is simply too big for one organization to take on alone. > “No one retail store, no one prosecutor, no one attorney general, no one US Attorney can solve the problem. It’s just way too big. I found in my experience, from working with other task forces and other contexts, that sharing of information helps with enforcement, helps with prevention, raises the profile of the issue, and gets folks in the room to make sure we go after the bad guys, hold them accountable, and the provide the resources we need to help retailers and small businesses who’re dealing with these challenges.” ~State Attorney General Bob Ferguson Organized crime could look like three men coordinating an early morning break-in, or it could occur on a smaller scale, like at the downtown Seattle Target, where police arrested a man after he stole alcohol 22 times over the course of a few days. However, one of the biggest concerns of the task force is stolen baby formula, which is then resold on secondary sites like Amazon and becomes a risk for parents. “That means that parents who unwittingly buy stolen formula on the secondary market may be putting their babies at significant risk if the thieves, for example, fail to store the product at the appropriate temperatures, or if the thieves manipulated the packaging, such as exchanging the expiration date,” Ferguson said. He said the task force hopes to have an immediate impact statewide. “We’re all stepping up to address what really is a true crisis in our state (and) … has significant implications for businesses and for the people of our state,” said Ferguson. In Washington, [Organized Retail Theft is a Class C Felony](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.350). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/theft/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Organized Retail Theft, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Theft, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Criminal Conviction Reversed on Prosecutor's Race-Based Misconduct & Voir Dire.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/criminal-conviction-reversed-on-prosecutors-race-based-misconduct-voir-dire/) **Published:** July 8, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Zamora](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/999597.pdf),* the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that a [Prosecutor committed misconduct](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/prosecutorial-misconduct-the-rules/) when, during jury selection, he repeatedly asked the potential jurors about their views on unlawful immigration, border security, undocumented immigrants, and crimes committed by undocumented immigrants. **BACKGROUND FACTS** This case arises from a violent police confrontation that escalated far beyond what should have happened. On Super Bowl Sunday, February 5, 2017, Joseph Zamora was walking to his niece’s house. A neighbor called the police to report a possible vehicle prowler. When Zamora reached the driveway of his niece’s home, he was contacted by responding officer Kevin Hake. Hake quickly became nervous because of Zamora’s demeanor. Fearing Zamora had a weapon, Hake grabbed Zamora and attempted to restrain him. A struggle ensued and escalated to include what may be described as extreme acts of violence. Ultimately, eight officers were involved in subduing Zamora. When responding paramedics arrived, Zamora was handcuffed, hog-tied, and lying face down in the snow with two officers restraining him. He had no heartbeat or pulse. It took the paramedics seven minutes to revive him. Zamora was taken to the hospital and remained in intensive care for approximately four weeks. Zamora was charged with two counts of [Assault Third Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) on the officers who “restrained” him. Officer Hake’s injuries included some small scratches around his hand and wrist and some bruising. Officer Welsh sustained an injury to his hand from punching Zamora in the back of the head multiple times. Zamora’s case proceeded to trial. The Grant County Prosecutor began voir dire. He introduced the topics of border security, illegal immigration, and crimes committed by undocumented immigrants. The prosecutor repeatedly elicited potential jurors’ comments and views on these topics. At one point, he referred to “100,000 people illegally” crossing the border each month. He asked jurors whether “we have or we don’t have enough border security.” He also asked jurors if they had “heard about the recent drug bust down at Nogales, Arizona where they picked up enough Fentanyl to killed 65 million Americans.” Defense counsel did not object to the prosecutor’s questions and remarks on border security, illegal immigration, undocumented immigrants, and drug smuggling. A jury found Zamora guilty as charged. Zamora appealed. He argued his right to an impartial jury was violated when the Prosecutor appealed to jurors’ potential racial bias during voir dire. Division Three of the Court of Appeals affirmed Zamora’s convictions, concluding that his constitutional rights were not violated. Zamora appealed to the WA Supreme Court. They accepted review. **LEGAL ISSUE** Whether the prosecutor committed misconduct when, during jury selection, he repeatedly asked the potential jurors about their views on unlawful immigration, border security, undocumented immigrants, and crimes committed by undocumented immigrants. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court concluded that the prosecutor intentionally appealed to the jurors’ potential racial bias in a way that undermined Zamora’s presumption of innocence. Therefore, Zamora was denied his constitutional right to an impartial jury because of the prosecutor’s race-based misconduct. [Justice Charled W. Johnson](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=johnson) authored the Court’s opinion. He began by explaining that the [Sixth](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment) and [Fourteenth Amendments](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv) to the [United States Constitution](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/index.html) and the [Washington State Constitution](https://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/Documents/WAConstitution.pdf) guarantee a criminal defendant the right to an impartial jury. Justice Johnson said the Court has long recognized that the constitutional right to a jury trial includes the right to an unbiased and unprejudiced jury. He also upheld the right to fair trial in the face of prosecutorial misconduct: > “As a quasi-judicial officer and a representative of the State, a prosecutor owes a duty to a defendant to see that their rights to a constitutionally fair trial are not violated. Thus, a claim of prosecutorial misconduct directly implicates the constitutional right to a fair trial.” ~Justice Johnson, WA Supreme Court. Justice Johnson also explained that in order to prevail on a prosecutorial misconduct claim, a defendant who timely objects must prove that the prosecutor’s conduct was both improper and prejudicial in the context of the entire trial. If the defendant does not object, on appeal the defendant must show the improper conduct resulted in incurable prejudice. However, when the misconduct implicates racial bias, “flagrantly or apparently intentionally appeals to racial bias in a way that undermines the defendant’s credibility or the presumption of innocence,” courts will vacate the conviction unless the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the race-based misconduct did not affect the jury’s verdict. > “To determine whether the prosecutor’s conduct in this case flagrantly or apparently intentionally appealed to jurors’ potential racial bias, we ask whether an objective observer could view the prosecutor’s questions and comments during voir dire as an appeal to the jury panel’s potential prejudice, bias, or stereotypes about Latinxs. The objective observer is a person who is aware of the history of race and ethnic discrimination in the United States and aware of implicit, institutional, and unconscious biases, in addition to purposeful discrimination.” ~Justice Johnson, WA Supreme Court Here, the Court reasoned that the prosecutor’s questions and remarks implicated the defendant’s ethnicity. The prosecutor’s conduct appealed to the jurors’ potential racial or ethnic bias, stereotypes, or prejudice. The Court said we must be vigilant of conduct that appeals to racial or ethnic bias even when not expressly referencing race or ethnicity: > “The state-sanctioned invocation of racial or ethnic bias in the justice system is unacceptable. Accordingly, we hold that the prosecutor in this case committed race-based misconduct during voir dire, and the resulting prejudice to the defendant is incurable and requires reversal. We reverse the Court of Appeals and reverse and vacate the convictions.” ~Justice Johnson, WA Supreme Court Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Race & Law, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Low-Level Robbery Won't Get A Reduced Sentence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/de-minimis-robbery-wont-get-an-exceptional-downward-sentence/) **Published:** July 13, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Thomason](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/998655.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that the low-level, *de minimis* nature of some crimes can allow for an [exceptional downward sentence](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.535). However, the minimal level of force used to prove [Robbery](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/robbery/) makes it inappropriate to allow a downward sentence. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** On September 5, 2018, Thomason entered Yoke’s Fresh Market grocery store in Spokane. A plainclothes security guard, Mr. Swartz, followed Thomason around the store. Swartz watched Thomason pick up about $15 worth of meat and cheese. Thomason proceeded to another part of the store and tucked the food down his pants. Thomason then left the store without paying. Swartz followed Thomason out and confronted him. Swartz grabbed Thomason’s arm, displayed his badge, and asked Thomason to go back inside the store. Thomason tried to pull free, and Swartz warned him that he was only making the situation worse. The two pulled at each other back and forth as Swartz tried to detain Thomason and Thomason tried to break free. During this exchange, Thomason swung at Swartz two times. Thomason used a closed fist, aimed at Swartz’s face both times, and hit Swartz the second time with a glancing blow. Swartz yelled at his partner, a guard in training, to help. Thomason punched Swartz a third time. Swartz testified that the third punch “hurt” and caused a minor injury. His face was sore and slightly red for a day or two. Thomason escaped by pulling out of his sweatshirt and running. He was seen getting into a passenger car and was eventually apprehended. The State charged Thomason with [second degree robbery](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.210) just before trial. A jury convicted him as charged. **THE SENTENCING** At sentencing, the parties agreed that Thomason’s offender score was 10. That made his standard sentencing range 63-84 months. Thomason requested a 12-month sentence. This was a exceptional downward departure from his sentencing range. The trial court judge considered an exceptional sentence below the standard range. The judge said that the crime was no more than a “glorified shoplifting charge” that should have been treated as a misdemeanor. Nevetheless, the judge determined that the law barred him from imposing an exceptional downward sentence. The judge imposed 63 months, the bottom of the standard range, instead. Thomason appealed on several grounds. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. The WA Supreme Court granted appellate review solely on the exceptional sentence issue. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court reasoned that Washington’s Sentencing Reform Act lists mitigating circumstances that can support an exceptional sentence below the standard range. It explained that in appropriate cases, the *de minimis* nature of a crime can support an exceptional sentence below the standard range. An appropriate case is one in which **(1)** the legislature did not consider the mitigating factor already when it listed the elements of the crime or set the standard sentence range and **(2)** the factor constitutes a substantial and compelling reason to depart below the range.” The Court acknowledged Thomason’s argument that his crime was *de minimis*. The value of the items taken was low and no force was used to accomplish the taking. Although force was used to retain the property, it was “minor” force. However, the court disagreed with Thomasan’s argument that he was allowed an exceptional downward sentence. The Court reasoned that the plain language of the robbery statute shows that the legislature did consider a defendant’s minimal use of force when it defined the crime of second degree robbery. > “As the emphasized language shows, the legislature clearly considered whether the crime of second degree robbery should punish a taking combined with a minimal showing of force. It criminalized a taking in which either ‘force’ ‘or’ no force at all—just ‘fear’—is used to accomplish the taking . . . The legislature even said that where, as here, such force or fear is used to obtain or retain possession of the property, or to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking, the degree of force is immaterial.”~WA Supreme Court With that, the WA Supreme Court affirmed Mr. Thomason’s conviction. My opinion? I agree with Chief Justice Steven Gonzalez’s concurring opinion. He wrote separately because he was increasingly troubled by our controlling, unchallenged precedents and the sentencing laws they interpret. “Washington’s sentencing guidelines suggest, among other things, that unconstrained discretion in sentencing operates to favor whites and disfavor members of minority groups,” said Justice Gonzalez. As part of the concurrence, he references an article about [prosecutorial discretion and sentencing guidelines](https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1661&context=faculty). He ended his opinion with choice parting words: > “We must find a way to live justly with one another. We must not steal from each other or strike each other. But when it happens, the State must not respond with a disproportionate punishment. I am increasingly concerned that sentences like this for what amounts to glorified shoplifting are simply not just and speak to deep problems with our sentencing systems.” ~[Chief Justice Steven C. Gonzalez, WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=gonzalez). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Robbery](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/robbery/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Race & Law, Robbery, Sentencing, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Washington Supreme Court Will Address How to Reduce Racial Disparities & Reform Juvenile Justice](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/washington-supreme-court-will-address-how-to-reduce-racial-disparities-reform-juvenile-justice/) **Published:** July 19, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** According to a [press release](https://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/?fa=newsinfo.pressdetail&newsid=49743), on July 13, 2022, a task force will present recommendations to the [Washington Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) on reducing and, where possible, eliminating racial disparities in Washington’s criminal and juvenile justice systems. The public presentation is scheduled for 10:30 AM – 12:00 PM, and will be [livestreamed and recorded by TVW](https://tvw.org/video/task-force-on-race-and-the-criminal-justice-system-2022071009/?eventID=2022071009). The recommendations come from a work group of [Task Force 2.0: Race and Washington’s Criminal Justice System](https://law.seattleu.edu/centers-and-institutes/korematsu-center/initiatives-and-projects/race-and-criminal-justice-task-force/), a project coordinated by the Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality at the Seattle University School of Law. Presenters will include Korematsu Center Executive Director Professor Bob Chang, Assistant Directors Jessica Levin and Melissa Lee, public defense attorneys, child welfare experts, Pierce County Superior Court Judge André M. Peñalver, and more. Task Force 2.0 last year presented [extensive research](https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/korematsu_center/118/) to the Supreme Court detailing racially disproportionate treatment and outcomes in the state’s criminal justice system, outcomes significantly impacted by historically racist laws and practices. The follow-up presentation provides recommendations in 14 areas – such as policing and traffic stops, prosecutorial decision-making, pre-trial release, sentencing and prison, community supervision, legal financial obligations and more – as well as recommendations for reforming the juvenile justice system from a special sub-committee. The Task Force was launched in mid-2020 by the deans of Washington’s three law schools following the death of George Floyd, nationwide protests for racial justice, and the June 4, 2020 [Open Letter](https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme%20Court%20News/Judiciary%20Legal%20Community%20SIGNED%20060420.pdf) of the justices of the Washington Supreme Court challenging members of the state judiciary and legal community to recognize racial injustice and take steps to eliminate it. The Task Force is dubbed “2.0” because it is a re-launch of the [Race and Justice Task Force](https://law.seattleu.edu/centers-and-institutes/korematsu-center/initiatives-and-projects/race-and-criminal-justice-task-force/task-force-1/) established in 2010 following comments made by two then-sitting Washington Supreme Court justices about criminality and race. That first task force produced a report in 2011 with data that has guided a number of efforts since then, including an annual symposium presented by the [Washington State Minority and Justice Commission](https://www.courts.wa.gov/?fa=home.sub&org=mjc&page=chair&layout=2) focusing on specific issues of racial disparity. My opinion? We’ve GOT to be proud of our WA Supreme Court for being so proactive in resolving racial disparities in the justice system. The rise of mass incarceration may seem like a recent phenomenon, but it is a repeating pattern throughout this country’s history. From America’s founding to the present, there are stories of crime waves or criminal behavior followed by patterns of disproportionate imprisonment of those forced to the margins of society: Black people, immigrants, Native Americans, refugees, and others. The result has been the [persistent and disproportionate impact of incarceration on people of color, immigrants, and people experiencing poverty](https://www.vera.org/reimagining-prison-web-report/american-history-race-and-prison). From 1850 to 1940, racial and ethnic minorities—including foreign-born and non-English speaking European immigrants—made up 40 to 50 percent of the prison population. In 2015, about 55 percent of people imprisoned in federal or state prisons were Black or Latino. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Pandemic Crisis Created a Blueprint to Courts in the Future](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/pandemic-crisis-created-a-blueprint-to-courts-in-the-future/) **Published:** July 23, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** According to a [press release](https://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/?fa=newsinfo.pressdetail&newsid=49744), Washington courts proved during the pandemic they can adapt quickly to new technologies and methods when the need is urgent. In doing so, they also opened a door to building a more accessible and responsive court system. That is a key conclusion of the [Board for Judicial Administration’s Court Recovery Task Force](https://www.courts.wa.gov/programs_orgs/pos_bja/?fa=pos_bja.courtRecoveryTF). The Task Force issued its [final report](https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Court%20Recovery%20Task%20Force/Court%20Recovery%20Task%20Force%20Report%202022.pdf) after two years of work coordinating emergency actions to keep courts operating safely. The report, “[Re-Imagining Our Courts: Pandemic Response and Recovery Lead Courts Into the Future](https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Court%20Recovery%20Task%20Force/Court%20Recovery%20Task%20Force%20Report%202022.pdf),” compiles the information gathered, the lessons learned, and the task force’s recommendations to the judicial branch on how to maintain the responsiveness and expanded access it forged out of necessity. “We commit to not going back to business as usual, but instead to incorporate the important lessons we learned together,” wrote [Washington Supreme Court Chief Justice Steven González](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=gonzalez) in the report. Justice González served as co-chair of the Task Force with King County Superior Court Judge Judith Ramseyer and Olympia Municipal Court Judge Scott Ahlf. Some common adaptations adopted during the pandemic included expanded electronic filing and use of electronic signatures, extensive use of remote video technology to conduct proceedings rather than requiring participants to appear in person, adjusting procedures to allow attorneys to take more actions for their clients, providing access to technology for those who lacked it, and much more. Many court rules permitting temporary measures are set to expire, but “a number of these emergency rules proved so effective they were recommended for permanent implementation,” according to the report. The Task Force was convened in May 2020 by then-Chief Justice Debra Stephens to “share experiences and coordinate responses to the fluid and devastating situation we faced,” according to the report. Shortly after this, a racial justice movement surged nationwide in response to the killing of George Floyd, and Task Force members agreed that a racial justice lens should be used in considering responses and innovations. The Task Force also established Guiding Principles to guide their work and their recommendations. Experts from throughout the courts, system partners, and community members were recruited to provide insight into needs and potential responses. These experts divided into 11 committees that created such tools as templates for virtual dependency proceedings, facility checklists for off-site safety, best practices for virtual discovery, alternative dispute resolution and pre-trial processes, a virtual court directory with online links to remote hearings, technology principles for the courts, best practices for court websites that are intuitive for users, and more. In working together to transform court operations and services during the pandemic, “we used our experiences to overcome the daunting challenges we faced,” wrote the Task Force co-chairs in their introduction to the report. “Thankfully, this process also informed a blueprint for our courts to keep evolving into the most efficient, respectful, and just legal system we can become. As usual, from crisis comes opportunity.” After sharing experiences, actions, and findings of the past two years, the Task Force recommended that courts of the future will: - Embrace positive change; - Communicate and collaborate with justice partners and local leaders, using the expanded input that led to many effective solutions during the pandemic; - Use technology to promote access and efficiency – “Unquestionably, technological advancements offer access to courts and efficiencies never imagined when many Washington courthouses were constructed.” - Gather feedback from court users, share findings, and use the information to adapt; - Implement new practices and procedures through a racial justice lens; - Prioritize the health, safety, and morale of the court work force; - Plan for emergencies; - Actively work with local and state governments to guarantee stable funding. The Task Force also listed unfinished work that should be actively pursued such as addressing case backlogs, uniform access to technology for courts, universal broadband for court users, confronting and dismantling institutional racism, and gathering and disseminating meaningful data on use of essential court services. My opinion? I’m proud that our Washington court systems pivoted so effectively. Still our access to justice is only as good as the means of access possessed by the people it serves. Zoom hearings were an excellent way to conduct court. Most courts pivoted to conducting motion and evidentiary hearings via [Zoom](https://zoom.us/). This platform allowed attorneys to teleconference for meetings, mediations and depositions. However, actual court hearings via Zoom presented unique challenges. An estimated [42 million Americans live beyond the reach of broadband service. ](https://broadbandnow.com/research/fcc-underestimates-unserved-by-50-percent)Also, older people may be unable or unwilling to master videoconferencing technology. Many criminal defendants are impoverished. They don’t have access to the internet. And many other defendants are illiterate or non-English speakers and cannot navigate these platforms. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [2021 Crime Report: Violent Crime Up as Washington State Sees Decrease in Police Officers](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/2021-crime-report-violent-crime-up-as-washington-state-sees-decrease-in-police-officers/) **Published:** July 26, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Journalist [Adel Toay](https://muckrack.com/adel-toay) for [King5.com](https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/violent-crime-washington-state-police-officers-2021-crime-report/281-cda35c7f-7e43-47d3-85c1-91c63a0c7dab) says that violent crime has increased in Washington. According to a [crime report](https://www.waspc.org/assets/CIW%202021%20Media%20Release%20072022.pdf) from the [Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs](https://www.waspc.org/) (WASPC), violent crimes and [murders](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/) increased while the number of police officers available to respond to incidents decreased in 2021. > “This is just very specific data, about crime trends, about our staffing level, about a couple of things that sort of stand out. But the numbers are all there. We’re very transparent. We wanted to get this out to everybody so that they have that information within their communities,” ~[Steven Strachan, executive director of WASPC](https://www.waspc.org/assets/docs/Steven%20Strachan%20Bio_2021.pdf) According to the report, violent crime overall, which includes [murder](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/), [aggravated assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/), [robbery](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/robbery/) and [rape](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/), increased by 12.3% in 2021. There were 325 murders in 2021, an increase of 5.9% over 2020, following a 47% increase the year before. Strachan said this is the highest number of murders recorded since WASPC began collecting this data in 1980. Hate crimes like [Malicious Harassment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/harassment/) in the state increased by 26.5% in 2021 with the most frequent offenses being intimidation and destruction of property. Total crime overall is statistically down slightly, including a 78.8% decrease in [identity theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/identity-theft/) and fraud from 2020, largely due to the huge spike in unemployment fraud during the [pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic). Other factors contributing to the statistical downward trend include a 60.9% decrease in [drug offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) and a 73.6% decrease in drug arrests, due to a change in state laws. “This is predominantly due to the Blake decision in 2021, which completely changed the ability to charge a criminal offense for personal possession of any drug,” said Strachan. In February 2021, [the Washington State Supreme Court ruled](https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/washington-state-justices-strike-down-drug-possession-law/281-8d146867-5003-4353-8c31-a146dd836356) the state’s simple drug possession crime statute was unconstitutional and voided it. **THE LOSS OF POLICE OFFICERS** Washington state lost nearly 500 police officers statewide in 2021 as the state’s population grew more than the population of Everett, according to the report. The number of commissioned law enforcement officers decreased 4.4%. The per capita rate of law enforcement officers fell to 1.38 per 1,000 statewide. “When the staffing is down, the numbers are up,” said Strachan. Strachan said it is the lowest per capita rate of officers the state has seen since WASPC began tracking this data in 1980, and it’s the lowest in the nation. The national average per capita rate for officers is 2.33 officers per 1,000, according to the FBI. > “Right now, a lot of agencies are treading water. Not every single one. Not every single agency is in a staffing crisis. Many are. These things are problems with solutions, and that is to support good policing and to recognize that public safety is important.”~[Steven Strachan, executive director of WASPC](https://www.waspc.org/assets/docs/Steven%20Strachan%20Bio_2021.pdf) Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Homicide & Manslaughter, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Robbery, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Extraction of Smartphone Data by U.S. Law Enforcement](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/extraction-of-smartphone-data-by-u-s-law-enforcement/) **Published:** July 29, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** A new [report](https://www.upturn.org/work/mass-extraction/) from [upturn.org](https://www.upturn.org/) reveals that thousands of smartphones are searched by police every day across the US. Unfortunately, most searches are done without a warrant and in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. **THE PROBLEM** Law enforcement agencies across the country search thousands of cellphones, typically incident to arrest. To search phones, law enforcement agencies use mobile device forensic tools (MDFTs). This powerful technology allows police to extract a full copy of data from a cellphone. This data includes all emails, texts, photos, location, app data, and more. The report documents more than 2,000 agencies that have purchased these tools, in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. > “We found that state and local law enforcement agencies have performed hundreds of thousands of cellphone extractions since 2015, often without a warrant. To our knowledge, this is the first time that such records have been widely disclosed.” ~Upturn.org According to the report, every American is at risk of having their phone forensically searched by law enforcement. Police use these tools to investigate [assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/), [prostitution](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/prostitution/), [vandalism](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/malicious-mischief/), [theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/theft/), [drug-related offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/), etc. Given how routine these searches are today, it’s more than likely that these technologies disparately affect and are used against communities of color. The emergence of these tools represents a dangerous expansion in law enforcement’s investigatory powers. In 2011, only 35% of Americans owned a smartphone. Today, it’s at least 81% of Americans. Moreover, many Americans — especially people of color and people with lower incomes — rely solely on their cellphones to connect to the internet. For law enforcement, mobile phones remain the most frequently used and most important digital source for investigation. **THE SOLUTIONS** Upurn.org believes that MDFTs are simply too powerful in the hands of law enforcement and should not be used. But recognizing that MDFTs are already in widespread use across the country, they offer a set of preliminary recommendations that, in the short-term, help reduce the use of MDFTs. These include: - banning the use of consent searches of mobile devices, - abolishing the plain view exception for digital searches, - requiring easy-to-understand audit logs, - enacting robust data deletion and sealing requirements, and - requiring clear public logging of law enforcement use. Of course, these recommendations are only the first steps in a broader effort to minimize the scope of policing, and to confront and reckon with the role of police in the United States. > “This report seeks to not only better inform the public regarding law enforcement access to mobile phone data, but also to recenter the conversation on how law enforcement’s use of these tools entrenches police power and exacerbates racial inequities in policing. ” ~Upturn.org Special thanks to authors Logan Koepke, Emma Weil, Urmila Janardan, Tinuola Dada and Harlan Yu for providing this highly informative and educational material. Please review my [Search & Seizure Legal Guide](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you are charged with a crime involving a smartphone search. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Cell Phone, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Racial Disparities in Sentencing](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/racial-disparities-in-sentencing/) **Published:** August 2, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** [The Sentencing Project](https://www.sentencingproject.org/) and the [ACLU](https://www.aclu.org/) submitted a [shadow report](file:///C:/Users/Alex%20Ransom/Downloads/07-14-2022_CERD-Shadow-Report-Draft_with-endnotes%20(1).pdf) to the United Nations on the impact of racial disparities in sentencing. The report addresses sentencing and imprisonment. It also discusses racism in the application of the death penalty. Finally, it focuses on issues for youth in the adult and juvenile justice systems. According to the report, the proportion of people of color who are incarcerated in the nation compared with their representation in the general population epitomizes the need to achieve racial justice. “The nation incarcerates almost two million people—more than any other country in the world—and over five times more per capita than just 40 years ago,” it says. “But the burden of criminal sentencing and imprisonment is not inflicted equally.” It goes on to say that Black and Latinx residents are incarcerated at rates five and three times higher than white residents, respectively. One of every 81 Black adults in the U.S. is in prison. > “These staggering disparities create individual and community barriers to full and equal participation in American society. Criminal convictions and imprisonment can prevent individuals from voting and gaining employment, undermine access to safe housing, negatively impact the life outcomes of children, and substantially lower lifetime earnings, amongst other social, political and economic disadvantages.” ~Racial Disparities in Sentencing in the United States, July 14, 2022 The report argues that while these are individual consequences, there are also societal consequences: high levels of imprisonment in communities bring about crime, poverty and neighborhood deterioration through decreased political power that fuels greater disparities. This cycle of suffering, social exclusion and disempowerment is primarily experienced by African Americans and other people of color. The enormous racial disparities, discrimination and inequality created by the United States’ system of mass incarceration did not occur by happenstance. They are the product of deliberate legal and policy choices created by a dominant white population supported by a culture of white supremacy. The report says, for instance, that the so-called [“War on Drugs”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs) which greatly accelerated America’s mass incarceration build-up starting in the 1970’s was initiated as a deliberate effort by President Richard Nixon and his administration to disrupt, vilify and oppress communities of color for political gain and control, rather than a legal initiative primarily concerned about improving public safety. These racist underpinnings of the criminal legal system in the United States must be acknowledged in order for meaningful reform to be accomplished and human rights to finally be upheld. Despite the centrality of racial disparities in the criminal legal system, and in sentencing and imprisonment in particular, these critical areas of race discrimination and disparate impact receive scant attention in the U.S. government’s combined tenth to twelfth periodic reports submitted to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in 2021. Kudos to the Sentencing Project and the ACLU for their insightful report. And please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** ACLU, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Prison, Race & Law, Sentencing, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [High Court Reverses Conviction Due to Juror's Racial Biases At Jury Selection](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/wa-court-of-appeals-reverses-conviction-due-to-jurors-racial-biases-at-jury-selection/) **Published:** August 4, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Gutierrez](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/378438_pub.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) reversed a defendant’s conviction because a juror’s inquiries on the defendant’s immigration status demonstrated ethnic bias. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** Mr. Gutierrez was charged with first degree [robbery](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/robbery/), second degree [assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/), and first degree [unlawful possession of a firearm](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/). His case proceeded to trial. During jury selection, potential Juror #16 asked about the immigration status of the defendant. The juror had additional colloquy with the attorneys. Neither party struck juror #16. The juror was later seated on the jury panel. The jury later entered a verdict of not guilty to the charge of first degree robbery, and guilty verdicts on the charges of second degree assault, unlawful possession of a firearm, and felony harassment. On appeal, Mr. Gutierrez raises an issue of [juror bias](https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=61). He argued that during jury selection, Juror #16 demonstrated actual bias, but was nevertheless seated as a juror and not removed by his attorney or the court. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals reversed Mr. Gutirrrez’s conviction. It reasoned that although Mr. Gutierrez did not move to strike Juror #16, a trial judge must do so where grounds to do so are apparent in the record. Under RCW 2.36.110, it is the judge’s duty to excuse any juror who has manifested unfitness as a juror by reason of bias or prejudice. The Court of Appeals further reasoned that a juror demonstrates actual bias when he exhibits a state of mind in reference to the action, or to either party, which satisfies the court that the challenged person cannot try the issue impartially and without prejudice to the substantial rights of the party challenging. It referred to [*State v. Berhe*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/959200.pdf) in describing how bias based on race and ethnicity may be explicit or implicit: > “Bias based on race and ethnicity may be explicit or implicit. Explicit racial bias is consciously held, although the biased person may not be willing to admit to having such bias if asked. Implicit racial bias, however, primarily exists at an unconscious level, such that the biased person is unlikely to be aware that it even exists. This occurs because it is now socially unacceptable to be overtly racist. Yet we all live our lives with stereotypes that are ingrained and often unconscious, implicit biases that endure despite our best efforts to eliminate them.” ~WA Court of Appeals “In this case, the comments by Juror #16 expressed actual bias,” said the Court of Appeals. “Juror #16’s comments demonstrated that he was operating under a false presumption that Hispanic and Latinx persons were not citizens, and if they were not citizens then they were guilty of a crime.” Consequently, the Court ruled that Juror #16’s comments demonstrated ethnic bias sufficient to raise a prima facie showing that he was unqualified to sit as a juror in Mr. Gutierrez’s case. With that, the Court of Appeals reversed Mr. Gutierrez’s criminal conviction: > “Juror #16 expressed actual bias during voir dire by presuming that Hispanic or Latinx defendants were not citizens and were most likely committing an immigration crime. When the attorneys failed to address this bias, the court should have inquired further or excused the juror on its own initiative. Failure to do so is an abuse of discretion. We reverse and remand.” ~WA Court of Appeals. My opinion? Good decision. Illegal racial discrimination in jury selection inflicts harm on excluded jurors, produces wrongful convictions and excessive sentences, and compromises the integrity of the legal system as a whole. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Display of a Firearm & Probable Cause](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/display-of-a-firearm-probable-cause/) **Published:** August 15, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[US v. Willy](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/07/26/21-30006.pdf)* (July 26, 2022), the [Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) held that a defendant’s charges for [Unlawful Display of a Weapon](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.270#:~:text=(1)%20It%20shall%20be%20unlawful,either%20manifests%20an%20intent%20to) were not supported by [Probable Cause](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause). **BACKGROUND FACTS** **Reporting Party #1** On May 12. 2019, the Yakima County’s Sheriff’s Office received a call from a witness (“Reporting Party 1”). The witness stated that a man had pulled up outside of his home in a vehicle and displayed a firearm. Dispatch relayed this information to Deputy Thaxton, who interviewed Reporting Party 1 at his residence. Reporting Party 1 told Deputy Thaxton that a white male in a green truck pulled up on the street in front of his house. The man began talking about being abducted and kept somewhere in the area. The man said he was trying to find the place where he was kept. During the conversation, the man pulled out a semiautomatic pistol, racked the slide, and then put it down. Reporting Party 1 expressed concern about the man’s mental state. He provided Deputy Thaxton with the truck’s license plate number. The vehicle came back as registered to Mr. Willy. Thaxton showed Reporting Party 1 Willy’s Department of Licensing photo, and he identified Willy as the man with whom he had spoken. Reporting Party 1 said that Willy made no threats to him, nor had Willy pointed the pistol at him at any time. **Reporting Party #2** About ten minutes after leaving Reporting Party 1’s residence, Deputy Thaxton responded to another report from dispatch. The second call had come from Reporting Party 2, who lived about three miles from the previous caller. Deputy Thaxton spoke to the second witness over the phone because Reporting Party 2 had already left her residence. Reporting Party 2 stated that a man with a name like “Willis” pulled up to her gate in a green truck when she was leaving her house. “Willis” told her that he had been kidnapped and held in a camouflaged trailer or van in the area and that he was trying to find it. While they were talking, the man told her he was armed and then displayed a pistol and put it away. Reporting Party 2 told the man she did not know the place he was looking for, and he drove away. Reporting Party 2 said that she was not was not directly threatened, nor was Willy argumentative or hostile. Deputy Thaxton located the green truck pulling into a gas station. Once he confirmed the license plate matched the one given to him by Reporting Party 1, Deputy Thaxton turned on his emergency lights and conducted a “high-risk stop.” With his firearm drawn, Deputy Thaxton ordered Willy out of the vehicle. Willy complied with all of Deputy Thaxton’s orders. While making Willy turn around, Deputy Thaxton saw a pistol holstered on his hip. Deputy Thaxton removed the gun, put Willy in handcuffs, and escorted him to the back seat of the police vehicle. After his arrest, a search of Willy’s vehicle and person recovered illegal firearms and a modified CO2 cartridge. Willy was charged with making and possessing a destructive device in violation of the [National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. § 5861](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5861). He was also charged with [Unlawful Display of a Weapon](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.270#:~:text=(1)%20It%20shall%20be%20unlawful,either%20manifests%20an%20intent%20to) under Washington statute. Willy moved to suppress the evidence. The lower federal district court granted the motion to suppress. It found that although Deputy Thaxton had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop, he lacked probable cause to make the arrest. The evidence was “tainted by the illegality of the arrest.” The Government filed a timely notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** First, the Ninth Circuit analyzed the scope of Washington’s Unlawful Display of a Weapon statute. It began with a discussion of how the Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. > “Washington is an open carry state. That means that it is presumptively legal to carry a firearm openly.” ~Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals “The bare fact that Willy displayed a weapon would not be sufficient to stop Willy, because there is no evidence that he was carrying a concealed weapon,” said the Ninth Circuit. Moreover, the reporting parties’ statements that Willy was carrying a gun “created at most a very weak inference that he was unlawfully carrying the gun concealed without a license, and certainly not enough to alone support a [*Terry* stop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop#:~:text=A%20Terry%20stop%20in%20the,which%20is%20needed%20for%20arrest.).” Additionally, the Ninth Circuit emphasized that Thaxton acquired no additional reasons for arresting Willy until after he stopped him. When Thaxton ordered Willy to leave his truck and turn around slowly, Willy was openly carrying his pistol, in a holster on his hip. The Ninth Circuit pointed out that Washington courts have refused to enforce the statute when the threats are not sufficiently direct or imminent. Deputy Thaxton’s suspicion that Willy had violated § 9.41.270 arose not from his own observations but from the accounts of two reporting parties. > “The strongest fact for the government is that Willy racked the slide of his gun in the presence of Reporting Party 1. In context, however, that fact does not demonstrate that Willy was acting in manner that warrants alarm.” ~Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.” With that, the Ninth Circuit next addressed whether the C02 cartridge found in Willy’s car – and his statements to police – should be suppressed as evidence supporting the federal charges. The Ninth Circuit began by saying that under the “fruits of the poisonous tree” doctrine, evidence seized subsequent to a violation of the Fourth Amendment is tainted by the illegality and subject to exclusion, unless it has been sufficiently “purged of the primary taint.” *Wong Sun v. United States*. Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit suppressed that evidence as “fruits of the poisonous tree.” The Ninth Circuit concluded by affirming the lower federal court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress. My opinion? Good decision. The Ninth Circuit gave an accurate assessment of Washington Law surrounding this issue and made the right decision. Washington is indeed an “Open Carry” state. This fact alone challenges many people’s allegations that someone is unlawfully displaying a weapon. Also , the probabale cause alleged in this case was fart too attenuated to be reliable. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you have [Firearms Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/#:~:text=It%20is%20unlawful%20for%20any,manifests%20an%20intent%20to%20intimidate) involving [Search and Seizure issues](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/). Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Fourth Amendment, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Traffic Deaths Increase](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/traffic-deaths-increase/) **Published:** August 19, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2022/08/17/traffic-deaths-us-roads/) from journalist [Ian Duncan](https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/ian-duncan/) of the [Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/) reports that U.S. traffic deaths jumped in 2022, hitting 20-year high. More than 9,500 people were killed in traffic crashes in the first three months of this year, federal transportation officials said Wednesday — a figure that represents the deadliest start to a year on U.S. roads in two decades. In seven states and the District, officials estimated crash deaths jumped at least 50 percent. Nationwide, deaths were up 7 percent compared with the same period last year. The figures are preliminary estimates, and the [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)](https://www.nhtsa.gov/) did not release breakdowns of the causes of crashes. Officials say a surge in traffic fatalities that started in 2020 as the pandemic began has continued unabated. > “The overall numbers are still moving in the wrong direction . . . Now is the time for all states to double down on traffic safety.” ~Steven Cliff, Administrator for NHTSA. **EXPLANATIONS FOR THE SURGE IN TRAFFIC FATALITIES** Experts have struggled to come up with an explanation for the spike in deaths but have pointed to less congestion amid changed driving patterns during the [COVID-19 Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic), which they say have allowed more dangerous speeds. Officials say there’s also evidence of an uptick in [Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/#:~:text=If%20you%20or%20someone%20you,and%20experienced%20criminal%20defense%20attorney.), [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/), [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or [Driving Without a Seatbelt](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.688). The early stages of the pandemic saw roads become emptier as people stayed home. However, drivers quickly returned to their vehicles, even as driving was no longer as dominated by morning and evening commutes. NHTSA reported that Americans drove more than 750 billion miles between January and March, an increase of more than 5 percent compared with 2021. NHTSA reported 7,893 traffic deaths in the first three months of 2020, a period mostly before the onset of the pandemic. In 2021, the figure jumped to 8,935 deaths, then rose to 9,560 this year. The number of deaths this year was the highest in the first three months of a year since 2002. The first quarter is consistently the least deadly on U.S. roads. **SOLUTIONS FROM THE GOVERNMENT** [Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg](https://www.transportation.gov/meet-secretary/secretary-pete-buttigieg) earlier this year said the nation would work to eliminate crash deaths, pledging to adopt a “safe system” approach that would look as much at the design of roads and cars as the behavior of individual drivers. The effort is backed by billions in new safety funding from [last year’s infrastructure law](https://www.transportation.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law), including a $5 billion fund that will provide grants aimed at protecting bicyclists and pedestrians. The infrastructure law included mandates for technology that could address some of the biggest causes of fatalities, such as calling for NHTSA to [require breath monitoring devices for alcohol in new cars](https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2021/11/09/drunk-driving-technology-infrastructure/?itid=lk_inline_manual_23). Such a system is in testing, but a mandate is likely years away. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/#:~:text=If%20you%20or%20someone%20you,and%20experienced%20criminal%20defense%20attorney.), [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/), or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Eluding, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Reckless Driving, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Traffic Infractions, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Right to Counsel At Critical Stages In Criminal Proceedings](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/right-to-counsel-at-critical-stages-in-criminal-proceedings/) **Published:** August 25, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Charleton](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2055544-1-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf)*, the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held that even though a defendant lacks counsel at arraignment, this error is harmless because setting bail has no effect on the remainder of the case. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Mr. Charleton was arrested and held for 72 hours on allegations of a [sex offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/). During his initial appearance he did not have a defense attorney. After the State filed charges, the defendant appeared again without counsel. The court set bail and continued arraignment a few days. At arraignment, the defendant appeared with counsel and was granted release. The judge later found the defendant guilty of child rape and child molestation. The defendant challenged his convictions on arguments that he lacked counsel at a critical stage of the proceedings. Therefore, this failure to appoint counsel violated the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and required reversal of his convictions. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals (COA) gave a 5-part analysis of the legal issues below discussed below: ***The Constitutional Right to Counsel Attached at Charlton’s First Two Court Appearances.*** The COA explained that superior courts are required to process defendants in court as soon as possible, “but in any event before the close of business on the next court day.” A court must provide a lawyer at the “preliminary appearance” pursuant to [court rule](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/CrR/SUP_CrR_03_02_01.pdf). And the right to an attorney accrues as soon as feasible after the individual is taken into custody, appears before a judge, or is formally charged, whichever occurs earliest. Consequently, the COA reasoned that Mr. Charleton’s right to counsel attached after he was charged and appeared for arraignment. ***Charlton’s First Court Appearance Was Not a Critical Stage of the Criminal Proceedings. However, Charlton’s Second Appearance Was a Critical Stage Because the Trial Court Addressed the Setting of Bail.*** Here, the COA explained that a “critical stage” is one which a defendant’s rights may be lost, defenses waived, privileges claimed or waived, or in which the outcome of the case is otherwise substantially affected. Critical stages involve pretrial procedures that would impair defense on the merits if the accused is required to proceed without counsel. ***Even Though Charleton’s Second Appearance Involving Bail Was a Critical Stage, His Appearance Without an Attorney Was Harmless Error.*** The COA reasoned that an error is harmless if the State establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the verdict would have been the same result without the error. Here, the trial court’s imposition of bail on an unrepresented Mr. Charleston had no effect on his case resolution. > “Because of the court’s bail decision and the continuance of the arraignment, Charlton was in jail for an additional 10 days. His brief continued detention certainly did not pervade or contaminate the entire proceeding. Therefore, there was no structural error and we must apply the harmless error analysis.” ~WA Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the COA affirmed Charlton’s convictions. My opinion? Bad decision. Lack of defense counsel at bail hearings can potentially cripple a defendant’s ability to fight the charges. At arraignment, defense attorneys often argue bail and release conditions. A competent defense attorney can persuade the judge to lower the bail recommended by the prosecution. Even better, a defense attorney can persaude the judge to [release the defendant on personal recognizance](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/release_on_one%27s_own_recognizance#:~:text=A%20%E2%80%9Crelease%20on%20one's%20one,without%20having%20to%20post%20bail.). Defendants who are released from jail are better positioned to assist in their defense. They can help locate witnesses, enter treatment programs and contemplate substantive defenses. Please review my [Making Bail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/making-bail/) legal guide and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bail, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Detention, Jail, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Right to Present A Defense, Sex Crimes, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense --- ### [The Increase in Gun Violence Appears To Be The "New Normal"](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/the-increase-in-gun-violence-appears-to-be-new-normal/) **Published:** August 30, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Journalist [Martin Kaste](https://muckrack.com/martin-kaste) [reports in NPR](https://www.npr.org/2022/08/29/1118786281/shootings-during-pandemic-new-normal) that shootings spiked during the Pandemic, and this appears to be the “new normal.” Hopes for a rapid decline in the pandemic murder spike are fading. Although national statistics for 2022 aren’t yet available, [an informal year-to-date tally of murders in major cities ](https://www.ahdatalytics.com/dashboards/ytd-murder-comparison/)is. The total count in those cities has dipped slightly lower than last year, but it’s still [well above pre-pandemic levels](https://www.ahdatalytics.com/dashboards/ytd-murder-comparison/). And in 40% of the cities listed, homicides are trending higher. Some of the worst trouble spots are cities such as [Philadelphia ](https://www.cbsnews.com/philadelphia/news/philadelphia-300-homicides-gun-violence/)and [Baltimore](https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/crime-data-shows-baltimore-is-on-pace-for-its-deadliest-year-in-more-than-a-decade), where year-to-date homicides are rivaling the high tallies of 2020 and 2021. In Portland, Ore., the mayor has [declared an “emergency”](https://www.portland.gov/wheeler/news/2022/7/21/mayor-wheeler-announces-emergency-declaration-help-address-gun-violence) over gun violence, as the city struggles to reel in an annual murder count that shot up to 88 in 2021, from 36 in 2019. Even some smaller cities, such as Little Rock, Ark., are in danger of [eclipsing last year’s murder numbers](https://www.littlerock.gov/media/17675/crime-stats-for-week-ending-aug-15-2022.pdf). **The Nature of Gun Violence Has Changed** But it’s not just that the numbers remain high. The nature of the gun violence itself has changed, according to those who watch these crimes closely. > “The ’90s was more gang-oriented, there was much more organized, sort of targeted shootings . . . Today, it’s petty offenses, petty conflicts, reckless shootings.” ~King County Prosecutor Elyne Vaught Vaught says you can see the “rise in reckless-type shootings” in the county statistics, where the [number of shots fired has more than doubled, compared to the same period in 2019](https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/prosecutor/documents/2022/Shots_Fired_Q2_2022_Report.ashx?la=en), and with more shots fired per victim. According to Kaste’s article, police around the country have noticed this trend. [A new report](https://majorcitieschiefs.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/MCCA-The-State-of-Gun-Violence-in-Americas-Major-Cities.pdf) from the Major Cities Chiefs Association points to “incidents of individuals indiscriminately shooting into large crowds while discharging massive amounts of ammunition,” such as the [April mass shooting in downtown Sacramento](https://www.npr.org/2022/04/03/1090609706/downtown-sacramento-shooting-leaves-at-least-18-victims). The chiefs point to the availability of extended ammunition magazines, as well as the growing popularity of [“auto sear” switches](https://www.thetrace.org/2022/03/auto-sear-gun-chip-glock-switch-automatic-conversion/), small after-market devices that turn semi-automatic Glock pistols into illegal automatics, capable of spraying bullets. (Similar attachments are also exist for AR-15-style rifles, but police worry more about handguns, which are used far more often in crimes.) **Gun Violence Often Starts Online** Temple University criminologist Jason Gravel, who studies how young people acquire and use guns, says the role of social media may be the biggest change of the last few recent years. > “It might look like some random shooting on the street, but if that was preceded by a bunch of verbal threats online or in social media, you don’t see the first part of the conflict, you just see the end result,” ~ Jason Gravel, Temple University Criminologist. **More Guns Are Available** There may have been more guns around for kids to find. Firearms dealers reported record sales during the pandemic, and a [recent article in the Annals of Internal Medicine](https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M21-3423) estimates that 2.9% of U.S. adults became new gun owners. By extension, the authors estimate 5 million children were “newly exposed” to firearms in their households. It’s hard not to view these incidents as yet another result of America’s polarized gun debate. Many Americans hold their right to bear arms, enshrined in the US Constitution, as sacrosanct. But critics of the Second Amendment say that right threatens another: the right to life. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Firearm Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Firearm, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Rainbow Fentanyl](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/rainbow-fentanyl/) **Published:** September 5, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [Drug Enforcement Administration](https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/2022/08/30/dea-warns-brightly-colored-fentanyl-used-target-young-americans) is advising the public of an alarming emerging trend of colorful fentanyl available across the United States. In August 2022, DEA and other police agencies seized brightly-colored fentanyl and fentanyl pills in 18 states. Dubbed “rainbow fentanyl” in the media, this trend appears to be a new method used by drug cartels to sell highly addictive and potentially deadly fentanyl made to look like candy to children and young people. > “Rainbow fentanyl—fentanyl pills and powder that come in a variety of bright colors, shapes, and sizes—is a deliberate effort by drug traffickers to drive addiction amongst kids and young adults . . . The men and women of the DEA are relentlessly working to stop the trafficking of rainbow fentanyl and defeat the Mexican drug cartels that are responsible for the vast majority of the fentanyl that is being trafficked in the United States.” ~DEA Administrator Anne Milgram Brightly-colored fentanyl is being seized in multiple forms, including pills, powder, and blocks that resembles sidewalk chalk. Despite claims that certain colors may be more potent than others, there is no indication through DEA’s laboratory testing that this is the case. Every color, shape, and size of fentanyl should be considered extremely dangerous. [Fentanyl](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fentanyl) is a synthetic opioid that is 50 times more potent than heroin and 100 times more potent than morphine. Just two milligrams of fentanyl, which is equal to 10-15 grains of table salt, is considered a lethal dose. Without laboratory testing, there is no way to know how much fentanyl is concentrated in a pill or powder. Fentanyl remains the deadliest drug threat facing this country. According to the CDC, 107,622 Americans died of drug overdoses in 2021, with 66 percent of those deaths related to synthetic opioids like fentanyl. Drug poisonings are the leading killer of Americans between the ages of 18 and 45. Fentanyl available in the United States is primarily supplied by two criminal drug networks, the Sinaloa Cartel and the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG). In September 2021, DEA launched the [One Pill Can Kill Public Awareness Campaign](https://www.dea.gov/onepill) to educate Americans about the dangers of fake pills. Additional resources for parents and the community can be found on DEA’s [Fentanyl Awareness](https://www.dea.gov/fentanylawareness) page. The DEA advises that if you encounter fentanyl in any form, do not handle it and call 911 immediately. And please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Drug Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, felony, Fentanyl, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [America's Shortage of Criminal Defense Attorneys](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/americas-shortage-of-criminal-defense-attorneys/) **Published:** September 9, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** According to the [*Guardian*](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/07/public-defender-us-criminal-justice-system), America’s public defenders are overworked and underfunded. The situation has reached crisis levels in some states. **The Downward Spiral of Public Defense Since *Gideon v. Wainright.*** In 1963, the landmark [*Gideon v Wainwright* U.S. supreme court ruling](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/155) gave indigent criminal defendants who cannot afford to pay for a lawyer, access to legal counsel. Unfortunately, over the last 50 years, the legal system has failed to live up to *Gideon*. Criminal cases have piled up. The *Guardian* article stated how 53 years on, the rate of incarceration across the country has more than quadrupled compared to 1963 and the vast majority of defendants are indigent. The system is at crisis point. The cornerstone principles of the justice system have been eroded to the breaking point. In recent years the US has begun to reckon with its role as the world’s biggest jailer. It manifests unequal justice system that disproportionately punishes poor people of color. In diagnosing the causes of this problem much of the focus has centered on sentencing reform. But in a country where [95% of criminal cases are settled by plea deal](http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/devils-bargain-how-plea-agreements-never-contemplated-framers-undermine-justice), little attention has been given to the critical state of indigent defense. Around the US, defenders routinely report an increase in overburdening and underfunding, caused by a variety of structural, political and economic drivers. **The Problem is Nationwide.** How bad is the picture around the country? Frustratingly, the scale of the problem remains unknown as dozens of states and jurisdictions produce no reliable data at all on the condition of their public defense systems. As the Innocence Project [reports](https://www.innocenceproject.org/public-defenders-speak-up-and-push-back/), Public Defenders’ caseloads in some US states include about 80 to 100 cases *per week*. That’s about 400 cases per month or more than 4500 cases per year. That’s an impossible schedule to fulfill, no matter how dedicated legal workers are. The last nationwide survey of public defender offices was carried out almost 10 years ago by the Department of Justice’s bureau of justice statistics (BJS). The findings were stark: [73% of county-operated defender systems](http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/clpdo07.pdf), utilized in 27 states, were functioning above the maximum recommended caseload level. In the [22 state centralized defender programs](http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/spdp07.pdf), 15 ran on caseload levels that exceeded the recommended case limit. In a world of meagre measurement and inadequate oversight, many argue the findings were a significant underestimate of the nationwide strain on the system. The underfunding of public defenders threatens very grave consequences for the justice system in Texas and elsewhere. We hear about people who have been charged with minor crimes remaining in jail because they are poor. Harris County Jail in Texas has one of the worst records in this regard. Often public defenders are too busy to give these cases the time they merit. My opinion? Obviously, cash-poor defendants are falling through the cracks. They are languishing in jails when they should have been released. Or their court-appointed attorney is not giving their cases the time and attention they deserve. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Uncategorized **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [When Rap Lyrics Are Used Against You In Court.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/when-rap-lyrics-are-used-against-you-in-court/) **Published:** September 15, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Journalist [Sam Levins](https://www.theguardian.com/profile/sam-levin) [reports](https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/03/california-mckinley-mac-phipps-rap-music-black-rappers) that California could soon limit the admissibility of rap lyric evidence at trial. Last week, California lawmakers [passed](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-08-28/california-rap-lyrics-bill-evidence-criminal-court-recording-industry-young-thug) new regulations meant to restrict such use of rap lyrics as evidence in criminal court, the first-of-its-kind legislation expected to become law in the US. Experts say that although the impact of the new policy will be narrow, it is a step forward in putting guardrails on a prosecutorial practice that all too often has worked to [criminalize the artistic expression](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/01/drakeo-the-ruler-los-angeles-rapper-songs) of young Black and Latino men. **THE HISTORY BEHIND ADMITTING RAP LYRICS AS EVIDENCE AT TRIAL.** According to the article, [more than 500 reported cases](https://thecrimereport.org/2019/09/11/rap-on-trial-how-an-art-form-became-a-courtroom-weapon/) of prosecutors using rap music as evidence against defendants. The practice started to surge in the 2000s, when authorities began to rely on social media in cases against amateur rappers. The lyrics are typically cited to suggest “gang affiliation”, proof of crimes and intent, or demonstrate a rapper’s “violent” character or threats. The strategy was [used](https://www.npr.org/2021/03/12/976547677/louder-than-a-riot-lyrics-on-trial) against famous artists like [Snoop Dogg](https://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-snoopphilips7nov0793-story.html) in the 1990s, [Drakeo the Ruler in 2018](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/01/drakeo-the-ruler-los-angeles-rapper-songs) and [Tekashi 6ix9ine](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-controversial-use-of-rap-lyrics-as-evidence) in 2019. [Professor Jack Lerner](https://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/lerner/), a University of California, Irvine Law School professor, is an [expert on the subject](https://cpb-us-e2.wpmucdn.com/sites.uci.edu/dist/d/2220/files/2022/08/Rap-on-Trial-Legal-Guide-v1.1.pdf). He says the tactic is used across the nation. Apparently, the [American Prosecutors Research Institute](https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/features/nonprofit-spotlight/american-prosecutors-research-institute) released a 2004 [manual](https://ndaa.org/wp-content/uploads/gang_cases1.pdf) encouraging the use of lyrics in search warrants and trials. **RAP MUSIC ON TRIAL.** Although there are rare cases where words or music videos may be linked to specific criminal offenses, experts say research shows their use in court has often worked to prejudice jurors against young men of color. Multiple studies have found that associating defendants with rap music creates a strong negative bias in jurors. People are significantly more likely to [perceive](https://cpb-us-e2.wpmucdn.com/sites.uci.edu/dist/d/2220/files/2022/08/Rap-on-Trial-Legal-Guide-v1.1.pdf) lyrics as violent, offensive, dangerous and literal if they are from rap, compared to other genres. Researchers have also [found](https://cpb-us-e2.wpmucdn.com/sites.uci.edu/dist/d/2220/files/2022/08/Rap-on-Trial-Legal-Guide-v1.1.pdf) widespread [examples](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d0ac0a764661500012e7d1e/t/5d0c3f626f8b6a0001243476/1561083747149/A+Dennis+Poetic%28In%29Justice.pdf) of prosecutors taking lyrics out of context, presenting them in inaccurate and misleading ways, treating fictional lines as facts or confessions and using music to expand charges and secure [convictions](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d0ac0a764661500012e7d1e/t/5d0c3f83be0d9c00017364a5/1561083779974/E+Nielson+Rap+on+Trial.pdf) and lengthy sentences. > “Prosecutors talk to each other and see this is a very effective tactic, and that it’s unlikely to be reversed on appeal. So why wouldn’t you do this if your goal is to lock people up, whether they’re guilty or not?” ~[Dr. Erik Nielson](https://spcs.richmond.edu/contact/enielson/), University of Richmond Professor **CALIFORNIA’S PROPOSED LAW BANNING THE ADMISSION OF RAP LYRIC EVIDENCE AT TRIAL.** The new California [law](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2799) places limits on when prosecutors can cite defendants’ “creative expression” in court. It applies to all genres of music, dance, film and other art forms, though the law acknowledges that using rap lyrics in particular creates a substantial risk of prejudice. [Reggie Jones-Sawyer](https://ballotpedia.org/Reginald_Jones-Sawyer) is the California state representative behind the bill. The law requires judges to hold a hearing without the jury present to consider the admissibility of the evidence and whether it would “inject racial bias into the proceedings”. A pending [bill](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/S7527) in New York introduced earlier this year would prohibit rap lyrics unless there was “convincing proof that there is a literal, factual nexus between the creative expression and the facts of the case”. Federal lawmakers have introduced legislation similar to California’s bill, and the Recording Academy and major labels have [backed](https://abcnews.go.com/US/california-senate-passes-bill-limiting-rap-lyrics-court/story?id=88736307) the reforms. **WASHINGTON LAW ON CHARACTER EVIDENCE.** Under [Evidence Rule 404](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/ER/GA_ER_04_04_00.pdf), evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is generally not admissible as character evidence. However, the evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. Judges typically apply a [balancing test ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_403) to determine whether character evidence is relevant, probative or prejudicial. My opinion? Let’s hope California’s legislation passes. This is a viable way to stop overzealous prosecutors from using creative expression, which should never be prohibited. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Harassment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/harassment/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, ER 401, ER 402, ER 403, ER 404(B), Evidence, Harassment, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Why Aren't Collector License Plate Infractions Enforced?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/whay-arent-collector-license-plate-laws-prioritized-or-enforced/) **Published:** September 19, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Why don’t police strictly enforce Collector License Plate infractions? Is this a no-priority enforcement situation? [Doug Dahl](https://www.tri-cityherald.com/profile/223955915) of [Target Zero](https://wtsc.wa.gov/programs-priorities/target-zero-managers/) gives [answers](https://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/local/article265858391.html) in a recent news article. Under [Washington law](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.18.220), collector vehicle license plates cannot be used for regular transportation, commercial purpose or carrying a load. The law allows vehicles that are at least 30 years old and in good running condition to be licensed as collector vehicles. The upside of registering your car as a classic is that collector vehicle plates are valid for the life of the vehicle. You never have to pay for your tabs again. The tradeoff is that a collector vehicle has limitations. The law states that they “may only be used for participation in club activities, exhibitions, tours, parades, and occasional pleasure driving.” You might think lots of people would be tempted to register their cars as collectible, but time and wear makes this a somewhat self-enforcing law. Your old college car is most likely no longer on the road. The few cars that last that long usually do because they’re actually worth keeping. I’ve asked a lot of cops why they got into the job, and so far none of them have said it was because they wanted to collect taxes. That doesn’t mean there’s no enforcement of registration laws, but it’s understandably less than some other violations. As far as I know, misuse of a collector plate has never been listed as contributing to a traffic collision. > “Given the limited policing resources, it makes sense to focus enforcement efforts on the highest-risk behaviors. No one likes getting a speeding ticket, but the most current research confirms that traffic enforcement that targets dangerous behaviors does save lives. There are laws we want enforced because it annoys us that someone is getting away with something, and there are laws we want enforced to intervene in high-risk driving behaviors. I know what I’d pick.” ~[Doug Dahl](https://www.tri-cityherald.com/profile/223955915), a [Target Zero](https://wtsc.wa.gov/programs-priorities/target-zero-managers/) Manager Communications Lead, Mr Dahl lists the top four factors in fatal crashes in our state along with the percentage of crashes they’re involved in: ▪[Impairment](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.502) (56%). ▪[Speeding](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.400) (31%). ▪[No Seat Belt Use](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.688) (23%). ▪[Distracted Driving](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.673) (20%). Dahl adds that while enforcement decisions shouldn’t be made based on what’s easiest, in this case it works. Impairment, speed, distraction and seat belt use are all clearly observable behaviors. However, if an officer sees a collector plate at a grocery store or campground, who’s to say that isn’t occasional pleasure use? Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other vehicular crimes. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Uncategorized **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Crime Lab Delays Get Criminal Conviction Reversed & Case Dismissed.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/crime-lab-delays-get-criminal-conviction-reversed-case-dismissed/) **Published:** September 28, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Denton*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=374971MAJ), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) reversed the defendant’s criminal convictions and dismissed his case because the trial court wrongully granted continuances solely based on routine crime lab delays processing DNA results. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** The victim Mrs. Denton divorced the defendant, Bradley Denton, in 2012. The couple later reconciled but Mr. Denton resumed using drugs. Mrs. Denton ended the relationship for good after about a year. When Mr. Denton persisted in contacting her, Mrs. Denton obtained an order for protection against him. That fall, Mrs. Denton, who had moved to Tumwater, returned to Yakima for a family gathering. Mr. Denton was aware she was in town. On the morning after the family gathering, Mr. Denton arrived uninvited at the home where Mrs. Denton and other family members were staying. A sexual assault allegedly occurred. Mrs. Denton reported the assault to the Tumwater Police Department. An officer took a recorded statement, arranged for her to undergo a sexual assault examination. Police picked up the clothing had been wearing when assaulted. They referred the matter to the Yakima Police Department. About a week later, Mr. Denton, who had been arrested for unrelated reasons and was incarcerated in the Yakima County Jail, placed a phone call to Felicia. Mrs. Denton did not accept the first call. However, after speaking with police, she accepted three calls from Mr. Denton. On October 26, Mr. Denton was charged with assault in violation of a protection order, [second degree rape](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/), and two counts of misdemeanor [violation of a protection order](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/no-contact-order-violations/#:~:text=Under%20statute%2C%20a%20violation%20of,well%20as%20mandatory%20DV%20penalties.). All were charged as [domestic violence offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/). Mr. Denton was held in jail for 15 months during the pendency of his case. Over his objections, the trial court granted two continuances. The continuances extended Denton’s trial date four and a half months beyond period provided by CrR 3.3. The judge granted the continuances because the Prosecutor said that a nine-month turnaround by the crime lab was to be expected. The jury found Mr. Denton guilty of all charges. He appealed his conviction on arguments that the 15-month delay between his arraignment and trial violated his speedy-trial rights under [CrR 3.3](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/CrR/SUP_CrR_03_03_00.pdf). **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The WA Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion by granting continuances based on evidence of routine administrative delay by the WA State Patrol Crime Lab. The Court reasoned that CrR 3.3(b)(1) requires a defendant who is detained in jail to be brought to trial within 60 days of arraignment. Mr. Denton was detained in jail, so the 60-day limit applies, reasoned the Court. “The purpose underlying CrR 3.3 is to protect a defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial,“ said the Court. “Past experience has shown that unless a strict rule is applied, the right to a speedy trial as well as the integrity of the judicial process, cannot be effectively preserved.” Furthermore, the Court reasoned that the fact that DNA evidence may prove exculpatory is not a basis for continuing the time for trial over a defendant’s objection. It emphasized that the State’s requests for continuances must be supported by a better record. Finally, the Court reasoned that dismissal is required: > “Presented with a record in which the sole basis for the two continuances was routine crime lab delay, we are left with no choice but to reverse Mr. Denton’s convictions and direct the superior court to dismiss the charges with prejudice. We deplore this outcome given the violent nature of Mr. Denton’s crimes, but it is the strict remedy that drafters of the rule perceived as needed to ensure that criminal cases will be promptly prepared for trial and heard.” ~WA Court of Appeals. With that, the Court of Appeals reversed Mr. Denton’s conviction and dismissed the case with prejudice. The case emphasized that if a convicted defendant can establish a violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial, the court must set aside the conviction, vacate the sentence, and dismiss the charging document. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Speedy Trial & Continuances, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Can Community Court Work in Whatcom County?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/can-community-court-work-in-whatcom-county/) **Published:** October 1, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article](https://www.cascadiadaily.com/news/2022/sep/26/could-a-community-court-work-in-whatcom/) by journalist [Julia Lerner](https://muckrack.com/julia-lerner) posed the question of whether a Community Court can become a viable service in Whatcom County. **THE NEED EXISTS & THE TIME IS RIGHT.** Ms. Lerner’s article emphasizes that Whatcom County’s criminal justice system is in turmoil: “Between the [COVID-19 Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic), an [aging jail](https://www.cascadiadaily.com/news/2022/aug/23/whatcom-mayors-to-jail-planners-action-is-needed-now/), [understaffed police departments](https://www.cascadiadaily.com/news/2022/jan/23/police-acknowledge-slower-response-times-as-crime/), [rising crime rates](https://www.cascadiadaily.com/news/2022/sep/13/town-hall-meeting-to-address-rising-crime-in-bellingham/) and shifting state legislation, the system is struggling to support the needs of the community,” writes Lerner. And the time is right. Whatcom County’s upcoming judicial elections bring candidates offering their various positions on the sustainability of a local Community Court. **WHAT IS COMMUNITY COURT?** A community court is an alternative problem-solving court. It seeks to identify and address the underlying challenges of court participants that may contribute to further criminal activity. Its goal is to build stronger and safer neighborhoods and reduce recidivism. The community court approach is designed to connect people charged with misdemeanors, including trespassing charges often levied against homeless individuals, with resources to help them access food, shelter and literacy programs. It calls for less jail time, more community service and a significant increase in local resources for those seeking mental health and addiction treatment and affordable housing. Community courts provide services and accountability for those who are eligible and choose to participate. An assessment is conducted for all community court participants to identify their challenges and strengths. The assessment provides information to help determine what follow-up steps an individual community court participant will be required to take. Among other actions, participants often are required to perform community service. Community court increases collaboration between the criminal justice system and other systems. They may help address mental health, substance use, human services, housing, employment and education. My opinion? I’ve had many clients get their criminal charges dismissed via Community Court when that option is available. Community Courts follow a non-punitive, therapeautic model of criminal justice. And it’s a great option for defendants who are committed to do the work. Community Courts reduce recidivism, increase safety and they build a stronger community. That said, they require time, money and political will to be effective. A community resource center is an integral component of a successful community court. The resource center should includes on-site community partners that provide a wide array of services. People need access to healthcare/insurance, education, job training, behavioral health, substance use disorder help and more. By coming together in one place, many different community service agencies are better able to collaborate. Resource centers should be made available to all members of the public in addition to the community court participants. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Community Court, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [President Biden Pardons Those With Federal Convictions for Possessing Marijuana](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/president-biden-pardons-those-with-federal-convictions-for-possessing-marijuana/) **Published:** October 7, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** WASHINGTON – President Joe Biden announced that he is [pardoning people with federal convictions for simple possession of marijuana](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/10/06/biden-proclamation-pardoning-marijuana/8199567001/). This is a historic move that could help more than 6,500 people. And it sends a powerful message on how such actions should be treated. The vast majority of convictions occur at the state level. The president is urging governors to likewise pardon those offenders. [More than 540,000 people](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/08/17/marijuana-laws-convictions-brittney-griner/10206892002/) were arrested for marijuana-related offenses in 2019 —primarily for state offenses, according to the FBI. “Too many lives have been upended because of our failed approach to marijuana,” Biden [said in a video announcement](https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1578108939174281218). “It’s time that we right these wrongs.” Biden is also asking the departments of Justice, and Health and Human Services to review how marijuana should be scheduled under federal law. White House officials said the president is making the move to fulfill a campaign promise as efforts in Congress to address the issue have stalled. > “As I often said during my campaign for president, no one should be in jail just for using or possessing marijuana. Sending people to prison for possessing marijuana has upended too many lives and incarcerated people for conduct that many states no longer prohibit.” ~President Joe Biden Biden said the “collateral consequences” of convictions for marijuana possession include being denied employment, housing, or educational opportunities. He also said Black and brown people have been arrested and convicted at disproportionate rates despite using marijuana at similar rates as white people. The Justice Department will issue certificates of pardons to those eligible. That process will begin implementation “in coming days,” according to department spokesman Anthony Coley. The pardons will apply to those convicted under the District of Columbia’s drug laws, which covers “thousands” more people, according to the White House. The president’s pardon also blocks future federal prosecutions for simple possession. Marijuana is a Schedule 1 substance under the Controlled Substances Act. The classification is meant for the most dangerous substances. It represents drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Other Schedule 1 drugs include heroin and LSD, while fentanyl and methamphetamine are Schedule 2 substances. Over the years, Congress has enacted dozens of mandatory minimum sentencing laws for all drug-related offenses that led to longer incarceration periods. Repeat offenders were subjected to compulsory sentence enhancements such as doubling up penalties, which vary by substance. Some have even faced mandatory life imprisonment without parole if convicted of a third serious offense, per various reports by the United States Sentencing Commission. The Justice Department will work with the Department of Health and Human Services on a “scientific review” of marijuana’s classification. There is no deadline for that review. **Read the Proclamation:**[President Joe Biden’s proclamation on granting pardon for the offense of simple possession of marijuana](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/10/06/biden-proclamation-pardoning-marijuana/8199567001/) My opinion? Excellent move. The President made a significant step in addressing the systemic racism within the criminal justice system. And it’s progressive. Medical use of cannabis products is allowed in 37 states and the District of Columbia. It can be used recreationally in 19 states and the District of Columbia. It’s time we decriminalize it. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Drug Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Mental Health & High-Potency Cannabis](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/mental-health-high-potency-cannabis/) **Published:** October 15, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Journalist [Hannah Furfaro](https://www.seattletimes.com/author/cap-hannah-furfaro/) for the Seattle Times [reports](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/mental-health/should-wa-ban-high-potency-cannabis-researchers-warn-of-mental-health-risks/) that research warns of the mental health risks of high-potency cannabis. Such products are setting off alarm bells for physicians and a group of research scientists in the Pacific Northwest, who see the wide availability of dabs and other highly concentrated substances as a quiet but growing threat to public health, especially among young adults and teenagers. Lawmakers are considering new regulations, like a THC cap or higher tax on potent products**.** However, retailers and suppliers are pushing back. They point out that these products are already illegal for those under 21. And they warn that bans or increasing taxes on certain products could spur the growth of an illegal drug market. Nevertheless, scientists point to [emerging](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(22)00161-4/fulltext) evidence from studies in adults that link high-potency THC to an increased risk of experiencing psychosis. Moreso, there’s a heightened risk of [developing psychosis years earlier](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32059350/) than would otherwise be expected in people at risk for the condition. [Psychosis ](https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/understanding-psychosis)involves a loss of contact with reality, and symptoms can include delusions and hallucinations. [A large body of research](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(18)30342-0/fulltext#:~:text=Epidemiological%20and%20experimental%20evidence%20demonstrates,the%20severity%20of%20cannabis%20dependence.) links cannabis use in youths to psychotic symptoms. Anecdotally, pediatricians here report an increasing number of teenagers in emergency rooms with psychotic episodes. They’ve also experienced disorientation and severe vomiting, called cannabis hyperemesis syndrome. Whether such products should be further regulated — and how to do so — raises complex questions for policymakers. So far, only [Vermont](https://legislature.vermont.gov/bill/status/2022/H.548) and [Connecticut](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2022/sup/chap_420h.htm) included caps on high THC concentrations in their cannabis-legalization bills — both at 60% THC. California is considering legislation requiring cannabis producers to include a label warning of potential mental health consequences and other risks. A majority of teens in the Northwest don’t use cannabis. But among those who do, they increasingly report use of dabs and other alternatives to smoking. According to Washington’s 2021 Healthy Youth Survey, about 33% of Washington 12th graders who use cannabis reported that they dabbed it. And in Oregon, the portion of youth who use cannabis and reported dabbing jumped from [26%](https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/BIRTHDEATHCERTIFICATES/SURVEYS/OREGONHEALTHYTEENS/Documents/2017/Gender/11th/Marijuana11.pdf) to [36%](https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/BIRTHDEATHCERTIFICATES/SURVEYS/OREGONHEALTHYTEENS/Documents/2019/Gender/11th/Marijuana11.pdf) from 2017-2019. Pediatricians say they’re already witnessing what happens when youth with little or no THC tolerance try extremely potent products. Some wind up having a psychotic episode or experiencing temporary cognitive impairment, like trouble with simple motor tasks, finding words or remembering something they were just told. Others who’ve built up a tolerance to high-THC products seek help after severe bouts of vomiting, dehydration and stomach pain, symptoms of CHS. > “Are people really seeing this or are we just blowing smoke here? I’m totally seeing it. I see it at least three or four times a week,” ~Dr. Cora Breuner, Professor of Pediatrics at UW and a Physician at Seattle Children’s Hospital. The question of how to address concentrates comes down to whether state regulations would embolden a more dangerous black market. Policymakers are weighing several options, including raising age limits or marketing restrictions on high-potency products, charging higher taxes, adding THC caps and launching more robust public health awareness campaigns. Industry and consumer experts vigorously campaigned against Davis’ THC cap proposals and continue to argue that new restrictions will lead to worse public health outcomes as unregulated products may contain pesticides or dangerous additives. “(Our) top priority is a safe and quality-controlled marketplace that works to keep products away from kids,” Vicki Christophersen, executive director and lobbyist for Washington CannaBusiness Association, which represents producers and retailers across the state, wrote to The Seattle Times. “A return to prohibition policies is a threat to an open, transparent sector and inadvertently supports the illicit market, which operates in the dark.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Drug Offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, marijuana, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Mutually Violating No-Contact Orders With Protected Parties](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/mutually-violating-no-contact-orders-with-protected-parties/) **Published:** February 9, 2026 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Veith,* ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2059783-7-II%20Unpublished%20Opinion.pdf)the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held that [Washington’s second-degree burglary statute](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.52.030) does not require a “nexus” between the unlawful entry and the crime the defendant intends to commit in the building. Here, the defendant committed second degree burglary by **(1)** unlawfully entering a grocery store in violation of a trespass order, and **(2)** with the intent to commit the crime of violating a Domestic Violence No Contact Order, the defendant entered the store together with a protected person. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** On August 17, 2023, a grocery store trespassed Mr. Veith from its premises. Ten days later, on August 27, Veith went to the store and bought groceries with his ex-spouse. The store’s loss prevention officer observed Veith grocery shopping on surveillance video and called the police. Later, police contacted Mr. Veith and his ex-spouse inside a van in the store parking lot. It was determined there was a no-contact order (NCO) prohibiting Veith from being in the presence of his ex-spouse. The State charged Veith with felony violation of a protection order—domestic violence and second degree burglary. At trial, the jury found Veith guilty as charged. On appeal, Veith argued that the second degree burglary statute should be read as requiring a “nexus” between the unlawful entry into a building and the intent to commit a crime therein. However, the Court of Appeals (COA) disagreed. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** First the COA explained that the second degree burglary statute sets forth the elements of second degree burglary: **(1)** entering or remaining unlawfully in a building other than a vehicle or dwelling, and **(2)** with the intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein. Next, the COA raised and dismissed Veith’s arguments that a “nexus” must exist: > “Nothing in the plain language of the second degree burglary statute requires a nexus between the unlawful entry and the crime being committed within the building and we cannot add words to the otherwise unambiguous plain language of the burglary statute.” ~WA Court of Appeals. With that, the COA affirmed Mr. Veith’s conviction. My opinion? This case reveals how seriously our courts consider cases involving DV and No-Contact Orders. It’s generally known that violating a no-contact or restraining order would result in a burglary charge if you unlawfully enter a protected person’s home or premises with the intent to commit a crime, such as assault or harassment. Nowadays, simply being in a public place with a protected party who mutually consents to violating the NCO *right along with you* can result in burglary charges. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Burglary](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/), [Domestic Violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Burglary, Domestic Violence, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Indigenous Prisoners in Walla Walla Gather for Pow wow](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/indigenous-prisoners-in-walla-walla-gather-for-pow-wow/) **Published:** October 15, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Journalist [Karina Brown](https://www.underscore.news/team/karina-brown) reports in [Undersore News](https://www.underscore.news/reporting/indigenous-prisoners-hold-first-powwow-since-2019) that Native American prisoners at the State Penitentiary hosted their first powwow in three years. This reunites a 50-year tradition temporarily halted by the [Covid-19 Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic). “Today is a big day, to be able to see our families,” said Yakama inmate Tallon Saluskin. “And to get to show love.” Thirty-seven Indigenous inmates and 75 guests attended the first of 22 powwows scheduled for September and October in Washington state prisons. It was the first time the [Washington State Department of Corrections](https://www.doc.wa.gov/) (WDOC) allowed an outdoor powwow in a medium-security prison. There was drumming and dancing, plus a feast of salmon, buffalo stew and fry bread. Late in the afternoon, prisoners presented handmade gifts to nearly every attendee. The lack of powwows, sweat lodges and other Native American religious ceremonies during the pandemic made a difficult time period even harder. That painful stretch of time without religious ceremonies ended sooner for prisoners who participated in other religions. But [Native Americans are incarcerated in the United States at higher rates than any other racial category, after African Americans](https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/p20st.pdf). Though they make up 1.9% of the population of Washington State, nearly 5% of the people jailed in state prisons in Washington are Native American. Consequently, Covid restrictions in prison were especially detrimental to Indigenous faith practices. **Bringing Pow wows To Prisons Was Hard-Fought.** Restrictions under the pandemic caused an absence of ceremony comparable only to one other period of time at least 50 years ago. In 2010, the WDOC sharply curtailed the Indigenous faith practices it allowed. At issue were budget cuts and a dispute over whether to allow children to attend powwows. But the religious rights of Indigenous prisoners are protected under the First Amendment, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 and rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court including the 1979 case Bell v. Wolfish, which found that prisoners “do not forfeit all Constitutional protections by reason of their conviction and confinement in prison.” Ten tribes petitioned the governor for a reversal of the 2010 policies, but it took over two years for the WDOC to restore Native prisoners’ religious rights. My opinion? This tradition brings healing and strength. And society must recognize that the rehabilitation of inmates would be enhanced if their religious and cultural practices were permitted. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Prison, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Prosecutor's Filing Delay Held Unconstitutional](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/prosecutors-filing-delay-held-unconstitutional/) **Published:** October 21, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Stearns*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=821253MAJ), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that the Prosecutor’s delay in filing charges violated the defendant’s due process rights. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** In November 2020, a jury found Mr. Stearns guilty of [felony murder in the first degree](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.32.030) with [sexual motivation](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.835). The charges arose from a 1988 incident where the victim’s body was discovered at a park. In 2004, DNA evidence retrieved from the victim and scene connected Stearns to the incident. In 2005, law enforcement interviewed Mr. Stearns. The prosecutor assigned to the case later acknowledged that sufficient probable cause existed to charge Stearns with the murder. However, the proseutor did not file charges until 2017. By then, multiple eyewitnesses interviewed by police in 1998 passed away during the delay between the State’s development of probable cause and charging. However, the trial court denied Stearns’s pretrial motion to dismiss based on preaccusatorial delay. In January 2020, a jury trial ultimately resulted in a hung jury. The court declared a mistrial. The State retried Stearns in November 2020. This time, the jury found Stearns guilty as charged. On appeal, Stearns argued that the lower court’s ruling on preaccusatorial delay deprived him of a fair trial. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals (COA) said that under *[State v. Maynard](https://casetext.com/case/state-v-maynard-72)*, a court will dismiss a prosecution for preaccusatorial delay if the State’s intentional or negligent delay violates a defendant’s due process rights. Here, the filing delay actually prejudiced the defendant because a key eyewitness died months after the State filed charges and was unavailable for trial. Furthermore, the State’s reasons for the negligent filing delay were significantly outweighed by the actual prejudice to the defendant. The prosecutor’s heavy caseload and the defendant’s lengthy incarceration on another case were not valid reasons for the late filing. The Court of Appeals also reasoned the State violated the fundamental conceptions of justice by failing to file a murder charge with well-developed probable cause for 12 years. This late filing happened despite repeated status inquiries from other investigators and government actors involved in its investigation. With that, the Court of Appeals reversed Stearn’s conviction and dismissed the case with prejudice. Some legal insight is necessary. Pre-accusation delay motions (hereinafter “Due Process Motions”) are common among [cold-case](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_case) murders. For instance, investigators may not have enough evidence to legally effectuate an arrest at the time of the murder. The case goes “cold” until years later when DNA evidence links the original suspect to the murder. Due Process motions are brought to protect a criminal defendant for unfair delays which makes putting forth a defense impossible. To establish a due process violation a defendant must demonstrate prejudice. That is, the defendant must show that the pre-indictment delay impaired his or her ability to defend against the charge. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime involving filing delays. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Homicide & Manslaughter, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Prosecutor's Use of Term "Mexican Ounce" At Trial Was Race-Based Misconduct](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/prosecutors-saying-mexican-ounce-at-trial-was-misconduct-leading-to-conviction-getting-reversed/) **Published:** October 28, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Ibarra-Erives*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=828894MAJ) (9/19/2022), the WA Court of Appeals reversed the defendant’s drug conviction because the Prosecutor ‘s use of the term “Mexican ounce” at trial was an intentional appeal to jurors’ potential bias. **BACKGROUND FACTS** In June 2018, the Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force executed a search warrant to recover drugs and related evidence in an apartment. A detective persuaded Mr. Ibarra Erives to open the door. Officers then “pulled him out onto the front landing” and arrested him. On the kitchen counter, police found white powder later determined to be methamphetamine. On the closet shelf in a bedroom, officers discovered a backpack. The backpack contained seven one-ounce “bindles” of methamphetamine and five bindles of heroin. The backpack did not contain any information identifying its owner. On the shelf next to the backpack, police found a digital scale and a box of plastic sandwich bags. Ibarra-Erives admitted that he “temporarily” lived at the apartment. He told police he sometimes slept on the couch and sometimes on the pile of blankets officers observed in bedroom where they found the backpack. Ibarra-Erives said the prescription medication and clothes found on the floor of the bedroom were his. But he denied owning the backpack. When police searched Ibarra-Erives’ pockets, they found a broken glass pipe used for smoking methamphetamine that had white residue and burn marks on it. He also had $591 in cash in his wallet. The State charged Ibarra-Erives with [unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to manufacture or deliver](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.401#:~:text=(1)%20Except%20as%20authorized%20by,or%20deliver%2C%20a%20controlled%20substance.&text=(e)%20A%20substance%20classified%20in,20%20RCW.). At trial, Ibarra-Erives, who is Latinx, used a Spanish interpreter. During the State’s case in chief, the prosecutor questioned the lead detective about the amount of drugs found in the backpack in room. The detective testified that each “bindle” of methamphetamine weighed 28 grams, or 1 ounce. He then described the bindles of heroin, which each weighed 24.6 grams. He explained that for heroin, “25 grams is considered an ounce.” When asked why, the detective responded, “I don’t know what the answer is to why, but the term on the street is it’s a [Mexican ounce](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Mexican%20Ounce) across the board, regardless of who is selling or buying 25 grams of a Mexican ounce.” Then in his closing argument to the jury, the prosecutor twice emphasized that each bindle of heroin had been packaged as a “Mexican ounce.” The jury convicted Ibarra-Erives as charged. He appealed his conviction on arguments that the prosecutor’s remarks suggested that a Latinx person likely packed or possessed the drugs. He argues the prosecutor used this gratuitous reference to connect him to the drugs. Consequently, this terminology invoked stereotypes of Mexican drug-dealing and dishonesty against him. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals reversed Ibarra-Erives’ conviction. The Court reasoned that a prosecutor’s zealous pursuit of justice is not without boundaries. However, prosecutors have a duty to the defendant to uphold their right to a fair trial. > “Prosecutors commit misconduct when they use arguments designed to arouse the passions or prejudices of the jury . . . These kinds of arguments create a danger that the jury may convict for reasons other than the evidence produced at trial. In cases where race should be irrelevant, racial considerations, in particular, can affect a juror’s impartiality and must be removed. ~WA Court of Appeals. The Court further reasoned that an objective observer could view the prosecutor’s references “Mexican ounce” to describe the way heroin was packaged for sale as an intentional appeal to the jury’s potential bias. The term specifically suggests that the defendant was more likely to have possessed drugs packed to a “Mexican ounce” because he speaks Spanish and appears to be Latinx. > “Testimony that heroin is packaged in an amount commonly sold on the street is probative of an intent to sell the drugs. But the street term attributing that practice to a particular racial or ethnic group is not. And when the defendant appears to be a member of that same racial or ethnic group, such comments improperly suggest that he is more likely to have packaged or possessed the drugs.” ~WA Court of Appeals With that, the WA Court of Appeals reversed the conviction. My opinion? Good decision. The prosecution took advantage of despicable stereotypes. In the State’s closing argument at trial, the prosecutor used the term “Mexican ounce” two times. The prosecutor’s use of the term was an apparently intentional appeal to jurors’ potential bias. It improperly suggested that Mr. Ibarra-Erives was more likely to have possessed drugs packed to a “Mexican ounce” merely because he speaks Spanish and appeared to be Latinx. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [drug offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, felony, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["Solicitation" Requires Monetary Value](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/solicitation-requires-monetary-value/) **Published:** November 1, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Valdiglesias LaValle* ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=828690MAJ)(10/10/22), the WA Court of Appels overturned a conviction for Solicitation to commit Murder in the First Degree. Here, the defendant’s statement to her son that they would be “together forever” after the son poisoned his father to death was not a solicitation based on monetary value. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Ms. Valdiglesias LaValle was born and raised in Peru. She met Mr. Grady, who is 25 years older than her, through an online dating application. Grady brought Valdiglesias LaValle to Skagit County where they got married in 2008. During their marriage, they had two children, S.G. and J.G. By 2014, Grady and Valdiglesias LaValle no longer resided together. Grady filed for dissolution in 2015. Following the dissolution, Valdiglesias LaValle was initially awarded custody, and Grady was required to pay her child support. However, in 2019, the court awarded Grady full custody, and Valdiglesias LaValle was ordered to pay child support to Grady. Valdiglesias LaValle was granted four-hour unsupervised weekly visitation with her children. On June 2, 2020, Grady drove 10-year-old S.G. and eight-year-old J.G. to Valdiglesias LaValle’s residence for a four-hour visitation. S.G. went into Valdiglesias LaValle’s bedroom because S.G. heard her and J.G. talking about “bad stuff” and “rat poison.” S.G. decided to record the conversation. In short, Valdiglesias LaValle’s persuaded S.G. to administer rat poison to Mr. Grady’s drink. In exchange, Valdiglesias LaValle promised they would be “together forever” after the son poisoned his father Mr. Grady. Shortly after, Mr. Grady picked up S.G. and J.G. S.G. shared the recording with Grady. Eventually, Child Protective Services and the police department were informed. The State charged Valdiglesias LaValle with [Solicitation](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.28.030) to commit [Murder in the First Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/) and [Solicitation](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.28.030) to commit [Assault in the First Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/). Valdiglesias LaValle argued a 3.6 Motion to Suppress the audio recording and a *Knapstad* Motion to Dismiss. The court denied both motions. At trial, a jury convicted her on both counts. Valdiglesias LaValle appealed her conviction on arguments that contends that her statement to S.G., that they will be “together forever,” is not a “thing of value” as provided in Washington’s criminal solicitation statute. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals began by describing Washington’s criminal solicitation statute: > “A person is guilty of criminal solicitation when, with intent to promote or facilitate the commission of a crime, he or she offers to give or gives money or other thing of value to another to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such crime or which would establish complicity of such other person in its commission or attempted commission had such crime been attempted or committed.”RCW 9A.28.030(1) (emphasis added). The Court emphasized that the term “thing of value” is not defined in the statute or anywhere in the statute. Next, the Court reviewed the plain language of the Solicitation statute. It stated that the relevant language at issue is the requirement that a person ‘offers to give . . . money or other thing of value’ to engage in the conduct. “Here, the phrase ‘thing of value’ is immediately preceded by the term ‘money,'” said the Court. “If the statute was meant to reach anything of value — which would be extremely broad — there would be no need to distinguish “money” separately from “other thing of value.” The Court concluded by saying it is not enough to simply command, encourage, or request another person to engage in specific conduct that would constitute a crime. In light of the above, the term “thing of value” under RCW 9A.28.030(1) contemplates things, tangible or intangible, that have monetary value. With that, the Court of Appeals reversed Valdiglesias LaValle’s conviction and dismissed the case. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Homicide & Manslaughter, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Solicitation, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Alcohol Detection Systems in All New Vehicles?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/alcohol-detection-systems-in-all-new-vehicles/) **Published:** November 5, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article](https://www.electronicdesign.com/markets/automotive/article/21252008/electronic-design-ntsb-calls-for-alcohol-detection-systems-in-all-new-vehicles) by journalist [Murray Slovik](https://muckrack.com/murray-slovick) says that technologies are needed for alcohol-impairment detection in cars. Apparently, [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) remains a leading cause of injury-involved highway crashes. According to the [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)](https://www.nhtsa.gov/), in 2020, roughly one in three traffic fatalities resulted from crashes involving alcohol-impaired drivers. Since 2000, more than 230,000 people have lost their lives in crashes involving alcohol, again according to NHTSA. In 2020, an estimated 11,654 fatalities occurred in alcohol-impaired crashes. This number represented about 30% of all traffic fatalities that year and a 14% increase over the 10,196 individuals who died because of alcohol-impaired crashes in 2019. This comes at a time when vehicle miles traveled in the U.S. decreased by about 13.2% in 2020. In response, the [National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)](https://www.ntsb.gov/Pages/home.aspx) is making a major push to cut down on the number of alcohol-related crashes and deaths. They’ve asked the NHTSA to require that all new cars have an alcohol detection device in them. This move stems in part from an investigation into a California crash that killed nine – including seven children. **TECHNOLOGY RECOMMENDATION DETAILS The NTSB is recommending measures leveraging new in-vehicle technologies that can limit or prohibit impaired drivers from operating their vehicles as well as technologies to prevent speeding. They include: - Requiring passive vehicle-integrated alcohol-impairment detection systems, advanced driver monitoring systems, or a combination of the two that would be capable of preventing or limiting vehicle operation if it detects driver impairment by alcohol. The NTSB recommends that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration require all new vehicles be equipped with such systems. - Incentivizing vehicle manufacturers and consumers to adopt intelligent speed adaptation systems that would prevent speed-related crashes. The issues of impaired driving and excessive speeding are both on the NTSB’s Most Wanted List of Transportation Safety Improvements. To prevent alcohol and other drug-impaired driving crashes, the NTSB has called for, as previously mentioned, in-vehicle alcohol detection technology as well as the lowering of the blood alcohol concentration limit to .05 g/dL or lower. They also recommend alcohol ignition-interlock devices for people convicted of driving while intoxicated and that regulators develop a standard of practice to improve drug toxicology testing. Furthermore, the NTSB has called for a comprehensive strategy to eliminate speeding-related crashes. It would combine traditional measures like enforcement and regulation with new technological advances such as speed limiters and intelligent speed-adaptation technology. **SPEED-LIMITING TECH** The NTSB is looking for regulators to develop performance standards for such advanced speed-limiting technology targeted at heavy vehicles including trucks, buses, and motor coaches. They want regulators to require all newly manufactured heavy vehicles be equipped with such devices. NTSB also wants: - To collaborate with traffic safety stakeholders to develop and implement an ongoing program to increase public awareness of speeding as a national traffic safety issue. - To revise regulations to strengthen requirements for all speed engineering studies and remove the guidance that speed limits in speed zones be within 5 mph of the 85th percentile speed. The 85th percentile speed is the speed at or below where 85% of drivers will operate with open roads and favorable conditions. - To update speed-enforcement guidelines to reflect the latest automated speed-enforcement technologies and operating practices and promote these guidelines. Research suggests speeding is a problem that’s worsening. In 2020, there were 11,258 fatalities in crashes in which at least one driver was speeding, according to the NHTSA. This simply underscores that speeding increases both the chances of being involved in a crash and the severity of crash injuries. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/), [Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Reckless Driving, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Mentally Ill Are Decompensating in Washington Jails](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/mentally-ill-are-decompensating-in-washington-jails/) **Published:** November 11, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article](https://www.king5.com/amp/article/news/investigations/defendants-mental-illness-washington-jails-investigation/281-92db1269-038a-4b77-a234-d2a1dd64ff71) by journalist [Susannah Frame](https://muckrack.com/sframek5) discusses the record number of inmates with mental illnesses suffering in jail. Decades of research show that people with serious mental illness who are jailed experience steep declines in their mental health, This is especially true for inmates locked in solitary confinement. But in the state of Washington, the time spent behind bars for people who are mentally ill and waiting for court-ordered treatment is at an [all-time high. ](https://www.king5.com/article/news/investigations/mentally-ill-defendants-jail-washington/281-b65a8b1a-16c8-428e-85ee-3551bb6d0ebb) Washington is experiencing the [biggest backlog](https://www.dshs.wa.gov/bha/trueblood-et-al-v-washington-state-dshs) in state history of mentally ill defendants sitting in jails. Amny of them are waiting for required services to restore their competency. This allows defendants the help they need to understand the charges against them and to participate in their defense. In October 2021, approximately 350 defendants deemed incompetent to stand trial were waiting for a bed at [Western State Hospital](https://www.dshs.wa.gov/bha/division-state-hospitals/western-state-hospital) or [Eastern State Hospital](https://www.dshs.wa.gov/bha/division-state-hospitals/eastern-state-hospital-overview). In October 2022, the number was about 850 people, a 142% increase in one year, state records show. The numbers include people waiting both in and out of county jails. > “Jail is the worst place to be for a person who has a serious mental illness . . . It can really cause irreversible brain damage. And the longer that a person spends in untreated psychosis the harder it is for them to return to the same level of functioning once they’re receiving treatment again.” ~[Lisa Dailey](https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/about-us/staff/3759), Executive Director of the Washington DC-based [Treatment Advocacy Center](https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/). The state agency charged with providing services to mentally ill defendants, the Department of Social and Health Services ([DSHS](https://www.dshs.wa.gov/bha)). Unfortunately, DSHS has been in [“contempt”](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23288881-2016-order-of-contempt) of a 2015 [federal court order](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23168040-trueblood-court-order2015) since July 2016. The order stems from a 2014 class action [lawsuit](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23288877-second-amended-complaint-24), known as [*Trueblood*](https://www.disabilityrightswa.org/cases/trueblood/). In the case, federal Judge Marsha Pechman ruled DSHS is violating the civil rights of defendants waiting in jail for services. She ordered that mentally ill defendants get a bed at a state psychiatric hospital within seven days. Currently some people are waiting seven months. **Massive Increase in Demand for Social Services** DSHS officials said the biggest challenge to moving people into mental health hospitals is the dramatic increase in demand. The number of people in jail ordered to receive in-hospital services jumped from 996 people in 2015 to 2397 people in 2022. That’s an increase of 141%. > “We knew ahead of time that services would be increasing over time. We knew that. But can you predict? Can you look into a crystal ball and know exactly what’s going to happen? No. Ideally, they would be in the community. They would be with their family, their friends, they wouldn’t be involved in the criminal justice system. The ultimate goal is to prevent them from having that interaction, to begin with.” ~DSHS Chief Medical Officer Dr. Brian Waiblinger DSHS has several construction projects underway to create more bed space and resources. Projects include a 58-bed facility on the grounds of [**Western State Hospital**](https://www.dshs.wa.gov/bha/division-state-hospitals/wsh-center-forensic-services) scheduled to open within months. These beds are designated for people charged with a crime who need competency evaluations or restoration services. “It’s a very difficult time right now,” Waiblinger said. “(But) I am very hopeful that we can turn this around. I think we need to do something about creating more community resources.” Jail is a terrible place, especially for those suffering from mental illness. Please review my [Making Bail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/making-bail/) Legal Guide and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Jail, Mental Health, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Trial Strategy: The Lesser-Included Jury Instruction](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/trial-strategy-the-lesser-included-jury-instruction/) **Published:** November 15, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** At trial, criminal defendants have the right for the jury to be instructed on any applicable lower or [lesser-included crimes](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lesser_crime). The evidence must support an inference that the lesser crime was committed instead of the greater offense. However, should defendants *always* seek lesser-included jury instructions if the facts warrant this strategy? Isn’t it true that giving a jury too many alternatives to decide convict ultimately result in a conviction? A recent case captured the trickiness of deploying (or *not*) the lesser-included jury instruction at trial. In *[State v. Conway](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/381986_pub.pdf)* (10/27/22), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) held that Defense Counsel’s “all-or-nothing” trial strategy was effective, even when counsel declined to seek a lesser included jury instruction. The Court found Counsel’s decision was deliberate and strategic, and did not prejudice the defendant at trial. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Mr. Conway allegedly attacked three different individuals at the Spokane Amtrak Station in a series of incidents. The State charged Conway with one count of [second degree assault](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.36.021), one count of [third degree assault](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.36.031), and one count of [fourth degree assault](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.041). At trial, defense counsel admitted to the fourth degree assault. He also admitted that the other crimes amounted to fourth degree assault. However, counsel did not request an instruction for a lesser-included offense. The jury found Conway guilty of second and fourth degree assault but acquitted him of third degree assault. On appeal, Conway argues ineffective assistance of counsel for his attorney’s failure to request an instruction for the lesser-included offense of fourth degree assault. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals began by saying that Criminal defendants have a constitutionally guaranteed right to effective assistance of counsel. A defendant bears the burden of showing **(1)** that his counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness based on consideration of all the circumstances and, if so, **(2)** that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s poor performance, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different. The Court further elaborated that In reviewing the record for deficiencies, there is a strong presumption that counsel’s performance was reasonable. The burden is on a defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel to show deficient representation. > “A decision by defense counsel to forgo an instruction on a lesser-included offense may be a legitimate trial tactic . . . Both the defendant and the State have the right to present an instruction for a lesser-included offense if all of the requirements have been met.” ~WA Court of Appeals, Division III. Here, defense counsel’s decision to forgo an instruction on the lesser-included offense was not deficient. It was clearly strategic. The Court of Appeals reasoned that there was strong evidence in support of the State’s assault charges. “The State presented the jury with undisputed video evidence of Conway assaulting the victims,” said the Court. “Because the State presented undisputed video evidence of the assaults, it was a legitimate trial tactic for defense counsel to admit that Conway had committed fourth degree assault.” Moreover, even though an all-or-nothing strategy is legitimate regardless of success, in this case it worked. The jury acquitted Conway of third degree assault even though counsel acknowledged the assault. With that, the Court of Appeals decided that Conway’s attorney was not constitutionally ineffective. “Defense counsel made a strategic decision to forego a lesser-included instruction on a felony assault charge,” said the Court. “The decision was not deficient and did not prejudice Conway at trial.” The Court upheld Conway’s conviction second and fourth degree assault. My opinion? The above case captures the trickiness of allowing juries to convict a defendant of a lesser charge. In many cases, lesser included charges are important to defendants because jurors do not always exactly follow the law. For example, in an assault case, the jury might be so outraged at what they consider to be a brazen attack by the defendant that they don’t carefully consider whether the injuries were significant enough to rise to a felony or misdemeanor before returning a guilty verdict. If the defense requests a lesser included charge of a lesser crime, the jury is more likely to carefully look at the evidence presented. Consequently, they may convict the defendant of the lesser crime if that is the only charge that they feel the evidence supported. Requesting a lesser included charge is a double-edged sword, however. Some juries might have acquitted the defendant of assault if they didn’t believe that the prosecution proved that the incident was an upper-level felony. Ultimately, the key to deciding whether to request a lesser included charge is weighing the risks against the rewards. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Lesser Included Jury Instruction, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [At Trial, Police Can't Comment on a Defendant's Post-Arrest Silence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/at-trial-police-cant-comment-on-a-defendants-post-arrest-silence/) **Published:** November 18, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Palmer*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=523621MAJ), the WA Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s [Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment) was violated when the detective commented about the defendant’s post-arrest silence. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Palmer and his girlfriend, DD, moved in together in 2013. They lived together with DD’s two biological children from a prior marriage, her son AD, and her daughter PD. Palmer and DD also had a baby together, LP. Sometime in 2014, the family moved to Washington. Palmer served as caregiver to the children and in that role disciplined both PD and AD. During a family car trip in 2016, Palmer grabbed AD by the neck, leaving a scratch. At some point after the car trip incident, Palmer told DD that PD had touched his penis. Thereafter, PD disclosed to DD that Palmer had touched her vagina. Approximately four months after PD’s disclosure, DD contacted law enforcement. Law enforcement authorities interviewed the children on two separate occasions. Detective Ramirez participated in PD’s interview during which he learned of the accusations against Palmer. Eventually, Detective Ramirez took Palmer into custody, read him [*Miranda* rights](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/miranda_warning#:~:text=In%20Miranda%2C%20the%20Court%20held,have%20an%20attorney%20appointed%20if), and questioned him. Ramirez ended the questioning after Palmer repeatedly refused to admit to any wrongdoing. Ramirez returned the next morning for additional questioning, but Palmer refused to talk. The State charged Palmer with one [count of child molestation in the first degree](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.083) and two counts of [assault of a child in the second degree](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.130). At trial, the Prosecutor questioned DSetective Ramirez and asked if he had spoken to Palmer after his initial interview. In the presence of the jury, Ramirez testified that he “went back the next morning, thinking that, you know, a day sitting in the county jail, you know, there’s some time to think, and maybe Mr. Palmer would want to do the right thing here.” Ramirez further testified that he told Palmer, “You’ve had some time to think. Do you want to talk?” and that Palmer responded that he did not want to talk. The jury convicted Palmer of all charges. On appeal, Palmer argued his right against self-incrimination was violated when Detective Ramirez discussed Palmer’s decision to remain silent. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court began with an engaging discussion of the Fifth Amendment. In short, a defendant’s right against self-incrimination prohibits the State from eliciting comments from witnesses about the defendant’s pre- or post-arrest silence. The State may also not suggest the defendant is guilty because they chose to remain silent, because the assurance of Miranda is that remaining silent will not be penalized. Here, the State unequivocally elicited a comment from Ramirez about Palmer’s decision to remain silent. > “Ramirez’s testimony was a comment on Palmer’s right to remain silent. More pointedly, contrary to [*State v. Easter*](https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/state-v-easter-no-894620655), the State suggested that Palmer was guilty due to his silence. Indeed, Ramirez testified that Palmer remained silent after being given a chance to “do the right thing” by admitting criminal conduct. This statement presupposed Palmer’s guilt and created an impossible choice: Palmer could either do right by confessing to molesting a child or do wrong by remaining silent.” > > “Implicit in the ‘silence equals wrongfulness’ notion is that silence withholds the ‘truth’—that ‘truth’ being one’s criminal conduct, even if there was no criminal conduct. In this context, a defendant cannot maintain their presumption of innocence by remaining silent. A detective’s belief on this front may assist with their investigative duty, but established authority prohibits using a defendant’s right to remain silent to suggest guilt to the jury.” ~WA Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals concluded by saying that alone, this violation may warrant reversal and a new trial. “However, because we reverse on other grounds, we remind the State that it is forbidden from eliciting comments about Palmer’s silence during his new trial.” With that, the Court of Appeals reverse the convictions and remanded to the trial court for a new trial. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, felony, Fifth Amendment, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Eliminate Unnecessary Traffic Stops](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/eliminate-unnecessary-traffic-stops/) **Published:** November 22, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/policing/2022/11/20/police-killings-no-decline-despite-reforms-george-floyd/10648861002/) by [Finesse Moreno-Rivera](https://www.young-voices.com/advocate/finesse-moreno-rivera/) gives solutions to eliminating unnecessary traffic stops. Unfortunately, many of these impromptu occurrances become escalated and result in fatalities. To protect motorists and police, we need better protocols. **The Data** According to recent data from [Mapping Police Violence](https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/?utm_campaign=launch&utm_source=google&utm_medium=ad&utm_term=mapping%20police%20violence&gclid=Cj0KCQiAg_KbBhDLARIsANx7wAzXUCTFjAtChF6FYqzDBEyablIGbGW4CGrs0HMBUWa8K4Y7OVad2bQaArIAEALw_wcB), [an unfortunate amount of civilian deaths occur during traffic stops](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/todaysdebate/2021/07/13/police-traffic-stops-minor-infraction-major-tragedy/7903717002/). In many cases, the police department responsible refused to provide details or justification. Purported traffic violations account for about 40% of these killings. And almost half of those involved individuals under the influence of drugs, alcohol or with mental illness. In nearly 430 of these fatal traffic stops, the victim was suspected of carrying a weapon. But in 20% of the cases – that’s more than 80 deaths – the individual was unarmed. In about 350 deadly incidents, the officer initiated a traffic stop for unspecified circumstances. To reduce police violence, states need to reform their policies: **Limit stops for minor traffic violations.** Clearly, more states need to adopt policies to prevent police from pulling over nonthreatening vehicles. Cities such as [Los Angles](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-01/new-limits-on-pretextual-stops-by-lapd-to-take-effect-this-summer-after-training) and [Philadelphia](https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia/philadelphia-police-wont-stop-drivers-minor-offenses-20220303.html) have passed legislation to end unnecessary traffic stops. These reforms aim to decrease unnecessary exposures to danger and to mitigate police’s tendency toward racial bias. We must stop pulling vehicles over for minor traffic violations with intent to investigate for larger offenses. Instead, we must incentivize officers to determine whether a vehicle is involved in a serious crime before pulling them over. **Eliminate incentives for ticket revenue.** The financial incentive for police to stop drivers has been an issue for a long time. This is because many communities rely heavily [on ticket revenue](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/31/us/police-ticket-quotas-money-funding.html). Many local and state governments are so dependent on officers’ traffic stops for revenue, they often evaluate officers based on ticket quotas. This system [attaches monetary gain or promotions to the number of tickets issued](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/outlawing-police-quotas). Making matters worse, the federal government [awards municipalities money for the number of tickets issued](https://finesandfeesjusticecenter.org/articles/the-demand-for-money-behind-many-traffic-stops/). This negative financial incentive goes all the way to the top, establishing a system conducive to corruption. To date, more than 20 states have [prohibited quotas](https://perma.cc/NR59-FDUK). This is a step in the right direction. **Create national campaign for traffic stop awareness.** Police academies train recruits in basic traffic stop fundamentals. However, motorists in driving school do not get the run-down on police procedures. This unpreparedness increases the risk of danger for both motorists and officers. The [lack of standardization in traffic stop conduct](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/10/30/video/police-traffic-stops-danger-video.html) is a real problem. Motorists can send mixed signals to officers or be wary of traffic stops, especially if they’re a person of color. Teaching drivers about police protocol and their rights and responsibilities would promote safe and effective roadside communication. Some organizations already offer this kind of roadside safety education. The National Association of Black Law Enforcement hosts events in Black communities to teach people the risk of traffic stops, how to act when stopped by police given what police are trained to watch for, and what their actions will communicate to their officers. Police reforms so far aren’t keeping people from dying. The only way to protect motorists and officers is to limit traffic stops and to promote clear communication between officers and citizens after the sirens have sounded. My opinion? The challenges facing law enforcement are difficult. Perhaps a shift in protocols would ensure that everyone – officers included – are more safe in their day-to-day contacts with citizens. Let’s prevent [Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/) or [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) incidents from becoming lethal. And please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Race & Law, Reckless Driving, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Traffic Infractions, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Conviction Reversed Because Prosecutor Failed to Give Race-Neutral Reasons for Striking Jurors.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/conviction-reversed-because-prosecutor-failed-to-give-race-neutral-reasons-for-striking-jurors/) **Published:** November 26, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Tesfasilasye*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/1001665.pdf), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) reversed a [sex offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/) conviction under [GR 37](https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme%20Court%20Orders/GR37.pdf) because the prosecutor failed to give race-neutral reasons for striking two minority jurors. A brief explanation of GR 37 is necessary. When the WA Supreme Court adopted GR 37 in 2018, it became the first court in the nation to adopt a court rule aimed at eliminating both implicit and intentional racial bias in jury selection. The rule expanded the prohibition against using race based peremptory challenges during jury selection. Not only was intentional race discrimination outlawed, but also challenges based on “implicit, institutional, and unconscious” race and ethnic biases were rejected. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** The defendant Mr. Tesfasilasye is a Black Eritrean immigrant whose primary language is Tigrigna. Tesfasilasye worked for Solid Ground as a driver for people with disabilities. C.R.R. used Solid Ground’s services. The alleged victim, C.R.R. is visually impaired. She sometimes uses a wheelchair due to balance issues. The day after Tesfasilasye drove C.R.R. home, C.R.R. reported that Mr. Tesfasilasye assaulted her the day before. The State charged Tesfasilasye with [third degree rape](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.060). During voir dire, the State brought peremptory challenges against Juror #25, an Asian woman, and Juror #3, a Latino. The State sought to use a peremptory strike against Juror #25, an Asian woman. Tesfasilasye raised a GR 37 objection. The State denied it was striking Juror #25 because she was an Asian woman. The State called the court’s attention to the fact it was not seeking to strike the other Asian woman in the panel. Instead, the State contended it wanted to strike Juror# 25. The trial court overruled the GR 37 objection and granted the peremptory challenge. Next, the State sought a peremptory challenge against Juror #3, the Latino. The court granted the peremptory challenge. However, the trial judge’s oral ruling was not based on whether a reasonable juror could view race as a factor as required by GR 37. The jury found Tesfasilasye guilty of third degree rape. Tesfasilasye appealed. He alleged that an objective observer could have viewed race as a factor for striking Juror #25 and Juror #3 as prohibited by GR 37. The Court of Appeals affirmed Tesfasilasye’s conviction. The WA Supreme Court granted review. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** “Our constitutions require a fair and impartial jury,” wrote Justice Gonzalez. “The parties and the jurors themselves have the right to a trial process free from discrimination.” Next, Justice Gonzalez discussed the nefarious use of peremptory challenges to strike qualified jurors without providing a reason. “These challenges however have a history of being used based largely or entirely on racial stereotypes or generalizations,” he said. Justice Gonzalez explained how GR 37 was an attempt to address the shortcomings of [*Batson v. Kentucky*](https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-batson-v-kentucky). *Batson* was a landmark case prohibiting the use of peremptory challenges to automatically exclude potential members of the jury because of their race. “The protections under *Batson* were not robust enough to effectively combat racial discrimination during jury selection,” said Justice Gonzalez. In short, *Batson* failed to require a trial judge to make rulings without considering systemic and unconscious racial bias. Justice Gonzalez explained that under GR 37, a peremptory challenge shall be denied if an objective observer could view race or ethnicity as a factor in the use of a peremptory challenge. He described at great length why both Juror #25 and Juror #3 were wrongfully struck by the State and concluded as follows: > “We hold that under these facts, an objective observer could view race as a factor for striking both Juror #25 and Juror #3. Tesfasilasye asks this court to reverse his conviction. The State does not dispute that the remedy for a GR 37 violation is reversal. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals and remand for a new trial.” Chief Justice Steven Gonzalez, WA Supreme Court. My opinion? Good decision. The State has another opportunity for trial. Next time, let’s hope they avoids striking jurors for race-based reasons. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, GR 37, Jury Selection, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Race & Law, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["Focused Deterrence" - The New Approach to Reducing Crime](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/focused-deterrence-the-new-approach-to-reducing-crime/) **Published:** November 29, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In-depth [WSJ news article](https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-s-knows-how-to-reduce-crime-11669391854?reflink=share_mobilewebshare) from journalist [Thomas Abt](https://muckrack.com/thomas-abt) introduces “Focused Deterrence” as an approach to reducing crime. **IN THE EARLY 2000’S, OUR POLITICAL CLIMATE TOWARD REDUCING CRIME WAS BI-PARTISAN AND SUCCESSFUL.** Abt begins by saying that during the 2000’s and 2010’s, many Republicans and Democrats agreed on a range of sensible reforms. The bi-partisan solutions were implemented to fight crime while reducing the impact of mass incarceration. At this time, hundreds of state and local reforms were passed to limit excessive confinement and promote the rehabilitation and re-entry of incarcerated people. At the federal level, the [First Step Act of 2018](https://www.bop.gov/inmates/fsa/overview.jsp) shortened sentences, gave defendants additional chances to avoid mandatory minimum penalties, and improved prison conditions. These changes were modest individually, but by 2019 they had helped reduce the U.S. incarceration rate to 810 inmates for every 100,000 adults, the lowest level since 1995. The disparity between Black and white imprisonment rates declined 40% from 1990 to 2020. At the same time, crime rates remained at or near historical lows. **WHAT HAPPENED?** The consensus behind such pragmatic policies came apart in 2020. When the [Coronavirus Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic) struck, [George Floyd was murdered](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_George_Floyd) by a Minneapolis police officer, and [firearm sales increased dramatically](https://news.northeastern.edu/2021/12/20/us-gun-sales-increasing/). Most important, violent gun crime surged in 2020, with murders rising 29% over the year before. This was the largest single-year percentage increase in decades. In 2021, homicides increased again, albeit by a more modest 4%, setting record highs in Philadelphia, Indianapolis and Portland, Ore., among other cities. Many progressives, incensed by high-profile incidents of police violence, adopted [“Defund the Police”](https://defundthepolice.org/) as a rallying cry, even as it was rejected by mainstream Democratic leaders. Progressive prosecutors in some jurisdictions enacted policies that effectively decriminalized certain low-level, nonviolent offenses. Meanwhile, conservatives largely abandoned criminal-justice reform efforts and rallied behind President Trump’s law-and-order politics. **WORKABLE SOLUTIONS STILL EXIST.** Abt posits that in order to achieve genuine solutions to the problem of rising crime, the U.S. needs to return to pragmatism informed by evidence. He also discussed three important lessons learned during his research and studies. The **first** is that most gun violence takes place in relatively small clusters of tightly networked individuals and groups. **Second**, gun violence responds to both positive and negative incentives. **Finally**, Abt argues that police violence has caused homicide rates to surge across the country. **“FOCUSED DETERRENCE” IS THE KEY TO CONTROLLING GUN VIOLENCE.** In this approach, community residents, social workers and law-enforcement officers work together to identify the highest-risk individuals and groups. Next, they communicate the message that the shooting must stop. They follow up by offering life coaching, job training, educational opportunities and other forms of assistance. If these efforts fail, they use narrowly targeted investigations, arrests and prosecutions. > “Focused Deterrence works because it deals with those at the highest risk for violence,. It also offers them a balanced set of carrots and stick and communicates the choices they face in a direct but respectful manner.” ~WSJ Journalist Thomas Abt For long-term declines in violence, cities need a collaborative effort that leverages several evidence-based strategies at once. In his article, Abt argues that funding alone isn’t enough to solve the problem. “Reducing crime and violence also requires practical know-how that is hard to come by,” he says. “Local strategies to reduce community gun violence could be the first step toward tackling broader challenges like the ubiquity of guns and the durability of poverty in the U.S.” He says that for that to happen, we need our leaders to resist the usual talking points of our polarized political environment. “If they can embrace evidence over ideology, we have a chance to save many American lives.” My opinion? Mr. Abt offers an excellent, well-written approach to this important issue. His solutions somewhat reflect the use and growth of [Community Courts across the nation](https://bja.ojp.gov/program/community-courts-program/overview). A community court is an alternative problem-solving court. It differs from traditional court in that it seeks to identify and address the underlying challenges of court participants that may contribute to further criminal activity. Its goal is to build stronger and safer neighborhoods and reduce recidivism. I’m a huge propopnent of Community Courts. And I’ve successfully gained dismissals for Clients who have successfully completed these programs. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Firearm Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Uncategorized **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [New Law Allows Police to Use Street Racing Videos to Track Down Violators](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/new-law-allows-police-to-use-street-racing-videos-to-track-down-violators/) **Published:** December 1, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Florida passed a new law allowing street racing videos to be used as evidence to track down violators. [Florida House Bill 399](https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/399/?Tab=BillHistory), which [Governor Ron DeSantis](https://www.flgov.com/) signed earlier this year, went into effect October 1. It bans everything from street takeovers to drag racing to doing donuts on public roads. Under this law, police don’t have to physically see the incident take place to go after violators. They can simply track down violators based on the license plates, the cars and the people in the video. Violators can be charged with a misdemeanor and face a possible fine between $500 and $1,000. If charged, they also risk losing their driver’s license up to one year. There was essentially no opposition to the bill in Florida’s legislature. It passed unanimously. For now, there is only a patchwork of laws across the country that criminalize the dangerous activity. Because there’s no federal legislation about the issue, individual municipalities are left to come up with their own solutions. According to [Insurify](https://insurify.com/insights/states-most-street-racers-2022/), just in the 10 states they examined, the penalties for street racing range from just a $20 fine to a year of jail time. [Insurify](https://insurify.com/insights/states-most-street-racers-2022/) also conducted studies which found the following: - **National averages.** Across the United States, **3.48 per 100,000 drivers** have a street racing violation on record. Plain old speeding is much more common, as a whopping **9,175 drivers per 100,000** report a speeding ticket on their record — that’s nearly **1 in 10 drivers**. The penalty for street racing differs widely by state, ranging from as little as **$20** to as much as **$2,500** among states with the most street racers. Jail time and temporary license revocation are also possible punishments. - **Despite the attention, street racing is still rare.** Road racing has been on the rise for the past couple of years in America, and its flashy nature tends to draw headlines. Overall, however, street racing is a rare occurrence. For perspective, police issue more than **2,600 speeding tickets** for every **1 street racing citation**. Despite racing’s outsized fame, plain and simple speeders are who pervade the roads. - **Street racing is inversely related to population density.** Researchers at Insurify found a significant negative correlation (R = −0.27, p < 0.05) between a state’s street racing rate and its population density. This means that states with fewer residents per square mile are more likely to have high rates of street racing and that states with a high number of residents per square mile are more likely to have low rates of street racing. Coupled with the knowledge that road racing levels increased during early COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders, this is further evidence that emptier roads are attractive to drivers with a penchant for racing. My opinion? Expect similar laws to spread around the country. Street racing is an activity on the rise, from [Baltimore ](https://foxbaltimore.com/news/city-in-crisis/new-law-aimed-at-slowing-street-racers "https://foxbaltimore.com/news/city-in-crisis/new-law-aimed-at-slowing-street-racers")and [Portland](https://katu.com/news/local/illegal-street-racing-takeovers-continue-in-portland-on-sunday-night "https://katu.com/news/local/illegal-street-racing-takeovers-continue-in-portland-on-sunday-night") to [Seattle](https://komonews.com/news/local/police-arrest-18-year-old-they-say-organized-multiple-illegal-street-races-in-area-king-county-pierce-county-tacoma-seattle "https://komonews.com/news/local/police-arrest-18-year-old-they-say-organized-multiple-illegal-street-races-in-area-king-county-pierce-county-tacoma-seattle") and[ Salt Lake City](https://kutv.com/news/local/11-cars-impounded-at-least-6-arrested-in-salt-lake-street-racing-bust-summer-racing-police-salt-lake-valley-rocky-mountain-raceway-bangerter-highway-illegal "https://kutv.com/news/local/11-cars-impounded-at-least-6-arrested-in-salt-lake-street-racing-bust-summer-racing-police-salt-lake-valley-rocky-mountain-raceway-bangerter-highway-illegal"), and many more communities all across America. [Chicago ](https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/cpd-warns-participants-and-spectators-of-illegal-street-racing-and-drifting/ "https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/cpd-warns-participants-and-spectators-of-illegal-street-racing-and-drifting/")recently formed a task force to try to tackle the problem. Just this past month, [Phoenix ](https://www.12news.com/article/news/local/valley/street-racing-causing-fatal-accidents-in-phoenix/75-2b5ab593-cd40-4c20-8835-65cbedccbe34 "https://www.12news.com/article/news/local/valley/street-racing-causing-fatal-accidents-in-phoenix/75-2b5ab593-cd40-4c20-8835-65cbedccbe34")police said four people were killed as a result of street racing. The issue took root during the [Coronavirus Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic), when roads normally clogged with commuters suddenly emptied, opening the door to a surge in illegal street racing. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Reckless Driving, Reckless Endangerment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Street Racing, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Locked Out 2022: Estimates of People Denied Voting Rights](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/locked-out-2022-estimates-of-people-denied-voting-rights/) **Published:** December 3, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** An insightful [report](https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/locked-out-2022-estimates-of-people-denied-voting-rights/) from [The Sentencing Project](https://www.sentencingproject.org/) describes how an estimated 4.6 million Americans are barred from voting due to a felony conviction. Laws in 48 states ban people with felony convictions from voting. In 2022, an estimated 4.6 million Americans, representing 2 percent of the voting-age population, will be ineligible to vote due to these laws or policies, many of which date back to the post-Reconstruction era. In this election year, as the United States confronts questions about the stability of its democracy and the fairness of its elections, particularly within marginalized communities, the impact of voting bans on people with felony convictions should be front and center in the debate. This 2022 report updates and expands upon 20 years of work chronicling the scope and distribution of felony disenfranchisement in the United States (see Uggen, Larson, Shannon, and Pulido-Nava 2020; Uggen, Larson, and Shannon 2016; Uggen, Shannon, and Manza 2012; Manza and Uggen 2006; Uggen and Manza 2002). As in 2020, we present national and state estimates of the number and percentage of people disenfranchised due to felony convictions, as well as the number and percentage of the Black and Latinx populations impacted. Although these and other estimates must be interpreted with caution, the numbers presented here represent our best assessment of the state of felony disenfranchisement as of the November 2022 election. **AMONG THE REPORT’S KEY FINDINGS:** - An estimated 4.6 million people are disenfranchised due to a felony conviction, a figure that has declined by 24 percent since 2016, as more states enacted policies to curtail this practice and state prison populations declined modestly. Previous research finds there were an estimated 1.2 million people disenfranchised in 1976, 3.3 million in 1996, 4.7 million in 2000, 5.4 million in 2004, 5.9 million in 2010, 6.1 million in 2016, and 5.2 million in 2020. - One out of 50 adult citizens – 2 percent of the total U.S. voting eligible population – is disenfranchised due to a current or previous felony conviction. - Three out of four people disenfranchised are living in their communities, having fully completed their sentences or remaining supervised while on probation or parole. - In three states – Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee – more than 8 percent of the adult population, one of every 13 adults, is disenfranchised. - Florida remains the nation’s disenfranchisement leader in absolute numbers, with over 1.1 million people currently banned from voting, often because they cannot afford to pay court-ordered monetary sanctions. An estimated 934,500 Floridians who have completed their sentences remain disenfranchised, despite a 2018 ballot referendum that promised to restore their voting rights. - One in 19 African Americans of voting age is disenfranchised, a rate 3.5 times that of non-African Americans. Among the adult African American population, 5.3 percent is disenfranchised compared to 1.5 percent of the adult non-African American population. - More than one in 10 African American adults is disenfranchised in eight states – Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Virginia. - Although data on ethnicity in correctional populations are unevenly reported and undercounted in some states, a conservative estimate is that at least 506,000 Latinx Americans or 1.7 percent of the voting eligible population are disenfranchised. - Approximately 1 million women are disenfranchised, comprising over one-fifth of the total disenfranchised population. My opinion? Many states restore voting rights to individuals automatically after they exit jail or prison. Others continue the bar on voting even while on probation or parole. A few permanently disenfranchise people with a past conviction or require they petition the government to have their voting right restored. Fortunately, In 2021, Governor Inslee signed legislation restoring voting rights to people convicted of felonies automatically after release from prison. Losing your right to vote is a terrible consequence of a criminal conviction. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Prison, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Voting Rights, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Hands Are Not An "Instrument or Thing" Used to Prove Assault Third Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/hands-are-not-an-instrument-or-thing-used-to-prove-assault-third-degree/) **Published:** December 6, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Altman*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2056249-9-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) reversed the Defendant’s conviction for [Assault Third Degree](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.36.031) because there was no evidence that the defendant used anything other than his hands to assault the victim. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** The victim A.W. alleged that she was sexually assaulted by Mr. Altman. The State charged Altman with second degree assault with sexual motivation, alleging he intentionally assaulted A.W. by strangulation or suffocation. Alternatively, the State charged Altman with third degree assault with sexual motivation for causing bodily harm to A.W. by means of a weapon or other instrument or thing likely to produce bodily harm. The State also charged Altman with second degree rape and unlawful imprisonment with sexual motivation During closing arguments, the State argued that Altman’s hands were a “thing” used to support a [lesser alternative charge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_included_offense) of third degree assault: > “I submit to you the State is not saying that there was a weapon used in this case. I submit to you that we’re not saying there was an instrument that was used in this case. However, it also says it can be from a thing likely to produce bodily harm. And I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, a thing can be anything.” State Prosecutor. The jury found Altman not guilty of second degree rape, second degree assault by strangulation with sexual motivation, and unlawful imprisonment with sexual motivation. However, the jury found Altman guilty of a lesser alternative charge of third degree assault. Mr. Altman appealed on arguments that the evidence was insufficient to show that he assaulted A.W. with an “instrument or thing.” **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals began with a discussion of the elements required to prove Assault Third Degree. In short, a person is guilty if he “causes bodily harm to another person by means of a weapon or other instrument or thing likely to produce bodily harm.” “The issue here is whether a hand meets the statutory requirement of “other instrument or thing likely to produce bodily harm,” said the Court. The Court reviewed [*State v. Marohl*](https://casetext.com/case/state-v-marohl), as reliable caselaw precedent. In *Marohl*, the court suggested that a casino floor could fall within the statute if it was used to smash someone’s head. Also, the *Marohl* court applied the dictionary definition to “instrument” and “thing,” describing both as: > “Here, in light of *Marohl’s* definition of “instrument or thing likely to produce bodily harm, hands do not qualify. The State relied solely on Altman’s hands to support the lesser alternative charge of third degree assault. Hands are not a “utensil” or “implement.” Nor are hands “an inanimate object.” Instead, hands are an extension of a person.” ~WA Court of Appeals. The Court further reasoned that there is no other evidence that Altman used anything other than his hands when grabbing and squeezing A.W.’s neck. Therefore, the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support the essential element of “a weapon or other instrument or thing likely to produce bodily harm” for third degree assault. With that, the Court of Appeals reversed and vacated Altman’s conviction for third degree assault with prejudice. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [2023 Legislation Aimed at Restricting Firearms](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/2023-legislation-aimed-at-restricting-firearms/) **Published:** December 9, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article](https://www.theolympian.com/news/politics-government/article269789857.html) by [Shauna Sowersby](https://muckrack.com/shauna-sowersby) discusses how state lawmakers will again be considering legislation to place restrictions on guns in Washington. The [Alliance for Gun Responsibility](https://gunresponsibility.org/) announced [proposed legislation](https://gunresponsibility.org/2023-alliance-for-gun-responsibility-policy-agenda/) for the upcoming 2023 session: > “Amid record levels of gun violence in Washington and across the US, it is essential to protect and build on the progress we’ve made to keep our communities safe. Our 2023 Legislative Agenda reflects the urgent need for Washington to continue leading the way in adopting innovative policies to prevent gun violence.” [~Alliance for Gun Responsibility](https://gunresponsibility.org/2023-alliance-for-gun-responsibility-policy-agenda/) **RESTRICTIONS ON ASSAULT RIFLES** Proposed legislation includes a measure that would put restrictions on semi-automatic assault weapons. The bill will target the supply of assault-style weapons by “prohibiting the manufacture, possession, distribution, importation, transfer, sale, offer for sale, and purchase of any assault weapon.” Law enforcement and military officials would be exempt from the law. Washington state law defines a semi-automatic assault rifle as “any rifle which uses a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.” The proposed legislation also says, “a semi-automatic assault rifle does not include antique firearms, any firearm that has been made permanently inoperable, or any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.” **HOLDING GUN MANUFACTURERS ACCOUNTABLE** The Alliance for Gun Responsibility is also seeking legislation to establish a pathway for victims of gun violence to hold manufacturers and dealers accountable. Also, they’re proposing legislation to require a permit for those who wish to purchase a gun in the state. Currently, gun manufacturers and gun dealers are protected by a 2005 federal law called the [Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act). This gives them immunity from lawsuits brought by victims of gun violence. Permits also are not currently required in Washington, although buyers must submit to a background check and a waiting period before obtaining a gun. **THE MOMENTUM SHIFT TOWARD REGULATING FIREARMS** A [ban on high-capacity magazines went into effect in July](https://mynorthwest.com/3531136/washington-ban-high-capacity-ammo-magazines-july-1/). As a result, Washingtonians can no longer purchase or sell magazines with the ability to hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Regulations on untraceable firearms, also known as ghost guns, went into effect this year as well, and in March 2023 possession of an untraceable firearm will be illegal in the state. Legislation that banned the open carry of weapons at government facilities and where government meetings occur also passed the Legislature and went into effect in June of this year. Possession of weapons is now prohibited at school board meetings and election-related offices. **WASHINGTON’S CURRENT POLITICAL CLIMATE TOWARD GUN MEASURES** [WA State Attorney General Bob Ferguson](https://www.atg.wa.gov/about-bob-ferguson) has already signaled that he will not tolerate violations of the bans passed by state Democratic leaders. On Wednesday, he filed a lawsuit and is seeking an injunction against a gun store in Federal Way for selling high-capacity magazines. Federal Way Discount Guns was caught during a sweep of 25 firearms retailers, according to a press release from the Attorney General’s office. As with previous gun control proposals, Republicans are not happy about the announcement Wednesday from the Alliance for Gun Responsibility. [Rep. Jim Walsh, R-Aberdeen](https://jimwalsh.houserepublicans.wa.gov/), said in a press release that it’s unfortunate that legislators must use time and resources to continue debating the gun control issue. He called the proposed assault weapon ban pointless and said he doesn’t believe it will have any impact on the safety of Washingtonians: > “The people of Washington are tired of political grandstanding and unproductive — or counterproductive — legislation. They have said repeatedly they want bipartisan solutions to problems like crime, homelessness, struggling schools, and the rising cost of living. Constitutionally dubious gun-control schemes don’t address any of those real-world problems.” ~[Rep. Jim Walsh, R-Aberdeen](https://jimwalsh.houserepublicans.wa.gov/) Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Firearm Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Uncategorized **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Federal Prisoners Punished for Using Their Prescribed Medications](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/federal-prisoners-punished-for-using-their-prescribed-medications/) **Published:** December 12, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Intriguing [article](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna60946) from journalist [Beth Schwartzapfel](https://muckrack.com/beth-schwartzapfel) discusses federal prisons punish prisoners for using addiction medication. The article was published in partnership with [The Marshall Project](https://www.themarshallproject.org/2022/12/12/suboxone-federal-prison-opioid-addiction-treatment-overdose), who spoke to more than 20 people struggling with addictions in federal prison. They described the dire consequences of being unable to safely access a treatment that Congress has instructed prisons to provide. Last year, the Bureau of Prisons disciplined more than 500 people for using [Suboxone](https://www.recoverycare.org/blog/what-is-suboxone-4-facts-every-patient-should-know) without a prescription. When prescribed, Suboxone typically comes as a strip of film that patients dissolve under the tongue. On the illegal market behind bars, a strip is cut into 16 or 32 pieces, each of which sells for $20. Some prisoners have overdosed. Many have gotten involved in dangerous and illicit money-making schemes to pay for Suboxone. The medication costs about $20 for a small fraction of a daily dose on the illegal market, several prisoners said. Many have lost phone or visiting privileges or been sent to [solitary confinement](https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/12/08/solitary_symposium/) because they were caught taking the medication. “Believe me, 100% I recognize the irony there,” said a bureau administrator familiar with the agency’s addiction treatment programs, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to the press. “It’s maddening.” **THE “FIRST STEP” ACT** Congress passed the [First Step Act](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/first-step-act-promised-widespread-reform-what-has-criminal-justice-n1079771) four years ago, requiring, among other things, that the Bureau of Prisons offer more prisoners addiction medications, the most common of which is Suboxone. The medications can quiet opioid cravings and [reduce the risk](https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/medications-to-treat-opioid-addiction/efficacy-medications-opioid-use-disorder) of relapse and overdose. Yet the federal prisons are treating only a fraction — less than 10% — [of the roughly 15,000](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23300540-gao-20-423#document/p32/a2171898) prisoners who need it, according to the bureau’s estimates. At the end of October, 21 prisons were not offering any prisoners addiction medication, and another 59 were treating 10 or fewer people — in many cases, just one person, according to bureau data obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. The rest of the 121 facilities nationwide were each treating a few dozen people at most. **THE CHALLENGES OF PRESCRIBING MEDICATIONS TO PRISONERS** According to the article, the [Bureau of Prisons (BOP)](https://www.bop.gov/) is treating increasingly more people since it launched its opioid medication program. In 2019, [41 people](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23300540-gao-20-423#document/p2/a2171981) were receiving addiction medications. As of October, that had risen to 1,035 people; more than 80% of them are receiving Suboxone. This is good progress. However, the BOP has [fought in court](https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/01/29/when-going-to-jail-means-giving-up-the-meds-that-saved-your-life) to prevent people entering the system from staying on the addiction medications they were prescribed by doctors in the community. That began to change in 2018, when the First Step Act was passed and [prisons and](https://www.themarshallproject.org/2021/08/10/these-meds-prevent-overdoses-few-federal-prisoners-are-getting-them) [jails](https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/01/29/when-going-to-jail-means-giving-up-the-meds-that-saved-your-life) across the country began losing lawsuits from prisoners who argued it was cruel and unusual to deny them the addiction medicine they’d been taking before they were incarcerated. Presently, prisoners need to overcome several administrative hurdles before they can begin medication. They must also obtain clearance from psychological services, then health services, before seeing a prescriber. This process naturally involves extended wait times. Some say the issues stem from a culture at the BOP that is skeptical of addiction medication and pits staff against prisoners. Federal law treats use of any narcotics without a prescription in federal prison — including Suboxone — as a [“greatest severity level prohibited act.”](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/541.3) This infraction allows officials to punish prisoners by delaying their release date, confiscating their property. It also allows officials to withdraw visiting or phone privileges and hold prisoners for up to six months in solitary confinement. Experts say even a few days in solitary can exacerbate the mental illness that is often the cause of, or closely linked to, drug addiction. According to the article, the lack of Suboxone treatment comes amid a rise in drug-related deaths behind bars. A variety of substances are routinely smuggled into prisons and jails through mail, drone drops, visitors or [corrections officers](https://apnews.com/article/prisons-new-york-manhattan-indictments-nyc-state-wire-f3d717def1bef362c53fb2e7d2201679) and [other staff](https://www.justice.gov/usao-nh/pr/former-fci-berlin-chaplain-sentenced-40-months-accepting-bribes-smuggle-drugs-prison). In the last two decades, [federal data shows](https://www.themarshallproject.org/2021/07/15/inside-the-nation-s-overdose-crisis-in-prisons-and-jails) that fatal overdoses increased by more than 600% inside prisons and more than 200% inside jails. Forty-seven incarcerated people died of overdoses in federal prison from 2019 through 2021, according to internal bureau data released via a public records request. The data does not specify how many of these overdose deaths were caused by opioids and could have been prevented by medications like Suboxone. However, other BOP data offers some clue: During the same period, correctional staff administered [Narcan](https://www.narcan.com/#what-is-narcan) — a drug that reverses opioid overdoses — almost 600 times in federal prisons. Prison is an awful experience. Serving a prison sentence while needing a prescription medication is even more challenging. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Prison, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Harming a Police Dog](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/harming-a-police-dog/) **Published:** December 15, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Moose*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=383687MAJ), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div3&fileID=geninfo) decided an interesting case involving a defendant maliciously harming a K-9 officer. **BACKGROUND FACTS** The Defendant Mr. Moose attempted to light a car on fire. In the process, he intentionally lit a police dog on fire while resisting arrest. The State filed four charges against him—attempted [Arson in the Second Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/arson/), [Harming a Police Dog](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.76.200), [Resisting Arrest](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/resisting-arrest/), and attempted [Malicious Mischief in the Third Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/malicious-mischief/). A jury convicted him of all charges. Mr. Moose appealed his conviction. He argued that the term “maliciously” under the [Malicious Mischief statute](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.48.090) does not include police dogs. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals began by framing Mr. Moose’s appellate arguments. In short, Moose argued that the State lacked evidence to convict him because the Malicious Mischief statute defines “maliciously” as “an evil intent, wish, or design to vex, annoy, or injure another person.” Because Mr. Moose harmed a police dog, not “another person,” the State failed to prove he acted maliciously as required by statute. However, the Court of Appeals denied Moose’s interpretation of the statute: > “Mr. Moose’s argument is unconvincing . . . A statute criminalizing malicious injury of a police dog plainly requires a definition of “maliciously” that applies to police dogs. Further, Mr. Moose’s reading of “maliciously” in RCW 9A.76.200 to require acting against “another person” violates multiple canons of statutory interpretation . . . > > He suggests we read RCW 9A.76.200 so as to render the entire statute meaningless. This is an absurd result that was clearly not intended by the legislature. The State was not required to prove Mr. Moose harmed “another person” to prove he harmed a police dog, and the evidence at trial was sufficient to sustain his conviction.” With that, the Court of Appeals upheld Moose’s conviction. My opinion? In nearly every state, there are specific laws that, for all intents and purposes, equate an attack on a police dog as the same as an attack on a regular officer. WA State is no different, and the penalties are incredible harsh. Recently, a man was [sentenced to 45 years for killing a police dog](https://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/man-shot-killed-ohio-officer-jethro-sentenced-45/story?id=41645362 "Man Who Shot, Killed Ohio K-9 Officer Jethro Sentenced to 45 Years in Prison"). Generally, though, individuals do have the right to resist unlawful arrests, excessive force, and unprovoked attacks from officers and K-9s. However, when a police dog is attacking a person, depending on what the dog is doing, a person may be able to claim that the use of a police dog constitutes [excessive force](https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/excessive-force-and-police-brutality.html "Excessive Force and Police Brutality"). Many police dogs are trained to “bite and hold” suspects, which as the name implies, involves a K-9 literally biting down on a suspect in order to prevent them from fleeing until human officers can arrive. Because dog bites can be extraordinarily severe, an individual may be justified in fighting back in that situation. [Self-Defense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/self-defense/) may apply if the bite is drawing blood, or severely injuring an individual. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Arson, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Harming a Police Dog, Malicious Mischief, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Resisting Arrest, Self-Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [DOJ Ends Crack Cocaine Sentencing Disparities](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/doj-ends-crack-cocaine-sentencing-disparities/) **Published:** December 18, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The US attorney general, [Merrick Garland](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/merrick-garland), moved to end sentencing disparities that have imposed different penalties for different forms of cocaine. This signaled an end to arbitrary drug policies that have worsened [racial inequity](https://www.nbcnewyork.com/racism) in the US justice system. For decades federal law has imposed harsher sentences for crack cocaine even though it isn’t scientifically different from powder cocaine, creating “unwarranted racial disparities,” [Garland wrote in a memo](https://www.justice.gov/media/1265321/dl?inline) Friday to federal prosecutors. “They are two forms of the same drug, with powder readily convertible into crack cocaine.” With changes to the law stalled in Congress, Garland instructed prosecutors in non-violent, low-level cases to file charges that avoid the mandatory minimum sentences that are triggered for smaller amounts of rock cocaine. Civil rights leaders and criminal justice reform advocates applauded the changes, though they said the changes would not be permanent without action from Congress. The Rev Al Sharpton led marches in the 1990s against the laws he called “unfair and racially tinged” and applauded the justice department direction, which takes effect within 30 days. > “This was not only a major prosecutorial and sentencing decision – it is a major civil rights decision. The racial disparities of this policy have ruined homes and futures for over a generation.” ~Reverend Al Sharpton At one point, federal law treated a single gram of crack the same as 100 grams of powder cocaine. Congress narrowed that gap in 2010 but did not completely close it. A bill to end the disparity passed the House last year but stalled in the Senate. “This has been one of the policies that has sent thousands and thousands of predominantly Black men to the federal prison system,” said Janos Marton, vice-president of political strategy with the group Dream.org. “And that’s been devastating for communities and for families.” While he welcomed the change in prosecution practices, he pointed out that unless Congress acted, it could be temporary. The bill that passed the House with bipartisan support last year would also be retroactive to apply to people already convicted under the law passed in 1986. The Black incarceration rate in the US exploded after the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 went into effect. It went from about 600 per 100,000 people in 1970 to 1,808 in 2000. In the same timespan, the rate for the Latino population grew from 208 per 100,000 people to 615, while the white incarceration rate grew from 103 per 100,000 people to 242. The mandatory-minimum policies came as the use of illicit drugs, including crack cocaine in the late 1980s, was accompanied by an alarming increase in homicides and other violent crimes nationwide. The act was passed shortly after an NBA draftee died of a cocaine-induced heart attack. It imposed mandatory federal sentences of 20 years to life in prison for violating drug laws and made sentences for possession and sale of crack rocks harsher than those for powder cocaine. Friday’s announcement reflected the ways that years of advocacy had pushed a shift away from the “war on drugs” tactics that took a heavy toll on marginalized groups and drove up the nation’s incarceration rates without an accompanying investment in other services to rebuild communities, said Rashad Robinson, president of Color of Change. “It is a recognition these laws were intended to target Black people and Black communities and were never intended to give communities the type of support and investments they need,” he said. My opinion? It’s about time. The sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine was racist. It was never based in sound policy, and has not improved public safety. Far from it — it is science fiction that has driven racial disparities, bloated our carceral system, and ruined thousands of lives. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Race & Law, Sentencing, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [FBI's Hate Crime Statistics in Whatcom County](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/fbis-hate-crime-statistics-in-whatcom-county/) **Published:** December 20, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Informative [article](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/crime/article270123687.html) by [Robert Mittendorf](https://muckrack.com/robert-mittendorf) discusses the [FBI’s](https://www.fbi.gov/services) recent statistics on Whatcom County’s Hate Crime numbers. The [FBI’s report](https://www.justice.gov/crs/highlights/2021-hate-crime-statistics) included incidents from 2021 that were reported from numerous police agencies. Information was gleaned from Bellingham Police, the Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office, Western Washington University Police, Lummi Nation and Nooksack tribal police, and police in Blaine, Everson, Ferndale, Lynden and Sumas. A total of 12 hate crimes were reported in Whatcom County in 2021, down from 20 in 2020. As a caveat, Whatcom County agencies did not report bias incidents, which often don’t meet the legal standard for a hate crime. [Malicious Harassment](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.080) is what a hate crime is called in Washington state. It must include an [assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) or [vandalism](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/malicious-mischief/), or cause reasonable fear in the victim. The 2021 crime statistics included the following: - Bellingham reported nine incidents, including six with racial motivation, one with religious overtones and two that involved sexual orientation. That overall figure was down from 14 incidents that Bellingham Police reported to the FBI in 2020. One incident was anti-white and another was anti-Protestant, according to the data. - Three of the six racially motivated incidents in 2021 were directed at people of Asian heritage, who have faced increasing harassment in recent years. - Whatcom County reported a single hate crime in 2021, an incident that was listed as anti-Hispanic or Latino. - A total of four hate crimes were reported by the Sheriff’s Office in 2020. Members of the Whatcom County Council voted 4-3 to form a Racial Equity Commission earlier this year, and both the Bellingham City Council and the Whatcom County Council have said that racism is a public health crisis. - Western Washington University reported two hate crimes in 2021, both based on religion. WWU also reported two incidents in 2020. One victim at WWU was of the Sikh faith and the other was Jewish, according to the report. WWU has seen several racial bias incidents this fall, including those directed at Jews, Iranian Muslims and Blacks, The Herald has reported. - Lynden Police reported a single hate crime in 2021, an assault where gender identity was the motive. - Police in Blaine, Everson, Ferndale and Sumas reported no hate crimes that met FBI guidelines in 2021. - Lummi Nation and Nooksack Tribal Police reported no hate crimes in 2021. My opinion? Hate crimes occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by race, religion, color, national origin (or ethnicity), age, disability, sexual orientation, gender, or gender identity. Hate crimes are different because they’re not always directed simply at an individual. They are meant to cause fear and intimidation in an entire group or class of people. However, simply because someone believes they are victimized for their race, religion, etc., doesn’t always mean they are actually victims of hate crimes. Perhaps the perpetrator suffered from a mental health episode. Perhaps a lack of evidence may exist. Or perhaps the alleged victim was overly sensitive. And we can’t overlook the fact that some want to increase such prosecutions by defining so-called “[hate speech](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech)” as a hate crime. “[Cancel culture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture)” and “[trigger warnings](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trigger%20warning)” are bad enough, but criminalizing speech that some find offensive? Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Hate Crimes, LGBTQ, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Fentanyl's Path to the United States](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/fentanyls-path-to-the-united-states/) **Published:** December 23, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Intriguing [WSJ article](https://www.wsj.com/articles/fentanyl-crisis-fed-by-flow-of-chinese-chemicals-to-mexican-cartels-11671722056) by [Brian Spegele](https://www.wsj.com/news/author/brian-spegele) discusses how Chinese chemical companies are producing more ingredients for illegal fentanyl than ever. Consequently, this has [strained relations between Beijing and Washington](https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-us-relationship-downward-spiral-11670603730?mod=article_inline) are undermined [efforts to stop the flow](https://www.wsj.com/articles/fentanyl-overdose-death-data-11671037661?mod=article_inline). Among the available products are compounds with obscure names such as N-Phenyl-4-piperidinamine, which [Mexican cartels purchase to make into fentanyl](https://www.wsj.com/articles/mexico-drug-cartels-fentanyl-overdose-sinaloa-jalisco-11661866903?mod=article_inline). The opioid has become [the most deadly illegal drug the U.S. has ever seen](https://www.wsj.com/articles/fentanyls-ubiquity-inflames-american-drug-crisis-1?mod=article_inline). **WHY HAS THIS HAPPENED?** In 2018, China restricted the production and sale of two of the most common ingredients for the drug. This move won it praise from the U.S. Since then, the U.S. has adopted a [tougher posture toward China](https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-xi-talks-mark-shift-in-u-s-china-ties-toward-managing-fierce-competition-11668534046?mod=article_inline). Simultaneously, China has also grown more assertive about defending its interests. As a consequence, the cooperation on combating the drug trade has broken down. Conversations about fentanyl between China and officials from the [Drug Enforcement Administration](https://www.dea.gov/) and State Department have ceased, according to Biden administration officials. Also, U.S. officials said China cut off all talks over fentanyl after House Speaker [Nancy Pelosi ](https://www.wsj.com/topics/person/nancy-pelosi)[visited Taiwan](https://www.wsj.com/articles/pelosi-trip-bolsters-taiwan-while-creating-new-security-risks-strains-with-china-11659727123?mod=article_inline). Apparently, Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan angered China. Since then, the flow of Chinese chemicals to Mexican drug cartels has created a major challenge in the U.S.-China relationship. **CHINA’S RESPONSE TO THE ACCUSATIONS.** China places the blame squarely on the U.S. “As a matter of fact, it is the U.S. that has undermined China-U. S. counter-narcotics cooperation,” said Liu Pengyu, a spokesman for China’s embassy in Washington. China has also said the U.S. should address its drug crisis by curbing demand. “The U.S. must look squarely at its own problem instead of deflecting blame,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin at an August news conference. China’s government considers biopharmaceuticals an important economic driver and has no incentive to overregulate the sector. **CHINA’S CONNECTION TO MEXICAN CARTELS.** Accoring to the article, chemical companies in China target Mexican buyers online. The companies say they accept payment in cryptocurrency, and they use encrypted channels to talk with customers. Some Chinese nationals working with cartels moved to Mexico and adopted local names as part of money-laundering rings, say federal prosecutors. One such network funneled drug proceeds from New York through China’s banking system and ultimately to Mexico. The U.S. has charged Chinese citizens whom prosecutors accuse of helping cartels supercharge the fentanyl trade. Because the countries have no extradition treaty, some of the accused remain at large. **ULTIMATUMS FROM THE UNITED STATES TO CHINA.** U.S. officials say they have urged China to take three steps to constrict the fentanyl trade: **(1)** require Chinese companies to know the identities of customers before shipping chemicals; **(2)** ensure that such shipments are properly labeled for customs inspectors; and **(3)** create a system to track shipment volumes and trends. Homeland Security agents and Mexican authorities stopped about 24,000 pounds of cutting agents coming from China to dilute high-purity fentanyl synthesized by cartels in Mexico in October 2020. Agents also blocked 1,600 pounds of 4-AP coming into Mexico from China and 1.5 million pounds of ingredients for meth from China and India, in 2021 and 2022. Agents traced the chemicals to high-level buyers inside a Mexican cartel. The transactions, through brokers and shell companies, were arranged so the chemical makers in China might not have known who bought the chemicals in Mexico. My opinion? Unfotunately, this news reveals how high-level politics have globalized the drug trade of Fentanyl into the U.S. Fentanyl is the deadliest drug threat facing this country. It is a highly addictive man-made opioid that is 50 times more potent than heroin. Just two milligrams of fentanyl, the small amount that fits on the tip of a pencil, is considered a potentially deadly dose. That said, Washington has legalized the possession of small amounts of drugs. In March 2021, the WA supreme court threw out the existing felony drug law[ in its “Blake” decision](https://www.kuow.org/stories/by-throwing-out-drug-law-washington-supreme-court-creates-massive-fallout). Consequently, possessing small amounts of drugs including heroin, methamphetamine, fentanyl and cocaine has effectively been decriminalized in Washington. Therefore, simply because you’re *caught* with drugs doesn’t mean you’re *selling* drugs, which is still illegal. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Drug Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Fentanyl, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Should Prison Inmates Get Minimum Wage for Prison Jobs?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/should-prison-inmates-get-minimum-wage-for-prison-jobs/) **Published:** December 26, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/pay-inmates-minimum-wage-prison-jobs/281-3c42badf-52ba-41af-93f5-e20d790c47ae) by Journalist [Drew Mikkelsen](https://muckrack.com/drewmikk) reports that [WA State Representative Tarra Simmons](https://housedemocrats.wa.gov/simmons/) wants to start paying inmates minimum wage for prison jobs. According to the [Department of Corrections](https://www.doc.wa.gov/) (DOC), 1,600 offenders currently work in-custody jobs. They pay between 65 cents to $2.70 per hour. Inmates are paid to work in prison kitchens, they build office furniture and assemble eyeglasses. DOC spokesperson Chris Wright said those are “one of the top hourly rates in the country.” “This is an evolution of slavery,” said state Representative Tarra Simmons, D-Bremerton. Simmons is believed to be the first person convicted of a felony to get elected to serve in Olympia. She served a 30-month prison sentence for drug and theft charges. She worked in the kitchen, laundry room, and as a custodian. “When I was incarcerated I was paid 42 cents an hour,” said Simmons. Her proposal would place half of an inmate’s earnings into an account that could not be accessed until the inmate’s release. > “If people can leave with enough money to have transportation, for housing, clothing, food and potentially some job training, hopefully they will have a better chance at not coming back,” ~Tarra Simmons, D-Bremerton Simmons said the issue will come up for debate in the upcoming legislative session, which starts in January. Mrs. Simmons is quite remarkable. She’s a politician, convicted felon, lawyer, and civil rights activist for [criminal justice reform](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_reform_in_the_United_States "Criminal justice reform in the United States"). In 2011 Simmons was sentenced to 30 months in prison for theft and drug crimes. In 2017, she graduated from [Seattle University School of Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_University_School_of_Law "Seattle University School of Law") with honors. After law school, she was not allowed to sit for the Washington State [bar exam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_State_Bar_Association "Washington State Bar Association") due to her status as a former convicted [felon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felon "Felon"). Consequently, she challenged the [Washington State Bar Association](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_State_Bar_Association "Washington State Bar Association") rules in the [Washington State Supreme Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_State_Supreme_Court "Washington State Supreme Court") and won with the court unanimously ruling in her favor. She was later sworn in as an attorney in the State of Washington on June 16, 2018. Simmons is the executive director for a nonprofit focused on assisting those that are formerly incarcerated, known as the [Civil Survival Project](https://civilsurvival.org/) Republican Sen. Phil Fortunato, R-Auburn, said the inmates are enough of a tax burden on the state: > “To me, it doesn’t make much sense . . . There’s no end to what we can do with other people’s money.” ~Republican Sen. Phil Fortunato, R-Auburn Mt opinion? Prison is big business. The state of Washington saves millions by paying inmates pennies per hour for work done behind bars.Billions of dollars in revenue are generated by both [the private prison industry](https://www.aclu.org/banking-bondage-private-prisons-and-mass-incarceration) and the labor of individuals who are incarcerated. From desks to textiles, a complex web of manufacturing is produced each day in New York Prisons—in fact, [every New York license plate](https://www.bkreader.com/2019/02/06/time-to-stop-prison-slave-labor-brooklyn-pols-push-for-prison-minimum-wage/) is created by an individual with justice involvement. Though their work results in billions of dollars, individuals with justice involvement receive literal pennies in return. Of course, the best route is to avoid prison altogether. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Prison, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Increased DUI Patrols in Whatcom this New Year's Weekend](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/increased-dui-patrols-in-whatcom-this-new-years-weekend/) **Published:** December 31, 2022 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Informative [article](https://www.aol.com/news/increased-dui-patrols-whatcom-weekend-130000526.html) by journalist[ Alyse Smith](https://www.linkedin.com/in/alysemessmer) reports that Whatcom County police will increase the number of patrols through Jan. 1st. This comes with an effort to prevent “further tragedy by removing impaired drivers from Washington roads,” according to a [Washington Traffic Safety Commission news release.](https://wtsc.wa.gov/we-all-play-a-role-in-getting-everyone-home-for-the-holidays/) As traffic deaths reached a 20-year high in 2021, 2022 had an even higher number of fatalities, with 15% more deaths in 2022 from January through October alone. [More than half of traffic fatalities each year involve impaired drivers](https://wtsc.wa.gov/we-all-play-a-role-in-getting-everyone-home-for-the-holidays/), according to the news release. > “Impaired driving crashes are totally preventable. We can all do our part to keep impaired drivers off our roads so that no one has to miss their loved ones during the holiday season.” ~Mark McKechnie, Washington Traffic Safety Commission. If you’re out driving in Whatcom County and a police officer pulls you over, there are a few things you can expect if you are driving impaired, according to [Carr Lanham, Target Zero](https://wtsc.wa.gov/programs-priorities/target-zero-managers/region-eleven-bio/) manager for the Washington Traffic Safety Commission. If a police officer is attempting to pull you over, pull over and stop at the next safest location where you and the police officer can safely get off the road. You should not get out of your vehicle, but keep your hands on the steering wheel until the officer asks you to get your license, registration and proof of insurance, according to Lanham. People arrested for DUI in Whatcom County are booked into the Whatcom County Jail, and bail is not available until they go before a judge. The minimum consequence for a DUI arrest in Whatcom County is 24 hours in jail, and the maximum penalty is 365 days, unless it is a felony DUI arrest, according to Lanham. There is a maximum fine of $5,000, and those convicted of a DUI can also receive a 90-day suspension of license, be ordered to alcohol and drug treatment and a five-year probation, according to Lanham. The commission also encourages drivers to avoid driving impaired, and advises drivers who know they will be drinking alcohol or using cannabis to arrange a ride home ahead of time or call a rideshare service. And if you see a driver who is driving erratically and may be impaired, the commission encourages you to call 911. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Sentencing Enhancements For Dealing Drugs Near School Zones](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/sentencing-enhancements-for-dealing-drugs-near-school-zones/) **Published:** January 2, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Richter*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2055881-5-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held that the [*Blake* ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/968730.pdf)decision does not invalidate the enhancement for trafficking drugs within 1000’ of a school bus route stop just because a drug dealer might deal drugs without knowing he or she is close to such a stop. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** Mr. Richter was convicted of three counts of [delivery of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a school bus route stop](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.435) and one count of [possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.401#:~:text=(1)%20Except%20as%20authorized%20by,or%20deliver%2C%20a%20controlled%20substance.&text=(e)%20A%20substance%20classified%20in,20%20RCW.). The trial court imposed an exceptional upward sentence of 168 months based in part on former RCW 69.50.435(1)(c). The statute allows judges to double the statutory maximum sentences for drug offenses that occurred in certain locations. Richter appeals his sentence. Among other things, he argued his sentence violated due process under the reasoning in *State v. Blake*, In the *Blake* case, the [Washington Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) struck down [Washington’s drug possession statute](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.4013), because the statute violated due process and was therefore void. The law criminalized “unknowing” drug possession. As a result, people could be arrested and convicted even if they did not realize they had drugs in their possession. Consequently, Mr. Richter hoped that his appeal would persuade the WA Court of Appeals to reverse his conviction for the same reasons. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The WA Court of Appeals began by summarizing the *Blake* decision. In *Blake*, the WA Supreme Court declared Washington’s statute criminalizing simple possession of a controlled substance to be unconstitutional because the statute allowed conviction even if the possession was unknowing. The Court of Appeals emphasized that *Blake* court held that active trafficking in drugs was not innocent conduct. States have criminalized knowing drug possession nationwide, and there is plenty of reason to know that illegal drugs are highly regulated. The Court of Appeals also emphasized that the *Blake* court then distinguished the unconstitutional simple possession statute from other valid strict liability crimes. Ultimately, the difference hinges on whether the statutes penalize conduct or passive and innocent nonconduct. That, reasoned the Court of Appeals, is where Mr. Richter’s argument on appeal collapsed. The statute imposed increased consequences for affirmative conduct, not the kind of passive nonconduct that the *Blake* court declared to be innocent: > “Here, although Richter may not have known that he was within a school bus route stop zone, he does not dispute that he intended to sell methamphetamine, and the delivery amounted to affirmative conduct. Therefore, the Blake court’s reasoning does not apply to this case or to former RCW 69.50.435(1) more generally.” ~WA Court of Appeals. With that, the Court of Appeals denied Richter’s appeal on this issue. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Drug Offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crimes. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sentencing, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Cross-Racial Identification](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/cross-racial-identification/) **Published:** January 9, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In *[State v. Butler](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/1002769.pdf)*, the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) upheld a defendant’s conviction for assault and held there was insufficient evidence supporting a [jury instruction](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/If6ccaa27850b11e4bda0d9f8ddafede4?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)) for false cross-racial identification. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** Mr. Butler, a Black man, was convicted of assaulting two security officers in separate incidents at two Seattle light rail stations. Both assaults were caught on camera and the assailant appeared to be the same person in both. One of the victims, who appears to be white, identified Butler as his assailant at trial. The victim had not made an out-of-court identification. The victim did not identify Butler until the [CrR 3.5 hearing](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/CrR/SUP_CrR_03_05_00.pdf) and then at trial. Naturally, the primary issue at trial was the identity of the assailant. The State sought to prove Butler was the person in the videos. The State argued that Butler was of the same build and race as the assailant. He also wore the same clothes and carried the same items—including the same shoes, skateboard, and backpack. Butler asked the trial court to instruct the jury according to the [pattern jury instruction on eyewitness identifications](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/If6ccaa27850b11e4bda0d9f8ddafede4?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)). It includes optional bracketed language that the jury may consider the witness’s familiarity or lack of familiarity with people of the perceived race or ethnicity of the perpetrator of the act. The trial court agreed to give the pattern jury instruction, but declined to include that optional language. Mr. Butler was found guilty at trial. On appeal, Butler argued that the trial court denied his right to present a defense by failing to give the cross-racial identification portion of the pattern instruction. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because there was insufficient evidence supporting the instruction, and it upheld Butler’s conviction. The WA Supreme Court addressed the issue and granted review. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The WA Supreme Court acknowledges racial bias is pervasive in our society. However, it declined the chance to adopt a model jury instruction on cross-racial eyewitness identifications or to require that instruction be given whenever the defendant requests it. The Court’s review was strictly limited to considering whether the optional language on cross-racial identification should have been given. Although Butler argued for a violation of his Due Process right to present a defense, S.Ct. concludes Butler was able to attack AV’s credibility and pursue his defense on the unreliability of the identification with the instructions that were given. There was no abuse of discretion in denying the requested language in the instruction because the court reasonably concluded there was not sufficient evidence in the record supporting such a jury instruction. > “We leave for another day broader questions about what steps courts should take to mitigate the significant risk that eyewitness identifications are unreliable in the cross-racial context.” ~WA Supreme Court. **CONCURRING OPINIONS – CHIEF JUSTICE STEVEN GONZALEZ & JUSTICE MARY YU** [Chief Justice Steven Gonzalez](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=gonzalez) wrote a separate concurring opinion. He reluctantly concurred only because Butler did not lay a foundation for the instruction he requested. However, Justice Gonzalez also took the opportunity to offer a deeper perspective on the negative impacts of improper identification of defendants. > “Mistaken eyewitness identifications have resulted in many innocent people being wrongfully convicted in our nation . . . The particular weaknesses of cross-racial identifications have been well known and well documented for decades.” ~WA Supreme Court Chief Justice Steven Gonzalez Justice Gonzalez urged our Washington Pattern Jury Instructions Committee to craft an instruction that reflects what we have learned about the weaknesses of cross-racial identification. [Justice Mary Yu](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=Yu) also wrote a concurring separate opinion. Similar to Justice Gonzalez, she recommended that Washington adopt an instruction that fully and accurately reflects the proven weaknesses of cross-racial identification. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Cross-Racial Identification, Jury Instructions, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Power Grid Attacks Increasing](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/power-grid-attacks-increasing/) **Published:** January 14, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Attacks on power substations are growing. Apparently, five states in the Pacific Northwest and Southeast reveal similar incidents of attacks. Vandalism and suspicious activity were on the rise. Federal energy reports through August – the most recent available – show an increase in physical attacks at electrical facilities across the nation this year, continuing a trend seen since 2017. At least 108 human-related events were reported during the first eight months of 2022, compared with 99 in all of 2021 and 97 in 2020. More than a dozen cases of vandalism have been reported since September. The attacks have prompted a flurry of calls to better protect the nation’s power grid, but experts have warned for more than three decades that stepped-up protection was needed. **ATTACKS ON POWER STATIONS ARE ON THE RISE** - At least 20 actual physical attacks were reported, compared with six in all of 2021. - Suspicious-activity reports jumped three years ago, nearly doubling in 2020 to 32 events. In the first eight months of this year, 34 suspicious incidents were reported. - Total human-related incidents – including vandalism, suspicious activity and cyber events – are on track to be the highest since the reports started showing such activity in 2011. **ATTACKS ARE REPORTD ON AT LEAST 5 STATES** Since September, attacks or potential attacks have been reported on at least 18 additional substations and one power plant in Florida, Oregon, Washington and the Carolinas. Several involved firearms. - **In Florida:** S[ix “intrusion events”](https://www.wdhn.com/news/report-shows-6-intrusions-at-power-stations-in-florida/) occurred at Duke Energy substations in September, resulting in at least one brief power outage, according to the News Nation television network, which cited a report the utility sent to the Energy Department. Duke Energy spokesperson Ana Gibbs confirmed a related arrest, but the company declined to comment further. - **In Oregon and Washington state:** Substations [were attacked at least six times](https://www.kuow.org/stories/string-of-electrical-grid-attacks-in-pacific-northwest-are-unsolved) in November and December, with firearms used in some cases, local news outlets reported. On Christmas Day, four additional substations were vandalized in Washington State, [cutting power to more than 14,000 customers.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/12/26/power-substations-washington-tacoma-attack/10953169002/) - **In North Carolina:** A substation in Maysville was vandalized on Nov. 11. On Dec. 3, shootings that authorities [called a “targeted attack”](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/12/05/north-carolina-power-outage-substation-attack/10837716002/) damaged two power substations in Moore County, leaving tens of thousands without power amid freezing temperatures. - **In South Carolina:** Days later, [gunfire was reported near a hydropower plant](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-08/duke-energy-says-shots-fired-near-south-carolina-power-plant?leadSource=uverify%20wall), but police said the shooting was a “random act.” The [Department of Homeland Security](https://www.dhs.gov/) has previously warned that power infrastructure is an “attractive” target for domestic terrorists. [Last year](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/three-men-plead-guilty-conspiring-provide-material-support-plot-attack-power-grids-united), three men pleaded guilty today to crimes related to a scheme to attack power grids in furtherance of white supremacist ideology. > “We have seen attacks such as these increase in Western Washington and throughout the country and must treat each incident seriously . . . The outages on Christmas left thousands in the dark and cold and put some who need power for medical devices at extreme risk.” ~U.S. Attorney Nick Brown. My opinion? These actions bring criminal charges far more egrigious than your standard [Malicious Mischief](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/malicious-mischief/). If caught, defendants face federal crimes of [Sabotage](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-105). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a similar crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Domestic Terrorism, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [WA Supreme Court on Accessing Justice During the Pandemic: "Our Work Isn't Done."](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/wa-supreme-court-on-access-to-justice-during-the-pandemic-our-work-isnt-done/) **Published:** January 18, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In a [press release](https://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/?fa=newsinfo.internetdetail&newsid=50010), the Washington Courts describe the huge strides they’ve taken to keep courts accessible and safe during the pandemic. And in doing so, the judiciary learned a great deal about everyday challenges to equity and accessing justice for state residents. [WA Supreme Court Chief Steven C. González](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=gonzalez#:~:text=Gonz%C3%A1lez-,Chief%20Justice%20Steven%20C.,starting%20in%202013%20and%202019.) addressed the matter in a joint session of the state Legislature. > “The pandemic made clearer than ever the inequities within our justice system, but by making them more visible, the pandemic also made them more addressable,” ~WA Supreme Court Chief Steven C. González. The speech was broadcast live and [recorded by TVW](https://tvw.org/video/joint-legislative-session-state-of-the-judiciary-2023011050/?eventID=2023011050). A [written State of the Judiciary](https://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/StateoftheJudiciary2023.cfm) report was released to lawmakers, judicial branch leaders and the public following the oral address. González highlighted some key work and responses by the judicial branch to challenges and revelations: - **Remote proceedings, now and future** – Courts have broadly expanded remote proceedings to maintain safety during the pandemic, and in doing so learned a great deal about struggles to access courts. “Remote access has relieved the burden of travel for those unable to afford child care or to take off from work. It has allowed disabled people better, more inclusive access to justice,” Justice González said. Courts have launched remote and hybrid trials, have expanded electronic filing and use of electronic signatures, and have provided remote technology to litigants who did not have it. “Some of these pandemic necessities have become so effective, we will adopt rules to make them permanent. We’re in that process now.” - **Racial disparities remain** – The Board for Judicial Administration launched a Court Recovery Task Force to catalog pandemic revelations and adaptations and provide support and information. After the killing of George Floyd, the task force expanded its work to include examination of ongoing racial disparities in the justice system. Its final report is titled, “Re-Imagining Our Courts.” Powerful data on disparities in the justice system were also detailed in reports by The Race and Justice Task Force and the Gender and Justice Commission. “This hard data reinforces what many know from their own lived experiences, but these reports give us tangible, actionable data that we can point to as we push for improvements.” - **Making progress** – González highlighted expanded access to court interpreters enabled by the legislature, expanded use of therapeutic courts across the state which have proven successful in addressing underlying causes of criminal activity, new communication channels between state branches of government such as the new Interbranch Advisory Committee, and ongoing efforts such a Washington state court rule addressing both explicit and implicit bias in jury selection – the first in the nation to do so, and now a national model. - **Immediate challenges** – In addition to other ongoing issues, González pointed to significant concerns involving court fines and fees being used to fund so much of court operations, particularly technology system, and court security risks. “All too much of the funding for our IT systems come from district and municipal court fees and fines,” he said, which criminalize poverty. “These are disparately imposed on the poorest and most marginalized communities. This needs to change. It’s the right thing to do.” Maintaining secure, safe courts is also an issue affecting access to justice and the functions of a democratic society, he said, and court security concerns and incidents have been growing. > “We’ve travelled far along the road to justice, and we still have more to go . . . We need your help to continue that progress. I look forward to working with all of you to fulfill the great promise of our nation of equal justice for all.” ~WA Supreme Court Chief Steven C. González. My opinion? The COVID-19 pandemic has further exposed and exacerbated inequities in our justice system. Our courts and legal service providers have been forced to curtail in-person operations. This has occurred often without the resources or technology to offer remote-access or other safe alternatives. Fortunately, our courts have takes impressive strides forward and effectively pivoted under the circumstances. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Washington is the Second-Worst State to Drive](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/washington-is-the-second-worst-u-s-state-to-drive-in/) **Published:** January 20, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Apparently, Washington State is one of the worst states in the U.S. to drive in, according to a new report. [Personal finance website WalletHub ](https://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-states-to-drive-in/43012)took a look at all 50 states to determine which are the best – and the worst – to drive in. Unfortunately, Washington State landed second from last on the list. Traffic, road conditions and the cost of vehicle maintenance are all things that can make drivers nervous. These conditions vary across states for a variety of reasons including population, weather and government investments. **THE RANKING/GRADING CRITERIA.** To rank the states, WalletHub compared them across four key dimensions: **1.** Cost of ownership and maintenance, **2.** Traffic and infrastructure, **3.** Safety and **4.** Access to vehicles and maintenance. Researchers then broke those dimensions down into 31 relevant metrics, including things like average gas prices, the share of rush-hour traffic congestion, number of days with precipitation, road quality, traffic fatality rate, car theft rate and auto-repair shops per capita. Each metric was graded on a 100-point scale, with a score of 100 representing the best for drivers. WalletHub determined each state’s weighted average across all metrics to calculate its overall score. **THE RESULTS: WA STATE RANKS SECOND-TO-LAST IN WORST STATES TO DRIVE IN.** When the scores were determined, WalletHub’s report shows that Washington ranked 49th overall among 50 states, making it the second-worst state to drive in. The state ranked 47th among all states for its cost of vehicle ownership and maintenance and 39th among states for traffic and infrastructure. Both scores contributed greatly to the state finishing so low on the list. The only state worse to drive in than Washington, according to the report, is Hawaii. In the report, WalletHub asked experts how states can reduce the number of traffic fatalities. [Dr. Arman Sargolzaei](https://rancs-lab.com/director/), an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Southern Florida said the vast majority of U.S. traffic accidents are entirely or partially due to human error. > “A shift in responsibilities from the human driver to self-driving cars can potentially reduce accidents,” ~Dr. Arman Sargolzaei. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Driving With Wheels Off Roadway, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Reckless Driving, Reckless Endangerment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Traffic Infractions, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Proposed Bills Seek to Change Washington's Police Pursuit Law](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/proposed-bills-seek-to-change-washingtons-police-pursuit-law/) **Published:** January 24, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Lawmakers will soon be considering proposals to change Washington’s law that restricts police pursuits. The three legislative proposals – [HB 1053](https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fapp.leg.wa.gov%2Fbillsummary%3FBillNumber%3D1053%26Year%3D2023%26Initiative%3Dfalse&data=05%7C01%7Cjeremyharris%40komonews.com%7C08233acf52874f3a895308daf8cde2cf%7C897dbc0dc02d43479a713e589c67f8aa%7C0%7C0%7C638095860415298757%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Px3Ki1E6l3JFN7HH37Wxfy%2BtMV0Ulb2s5D5snm4ngck%3D&reserved=0 "https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fapp.leg.wa.gov%2Fbillsummary%3FBillNumber%3D1053%26Year%3D2023%26Initiative%3Dfalse&data=05%7C01%7Cjeremyharris%40komonews.com%7C08233acf52874f3a895308daf8cde2cf%7C897dbc0dc02d43479a713e589c67f8aa%7C0%7C0%7C638095860415298757%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Px3Ki1E6l3JFN7HH37Wxfy%2BtMV0Ulb2s5D5snm4ngck%3D&reserved=0"), [SB 5352](https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flawfilesext.leg.wa.gov%2Fbiennium%2F2023-24%2FPdf%2FBills%2FSenate%2520Bills%2F5352.pdf%3Fq%3D20230117111957&data=05%7C01%7Cjeremyharris%40komonews.com%7C08233acf52874f3a895308daf8cde2cf%7C897dbc0dc02d43479a713e589c67f8aa%7C0%7C0%7C638095860415298757%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9Khw0LLxUFbnZ4x3jo%2B8qQu5QCNOC6Kc%2BH1X1u8fv88%3D&reserved=0 "https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flawfilesext.leg.wa.gov%2Fbiennium%2F2023-24%2FPdf%2FBills%2FSenate%2520Bills%2F5352.pdf%3Fq%3D20230117111957&data=05%7C01%7Cjeremyharris%40komonews.com%7C08233acf52874f3a895308daf8cde2cf%7C897dbc0dc02d43479a713e589c67f8aa%7C0%7C0%7C638095860415298757%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9Khw0LLxUFbnZ4x3jo%2B8qQu5QCNOC6Kc%2BH1X1u8fv88%3D&reserved=0"), and [HB1363](https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flawfilesext.leg.wa.gov%2Fbiennium%2F2023-24%2FPdf%2FBills%2FHouse%2520Bills%2F1363.pdf%3Fq%3D20230117111837&data=05%7C01%7Cjeremyharris%40komonews.com%7C08233acf52874f3a895308daf8cde2cf%7C897dbc0dc02d43479a713e589c67f8aa%7C0%7C0%7C638095860415298757%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0hDdmO41gRSvSFoNjmEjFvyu6vKBLhUfzCfX%2BylLCR4%3D&reserved=0 "https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flawfilesext.leg.wa.gov%2Fbiennium%2F2023-24%2FPdf%2FBills%2FHouse%2520Bills%2F1363.pdf%3Fq%3D20230117111837&data=05%7C01%7Cjeremyharris%40komonews.com%7C08233acf52874f3a895308daf8cde2cf%7C897dbc0dc02d43479a713e589c67f8aa%7C0%7C0%7C638095860415298757%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0hDdmO41gRSvSFoNjmEjFvyu6vKBLhUfzCfX%2BylLCR4%3D&reserved=0") – would all change the law to remove language specifying the types of offenses for which an officer can initiate a pursuit. The bills repeal [a 2021 reform](https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fapp.leg.wa.gov%2FRCW%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fcite%3D10.116.060&data=05%7C01%7Cjeremyharris%40komonews.com%7C08233acf52874f3a895308daf8cde2cf%7C897dbc0dc02d43479a713e589c67f8aa%7C0%7C0%7C638095860415298757%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=H%2FKCXxyFgv3AI8ABXBucbOWdIw2lVmMtTebQjz2saZM%3D&reserved=0 "https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fapp.leg.wa.gov%2FRCW%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fcite%3D10.116.060&data=05%7C01%7Cjeremyharris%40komonews.com%7C08233acf52874f3a895308daf8cde2cf%7C897dbc0dc02d43479a713e589c67f8aa%7C0%7C0%7C638095860415298757%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=H%2FKCXxyFgv3AI8ABXBucbOWdIw2lVmMtTebQjz2saZM%3D&reserved=0") that limited officers to only chasing cars where the suspect is accused of a violent offense, a sex offense, or where the officer suspects [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). Law enforcement leaders in Washington have said the new law is emboldening criminals to flee from officers with the belief that they will not be pursued. “I have never seen criminals as emboldened as they are now,” said Steve Strachan, the Executive Director of the [Washington Association of Sheriff’s and Police Chiefs (WASPC)](https://www.waspc.org/). The WASPC sent a letter to lawmakers urging them to undo the 2021 reforms. In short the letter says that offenders have been given the advantage over victims of crimes. > “Recent policies restricting pursuits made driving a car a ‘get out of jail free’ card and creates conditions that empower criminals, jeopardize public safety, and diminishes the rule of law in Washington. We can fix the pursuit law to fall in line with Washington State’s duty of care standards and enable more discretion in engaging in police vehicle pursuits in a manner that offers a balance between the risk of the pursuit versus the reasons(s) for the pursuit. Severe prohibitions on vehicular pursuits need to be reversed.” ~WASPC Letter to Lawmakers. Supporters of the 2021 reforms, however, argue pursuits present too much of a danger and want the law left alone. The [Washington Coalition for Police Accountability (WCPA)](https://www.washingtoncoalitionforpoliceaccountability.com/) wrote a letter to lawmakers on Tuesday urging them to leave the law as is. > “We sincerely believe that if this law is rolled back, there will be a sharp increase of fatalities of bystanders and passengers. That is a high cost, is not necessary, and the policy change cannot be explained or justified.” ~WCPA Governor Jay Inslee said last week he is open to changes in the state’s pursuit laws, but pushed back on the idea that the 2021 reform is responsible for an increase in crime. > “It’s a myth that the police accountability laws have caused some crime rave – the fact is crime has gone up across the United States. So the fact that the legislature passed some police accountability, rightfully so, I think it hasn’t caused crime to go up in New Jersey or Minnesota. This is not the reason we’re experiencing some additional crime in our in our state. It is a national phenomena,” ~Governor Jay Inslee. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Traffic Fatalities Reach High in 2022](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/traffic-fatalities-reach-high-in-2022/) **Published:** January 27, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Preliminary [reports](https://wtsc.wa.gov/2022-saw-most-traffic-deaths-on-washington-roads-since-1990/) from the [Washington Traffic Safety Commission](https://wtsc.wa.gov/) (WTSC) showed 745 people were killed in crashes in 2022. Apparently, the number of people killed on Washington roads has now reached levels the state hasn’t seen in decades. The rate of the year-over-year increase is something the commission said it hasn’t seen since the 1970s. Impairment by drugs and alcohol is involved in more than half of fatal crashes. According to a December 2022 report from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), “Alcohol-involved crashes resulted in 14,219 fatalities, 497,000 nonfatal injuries, and $68.9 billion in economic costs in 2019….” “During 2017 through 2021, 32 percent of fatal crashes in Washington involved alcohol positive drivers,” said WTSC Director Shelly Baldwin. “Alcohol impairment, whether alone or in combination with other drugs, continues to be a leading risk factor in traffic fatalities.” Health and safety experts have long advocated for states to reduce the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) *per se* limit for DUI from 0.08 to 0.05 percent. The state of Utah and more than 100 countries have set BAC limits at 0.05 percent or less. The Washington Legislature is currently considering [Senate Bill 5002](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5002&Initiative=false&Year=2023), which would change the state’s limit to 0.05. > “The goal of this bill is not to increase the number of DUI arrests but to remind and encourage people to avoid driving after drinking and thereby save lives. This was the outcome in Utah, and we expect a similar impact in Washington State.” ~Washington State Patrol Chief John Batiste. At a BAC of 0.05 percent, a driver has reduced coordination and ability to track moving objects, difficulty steering, and delayed response to emergency driving situations. “The evidence is clear that a driver’s ability to drive safely and react to unexpected traffic conditions is affected when their BAC reaches 0.05 percent,” Baldwin said. If passed, the legislation would go into effect on July 1, 2023. The WTSC reminds all people in Washington that there are simple things we can do to prevent impaired driving like planning ahead for a sober ride home if you will be out drinking. Friends and loved ones can help to prevent DUIs by being a sober designated driver, calling a rideshare, or offering a place to sleep. WTSC analysis shows impaired drivers are more likely to speed and less likely to wear seat belts. These factors increase crash risk and are more likely to result in death. If passed, the legislation would go into effect on July 1, 2023. There’s also growing momentum for an update to the “[Cooper Jones Act.](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=43.59.010)” This legislation requires drivers involved in serious or deadly crashes to have their license re-examined. Many factors lead to traffic fatalities. Increasing public safety is almost always a step in the right direction. However, please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/), [Vehicular Assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/vehicular-homicide-vehicular-assault/) any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["Cold-Hearted"](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/cold-hearted/) **Published:** February 1, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Fleeks*, No. 82911-4-I (January 23, 2023)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/829114.pdf)*,* the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that a recorded police interrogation – where the detective referred to the defendant as being “cold-hearted” – was improperly admitted opinion testimony. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** Nineteen-year-old Mr. Fleeks often sold drugs on the streets of Seattle to make money. On December 3, 2018, Fleeks was in the Pioneer Square neighborhood of Seattle selling drugs. After Fleeks received a text message from an unknown number, one of Fleeks’s regular customers approached him and told him the text message was from Mr. George who wanted to buy some crack cocaine. Fleeks met George and sold him a small amount of crack cocaine. Unfortunately, a confrontation took place. As a result, George died from a gunshot wound inflicted from Fleeks. After arrest, the police interviewed Fleeks and he denied any connection with George’s death. When the police showed Fleeks surveillance footage, he continued to deny being the person in the footage. Detective Cooper continued to ask Fleeks to explain the encounter and shooting. Detective Cooper asked whether George was “fucking with you or . . . something like that?” Fleeks continued to deny any involvement. Detective Cooper made the following comment: “Do you wanna explain anything to me? This, this is probably your last chance to try to make yourself not look so cold-hearted and stuff like that. We have witnesses that put you there, that identified you there. We have those pictures, that’s off a video, dude . . . I, I mean you’re 19 . . . was there an argument was there a disturbance, a fight, anything . . . so do you wanna explain what happened?” The State charged Fleeks with one count of [murder in the second degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/), and one count of [unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/). At trial, Fleeks raised self-defense. The State offered the police interview recording as evidence to prove its case. Defense counsel objected to the jury hearing the interview recording. However, the judge allowed the jury to review the transcript from a portion of the police interview with Fleeks. The jury watched the interview, including the police detective referred to Fleeks as “cold-hearted.” Robert Fleeks Jr. was convicted as charged. He appealled his conviction on numerous issues. One issue was whether the trial judge improperly allowed opinion evidence of the police detective saying Fleeks was “cold-hearted.” **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals agreed with Fleeks that the officer’s opinion testimony was improper. The Court reasoned that “Opinion Testimony” is testimony that is “based on one’s belief or idea rather than on direct knowledge of the facts at issue.” Furthermore, witnesses may not testify in the form of opinions about the defendant’s guilt or innocence. Opinions on guilt are improper because they impede the jury’s ability to make an independent determination of the facts. And testimony given by police officers possess an aura of reliability that make them particularly problematic. > “Testimony that is not a direct comment on the defendant’s guilt or on the veracity of a witness, is otherwise helpful to the jury, and is based on inferences from the evidence, is not improper opinion testimony. Opinion testimony is improper when it comments on the veracity or intent of a witness, tells the jury what decision to reach, or leaves no other conclusion but that a defendant is guilty.” ~WA Court of Appeals Fleeks argued that the comment was an improper opinion of guilt, specifically, referring to Fleeks as “cold-hearted.” Conversely, the State argued that Detective Cooper was referring to his casual demeanor and unwillingness to cooperate, in conflict with Fleeks’s claim of self-defense. The trial court found the interview admissible: > “We disagree with the trial court. While Detective Cooper’s statement is an observation that Fleeks did not appear remorseful, it improperly commented on Fleeks’s intent and effectually directed the jury to not believe Fleeks’s self-defense theory. Detective Cooper’s opinion that Fleeks should make himself ‘look not so cold-hearted’ could easily appear to the jury as a belief that Fleeks was guilty of murder, not acting in self-defense. This testimony could interfere with the jury’s ability to determine every fact beyond a reasonable doubt. ~WA Court of Appeals Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed Fleeks’s conviction on other grounds and remand for a new trial with instructions that the detective’s testimony should be redacted to exclude the “cold-hearted” statement. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Homicide & Manslaughter, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Opinion Testimony, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [High Court Decides Barring People With DV Restraining Orders From Having Guns Is Unconstitutional](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/high-court-decides-barring-people-with-dv-restraining-orders-from-having-guns-is-unconstitutional/) **Published:** February 3, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** [CNN reports](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/02/02/politics/domestic-violence-guns-fifth-circuit/index.html) that a federal court held unconstitutional a federal law prohibiting people subject to [domestic violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) restraining orders from possessing firearms. [The ruling ](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23596606-5th-circuit-ruling-on-domestic-violence-restraining-order-gun-restriction)is the latest significant decision [dismantling a gun restriction](https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/09/politics/gun-control-second-amendment-supreme-court-bruen-fallout/index.html). Last year, the Supreme Court [expanded Second Amendment rights in New York v. Bruen.](https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-guns-second-amendment-new-york-bruen/index.html) The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals said that the federal law targeting those believed to pose a domestic violence threat could not stand [under the Bruen test, ](https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/second-amendment-gun-rights-supreme-court-new-york-test/index.html)which requires that gun laws have a historical analogy to the firearm regulations in place at the time of the Constitution’s framing. The court’s opinion was written by [Judge Cory Todd Wilson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_T._Wilson), who was appointed by former President Donald Trump. He was joined by Reagan-appointee Judge Edith Jones and Judge James Ho, another Trump appointee who also wrote a concurrence. The 5th Circuit panel was not persuaded by the historical parallels put forward by the US Justice Department, which was defending the conviction of a person who possessed a firearm while under a domestic violence restraining order that had been imposed after he was accused of assaulting his ex-girlfriend. The Justice Department argued that the domestic violence law was analogous to 17th-and 18th century regulations that disarmed “dangerous” persons. > “The purpose of these ‘dangerousness’ laws was the preservation of political and social order, not the protection of an identified person from the specific threat posed by another,” the 5th Circuit opinion read. “Therefore, laws disarming ‘dangerous’ classes of people are not ‘relevantly similar'” to “serve as historical analogues.” ~5th Circuit Judge Cory Todd Wilson A spokesperson for the Justice Department did not immediately respond to a CNN inquiry. If the 5th Circuit’s ruling is appealed, it could set up another showdown over gun rights at the Supreme Court. The defendant challenging his conviction, Zackey Rahimi, had lost in an earlier round before the 5th Circuit, before the Supreme Court issued its Bruen ruling last year. The previous 5th Circuit opinion was withdrawn after the Bruen decision was handed down, and the appeals court did another round of briefing directed at the new test. My opinion? I don’t see similar rulings coming from our 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 9th Circuit’s federal jurisdiction is fairly liberal, and includes the State of Washington. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [firearm offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Domestic Violence, Firearm, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Self-Harming Juror Removed From Deliberations](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/self-harming-juror-removed-from-deliberations/) **Published:** February 10, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Norman*,](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/1007779.pdf) the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) held that it was proper for a trial judge to dismiss a frustrated juror who engaged in self-harm during deliberations. The juror’s punching himself in the face raised legitimate concerns about his ability to deliberate. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** Mr. Norman was tried before a jury on [first degree burglary](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/) and [second degree assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/). The jury began deliberating at lunchtime. After only a few hours of deliberation, the jury pounded on the door and told court staff they were breaking for the evening. Over half of the jurors left the room before the court clerk arrived. The clerk discovered that during deliberations, juror 9 became overwhelmed and punched himself in the face. After several jurors expressed concern, the trial court questioned juror 9, who answered as follows: > “So yesterday, discussions became very heated, and . . . there were a number of people who had disagreements with me. This caused raising of voices, and I became . . . somewhat overwhelmed. I felt somewhat like—a little bit attacked, and I reacted with an emotional outburst of punching myself in the face. That has happened in the past when I get into high-stress situations. I have self-harmed in the past, but it hasn’t happened in a number of years. That being said, I still consider myself of sound mind and ability to continue going forward with this case.” ~Juror 9 The trial judge spoke to two other juros. They expressed concern over whether they could reach a verdict with juror 9. For example, juror 2 said she felt intimidated by juror 9’s actions. And according to juror 8, juror 9 was “in control of himself” for “80 percent of the day,.” Unfortunately, in the remaining time he “punched himself in the face a couple times and grabbed his hair” in reaction to contentious discussions. The trial judge dismissed juror 9 for cause. The reconstituted jury found Norman guilty of one of two counts. The Court of Appeals reversed Norman’s conviction, holding juror 9’s dismissal was improper under the heightened evidentiary standard set forth in *[State v. Elmore](https://casetext.com/case/state-v-elmore-5)*. On appeal, the WA Supreme Court decided the specific issue of whether the trial court abuse its discretion in dismissing juror 9. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** [Justice Owens](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=owens) wrote the majority opinion. She began by saying trial judges have a continuous obligation to excuse a juror who has manifested unfitness. This can happen if a juror manifests bias, prejudice, indifference, inattention or any physical or mental defect or by reason of conduct or practices incompatible with proper and efficient jury service. This obligation implicates a defendant’s right to trial by an impartial jury and their right to a unanimous jury verdict. Next, Justice Owens addressed how the Court of Appeals (COA) reversed Norman’s conviction. In short, the COA held juror 9’s dismissal was improper under the evidentiary standard set forth in *[State v. Elmore](https://casetext.com/case/state-v-elmore-5)*. Justice Owens had some choice words: > “But the *Elmore* standard applies only where a juror is accused of nullification, refusing to follow the law, or refusing to deliberate. As there was no such accusation here, and the trial court found juror 9’s conduct likely affected the jury’s process of deliberating freely, it did not abuse its discretion in dismissing juror 9.” ~Justice Owens, WA Supreme Court Consequently, the WA Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in removing juror 9. His conduct could have impacted the jury’s ability to reach a unanimous verdict. The heightened evidentiary standard does not apply to juror 9’s dismissal because he was not accused of nullification, refusing to deliberate, or refusing to follow the law. With that, the WA Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, and affirmed Norman’s conviction. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Burglary, Jury Trial, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Legislature Considers Banning At-Home Sexual Assault Evidence Kits](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legislature-considers-banning-at-home-sexual-assault-evidence-kits/) **Published:** February 14, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** [Seattle Times](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/wa-legislature-considers-ban-on-at-home-sexual-assault-evidence-kits/#:~:text=Washington%20lawmakers%20are%20considering%20House,can%20thwart%20investigations%20and%20prosecutions.) journalist [Jadenne Radoc Cabahug ](https://www.seattletimes.com/author/jadenne-radoc-cabahug/)reports that Washington lawmakers are considering a [bipartisan bill](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1564&Initiative=false&Year=2023) prohibiting the sale of over-the-counter sexual assault kits. Apparently, these kits offer false hope and can thwart investigations and prosecutions. They are also not admissible in court. > “I just don’t think people should profit on trauma . . . I think that their heart was probably in the right place in the beginning … but at the end of the day, it’s my job as a legislator to protect people in the state.” ~Rep. Gina Mosbrucker, R-Goldendale, one of the bill sponsors. Attorney General Bob Ferguson last year issued a cease-and-desist letter requiring [Leda Health](https://www.leda.co/) to stop distributing its kits. In the letter, Ferguson’s office said the kits violate the state Consumer Protection Act, which bans unfair or deceptive practices. The letter quotes Leda Health’s website, which at the time said “\[we\] believe though that courts should admit our kit results, especially if all our protocols are followed.” The [terms and conditions](https://www.leda.co/agreements) on the company site said its products and information are not substitutes for professional advice. Moreover, the company “cannot guarantee” evidence collected will be admitted in court. King County Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Emily Petersen said her main concern is the kits are being advertised as a way to collect evidence. > “The last thing we want is for a victim or survivor to decide to report a rape or a sexual assault, and only to find out that the evidence that they collected, stored and that they relied on to be admissible is not in fact, admissible.” ~King County Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Emily Petersen Information from at-home kits cannot be uploaded to [CODIS](https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/dna-fingerprint-act-of-2005-expungement-policy/codis-and-ndis-fact-sheet), the federal DNA database that tracks DNA samples of those convicted of felonies, including sexual assault and rape. New York issued a cease-and-desist [letter](https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2019/attorney-general-james-orders-sexual-assault-evidence-kit-companies-cease-and) in 2019 to two companies selling at-home kits, Preserve Group and #MeToo Kits Company, which would later become Leda Health. The letter said the companies were misleading consumers by saying evidence collected with these kits could be used in court. States including [Michigan](https://www.michigan.gov/ag/news/press-releases/2019/08/29/ag-nessel-blasts-me-too-sexual-assault-kits), [Oklahoma](https://oag.ok.gov/articles/attorney-general-hunter-issues-consumer-alert-cease-desist-letters-home-rape-kit-companies), [Delaware](https://news.delaware.gov/2019/09/11/ag-jennings-warns-of-misleading-at-home-sexual-assault-kits/), [Hawaii](https://ag.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/News-Release-2019-57.pdf), [New Mexico](https://www.nmag.gov/ag-balderas-nm-coalition-of-sexual-assult-programs-warn-about-at-home-rape-kit-companies-issues-risk-advisory/), [North Carolina](https://ncdoj.gov/attorney-general-josh-stein-me-too-at-home-sexual-assault-kits-are-dangerous-and-misleading/) and [Virginia](https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/local/virginia/291-806a77e5-4500-446b-9d87-51ba3fe96f00), as well as [Washington, D.C.](https://oag.dc.gov/blog/consumer-alert-oag-cautions-use-home-sexual), have issued warnings against buying any at-home sexual assault kits. And legislation similar to Washington’s bill to ban these kits [stalled](https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0168.html) last year in Utah. My opinion? These products are not admissible in court. Rape evidence must be collected by a specially trained nurse using specific tools. Also, collecting evidence must adhere to a [chain of custody](https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Chain+of+Custody) to maintain its integrity for use in court. The chain must include how the evidence was collected, who else had access to it and what happened to the evidence after. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Uncategorized **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [SB 5467 Proposes Drug Possession Charges As Dismissable Misdemeanors](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/sb-5467-proposes-drug-possession-charges-as-dismissable-misdemeanors/) **Published:** February 17, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** This legislative session, lawmakers are split over how to respond to the state Supreme Court’s[ *Blake* decision](https://crosscut.com/politics/2023/01/2023-wa-lawmakers-will-decide-legal-future-drug-possession). That ruling struck down the state’s felony drug possession law. It essentially invalidating decades of criminal convictions and related penalties, like orders to pay restitution for such violations. [SB 5467](https://www.king5.com/article/news/politics/state-politics/fentanyl-possession-would-be-felony-proposed-senate-bill/%7C8b1d4e77eb2540686a6d08db093a2ce7%7Cccd8a79b7268413b878971f8b6f4c0df%7C1%7C0%7C638113917694521165%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=OQB4PJ8kmRCsmpaYFSiM0KyGgNIQLqaFqDnkkAp2m%2Bk%3D&reserved=0 "Original URL: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5467&Initiative=false&Year=2023. Click or tap if you trust this link.") would make possession a misdemeanor and order completion of treatment to overturn the conviction and dismiss charges. If the person willfully abandons or rejects treatment, then a 45-day jail sentence would be imposed. [SB 5467](https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDEsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsImJ1bGxldGluX2lkIjoiMjAyMzAyMTcuNzE3NTUwNjEiLCJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL2FwcC5sZWcud2EuZ292L2JpbGxzdW1tYXJ5P0JpbGxOdW1iZXI9NTQ2NyZZZWFyPTIwMjMmSW5pdGlhdGl2ZT1mYWxzZSJ9.BhIIV0Bqxm0ZUTxeg7N-KIV8Gbtj9ybRWOIf2WJhozQ/s/1298540116/br/154679109848-l), recently heard in committee, would provide an effective solution to the rampant problem of public drug use. This is an outside-the-box policy idea that is treatment-forward but with accountability for failure to undergo treatment. Many mayors, community members and police officers have personally expressed that the current system of essentially recommending to users that they go to treatment, without any charges filed or accountability applied, is not working. This bill provides a better path. Under this bill, a person could be charged with a gross misdemeanor if they possess illegal drugs. If the person completes the substance use disorder treatment prior to their conviction being entered, the court would be required to dismiss the charge. If a conviction is entered, the court could not sentence to jail but would order the person to undergo treatment based on their treatment needs. If the person completes the treatment, the conviction would be overturned and dismissed. If the person willfully abandons treatment or demonstrates a consistent failure to engage in treatment, however, the court would be required to impose at least 45 days of jail. The requirement for treatment would be subject to the availability of treatment and the availability of funding for it. If treatment or funding were not available, the court would not be allowed to sanction the person with jail time for noncompliance. This bipartisan bill has been co-sponsored by twelve Democratic and four Republican senators. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Drug Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["Tranq": The Skin-Rotting Street Drug Infiltrating Big Cities](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/tranq-the-skin-rotting-street-drug-infiltrating-big-cities/) **Published:** February 22, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Journalist [Brooke Kato](https://nypost.com/author/brooke-kato/) reports in the [New York Post](https://nypost.com/2023/02/21/skin-rotting-drug-tranq-infiltrates-big-cities-zombifying-bodies/) that Xylazineis [wreaking havoc in major cities](https://nypost.com/2022/09/25/flesh-eating-drug-tranq-meant-for-animals-now-linked-to-thousands-of-heroin-fentanyl-ods/) across the country with its devastating effects. Otherwise known as “Tranq,” it can literally rot the user’s skin. The substance, which seemed to first appear in Philadelphia before migrating west to San Francisco and Los Angeles, was used for cutting heroin. Most recently, it has been [discovered in fentanyl](https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-alerts-health-care-professionals-risks-patients-exposed-xylazine-illicit-drugs#:~:text=Xylazine%20is%20not%20safe%20for,opioid%20overdoses%20from%20xylazine%20exposure.) and other illicit drugs. While approved by the Food and Drug Administration for veterinary use, Xylazine, a non-opioid, is not safe for humans. Those who overdose on the drug do not respond to naloxone, [or Narcan](https://nypost.com/2023/02/15/over-the-counter-narcan-opioid-overdose-antidote-a-possibility-fda/), the most common overdose reversal treatment. Xylazine causes [sedative-like symptoms](https://sf.gov/news/xylazine-media-statement), such as excessive sleepiness and respiratory depression. It also causes and inflames raw wounds that can become severe and spread rapidly with repeated exposure. The crusty ulcerations, which can become dead skin called eschar, can result in amputation if left untreated. Because it is not listed as a controlled substance for animals or humans, “tranq” lands in a confusing and horrifying gray area — and hospitals rarely test for it with routine toxicology screenings. [The city of Philadelphia reported](https://www.substanceusephilly.com/tranq) that 90% of lab-tested dope samples from 2021 contained xylazine, which can increase the risk of overdose when combined with other illicit substances. But the lethal combination of substances is what gives xylazine its appeal — the high of the opioid, [such as fentanyl](https://nypost.com/2023/02/18/tracking-fentanyls-deadly-path-china-to-mexico-to-america/), is extended with the help of “tranq.” People with substance use disorders who get hooked on the zombifying drug believe the emerging substance killed “any kind of joy” that came with getting high. The worrying “tranq” trend comes as the New York City Department of Health reported that [2,668 New Yorkers died of overdoses](https://nypost.com/2023/01/21/new-york-citys-drug-death-epidemic-is-no-surprise/) in 2021. Experts warn that xylazine could worsen the ongoing drug epidemic. [According to a 2022 report](https://academic.oup.com/jat/article/46/8/911/6623276), xylazine has been discovered in 36 states. In New York City alone, the drug was found in 25% of samples, per the Times. Earlier this month, the [San Francisco Department of Health](https://sf.gov/news/xylazine-media-statement) announced that low levels of xylazine were found in the systems of four people who overdosed, suggesting that the substance can be hidden in drugs unbeknownst to the users. The pressures from life are real. Building careers, buying homes, getting married, having kids, and trying to do it all well comes with lots of pressure. COVID-19 has magnified the stress. Some turn to drugs to cope. However, just because some drugs are legal to possess doesn’t mean they are less dangerous. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Drug Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Jury Selection & Face Masks](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/jury-selection-face-masks/) **Published:** February 24, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Bell*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/833871.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that it does not violate a defendant’s constitutional rights for jurors to wear face masks at jury selection. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** Mr. Bell was charged with [first degree assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) and [drive-by shooting](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drive-by-shooting/) for an attack on his coworker. During jury selection, the court denied Bell’s request that jurors wear clear face shields rather than non-transparent face masks covering their noses and mouths. At trial, Mr. Bell was found guilty as charged. He appealed on arguments that the judge’s decision to deny his request for face shields violated his right to select an impartial jury. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals reasoned that starting at the beginning of the [COVID-19 Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic), Washington courts adopted a variety of strategies to ensure that trial could continue safely. The Washington State Supreme Court, in an [order issued June 18, 2020](https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme%20Court%20Orders/Jury%20Resumption%20Order%20061820.pdf), required courts to conduct all jury trial proceedings consistent with the most protective applicable public health guidance in their jurisdiction. It also ordered courts to inform jurors of steps the court would take to combat spread of the virus, including “face masking.” > “Washington was not alone in taking these steps to ensure the safety of jurors, court staff, counsel, parties, and the general public during a global health emergency. Many other jurisdictions did the same. Some of those jurisdictions have seen challenges to their pandemic-induced jury selection procedures similar to the one Bell brings. Courts have uniformly rejected these challenges.” ~WA Court of Appeals. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Bell’s motion. “It did not adopt procedures that no reasonable person could support,” it stated. “The trial court was responsive to Bell’s concerns throughout the selection process.” The Court of Appeals emphasized that Mr. Bell had the option to conduct voir dire online if he wished. This would have permitted access to the potential jurors’ faces, albeit at the cost of some of their body language. “He did not take advantage of this option, instead requesting that jurors wear face shields,” stated the Court of Appeals. > “Here, the trial court’s decision to require potential jurors to wear face masks may have deprived Bell of some portion of his ability to assess their demeanor. But jurors’ discomfort at being forcibly unmasked in a crowded room around a group of strangers in the midst of a pandemic may have also affected their demeanor and impeded accurate determination of their mood and credibility. And their tone of voice, body language, eyes, and other aspects of their demeanor remained as accessible as they normally would have been.” ~WA Court of Appeals. With that, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when, during a pandemic, it required jurors to wear face masks during jury selection. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Jury Selection, Jury Trial, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Drug Abuse, Mental Health and Arrests](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/drug-abuse-mental-health-and-arrests/) **Published:** March 2, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** A [Pew Analysis](https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2023/02/over-1-in-9-people-with-co-occurring-mental-illness-and-substance-use-disorders-arrested-annually) found that adults reporting co-occurring serious or moderate mental illness and substance use disorders in the past year were far more likely to be arrested. Roughly, the data shows that adults with past-year co-occurring mental illness and substance use disorder represented about 2% of the population. However, they made up 15% of all adults who reported being arrested in the past year. Those with a mental illness alone made up a similar share of the adult population in general and of those arrested (8% and 9%, respectively). Most adults with a mental illness who were arrested had a co-occurring disorder (60%). The Pew analysis also revealed that adults with co-occurring disorders made up an even larger share (18%) of all those arrested twice or more in a year. Here’s more data: - Adults with co-occurring disorders made up 2% of the U.S. population but 15% (1 in 7) of all people arrested from 2017 to 2019. Almost half of these individuals had a substance-related arrest, such as drug possession, as the most serious charge. - More than 1 in 9 adults with co-occurring disorders were arrested annually, 12 times more often than adults with neither a substance use disorder nor a mental illness, and six times more likely than those with a mental illness alone. - Women with co-occurring disorders were arrested 19 times more often than women with neither a substance use disorder nor a mental illness and accounted for more than 1 in 5 of all women arrested. - Black adults with co-occurring disorders were arrested 1.5 times more often than their White counterparts. - Only 1 in 10 adults with co-occurring disorders (10%) received treatment for both of their conditions. - About 2 in 5 adults with co-occurring disorders (42%) did not receive either substance use or mental health treatment of any kind in the prior year. - Black and Hispanic adults with co-occurring disorders were less likely to receive mental health or substance use treatmentthan White adults. About 60% of people with a mental illness who were arrested had a co-occurring substance use disorder. NSDUH doesn’t explicitly ask respondents whether these arrests resulted in time spent in jail, so recent national level data on how many of these arrests led to incarceration is not available. Being arrested and jailed can negatively affect wages, employment, housing stability, physical and mental health, and public safety outcomes, including increasing the likelihood of recidivism. Researchers have found that communities with more treatment availability may have lower crime and jail incarceration rates, and some jurisdictions are working to divert people with mental illness away from the criminal legal system and into a continuum of community-based care. However, an increased focus on the needs of people with co-occurring disorders—particularly on integrated treatment for both mental illness and substance use—could make an even larger impact on the number of people entering and cycling back through the justice system. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Justice Department Announces Application Form for Marijuana Pardon Certificates](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/justice-department-announces-application-form-for-marijuana-pardon-certificates/) **Published:** March 4, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [DOJ ](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-application-form-marijuana-pardon-certificates)is launching an application for eligible individuals to receive certificate of proof that they were pardoned by President Biden. On October 6, President Biden announced a full, unconditional and categorical [pardon for prior federal and D.C. offenses of simple possession of marijuana](https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/biden-pardons-thousands-for-simple-possession-of-marijuana-charging-practices-that-disproportionately-impact-people-of-color-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-us-attorney-general "https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/biden-pardons-thousands-for-simple-possession-of-marijuana-charging-practices-that-disproportionately-impact-people-of-color-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-us-attorney-general"). President Biden’s pardon lifts barriers to housing, employment and educational opportunities for thousands of people with those prior convictions. President Biden directed the Justice Department to develop a process for individuals to receive their certificate of pardon. The online application will be available on the Office of the Pardon Attorney’s website: [Application for Certificate of Pardon](https://www.justice.gov/iqextranet/EForm.aspx?__cid=Pardon_prod&__fid=5). The web form allows eligible persons to submit documentation to the Office of the Pardon Attorney and receive a certificate indicating the person was pardoned on Oct. 6, 2022, for simple possession of marijuana. The President’s pardon may assist pardoned persons by removing civil or legal disabilities that are imposed because of the pardoned conviction. These included restrictions on the right to vote, to hold office or to sit on a jury. The application released today may also be helpful as proof of pardon for those who seek to obtain licenses, bonding or employment. As President Biden said at the time of the proclamation, his action intends to “help relieve the consequences arising from these convictions.” Those who were pardoned on Oct. 6, 2022, are eligible for a certificate of pardon. Consistent with the proclamation, to be eligible for a certificate, an applicant must have been charged or convicted of simple possession of marijuana in either a federal court or D.C. Superior Court, and the applicant must have been lawfully within the United States at the time of the offense. Similarly, an individual must have been a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident on Oct. 6, 2022. Those who were convicted of state marijuana offenses do not qualify for the pardon. The department is committed to carefully and expeditiously reviewing the applications and issuing certificates to those pardoned under the proclamation. For more information regarding eligibility and answers to frequently asked questions, please visit [Presidential Proclamation on Marijuana Possession](https://www.justice.gov/pardon/presidential-proclamation-marijuana-possession). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Drug Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, marijuana, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [A Trial Court's COVID-19 Protocols Are "Trial Management Decisions."](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/a-trial-courts-covid-19-protocols-are-trial-management-decisions/) **Published:** March 8, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Ferguson*,](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2055768-1-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf) the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held that imposing [COVID-19](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19) protocols are “trial management decisions.” The use of masks, a transparent partition between counsel and client, and some jurors being seated behind counsel table during trial to allow for social distancing did not violate the defendant’s rights at trial. **BACKGROUND FACTS** On April 16, 2019, a man and his son went for a walk. When they returned home, they noticed a man inside the garage. They recognized the man as Mr. Ferguson. An altercation occurred. Afterward, Ferguson fled the scene by running through a nearby field to a neighbor’s home. The police responded and ultimately found Ferguson at the neighbor’s house. Ferguson was arrested. Ferguson was initially charged with first degree [burglary](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/). His charges were later amended to also include [felony harassment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/harassment/), third degree [malicious mischief](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/malicious-mischief/), second degree [criminal trespass](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/criminal-trespass/) of the neighbor’s house, [bail jumping](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/bail-jumping/), and [witness tampering](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/tampering-with-a-witness-intimidation-of-witnesses/). *TRIAL COURT’S COVID-19 PROTOCOLS* Following delay and multiple continuances partly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Ferguson’s case proceeded to trial. Ferguson’s jury trial was the first to take place in the county since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, the trial court implemented a variety of COVID-19 protocols for the trial. Some members of the jury were seated behind the counsel tables in the courtroom gallery. This was done in order to socially distance the jurors and the participants. And everyone in the court room was instructed to wear face masks. The trial court also instructed the jurors to raise their hands if they could not hear something during the trial. Plexiglass partitions were also placed between participants, including between Ferguson and his counsel at their table. Throughout the trial, Ferguson and his counsel would lean or move back behind the partition to speak to each other and would pass notes to each other. After all witnesses had testified, Ferguson’s counsel requested a mistrial based on the COVID-19 protocols. Specifically, counsel argued the plexiglass partition between counsel and Ferguson, coupled with the seating arrangement for the jurors, compromised their ability to have necessary attorney-client communications. Ferguson’s counsel contended that because they could not hear each other through the plexiglass partition, the jurors were possibly able to overhear private communications. The trial court denied the motion for a mistrial. The jury found Ferguson guilty of first degree burglary, third degree malicious mischief, second degree criminal trespass, bail jumping on a class A felony, and tampering with a witness. Ferguson appealled his conviction on numerous arguments challenging the COVID-19 protocols used for his trial. Ferguson argued that the plexiglass between him and his counsel forced them to lean back to communicate with each other and may have allowed the jurors to overhear them. Ferguson also argued that the masks required him and his counsel to speak louder than they typically would, potentially disclosing their confidential attorney-client communications to the jurors and the State. Finally, he argued the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his request for a mistrial due to these protocols. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals reasoned that Ferguson’s trial was the first in the county since the beginning of the pandemic and the suspension of all jury trials. The trial court implemented these protocols to ensure that the trial could safely proceed, as it was required to do by our Supreme Court. > “Plexiglass partitions, mandatory masking, and social distancing that forced jurors to be located throughout the gallery were all modifications to the trial court’s typical courtroom arrangement and procedures that fall within the court’s discretion and were based on the Supreme Court’s multiple orders.” ~WA Court of Appeals The Court of Appeals further reasoned that the impact on Ferguson’s rights, while not negligible, was not onerous. Although Ferguson and his counsel were not able to communicate as easily as they would have been without the COVID-19 protections in place, the video record of the trial shows that he and his counsel were able to lean back minimally to speak around the plexiglass partition and write notes to each other. And the record shows that Ferguson and his counsel communicated in those ways frequently. Ferguson claims that he spoke louder than normal because of the masks, but private communication with his counsel would have been more likely because of the same social distancing requirements about which Ferguson now complains. “No reasonable juror would draw any inference personally against Ferguson because of the implementation of plexiglass partitions, masks, and social distancing. COVID-19 protocols are simply not comparable to other inherently prejudicial decisions, like requiring the defendant to wear prison clothes or restraints that could signal dangerousness. See Caver, 195 Wn. App. at 780-81. Because impermissible factors were not brought into play and the changes furthered essential state interests, the COVID-19 protocols satisfy the closer scrutiny required for inherently prejudicial trial management decisions.” ~WA Court of Appeals With that, the Court of Appeals held that the COVID-19 protocols implemented in Ferguson’s trial were permissive trial management decisions. Also, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ferguson’s motion for a mistrial. Fortunately, I’ve held numerous jury trials in the era of COVID-19. Unfortunately, it hasn’t gotten an easier. How do you question a prospective juror when the juror is wearing a mask? Watch the eyes. After all, that is about all you can see of the juror’s face. Body language plays a role. Jury questionnaires are enormously helpful, as are the use of electronic exhibits. And making sure everyone—you, the judge, and jury—can hear what is being said is always important. It takes patience and care. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Jury Trial, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [WA Senate Passes Bill to Change Police Pursuit Law](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/wa-senate-passes-bill-to-change-police-pursuit-law/) **Published:** March 12, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Last week, the [WA Senate](https://leg.wa.gov/Senate/Pages/default.aspx) passed [Senate Bill 5352](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5352&Initiative=false&Year=2023). This bill allows a law enforcement officer to initiate a chase if the officer has [reasonable suspicion](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_suspicion) that a person in a vehicle has committed or is committing a crime. Current law sets a higher threshold of [probable cause](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause) in order to engage in a chase. Under the measure, crimes for which a pursuit can be undertaken include a [violent offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/), a [sex offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/), [domestic violence-related offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/), [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/), or [Eluding](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/eluding/). It limits vehicular pursuits to situations where the subject of the vehicular pursuit poses a serious risk of harm to others. Additional requirements of the bill include: - Other law enforcement agencies or surrounding jurisdictions impacted by the pursuit are notified. - The pursuing officer must be able to communicate with others and the dispatch agency. - There must be a plan to end the pursuit as soon as it’s practical. - The officer must have completed an emergency vehicle operator’s course, updated emergency vehicle operator training in the past two years and be certified in at least one pursuit intervention technique, such as spike strips or other deflation devices. The bill passed 26-23 with 16 Democrats and 10 Republicans in support. Thirteen Democrats and 10 Republicans voted against it. The bill heads next to the House for consideration. The bill follows an element of policing reform passed in 2021 in response to the 2020 police murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis and other police killings. The goal of the reforms was to reduce the potential for violence and death in police responses. The 2021 measure toughened the requirements for officer pursuit. Officers now need probable cause to arrest someone before initiating a pursuit rather than reasonable suspicion. Some law enforcement officials and city leaders say the revision emboldened suspected criminals to flee crime scenes before authorities could question them. Those seeking greater police accountability contend communities are safer as fewer innocent bystanders have been injured or killed with the decline in high-speed chases. Sen. John Lovick, D-Mill Creek, a former state trooper and Snohomish County sheriff, sponsored the bill. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Bellingham City Council Rejects Proposal to Ban Public Drug Use](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/bellingham-city-council-rejects-proposal-to-ban-public-drug-use-2/) **Published:** March 14, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** [The Bellingham City Council](https://cob.org/gov/council) has rejected a proposal that would make public drug use a crime. The ordinance would have made the use of a controlled substance in a public place a misdemeanor. Misdemeanors are punishable by a maximum sentence of 90 days in jail and/or a fine of up to $1,000. By state law, drug possession is only a misdemeanor on an offender’s third arrest for the crime. On the first two arrests, police are required to refer offenders to drug treatment programs. The [City of Marysville was able to pass two similar city ordinances preventing public drug use late last year](https://marysvillewa.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=861). The first ordinance prohibits the use of controlled substances in public without a prescription. The second ordinance will further prohibit inappropriate behavior aboard transit, at park-and-ride lots, or at bus stops. The city has been grappling with open drug use of fentanyl and other narcotics. Businesses have complained about the impact. [Mayor Seth Fleetwood](https://cob.org/gov/mayor/bio) hoped that his proposals would be the start of improving conditions downtown: > “These actions are the next step in a multi-year focus on downtown, where public health and safety concerns continue despite nearly one million dollars in investments in security personnel, downtown ambassadors, graffiti abatement, sanitation and other services last year and continuing this year.” ~City of Bellingham Mayor Seth Fleetwood. Apparently, Bellingham police responded to 87 overdose calls this year. That compares to 70 overdose calls in all of 2022. Council members argued that it wasn’t so much they were against the proposal, it was that they did not see an adequate plan to deal with people after they were arrested. Councilmember Hannah Stone was among those who voted against the ordinance. > “If we don’t have a therapeutic court and other options in place at this time, then further criminalizing or trying to arrest our way out of addiction is just insane.” ~Hannah Stone, City of Bellingham Councilmember. Currently, police can not even tell drug users that using drugs in public is illegal. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Drug Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Over 29,100 Years 'Lost' In Prison Due To Wrongful Convictions](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/over-29100-years-lost-in-prison-in-wrongful-convictions/) **Published:** March 17, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://abcnews.go.com/US/fight-exoneration-29100-years-lost-prison-wrongful-convictions/story?id=97907275) by [Kiara Alfonseca](https://abcnews.go.com/author/Kiara_Alfonseca) of [abcnews.go.com](https://abcnews.go.com/) uncovered disturbing data on wrongful convictions. An exoneration-tracking project called [National Registry of Exonerations (NRE) ](https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx)found that more than 29,100 years have been “lost” in prison due to wrongful convictions. The wrongful convictions were based on misidentifications, false confessions, police failure to disclose evidence and more. The NRE has actively recorded this trend data since 1989. Since then, 3,287 exonerations have been recorded. The project is hosted by University of California Irvine, University of Michigan Law School and Michigan State University College of Law. > “We’ve all been raised to believe that our system is a great system that works well, that we identify the right people, we convict the right people, we give people the right sentences . . . It has been a very hard awakening for a lot of people to realize that that’s just not always the case.” [~Attorney Marissa Boyers Bluestine, Assistant Director at the Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice](https://www.law.upenn.edu/faculty/mblu). The registry found that the most often cited factors for wrongful convictions are as follows: - Witness Misidentification - False Accusation - False Confession - Faulty Forensic Evidence - Inadequate Legal Defense - Police Misconduct - [Prosecutorial Misconduct](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/prosecutorial-misconduct-the-rules/) In some cases, the methods used to collect evidence in the past have since been proven to be scientifically unreliable, according to experts. This was the case with Sidney Holmes, whose armed robbery conviction was recently overturned in part because of misidentification, which was partly due to outdated photo and live lineup practices commonly used by law enforcement in the 1980s, officials say. Black people represent 53% of the 3,200 exonerations listed in the [National Registry of Exonerations](https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race%20Report%20Preview.pdf). This data exists despite the fact that black people make up just 13.6% of the American population. Nevertheless, black people represent 38% of the incarcerated population, according to the [Prison Policy Initiative.](https://www.prisonpolicy.org/research/race_and_ethnicity/#:~:text=Percent%20of%20people%20in%20prison,450%20per%20100%2C000%20%2B) > “Innocent Black Americans are seven times more likely than white Americans to be falsely convicted of serious crimes.” [~National Registry of Exonerations 2022 Report](https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race%20Report%20Preview.pdf). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Being wrongfully convicted is the worst outcome possible. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Police Misconduct, Prison, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, Wrongful Convictions **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Finally, A New Jail in Whatcom County?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/finally-a-new-jail-in-whatcom-county/) **Published:** March 20, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article in the Cascadia Weekly](https://www.cascadiadaily.com/news/2023/mar/19/most-people-in-whatcom-countys-jail-are-in-crisis/) by Staff Reporters [Ralph Schwartz](https://muckrack.com/bhampolitics) and [Jenelle Baumbach](https://muckrack.com/jenelle-baumbach) explores Whatcom County’s controversial effort to build a new jail. Homelessness, mental illness and substance use disorders have increased. This increase heavily impacts Whatcom County’s already overburdened jail. County leaders are planning a November ballot measure for construction of a new jail intend to address these problems head-on. Whatcom voters have proven fickle, however, having defeated two other jail levies since 2015. **HOMELESSNESS** By the official count and by all accounts, homelessness is on the rise in Whatcom County. The annual [Point-in-Time](https://www.cascadiadaily.com/news/2022/jul/22/homelessness-remains-high-in-whatcom-county/) count showed a 69% increase in people experiencing homelessness from 2012 to 2022. Homelessness is also the norm among inmates in jail, according to a [2022 survey](https://www.whatcomcounty.us/DocumentCenter/View/71390/Incarcerated-People-and-Staff-Surveys-Rpt113022?bidId=) by the [Stakeholder Advisory Committee](http://cascadiadaily.www.clients.ellingtoncms.com/news/2022/jan/25/whatcom-jail-planners-go-back-to-the-drawing-board/). The group showed at least 73% of surveyed inmates were either homeless or couch surfing with friends or family. **DRUG ABUSE** Journalist Ralph Schwartz reports that Whatcom County’s drug problem is just as visible. Fentanyl users smoke openly on Bellingham’s streets, usually pulling a blanket over their head to trap the vapors. [Fentanyl overdose deaths](https://www.cascadiadaily.com/news/2022/apr/30/fentanyl-fuels-overdose-deaths/) are rising exponentially: 15 in Whatcom in 2020 and 25 in 2021, according to a state [Department of Health dashboard](https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/wa_lhj_quarterly_report_18_1_2_pub.html?uid=62460d6486360); and at least 48 in 2022, county Medical Examiner Allison Hunt said on Feb. 27. The fentanyl problem is worsened by inmates sneaking it into Whatcom County’s jail. Recent Drug overdoses have reportedly happened. **CRIME** The crime rate rose 9.1% in Bellingham from 2020 to 2021. This is according to the latest Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs [Crime in Washington annual report](https://www.waspc.org/assets/2021%20CIW.pdf). A review of non-traffic crimes listed on the City of Bellingham’s [crime statistics webpage](https://cob.org/gov/dept/police/news-police/crime-stats) shows a bigger jump in 2022: up 39% compared to 2021. **THE RAW DATA, STATEWIDE:** • Approximately [60% of people incarcerated](https://bja.ojp.gov/funding/awards/15pbja-22-gg-00502-rsat#:~:text=According%20to%20a%20recent%20survey,disorder%20(OUD)%20at%20intake.) in Washington state jails have substance use disorder. •300,000 adults in Washington state have a serious mental illness. • Nearly 23,000 people in Washington state are homeless, and approximately one in four of those people have a serious mental illness. • The[ number of people needing services](http://number%20of%20people%20needing%20services/) at Western or Eastern state hospitals increased from 996 in 2015 to 2,397 in 2022. • In October 2022, there were 850 people in the state deemed incompetent to stand trial who were waiting for a bed at Western or Eastern state hospitals — a 142% increase from October 2021. • Nationally, more than 2 million jail bookings a year are people with a serious mental illness. [One in four people](https://www.nami.org/NAMI/media/NAMI-Media/StateFactSheets/WashingtonStateFactSheet.pdf) with a serious mental illness have been incarcerated at least once. Jail is a terrible place. Please review my [Making Bail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/making-bail/) legal guide and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Jail, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [DOJ Wants Review of DV Firearms Ruling](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/doj-wants-review-of-dv-firearms-ruling/) **Published:** March 23, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [Justice Department](https://www.justice.gov/) has [ petitioned](https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23718386/rahimi-pet-final.pdf) the United States Supreme Court [(USSC)](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) to overturn [United States vs. Rahimi](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23596606-5th-circuit-ruling-on-domestic-violence-restraining-order-gun-restriction). This recent and controversial court decision from the 5th Circuit allows individuals charged with [Domestic Violence (DV)](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) crimes to possess firearms. The Justice Department (DOJ) argues that the risk of [homicide](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/) rises when there’s a gun in a house that has a domestic abuser. As a result, millions of Americans will be victims of intimate-partner abuse. > “And if allowed to stand, it would thwart Congress’s considered judgment that persons who have been found to be a threat to their intimate partners or children should not be permitted to acquire or possess firearms.” ~U.S. Department of Justice The government filed the petition on an expedited schedule to allow the Supreme Court to determine whether it will take up the case. **THE 5TH CIRCUIT FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS’ RULING IN *U.S. V. RAHIMI.*** In *Rahimi*, Fifth Circuit [ruled](https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicyfoundation/pages/3970/attachments/original/1675361904/United_States_v_Rahimi_Opinion.pdf) that the federal prohibition on gun possession for people subject to DV restraining orders (DVROs) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. *Rahimi* pointed to [the Supreme Court’s decision](https://rollcall.com/2022/06/23/supreme-court-bolsters-right-to-carry-handgun-in-public/) in *New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen.* That case provided a legal framework for gun laws supporting the tradition and history of the[ Constitution’s Second Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment). The 5th Circuit found the government failed to show that the statute’s “restriction of the Second Amendment right fits within our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” **THE DOJ’S RESPONSE TO *U.S. V. RAHIMI.*** The appellate court ruling caught the attention of the Justice Department early on. The government wrote in its petition that the 5th Circuit “overlooked the strong historical evidence supporting the general principle that the government may disarm dangerous individuals. The court instead analyzed each historical statute in isolation.” In a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, witnesses said the Supreme Court decision in Bruen has wreaked havoc on the country’s gun control laws. At the committee hearing, Ruth M. Glenn with the [National Coalition Against Domestic Violence](https://ncadv.org/) called attention to the 5th Circuit’s *U.S. v. Rahimi.* > “The lack of historical laws restricting firearms access by domestic abusers is not evidence that such laws are unconstitutional . . . Rather it is a reflection of the legally subordinate status and general disregard for the rights and needs of women in early America.” ~Ruth M. Glenn, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DV](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/), [Firearms Offenses](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Domestic Violence, Firearm, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Washington State Patrol Sees Increase in Drive-By Shootings](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/washington-state-patrol-sees-increase-in-drive-by-shootings/) **Published:** March 27, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Journalist [Franque Thompson ](https://www.q13fox.com/person/t/franque-thompson)reports in [Q13news.com](https://www.q13fox.com/news/washington-state-patrol-seeing-increase-in-drive-by-shootings-on-freeways.amp) that an alarming trend of [Drive-By Shootings](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drive-by-shooting/) are unfolding on our freeways. So far in 2023, [Washington State Patrol](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/) responded to 12 drive by shootings in King County, with six cases in the month of March. There were three drive by shootings the week of March 19 alone. [One of them happened Sunday on State Route 520](https://www.q13fox.com/news/wsp-uber-passenger-injured-in-drive-by-shooting-near-bellevue). A driver was hospitalized after a bullet when through his backseat. WSP troopers said there are more cases of road rage where aggressive drivers are pulling the trigger behind the wheel. > “People seem to lose their temper quite easily,” said with WSP Pierce and Thurston counties. “It’s definitely very concerning for all of us to see how lightly people seem to just brandish handguns and just fire shots at other people out in traffic.” ~WA State Patrol Trooper Robert Reyer Reyer said the shootings are happening outside of King County as well. [WSP is looking for the suspect](https://www.q13fox.com/news/wsp-seeks-suspect-in-fife-drive-by-shooting-on-i-5) from a drive by Monday in Fife on I-5 southbound near the 54th Avenue East ramp. The suspected car was a teal-colored BMW older model SUV with no license plates. Reyer said the gunman shot once, barely missing the other driver in a pickup truck who was too startled to get details of the suspected car. “When somebody gets involved in a situation like that where they get shot at, the last thing that they think of in that moment is to grab their cellphone and take a photo or video of that vehicle,” said Reyer. Troopers asked the public to help be their eyes and ears so investigators could track down the dangerous drivers. Signs of aggressive driving include high speeds, cutting drivers off, slamming the brakes and of course brandishing a gun. To anyone who sees this behavior, WSP said don’t interact, just call 911 before things escalate. Get as many descriptive details as safely as possible of the suspect car and driver and report it to the authorities. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged [Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/), [Drive-By Shooting](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drive-by-shooting/) or any other crime. [Self-Defense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/self-defense/) might be a viable defense if you responded to another driver’s road rage. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drive-By Shooting, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Bellingham City Council Adopts Proposal to Ban Public Drug Use.](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/bellingham-city-council-adopts-proposal-to-ban-public-drug-use/) **Published:** March 28, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In an abrupt change of course, a split [Bellingham City Council](https://cob.org/gov/council) approved an ordinance that bans illegal drug use in public. Council members approved the ordinance 5-2 last night, March 27th. Mayor Seth Fleetwood, [who proposed the ordinance](https://cob.org/news/2023/initiatives-propose-to-prohibit-open-drug-use-and-create-new-therapeutic-court) earlier this month, said it would interrupt “a cycle of open, brazen use in public with impunity” during a committee discussion Monday afternoon. If it passes, use of a controlled substance in public without a prescription would be a [misdemeanor](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.20&full=true#:~:text=Classification%20and%20designation%20of%20crimes.,-(1)%20Classified%20Felonies&text=(2)%20Misdemeanors%20and%20Gross%20Misdemeanors,and%20imprisonment%20is%20a%20misdemeanor.) subject to arrest. Public use of alcohol and marijuana are civil infractions, similar to a traffic ticket, because they are legal intoxicants. Fleetwood proposed the new ordinance in the wake of the 2021 state Supreme Court decision in [*State v. Blake*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/968730.pdf) that limits the power of police [to arrest people for drug use. ](https://www.aclu-wa.org/pages/q-blake-decision#:~:text=On%20February%2025%2C%202021%2C%20the,via%20passage%20of%20ESB%205476.)His measure would also create a special “therapeutic court” to help people beat addiction and possibly have their charges waived. In a March 13 committee discussion, the City Council unanimously decided [that more work was needed](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article273100040.html) on the plan and tabled it indefinitely. City Council members said at the time that they agreed with the intent of the proposed ordinance, but that they wanted to hear more details about the so-called “therapeutic court” for people who are arrested for drug use. **WHAT CHANGED?** Several City Council members reconsidered their stance after hearing from local residents. Apparently, there’s political favoring swift action to limit public drug use and criminal activity downtown. > “What I’m hearing from the downtown business owners is that there needs to be something to interrupt the behavior and it is not happening.” ~Bellingham Council Member Skip Williams. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Drug Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/category/drug-offenses/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### ["Victim Penalty Assessment" Court Fine Held As Constitutional](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/victim-penalty-assessment-court-fine-held-as-constitutional/) **Published:** April 1, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Griepsm*a,](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/837206.pdf) the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that a mandatory $500 victim penalty assessment is still not an excessive fine under the [Eighth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/eighth_amendment#:~:text=Amendment%20VIII,cruel%20and%20unusual%20punishments%20inflicted.), even if it might be partially punitive. **BACKGROUND FACTS** IN 2019, a jury convicted Griepsma of six counts of third degree felony assault of a law enforcement officer and one count of third degree malicious mischief. The trial court imposed concurrent midrange sentences of 55 months for each of the assault convictions. It also imposed a current 364-day sentence for the misdemeanor, but it did not order community custody. Finally, the court imposed a mandatory $500 Victim Penalty Assessment (VPA). Griepsma appealed imposition of the mandatory $500 VPA. He argued it was unconstitutional under the excessive fines clauses of the Eighth Amendment and the Washington State Constitution. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court explained that under the Eighth Amendment, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” And under the WA Constitution, “Excessive bail shall not be required, excessive fines imposed, nor cruel punishment inflicted.” Finally, for a fine to be unconstitutional, it must be at least partially punitive and it must be excessive. On appeal, Griepsma argued that the United States and Washington Supreme Court cases make clear that the VPA is at least partially punitive. In support of his argument, Griepsma pointed to [*Timbs v. Indiana*](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf) and *[City of Seattle v. Long](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/988242.pdf)*. Both cases held that in their specific circumstances, the [excessive fines clause](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/excessive_fines) was aprtially punitive and therefore unconstitutional. “But neither case addresses whether the VPA is subject to an excessive fines clause analysis,” said the Court of Appeals. With that, it affirmed the trial court’s imposition of the mandatory $500 VPA. My opinion? States and municipalities are increasingly relying on fines and fees imposed on defendants by criminal courts to fund their court systems and other government operations. Rather than relying on taxes, state and local governments have opted to extract wealth from their poorest and most vulnerable citizens in the form of “criminal legal debt”—financial sanctions imposed as part of the criminal legal system. These types of penalties are inherently regressive—that is, they have a greater impact on those who are poorer as compared to those who are richer. And such a financial sanction would be difficult for many Americans to bear. A [2020 report](https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2022-economic-well-being-of-us-households-in-2021-dealing-with-unexpected-expenses.htm) issued by the Federal Reserve found that nearly 40 percent of adults would be unable to immediately cover an unexpected $400 expense. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Avoid resolving your criminal case by paying excessive and/or punitive court fines. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Court Fines, Eighth Amendment, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [April is Distracted Driving Awareness Month](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/april-is-distracted-driving-awareness-month/) **Published:** April 3, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** April is distracted Driving Awareness month. A [recent report](https://www.nhtsa.gov/april-distracted-driving-awareness-month) from the [National Highway Traffic Safety Association (NHTSA)](https://www.nhtsa.gov/) says that Distracted Driving has become a deadly epidemic on our roads. Distracted driving is any activity that takes your attention away from driving. Distractions can include anything from texting and talking on a mobile phone to eating and drinking. Other activities include putting on makeup, shaving, reading, programming a navigation system, watching a video, and even adjusting the radio. > “For the past decade, distracted driving has taken U.S. roadways by storm, endangering not only the distracted drivers, but their passengers, pedestrians and others using the road. When we’re behind the wheel, we must focus on one task: safe driving. Anytime you shift your attention from driving, you’re distracted.” ~NHTSA According to its report, [distracted driving](https://www.nhtsa.gov/node/2091) killed 3,522 people in 2021. From April 3 through 10, you may see increased law enforcement on the roadways as part of the national paid media campaign [*U Drive. U Text. U Pay*](https://www.nhtsa.gov/node/39921). This campaign reminds drivers of the deadly dangers and the legal consequences – including fines – of texting behind the wheel. Clearly, Distracted Driving is one of the fastest growing safety issues on the roads today. It’s also one of the most litigous. Fortunately, there’s great advice on avoiding Distracted Driving. **“DO NOT DISTURB” WHILE DRIVING.** Program autoreplies to texts and calls so others know you are not responding because you are driving. Cell phones and providers have several apps and programming options to reduce the temptation to drive distracted. For example, Apple’s “Do Not Disturb While Driving” feature stops notifications and sends a preprogrammed autoreply to anyone who texts the driver while the vehicle is in motion. There are also: AT&T DriveMode®, Verizon Safely Go®, and Sprint Drive First®. Consider utilizing one of these options to stop notifications while you drive. A great message for a friend or a family member when they try to reach you when you are driving is: “Hi, I am driving right now, so it’s not safe to respond to your message. This is an autoreply to let you know that when I stop, I will get right back to you.” That way, you can tell others that you are not ignoring them. They may see how good the idea is and do the same on their phones. Otherwise, please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Distracted Driving, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Some Federal Inmates May Stay Home After COVID Emergency Lifts](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/some-federal-inmates-may-stay-home-after-covid-emergency-lifts/) **Published:** April 6, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-rule-allow-some-inmates-stay-home-after-covid-emergency-lifts-2023-04-04/) from journalist [Sarah N. Lynch](https://www.reuters.com/authors/sarah-n-lynch/) reports that federal inmates who were allowed to serve their prison terms at home during the [COVID-19 Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic) may remain at home. The regulations are expected to provide some relief to inmates, who [feared they could potentially be hauled back](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/thousands-low-level-us-inmates-released-pandemic-could-be-headed-back-prison-2021-04-11/) into prison when the public health emergency [expires](https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2023/02/09/fact-sheet-covid-19-public-health-emergency-transition-roadmap.html) on May 11. > “This final rule makes clear that the Director of the Bureau of Prisons has the discretion to ensure that those who have made rehabilitative progress and complied with the conditions of home confinement are not unnecessarily returned to prison.” ~U.S. Attorney General Merrick. Lynch reports that in March 2020, Congress authorized the [Justice Department](https://www.justice.gov/) to declare an emergency so it could expand the pool of low-level, non-violent federal inmates who could qualify for home confinement, to contain the spread of the coronavirus throughout the federal prison system. In January 2021, the department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued a memo saying once the emergency is lifted, the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) would have no choice but to “recall prisoners in home confinement to correctional facilities” because the authority to send more people home was temporary. Criminal justice and civil rights groups [have lobbied](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-civil-rights-groups-propose-path-keep-inmates-home-after-pandemic-emergency-2021-08-04/) the Justice Department and the White House to change those rules to prevent inmates from being returned to prison en masse. The The BOP will still be able to impose “proportional and escalating sanctions,” including a return to prison, on inmates who commit infractions. Since March 2020, more than 12,000 inmates were placed into home confinement. Of those, the department said only a fraction of one percent were returned to prison due to new criminal conduct. Please review [Making Bail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/making-bail/) and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are incarcerated and charged with a crime. Jails are a great place to get COVID-19. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Jail, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Hotel Room Hosts Can't Consent To Police Searching Other Guest's Bags](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/a-third-partys-consent-allowing-police-to-search-anothers-belongings-is-held-unconstitutional/) **Published:** April 12, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Giberson*, No. 56081-0-II (April 4, 2023)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2056081-0-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held that the host of a hotel room lacks authority allowing police to search a guest’s grocery bags located inside the room. A person has a reasonable privacy interest in grocery bags, which are are “traditional repositories of personal belongings.” **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** In May of 2020, police received a tip from a confidential informant that Mr. Giberson planned a drug deal at a nearby motel. Police journeyed to the motel. They conducted surveillance of room #106. Police contacted a person named Mr. Goedker after Goedker departed room #106. Goedker stated that he was the sole occupant of motel room #106. He said he had been residing there for approximately 10 days. He stated that the defendant Mr. Giberson had stopped by earlier that day. Giberson and a person named Ms. Hopkins remained in the room. Goedker said that there were bags in the motel room belonging to Giberson. Police opened the door to Room #106. They saw Giberson and an associate sitting at a table. Both Giberson and the associate were detained and removed from the room. The detectives then searched two plastic grocery bags on the floor next to the door. Inside one of the grocery bags they found a digital scale and two baggies containing heroin. After searching the bags, police asked Goedker if they belonged to him. Goedker denied ownership and stated that the bags belonged to Giberson. The State charged Giberson with [possession of heroin with the intent to deliver](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.401). Before trial, Giberson [moved to suppress the evidence](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/CrR/SUP_CrR_03_06_00.pdf) found in the warrantless search of the plastic grocery bags. The trial court denied the suppression motion. It reasoned that Gibson [lacked standing](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/standing) to challenge the search of his bags. Ultimately, the court also found Giberson guilty as charged. Giberson appealed his conviction. He argued that the search of his grocery bags was unlawful because Goedker could not give consent to search his possessions. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** First, the Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether Giberson had standing to challenge the search of his bags. “A defendant has automatic standing under article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution to challenge a search when (1) possession is an essential element of the charged offense and (2) the defendant was in possession of the item searched at the time of the challenged search,” said the Court. Here, Giberson has automatic standing to challenge the search. Consequently, the trial court erred in concluding that Giberson did not have standing. Next, the Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether the search of Gibson’s bags was lawful. The Court reasoned that warrantless searches are unlawful under the [Washington Constitution](https://ballotpedia.org/Article_I,_Washington_State_Constitution#:~:text=No%20private%20property%20shall%20be,first%20made%20in%20money%2C%20or) and the [Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution](https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does-0#:~:text=The%20Constitution%2C%20through%20the%20Fourth,deemed%20unreasonable%20under%20the%20law.). Valid consent is an exception allowing for a warrantless search. However, consent to search an area does not necessarily provide authorization to search belongings of a third person inside the area. Here, Goedker did not own, possess, or control Giberson’s grocery bags. Therefore, Goedker did not have authority to consent to the search of Giberson’s bags. The Court of Appeals further reasoned that a search is unconstitutional if the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the item searched. Here, Giberson clearly sought to preserve as private the drugs and digital scale by placing them in his grocery bag. The Court addressed whether Giberson had a privacy interest in storing his belongngs in plastic bags: > “Grocery bags can be characterized as ‘traditional repositories of personal belongings.” People certainly put personal grocery items and other personal items obtained in a grocery store like prescription medications in such bags. And common experience tells us that people also use grocery bags to carry other personal items. For example, this may be true for people such as those experiencing homelessness who may not have space for their personal items. Giberson reasonably could expect that others would not search his grocery bags without his consent. Therefore, we conclude that Giberson had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his grocery bags.” ~WA Court of Appeals. With that, the Court of Appeals concluded that Goedker’s authority to give consent to search his hotel room did not extend to the search of Giberson’s grocery bags. Furthermore, Giberson had a reasonable expectation of privacy in those bags. Therefore, the trial court erred in failing to suppress the heroin and digital scale found in the search of the grocery bags. Giberson’s conviction was reversed. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime involving [Search and Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/). Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, felony, Fourth Amendment, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [New Bill Strengthens Prosecution of Hate Crimes](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/new-bill-strengthens-prosecution-of-hate-crimes/) **Published:** April 15, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** A bill passed in Washington is expanding the state’s definition of a hate crime and strengthens the ability to prosecute those crimes. Governor Jay Inslee signed [Senate Bill 5623](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5623&Year=2023&Initiative=false) into law on April 6 after it was passed with overwhelming support in the House and Senate earlier this year. > “This bill takes the common sense step of recategorizing hate crimes as crimes against a person and also provides our communities with the justice they deserve in the wake of these traumatic crimes.” ~ King County Prosecuting Attorney Leesa Manion Senator Manka Dhingra sponsored the legislation. She states that Hate Crime offenses are reclassified as crimes against persons. The bill also replaces the phrase “physical injury” with “assault” in the definition of Hate Crime to account for more situations. Assaults that are meant to intimidate and demean, like spitting on someone, will now be grounds for prosecution as a Hate Crime. ESB 5623 modifies the conduct that constitutes a Hate Crime offense to include when a person maliciously and intentionally assaults a victim because of the person’s perception of certain characteristics about the victim. Including the victim’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender expression or identity, or disability. SB 5623 will allow courts to impose therapeutic treatment for offenders meant to rehabilitate them. This is something that the victims of hate crimes often ask for in court. The bill also expands the definition of a hate crime. Right now, assaults have to result in a physical injury for it to be considered a hate crime. Under the new bill, assaults that are meant to intimidate or demean but don’t result in injury can be considered a hate crime. An example of that would be spitting on someone. Supporters of the bill say hate crimes are corrosive to society and make communities feel unwelcome. In Washington state, there were more than 500 hate crimes committed against a person in 2021, according to the Department of Justice. Their data shows the biggest motivators of hate crimes are largely race and ethnicity, followed by sexual orientation and then religion. If prosecuted for a Hate Crime offense, the trier of fact may infer that a person intended to threaten a victim if the person committed one of the following acts: - Burns a cross on the property of a victim who is or whom the person perceives to be of African American heritage. - Defaces the property of a victim who is or whom the person perceives to be of Jewish heritage by defacing the property with a swastika. - Defaces religious real property with words, symbols, or items that are derogatory to persons of the faith associated with the property. - Places a vandalized or defaced religious item or scripture on the property of a victim who is or whom the person perceives to be of the faith with which that item or scripture is associated. - Damages, destroys or defaces religious garb or other faith-based attire belonging to the victim or attempts to or successfully removes religious garb or other faith-based attire from the victim’s person without the victim’s authorization. - Places a noose on the property of a victim who is or whom the person perceives to be of a racial or ethnic minority group. Words alone do not constitute a Hate Crime offense unless the context or circumstances surrounding the words indicate the words are a threat. Threatening words do not constitute a Hate Crime offense if it is apparent to the victim that the person does not have the ability to carry out the threat. A Hate Crime offense is a class C felony and is punishable by a maximum sentence of five years of imprisonment, a $10,000 fine, or both. In addition, the victim of a Hate Crime offense may bring a civil cause of action against the perpetrator. Claims can include actual damages, punitive damages of up to $100,000, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. The bill will go into effect this summer, on July 23. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Hate Crimes, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [State Lawmakers Approve Police Pursuits](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/state-lawmakers-approve-police-pursuits/) **Published:** April 20, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** This week, [Senate Bill 5352](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5352&Year=2023&Initiative=false "https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5352&Year=2023&Initiative=false") passed with a vote of 26-22. This legislation would lower the requirements for police pursuits passed the Washington state Senate on Monday. In recent public statements, Governor Inslee indicated that he would approve the new law. If signed, police may engage in a pursuit if they have [“reasonable suspicion”](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_suspicion) a person has committed or is committing a violent or [sexual crime](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/). These crimes include [Assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/), [DV cases](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/), [Vehicular Assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/vehicular-homicide-vehicular-assault/) and [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/). Following the bill’s passage, law enforcement agencies have greater ability to pursue people during and immediately after a crime. > “It allows us to use our training, experience in judgement in making these difficult decisions in whether to pursue somebody or not . . . It allows us just those few extra tools to deal with these situations.” ~Marco Monteblanco, Washington State Fraternal Order of Police. Under the current law, police can only chase a suspect when they have proof of a crime involving violence, a sex crime, or a DUI. As a result, law enforcement agencies argued that current restrictions give criminals confidence to flee and lead to more crime. Opponents like State Representative Darya Farivar (D-Seattle) said police chases are too dangerous and do not always result in arrests. “It’s a risk for absolutely everyone,” she said. “It’s everyone from the subject of the pursuit, to the passenger in the vehicle, to bystanders, to law enforcement.” Rep. Farivar added that she also opposed the new legislation because she said minorities and underprivileged groups are often disproportionally targeted by police. “It’s not just the individual who may or may not be at fault of something (to be impacted by police pursuits). There are a lot of people who can be hurt,” she said. In 2021, Olympia legislators passed House Bill 1054, which barred high-speed pursuits except in very limited circumstances. The law was included in a series of police reforms passed in response to the murder of George Floyd and other high-profile police killings. The reforms were aimed at addressing racial disproportionality in policing. According to [Washington State Patrol (WSP)](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/), before the change between 2014 and 2020, an average of 1,200 drivers per year fled from police. In 2022, after the change, 3,100 drivers fled from police, a spike of over 150%. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Eluding, law enforcement, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [House of Representatives Fails to Pass Drug Possession Legislation](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/house-of-representatives-fails-to-pass-drug-possession-legislation/) **Published:** April 24, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** On Sunday, the [House of Representatives](https://leg.wa.gov/House/Pages/default.aspx) rejected [Senate Bill 5536](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5536&Year=2023). The legislation would have made the possession and use of hard drugs a gross misdemeanor. The bill failed in the final hours of the current session. [Senate Bill 5536](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5536&Year=2023) was introduced as a measure to significantly change drug possession laws. Many of the legislation’s original backers turned against it, citing concerns that the bill has been watered down and could cause more harm than good. [Governor Inslee](https://www.governor.wa.gov/) responded to the results. He believed the bill was going to be the solution for a lot of drug problems in Washington. He also said he expects the legislature to draft another bill that will include pointing people to treatment services and not decriminalizing drugs. If passed into law,[Senate Bill 5536](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5536&Year=2023) would have superseded existing public drug use bans in cities like Kent and Bellingham. In addition, an officer would have had to simultaneously witness someone with drugs and using them to make an arrest. Democrats stood by the bill, while Republicans argued it would make things worse. **THE *BLAKE* DECISION.** On Feb. 25, 2021, the Washington Supreme Court issued a [decision](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/968730.pdf) declaring the state’s main drug possession statute [RCW 69.50.4013(1)](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.4013) unconstitutional and “void.” The ruling occurred in a case known as *State v. Blake*. In 2016, Shannon Blake was arrested in Spokane and convicted of simple drug possession. Blake argued that she did not know there was a baggie of methamphetamine in the jeans she had received from a friend. The court ruled that the statute violated the due process clause of the constitution. Without any mental state requirement, the law criminalized “unknowing” drug possession and people could be arrested and convicted even if they did not realize they had drugs in their possession. The majority concluded, “The legislature’s police power goes far, but not that far.” That case held that the state’s law making possession a felony was unconstitutional. The legislature instead classified possession as misdemeanor crimes, punishable by up to 90 days in jail, a $1,000 fine or both. **THE POLITICAL BATTLEGROUND** Numerous mayors from across Washington state, including Auburn Mayor Nancy Backus, agreed that something needs to be done about the rise in public drug use. However, they signed a letter stating that SB 5536 is not the solution. They argued that instead of helping to crack down on the drug crisis, the bill would add more limitations. “We’re harming people more than we’re helping,” said Backus. “There’s no teeth to it, and it is also preemptive of any local jurisdiction. Yet, despite this vote, lawmakers on both sides are hoping to find a solution that works for everyone. “I think the important part you are hearing on both sides, which is all together, is that we care. We care,” said Rep. Maycumber. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Drug Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Governor Inslee Signs Legislation Aimed at Preventing Gun Violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/governor-inslee-signs-legislation-aimed-at-preventing-gun-violence/) **Published:** April 28, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Governor Jay Inslee signed three bills into law aimed at preventing gun violence in Washington state. One of the bills signed into law [bans assault-style weapons](https://komonews.com/news/local/semi-automatic-rifle-ban-passes-washington-state-legislature-governor-jay-inslee-ar-15s-ak-47s-guns-rifles-weapons-gun-control-legislation-olympia-lawmakers "https://komonews.com/news/local/semi-automatic-rifle-ban-passes-washington-state-legislature-governor-jay-inslee-ar-15s-ak-47s-guns-rifles-weapons-gun-control-legislation-olympia-lawmakers"). another requires safety training and a [10-day waiting period](https://komonews.com/news/local/washington-house-oks-bill-requiring-10-day-wait-for-guns "https://komonews.com/news/local/washington-house-oks-bill-requiring-10-day-wait-for-guns") before purchasing a firearm. The third is legislation to strengthen accountability of firearm manufacturers and retailers. > “These are three victories, not one, and it is clear why we need to take this action . . . These weapons of war of assault weapons have no reason other than mass murder. Their only purpose is to kill humans as rapidly as possible in large numbers.” ~Gov. Jay Inslee **HOUSE BILL 1240** [House Bill 1240](https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/House%20Passed%20Legislature/1240-S.PL.pdf#page=1 "https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/House%20Passed%20Legislature/1240-S.PL.pdf#page=1") prohibits the manufacture, importation, distribution, sale, or offer for sale of any assault weapon” in Washington state. The semi-automatic rifle ban would cover more than 50 gun models, including AR-15s, AK-47s and similar-style rifles, which fire one bullet per trigger pull and automatically reload for a subsequent shot, The Associated Press reported. Some exemptions are included for sales to law enforcement agencies and the military in Washington. “Gun violence rips loved ones from their families, devastates our communities, and traumatizes our children again and again,” said [Rep. Strom Peterson (D-Edmonds)](https://housedemocrats.wa.gov/peterson/) who sponsored[ HB 1240](https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/House%20Passed%20Legislature/1240-S.PL.pdf#page=1 "https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/House%20Passed%20Legislature/1240-S.PL.pdf#page=1"). “Students everywhere have been speaking up, demanding we do something to protect them. We’ve stepped up to answer them. With the Governor’s signature today, we’re sending a clear message to our kids: we hear you and we are acting to keep you safe.” The law went into effect immediately after it was signed by Inslee on Tuesday. Gun shop owners now have 90 days to sell their inventory. When the bill passed the state House in March, Inslee said he has believed in it since 1994 when, as a member of the U.S. Congress, he voted to make it a federal law. **HOUSE BILL 1143** [House Bill 1143](https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/House%20Passed%20Legislature/1143-S2.PL.pdf#page=1 "https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/House%20Passed%20Legislature/1143-S2.PL.pdf#page=1") requires gun buyers to show they’ve taken firearm safety training before purchasing a firearm. The new law also requires a 10-day waiting period for all gun purchases — something that’s already mandatory in Washington when buying a semi-automatic rifle. HB 1143 will go into effect on January 1, 2024. “Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in our country,” said [Rep. Liz Berry (D-Seattle)](https://housedemocrats.wa.gov/berry/) who sponsored HB 1143. “As a mom of two little ones and as a person who has lost someone who I love to gun violence, this is devastating to me. It’s simple: these bills will save lives.” **HOUSE BILL 5078** Inslee also signed [Senate Bill 5078](https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/5078-S.PL.pdf#page=1 "https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/5078-S.PL.pdf#page=1") into law Tuesday. The bill allows people whose family members die from gun violence to sue if a manufacturer or seller “is irresponsible in how they handle, store or sell those weapons.” Under Washington’s consumer-protection act, the attorney general could file a lawsuit against manufacturers or sellers for negligently allowing their guns to be sold to minors, or to people buying guns legally in order to sell them to someone who can’t lawfully have them. [SB 5078](https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/5078-S.PL.pdf#page=1 "https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/5078-S.PL.pdf#page=1") takes effect 90 days after the adjournment of the legislative session. **THE MOMENTUM, POLITICAL WILL & OPPOSITION** More than 800 people die from gun violence in Washington state each year, according to the governor’s office. Nine states including California, New York and Massachusetts, along with the District of Columbia, have already passed similar bans. the laws have been upheld as constitutional by the courts. The ban on some semi-automatic weapon sales drew a quick legal challenge from the [Second Amendment Foundation ](https://www.saf.org/)and the [Firearms Policy Coalition](https://www.firearmspolicy.org/). The groups sued in U.S. District Court, saying the law violates the [constitutional right to keep and bear arms](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/#:~:text=A%20well%20regulated%20Militia%2C%20being,Arms%2C%20shall%20not%20be%20infringed.). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Firearms Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Firearm, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Federal Prisons Want Inmates to Pay Victims](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/federal-prisons-want-inmates-to-pay-victims/) **Published:** May 2, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.npr.org/2023/04/28/1170505972/federal-prisons-want-inmates-to-pay-victims-before-making-phone-calls-or-buying-) by [Tilda Wilson](https://www.npr.org/people/1141550675/tilda-wilson) reports that federal prisons want inmates to pay victims before making phone calls or buying shoes. The [Bureau of Prisons](https://www.bop.gov/) is considering a rule change concerning inmates who keep large sums of money in their prison accounts. The new rule would require that 75 percent of all the money family and friends send a person in prison go to pay their outstanding debts. These debts include paying restitution to their victims. But lawyers and advocates for people in prison feel that the proposed rule goes too far. Shanna Rifkin, deputy general counsel for Families Against Mandatory Minimums, agrees that the Bureau of Prisons should not let wealthy inmates avoid restitution. However, she also thinks the proposed rule is too broad. > “It’s really like a sledgehammer, when you could bring a tool that was much smaller to address the problem.” ~Shanna Rifkin, Deputy General Counsel for Families Against Mandatory Minimums Other advocates, like Ellen Degnan, a staff attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center, argue the courts should fix the problem themselves by setting individual payment plans during sentencing. > “Courts can solve this problem. This is not for the BOP to meddle in.” ~Ellen Degnan, a staff attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center Even advocates for people who are owed restitution are wary of the proposed rule. Bridgette Stumpf, executive director at the nonprofit Network for Victim Recovery of D.C., thinks the rule has the potential to get some victims restitution more quickly than they would otherwise. Still, she thinks the consequences need to be balanced. **RESTITUTION OR COURT FINES?** Many of the people who would be impacted by the proposed rule do not owe victim restitution. Instead, they owe court fines and fees related to their initial sentencing. In a statement, a spokesperson for the Bureau of Prisons said that commissary accounts are a privilege. Officials will review public comments carefully. There is no deadline for a decision on this rule being made. Jails and prisons are undesirable places. Please review [Making Bail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/making-bail/) and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Jail, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Prison, Restitution, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Governor Inslee Signs Police Pursuit Bill](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/governor-inslee-signs-police-pursuit-bill/) **Published:** May 5, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** A new bill Gov. Jay Inslee just signed changes when law enforcement can chase criminals. It gives more latitude to police on when they can initiate a pursuit. Now, police don’t need [probable cause](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause) of a violent crime to chase a criminal – just reasonable suspicion. > “I believe this is a step forward, a reasonable measure and balance, to ensure public safety.” ~Governor Jay Inslee. The new law went into effect immediately after the signing. Law enforcement officials need “reasonable suspicion” for violent and [sexual crimes](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/), [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/), [domestic violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/), and [vehicular assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/vehicular-homicide-vehicular-assault/). The previous law, passed in 2021, required law enforcement to have “probable cause” – or hard evidence – of violent and sexual crimes, and DUI. > “With the laws that they put in place before, I could not chase that red car without probable cause, which means I need a license plate, a really specific description of the driver, or something on the vehicle that stands out that says this is the vehicle that committed that crime.” ~Sgt. Darren Moss of the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department. Lawmakers opposed to that say pursuits are just too dangerous for the public to warrant a chase when no one has been hurt. “Limit police vehicle pursuits to the most serious crimes. Those crimes that don’t involve injury to person can be solved in other manners,” said Rep. Roger Goodman (D-Kirkland) during session on March 28. Inslee acknowledged Wednesday that many law enforcement groups are hoping for more changes in the future. He compared the police pursuit problem to climbing Mount Everest at the bill signing, saying it needs to be addressed step by step. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Eluding](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/eluding/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Eluding, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [WA State Patrol Uses Helicopters to Pursue Fleeing Suspects](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/wa-state-patrol-uses-helicopters-to-pursue-fleeing-suspects/) **Published:** May 9, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Nowadays, the [WA State Patrol](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/) shall deploy “aviation tactics” to respond to increased incidents of street racing. > “WSP along with other law enforcement agencies has experienced an increase in the number of vehicles fleeing attempted traffic stops yet it is imperative this criminal behavior is addressed in the safest manner possible to hold these individuals accountable. The WSP is addressing this issue with the invaluable assistance of the Aviation Section.” ~[Press Release, WA State Patrol](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/2023/05/08/wsp-using-aviation-assets-to-hold-fleeing-drivers-accountable/) Apparently, four recent incidents occurred where arrests were made using a helicopter. The pilot guided ground units to suspect vehicles. **Incident #1** – WSP aircraft observed a vehicle traveling SB SR 167 in Auburn at 97mph and passing on the shoulder. They followed the vehicle as it exited the freeway and at one point in time seemed to be racing other vehicles. The vehicle ended up in a drive thru and when it exited troopers were able to arrest the driver. Numerous charges to include suspicion of DUI! **Incident #2** – This incident is where a vehicle was doing doughnuts in front of a trooper in Kent. The vehicle fled an attempted traffic stop and was followed by the aircraft. After the aircraft followed the vehicle all over the South Center area the ground units were led to where the vehicle parked near a warehouse and the driver was taken into custody. **Incident #3** – The aircraft spotted a vehicle NB 167 traveling at 107mph heading to what was believed to be a racer meetup. The vehicle fled an attempted traffic stop by a trooper and was followed by the aircraft where speeds reached 118mph. The vehicle was followed all over the South Center area until it reached a meetup where a number of vehicles were blocking the road. The vehicle was trapped by the other vehicles and troopers were able to make an arrest! **Incident #4** – A trooper followed several street racers and attempted to stop one for speeding. The vehicle fled into east Auburn into a residential area and entered a home. Troopers arrived at the residence and were able to talk the driver and passenger out of the house. The trooper in the aircraft was able to ID the driver by the hoodie they were wearing and a lanyard hanging out of their pocket. The driver was subsequently arrested. **STREET RACING IS RECKLESS DRIVING.** Street racing is typically an unsanctioned and illegal form of [auto racing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_racing "Auto racing") that occurs on a [public road](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_road "Public road"). Racing in the streets is considered hazardous. Street racing can either be spontaneous or well planned and coordinated. Well-coordinated races are planned in advance and often have people communicating via [two-way radios](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-way_radio "Two-way radio") or [citizens’ band radio.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_band_radio "Citizens' band radio") Participants use [police scanners](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_scanner "Police scanner") and [GPS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS "GPS") units to mark locations where local police are more prevalent. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Reckless Driving, Reckless Endangerment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Skagit County's Drug Task Force May Lose Funding](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/skagit-countys-drug-task-force-may-lose-funding/) **Published:** May 12, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article](https://www.goskagit.com/news/drug-task-force-fearing-for-funding/article_d60ce6b2-ea8b-11ed-98ea-ff885d1f9b7c.html) in [GoSkagit](https://www.goskagit.com/) by journalist [Brandon Stone](https://muckrack.com/brandon-stone) reports that the[ WA Commerce Department](https://www.commerce.wa.gov/) may stop funding Skagit County’s drug enforcement squad. This puts the future of this unit at risk. **THE SKAGIT COUNTY DRUG TASK FORCE** The Skagit County Drug Task Force is a “vice” unit composed of police officers from all of Skagit County’s law enforcement agencies. The Task Force is responsible for gathering intelligence on illegal drug activity in and through Skagit County. They conduct investigations, make arrests and conduct seizures based on that intelligence. They also shut down drug houses, intercept deliveries, and assist in the prosecution of high-profile drug dealers. Each member of the Drug Task Force has years of experience in law enforcement. The Task Force has assembled a wide range of informants providing them with a constant flow of information. **FUNDING PROBLEMS** Tobin Meyer, the commander of the Task Force, recently addressed the Mount Vernon City Council. He discussed the funding issues and asked if the City would offer support if State funding stopped. He said of the unit’s $450,000 annual budget, $150,000 traditionally comes from this grant. Funding would usually come in September, but he can’t count on it this year. > “It’s a David and Goliath battle, but we’re doing our best.” ~Tobin Meyer, chief criminal deputy with the Skagit County Sheriff’s Office **INCREASE OF FENTANYL & “TRANQ”** Meyer discussed recent trends in drug trafficking. hE painted a dire picture of the prevalence of fentanyl in the county. As recently as 2019, this highly concentrated opioid was rare. But by 2022, law enforcement took more than 300,000 pills off the street, Meyer said. A counterfeit Percocet pill containing fentanyl might have cost $20 to $30 wholesale in 2020, but today’s price is closer to a dollar. A new drug called Xylazine, also called Tranq, was found in Skagit County after first being documented elsewhere in the country. Unlike opioids, there is no known overdose antidote to xylazine. **DRUG TRENDS IN WA STATE** Washington ranks [third worst in the nation for illicit drug use disorder](https://mhacbo.org/media/2021_epidemiology.pdf), according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, released in December 2021. WA State ranks next to last in delivering drug treatment to adults and teens who say they need it. More than [2,000 people died of drug overdoses](https://doh.wa.gov/newsroom/overdose-deaths-washington-top-2000-2021-and-continue-rise) last year in Washington, a 66% jump since 2019. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Drug Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Why Retail Is Focused on Organized Crime](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/why-retail-is-focused-on-organized-crime/) **Published:** May 19, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article](https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/05/18/its-not-people-shoplifting-why-retails-focus-is-organized-crime.html) by journalist [Eric Rosenbaum](https://muckrack.com/erprose) discusses why large retail stores see an increase in [Organized Retail Theft](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.350). **BIG BOX RETAILERS BELIEVE THEY ARE VICTIMS OF CRIME** “The country has a retail theft problem,” Home Depot CFO Richard McPhail [said on a call with CNBC](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/17/target-says-organized-retail-crime-fueled-losses-have-shot-up.html) on Tuesday after its earnings. “We’re confident in our ability to mitigate and blunt that pressure, but that pressure certainly exists out there.” Home Depot’s vice president of asset protection had told CNBC in March crime is [increasing at double-digit rates.](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/18/organized-retail-crime-debate.html) According to the article, Target said organized retail crime will reach $500 million more in stolen and lost merchandise this year compared with a year ago. On its earnings call, Target CEO Brian Cornell said retail theft is “a worsening trend that emerged last year.” Retailers are convinced the crime trend is rising. Complicting matters, the trend is not simply a shoplifting issue reflecting tougher economic times for Americans. The trends show an increasin in the work of organized retail crime networks. **ORGANIZED RETAIL CRIME** The National Retail Federation says [Organized Retail Crime](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.350) is the main reason for retail “shrink.” This is defined as a mismatch between actual inventory and what is on the books — which [reached $94.5 billion in 2021](https://cdn.nrf.com/sites/default/files/2022-09/National%20Retail%20Security%20Survey%20Organized%20Retail%20Crime%202022.pdf), an increase of almost $4 billion year over year. Its president Matt Shay told CNBC on Thursday that the issue isn’t going away. “Conversations we’ve had with members over the last several years indicate it is getting to be a really acute and serious problem,” and as far as the annual numbers, remains “growing.” While theft is “manifesting itself in stores with acts of violence,” Shay stressed that in-store, individual crime is not the biggest scope of the problem. It’s not people shoplifting an individual item for personal use. These days, shoplifting is a big part of organized crime. Target chief financial officer Michael Fiddelke had said after its earnings in November 2022 that [shoplifting jumped about 50%](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/16/target-will-report-earnings-before-the-bell-heres-what-to-expect.html) year over and year, resulting in over $400 million in losses in the fiscal year, and Walmart’s CEO Doug McMillon issued another [warning about the rising threat](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/06/walmart-ceo-says-shoplifting-could-lead-to-price-jumps-store-closures.html) on CNBC in December. > “This is very sophisticated local, state, national and transnational organizations, organized not just to steal at the store level, but throughout the entire supply chain … on the docks, on trucks, off ships, through containers, on the railways. This is a really persistent problem and it’s across the supply chain,” ~Matt Shay, President of National Retail Federation. **MOVING UP THE SUPPLY CHAIN: CARGO THEFT** That matches CargoNet data recently provided to CNBC by insurance company Travelers, which has a special investigations group and works with law enforcement to recover stolen goods. It found food and beverage coming into port or in a warehouse is [No. 1 on the list of products being targeted by freight thieves](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/25/cargo-theft-led-by-food-and-beverage-is-surging-across-the-us.html) who are increasing their criminal activity across the national supply chain, with household goods and electronics still high on the list of cargo thieves. Physical theft is still the No. 1 method used by thieves in the supply chain, but they are getting more sophisticated, creating fictitious pickups through use of identity theft — pretending to be trucking companies, including infiltrating online freight management systems and freight brokerage phone lines. “A lot of times, they will get away with it,” Scott Cornell, transportation lead and crime and theft specialist at insurance provider Travelers, recently told CNBC. It has tracked a 600% increase in this form of cargo crime. Cargo theft is occurring at multiple points in an item’s journey, with the NRF finding that theft “en route from distribution centers to stores” was the top target, at 47.4%; followed by cargo theft at stores, at 42.1%, and cargo “en route from manufacturers to distribution centers,” at 35.1%. **COMBATTING ORGANIZED RETAIL CRIME ACT** The National Retail Federation is lobbying for the [Combatting Organized Retail Crime Act](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/140/text?s=1&r=49), which would create a function within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to elevate the theft issue to a national issue. It would also allow the DHS to coordinate with law enforcement across the country, provide resources, and report to Congress. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/theft/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Uncategorized **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Bellingham Retail Stores Beef Up Security in Response to Rising Crime](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/bellingham-retail-stores-beef-up-security-in-response-to-rising-crime/) **Published:** May 20, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.cascadiadaily.com/news/2023/may/05/bellingham-stores-beef-up-security-in-response-to-rising-crime/) in the [Cascadia Weekly](https://www.cascadiadaily.com/) by [Ralph Schwartz](https://muckrack.com/bhampolitics) describes how Bellingham retail stores are increasing security in response to rising crime. Thefts in Bellingham’s downtown core peaked in March 2022, according to the city’s [crime statistics webpage. ](https://cob.org/gov/dept/police/news-police/crime-stats)Apparently, this is part of a broader citywide crime wave that hit Bellingham in the latter stages of the COVID-19 pandemic for [a variety of reasons](https://www.cascadiadaily.com/news/2022/mar/23/no-easy-fixes-to-bellinghams-car-theft-problem/). Among them was [overcrowding at the jail](https://www.cascadiadaily.com/news/2023/mar/12/what-will-replace-whatcom-countys-failed-jail/), which prompted the Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office to stop booking nonviolent offenders. The police department was [short on officers](https://www.cascadiadaily.com/news/2022/jan/23/police-acknowledge-slower-response-times-as-crime/). Finally, new [state laws made it more difficult for police](https://www.cascadiadaily.com/news/2022/sep/21/dems-more-fixes-on-the-way-for-broken-police-reforms/) to engage with suspected criminals. Bellingham’s Meridian neighborhood also reported thefts peaked in the summer of 2022. This neighborhood includes Bellis Fair mall and major retails such as Home Depot and Walmart. The neighborhood averaged four reported thefts a day in June through August of last year. The shoplifting problem isn’t limited to Bellingham. Nationally, retail theft was growing before the pandemic, reaching $68.9 billion in stolen goods in 2019, according to the [Retail Industry Leaders Association](https://www.rila.org/focus-areas/public-policy/study-retail-theft-balloons-to-over-68-billion#). A more recent survey by the [National Retail Federation](https://cdn.nrf.com/sites/default/files/2022-09/National%20Retail%20Security%20Survey%20Organized%20Retail%20Crime%202022.pdf) reported that overall shrinkage, which includes theft, damaged goods and other losses, reached $94.5 billion in 2021, up 4% compared to 2020, with much of that attributed to a rise in organized crime. According to the article, large-scale retailers like Home Depot have armed their security guards. This comes in response to [Organized Retail Theft](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.350) operations originating from a nearby Homeless encampment. > “Organized retail crime is an ongoing issue, and it has been on the rise over the last several years for many retailers . . . We have a multitude of initiatives in place to mitigate, including human and technology resources, to make theft in our stores more difficult; close partnerships with law enforcement; and significant efforts working with federal and state task forces to fight this problem.” ~Evelyn Fornes, Senior manager of communications and advocacy for The Home Depot Washington also has the second highest per capita rate of retail theft of any state in the country after Pennsylvania. In 2021, 23,323 cases of shoplifting were reported in Washington state. Seattle also ranked eighth among large cities for retail crime in 2021. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/category/theft/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Retail Theft, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Theft, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Lock Your Pet In Your Car?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/lock-your-pet-in-your-car/) **Published:** May 22, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Summer approaches! And with it, the hurry-up-and-have-fun approach to life. We have barbeques. Go to beaches. Play in the sun. In between fun time, we run errands. And when we run errands, we leave our pets in the car. Unfortunately, without ventilation, the temperature inside your car will [rise high and fast](https://www.weather.gov/arx/heat_howfast). Leaving pets in a hot car can cause heat stroke or death. Cracking a [window open isn’t enough](https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/what-do-if-you-see-pet-parked-car). **CIVIL INFRACTIONS & CRIMINAL CHARGES.** [Washington state law](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=16.52.340#:~:text=(1)%20It%20is%20a%20class,or%20lack%20of%20necessary%20water.) makes it a [civil infraction](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=16.52.340#:~:text=(1)%20It%20is%20a%20class,or%20lack%20of%20necessary%20water.) to leave any animal alone in a car. The law also applies to any other enclosed space, if they could be killed by excessive heat, excessive cold, lack of ventilation or lack of water. This civil infraction comes with a [maximum fine](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=7.80&full=true) of $125. It is also possible to get slapped with an [animal cruelty charge,](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=16.52.205) depending on the [severity ](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=16.52.207)of the situation, and other circumstances. In Washington, you can be convicted of animal cruelty if you don’t provide needed shelter, sanitation, space, or vet treatment. The law applies if you acted recklessly, purposefully, or with criminal negligence, and only if the animal suffers unjustified pain as a result. **HOW HOT CAN A CAR GET?** According to a[ 2005 study from the American Academy of Pediatrics](https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article-abstract/116/1/e109/72893/Heat-Stress-From-Enclosed-Vehicles-Moderate?redirectedFrom=fulltext), outside temperatures of around 70 degrees can heat the inside of a car to over 115 degrees within minutes. Dogs experience heat exhaustion when their body temperature hits 103 degrees, according to pet food company [Hill’s Pet Nutrition](https://www.hillspet.com/dog-care/routine-care/leaving-dogs-in-hot-or-cold-cars?lightboxfired=true#). It’s typically safe to leave your dog in the car for no more than five minutes when the outside temperature is above freezing and below 70 degrees. **RESCUING PETS FROM HOT OR COLD CARS.** If you see a dog or pet in obvious distress inside a car, what can you do to help? Wherever you live, you should try to contact local animal control authorities or law enforcement. Authorities may be able to track down and contact the car owner. Many states also allow officers or emergency responders to use force, if needed, to save endangered animals. **CAN YOU BREAK A CAR WINDOW?** Some states have Good Samaritan laws that protect a rescuer from criminal or civil liability for breaking into a locked car to rescue an animal. But in order to be protected, rescuers must take certain steps—including calling 911 or law enforcement first. And usually, their actions—such as breaking a window—must be absolutely necessary or used only as a last resort. In states that don’t have Good Samaritan laws, the rescuer could face legal repercussions for their actions. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Animal Cruelty](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=16.52.205) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Animal Abuse, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Public Discussion of New Jail in Whatcom County](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/public-discussion-of-new-jail-in-whatcom-county/) **Published:** May 29, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Great [article](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article275721586.html#) by journalist [Robert Mittendorf](https://muckrack.com/robert-mittendorf) discusses the possible cost, location, design and scope of a new jail facility. Whatcom County’s current jail, which is 40 years old, is considered too small for current needs and requires millions of dollars in safety renovations. It’s under booking restrictions because of the COVID-19 pandemic. It was built to hold 148 offenders and was remodeled to a capacity of 212. The Work Center in Irongate has 150 beds for full-custody, lower-security offenders and those on a work crew or work-release programs. Mittendorf reports that It’s the first public discussion of cost after more than a year of meetings to develop plans for a new jail. This comes along with services that could include diversion programs and mental health and substance abuse treatment facilities. **THE MONEY** A .2% sales tax could collect $13.8 million annually, with $8.3 million to Whatcom County and $5.5 million split among Bellingham and its other cities based on population. A 30-year bond issue with annual payments of $8.3 million could raise $143 million. **THREE POSSIBLE LOCATIONS** Choosing a jail location is the next step in the process. Three locations in the county have emerged, with cost estimates based on a jail size of 400 to 440 beds: ▪ The parking lot south of the Whatcom County Courthouse, location of the current jail in downtown Bellingham. It would be at least seven stories tall on 1.3 acres, with three stories of underground parking and cost $207 million. Opportunities for expansion and nearby location of other services would be limited. ▪ A location on Deemer Road in the Irongate industrial area, near the Jail Work Center and the Anne Deacon Crisis Triage Center. It would be four to five stories tall with underground parking and cost $170 million. Its five buildable acres allow for some possibility of adding additional services nearby. Driving time would be about nine to 12 minutes from the downtown courthouse. ▪ A site on LaBounty Drive in Ferndale, where plans for a jail were scrapped after ballot measures to fund it with a .2% sales tax failed in 2015 and 2017. Cost is estimated at $137 million. Its layout on 16 acres of buildable land would be horizontal and no more than two stories tall. It has the greatest potential for adding nearby services. Because it is near Interstate 5, driving time would be about nine to 15 minutes from the downtown courthouse. In addition to a new jail, more behavioral health facilities and staff are needed, and also more housing for people who are released from jail, according to reports from the [Whatcom County Justice Project](https://www.whatcomcounty.us/3351/Justice-Project-Public-Health-Safety-Jus) over the past year. It has also focused on ways to reduce time in jail, such as electronic home monitoring and programs that treat substance abuse. The [VERA Institute](https://www.vera.org/) reports [the following general information](https://www.vera.org/beyond-jails-community-based-strategies-for-public-safety) about most jails located across the nation: - Close to 70 percent of [all people held in local jails](https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html) have been charged with violations of drug, property, or public order laws; less than one-third have been charged with offenses that are considered violent. - Unlike in prisons—where incarcerated people have been convicted of a crime—two-thirds of the people in local jails have not been found guilty of their current charges but remain incarcerated pretrial, often because they’re unable to pay even small bail amounts. - Many incarcerated people also experience added challenges like homelessness or behavioral health issues. Forty-four percent of people in jail report having at least one mental health condition. - And the rate of people with substance use disorders is six times as high in jail as in the community. - People in jails have also experienced homelessness at a rate from 7.5 to 11.3 times that of the broader population. - These facts are not accidental. They’re the result of policy decisions to use enforcement and incarceration instead of treatment and services. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: jail is a terrible place. Please review [Making Bail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/making-bail/) and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Police Departments Relaxing Recruitment Qualifications](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/police-departments-relaxing-recruitment-qualifications/) **Published:** June 2, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** [NewsNation](https://www.newsnationnow.com/) [reports](https://www.newsnationnow.com/morninginamerica/police-departments-relaxing-recruitment-qualifications/) 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](https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/ap-us-news/ap-us-cities-hope-crime-strategies-keep-homicide-numbers-dropping-and-prevent-summer-surge/), 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](https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/239416_IACP_RecruitmentBR_HR_0.pdf), 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](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, law enforcement, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Washington State Ranked 23rd In The Nation For Drug Use](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/washington-state-ranked-23rd-in-the-nation-for-drug-use/) **Published:** June 5, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Insightful [article](https://www.thecentersquare.com/washington/article_b7b0a60e-cd63-11ec-8f4b-4b7af6d110b5.html) in [The Center Square](https://www.thecentersquare.com/washington/) by journalist [Brett Davis](https://www.thecentersquare.com/users/profile/brett%20davis/) shows reveals Washington ranks at No. 23 in the nation for drug use. The article follows on the heels of a WalletHub [**study**](https://wallethub.com/edu/drug-use-by-state/35150). 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](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Drug Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Drivers Can't Consent to Police Searching a Passenger's Belongings](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/drivers-cant-consent-to-police-searching-a-passengers-belongings/) **Published:** June 28, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Garner*, No. 56861-6-II (2023)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2056861-6-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf), the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) 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](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). 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](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. This is especially true if [Search and Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) issues are involved. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 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 **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [WA Courts Reimburse Defendants For Fines & Costs Associated With Drug Convictions](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/wa-courts-reimburse-defendants-for-fines-costs-associated-with-drug-convictions/) **Published:** June 30, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In a [press release](https://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/?fa=newsinfo.pressdetail&newsid=50125), 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* ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/968730.pdf)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](http://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](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Drug Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [New "Blake Fix" Drug Possession Law Takes Effect July 1, 2023](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/new-blake-fix-drug-possession-law-takes-effect-july-1-2023/) **Published:** July 1, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** [SB 5536](https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/5536-S2.PL.pdf?q=20230518103204), 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](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.41&full=true#:~:text=(13)%20%22Legend%20drugs%22,to%20use%20by%20practitioners%20only.), 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](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17049075484250640900&q=state+v+blake+washington+state+supreme+court&hl=en&as_sdt=6,48)*. 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](https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/5536-S2.PL.pdf?q=20230518103204). **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](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.41&full=true#:~:text=(13)%20%22Legend%20drugs%22,to%20use%20by%20practitioners%20only.) 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](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=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](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=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](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=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](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13919520626609876555&q=174+Wash.2d+321&hl=en&as_sdt=6,48)*, 174 Wn.2d 321, 274 P.3d 1033 (2012), which held that cities with a municipal court created under [chapter 3.50 RCW](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=3.50) 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](https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/5536-S2.PL.pdf?q=20230518103204#page=11) 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](https://wacities.org/advocacy/News/advocacy-news/2023/05/17/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](https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/5536-S2.PL.pdf?q=20230518103204#page=21) of the bill. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Drug Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Speed Cameras In Demand As Fatal Crashes Rise in WA State](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/speed-cameras-in-demand-as-fatal-crashes-rise/) **Published:** July 3, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Informative [article](https://www.theolympian.com/news/local/traffic/article276851786.html) in the [Olympian](https://www.theolympian.com/) by journalist [Martin Bilbao](https://muckrack.com/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](https://wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/statewide-plans/strategic-highway-safety-plan-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](https://wtsc.wa.gov/). 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](https://wtsc.wa.gov/) 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](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/), 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](https://www.nbcrightnow.com/news/gov-inslee-signs-sb-5272-at-transportation-workers-memorial/article_7d7ea374-d374-11ed-a1a2-9bdd5848441e.html). 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](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Reckless Driving, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Traffic Infractions, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [U.S. Supreme Court Addresses "True Threats"](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/u-s-supreme-court-addresses-true-threats/) **Published:** July 6, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*Counterman v. Colorado*, No. 22-138 (June 27, 2023)](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-138_43j7.pdf)., the [U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) 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](https://www.facebook.com/) 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](https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2016/title-18/article-3/part-6/section-18-3-602). 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](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/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](https://www.oyez.org/justices/elena_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](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reckless) is the correct approach in determining the proper [*mens rea*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/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](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Stalking](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/stalking/), [Harassment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/harassment/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** 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 **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Politicians Want Crackdowns on Drug Dealers](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/politicians-want-crackdowns-on-drug-dealers/) **Published:** July 8, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.npr.org/2023/07/05/1183172045/fentanyl-drug-busts-overdose-police-dealers-trafficking-indianapolis) by [NPR journalist Brian Mann](https://muckrack.com/brianmannadk) discusses a growing coalition of U.S. politicians wanting tougher police tactics used against gangs now selling fentanyl, methamphetamines and xylazine. The pro-active arrests of drug dealers have been a cornerstone of[ America’s War on Drugs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs) since the 1970s. However, [new research published in the American Journal of Public Health](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307291) suggests drug busts and police crackdowns on dealers may actually be making the overdose crisis worse. **THE STUDY: BUSTING DRUG DEALERS PUTS LIVES AT RISK WITHOUT CLEANING UP NEIGHBORHOODS** The study, [which underwent a rigorous peer-review process](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307329) because of its controversial findings, is based on data gathered in Indianapolis, Indiana that found patterns of overdose and death that followed drug seizures in the city. People with addiction wind up buying fentanyl, methamphetamines and other high-risk street drugs from strangers selling drugs of different potency — often with different, more dangerous ingredients. When people experiencing severe addiction are forced to go without drugs — even for a short period of time — it can alter their level of tolerance. Begin using again and they may be more vulnerable to overdose and death. **POLITICIANS CALL FOR TOUGH ACTIONS.** Fear of fentanyl is adding to political pressure to get even tougher on drug dealers. The supply of street drugs is now cheaper, more readily available, and more toxic than ever before. Roughly 110,000 people in the U.S. died of fatal overdoses last year alone, a devastating new record. [Senator Cortez Masto](https://www.cortezmasto.senate.gov/) describes her [Xylazine Measure](https://www.cortezmasto.senate.gov/news/press-releases/cortez-masto-grassley-and-hassan-introduce-legislation-to-crack-down-on-xylazine) – which has broad bipartisan support – as a necessary legal tool to toughen penalties and “crack down on traffickers.” > “I can just tell you what I’m seeing and hearing from my law enforcement,” Sen. Cortz Masto told NPR. Xylazine is “becoming an emergent threat, one we need to get a handle on now and not wait to lose more lives.” ~Senator Cortez Masto **SHOULD POLICE GET INVOLVED?** [Beau Kilmer](https://www.rand.org/about/people/k/kilmer_beau.html), who heads the [Rand Drug Policy Research Center](https://www.rand.org/well-being/justice-policy/centers/dprc.html), agrees police should play a major role cleaning up neighborhoods where drug-dealing is rampant. > “If you can just reduce the number of dealers on the street and allow residents get their neighborhood back that could be a real benefit.” ~Beau Kilmer Some experts on police drug enforcement tactics believe law enforcement must do much more to protect public health before drug seizures occur. That would mean more advanced planning and coordination with harm reduction groups and others focused on helping people with addiction. “We don’t have a choice is the way I look at it,” said Brittney Garrett, the former cop who works now with a pro-reform group called the Police Assisted Addiction and Recovery Initiative. “By not having law enforcement, public health, behavioral health, harm reduction all working together, we’re going to end up with more people being harmed.” **WASHINGTON STATE’S EVER-EVOLVING STANCE ON DRUG POSSESSION.** [Senate Bill 5536](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5536&Year=2023) was just passed on July 1, 2023. The bill criminalizes using drugs in public. It also sets the penalty for possession of controlled substances as a gross misdemeanor with a maximum confinement time of six months for the first two convictions. Any fine for any conviction is capped at a maximum of $1,000. The bill creates a system for a pre-trial diversion program to get people into treatment. The bill requires mandatory early conviction vacation if the person in question can complete treatment or has “substantially complied” with a recovery program or similar services for six months. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Drug Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Washington's 2022 Crime Report: Homicides Are Up, Police Staffing is Down](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/washingtons-2022-crime-report-homicides-are-up-police-staffing-is-down/) **Published:** July 10, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs](https://www.waspc.org/)‘ (WASPC) [reported](https://www.waspc.org/assets/CJIS/CIW%20Report%20News%20Release%207-10-23.pdf) that [Homicides](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/) and other violent crimes increased in Washington state at a dramatic pace last year. > “The rate of murders, violent, and property crimes rose across the state, while the number of officers available to respond and serve our communities decreased again in 2022. There were 394 murders in 2022, an increase of 16.6% over 2021. This is the highest number of murders recorded since WASPC began collecting this data in 1980. Homicides have increased by 96% since 2019. Crimes against persons, property, and society all increased in 2022, and violent crimes showed an increase of 8.9%.” ~[WASPC 2022 Crime Report](https://www.waspc.org/assets/CJIS/CIW%20Report%20News%20Release%207-10-23.pdf) The report analyzed 2022’s crime data across the state. It was compiled with data from 231 state, county, municipal, and tribal agencies within Washington. **WHAT DOES THE OTHER DATA REVEAL?** Other significant trends the report disclosed were [motor vehicle theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/possession-theft-of-stolen-motor-vehicle/) rising by 34%. Also, nearly 46% of all crimes against persons were defined as [domestic violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/). Moreover, 544 [hate crimes](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/harassment/) were reported last year. Finally, the state logged 719 fewer arrests for [drug or narcotic violations](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/). This data follows a pattern the state saw last year with increases in violent crime. According to WASPC’s report, violent crime increased by 12.3% from 2020 to 2021. There were 325 murders recorded in 2021, an increase of 5.9% over 2020. The year 2021 had the highest number of murders recorded before 2022 broke its record. **ENROLLMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS DECREASED.** “The total number of commissioned officers statewide was 10,666, down from 10,736 in 2021, while the total population of the state increased by 93,262,” the report continued. “Washington again is ranked 51st out of the 50 states and District of Columbia for the number of officers per thousand residents. Reported cases of officers assaulted were 2,375 in 2022, an increase of 20.7%.” The report said the reduced law enforcement staffing means less ability to provide justice for victims, fewer people to de-escalate, less behavioral health assistance and many agencies “treading water.” Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Domestic Violence, Drug Offenses, Hate Crimes, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Theft of Motor Vehicle, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Cathinone: The Newest Drug to Hit Streets & Nightclubs](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/cathinone-the-newest-drug-to-hit-streets-nightclubs/) **Published:** July 14, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [Drug Enforcement Administration](https://www.dea.gov/) is issuing a [warning](https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/synthetic_drugs/about_sd.html) about Cathinone, the latest drug that has made its way to Northeast Florida streets. [Cathinone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathinone#:~:text=Cathinone%20%2F%CB%88k%C3%A6%CE%B8,cathine%2C%20methcathinone%20and%20other%20amphetamines.) is a natural stimulant that comes from a plant. However, [this Cathinone is synthetic](https://adf.org.au/drug-facts/synthetic-cathinones/), meaning it’s a concoction of dangerous chemicals. **WHAT ARE SYNTHETIC CATHINONES?** Synthetic cathinones have stimulant properties related to cathinone, the psychoactive substance found in the khat shrub. It produces effects similar to methamphetamine, cocaine, and MDMA, to name a few. They have been sold as “bath salts.” Often, they’re sold over the Internet, at convenience stores, tobacco/smoke shops, and gas stations and packaged in shiny plastic bags and bright logos. More recently, the cathinone market has been pushed underground. It’s being sold in “traditional drug packaging” like little baggies, and can be found in tablet, capsule, or powder form. Users can experience symptoms of nausea, vomiting, paranoia, hallucinations, delusions, suicidal thoughts, seizures, chest pains, increased blood pressure and heart rate, and violent outbursts. These drugs have also resulted in overdose deaths. The drug was first found in Sweden in 2014, then seven years later, it showed in a United States toxicology report. Very little is known about the drug. **CATHINONE NOW APPEARING IN FLORIDA NIGHTCLUBS.** As of 12 months ago, the dangerous drug started showing up in the Jacksonville metropolitan area. Jacksonville DEA Assistant Special Agent in Charge Mike Dubet said law enforcement officers are finding that the younger generation possesses the new drug in area nightclubs and bars. > “It’s very cheap, about $150 to $200 per ounce. It’s an alternative that people are turning to just because of the price and the effects they are getting from it.” ~DEA Assistant Special Agent in Charge Mike Dubet Because N,N-Dimethylpentylone Hydrochloride creates similar effects as other drugs, law enforcement said it also has the potential to deliver the same negative side effects which include high blood pressure, rapid heart rate, hyperthermia, hallucinations, dehydration, loss of consciousness and death. “State, local, and federal government is aware of it and we’re all trying to go after the people that are responsible for distributing it on our streets,” Dubet said. Dubet also pointed out another problem with the drug. He said since it’s being sold as cocaine, an unsuspecting buyer who thinks they’re getting cocaine may resort to gun violence when they realize they were sold something else. > “The customer can feel they’re being ripped off which could lead to some of the retaliatory violence.” ~DEA Assistant Special Agent in Charge Mike Dubet [Seventy pounds of the drug was seized by U.S. Customs and Border Protection ](https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/dulles-cbp-officers-seize-70-pounds-dangerous-newer-cathinone-analogue)agents at Washington Dulles International Airport. Agents said two boxes of the drug were sent from China and were listed on the manifest as beauty products. It’s unclear if the people in China who shipped the drugs to DC are the same people responsible for supplying the same drugs to Northeast Florida. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Drug Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Cathinone, Drug Offenses, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Alcohol-Related Deaths Increased Amid a Spike in Pandemic Drinking](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/alcohol-related-deaths-increased-amid-a-spike-in-pandemic-drinking/) **Published:** July 17, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [Washington Post article](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2023/07/13/alcohol-consumption-deaths/) by [Caitlin Gilbert](https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/caitlin-gilbert/) and [Hanna Zakharenko](https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/hanna-zakharenko/) reported on [federal data](https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/surveillance120/surveillance-report120.pdf) showing U.S. consumption of alcohol accelerated during the [COVID-19 Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic) as Americans grappled with stress and isolation. Mississippi saw a 159 percent increase in alcohol-related deaths, the nation’s biggest leap, along with a 10 percent rise in apparent consumption. In Delaware, consumption increased the most, by 25 percent, while alcohol-related deaths rose 73 percent. George F. Koob, director of the [National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)](https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/), said the traumas of the pandemic brought the increase. The fear of covid-19 infection, job losses, social isolation added to everyday stresses that were already spurring people to drink. Experts point to a variety of factors for the increase, among them stagnant alcohol taxes that make drinking cheap relative to inflation, increased [marketing to women](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/for-women-heavy-drinking-has-been-normalized-thats-dangerous/2016/12/23/0e701120-c381-11e6-9578-0054287507db_story.html?itid=lk_inline_manual_11) and social despairs that have led to crises of mental health and addiction in the United States. **The NIAAA Report.** According to NIAAA data, apparent consumption of alcohol, measured as gallons of ethanol sold per capita, increased by 6.6 percent between 2018 and 2021 across the United States. Overall consumption reached an average of about 2.8 gallons per person annually — roughly 597 drinks per year — for Americans over 21. That’s the highest consumption level since 1988. The drinking patterns reported by the NIAAA varied significantly by state. In nine states — including Florida, Tennessee and New Jersey — alcohol consumption increased by at least 10 percent. The NIAAA data suggests that increased alcohol consumption may be more pronounced than previously believed. The 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health indicated that nearly 9 in 10 U.S. adults of drinking age reported drinking the same or less than they did before the pandemic. Researchers say this type of survey data can mask risky behavior or changes in drinking habits because respondents often underreport their alcohol use. **Alcohol-related Deaths Increased in Every State.** As alcohol use was surging, so were alcohol-related deaths. Between 2018 and 2021, deaths caused by alcohol increased in every state, according to [CDC mortality data](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db448.htm). Some states that had some of the biggest increases in consumption also had some of the largest spikes in alcohol-related death rates. In Mississippi, the rate of deaths caused by alcohol more than doubled in a four-year span, rising from 7 deaths per 100,000 residents to about 18 deaths per 100,000 in 2021. “The costs of alcohol abuse and dependence are phenomenal,” said Jefferson Parker, a professor of psychiatry who co-directs a new addiction treatment program at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, which last fall received a $6 million federal grant to help treat alcohol use disorder, along with opioid addiction. New Mexico had more than 51 deaths per 100,000 residents, the highest rate of alcohol-related deaths in the country, and an increase of almost 50 percent from its rate in 2018. Death rates related to alcohol also nearly doubled in Montana, South Dakota and Delaware during that time. **Who Was Drinking?** Younger drinkers saw the biggest increase in the rate of alcohol-related deaths, which spiked by nearly 80 percent among 25-to-44-year-olds, a Washington Post analysis of CDC data found. For every 100,000 people within that age range, 12 people died of alcohol-related issues in 2021, the analysis found. Older age groups didn’t see rises that dramatic but already had high rates. People between the ages of 55 and 64 had the highest rate of alcohol-related deaths, at 42 per 100,000. Those findings add to similarly grim statistics. A CDC study published last fall [estimated](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2798004?utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_term=110122) that between 2015 and 2019, excessive alcohol use was to blame for 1 in 8 deaths of Americans between the ages of 20 and 64. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Whatcom Sheriff's Office & Jail Flooded by Inmate](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/whatcom-sheriffs-office-jail-flooded-by-inmate/) **Published:** July 19, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** . . . just another reason for a new jail. Last Sunday, the [Whatcom County Sheriff’s Offices and Jail](https://www.whatcomcounty.us/200/Sheriff) was flooded by a sprinkler head that was tampered with by an inmate. The flooding caused over $5,000 in estimated damages, [the Sheriff’s Office reported](https://nextdoor.com/agency-post/wa/whatcom-county/whatcom-county-sheriffs-office-2/whatcom-county-wa-on-sunday-july-16-around-415-pm-corrections-deputies-were-alerted-to-a-louder-than-normal-sound-of-water-flowing-in-a-shower-room-where-an-inmate-was-showering-282957675/). Corrections deputies quickly learned that the heavy water flow was from a sprinkler head that had been tampered with by an inmate. The amount of water quickly overwhelmed the drains and flooded the entire first floor of the jail. Corrections Deputies, Sergeants and inmate workers pulled together to mitigate the water flow and guide it to drainage. The water began seeping into the Sheriff’s Office administrative space, which is located below the jail. Large volumes of water penetrated portions of the Sheriff’s Office ceiling, causing significant damage to interview rooms, offices and electronic equipment. Corrections staff contacted Whatcom County Facilities Department, which maintains the jail facility. The Bellingham Fire Department was also contacted and was able to turn off the main water line approximately 15-20 minutes later. Flooding from the jail is an ongoing concern. Over the years, broken pipes (including sewage pipes) and inmate vandalism have led to numerous flooding incidents. Estimated damages from this flooding are currently over $5,000.00 and growing. Probable cause exists to charge the inmate with [Malicious Mischief First Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/malicious-mischief/). > “The water began seeping into the Sheriff’s Office administrative space, which is located below the jail. Large volumes of water penetrated portions of the Sheriff’s Office ceiling, causing significant damage to interview rooms, offices and electronic equipment.” ~Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office Whatcom County Officials are preparing to place another jail tax on the November ballot for the third time in eight years. That measure would build a new and larger facility and include provisions for mental health and substance abuse treatment, along with programs to keep individuals out of jail. My opinion? It’s time Whatcom County voted “Yes” to a new jail. It benefits all parties, including inmates, the public and police. Clearly, the safety of Whatcom County’s police officers is at risk when hijinks like this take place. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Jail, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Remote Jury Selection](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/remote-jury-selection/) **Published:** July 22, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Wade*, ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/829106.pdf)the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div1&fileID=geninfo) held that Remote Jury Selection does not violate the right to a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** Mr. Wade was convicted of first degree [burglary](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/), first degree [robbery](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/robbery/), and second degree [assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) (X2) following an attack on a married couple and their grandson. His jury trial took place during the [COVID-19 Pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic). At that time, King County Superior Court had just reopened for in-person criminal jury trials. Nevertheless, remote jury selection was still the preferred process for conducting *voir dire*. This process allowed the parties to conduct jury selection by video conference using the [ZOOM Meeting Application](https://zoom.us/download). Mr. Wade objected to electronic or virtual jury selection on various grounds. He argued this process violated his constitutional right to a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community. The trial court denied his motion. The jury found him guilty as charged. On appeal, Wade challenged the use of remote videoconferencing technology for jury selection pursuant to court orders authorizing its use to reduce risk of COVID-19 exposure. He claims this method of jury selection violated his right to a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community because it excluded people based on their race and economic status, as well as his right to a fair trial. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals gave its criteria for establishing a violation of the defendant’s right to a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community: > “A prima facie violation requires three elements: **(1)** that the group alleged to be excluded is a ‘distinctive’ group in the community; **(2)** that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and **(3)** that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.” ~WA Court of Appeals Applying this criteria, the Court acknowledged that Wade indeed established that both African-Americans and people of low economic status comprise distinct groups. “However, Wade fails to show that representation of these groups in the venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community,” said the Court. “He presents no evidence establishing the proportion of African-Americans or the prevalence of low economic status either in King County or Wade’s venire.” Furthermore, the Court found that Wade failed to establish the third element of his case. Here, potential jurors had already been selected from the jury pool, summonsed by postcard, questioned, and hardship dismissals granted before the technical requirements of remote jury selection were introduced. With that, the Court of Appeals upheld Wade’s conviction. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Remote Jury Selection, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [How To Handle False Allegations of Sexual Assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/how-to-handle-false-allegations-of-sexual-assault/) **Published:** July 26, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** I’ve successfully obtained [dismissals, reductions or jury acquittals](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/verdicts-and-results/) on a large number of sexual assault cases in my career. These cases are inherently challenging. They require an immense amount of time, work, energy, investigations and pre-trial litigation. Those suspected of false allegations must have [situational awareness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situation_awareness) of the threats, risks and criminal exposure that these false allegations carry. In this blog, I’ll discuss how best to handle false claims of sexual assault so that you can move forward in a positive trajectory without fear or shame. False accusations of [sexual assault](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/) are harrowing, traumatic and frightening. They can have long-lasting effects on your life, even if the allegation is found to be untrue. When handling false allegations of sexual assault, it’s important to remain calm and take steps to protect yourself from further harm. **CONTACT A CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY** Your first step after being accused of sexual assault should be to contact a criminal defense attorney who is experienced in handling sexual assault cases. A criminal defense lawyer can advise you on protecting your legal interests and help guide you through handling false accusations. This could include reaching out to law enforcement or the prosecutor’s office in an effort to avoid charges being filed. Defense attorneys can challenge eyewitness accounts by showing inconsistencies. They can also seek to suppress identification evidence gathered improperly. They can advise you on gathering evidence that could prove your innocence, such as medical records or witness statements. In addition, they will be able to explain what legal processes are involved in handling sexual assault allegations, such as how to handle any required court appearances. In Washington State, [numerous defenses](https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/manuals/SexualOffense/CHAPTER_3_Defenses_to_Sexual_Offenses_2018.pdf) exist to fight back against these charges. Some of these defenses are as follows: - Alibi - Consent - Duress - Entrapment - Insanity - Reasonable Defense of Victim’s Age Undoubtedly, your defense begins with contacting a criminal defense attorney. **DO NOT TALK TO POLICE** Our friends in law enforcement are placed in very difficult positions when investigating sexual assault charges. They did not witness the events take place. However, they are contacted by the alleged victim, medical professionals and/or sexual assault advocates to proactively investigate these serious criminal charges and incarcerate suspects when necessary or possible. Know this: police are not your friend, ally, mediator or protector in these situations. On the contrary, police are doing their best to gather as much evidence as possible in support of the pending sexual assault charges. Therefore, sexual assault suspects should not talk to police unless they have their lawyer present. Some suspects think that they can clear their name by cooperating completely with a police investigation. In many cases, however, they end up giving law enforcement valuable evidence that incriminates them. Typically, a suspect’s voluntary statements to police are admissible at trial. These voluntary statements make it extremely difficult to defend against a sexual assault charge once it is filed. By not talking to police, suspects force police to build their own case. It also eliminates the possibility that the suspect will say something that inadvertently or coincidentally incriminates them. **DO NOT TALK TO OTHER PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE CASE** Sexual assault suspects should not talk with others who were involved in the incident. This includes the alleged victim and any witnesses. There is very little to be gained by discussing the incident with anyone. Worse, there is a significant risk of saying something that is incriminating. Chances are high that police will interview everyone involved. A poorly-phrased comment can quickly become evidence against the defendant. Additionally, [intimidating or tampering with a victim or witness](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/tampering-with-a-witness-intimidation-of-witnesses/) is a crime. **DOCUMENT EVERYTHING** It is essential to keep track of all correspondence related to the case. This includes saving emails, text messages and letters from police officers, lawyers, prosecutors, and witnesses. This documentation can be used later as evidence in your defense if needed. You should also keep track of any legal advice that you receive from your defense attorney. This information can be used to refute false claims or statements. **GATHER EVIDENCE & WITNESSES IN SUPPORT OF YOUR INNOCENCE** If possible, it’s crucial to gather evidence and witnesses who can attest to your innocence. This may include text messages, emails, video evidence, or other documents showing that the incident never occurred or that a witness is not being truthful. You should also speak with anyone who witnessed the alleged incident or who can provide a character reference for you. A criminal defense attorney can greatly assist in collecting this evidence, and so it is best to consult with an attorney before you begin this process. **REACH OUT FOR EMOTIONAL SUPPORT** It is important to seek emotional support during this difficult time. Speak with friends and family about what is going on and ask them for their help. Consider speaking with a therapist or counselor who can provide additional emotional guidance. False accusations of sexual assault can be challenging to handle, but remember that you are not alone. By following the steps outlined above, you can protect yourself and your legal interests while handling false claims of sexual assault. With the right help and support, you will come out of this experience stronger and more resilient than ever. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [sex offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/). Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Bellingham Crime Rates - 2022 & 2023 Thus Far](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/bellingham-crime-rates-2022-2023-thus-far/) **Published:** July 29, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** You’ve likely heard a lot about crime recently. It’s been [a major topic of campaign rhetoric](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/03/us/midterm-elections-republicans-crime.html) and featured in a [cacophony of often misleading ads.](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/melissasegura/crime-ads-midterms-misinformation) More Americans than ever now believe that crime is up in their community, [according to a recent Gallup poll.](https://news.gallup.com/poll/404048/record-high-perceive-local-crime-increased.aspx) But what do crime statistics reveal for the City of Bellingham, in particular? Out of curiosity, I researched the [City of Bellingham’s crime statistics](https://cob.org/gov/dept/police/news-police/crime-stats) for both 2022 and 2023. Here’s what the numbers show: **BELLINGHAM CRIME STATISTICS – ALL NEIGHBORHOODS – 2022** Reported IncidentsJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecAlcohol Offenses000000235200Assault (Felony)1712211416924121818109Assault (Misdemeanor)424454485443575651562853Auto Theft746262473932304036273222Burglary (Residential)785789706449526859586051Crimes Against Person191918171622221911191011Crimes Against Property484246384447513739384127Domestic Violence626758845860747669647355Drug Offenses977151813352422201719DUI101715171422221935232019Homicide010010000200Malicious Mischief8086194152139263294415285298311258Public Order Maintenance321278345247297351287274262306258316Robbery1616910121117871455Service Calls472365466430512504514500438367456407Sex Crime Reports45105651110610811Theft318293336296296275268285243242259185Traffic Accidents534058554554395342796324Traffic Offenses/Complain1541581411161141001138915914312188Vehicle Prowls197184226194200105122127871269062All Others196144169119149155184143145175146114Calls – Non-reportable424740514631434849305281549652675017483840034194**Totals****6417****5948****6955****6322****7024****7401****7714****7525****7036****6925****6011****5930****BELLINGHAM CRIME STATISTICS – ALL NEIGHBORHOODS – 2023** Reported IncidentsJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecAlcohol Offenses301043100000Assault (Felony)514121014151600000Assault (Misdemeanor)5235334253395900000Auto Theft2822241524282100000Burglary (Residential)5534525858603200000Crimes Against Person1611221827242000000Crimes Against Property4130302721332100000Domestic Violence6949617666747800000Drug Offenses2732241929292600000DUI2921332739303600000Homicide002010000000Malicious Mischief3223753652951921065000000Public Order Maintenance31427326032829931725600000Robbery1210105119500000Service Calls48041246239544651341700000Sex Crime Reports665549400000Theft23421921822625119617700000Traffic Accidents13101517826700000Traffic Offenses/Complain9177938585664700000Vehicle Prowls5752525959442700000All Others1671431541341461439000000Calls – Non-reportable443139474858469751864964472000000**Totals****6452****5772****6786****6538****7023****6728****6110**00000The numbers are interesting. Without diving too deeply into sub-categories, it appears that crime is trending down. In 2022, the City of Bellingham had **47,781** reported incidents of crime from January – July. In 2023, the City of Bellingham has **45,409** total reported incidents of crime from January – July. The take-away? Bellingham, WA is a relatively safe city compared to the national average. According to [bestplaces.net](https://www.bestplaces.net/crime/city/washington/bellingham), violent crime in Bellingham is 18.8 which is significantly lower than the US average of 22.7. Similarly, property crime rate in Bellingham is 71.5 which is more than twice as low as the US average of 35.4. Therefore, it can be concluded that Bellingham is an overall safer area than most places in the United States. It’d be interesting to know what criminal charges were reduced, dismissed, acquitted or found guilty. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [WA Supreme Court Strikes Down Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/wa-supreme-court-strikes-down-racial-discrimination-in-jury-selection/) **Published:** August 2, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Rhone*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/1012047.pdf), the [WA Supreme Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/) overturned a 65-year-old Black man’s conviction, nearly two decades after he alleged racial discrimination in the jury selection process for his trial. **BACKGROUND FACTS** Rhone proceeded to trial on charges of first degree [robbery](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/robbery/), [unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/), [unlawful possession of a firearm](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/), and[ bail jumping](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/bail-jumping/). During jury selection, the parties agreed to remove one of the two Black jurors in the 41-member pool for cause. The prosecution—using a peremptory challenge—struck the remaining Black venire juror. After the court swore in the jury, Rhone made the following statement: > “I don’t mean to be facetious or disrespectful or a burden to the Court. However, I do want a jury of my peers. And I notice that the prosecutor took away the Black, African-American, man off the jury. Also, if I can’t have—I would like to have someone that represents my culture as well as your culture. To have this the way it is . . . seems unfair to me. It’s not a jury of my peers. . . . I am an African-American Black male, 48 years old. I would like someone of culture, of color, that has—perhaps may have had to deal with improprieties and so forth, to understand what’s going on and what could be happening in this trial.” ~Theodore Rhone The court understood Rhone’s statement as a *Batson* challenge, found no prima facie case of discrimination and denied Rhone’s request for a new jury panel. The jury convicted him of all charges. Rhone received a life sentence without the possibility of parole for two of his convictions. In 2010 Rhone appealed, arguing for a “bright-line rule” establishing a prima facie case of discrimination when “the last remaining minority member of the venire is peremptorily challenged.” Unfortunately, the Washington Supreme Court denied Rhone’s appeal at that time. However, in their 2017 ruling in [*City of Seattle v. Erickson*](https://casetext.com/case/city-of-seattle-v-erickson-1), the WA Supreme Court affirmed the very rule Rhone wanted to establish — even calling it the “Rhone Rule.” The court’s decision now to overturn Rhone’s convictions allows him to finally benefit from that rule. Rhone now sought [collateral relief](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/collateral_attack#:~:text=A%20collateral%20attack%2C%20also%20called,than%20by%20a%20direct%20appeal.) based on *Erickson*. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** [Justice Susan Owens](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=owens) wrote the court’s opinion. She reasoned that Mr. Rhone’s unsuccessful challenge to the last remaining Black juror being struck from his venire directly resulted in him facing a jury that was undoubtedly less likely to debate and consider uncomfortable issues related to race and acknowledge and mitigate implicit biases than that of a diverse jury. > “Recalling the mandate in the unique circumstances of Rhone’s case accomplishes this mission; we must allow him to benefit from the rule *he proposed* that ultimately became the law in this state.” ~Justice Susan Owens With that, the WA Supreme Court reverse Rhone’s convictions and remanded for a new trial. My opinion? I applaud the court’s decision. When juries have diverse makeups, it allows them to draw from various lived experiences, and offer greater perspectives. Studies have shown that all-white juries spend less time deliberating, make more errors, and consider fewer perspectives. They also convict at higher rates and convict Black defendants at higher rates than other defendants specifically. The court’s decision is the correct step toward racial justice and equity. In announcing the reversal of Rhone’s convictions, the state Supreme Court also ordered a new trial. Rhone will finally have a jury of his peers, as the law and constitution intended. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Jury Selection, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Why Seahawks' Geno Smith Won't Be Charged For DUI Or Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/why-seahawks-geno-smith-wont-be-charged-for-dui/) **Published:** August 4, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** [Seattle Seahawks](https://www.espn.com/nfl/team/_/name/sea/seattle-seahawks) quarterback [Geno Smith](https://www.espn.com/nfl/player/_/id/15864/geno-smith) will not be charged in connection with his 2022 arrest on suspicion of [DUI. ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/)Prosecutors also declined to charge Smith with [Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/), citing insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of either offense. Smith, 32, was arrested early on the morning of Jan. 10, 2022, hours after the Seahawks returned to Seattle from their 2021 season finale against the [Arizona Cardinals](https://www.espn.com/nfl/team/_/name/ari/arizona-cardinals). According to an arrest report, he was initially stopped [for going 96 mph in a 60 mph zone](https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33043779/police-seahawks-qb-geno-smith-driving-96-mph-erratic-arrest-suspicion-dui) and driving erratically across several lanes of traffic. The police report also stated Smith was “agitated” during his encounter with law enforcement and had been driving 96 mph in a 60 mph zone. Smith’s blood-alcohol concentration was found to be .038, less than half of the .08 legal limit in Washington State. His THC concentration was 2.6, also well below the legal limit of 5. The state trooper who pulled Smith over detected an odor of intoxicants and observed that he had bloodshot, watery eyes, according to the arrest report. A judge issued a search warrant for a blood draw after Smith declined to take a [preliminary breath test](https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures/deterrence/23-breath-test-devices). He was taken to a hospital where he became agitated before the blood draw, even with the Seahawks’ director of team security present to try to calm Smith down, according to the report. Restraints were used to complete the process, troopers wrote. > “In considering the filing of charges, prosecutors must consider any reasonably foreseeable defense to be raised . . . From the investigation material, prosecutors do not have evidence to rebut likely explanations for his bad driving. While we can show that Mr. Smith consumed alcohol and marijuana and that in general those two substances have a compounding effect, we do not have any evidence to show exactly what effect they had on Mr. Smith, and a reasonable doubt exists as to whether his ability to drive was affected by alcohol or marijuana.” ~King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office. The prosecuting attorney’s office wrote that despite evidence that Smith was driving fast and briefly traveled out of his lane, they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was disregarding the safety of people or property on the road. Due to a [backlog with blood tests in the Washington State Patrol Crime Lab](https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/washington-dui-backlog-growing/281-887626da-d216-4377-a972-b635c899603b#:~:text=According%20to%20numbers%20provided%20by,to%20the%20state's%20latest%20figures.), Smith’s results were not provided to King County prosecutors until this past April. The prosecutor’s office noted in its release that Smith’s samples were being stored at the crime lab in a refrigerator that failed, and that while “there is no reasonable doubt to the accuracy of the results, there would likely be litigation related to the handling of his blood samples.” At the time of his arrest, Smith had just completed his third season as [Russell Wilson](https://www.espn.com/nfl/player/_/id/14881/russell-wilson)‘s backup with the Seahawks. In a tweet after the arrest, Smith urged the public to withhold judgment. He [later told reporters](https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/34061145/seahawks-geno-smith-foresee-problems-stemming-dui-arrest-worked-out) that he didn’t think anything would come of the matter. My opinion? Many evidentiary issues were favorable on behalf of Mr. Smith. First, his blood-alcohol and THC levels were below the legal limit to charge him with DUI. Mathematically speaking, the State could not prove DUI. This evidentiary issue was exacerbated by the WSP’s delays in processing the blood test and, ultimately, their tainting/destruction of Mr. Smith’s blood evidence. But why couldn’t the Prosecutor’s Office charge Reckless Driving? Under the [WPIC Jury Instructions](https://govt.westlaw.com/wciji/Document/Iefb14ea7e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?contextData=%28sc.Default%29&transitionType=Default#:~:text=A%20person%20commits%20the%20crime,vehicle%20upon%20a%20public%20highway%5D.), a person commits the crime of reckless driving when he or she drives a vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property or races a motor vehicle upon a public highway. Here, the Prosecutor’s office decided there was no evidence of “willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.” There’s question, however, as to why Mr. Smith’s excessive speed of 90+ mph down a public highway was not sufficient evidence of Reckless Driving. Under [RCW 46.61.530](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.530), “Any person or persons who wilfully compare or contest relative speeds by operation of one or more motor vehicles shall be guilty of racing, which shall constitute reckless driving under RCW [46.61.500. ](http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.500) Anyway, great outcome for Geno Smith. His defense attorney did well. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Reckless Driving, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Blake Refund Bureau Launches to Assist with Refunds of Court Fines](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/blake-refund-bureau-launches-to-assist-with-refunds-of-court-fines/) **Published:** August 6, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** It will soon be easier for Washingtonians with past [drug convictions](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) to get reimbursed for fees and fines they paid under the state’s now-overturned drug law. Washington state’s official online reimbursement center for court-ordered fines or costs paid in connection with drug possession convictions, found to be unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court in *State v. Blake*, launched July 29, 2023. Now accessible at [www.courts.wa.gov/blakerefund](http://www.courts.wa.gov/blakerefund), the [Blake Refund Bureau](https://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/index.cfm?fa=newsinfo.blakerefundbureau) was developed by the [Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/aocwho/) in collaboration with courts serving all 39 Washington state counties and 112 separate municipalities. Individuals convicted of simple drug possession, cannabis possession and paraphernalia convictions between 1971 and 2021 can now receive qualifying financial reimbursements via the Bureau’s self-guided, centralized portal. > “As partners with courts across the state, this bureau is a critical tool to ensure that individuals receive the refunds due to them in a timely and efficient manner.” ~AOC Chief Financial and Management Officer Chris Stanley In 2021, the Washington Supreme Court found the legal statutes that criminalized drug possession were unconstitutional and void because they did not require intent, or knowledge of possession — a due process violation of both state and federal constitutions. As a result of this decision, known as [*State v Blake*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/968730.pdf) , any [*Blake*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/968730.pdf)-related convictions qualify to be vacated and removed from one’s criminal record, and any legal financial obligations (LFOs) paid as a result qualify for financial reimbursement. To administer these reimbursements statewide, the Washington State Legislature determined a centralized bureau would be instrumental for public accessibility, and help to offset costs to courts, prosecutors and defense attorneys. With $47 million earmarked towards possession charge vacations, sentencing adjustments, and an additional $51 million set aside for paid LFO refunds, AOC was appointed the task of developing the Blake Refund Bureau in collaboration with local courts and county clerks, public defenders, prosecutors, impacted individuals, advocacy groups and other stakeholders. This work is unprecedented, with no related instances of a state issuing hundreds of thousands of vacations and refunds at one time. The [*State v Blake*](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/968730.pdf) ruling impacts an estimated 200,000+ felony drug possession charges dating back to the 1970s and an estimated additional 125,000 misdemeanor marijuana charges eligible for vacation. Individuals can apply online via the [Blake Refund Bureau portal](https://refund.courts.wa.gov/), or apply via mail. Applicants must have their name, case number, and proof of ID with picture prior to applying. Additionally, optional fields are available to upload further identifying information including proof of name change, divorce decree, international address, and power of attorney if filing for someone else. Refund progress tracking, a help forum and how-to video will be available to help guide users through the online application process. To help individuals understand their rights, vacate their records and learn about qualifying LFO and 3rd party reimbursements, the Blake Refund Bureau offers resources and a free *Blake* hotline courtesy of [Washington State Office of Public Defense](https://www.opd.wa.gov/). Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Drug Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/drug-charges-delivery-possession/) ort any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Federal Court Strikes Hawaii Statutue Outlawing Butterfly Knives](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/butterfly-knives-are-legal/) **Published:** August 11, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*Teter v. Lopez*, No. 20-15948 (August 7, 2023)](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/08/07/20-15948.pdf) the [9th Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) held that [Hawaii’s criminal statute prohibiting possession of butterfly knives](https://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/2012/title-10/chapter-134/section-134-53#:~:text=(a)%20Whoever%20knowingly%20manufactures%2C,be%20guilty%20of%20a%20misdemeanor.) violates the [second amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment). The 9th Circuit has jurisdiction over federal district courts in California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. **BACKGROUND FACTS** In Hawaii, it is a misdemeanor to knowingly to manufacture, sell, transfer, transport, or possess a butterfly knife—no exceptions. Plaintiffs Mr. Teter and Mr. Grell are law-abiding Hawaii residents who wished to purchase butterfly knives for self-defense. They sued Hawaii’s Attorney General and Sheriff Division Administrator (“Hawaii”). They sought to establish that Hawaii’s statute violates the Second Amendment. The Plaintiffs further argued that, but for Hawaii’s law, they would purchase butterfly knives. They owned butterfly knives before moving to Hawaii and were forced to dispose of their knives because of Hawaii’s ban on butterfly knives. The Plaintiffs’ expert witness agreed that the butterfly knife “is just a tool” that can be used offensively and defensively. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The 9th Circuit began by saying the butterfly knife, also known as the “balisong,” has a disputed origin. Some sources say it originated in France; others, the Philippines. It is anywhere from a few hundred to over a thousand years old. Regardless of its origin, the butterfly knife resembles an ordinary pocketknife, a tool that has been used by Americans since the early 18th century. > “Like a pocketknife, the butterfly knife comprises a handle and a folding blade, the cutting edge of which becomes covered by the handle when closed. Unlike a pocketknife, however, the butterfly knife’s handle is split into two components. Together, these two components fully encase the blade when closed and rotate in opposite directions to open. With a few short, quick movements, an experienced user can open a butterfly knife with one hand.” ~9th Circuit Court of Appeals The 9th Circuit also held that possession of butterfly knives is conduct covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment: > “Bladed weapons facially constitute ‘arms’ within the meaning of the Second Amendment, and contemporaneous sources confirm that at the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment, the term ‘arms’ was understood as generally extending to bladed weapons, and by necessity, butterfly knives. The Constitution therefore presumptively guarantees keeping and bearing such instruments for self-defense.” ~9th Circuit Court of Appeals Finally, the 9th Circuit reasoned that a butterfly knife is an “arm,” and more analogous to a pocket knife than historically prohibited bladed weapons such as Bowie knives or the Arkansas toothpick. With that, the 9th Circuit concluded that Hawaii’s law banning butterfly knives violates the Second Amendment. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) 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. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Mississippi's Lifetime Voting Ban on Felons Held Unconstitutional](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/mississippi-lifetime-voting-ban-struck-down/) **Published:** August 14, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Journalist [Nick Robertson](https://thehill.com/author/nick-robertson/) for The Hill [reports ](https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4138366-mississippi-lifetime-voting-ban-struck-down-by-5th-circuit/)that the [5th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals](https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/) ruled Mississippi’s lifetime voting ban for those convicted of certain felonies is unconstitutional. This ruling overturns a 19th-century [Jim Crow Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws#:~:text=The%20Jim%20Crow%20laws%20were,remained%20in%20force%20until%201968.) widely considered “cruel and unusual punishment.” > “In the last fifty years, a national consensus has emerged among the state legislatures against permanently disenfranchising those who have satisfied their judicially imposed sentences and thus repaid their debts to society. … Mississippi stands as an outlier among its sister states, bucking a clear national trend in our nation against permanent disenfranchisement.” [~5th Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.mississippifreepress.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/5th-circuit-hopkins-v-hosemann-felony-disenfranchisement-mississippi-19-60662-CV0.pdf) The Mississippi law says anyone convicted of bribery, theft, arson, perjury, forgery, embezzlement or bigamy could never have their voting right reinstated. The nonprofit [Sentencing Project](https://www.sentencingproject.org/) found that Mississippi has one of the country’s most strict disenfranchisement laws, impacting about 11 percent of all otherwise eligible voters. That is the [highest proportion](https://www.sentencingproject.org/app/uploads/2022/08/Locked-Out-2020.pdf) of any state. The disenfranchisement provision “serves no legitimate penological purpose,” the opinion reads. > “By severing former offenders from the body politic forever, Section 241 ensures that they will never be fully rehabilitated, continues to punish them beyond the term their culpability requires, and serves no protective function to society.” [~5th Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.mississippifreepress.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/5th-circuit-hopkins-v-hosemann-felony-disenfranchisement-mississippi-19-60662-CV0.pdf) The law was passed in 1890 as part of early Jim Crow provisions attempting to disenfranchise and limit the rights of Black residents. The Southern Poverty Law Center also pursued the lawsuit, representing those who were disenfranchised by the law. “Section 241 of the Mississippi Constitution lifetime disenfranchisement scheme disproportionately impacted Black Mississippians,” SPLC attorney Ahmed Soussi said in a statement. “We applaud the court for reversing this cruel and harmful practice and restoring the right to vote to tens of thousands of people who have completed their sentences.” The case also attracted the support of legal aid nonprofits, including the Legal Defense Fund, which submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs in December. “Section 241 is Jim Crow law, which created a deliberate and invidious scheme to disenfranchise Black people,” Legal Defense Fund attorney Patricia Okonta [said in December](https://www.naacpldf.org/press-release/ldf-files-amicus-brief-asking-supreme-court-to-hear-case-challenging-mississippis-racist-felony-disenfranchisement-provision/). The state now has the opportunity to appeal the ruling to the entire 5th Circuit or the Supreme Court. My opinion? Excellent decision. The right to vote is the cornerstone of a functioning democracy. This is a major victory for Mississippians who have completed their sentences and deserve to participate fully in our political process. Mississippi is finally being held accountable for its sordid history of racial discrimination that has led to the disproportionate disenfranchisement of its Black citizens. Nowadays, an estimated 4.6 million Americans are barred from voting due to a felony conviction. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Losing your right to vote is an awful consequence to be avoided. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Voting Rights, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [U.S. Supreme Court Revives Biden’s Regulation of ‘Ghost Guns’](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/u-s-supreme-court-revives-bidens-regulation-of-ghost-guns/) **Published:** August 16, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The Supreme Court [temporarily revived](https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/080823zr_dc8f.pdf) the Biden administration’s regulation of [“ghost guns”](https://www.nytimes.com/article/what-are-ghost-guns.html) — kits that can be bought online and assembled into untraceable homemade firearms. The number of ghost guns recovered by law enforcement in the US has increased at an alarming rate—rising 398% from 2016 to 2020. Nearly 24,000 ghost guns were recovered across the country during that five-year period. President Biden’s administration officials said such weapons had soared in popularity in recent years, particularly among criminals barred from buying ordinary guns. **BACKGROUND** Ghost guns are do-it-yourself, homemade guns, produced with simple building blocks available online. In May 2021, the federal government proposed a rule that would finally clarify that these parts qualify as traditional firearms, and must be sold with serial numbers and [background checks](https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/law/background-check-and-or-purchase-permit/). Several states – including Washington State – have also acted, including with requirements that all ghost guns must be reported to officials. The strongest laws also regulate the spread of guns that can be made with 3-D printers. **THE COURT’S ORDER** The [court’s brief order](https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/080823zr_dc8f.pdf) gave no reasons, which is typical when the justices act on emergency applications. The order was provisional, leaving the regulation in place while a challenge moves forward in the courts. **THE VOTING SPLIT** The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the court’s three liberal members — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — to form a majority. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh noted dissents. Like the justices in the majority, they did not explain their reasoning. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Firearm Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Firearm, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [UW Study Uncovers Acts of Violence Against Federal Detainees](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/uw-study-uncovers-acts-of-violence-against-federal-detainees/) **Published:** August 18, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** A [new report](https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2023/08/14/conditions-at-the-nwdc-uses-of-force-and-chemical-agents/) documents the use of pepper spray and physical force used against immigrants detained at the [Northwest ICE Processing Center](https://www.knkx.org/tags/northwest-ice-processing-center) in Tacoma. These acts of violence involved detainees engaged in peaceful protest and those with a history of mental illness. In 2020, for example, a guard reportedly placed his knee on a detainee’s neck, prompting others to chant “Black Lives Matter” and “get your knee off his neck.” The man from Sudan told Tacoma police that guards had twisted back his arms and shoulders to the point where he lost feeling in them. He was eventually placed on suicide watch and taken to a psychiatric facility. He said he would rather die than continue to be held at the detention facility. One year later, the man reportedly threatened suicide, tying his bedsheets together and attaching them to his upper bunk. > “It became clear that there really were patterns of escalating cycles of uses of force against some specific individuals about whom we were really concerned. And one of those categories was folks facing mental illness.” ~Angelina Godoy, Director, UW Center for Human Rights Godoy said detainees cannot directly call 911 from inside the detention facility and have almost no way of responding to abuse. Altogether, the report details 70 incidents from 2015 to 2023 where force was used at the ICE facility in Tacoma. Over the last seven years, that translates to, on average, one incident of force at the facility each month, researchers said. Researchers primarily relied on government documents, but also on Tacoma police reports, court records, and reports from the activist group La Resistencia to document the uses of force. Even so, researchers point out the records they relied on are incomplete because the agency often fails to either document the incident, or comply with public records laws. The UW Center for Human Rights has pursued litigation against the agency to obtain documents in 28 different cases. In another incident in 2018, involving a peaceful protest, more than 100 detainees at the ICE detention center in Tacoma went on [a hunger strike](https://www.knkx.org/news/2018-09-14/immigrant-detainees-on-hunger-strike-in-tacoma-have-refused-food-for-24-days). Jesus Chavez testified in court that during the strike he was punched with a closed fist, and that other hunger strikers were choked and thrown against walls. Chavez also said officials refused to take him to the hospital, even though doctors recommended it, but simply gave him painkillers. Detainees at the ICE facility in Tacoma are there because they are waiting for the outcomes of their immigration proceedings — not because they’ve been charged with a crime. Efforts to more closely monitor the facility, or shut it down altogether, have been challenged in court. A[ new law](https://www.knkx.org/social-justice/2023-04-27/lawmakers-push-for-inspections-at-tacomas-ice-detention-center) authorizes the state Department of Health to inspect the ICE facility in Tacoma on a regular basis, but GEO Group — the private prison company that runs the facility — promptly sued the state over the legislation. Godoy pointed to a [previous report](https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2020/11/30/nwdc-solitary/) by the UW Center for Human Rights that showed the ICE detention center in Tacoma keeps detainees in solitary confinement longer than any other ICE facility in the country. When someone is charged with a crime, they may be incarcerated regardless of their innocence. If they cannot afford the bond, they have to sit in jail until their case is resolved. Unfortunately, it is irrelevant whether or not the person actually committed the crime at this point. They will languish in jail for at least as long as it takes for their case to be resolved. This can take months, and in some cases over a year. Please review my legal guide [Making Bail](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/making-bail/) and [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are incarcerated pending charges. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Jail, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Alcohol vs. Cannabis vs. Tobacco: What's the Worst?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/alcohol-vs-cannabis-vs-tobacco-whats-the-worst/) **Published:** August 21, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Intriguing [article](https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4139113-alcohol-vs-cannabis-vs-tobacco-doctors-answer-which-is-worst-for-you/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CTobacco%20I%20would%20argue%20is,among%20others%2C%E2%80%9D%20Glickman%20expalined) in [The Hill](https://thehill.com/) by Journalist [Alix Martichoux](https://muckrack.com/alix-martichoux) discusses medical advice on what substances harm health the worst: alcohol, tobacco or marijuana? Although the doctors disagreed on what substance was most harmful, all three doctors agreed that marijuana was the least harmful. Dr. Anand Akhil, a behavioral health doctor with Cleveland Clinic, said that when it comes to generalizing for the average person, alcohol was the worst, followed by tobacco. > “Alcohol use is linked to over 200 health conditions and diseases, damaging every organ system in the body . . . Depression, anxiety, dementia, cancers, heart and liver disease, and bone disease can all result from alcohol consumption. Similarly, tobacco use is largely connected to serious cancers, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cardiovascular diseases.” ~Dr. Anand Akhil Dr. Kevin Most, chief medical officer at Northwestern Central DuPage Hospital, agreed in a [recent interview with WGN Radio](https://wgnradio.com/health/fda-approves-new-treatment-for-alzheimers/). > “I would certainly rank alcohol No. 1. . . . I’m going to say that alcohol in moderation is OK, but too much alcohol is going to have impact on many illnesses.” ~Dr. Kevin Most The harms of consuming tobacco, Dr. Most said, could be largely reversed when people stop smoking earlier in life. “If people understand the the risk of lung cancer, based on how many years you’ve been smoking and how much you’ve been smoking, if you stop that smoking at an early age … your lungs can reinvigorate and get back almost to normal.” But Glickman disagreed, and ranked tobacco as worst due to the fact it has no proven health benefits. > “Tobacco I would argue is the worse substance of the three, given it has no conceivable benefit even in light amounts, and considerable risks. Tobacco has been linked to increases in heart disease, cancers, and premature mortality, among others . . . Alcohol on the other hand, could have benefits at light or moderate amounts, but then risks with large amounts.” ~Dr. Glickman He said red wine in particular contains antioxidants, and [pointed to studies](https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/heart-disease/in-depth/red-wine/art-20048281) showing up to one glass per day can reduce inflammation in blood vessels. But all three doctors agreed on which ranked least harmful to the average person’s health. “I would put marijuana third, mainly because we know that there’s a lot of medicinal uses for marijuana and used in the right format and in the controlled environment is fine,” Most said. He said chemotherapy patients often credit cannabis as the only thing keeping their appetite up, allowing them to get nutrition they need. Glickman said evaluating cannabis’ healthfulness and harmfulness is more complicated than the other two. “The available evidence suggests that cannabis could be of benefit when medically supervised as part of a treatment plan for certain conditions such as chronic pain, anxiety, trauma, insomnia, and muscular disorders, among others,” he said. But Glickman went on to say cannabis use could make certain mental health issues worse, as well as impair memory and concentration. He said the data suggests there is an extra risk to young adults whose brains aren’t fully developed. Plus, Akhil noted, while the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Health and Human Services have [guidelines](https://www.rethinkingdrinking.niaaa.nih.gov/how-much-is-too-much/is-your-drinking-pattern-risky/Drinking-Levels.aspx) on how much alcohol adults can consume in moderation (up to two drinks a day for men, one drink for women), there are no such guidelines for safe cannabis or tobacco use. “I think negative health consequences could be possible for all of the three substances, even in moderate amounts, depending on the person and situation,” Glickman said. “There is no foolproof vice.” All three experts emphasized each person is unique, and you should always talk to your doctor about your specific situation. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) or any other crime involving drugs and alcohol. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Bellingham Considers "Open Carry" Ban](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/bellingham-considers-open-carry-ban/) **Published:** August 25, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Bellingham is considering a ban on firearms, except for people who are licensed to carry a concealed pistol, at City Hall and at sports facilities such as the Civic Athletic Complex. The measure would apply only to rifles, pistols and shotguns carried openly. However, it would not apply to individuals who have a concealed pistol license. [According to the Herald](https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article278313468.html), Mayor Seth Fleetwood seeks the ordinance because of an incident at a Bellingham high school graduation ceremony in June. There, police disarmed a teenage boy as he was reaching for a pistol during a fight. Fleetwood was asking the council to “adopt state law by reference” into municipal code, allowing prosecution of such offenses in Bellingham Municipal Court. Consideration of the ordinance could come as early as Sept. 11, the City Council’s next regularly scheduled meeting. **CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS** A total of 15,919 Whatcom County residents had a concealed pistol license from the state Department of Licensing in 2021, according to data released to The Bellingham Herald under a public records request. Officials at the Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office were approving about 2,400 such permits annually, and Bellingham Police were issuing slightly fewer than 100 licenses a year, according to Herald reporting in 2021. Anyone can apply for a concealed pistol license for $36, after passing a background check and submitting their fingerprints. according to state law. **CITY HALL CONFRONTATION** Tempers flared over a perceived threat to firearms possession in March 2020 as the Bellingham City Council updated a measure that grants special powers to the mayor in an emergency. In that incident, anti-tax activist Tim Eyman appeared at City Hall with several dozen supporters. He falsely claimed that the measure would violate the [Second Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment). A confrontation inside the Council Chambers delayed the start of that meeting for several minutes. **WHAT IS “OPEN CARRY?”** **Open Carry** refers to the practice of visibly carrying a [firearm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm "Firearm") in [public places](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_place "Public place"), as distinguished from [concealed carry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States "Concealed carry in the United States"), where firearms cannot be seen by the casual observer. To “carry” in this context indicates that the firearm is kept readily accessible on the person, within a holster or attached to a sling. Carrying a firearm directly in the hands, particularly in a firing position or combat stance, is known as “[brandishing](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.270)” and may constitute a [Firearm Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/). that is not the mode of “carrying” discussed in this article. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a [Firearm Offense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Firearm, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Organized Retail Theft On the Rise](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/organized-retail-theft-on-the-rise/) **Published:** August 29, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Journalist [Nathan Bomey](https://www.axios.com/authors/nbomey) for [Axios.com](https://www.axios.com/) wrote an [article](https://www.axios.com/2023/08/22/retail-stores-theft-delinquencies-macys-target-cvs-walgreens-dicks) reporting that people aren’t paying retailers for merchandise. The data suggests that the scale and complexity of [Organized Retail Theft](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.350) schemes seems to be on the rise. **WHAT IS ORGANIZED RETAIL THEFT?** Organized retail crime (ORC) is the large-scale theft of retail merchandise with the intent to resell the items for financial gain. ORC typically involves a criminal enterprise employing a group of individuals who steal large quantities of merchandise from a number of stores and a fencing operation that converts the stolen goods into cash. Stolen items can be sold through online auction sites, at flea markets and even to other retailers. In addition to targeting stores, ORC gangs engage in cargo theft activities. They also commit other frauds such as using stolen or cloned credit cards to obtain merchandise, changing bar codes to pay lower prices, and returning stolen merchandise to obtain cash or gift cards. ORC is distinct from ordinary shoplifting committed by individuals seeking goods for personal use. In April, the [National Retail Federation](https://nrf.com/advocacy/policy-issues/organized-retail-crime) [reported](https://nrf.com/advocacy/policy-issues/organized-retail-crime) that retailers experienced a 26.5% increase in organized retail theft incidents in 2021. > “Organized retail theft schemes typically involve careful planning and deliberate targeting, while perpetrators have specialized roles, including inventory management, marketing and sales fulfillment.” ~National Retail Federation Retailers are already grappling with an uncertain economy, a shift toward spending on services, and rising labor costs. Clearly, the last thing they need is another threat to the bottom line. However, it’s also unjust to charge people for crimes they did not intentionally commit. [Organized Retail Theft](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.350) is a crime of dishonesty with the potential to cause major setbacks in people’s lives, careers and trajectories. **CAN A DEFENDANT RAISE A LEGAL DEFENSE?** Yes. A few common defenses include showing that you did not act with an accomplice or that the value of the property stolen was below the suggested amount. Defendants can also contest an organized theft charge by showing that the police violated one of their **constitutional rights**. For example, maybe the police arrested an offender without probable cause, or coerced a confession. In both of these instances, a prosecutor may decide to reduce your charge or drop it altogether. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/theft/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Organized Retail Theft, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Theft, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Can You Drink Alcohol in the Car as a Passenger?](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/can-you-drink-alcohol-in-the-car-as-a-passenger/) **Published:** September 1, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/state/washington/article278698384.html) in the [Tri-City Herald](https://www.tri-cityherald.com/) addresses the law regarding vehicle passengers with alcohol. In other words, what if you’re a passenger found drinking alcohol in a car, but your driver has not had a drop? How can you expect police to react? Here’s what the law says. **WASHINGTON OPEN CONTAINER LAWS** Under [RCW 46.61.519](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.519), it is a traffic infraction to drink alcohol in a vehicle on the highway. **Even if you aren’t actively drinking, it’s still illegal.** You cannot have an open container with an alcoholic beverage in a vehicle on Washington highways. What counts as an open container? The state law describes it 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.” Passengers with an open container will be responsible for this infraction, not the driver. But it is a primary violation, meaning you can get pulled over for open containers. Police will pull over cars exhibiting concerning behaviors. Concerning behaviors include speed, following too closely, impaired and distracted driving. But other infractions, like passengers drinking or smoking in the car, are considered concerning as well. Additionally, you cannot keep an open container in the car unless it is kept somewhere not normally occupied by passengers, like the trunk. This means opened drinks cannot be kept in the glove or utility compartment “for later.” This infraction falls on the registered owner of the car, or the driver if the registered owner is not present. It is an additional infraction to try and [disguise an alcoholic beverage](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.5195) in order to get around this state code. These [traffic infractions](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/CLJIRLJ6.2.pdf) come with a fine of $136. If minors are involved in any of the aforementioned infractions, there is potential for an additional charge for a Minor in Possession of Alcohol. This is assessed on a case-by-case basis, according to Thorson. **OPEN CONTAINER LAW EXCEPTIONS** There are some exceptions to this, however. 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, like a cart girl As you can see, there aren’t very many exceptions to the laws about open containers. As we’ve seen, the most common one is the outside the passenger area exception. If the open container is in a part of the car that is inaccessible to passengers, it won’t get you in trouble. Generally, this means the trunk. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/), [Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Reckless Driving, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Labor Day DUI Patrols In Effect](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/labor-day-dui-patrols-in-effect/) **Published:** September 3, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** The [Washington State Patrol reports](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/2023/08/31/extra-patrols-out-for-labor-day-weekend/) that with Labor Day Weekend, Troopers will be out patrolling both day and night looking for impaired drivers. [According to a survey by the Vacationer](https://thevacationer.com/labor-day-travel-survey-2023/), more than 57 percent of Americans will be traveling this weekend. [King 5 reports](https://www.king5.com/article/traffic/traffic-news/washington-state-patrol-cautions-drivers-drive-sober-slow-down-labor-day-weekend/281-4b3d9535-dd6c-4c92-853d-3469c230bd7c) that as of yesterday, the WSP has responded to 70 crashes and 16 calls reporting aggressive driving. WSP and the [Washington Traffic Safety Commission](https://wtsc.wa.gov/) recently reported that 2023 is shaping up to be a “historically deadly” year on Washington roadways. Over Labor Day weekend in 2022, state troopers responded to a number of dangerous incidents in King County. They included 21 DUI arrests, 448 speeding incidents and 118 collisions, with two fatal collisions. The agency also responded to 232 reports of aggressive driving and 60 incidents of distracted driving. Officials note the “fatal four” common causes of traffic crashes and deaths as impairment, distraction, speeding and not wearing seat belts. Approximately 75% of last year’s deaths involved one of more of the fatal four behaviors. **WSP’S MOBILE IMPAIRED DRIVING UNIT** The Mobile Impaired Driving Unit (MIDU) will be deployed to process suspected DUI offenders and enable patrols to spend as much time as possible on the roadways. The MIDU is a self-contained 36-foot motorhome that has been turned into a mobile DUI processing center and incident command post. When requested, the MIDU travels across the state in support of law enforcement efforts during DUI emphasis patrols or to emergency incidents such as wild land fires or other natural disasters. It’s a full service police station on wheels. My opinion? Drive with patience and courtesy and expect more traffic throughout the weekend. And please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/), [Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Reckless Driving, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Traffic-Related Deaths Are on the Rise](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/traffic-related-deaths-are-on-the-rise/) **Published:** September 4, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** This year is becoming an increasingly deadly year for traffic-related deaths on Washington roads, according to the [Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC)](https://wtsc.wa.gov/) and [Washington State Patrol (WSP)](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/). The worsening traffic safety crisis is leading to more deaths at this point in 2023 than the year before, the agencies [reported](https://wtsc.wa.gov/washingtons-traffic-safety-crisis/) on Aug. 30. As of July, Washington saw 417 traffic-related fatalities, compared to 413 fatalities in July 2022. According to WTSC, 2022 marked the deadliest year on Washington roads since 1990. > “We have seen more multi-fatality crashes in 2023, which is making this a historically deadly year . . . We are announcing these very preliminary figures because we need everyone’s help right now. Driving sober, driving focused, respecting speed limits, and buckling up are the four best ways to save a life.” ~Shelly Baldwin, Director of WTSC Officials note the “fatal four” common causes of traffic crashes and deaths as impairment, distraction, speeding and not wearing seat belts. Among the 750 people who died on Washington roads in 2022, approximately 75% of those deaths (565 deaths) involved one or more of the fatal four behaviors, according to WTSC. While more lives have been lost so far in 2023, WTSC says there have been fewer deadly crashes in total – which means crashes are resulting in more losses of life per crash. > “Saving lives on our highways involves everyone’s participation – and that includes passengers. Driver decisions are an obvious factor in fatal collisions, but passengers have a duty to ensure their own safety by always choosing to buckle up. We need this disheartening trend to turn around, and we cannot do that without everyone’s participation.” ~WSP Chief John R. Batiste The [90 Dangerous Days of Summer](https://www.wsp.wa.gov/surviving-summer-90-dangerous-days/#:~:text=For%20five%20years%2C%20June%209,stretch%20for%20traffic%2Drelated%20fatalities.), a campaign educating the public, has found that summer months often are the deadliest stretch of time for drivers in Washington. Throughout Labor Day Weekend, state and local law enforcement officials will increase their presence on the roadways as a safety reminder. “The power to save lives is in the hands of every driver on our roads,” Baldwin said. “Going into Labor Day and the final four months of 2023, we still have time to change this trend. Please get a sober ride if you have used drugs or alcohol. Higher speeds endanger the lives of everyone, so please respect the speed limit. If we practice these simple safety behaviors each day, we can save hundreds of lives so that they will be here to enjoy the holidays with their family and friends.” WSP also urges bicyclists to always wear helmets and protective gear while all motorists should always keep a cautionary eye out for pedestrians, bicyclists and other roadway users. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/), [Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Reckless Driving, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Washington State Patrol, Washington State Traffic Commission, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Walmart Begins Adding Police Sub-Stations](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/walmart-begins-adding-police-sub-stations/) **Published:** September 6, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** Excellent [article](https://www.thestreet.com/retailers/walmart-makes-a-first-ever-change-to-prevent-crimes-in-superstore#:~:text=Having%20a%20police%20substation%20in,have%20meetings%20and%20file%20documents.) by journalist [Jena Warburton](https://www.thestreet.com/author/jena-greene) reports that [Walmart](https://www.walmart.com/) will soon add police substations to their stores. It’s no secret that it’s been [really tough to be a retailer](https://www.thestreet.com/retailers/another-massive-retailer-is-sounding-the-alarm-about-this-scary-in-store-crime) in a post-pandemic world. Inventory shrink, or a loss of goods due to shoplifting, fraud, and errors is at an industry-wide high. It’s getting harder to hire and keep retail workers, as low wages, demanding hours, difficult customers and workplace violence make roles wholly unappealing. And crime and violence are on the rise. A recent [Retail Workplace Survey](https://losspreventionmedia.com/violence-in-the-retail-workplace-report/) by Loss Prevention Magazine indicates that 60% of retail workers saw some form of violence on the job over the past 12 months. Of all of the retailers hit by a rising tide of crime, Walmart may be hit the hardest. The largest retailer in America has locations within 10 miles of 90% of the population. It’s a cheap and convenient place to shop. But that’s also what’s hindered it. > “Theft is an issue. It’s higher than what it has historically been. We’ve got safety measures, security measures that we’ve put in place by store location . . . I think local law enforcement being staffed and being a good partner is part of that equation, and that’s normally how we approach it. If that’s not corrected over time, prices will be higher, and/or stores will close.” ~Walmart CEO Doug McMillon According to journalist [Jena Warburton](https://www.thestreet.com/author/jena-greene), that premonition proved to be true. Just halfway through 2023, 22 Walmart stores had closed as of June. Four of those stores were in Chicago alone (eight were in Illinois). Some of those fundamental business challenges are violent and nonviolent crimes in more populous or urban areas. It’s also why two Atlanta-based Walmart locations closed, after suspected arson permanently shuttered both the Howell Mill Road and Vine City locations. Walmart is now planning to reopen the Vine City location – with a major upgrade. **WALMART RE-OPENS ATLANTA STORE WITH POLICE SUBSTATION** While the Howell Mill Road Walmart will remain permanently closed, Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens said the former Vine City Supercenter will reopen with a pharmacy, grocery store, and police station to help combat crime and better serve the neighborhood. > “After talking with the Merchants Association on MLK and Clark University and other people in the neighborhood, folks were saying they want to see more police presence.” ~Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens Having a police substation in a Walmart is a first, but officials believe an increased police presence will help to prevent in-store crime and make shoppers feel safer. The substation will provide a place for police to charge their phones and body cameras, as well as have meetings and file documents. My opinion? Undoubtedly, we’ll see more unlawful [Search and Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/) issues cropping up from Walmart. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with [Theft](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/theft/) or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Organized Retail Theft, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Theft, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ### [Forensic Genetic Genealogy Is Admissible Evidence At Trial](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/forensic-genetic-genealogy-is-admissible-evidence-at-trial/) **Published:** September 8, 2023 **Author:** Alexander Ransom **Content:** In [*State v. Hartman* ](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2056801-2-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf) the [WA Court of Appeals](https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.display_divs&folderID=div2&fileID=geninfo) held a defendant has no privacy interest in bodily fluids that he “abandons” at a crime scene. A defendant also lacks standing to challenge a search of the DNA of relatives that were voluntarily uploaded to a public database. **BACKGROUND FACTS** In 1986, MW, a 12-year-old girl, was raped and murdered in a Tacoma park. The killer left semen on MW’s body, but his DNA did not match that of any suspects or anyone in police databases for the next 30 years. In 2018, police enlisted [Parabon Nanolabs](https://parabon-nanolabs.com/), a DNA technology company, to analyze the killer’s DNA and to upload it into GEDmatch, a consumer DNA database, looking for partial familial matches that would help identify the killer. Police did not secure a warrant to analyze the abandoned DNA or to compare it with DNA in the GEDmatch database. Parabon learned that several of the killer’s cousins had DNA in the GEDmatch database. Parabon used information from the database and public records to construct family trees. Parabon then directed police to try to obtain a DNA sample from Gary Charles Hartman. Police obtained a discarded napkin containing Hartman’s DNA, and it matched the DNA from semen on MW’s body. The State charged Hartman with [first degree felony murder](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/homicide-manslaughter/). Before trial, Hartman [moved to suppress](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/CrR/SUP_CrR_03_06_00.pdf) the DNA evidence, arguing that Parabon’s comparison of the DNA sample from the crime scene to the GEDmatch database was unconstitutional. He also asserted that the DNA later collected from the napkin directly linking him to the murder was inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree. Hartman did not argue below that he had any privacy interest in DNA left at the crime scene, nor did he challenge the collection and testing of DNA from the discarded napkin. The trial court ruled that Hartman did not have [legal standing](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/standing) to challenge the comparison of the DNA from the crime scene to DNA in the GEDmatch database because he did not have a privacy interest in his cousins’ DNA in the database. In addition, Hartman’s relatives had voluntarily uploaded their DNA into the GEDmatch database, and the DNA that Hartman left at the crime scene was abandoned and not private. The trial court denied the motion to suppress. After a bench trial on stipulated facts, the trial court convicted Hartman. Hartman appealed his conviction. He argues that analyzing the DNA sample from the crime scene and comparing it with the GEDmatch database to look for his relatives’ DNA disturbed his private affairs in violation of article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution. Thus, he argues that he had standing to challenge the DNA comparison. In oral argument, he asserted for the first time that he has a privacy interest in the DNA from the semen abandoned at the crime scene. **COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS** The Court of Appeals held there is no privacy interest in commonly held DNA that a relative voluntarily uploads to a public database that openly allows law enforcement access. > “Hartman claims a privacy interest in the segments of his DNA that his relatives had in common with him. But all that police learned from the GEDmatch analysis was the killer’s familial relations, which brought them closer to learning the killer’s identity. And identifying unknown family members is the exact reason that users of consumer databases, like Hartman’s relatives, post their genetic material on those databases.” ~WA Court of Appeals. The Court also ruled there is no privacy interest in DNA that one abandons at a crime scene. > “Voluntary exposure to the public is relevant to our inquiry and can negate an asserted privacy interest. Consequently, the Court reasoned that Hartman lost any privacy interest in the semen he left behind or the DNA it contained. Therefore, Hartman’s attempt to challenge any DNA analysis of the semen he left behind on MW’s body fails. With that, the Court of Appeals affirmed Hartman’s convictions. Please [contact my office](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime involving [Search & Seizure](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/search-seizure-basic-issues-regarding-their-search-for-weapons/). Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice. ![author avatar](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3052e69037aa99fd975221b58d8978e2351844d0921fcfd4b59bf4163653129?s=300&d=mm&r=g) Alexander Ransom [See Full Bio](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/author/alexander41/) **Categories:** Bellingham Defense Attorney, DNA, Forensics, Homicide & Manslaughter, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense **Tags:** Bellingham Criminal Defense Attorney, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense, Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney --- ## Pages ### [Home Page - Experienced Criminal Defense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/) **Published:** June 24, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** Experienced criminal defense attorney Alexander F. Ransom practices felony and misdemeanor defense in Whatcom County, Skagit County and surrounding cities and towns. He specializes in DUI/DWI and all Alcohol Related Driving Charges, Domestic Violence, Drug Offenses, Violent Crimes, Sex Offenses, Property Crimes, Robbery, Burglary, Firearm Crimes, Reckless Driving, Reckless Endangerment, Minor in Possession, Disorderly Conduct, Felonies, Misdemeanors and White Collar Crimes. The Law Offices of Alexander Ransom, PLLC., has [two office locations](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/contact/). The main office is located in Whatcom County at the historic Bellingham Towers in downtown Bellingham. The satellite office is located in Skagit County in downtown Mount Vernon. We strive to provide you with the highest level of criminal defense representation. Your case deserves nothing less. --- ### [Verdicts & Results](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/verdicts-and-results/) **Published:** July 2, 2015 **Author:** admin **Content:** ![](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51DvmgqHb9L.jpg) Verdicts and results matter. A defense attorney’s knowledge of the law, negotiation strategies and trial experience is directly reflected in the outcomes they receive for their clients. Attorney Alexander F. Ransom has a strong, time-tested reputation of achieving favorable resolutions. The case summaries below are actual cases with results exactly as described. Each summary shows Mr. Ransom is an effective, experienced and proactive defense attorney who fights for his clients. He plans for success and establishes contingencies no matter which direction a particular case goes. In some cases, Mr. Ransom persuaded Prosecutors to withhold filing charges on clients who were under investigation. As a disclaimer, however, these results are specific to the facts of each case and therefore should not be taken as a promise or guarantee of a similar result. Past results are no guarantee that similar results can be obtained for others. **JURY TRIAL VERDICTS** Charges: [ ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/)[Rape in the Second Degree by Forcible Compulsion (DV); ](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/)[Felony Assault Second Degree by Strangulation (DV)](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) Verdicts: Full Jury Acquittals As Charged; Guilty of Lesser-Included Misdemeanor Assault Fourth Degree (DV). \#20-1-011\*\*-\*\* 2020 Case Conclusion Date: 2.1.2023 Client charged with Felony Assault in the Second Degree by Strangulation (DV) after his wife called 911 in the aftermath of an argument. Moments later, Client also called 911. Both of their 911 calls were recorded. Client’s wife reported Client was drunk, violent, had choked her and was literally breaking down doors in an effort to reach her. In his own 911 call, Client sounded neither threatening nor violent. When police arrived, they found no broken-down doors. They photographed only slight redness on the neck of Client’s wife. Although Client was highly intoxicated, he denied strangling his wife. He was later charged with Count I Felony Assault Second Degree by Strangulation (DV). He remembered nothing about the incident. For over one year, Client’s criminal case went pending in the courts. During this time, the couple divorced. After their divorce was finalized, however, Client’s now-ex-wife reported she was raped by Client around the same time she was allegedly strangled by him. However, there was no evidence of her allegations. There were no witnesses or injuries. She told no friends or family. Despite the lack of evidence, Prosecutor charge Client with Count II Rape in the Second Degree by Forcible Compulsion. This is a Class A felony exposing Client to a maximum 20 years prison and lifetime registration as a sex offender. The case proceeded to trial. Regarding the Assault by Strangulation charge, Client’s defense was [Voluntary Intoxication](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Iefa05ea6e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29#:~:text=%E2%80%9C%5BA%5D%20criminal%20defendant%20is,to%20acquire%20the%20required%20mental). Regarding the rape charge, Client’s defense was denial and lack of evidence. At trial, his ex-wife’s testimony on the rape allegations was far more violent and descriptive than the story she gave police during her recorded interview. Consequently, during cross-examination Mr. Ransom successfully impeached Client’s ex-wife on her inconsistent statements pursuant to [Evidence Rule 613](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/ER/GA_ER_06_13_00.pdf). Ultimately, the jury acquitted Client of Rape in the Second Degree. This was due to the lack of evidence and inconsistent statements raised by Client’s ex-wife. The jury also acquitted Client of Felony Assault by Strangulations (DV), opting instead to find him guilty of the lesser charge of Assault in the Fourth Degree (DV). This was a highly favorable 2-step reduction from a Class B felony strike offense to a gross misdemeanor. Read More Charges: [Assault Fourth Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) [(DV)](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) Verdict: Full Jury Acquittal \#PA00147\*\* 2020 Case Conclusion Date: 11.30.2021 Client charged with [Assault in the Fourth Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) [(DV)](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) after his girlfriend called police in the aftermath of an argument. By the time police arrived, Client had departed the residence and was unavailable for questioning. Client’s girlfriend, however, told police she assaulted. Making matters worse, Client was already on probation for an unrelated matter. The assault charge triggered a probation violation. Therefore, Client faced a jail sentence on the probation violation if he was convicted of assault. At trial, Client’s girlfriend [recanted her story that she gave to police](https://www.findlaw.com/family/domestic-violence/the-recanting-victim-and-domestic-violence.html). She testified Client never intentionally assaulted her and she was simply jealous that Client communicated with his female friend. Despite her recantations, the trial nevertheless moved forward and the prosecution still sought a conviction on claims it had other evidence (photographs and officer testimony) to support the charges. In an interesting turn of events, the prosecution’s cross-examination of Client [opened the door](https://definitions.uslegal.com/o/opening-the-door/) for Mr. Ransom to admit favorable evidence that Client responded in [Self-Defense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/self-defense/). Opening the door is a common law legal doctrine that allows for the admission of inadmissible evidence by a party after an opposing party has “opened the door” to it by first introducing inadmissible evidence at trial. Evidence is admitted under this doctrine when timely argued by Defense Counsel and the judge deems it necessary to counter the evidence that opened the door. Here, Mr. Ransom was allowed to admit video evidence revealing Client’s physical injuries that he sustained from his girlfriend in the aftermath of a prior unrelated incident. This video evidence revealed Client was victimized by his girlfriend in prior DV attacks. Consequently, the video supported Client’s [Self-Defense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/self-defense/) defense. The jury acquitted. Thankfully, the acquittal also dismissed Client’s probation violation. All outcomes were extremely favorable. Read More Charges: [Assault Second Degree With a Deadly Weapon](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) Verdict: Hung Jury & Mistrial \#16-1-0039\*-\* 2016 Case Conclusion Date: 12.09.2019 Client charged with Assault in the Second Degree With a Deadly Weapon after being confronted by a neighbor. This is a Class B felony exposing Client to 10 years prison and a $20,000.00 fine. Making matters worse, the Deadly Weapon Enhancement exposed Client to an additional 3 years of prison if he was found guilty as charged. Here, for months leading up to the incident, the neighbor threatened and bullied Client on many occasions. The neighbor was also much larger and outweighed Client by nearly 100 pounds. On the date of the incident, Client was peacefully working outside when he was confronted and attacked by the neighbor. Client used a tool to defend himself against the attack. As a result, the neighbor was injured. At trial, Client asserted [Self-Defense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/self-defense/) to the charges. The jury was undecided. The judge declared a mistrial. Read More Charges: [“Refusal” DUI](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/alcohol-dui/) Verdict: Hung Jury, Mistrial, & 2-Step Reduction to [Negligent Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/negligent-driving/) \#8Z555\*\* 2018 Case Conclusion Date: 05.02.2019 Client charged with DUI after bystanders called 911 to report he was doing donuts in a gravel parking lot. Upon contact, Client appeared to display mental health disorders and signs of recent alcohol consumption. Police acted quickly. Client was handcuffed, arrested and transported to the police department to undergo a BAC test. However, police conducted no field sobriety tests, portable breath tests or blood tests. Client argued with police when they read him his Implied Consent Warnings before the BAC Test was administered. Consequently, officers entered a “Refusal” DUI. Prosecutor was unwilling to reduce the DUI due to Client’s extensive criminal history. At trial, Mr. Ransom revealed Client was confused about the Implied Consent warnings and that Client’s behavior was more consistent with mental illness than DUI. The jury could not reach a verdict. The judge declared a mistrial. Afterward, Mr. Ransom successfully negotiated a 2-step reduction of the DUI to Negligent Driving First Degree with credit for time served. Client was extremely happy with this outcome under the circumstances. Read More Charges: [Rape in the Second Degree (4 Counts); Indecent Liberties and Unlawful Imprisonment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/) Verdict: Hung Jury, Mistrial & Negotiated Resolution Involving Numerous Dismissals & Reductions \#15-1-001\*\* 2015 Case Conclusion Date: 02.10.2017 Client was charged with Rape in the Second Degree (4 Counts), Indecent Liberties and Unlawful Imprisonment. Before being charged, Client allegedly established a years-long pattern of meeting women at local bars, taking them to his home and sexually assaulting them by forcible compulsion or lack of consent due to their intoxication. Eventually, the alleged victims communicated online, formed a secret/closed Facebook group, and colluded their stories with each other before reporting to police. Client’s numerous Class A and Class C felonies exposed him to 5-20 years life in prison on each count. Making matters worse, sex offenses “triple” offender scores under Washington’s Sentencing Guidelines. Therefore, Client faced life in prison if he was convicted of two or more charges. Mr. Ransom argued numerous pretrial motions to dismiss charges, dismiss witnesses and suppress evidence. At trial, the court dismissed one rape charge due to insufficient evidence. Ultimately, the jury deliberated for 4 days on the remaining charges. However, they could not reach a verdict. As a result, the judge declared a mistrial. Afterward, Mr. Ransom filed a motion to change venue or dismiss the case in its entirety. The numerous pretrial motions, hung jury and post-trial motions positioned Mr. Ransom to renegotiate the case. Client accepted a highly favorable resolution involving the dismissal and reductions of numerous charges and, essentially, credit for time served in jail. Read More Prevailed at Sentencing on Federal Indictment: [Aiding & Abetting a Felon in Possession of a Firearm](https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/quick-facts/Quick_Facts_Felon_in_Possession_of_a_Firearm.pdf) \#CR16-03\*\*\*\* 2016 Case Conclusion Date: 12.09.2016 Practice Area: Federal crime Verdict: Guilty, Yet Prevailed at Sentencing over Government’s Recommendations Description: Client was federally indicted with Aiding & Abetting a Felon in Possession of a Firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and § 924(a)(2). The crime is a federal felony where violators can be punished with up to ten years in prison. According to the allegations, Client was a retired mother who intentionally allowed her son, a convicted felon, to handle and possess her firearms. Tragically, Client’s son was killed during a tragic shootout with police when they tried serving a warrant for his arrest at Client’s home. At trial, the Government produced evidence and testimony supporting their claims that Client (1) knew her son could not possess firearms, and (2) did so anyway with a criminal purpose in mind. The jury found Client guilty. At sentencing, the Government recommended 6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of supervised release and a $5,000 fine. However, the federal judge adopted Mr. Ransom’s recommendation to give a downward departure from the sentencing guidelines and impose only 90 days of home monitoring with a $3,000.00 fine. Although Client was ultimately found guilty, the court’s sentencing was far better than the Government’s plea offer and sentencing recommendation. Read More Charges: [Assault Fourth Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) [(DV)](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) Verdict: Hung Jury & Dismissal \#CB-938\*\* 2016 Case Conclusion Date: 05.09.2016 Description: Client charged with Assault Fourth Degree DV following an altercation she had with her roommate/cousin in the laundry room. Assault Fourth Degree is a gross misdemeanor punishable up to 1 year jail and a $5,000 fine. Also, DV crimes bring enhanced penalties, limit career opportunities, bring mandatory DV treatment and disallow international travel to some countries. Making matters worse, client was already on probation for an unrelated matter. She rightfully feared serving jail time if her probation was revoked as a result of gaining another criminal conviction. At trial, Mr. Ransom argued the City’s witnesses lacked credibility and that its case lacked evidence. Ultimately, the jury was hung with 4 jurors acquitting and two jurors voting “Guilty.” The judge declared a mistrial. Instead of re-trying the case, Mr. Ransom persuaded Prosecutor to dismiss in 6 months if Client maintained law-abiding behavior and showed proof of attending Anger Management sessions. Read More Charges: [Assault Fourth Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) [(DV)](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) & [Malicious Mischief Third Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/malicious-mischief/#:~:text=In%20Washington%2C%20Malicious%20Mischief%20is,to%20the%20property%20of%20another.&text=Fortunately%2C%20attorney%20Alexander%20Ransom%20has,clients%20facing%20Malicious%20Mischief%20charges.) [(DV)](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) Verdict: Full Jury Acquittal \#4Z9623\*\* 2014 Case Conclusion Date: 12.22.2015 Description: Client charged with Assault Fourth Degree Domestic Violence DV under RCW 9A.36.041 and Malicious Mischief Third Degree DV under RCW 9A.48.090. Here, Client allegedly destroyed her ex-boyfriend’s laptop and struck him in the face while they argued. Both crimes are gross misdemeanors punishable up to 1 year jail and a $5,000 fine each. Making matters worse, a conviction for DV crimes brings enhanced jail penalties, mandatory DV evaluations and treatment, mandatory probation, a court-imposed No-Contact Order with the alleged victim and loss of firearms rights. Prosecutor refused to negotiate or resolve the charges in light of client’s prior criminal history. Also, the alleged victim insisted he was victimized throughout his relationship with Client. Nevertheless, and at trial, Mr. Ransom successfully suppressed evidence of Client’s prior bad acts and criminal convictions under Evidence Rule (ER) 404(b) and ER 609. Although the judge denied Mr. Ransom’s [Self-Defense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/self-defense/) defense, Mr. Ransom successfully prevailed at trial by raising reasonable doubt to the State’s lack of evidence and the alleged victim’s lack of credibility. The jury acquitted Client under 1 hour. Read More Charges: [Making False Statements to Law Enforcement](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.76.175#:~:text=A%20person%20who%20knowingly%20makes,her%20official%20powers%20or%20duties.), [Rendering Criminal Assistance Second Degree &](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/rendering-criminal-assistance/) [Obstructing Police](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/obstructing/) Verdict: Full Jury Acquittal on False Statements ; Judge Dismissed Obstructing and Rendering Criminal Assistance \#4Z9289\*\* 2014 Case Conclusion Date: 12.01.2015 Description: Client was originally charged with Rendering Criminal Assistance Second Degree under RCW 9A.76.080(2) and Making False Statements to a Public Servant under RCW 9A.76.175 (False Statements). Both crimes are gross misdemeanors punishable up to 1 year jail and a $5,000.00 fine each. The events surrounding Client’s charges were tragic. Law enforcement officers tried serving a bench warrant on Client’s son while he was at Client’s home. Unfortunately, Client’s son was shot and killed by police when they attempted a highly aggressive forced entry into Client’s home. Client was subsequently arrested and charged on allegations that she lied to police about her son’s whereabouts, attempted to hide her son and was unwilling to cooperate/assist law enforcement’s efforts to detain him. Mr. Ransom argued a pretrial Knapstad Motion to dismiss all charges. The judge dismissed the Rendering Criminal Assistance charges based on a lack of evidence. Nevertheless, the judge denied Mr. Ransom’s motion to dismiss the False Statements charge. The case proceeded to jury trial. Days before trial, Prosecutor attempted to add charges of Obstructing on the theory that Client “willfully hindered or delayed police officers in the execution of their duties.” In response, Mr. Ransom argued a motion to dismiss the Obstruction charges under Court Rule 8.4(b) on the basis that filing the charges literally days before trial was Prosecutorial Misconduct/Mismanagement which prejudiced Client’s case. Fortunately, the judge granted Mr. Ransom’s motion to dismiss. Again, the False Statements charge proceeded to jury trial. Mr. Ransom argued that although Client’s statements to police regarding the whereabouts of her son were dishonest, the statements were not “material” because no officers reasonably relied on her statements anyway. The jury was persuaded. They acquitted Client under 30 minutes. Read More Charges: [Child Molestation First Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/sex-offenses/) Verdict: Hung Jury & Dismissal \#13-1-012\*\* 2013 Case Conclusion Date: 10.01.2015 Description: Client charged with Child Molestation First Degree on allegations that he fondled a neighbor’s daughter. This crime is a Class A felony punishable up to a term of life imprisonment and/or $50,000 fine. It is also a “persistent offender” offense, a “strike” offense and a sex crime involving mandatory registration as a sex offender for 15 years to life. Mr. Ransom conducted in-depth investigations of the matter before trial. He also successfully argued Motions to Compel Evidence from the Prosecutor. At trial, Mr. Ransom successfully revealed the Prosecutor’s lack of evidence and brought into question the credibility of the alleged victim and witnesses. Ultimately, the jury decided 10-2 that Client was not guilty. The judge declared a mistrial. Although Prosecutor re-filed charges, he later dismissed the case due to the jury’s overwhelming votes of “Not Guilty.” Read More Charges: [Assault Fourth Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) Verdict: Full Jury Acquittal & Reimbursement of Attorney’s Fees \#4Z8703\*\* 2014 Case Conclusion Date: 06.05.2015 Description: Client was charged with Assault Fourth Degree under RCW 9A.36.041. Client allegedly assaulted his neighbor by taking him to the ground and restraining him during an argument. In reality, Client feared for his safety and proactively responded in [Self-Defense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/self-defense/) because his neighbor was aggressive, younger, 4-5 inches taller, outweighed client by 60 pounds and had a history of being confrontational. Nevertheless, Client’s Assault charge went to trial. At trial, Mr. Ransom successfully suppressed all evidence which was irrelevant and prejudicial to Client’s case. During cross examination, Mr. Ransom exposed the “victim” as hostile, confrontational and financially interested in the outcome of the case because he threatened to sue Client. The jury acquitted Client of the assault charges in under 30 minutes. Furthermore, the jury entered a special verdict mandating the State to reimburse Client’s attorney’s fees. Client was extremely happy with the acquittal and reimbursement of his attorney’s fees. Read More Charges: [Reckless Endangerment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-endangerment/) Verdict: Full Jury Acquittal \#4Z230\*\* 2014 Case Conclusion Date: 06.18.2014 Description: Client charged with two counts of Reckless Endangerment under 9A.36.050. This is a gross misdemeanor punishable up to a year in jail and a $5,000.00 fine. The allegations involved a dangerous “road rage” incident where Client allegedly tried to run the victims off the road with his vehicle. The victims testified they were neighbors with Client and had negative relations with him. In rebuttal, Mr. Ransom successfully revealed the lack of evidence and the questionable motives of the witnesses. The jury acquitted in 8 minutes. Read More Charges: [Assault Second Degree With A Deadly Weapon](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) Verdict: Full Jury Acquittal \#13-1-001\*\* 2013 Case Conclusion Date: 11.20.2013 Description: Client charged with Assault in the Second Degree With a Deadly Weapon (Handgun). This crime is a Class B Felony punishable up to 10 years in prison and/or $20,000.00 fine. Making matters worse, the charge is a strike offense under Washington’s 3-strike laws. Also, the Deadly Weapon sentencing enhancement automatically adds 3 additional years of prison if my client was convicted. Here, Client tried to contact and negotiate a settlement with an unseemly character who owed him thousands of dollars. The prosecution refused to reduce the charges and/or jail time to our satisfaction. At trial, and surprisingly, the judge granted the prosecution’s motion to preclude Mr. Ransom’s [Self-Defense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/self-defense/) theory. Nevertheless, Mr. Ransom convinced the jury that the prosecution lacked evidence and the witnesses were biased. The jury acquitted. Client walked out of court a free man; his bail and pistol returned to him. Read More Charges: [Assault Fourth Degree (2 Counts)](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) Verdict: Acquittal on One Count I, Guilty of Count II \#2Z-6010\*\* 2012 Case Conclusion Date: 02.21.2013 Description: Client charged with Assault in the Fourth Degree in a neighborly dispute. On the day of the incident, Client and his neighbor engaged a heated argument. During the argument, the neighbor’s friend called Client’s wife an obscenity. Client approached neighbor and the neighbor’s friend and requested an apology for the name-calling. Client’s attempts to seek the apology led the “victims” to attack him. Client responded in [Self-Defense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/self-defense/). Neither the neighbor nor the neighbor’s friend were injured in any way, shape or form. Nevertheless, they called police and later sued Client in civil court. At trial, Mr. Ransom successfully admitted collateral evidence that the neighbor and his friend sued Client and therefore stood to gain financially from a criminal conviction. This revelation seriously weakened the credibility of the alleged victims. The jury acquitted on one count. Later, the lawsuit against Client was dismissed due to the victim’s lack of injuries or damages. Read More Charges: [Burglary Second Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/) Verdict: Full Jury Acquittal of Burglary, Guilty of Lesser-Included Criminal Trespass. \#11-1-010\*\* 2011 Case Conclusion Date: 01.11.2012 Description: Client was charged with Burglary Second Degree. He ventured upon a dilapidated home which he thought was abandoned. Nobody resided at the home, the structure was in shambles, garbage littered the premises, the grass was unkempt and numerous abandoned vehicles were strewn about. Client’s occupation is metal scrapper. He was interested in seeing if the abandoned vehicles were worth salvaging. Neighbors called the police, who arrived and arrested client. Police found evidence that the back door of the home was broken into. They also found evidence of rolled up electrical wiring which they presumed came from inside the house. Prosecutor charged client with Burglary in the Second Degree. At trial, Mr. Ransom successfully admitted the ‘lesser included” jury instruction of Criminal Trespass in the First Degree, a gross misdemeanor. This instruction allows juries to select Criminal Trespass if they find the State has not proven Burglary Second degree. More importantly, Mr. Ransom successfully introduced and admitted the “Abandoned Property” statutory defense to Criminal Trespass. He intended to provide the jury with a means of acquitting the defendant of Criminal Trespass. The jury acquitted Client of Burglary Second Degree. They found, however, that client was guilty of Criminal Trespass. Ultimately, the outcome was favorable. Read More Charges: [Burglary First Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/burglary/), [Assault Fourth Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) & [Felony Violation of No-Contact Order (DV)](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/no-contact-order-violations/) Verdict: Hung Jury & Dismissal of Burglary First Degree; Guilty of All Other Charges \#11-1-011\*\* 2011 Case Conclusion Date: 05.17.2012 Description: Client charged with Burglary First Degree, Assault Fourth Degree and Felony Violation of a No-Contact Order DV. The case originally arose from Client being charged with Assault Fourth Degree (DV) against his wife. Although he moved out of the house, the courts imposed a No-Contact Order while the case was pending. The parties consensually ignored the NCO and continued seeing each other. However, one day Client drove to the family house and found his wife in bed with another man. Client assaulted his wife’s male companion. The parties went to trial on all charges. After trial, the Prosecutor dismissed the Burglary charge after jury decided 10-2 “Not Guilty” in client’s favor. Although client was found guilty on the remaining charges, the Judge imposed only 7 days actual jail time. The remaining jail time – 5 and 3/4 months – could be served via Electronic Home Monitoring (EHM), Electronic Home Detention (EHD) or work release. In short, this favorable outcome avoided a Burglary conviction (Class B Felony), avoided prolonged jail and saved client’s employment. Read More Charges: [Felony Harassment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/harassment/) and [Possession of Weapon By An Inmate](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94.040#:~:text=(1)%20Every%20person%20serving%20a,any%20premises%20subject%20to%20the) Verdict: Full Jury Acquittal \#12-1-008\*\* 2012 Case Conclusion Date: 09.28.2012 Description: Client was charged with Felony Harassment (Count I) and Possession of a Weapon by a Prisoner (Count II). He was serving time at the county jail on an unrelated conviction. Unfortunately, Client was also epileptic; and wasn’t receiving his anti-seizure medications from jail nursing staff. After writing numerous complaints, Client and a nurse engage a brief argument through the “hatch” doorway of his cell. The argument was overheard by another inmate (Mr. R) who later became the Prosecution’s star witness. Mr. R informed jail staff that Client intended to kill the nurse. Later, jail staff searched Client’s jail cell and found a short toothbrush with the handle sharpened down to a wedge. At trial, attorney Alexander Ransom successfully impeached Mr. R by revealing Mr. R’s prior crimes of dishonesty, showing numerous flaws in Mr. R’s testimony and revealing Mr. R would benefit from testifying against Client. Also, Mr. Ransom showed Client was medically diagnosed with epilepsy, experiencing seizures in jail, had never threatened the nurse, and used the toothbrush to clean debris from the walls of his cell. After four days of trial, the jury took one hour to acquit Client of all charges. Read More Charges: Possession of a Controlled Substance, [Witness Tampering & Intimidating a Witness](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/tampering-with-a-witness-intimidation-of-witnesses/) Verdict: Jury Acquittal on Witness Tampering and Intimidating a Witness, Guilty of Possession of a Controlled Substance. \#10-1-000\*\* 2011 Case Conclusion Date: 07.14.2011 Description: Client charged with Possession of Cocaine, Bail Jumping, Witness Tampering and Intimidating a Witness. Client gave a drug-abusing friend a ride to the grocery store. Police pull client over on warrants. On the pullover, police notice “furtive movement” exchanged between Client and her friend. Police arrest both. They fail to find contraband on Client. Police question and search Client’s friend. They recover two pipes and two bindles of cocaine. At trial, Prosecutor argued Client had constructive possession of the cocaine even though she did not possess it on her body. While the case is pending, Client failed to appear at her court hearings. Client’s explanation was that she ran out of methadone, a legal drug that many use to overcome their addiction to heroin. As a result of missing court, the State charged Client with Bail Jumping. Months later, and while the case is pending, Client unintentionally meets her “friend” on the bus. Words are exchanged. The friend later contacts the Prosecutor and says Client threatened her to not testify. The State charges Tampering With a Witness and Witness Intimidation even though there was no independent evidence. The jury agreed, and ruled “not guilty.” Read More Charges: [Assault Fourth Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) [(DV)](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) Verdict: Full Jury Acquittal \#CB-699\*\* 2011 Case Conclusion Date: 03.08.2011 Description: Client charged with Assault Fourth Degree DV in a circumstance involving her ex-husband. Client allegedly slapped and pushed him during a heated argument involving child custody. Mr. Ransom’s investigations revealed the alleged victim provoked the attack. At trial, the jury acquitted Client of the charges and upheld Client’s [Self-Defense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/self-defense/) arguments and found the alleged victim instigated incident. Read More Charges: [Reckless Driving](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/reckless-driving/) Verdict: Full Jury Acquittal \#CB-697\*\* 2011 Case Conclusion Date: 09.21.2011 Description: Client was charged with Reckless Driving, a gross misdemeanor. If convicted, the crime carries a 30-day license suspension. Officer believed Client posed “willful and wanton disregard for the safety of people and property” when he drove around and passed a slower-moving truck. At trial, however, Mr. Ransom revealed the Prosecutor lacked evidence that Client’s driving put anyone at risk. Client’s girlfriend, who was a passenger in his vehicle, testified that Client’s driving was not dangerous. She never feared for her safety or the safety of others. The jury acquitted in 1.5 hours. Read More Charges:[ Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants (DUI)](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/dui/) Verdict: Full Jury Acquittal \#C-7846\*\* 2011 Case Conclusion Date: 01.11.2011 Description: Client was a Russian immigrant charged with DUI (Refusal). Her first language was Russian. On the night of the incident, she was drove her daughter’s boyfriend’s car to work. It was a car she had never driven before with a defective taillight. More unfortunate, the car stalled because it was a stick shift vehicle with a defective clutch. Trooper pulled Client over. He believed he smelled “fruity alcohol” on Client’s breath. After arrest, the trooper drove Client to police station for a BAC breath test. The communication broke down quickly and drastically. Trooper entered a “Refusal” DUI. At trial, the jury found the trooper rushed the DUI process and failed to clearly communicate with Client. They acquitted. Read More Charges: [Malicious Mischief Third Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/malicious-mischief/#:~:text=In%20Washington%2C%20Malicious%20Mischief%20is,to%20the%20property%20of%20another.&text=Fortunately%2C%20attorney%20Alexander%20Ransom%20has,clients%20facing%20Malicious%20Mischief%20charges.) [(DV)](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) Verdict: Full Jury Acquittal \#CB-632\*\* 2008 Case Conclusion Date: 05.14.2008 Description: Client faced one count of Malicious Mischief Third Degree DV. He allegedly struck a wall with his fist and damaged it while arguing with his wife and son. At trial, Client testified to lack of intent and said his hand accidentally struck the wall while he was gesticulating rapid hand movements. The Prosecutor tried to admit never-before-seen photos of the damaged wall. However, the evidence was suppressed under CrR 4.7 defense motion because the Prosecutor failed to disclose the pictures until the day of trial. Prosecutor was severely admonished by the judge for the discovery violation. Read More Charges: [Assault Fourth Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) & [Felony Harassment](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/harassment/) Verdict: Jury Acquittal on Assault charges, Hung Jury & Mistrial on Felony Harassment. \#08-1-001\*\* 2008 Case Conclusion Date: 04.16.2008 Description: Client was charged with Felony Harassment and two counts of Assault Fourth Degree. The incident involved a confrontation between client and numerous grocery store employees who refused to sell him alcohol. The case was tried before a 12-person jury. Numerous obstacles arose throughout trial. In short, because client chose not to testify, the trial judge refused to allow Mr. Ransom to argue [Self-Defense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/self-defense/). Despite these obstacles, the jury acquitted on the Assault charges and was undecided on the Felony Harassment charge. The hung jury resulted in a mistrial. Read More Charges: [Assault Fourth Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) [Domestic Violence](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/domestic-violence/) and [Interfering With Reporting of Domestic Violence](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.150#:~:text=(b)%20Prevents%20or%20attempts%20to,to%20any%20law%20enforcement%20official.&text=(3)%20Interference%20with%20the%20reporting,violence%20is%20a%20gross%20misdemeanor.) Verdict: Jury Acquittal on Assault Fourth Degree Domestic Violence and Interfering With Reporting of Domestic Violence. \#CB-542\*\* 2006 Case Conclusion Date: 09.04.2006 Description: Client was charged with Assault Fourth Degree DV, Interfering With a 911 Call DV and Malicious Mischief DV following an argument between herself and her fiancé. Mr. Ransom convinced the jury that Client responded in [Self-Defense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/self-defense/) and had no intention of stopping her fiancé from calling police. Client’s case was acquitted due to lack of evidence. Read More Charges: [Theft Third Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/theft/) Verdict: Full Jury Acquittal \#CB-529\*\* 2006 Case Conclusion Date: 10.18.2006 Description: Client was charged with Theft Third Degree, a gross misdemeanor, for allegedly stealing furniture from a garage sale. The jury saw a lack of evidence to the charge and general lack of intent on the part of client. She testified to paying for the furniture, which was openly loaded into her van by citizens working the garage sale. As a result, the jury acquitted client. Read More **DISMISSALS, REDUCTIONS & FAVORABLE SETTLEMENTS** Dismissed: [Assault Fourth Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) 6A0221\*\*\* 2026 Case Conclusion Date: 08.10.2026 Client originally charged with [RCW 9A.36.041 Assault in the Fourth Degree](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.041) and [RCW 9A.46.020 Harassment](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.46.020). The situation involved Client and his wife enjoying a meal at a restaurant. The “alleged victim” (AV) was outside the restaurant holding a video camera and recording his bizarre and offensive interactions with people. Client and his wife departed the restaurant and attempted to enter their vehicle. The AV invaded their personal space, pointed a video camera and portrayed himself as hostile. Client produced a baseball bat and threatened to valiantly defend himself and his wife from the AV’s provocations. The AV summoned police. Unfortunately, Client was charged with the aforementioned crimes. Mr. Ransom’s investigations discovered the AV had numerous negative encounters with police. In fact, the AV was a self-proclaimed “[First Amendment Auditor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_audit).” These alternative content creators film themselves in public spaces, government buildings, and police stations to see if public servants or law enforcement will restrict their right to record. They often upload their confrontations to social media platforms. Here, the AV did indeed upload his gaslighting and intentionally provoked interactions with Client to the internet. Under the circumstances, Client had numerous available defenses of [Defense of Others](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.020), [Actual Danger Not Necessary](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Iefa0108de10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?transitionType=Default&bhcp=1&contextData=%28sc.Default%29), and [No Duty to Retreat](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Iefa01090e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)#:~:text=It%20is%20lawful%20for%20a,impose%20a%20duty%20to%20retreat.%5D). Fortunately, Mr. Ransom’s negotiations facilitated a favorable resolution. Client completed 8 hours of online anger management classes and 16 hours of Community Service. Prosecutor dismissed. Read More Dismissed: [Assault Second Degree – Deadly Weapon](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) 23-1-00\*\*\*-37 2025 Case Conclusion Date: 11.26.2025 Client was charged with Assault in the Second Degree With a Deadly Weapon under RCW 9A.36.021(1)(c), which is a Class B Strike Offense Violent Felony punishable up to 10 years prison and $20,000.00 fine. Here, Client produced a firearm on a “victim” who brandished a machete toward himself and his son. Later, police confiscated numerous firearms from Client’s home. Mr. Ransom’s [Public Disclosure](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=42.56) investigations revealed the “victim” had a lengthy criminal history. Over the years, the “victim” was investigated for numerous Drug Possession and Stolen Motor Vehicle charges. Also, the “victim” recently faced felony assault charges himself for striking a man in the head with a 2X4 piece of lumber, causing extensive injuries to include a fractured orbital. Next, Mr. Ransom filed a [Motion to Compel](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/arguing-motions-to-compel-pretrial-discovery/) an Interview with the “victim.” Although the judge granted the motion and gave a limited time frame for Prosecutor to locate their “victim,” Prosecutor felt comfortable proceeding to trial anway based on eyewitness testimony. Mr. Ransom filed a barrage of pre-trial notices to include [Self-Defense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/self-defense/), [Acting on Appearances](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Iefa0108de10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?bhcp=1&contextData=%28sc.Default%29&transitionType=Default), [No Duty to Retreat,](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Ief9fe97ce10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?bhcp=1&transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29) [Defense of Others](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Iefa01084e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29) and [Statutory Reimbursement of Attorney Fees](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.110) if the jury acquitted on self-defense theories. Next, Mr. Ransom filed a [3.6 Motion to Suppress](https://www.google.com/search?q=wa+3.6+motion+to+suppress&sca_esv=f0158aba78c19323&rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS923US923&sxsrf=AE3TifPDPXH3lCtmiVsnP8a7UyStt0gQqg%3A1765566863757&udm=50&fbs=AIIjpHxU7SXXniUZfeShr2fp4giZud1z6kQpMfoEdCJxnpm_3UK3oyqvhV9opp98EEM6wbz2JcxMlBdSi-TMWaBMCZgoMwVUoIbvGDVMIZSaBJFmaPhrT8BqpJn9VB_O9s0d6mdt6tsbaaGAQP7F5KkBAB0V75VOwUckLl65a289BPFdSfBgIF05Qksn1OpsFK2Req22uYZ-0kHvdVFafzGuHl8s7euYpQ&aep=1&ntc=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjT-PaN4biRAxURIjQIHdZPMRkQ2J8OegQIChAE&biw=1920&bih=953&dpr=1&mstk=AUtExfCz_nHLQYnGhS7sR2Ozx9N1q-CuS_j0SHtnpZKH1S2AsW29pUr6Rs3iCVHOk1WJxDWfFIEsPILjDifTlpyKdUseTOocftkEad2StHchBoaU1MQOw8z_fxkcGqYfUPhgzVn7zJC0RoSjxBlp_m_luE6LomEpQmIvRJYBdpsZf_25pjCthBkYlVwWjCOmvNYdF3Wfkt38dqxxdnapedhU4Z5zg8hSmVSjRK06FVEojPMnXJi_cTjz7fDHWTnKxDG6sID3AcSEWoi24CYFyAN6dFd9jPMAXhlPEKb7ufexN_S82RPbYLoArMrMgM7s9vVztLEivgsrGUeYSpy1e8bY3_TfDoZr4WR0-Q&csuir=1&mtid=xGk8afSnHdfB0PEP0saQ8Ak) the “victim’s” hearsay statements to eyewitnesses and dismiss the case pursuant to [*Crawford v. Washington*, 541 U.S. 36, 54 (2004)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Washington) on grounds that the Prosecutor’s reliance on hearsay statements from a non-testifying “victim” violated Client’s [6th Amendment Right to Confront His Accuser. ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/right_to_confront_witness#:~:text=Overview,of%20Criminal%20Procedure%20Rule%2043).)Finally, in the event of the “victim” actually appearing for trial and testifying, Mr. Ransom filed a motion to admit the “victim’s” prior bad acts under [Evidence Rule 404(b). ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404)If granted, this motion would allow Mr. Ransom to cross-examine the “victim” on his own felony assault case. This evidence would expose the “victim” as a violent individual, further supporting our trial theories that Client acted to defend his son and himself. Prosecutor dismissed. Afterward, the judge entered a court order returning Client’s confiscated firearms. Read More Dismissed: [Assault Second Degree – Strangulation](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) 23-1-01\*\*\*-37 2025 Case Conclusion Date: 09.23.2025 Client was charged with [Assault in the Second Degree – Strangulation under RCW 9A.36.021(1)(g)](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.36.021), which is a Class B Strike Offense Violent Felony punishable up to 10 years prison and $20,000.00 fine. Here, a motorist very nearly struck Client’s girlfriend in a parking lot. The confused and escalated debacle led to Client defending himself and his girlfriend. Client physically subdued the deranged motorist, who later reported injuries to his neck and accused Client of throttling him. Mr. Ransom’s investigations revealed the motorist had a lengthy criminal history. Under the rules of evidence, the motorist’s prior convictions were impeachable crimes of dishonesty and therefore admissible to the jury if the case proceeded to trial. Also, the motorist had bench warrants for failing to appear in court for his own pending criminal charges on different matters. Mr. Ransom filed a [Motion to Compel](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/arguing-motions-to-compel-pretrial-discovery/) an Interview with the motorist, who was the State’s only direct witness who could corroborate the allegations. The State failed to produce the motorist and dismissed the charges. Read More Dismissed Via Drug Court: [Felony Harassment – Threats to Kill](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/harassment/) 23-1-00\*\*\*-29 2025 Case Conclusion Date: 08.13.2025 Client was charged with **COUNT I** RCW 9A.46.020(2)(b) Felony Harassment – Threats to Kill and **COUNT II** RCW 9A.46.020(2)(a) Gross Misdemeanor Harassment. COUNT I is a Class C Felony punishable up to 5 years prison and $10,000.00 court fine. COUNT II is a gross misdemeanor punishable up to 1 year jail and $5,000.00 court fine. Here, Client experienced episodic mania triggered by underlying mental health issues, lack of sleep and illicit drug use. He threatened his neighbors and threw trash on their lawn. Client’s actions were captured on a surveillance camera. Despite the challenges, Mr. Ransom worked hard to reduce and/or dismiss the charges. Due to Client’s underlying mental health and trauma issues, Mr. Ransom advised Client obtain a Forensic Mental Health Evaluation (FMHE) in support of a [Diminished Capacity defense](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Iefa05eace10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?contextData=%28sc.Default%29&transitionType=Default). Although the FMHE strongly supported a Diminished Capacity defense, Prosecutor was nevertheless unwilling to negotiate. Next, Mr. Ransom filed a Motion for a State-Subsidized Expert to prepare for Client’s trial and testify in support of the Diminished Capacity defense. In advance of trial, Mr. Ransom sought a [Lesser-Included Jury Instruction ](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Ief9ba3bbe10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29)on COUNT I. This instruction would allow the jury to find Client guilty of a misdemeanor instead of a felony. These pre-trial motions and trial preparations led to favorable negotiations. Prosecutor was persuaded to dismiss Client’s Felony Harassment charge (COUNT I) upon the successful completion of [Drug Court](https://www.skagitcounty.net/Departments/SuperiorCourt/specialtycourts/drugcourtmain.htm), an intensive two-year therapeutic court program. Its participants are individuals who are charged with felony offenses who have substance use disorders and are willing to engage in treatment to address issues related to substance use disorder, mental health, and long-term recovery. In exchange, Client pled guilty to gross misdemeanor Harassment (COUNT II). The sentencing judge ordered Client serve no jail, pay no court fines and be monitored in Drug Court for 24 months. This highly favorable resolution avoided a felony, avoided jail and saved Client’s employment. Read More Dismissed: [Felony Harassment – Threats to Kill (DV)](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/harassment/), [Assault Fourth Degree (DV)](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) and [Malicious Mischief Third Degree (DV)](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/malicious-mischief/) 25-1-00\*\*\*-29 2025 Case Conclusion Date: 06.23.2025 Client was charged with **COUNT I** Felony Harassment – Threats to Kill (DV) under RCW 9A.46.020(1)(A)(I); **COUNT II** Assault in the Fourth Degree (DV) under RCW 9A.36.041(1) and **COUNT III** Malicious Mischief Third Degree (DV) under RCW 9A.48.090(1). The Felony Harassment charge is a Class C Felony carrying maximum consequences of 5 years prison and $10,000 court fines. The remaining charges are gross misdemeanors; each carrying maximums of 1 year jail and $5,000 in court fines. Here, the elderly Client allegedly threatened his elderly wife during an argument and unlawfully touched her against her will. Client’s wife hid herself in the bathroom. Client allegedly damaged the bathroom door. She texted a friend, who called 911. Police officers quickly arrived. During Client’s arrest, his wife gave confusing statements to police. Mr. Ransom filed a [*Knapstad* Motion to Dismiss](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/dismissing-cases-through-knapstad-motions/) the Felony Harassment charge. This pre-trial motion challenges the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence and argues that even if all the prosecution’s evidence was accepted as true, it still doesn’t prove Client’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Ransom contacted Prosecutor after filing the *Knapstad* Motion. Unfortunately, Prosecutor was unpersuaded to dismiss at this point. Tragically, Client’s wife passed away of natural causes while the case was still pending. Again, Mr. Ransom contacted Prosecutor and tried negotiating a dismissal. However, Prosecutor replied his office was still investigating the matter and gave no indication if/when the investigations would conclude. This inconvenience added to Client’s emotional despair and turmoil while he grieved the loss of his wife. Mr. Ransom filed a second Motion to Dismiss under [*Crawford v. Washington*, 541 U.S. 36, 54 (2004)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Washington) on grounds that the Prosecutor’s reliance on testimonial hearsay statements from Client’s now-deceased wife violated Client’s [constitutional right to confrontation](https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS923US923&cs=0&sca_esv=6d0ad94c53cfdd66&sxsrf=AE3TifP3E0cFShqDRcuvEnct6ucn9PYqXQ%3A1751056429282&q=constitutional+right+to+confrontation&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjp-_XCuZKOAxVeIjQIHfdKFJ0QxccNegQIBRAB&mstk=AUtExfB6s21BjsVY9RUxqiavkpna0oqZiBXG119kMm0oji_kS5DJwFdZNbo-yiS3BsKj_DbYoliAcYe7dp5og26lQVVJcD5sWb1TJXvZBzWCNA-UK468nkfeP3-gzYLNax4BeKvgaaAhv0jXUWG9Gyt8eQjisly_FEadWYQMevvXHAc-X1o&csui=3). Mr. Ransom scheduled both the *Knapstad* Motion and *Crawford* Motion for argument. Prosecutor dismissed Client’s case after these motions were scheduled. Read More Two-Step Reduction from Class B Felony Assault Second Degree to Gross Misdemeanor [Assault Fourth Degree (DV)](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) 24-1-00\*\*\*-37 2025 Case Conclusion Date: 06.13.2025 Client was charged with Assault in the Second Degree (Strangulation) under RCW 9A.36.021(1)(G). The crime is a Class B felony with maximum consequences of 10 years of prison and a $20,000 court fines. Making matters worse, the charge is also a “strike offense” conviction. In the context of Washington’s Three-Strikes Laws, a “strike offense” refers to a serious or violent felony conviction that, when combined with previous strike convictions, can lead to significantly increased prison sentences for subsequent crimes. Client got into an argument with his girlfriend. Both parties were under the influence of alcohol. Client implored his girlfriend to depart his home. Unfortunately, she refused to leave. Enraged, she destroyed Client’s television. In response, Client attempted to peaceably yet physically escort his girlfriend out of his home. She refused to leave. Instead, she locked herself in a bathroom and texted her friend. The girlfriend’s friend called police, and told them lies about Client possessing firearms. Police donned tactical gear, appeared at Client’s home and arrested him. Mr. Ransom’s investigations and witness interviews made it clear that [Self-Defense](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/legal-guides/self-defense/), [Necessity](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Iefa05ea0e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29) and Defense of Property were viable defenses. Through careful negotiations, Mr. Ransom persuaded Prosecutor to offer a 2-step reduction of the felony charges to a gross misdemeanor. Client served no jail, paid no court fines and was sentenced to probationary conditions only. Read More Dismissed: [Assault Fourth Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) \#PA0008\*\*\* 2025 Case Conclusion Date: 05.6.2025 Client is an elderly woman of small stature with no criminal history. On the day of the incident, she travelled to the local casino for gambling entertainment. She played one specific slot machine for 1-2 hours. At some point, she had to use the restroom. Customary to casino manners, she leaned her chair/stool against the slot machine she was playing to signify the machine was in use and that she would soon return to continue playing it. When Client returned from the restroom, however, a strange woman had occupied her chair/stool and taken her slot machine. The strange woman refused to leave. An argument ensued. Casino emplyees were alerted. During the argument, casino security mistakenly assessed that Client was disorderly toward the strange woman who took Client’s chair/stool and slot machine. A casino security officer put their hands on Client in an attempt to escort Client off the property. In response, Client slightly resisted by pushing the security employee’s hands away. Police were summoned. Client was ejected from the casino and charged with Assault Fourth Degree. Mr. Ransom’s investigations and witness interviews made it clear that casino security was unnecessarily proactive and aggressive toward Client. Their brief interaction escalated into a low-level physical altercation with no injuries. On Mr. Ransom’s advice, Client completed an online Anger Management treatment session. Prosecutor dismissed the charges. Read More Dismissed: [Assault Fourth Degree](https://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/assault/) (DV) \#4A0362\*\*\* 2024 Case Conclusion Date: 11.20.2024 Client is a first-generation immigrant of Asian descent. She is also the mother of a teenage son raised in America. One night, Client’s teenage son engaged a heated argument with Client’s husband, who is also the son’s father. In response to what Client perceived to be a gross disrespect – and in order to stop/prevent a further escalation of the building physical confrontation between father and son – Client allegedly stepped into the argument and struck her son. He called police. Client was arrested and charged with DV Assault. The judge imposed a pretrial No-Contact Order. Mr. Ransom’s investigations and client meetings made it clear that Client’s [acculteration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acculturation) was a strong social dynamic at play. Client’s