Tag Archives: Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney

Kratom: “Gas-Station Heroin” Known For Its Opioid and Stimulant-Like Effects

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

So-called 'gas station heroin' is easy to find, potentially dangerous to use

Journalist Marquise Francis wrote an excellent article in NBC News discussing Kratom, an herb with opioid and stimulant-like effects. Kratom is sold legally and widely at vape shops, gas stations and convenience stores in liquid, tablet or powder form. It is sometimes referred to as “gas station heroin.” The American Kratom Association, which advocates for consumer access to the substance, says it’s a roughly $1.5 billion-per-year industry.

Kratom contains a chemical compound called mitragynine, which stimulates the same brain receptors as opioids. That is partially why it can become addictive, according to experts. At high concentrations, the substance can cause nausea, seizures, vomiting, difficulty breathing and, in the most extreme cases, death.

Kratom is not regulated as a controlled substance. However, the Drug Enforcement Administration lists it as a “drug of concern.” The FDA has not approved kratom for any purpose, but supplements do not require the agency’s sign-off to be sold.

OVERDOSE DEATHS

Kratom was the cause of 91 overdose deaths from July 2016 to December 2017, according to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But some estimates put the toll far higher: An analysis by The Washington Post found kratom listed as the leading or partial cause of death in at least 4,100 deaths from 2020 to 2022, and an investigation by the Tampa Bay Times last year found that more than 580 people in Florida alone had died from kratom-related overdoses since 2013.

The DEA sought to temporarily reclassify kratom as a schedule 1 substance in 2016, but reversed course following a backlash. So in lieu of federal oversight, a growing number of states and cities have been cracking down on kratom on their own. at least six states — Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin — have banned kratom entirely.

AN EMERGING ISSUE

In a letter published Monday in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, a group of researchers called kratom an “emerging issue” and suggested that physicians consider asking patients about their kratom use, the same way they do about cannabis, cocaine, methamphetamines or heroin. The paper suggests that as of 2022, roughly 1.9 million people in the U.S. had used kratom, though the authors suggest that’s an underestimate.

FOUR GROUPS OF KRATOM USERS

Kratom users are classified into four primary groups. The first is people with opioid use disorder who buy kratom either to tide them over until they can get more opiates or as an attempt to wean themselves off even harder stuff. The second is people who say kratom helps them with pain management. The third are users with anxiety, depression or some other mood disorder. The fourth and final group are those who simply enjoy the stimulant effects.

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

Invoking The Right To An Attorney During Police Interrogations

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Fifth Amendment, Homicide & Manslaughter, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

What does a police interrogation/interview room usually look like? - Quora

In State v. Wilson, the WA Court of Appeals held that a Defendant invokes his right to an attorney when he says, “So, I’m going to have to ask for legal representation, not out of resistance or— or—anything,” when interviewed by police.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Mr. Wilson was investigated for the shooting death of his ex-wife. He was transported to the police station for an interview. The interrogation was video-recorded. During the interview, the following exchange took place:

DETECTIVE: “Yeah. Do you want me to call you Mr. Wilson or Wendell?”

MR. WILSON: “Whichever you’re comfortable with.”

DETECTIVE: “Okay. Okay. Go ahead.”

MR. WILSON: “Um . . . I know I can’t afford a lawyer.”

DETECTIVE EDWARDS: “Okay.”

MR. WILSON: “So I’m going to have to ask for legal representation, not out of resistance or—or—anything . . .”

DETECTIVE EDWARDS: “Mm-hmm.”

The interview proceeded. During the interview, Mr. Wilson described the argument that concerned installing a baby gate in the kitchen, which eventually escalated with Mrs. Wilson threatening to move out. The argument took place throughout the apartment, and the two were in the master bedroom before Mr. Wilson retrieved the gun from the adjacent bedroom. Mr. Wilson stated the gun was in a closet up on a shelf in a gun case.

Mr. Wilson stated he came out of the adjacent bedroom at the same time Mrs. Wilson came out of the master bedroom. The two stood about a foot apart. When asked if he intended to shoot Mrs. Wilson when they met, Wilson said, “I said yes earlier and . . . no,” but did say he intended to hurt her, though he further stated he intended to “more scare her.”

When asked what was his intention for using the gun, Mr. Wilson stated, “It comes down to the dominance thing.” Wilson explained it showed “who’s got the power.” He agreed with the Detective that Wilson’s use of the gun showed Mrs. Wilson that he had the last word. When Mr. Wilson shot Mrs. Wilson, she was well into the room because she started backing up, looked scared, and put her hands up in a defensive position. Mr. Wilson said when he went to get the gun, it was out of “rage,” and fear never crossed his mind.

The State charged Mr. Wilson with first degree murder. In a pretrial CrR 3.5 hearing, Wilson argued his statements “I know I can’t afford a lawyer” and “I’m going to have to ask for legal representation” were an unequivocal invocation of his right to counsel. However, the trial court ruled Wilson did not unequivocally invoke his right to counsel and the interview statements were admissible.

The State played the interview at trial. The jury convicted Wilson of first degree murder. 

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

“Whether a criminal case unequivocally invoked Miranda rights is a mixed question of law and fact,” said the Court of Appeals (COA). “The question is whether, as a matter of law, it was reasonable for the detectives to conclude that the right to counsel was not invoked.”

The COA reasoned that before any custodial interrogation, a suspect must be informed 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.’ (quoting Miranda) Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear. If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present.

However, the suspect must articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for counsel. If the suspect’s statement is not an unambiguous or unequivocal request for counsel, the officers have no obligation to stop questioning him.

The COA engaged compared  numerous prior rulings leading cases: State v. Whitaker (cited by the State) and State v. Pierce (cited by the defense).

“The point of the objective standard for invoking Miranda rights is to give law enforcement a bright line rule that can be applied without requiring questioning to cease merely if a suspect makes a statement that might be a request for an attorney. It is not enough to surmise from background circumstances that a suspect probably would want counsel, and by the same token surmise from circumstances that a suspect probably would not want counsel cannot defeat a clear statement that ‘I’m going to have to ask for legal representation.’ Having reviewed de novo Wilson’s statements, their context, and the video and audio recording of the interview, we conclude Wilson unequivocally invoked his right to counsel. The admission of the interview at trial was error.” ~WA Court of Appeals

The COA therefore reversed Mr. Wilson’s judgment of conviction. It also held that in the event of retrial, the interview with the detective must be excluded as substantive evidence under Miranda.

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

Is Chewing Tobacco a “Foreign Substance” That Affects DUI Breath Tests?

Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Vehicular Homicide, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Jake Peavy chews tobacco

Red Sox pitcher Jake Peavy chews tobacco during a match. Credit: Getty Images

The answer? It depends how much chewing tobacco we’re talking about . . .

In State v. Sliger, the WA Court of Appeals held that a “foreign substance,” as used for the purposes of breath testing, is a foreign substance in an amount that can affect the accuracy of breath test results.  Therefore, small strands of tobacco left in the mouth of the test subject, after he removed the main wad of tobacco, did not invalidate the breath results.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Mr. Sliger was charged with Vehicular Homicide. At the scene of the accident, Sliger removed a lump of chewing tobacco from his mouth. Prior to taking a breath test, when asked if he had any foreign substances in his mouth, he answered no. After checking his mouth, the officer noted strands of tobacco in his teeth that were not removed prior to taking the test.

Sliger filed a pretrial motion to suppress the breath test results. For a breath test to be admissible under RCW 46.61.506(4)(a)(iii), the State must produce prima facie evidence that the subject did not have any foreign substances in their mouth at the beginning of the observation period. This burden can be met with evidence that either the subject denied having anything in their mouth or evidence that a check of the mouth revealed no foreign substances.

Here, the trial court found that tobacco was a foreign substance, that Sliger removed the tobacco from his mouth before taking the test, but did not remove the strands of tobacco between his teeth. Based on Sliger’s denial of a foreign substance, the trial court concluded that the State met its burden of producing prima facie evidence that Sliger did not have a foreign substance in his mouth at the beginning of the observation period.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The Court of Appeals (COA) stated the admissibility of a breath test is governed by case law, statute, and regulations. Specifically, RCW 46.61.506(4)(a) requires the State to produce prima facie evidence of certain facts before a test can be admitted as evidence. One of the facts is evidence that the person being tested “did not have any foreign substances, not to include dental work or piercings, fixed or removable, in his or her mouth at the beginning of the fifteen minute observation period.” RCW 46.61.506(4)(a)(iii).

“A ‘foreign substance’ is defined as a substance that ‘adversely affects the accuracy of test results.’ This definition leaves room for a substance such as tobacco to be considered a foreign substance based on the amount of the substance present. In other words, tobacco only becomes a foreign substance when it is present in an amount sufficient to adversely affect the test.”

“Reading the statute otherwise would lead to absurd results. If we were to hold that the presence of any amount of a substance that is foreign to the mouth renders a test inadmissible, then in theory the microscopic presence of any such substance would impact admissibility. Such a result is not required by the regulations or the statute.” ~WA Court of Appeals

With that, the COA affirmed the trial court’s denial of Mr. Sliger’s Motion to Suppress. Here, Sliger denied having any foreign substances in his mouth. And when the officer checked, he did not see any foreign substances. He did see strands of tobacco but did not consider them to be a foreign substance.

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

Enforce the U.S. Supreme Court’s Judicial Ethics Code

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Ethics for Justice: How boosting judicial ethics helps tackle corruption amongst judiciaries

Last week, Justice Elena Kagan proposed the Supreme Court’s newly-adopted a code of conduct should have an enforcement mechanism. She proposed that the justices shouldn’t do it amongst themselves but that lower federal court judges would probably be the best choice. Kagan suggested that in the alternative the Court could appoint an outside panel of highly respected, experienced judges to review allegations of wrongdoing by the justices.

“Rules usually have enforcement mechanisms attached to them, and this one, this set of rules, does not . . . However hard it is, we could and should try to figure out some mechanism for doing this.” ~U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kagan

Her recommendation comes as accusations of financial improprieties, undisclosed relationships, and conflicts of interest have cast a shadow over the court’s integrity. These controversies have sparked intense public debate and increased calls for rigorous oversight and ethical reforms.

Public confidence in the Supreme Court has been lower over the past 16 years than it was before. Between 1973 and 2006, an average of 47% of U.S. adults were confident in the court. During this 33-year period, no fewer than four in 10 Americans expressed high confidence in the court in any survey, apart from a 39% reading in October 1991 taken during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings.

How that arrangement would work and what penalties would be available are still open questions. And Kagan is just one voice among nine justices. Some would likely disagree, including justices at the center of recent controversies: Republican appointees Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

But just like it’s important for President Joe Biden to press court reforms even if they won’t come soon. It’s important for Kagan to inform the public of her preference for accountability, even if her ideas don’t catch on with all the other justices. One of the reforms that Biden reportedly supports is an enforceable code. Unfortunately, that’s something that likely wouldn’t pass a Republican-controlled House and that the Republican-majority court might strike down as unconstitutional, anyway.

The court’s composition raises a larger issue in need of reform — whether by term limits, expanding the number of justices or both — something that was also evident from Kagan’s public appearance Thursday. She highlighted the importance of respecting precedent, in the wake of yet another term in which the majority overturned a big one, this time Chevron deference. That decision led to Kagan’s dissent in which she wrote that “a longstanding precedent at the crux of administrative governance thus falls victim to a bald assertion of judicial authority. The majority disdains restraint, and grasps for power.”

Even for something simple, like ethics rules with consequences for violating them, it’s clear that the court will cling to power as long as it can, both in its rulings and operations.

The Supreme Court is likely to issue one of its most consequential rulings at a time when public confidence in the institution has never been lower.

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

State v. Allah: Probationer’s Right Against Unlawful Search

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Firearm, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Probation, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

In State v. Allah, the WA Court of Appeals held a probationer’s vehicle was unlawfully searched and seized during a traffic stop. His prior criminal history, gang affiliations and geographic boundary  restrictions did not establish a sufficient nexus for a warrantless search.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In October 2020, Mr. Allah was on probation for a 2017 firearm conviction. He was driving his car in the Central District of Seattle, when a police officer pulled him over on suspicion of driving with a suspended license. After learning of Allah’s probationary status, the officer contacted the Department of Corrections (DOC). The Officer requested a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) arrive at the scene to discuss next steps.

While he was on his way to the scene, the CCO reviewed Allah’s prior conditions of community custody. The CCO noted Allah was in violation of a geographic boundary condition, which excluded him from the Central District. The geographic restriction  was in place because Allah was in a gang associated with the Central District.

Upon arriving at the scene, the CCO talked with Allah and then searched the car, specifically for a firearm. The CCO located a firearm on the floorboard underneath the driver’s seat. He collected the firearm as evidence and arrested Allah.

The State charged Allah with a Firearm Offense because his prior convictions barred him from possessing firearms. Allah moved to suppress the firearm evidence from the CCO’s search under a CrR 3.6 Motion. Allah argued there was an insufficient nexus between the search and Allah’s geographic violation. The judge denied Allah’s 3.6 Motion.

In December 2022, a jury convicted Allah as charged.  Allah appealed.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The Court of Appeals (COA) established that the Washington Constitution provides a robust privacy right; stating that “no person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.” That said, warrantless seizures are per se unreasonable and subject to limited exceptions. The State has the burden of proving a warrantless search falls within an exception.

THE COA further established that parolees and probationers have diminished privacy rights. This is because they are persons whom a court has sentenced to confinement but who are serving their time outside the prison walls. As such, a probationer may be searched on the basis of a wellfounded or reasonable suspicion of a probation violation rather than a warrant supported by probable cause.

Even with probationer’s diminished privacy rights, however, the Washington Constitution 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.

“Permitting searches without a nexus would allow fishing expeditions to discover evidence of other crimes, past or present. After all, if a prior conviction, not to mention a prior arrest, should afford grounds for believing that an individual is engaging in criminal activity at any given time thereafter, that person would never be free of harassment, no matter how completely he had reformed.” ~WA Court of Appeals

The COA’s Rationale On “Sufficient Nexus”

The COA further surmised that even when there is a nexus between the property searched and the suspected probation violation, an individual’s reduced privacy interest is safeguarded in two ways. First, a CCO must have reasonable cause to believe’ a probation violation has occurred before conducting a search at the expense of the individual’s privacy. Second, the individual’s privacy interest is diminished only to the extent necessary for the State to monitor compliance with the particular probation condition that gave rise to the search. The individual’s other property, which has no nexus to the suspected violation, remains free from search.

In sum, neither CCO or the State provide a sufficient explanation of why any person would reasonably believe Allah may have had a weapon immediately preceding the search. No matter how the constitutionality of the search is conceptualized—i.e., whether as requiring a nexus between the boundary violation and the vehicle searched, or as simply requiring reasonable suspicion—the logical gap remains.

As to the geographic boundary, CCO admitted it was irrelevant to his decision to search. As to Allah’s prior firearm conviction, our Supreme Court has long explained that a probationer’s past convictions alone are not enough to support a search. Otherwise, a probationer “would never be free of harassment, no matter how completely he had reformed.”

With that, the COA reversed the lower court’s denial of Allah’s CrR 3.6 motion to suppress the firearm evidence. The COA also reversed Allah’s conviction, and remanded the matter to the lower court for future proceedings.

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

State v. Ortega: Court Upholds Forensic Search of Defendant’s Cell Phone Using “Cellebrite Touch” Software

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Cell Phone, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Supreme Court cell phone ruling doesn't affect local law enforcement

In State v. Ortega, the WA Court of Appeals held that police officers executing a search warrant for an electronic device are not exceeding the scope of the warrant by manually searching through all the images on a device to find and seize images depicting specific content.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Mr. Ortega was investigated for sex offenses against his girlfriend’s children. Police believed Mr. Ortega’s cell phone probably contained evidence of the crimes with which he was charged. They obtained possession of the cell phone from a family member, who voluntarily turned it over to police. The court granted the police’s request for a search warrant. Pursuant to the warrant, police searched the phone and seized 35 images, many of which were incriminating.

Mr. Ortega moved to suppress the fruits of the cell phone search. He argued that the warrant was insufficiently particular, in violation of the state and federal constitutions. At his suppression hearing, officers testified they began the search by connecting Mr. Ortega’s phone to an extraction device known as the “Cellebrite Touch.”  They ran an extraction that allowed the files on Mr. Ortega’s phone to be organized into categories (for example, messages, images, etc.). Once extracted, data is not visible unless someone opens the individual category folders through Cellebrite’s physical analyzer program.

After the data extraction, police produced a thumb drive containing more than 5,000 extracted images. One officer testified it was similar to being given a physical photo album and having to flip through the pages to find what you are looking for.

The trial court denied Mr. Ortega’s motion to suppress the images seized from his cell phone. Mr. Ortega subsequently waived his right to a jury trial and his case was tried to the bench. The court found Mr. Ortega guilty as charged. Mr. Ortega timely appealed on arguments that the State’s case was tainted by evidence seized during an unconstitutional cell phone search.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

1. The Search Warrant Passed the “Particularity Requirement.”

The Court of Appeals (COA) began by explaining that both the Fourth Amendment and the Washington Constitution require that a search warrant describe with particularity the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The particularity requirement, which aims to prevent generalized rummaging through a suspect’s private affairs, is of heightened importance in the cell phone context. This is because of the vast amount of sensitive data contained on the average user’s smartphone device. The purposes of the particularity requirement are to prevent a general search, limit the discretion of executing officers, and ensure that items to be searched or seized are supported by probable cause, said the COA.

Consequently, the COA reasoned the warrant satisfied the particularity requirement. It directed officers to search the phone and seize images and/or videos depicting Mr. Ortega engaged in sexual contact with minors.

“This did not permit a general rummaging; it was akin to a warrant allowing a search of a residence for controlled substances and indicia of ownership.” ~WA Court of Appeals

2. Officers Did Not Exceed the Scope of the Warrant.

The COA discussed the scope of a search can be limited by identifying targeted content. When a warrant authorizes a search for a particular item, the scope of the search “generally extends to the entire area in which the object of the search may be found.

The COA reasoned that police properly limited the scope of their search to the terms of the warrant. The incriminating images could have been located almost anywhere on Mr. Ortega’s cell phone—not only in a photos application, but also in e-mails and text messages.

Furthermore, had the detectives chosen to search Mr. Ortega’s phone manually, they likely would have needed to sort through data other than images in order to find the targets of their search. And they would have risked jeopardizing the evidentiary integrity of the phone. By instead using forensic software, the detectives were able to organize the data from Mr. Ortega’s phone without first viewing the phone’s contents. This enabled them to limit their search to data labeled as photos and videos, thus restricting the scope of the search to areas where the target of the search could be found.

“By using forensic software to extract and organize data from Mr. Ortega’s phone, the detectives were able to minimize their review of the phone contents and tailor their search to the evidence authorized by the warrant. This did not violate Mr. Ortega’s constitutional rights.” ~WA Court of Appeals

With that, the COA denied Mr. Ortega’s appeal and upheld his convictions.

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

U.S. Supreme Court Ruling May Allow More Aggressive Homeless Encampment Removals

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Cruel & Unusual Punishment, Eighth Amendment, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Activists demonstrate at the Supreme Court as the justices consider a challenge to rulings that found punishing people for sleeping outside when shelter space is lacking amounts to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment, on Capitol Hill April 22 in Washington. (AP photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

(AP photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

In City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority upheld Oregon’s ban on camping. It found laws that criminalize sleeping in public spaces do not violate the Eighth Amendment’s protections against cruel and unusual punishment.

BACKGROUND FACTS

The city of Grants Pass in southern Oregon has a population of approximately 38,000. Of that population, somewhere between 50 and 600 persons are unhoused. Whatever the exact number of unhoused persons, however, it exceeds the number of available shelter beds, requiring that at least some of them sleep on the streets or in parks. However, several provisions of the Grants Pass Municipal Code prohibit them from doing so, including an “anti-sleeping” ordinance, two “anti-camping” ordinances, a “park exclusion” ordinance, and a “park exclusion appeals” ordinance.

A district court certified a class of plaintiffs of involuntarily unhoused persons living in Grants Pass. The district court concluded that, based on the unavailability of shelter beds, the City’s enforcement of its anti-camping and anti-sleeping ordinances violated the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. A panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, and the Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc. The U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear the case.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said that the nation’s policy on homelessness shouldn’t be dictated by federal judges, rather such decisions should be left to state and local leaders.

“Homelessness is complex,” Gorsuch wrote. “Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it.”

“At bottom, the question this case presents is whether the Eighth Amendment grants federal judges primary responsibility for assessing those causes and devising those responses. It does not,” ~U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that, for some people, sleeping outside is a “biological necessity” and it’s possible to balance issues facing local governments with constitutional principles and the humanity of homeless people.

“Instead, the majority focuses almost exclusively on the needs of local governments and leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested.” ~Justice Sonia Sotomayor

Criminalizing homelessness can “cause a destabilizing cascade of harm,” Sotomayor added. When a person is arrested or separated from their belongings, the items that are frequently destroyed include important documents needed for accessing jobs and housing or items required for work such as uniforms and bicycles, Sotomayor wrote.

My opinion? The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision will likely result in municipalities taking more aggressive action to remove encampments. This may include searching homeless people’s property and/or discarding it. Since the ruling allows municipalities to issue more citations and arrests without violating the Eighth Amendment, the decision could lead to more legal claims over other constitutional protections, which could include the disposal of people’s property during encampment removals. Other legal claims over cities’ treatment of homeless people have focused on rights protecting against unreasonable search and seizure and guaranteeing due process, in the Fourth and 14th Amendments.

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

WA State Crime Report: Violent Crimes Down, Hate Crimes & Vehicle Thefts Up

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

2023 Washington Annual Crime Report

Photo courtesy of WASPC

The annual Crime in Washington report detailing specific crime rates throughout the state in 2023 was released.  It found that as overall violent crimes went down, hate crimes and vehicle thefts went up.

The report is based on data that was sent to the Washington State Uniform Crime Reporting Program of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) by 225 agencies across the state.

The report said that the rate of murders, violent and property crimes decreased slightly across the state. There were 376 murders in 2023 which was a 5.8% decrease from 2022. But last year’s number is an 87% increase from 2019. Violent crimes decreased about 5.5% and property crime also decreased by about 11.9%.

HATE CRIMES

The report detailed statistics that showed that hate crimes increased by 6%. The highest frequency of hate crimes based on demographics were race, religion, disability, gender/gender identity, and sexual orientation.

  • Race: Anti-Black/African American
  • Religion: Anti-Jewish
  • Disability: Anti-Mental Disability
  • Gender/Gender Identity: Anti-Transgender
  • Sexual Orientation: Anti-LGBTQ

“These are severe assaults. And we had 79 of those last year related to hate crime in the state of Washington. And that should be a number that should be very concerning to us and should point to the fact that we have to do even more to combat hate crime.” ~Steve Strachan, Executive director of WASPC.

VEHICLE THEFTS

Since 2019, the state has seen a 112% increase in vehicle thefts. Based on the report vehicle thefts increased by 5.4% over the last year. More than 20% of people who were arrested for vehicle theft were juveniles, which is a 24% increase from 2022.

“This is one that is not going down. We’ve seen substantial increases since 2019, and it went up again this year. A lot of issues related this. We’ve talked about the last few years— changes in use of force standards, changes in police staffing, changes in pursuit restrictions . . . Most of the vehicles that are stolen in our state are older vehicles. They’re vehicles belonging to people who can least afford being a victim of crime in terms of vehicle theft. And it can turn their life upside down. So, this is a really concerning number for all of us.” ~Steve Strachan, Executive director of WASPC.

LAW ENFORCEMENT STAFFING

The report also looked at the staffing numbers of officers across the state. The number of commissioned officers went up by 94 which brought the total to 10,760. The report said that Washington ranked 51st out of the 50 states and the District of Columbia for the number of officers per thousand residents.

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

Bellingham Police Department Rejoins the Whatcom County Drug Task Force

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

Whatcom gang, drug task force investigation leads to two arrests | News | lyndentribune.com

Photo courtesy of WCSO

Bellingham Police staff shall dedicate personnel to resume participation in the Whatcom County Drug Task Force (WCDTF).

For the past four years, the Bellingham Police Department (BPD) has not committed manpower to the WCDTF. That’s because 2021 brought cutbacks in police staff driven by a combination of retirements, COVID, and resignations.  Also, in 2020, Bellingham sidelined its special units.  As a result, it ceased bicycle patrols, the drug task force, gang intervention, outreach, behavioral health, and more. That’s all changed, however, as Bellingham has hired 25 officers in the past two years.

Agency partnerships like the WCDTF employ various strategies. That target, disrupt and dismantle drug trafficking. They also reduce the illegal drug supply, seize assets, and bring alleged criminals to justice.

On June 3, the Bellingham City Council voted to recognize opioid drugs like fentanyl as a massive threat to our health, safety and general welfare. They believe that participating in a countywide task force is important because a large number of drug cases are focused on Bellingham.

WCDTF members include police departments in Blaine, Everson, Ferndale, Lynden and Sumas; the U.S. Border Patrol; U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration; and the Washington State Patrol. It’s run by an executive board that includes the Whatcom County sheriff and the chiefs of the Ferndale and Bellingham police departments and the Whatcom County prosecuting attorney.

Since that time, the department has been staffing only their patrol and investigations divisions, the two units that are key to answering 911 calls and solving serious crime.

Bellingham had 128 police officer positions in 2023-24 budget — up from 122 in the previous two-year cycle.

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

Defendants Can’t Be Forced to Appear in Court from Jail Cells

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

US reporter Evan Gershkovich appears in Russian court to appeal detention | The Times of Israel

Photo courtesy of NATALIA KOLESNIKOVA / AFP)

In State v. Luthi, the WA Supreme Court held that defendants who appear in an in-courtroom holding cells at jails are essentially shackled, and as such, they may not be placed in holding cells without a specific inquiry into why that’s necessary.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In order to fully appreciate the particular restraint at issue in this case, we must first describe the in-court holding cell at the Cowlitz County Jail courtroom used for Ms. Luthi’s hearing.

The Cowlitz County Superior Court often employs a courtroom in the Cowlitz County Jail for short criminal proceedings without witnesses. When the defendant appears for such a hearing, they enter the in-court holding cell directly from a “secured area of the jail.” The holding cell appears to be located at the back or side of the Cowlitz County Jail courtroom, away from the table where counsel sits.

The interior of the holding cell is roughly five feet wide, five feet deep, and eight feet long, with a “mesh window” on the right to allow defendants to speak with their attorneys, and a glass window on the left. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Viewed from the courtroom, the in-court holding cell looks like this:

Defendants can't be forced to appear in court from jail cells, WA Supreme Court rules | The Seattle Times

In 2021, Luthi pleaded guilty to Drug Offense. She was given a mental health sentencing alternative (MHSA) of 36 months’ parole. Following two parole violation notices in 2022, the State petitioned to revoke the MHSA. Luthi was taken into custody at the Cowlitz County Jail on December 20, 2022. She was held without bail until her MHSA revocation hearing in February 2023.

Luthi’s defense counsel was already very familiar with the in-court holding cell, which counsel refers to as “a cage on the side of the  courtroom.” According to defense counsel, the incourt holding cell was a dehumanizing restraint comparable to shackling. As a form of restraint, shackling cannot be imposed unless a judge finds it necessary. Through counsel, Luthi filed a motion before her MHSA revocation hearing to appear in court without restraints. Counsel argued there was no reason to place Ms. Luthi inside of a cage and for her to be physically separated from the court proceedings. She was not a flight risk, and she was not going to harm herself or others.

The judge denied Luthi’s hearing to be released from the holding cell during court hearings. After her hearing, Luthi wrote an e-mail to defense counsel. She explained how difficult it was to participate from the in-court holding cell. Among other things,  it was “almost impossible to speak” to her attorney. Luthi also described feeling as though she was “on display” in the holding cell and “not a part of her own court hearing.”

COURT’S RATIONALE & CONCLUSIONS

Justice Yu wrote the court’s opinion. She held the superior court failed to conduct a  individualized inquiry before requiring Luthi to appear in an in-court holding cell. Consequently, Justice Yu reasoned that in-court holding cell violated Luthi’s due process right to appear at all courtroom proceedings without unjustified restraints:

“Requiring defendants to attend court hearings while in a holding cell undermines the presumption of innocence, interferes with a defendant’s ability to communicate with counsel, and violates the dignity of the defendant and the judicial proceedings.” ~WA Supreme Court Justice Mary Yu

Moreover, Justice Yu reasoned the physical separation between the defendant and everyone else in the courtroom created undue biases and assumptions from others:

“Applying reason, principle, and common human experience, we must conclude that this constant reminder of the accused’s condition could invite any decision-maker to draw negative, prejudicial inferences, even at a subconscious level.” ~WA Supreme Court Justice Mary Yu

Finally, Justice Yu reasoned the in-court holding cell is contrary to the courtroom’s formal dignity, which includes the respectful treatment of defendants:

“In the United States, defendants traditionally sit next to their counsel at counsel table, and courtrooms have historically been built without docks or incourt holding cells . . . Compelling a defendant to appear from an in-court holding cell without justification creates the perception that the rest of the courtroom is really a theater . . . making the defendant an exhibit or spectacle in the trial.” ~WA Supreme Court Justice Mary Yu

With that, Justice Yu and the majority court reversed and remanded Ms. Luthi’s MHSA revocation to the superior court for a new hearing.

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