Tag Archives: Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense

Public Defenders Join Lawsuit Against WA For Funding

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

Public defenders are suing.

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

THE PROBLEM

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

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

THE LAWSUIT

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

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

WHY DOES THIS MATTER?

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

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

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

Study: Forest Fire Smoke Leads to Increased Criminal Activity

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

Summer approaches. And with it, 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, 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 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 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, 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 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 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 that used crime data from 21 major US cities from 2007 to 2020. This research showed that violent and drug-related crimes 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 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.

U.S. Supreme Court Sides With Death Row Inmate in Challenge to Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection

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, , , , ,

In Pitchford v. Cain, the U.S. Supreme Court 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 held the Equal Protection Clause bars prosecutors from exercising peremptory challenges 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 if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

City of Bellingham to Lower Speed Limits

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, , , ,

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 prepared by the National Association of City Transportation Officials. 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 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.

Admitting Evidence of “Common Scheme or Plan” Under Evidence Rule 404(b)

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, , , , ,

In  State v. Stearns, No. 103908-5 (Mar. 26, 2026), the WA Supreme Court held that evidence of a defendant’s prior bad acts may be admissible under ER 404(b) 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 if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Marijuana Arrests Decrease

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

The Marijuana Policy Project just released a new report on weed-related arrests in the United States. Based on FBI Crime Explorer data, the report examines cannabis arrest data in all 50 states, including a state-by-state breakdown of arrest data. In short, the report 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 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.

Millionaires Tax Will Not Help Fund Public Defense

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

Last month, Washington state lawmakers rejected a plan to use a new income tax 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 of the Legislature’s new tax on annual incomes over $1 million – commonly called a “millionaires tax” – 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 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, 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 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 if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Governor Signs Bill Prohibiting Law Enforcement Impersonators

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

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. The bill bans individuals who are not law enforcement from wearing, displaying or possessing badges or other law enforcement insignias. House Bill 2165 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 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 if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

FBI Crime Data Shows Washington Is The Second-Most Dangerous State

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

FBI crime data

Most Dangerous States to Raise a Family. SOURCE: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Crime Data Explorer

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

Case v. Montana: U.S. Supreme Court Addresses “Community Caretaking” Exception To The Warrant Requirement

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, , , , ,

In Case v. Montana, No. 24-624 (January 14, 2026), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously (!) decided an interesting criminal case regarding the limits of the Community Caretaking Exception to warrant requirement. In short, Case v. Montana held that a police officer does not need Probable Cause or Reasonable Suspicion 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 of Brigham City v. Stuart. 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, 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 if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime involving Search & Seizure. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.