Tag Archives: Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney

Mass Incarceration Deepens Inequality and Harms Public Safety

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Prison, Race & Law, Sentencing, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Local Impacts of Mass Incarceration: A Community Round Table - Center for the Humanities and the Public Sphere

A report from The Sentencing Project explores laws and policies that exacerbate inequality and disproportionately overburden communities of color. Specifically, the report gives the following examples:

  • Fines, fees, and predatory pricing exacerbate the economic precarity of justice-involved Americans and their families.
  • Employment during incarceration comes with low, and sometimes zero, wages. The average minimum wage for the most common forms of prison labor is $0.13/ hour. The average maximum is $0.52/ hour.
  • A criminal conviction creates lifelong barriers to securing steady employment and housing. Many states disqualify people with felony drug convictions from cash assistance and food stamps. Nearly all states also restrict voting rights for people with criminal convictions. Yet research has shown that post-incarceration employment, access to food stamps, and voting are associated with lower recidivism rates.
  • Finally, the high cost of mass incarceration comes at the expense of investing in effective crime prevention and drug treatment programs. These laws and policies exacerbate the marginalization of justice-involved people—who are disproportionately people of color—by eroding the economic and social buffers against crime and increasing the likelihood of police contact.

WHAT ARE THE SOLUTIONS?

Fortunately, jurisdictions around the country have initiated promising reforms to reduce the direct and indirect harms of criminal convictions and redirect resources to more effective interventions:

  • To promote beneficial contact with support networks, some jurisdictions have made all phone calls from their prisons free.
  • To end the injustices associated with prison labor, many jurisdictions have removed language allowing “slavery and involuntary servitude” in the case of punishment for a crime. Advocates are still working to ensure that this change bans forced and unpaid labor among incarcerated workers.
  • To reduce labor market discrimination resulting from a criminal record, a majority of states and many cities “Ban the Box.” This action removes the question about conviction history from initial job applications and delays a background check until later in the hiring process.
  • A majority of states no longer impose bans on food stamps or cash assistance for people with a felony drug conviction.
  • Finally, Washington, DC, has joined Maine, Vermont, and Puerto Rico in fully untangling voting rights from criminal legal involvement by permitting its prison population to vote.
  • The federal government and states are also increasing investments in crime prevention.

My opinion? For the criminal legal system to uphold the principle of justice, policymakers and practitioners will need to protect and expand these reforms.

Also, prison is a terrible place. 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.

9th Circuit: Harassment is a Crime of Violence

9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, felony, Harassment, Immigration, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Immigration Courts Further Limit Legal Help Available to People Facing Deportation

In Rodriguez-Hernandez v. Garland, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Washington conviction for Harassment is a crime of violence. This is because the statute requires the “threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.” As such, being convicted of Harassment risks deportatation for non-citizens.

BACKGROUND FACTS

In 2015, Rodriguez-Hernandez was an immigrant living in the United States. He served with a notice to appear alleging removability on the basis that he was not admitted or paroled into the United States (U.S.). Apparently, he faced persecution in Mexico due to threats made against his family. Rodriguez-Hernandez applied for cancellation of removal and sought asylum in the U.S.

Among other things, the 9th Circuit addressed whether Rodriguez-Hernandez’s Harassment conviction was for a crime of violence under federal law.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The 9th Circuit began by saying that a noncitizen convicted of an aggravated felony is a deportable offense. It also discussed Washington’s Harassment statute in depth as follows:

RCW § 9A.46.020(1) provides that: (1) A person is guilty of harassment if: (a) Without lawful authority, the person knowingly threatens: (i) To cause bodily injury immediately or in the future to the person threatened or to any other person; or (ii) To cause physical damage to the property of a person other than the actor; or (iii) To subject the person threatened or any other person to physical confinement or restraint; or (iv) Maliciously to do any other act which is intended to substantially harm the person threatened or another with respect to his or her physical or mental health or safety; and (b) The person by words or conduct places the person threatened in reasonable fear that the threat will be carried out (emphasis supplied).

Next, the 9th Circuit addressed whether Harassment was a violent offense:

“A crime of violence requires physical force against the person or property of another . . . However, a crime of violence “does not require any particular degree of likelihood or probability that the force used will cause physical pain or injury; only potentiality. The standard is force capable of causing physical pain or injury. . . .”  ~9th Circuit Court of Appeals

With that reasoning, the 9th Circuit held that Rodriguez-Hernandez’ threats against his family were, in fact, crimes of violence. Therefore, because Rodriguez-Hernandez was convicted of a crime of violence, he was ineligible for cancellation of removal or asylum.

My opinion?

The 9th Circuit’s Rodriguez-Hernandez v. Garland, certainly makes Washington’s Harassment statute far more egrigious for citizens and non-citizens alike. It could possibly have the following impacts and consequences on current charges:

  • Misdemeanor harassment with a DV tag is now a deportable “crime of domestic violence,” regardless of sentence.
  • Felony harassment, under any subsection, with a sentence imposed of one year or more will be an aggravated felony “crime of violence.” [Previously only the “threaten to kill” subsection had been held to be a “crime of violence.”]
  • Felony harassment-DV will be a deportable “crime of domestic violence” regardless of sentence imposed.

Even worse, the decision could have terribly negative impacts on non-citizens with prior convictions:

  • Misdemeanor harassment-DV convictions:
    • If conviction occurred prior to July 22, 2011 and the sentence imposed (regardless of time suspended) was 365 days it will be an aggravated felony “crime of violence.” Aggravated felonies carry the most severe immigration consequences and bar eligibility for any discretionary relief from removal.
    • Regardless of date of conviction, it may now be deemed a deportable crime of domestic violence.
  • Felony harassment convictions:
    • Any felony harassment conviction with a sentence imposed (regardless of time suspended) of one year or more may be deemed an aggravated felony crime of violence. Previously, only felony harassment “threat to kill” was considered an aggravated felony crime of violence.
    • Any felony harassment-DV conviction may now be deemed a deportable crime of domestic violence, regardless of sentence.

How this decision impacts individual non-citizen defendants will depend on their current immigration status, their immigration and criminal history, and other individual circumstances. For case-specific information please consult with other immigration counsel knowledgeable in the interplay between criminal and immigration law.

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 Privacy Act Does Not Suppress or Protect Audio Recordings of Sexual Assault

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Rape, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Privacy Act, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Recorded conversations: A warning and call for change - Tampa Bay Business & Wealth

In State v. Kamara, the WA Court of Appeals held that the recorded sounds of a sexual assault are not a “private conversation” as defined by the Privacy Act.  Therefore, a recording of such sounds, made without the consent of the defendant, is admissible at trial.

BACKGROUND FACTS

Under Washington’s Privacy Act, it is generally unlawful to record a private conversation without first obtaining consent of all persons engaged in the conversation. And evidence obtained in violation of the privacy act is typically inadmissible at trial.

Mr. Kamara and B.T. met at a mutual friend’s birthday party in July 2019. B.T. had seen Kamara before at various events with members of the Liberian community. B.T. knew Kamara as JR. After the party, Kamara sent B.T. a friend request on Facebook. They began messaging each other on Facebook. Kamara asked B.T. out but she declined because she was in a relationship. Kamara was persistent and asked several more times.

Because Kamara kept pushing, on August 30, 2019, B.T. agreed to meet with him. Once at Kamara’s apartment, Kamara offered B.T. a drink. B.T. declined, but Kamara poured her some wine. They watched a program on TV. After some time, Kamara sat next to B.T. on the couch and then he began putting his hands on her, stroking down her arm, and leaning against her.

B.T. got up to use his bathroom and give herself some time to think. While in the bathroom, B.T. activated a recording app on her phone. At first, she just played with it, recording sounds and then listening. The next time she activated it, she got a notification and switched to a different app on her phone without stopping the recording.

When she returned to the living room, B.T. sat farther away from Kamara on the couch and continued scrolling through her social media to distract herself. Kamara moved closer and began making sexual remarks and advances toward B.T. B.T. told him she had to go, since she had work the next morning, but Kamara insisted she stay until 2:00 a.m. B.T. told Kamara “no” multiple times and told Kamara not to touch her.

B.T. told Kamara she would just nap on the couch until he took her home at 2:00 a.m., but he wanted her to go to his room. Kamara forced B.T. into his bedroom by pulling her off the couch and pushing her back until she was pushed onto his bed. He pinned her arms to the bed and then used his full body weight on her so she couldn’t move. He pulled her pants down and raped her while she cried and repeatedly told him “no, don’t, and I don’t want to do this.” B.T. tried to fight him off, but did not succeed.

Sounds of the ordeal were audio-recorded on B.T.’s phone.

After B.T. continued to cry and beg Kamara to stop, he finally got off of her and walked out of the room. B.T. testified that she felt defeated. When Kamara returned and started touching her again, B.T. didn’t fight, she “just let him do what he had to do.” Kamara then offered to take her home. Once home, B.T. texted her best friend about what had happened.

The next day, B.T.’s friend took her to Auburn Regional Medical Center where B.T. underwent a sexual assault examination. Afterward, she discovered the audio recording on her cell phone. She emailed the recording to police. Kamara was arrested and charged with rape in the second degree.

THE JURY TRIAL

Before trial, Kamara moved under CrR 3.6 to suppress the audio recording as inadmissible under Washington’s privacy act, RCW 9.73.030. The trial judge found that the contents of the recording do not capture a conversation.

“What is recorded is not an exchange of information,” said the trial judge. “Instead, what it captures is an act of sexual assault.” The entire recording was played for the jury. As a result, the jury found Kamara guilty of rape in the second degree.

Kamara appealed his conviction. He argued that the trial judge erred in admitting the victim’s cell phone audio recording of the rape because it was a private conversation made without his consent and violated the privacy act.

COURT OF APPEALS’ ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The Court of Appeals began by saying that Washington’s Privacy Act is considered one of the most restrictive in the nation. Under the Privacy Act, it is generally unlawful to record a private conversation without first obtaining consent of all persons engaged in the conversation. Information obtained in violation of the act is inadmissible in any civil or criminal case.

The Court discussed whether a recorded communication is “conversation.” Following that, it discussed whether the communication between Kamara and B.T. was a conversation.

“In determining whether a communication between individuals constitutes a ‘conversation’ under the privacy act, courts use the ordinary meaning of the term: “oral exchange, discourse, or discussion.” State v. David Smith, 85 Wn.2d 840, 846, 540 P.2d 424 (1975). Recordings of sounds that do not constitute a ‘conversation’ do not implicate the privacy act. David Smith, 85 Wn.2d 846. In particular, sounds of an assaultive act are not a conversation protected by the privacy act; a recording of such noise is admissible.” ~WA Court of Appeals.

Based on its review of the recording, the Court of Appeals agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the last nine minutes of the recording do not constitute a conversation, and instead record an assault.

But there is no “exchange of ideas and words” in the last nine minutes of the recording. And unlike in both Smith cases, the recording did not capture brief oral exchanges between B.T. and Kamara.

With that, the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the last nine minutes of the recording contains the sounds of a sexual assault being committed. “This portion of the recording is not a private conversation as contemplated by the privacy act,” said the COurt of Appeals. It affirmed Kamara’s conviction and rejected his appeal.

My opinion? Washington courts are very protective of citizens’ privacy. Privacy issues are often implicated when law enforcement uses any form of electronic surveillance. True, Washington’s one-party consent law is among the most restrictive in the nation. Most legal and policy issues in this area involve the non-consensual acquisition of “private” communications. This is a highly sensitive area because it involves both fear of “big brother” and concerns for privacy.

Clearly, however, situations such as this case circumvent the protections of WA’s Privacy Act.

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.

Firearms Bill Requiring 10-day Waiting Period & Safety Training In Effect January 1st, 2024

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

Firearms Safety Course | West Boylston, MA

Effective January 1, 2024, HB 1143 shall go into effect. The legislation imposes additional requirements for the sale and transfer of firearms, including the following provisions:

  • Fingerprinting and background checks are required for all firearm sales and transfers, with some limited exceptions (RCW 9.41.113). Background checks are to be performed through the Washington State Patrol Firearms Background Check Program, a centralized stated system, rather than through local law enforcement agencies.
  • A 10-day waiting period is required between the purchase and delivery of the firearm to the purchaser.
  • The purchaser must provide proof of having completed a recognized firearm safety training program within the last five years.

Proponents of HB 1143 argue the law rightfully requires people to wait the prescribed “cooling off” period even if they’ve passed a more immediate background check. The intent of the legislation is aimed in part at deterring people from rushing to harm themselves or others with newly purchased weapons during periods of sudden distress or anger.

Its requirements are similar to those for a concealed weapons permit. Also, fourteen states have similar requirements and have found that they have reduced fatalities by 14%. The requirements could also interrupt suicide attempts, which are often impulsive decisions. Suicides constitute 75% of gun deaths in Washington.

Opponents say the legislation denies law-abiding citizens their Second Amendment right to acquire firearms unless they present proof of completion of official, sanctioned firearms training within the past five years, which they must complete at their own expense. Also, the 10-day waiting period is arbitrary on prospective gun owners taking possession of their firearms. They say the delay is longer or indefinite if the State fails to complete background check during that time. Finally, the Department of Licensing will also maintain a database (registry) of gun owners and their personal data, despite the agency having previously suffered a data breach affecting 650,000 citizens just last year.

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

FBI Data: Crime Has Actually Declined Significantly

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

Is crime rising in the U.S.? Here's what data can and can't tell us : NPR

NBC News reports that crime in the United States has declined significantly over the last year. Apparently, new FBI data contradicts a widespread national perception that law-breaking and violence are on the rise. A Gallup poll released this month found that 77% of Americans believe crime rates are worsening. However, new FBI data and other statistics show these perceptions are mistaken.

THE NUMBERS

The FBI data, which compares crime rates in the third quarter of 2023 to the same period last year, found that violent crime dropped 8%, while property crime fell 6.3% to what would be its lowest level since 1961, according to criminologist Jeff Asher, who analyzed the FBI data.

Murder plummeted in the United States in 2023 at one of the fastest rates of decline ever recorded, Asher found, and every category of major crime except auto theft declined.

“I think we’ve been conditioned, and we have no way of countering the idea” that crime is rising . . . It’s just an overwhelming number of news media stories and viral videos — I have to believe that social media is playing a role.” ~Criminologist Jeff Asher

The FBI’s quarterly numbers cover about 78% of the U.S. population and don’t give as full a picture as the more comprehensive annual report the FBI puts out once a year. But Asher said the quarterly reports in the past have hewed fairly close to the annual ones.

The most recent annual report, released in October, covered 94% of the country and found that violent crime in 2022 fell back to pre-pandemic levels, with murder dropping 6.1%. Asher maintains a separate database of murder in big cities which found that murder is down 12.7 percent this year, after rising during the pandemic.

FBI data doesn’t have a separate category for retail theft. It falls under “larceny,” which declined overall last year, according to the latest numbers. Retail theft is widely believed to have skyrocketed in some cities, and the industry says it is at “unprecedented” levels. But the data doesn’t necessarily support that thesis.

FBI numbers are not the only measure of crime. The annual Justice Department survey of criminal victimization in 2022 found that a lot of crime goes unreported, and that more people reported being victims of violent crime in 2022 than in 2021. But Asher has documented questions about that survey’s methodology.

WHY DO PEOPLE BELIEVE CRIME HAS INCREASED?

Asher believes there is a measure of partisanship at work. Republicans seem more ready to believe crime is increasing while Democrats hold the White House.

Asher and other analysts say the natural tendency of the news media to highlight disturbing crime stories — and the tendency of those stories to go viral on social media — presents a false but persuasive picture. Videos of flash mobs on shop lifting sprees or carjackings in broad day light are more ubiquitous, even if those crimes are not.

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.

Faulty Body Scanners at Whatcom County Jail

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Jail, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

X-ray scanners stop over 1,000 illegal items entering prisons - GOV.UK

According to the Bellingham Herald, faulty body scanners at the Whatcom County Jail are letting drugs and other contraband into the lockup and must be replaced.

“Within the last two weeks, we’ve had three overdoses related to fentanyl that’s been smuggled into the facility. This is becoming an increasing problem, and those scanners are one of the main tools that we have to detect contraband, both weapons and drugs being smuggled into the facility by persons coming in to the facility through the booking process.” ~WCSO Undersheriff Doug Chadwick

According to previous Bellingham Herald reporting, those scanners were bought in 2018 and 2019 to keep drugs, weapons, cigarettes and lighters out of the jail. Unfortunately, the company that makes the scanners isn’t servicing or maintaining them. Thus far in 2023 there have been 13 overdoses in Whatcom County jail facilities.
My opinion? These security breaches should not be happening. Hopefully, the newly-passed sales tax to pay for a new Whatcom County jail will bring new and improved scanners. Proposition 4 – which passed by 66% in Whatcom County – was the third jail measure Whatcom County had put before voters since 2015. The 2015 plan was for a 521-bed jail at a cost of $125 million. After voters rejected that proposal, county leaders came back in 2017 with 480 beds and a $110 million price tag. Voters rejected this smaller, cheaper jail even more resoundingly.
Under the law, correctional officers have more leeway to order intrusive searches of inmates in a county jail or prison. Along with body scanners, officers can perform a strip search if the search is related to reasonable objectives, such as safety and security. As a result, a defendant’s Constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizure isn’t available if they’re in custody.
Police can perform strip searches without the factors that would give rise to a suspicion that the arrestee possessed concealed contraband. This is allowed, even though nothing about their case would lead police to believe they had anything dangerous or prohibited on their person. Making matters worse, it’s a felony for an inmate to possess weapons and/or contraband.
Jail is a terrible place. 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.

Why Does Crime Increase During the Holidays?

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Domestic Violence, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Retail Theft, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Theft, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Holiday Drinking: Beware Seasonal Triggers for Overindulging in Alcohol | Rutgers University

When most people think about the holidays, they imagine quality time spent with family and friends. Unfortunately, although it’s the season of giving and goodness, holiday crime statistics show that retail theft and other crimes spike by 30% or more. There are several reasons why holiday crime statistics are higher than any other time of year.

REASONS WHY CRIME INCREASES DURING THE HOLIDAYS

  • Increased consumption of alcohol: Many events surrounding the holidays involve food and drink, and some people take the risk of driving home drunk.
  • Heightened emotions: Some people have a difficult time during the holidays. They may have been cast away by family members or living in a home where domestic violence is present. Self-inflicted wounds, addiction, and assaults are more common in those who become more emotional during the holidays. Strong emotions can cause people to make impulse decisions they may later regret.
  • Increased theft: The business and distractions of hectic stores, and the pressure to give gifts during the holidays can lead some people to resort to theft.

CRIMES COMMITTED DURING THE CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS

Black Friday, Boxing Day, and seasonal sales bring the busiest shopping times of the year. Despite the reduced prices and great deals, some people are tempted to steal from stores and from customers. Organized Retail Theft and shoplifting are crimes which tend to increase this time of year. Cyber fraud and theft also rise during the holidays as more people use online payments to buy gifts. There are several frauds that ask people to click links or give personal banking information to unsolicited emails.

Another crime that increases during the holidays is Domestic Violence. Increased stress, financial troubles and Depression are contributing factors. This, in combination with the increased alcohol consumption and drug abuse, contribute to this spike.

NEW YEAR’S EVE CRIMES

New Year celebrations usually see an increase in crimes such as Driving Under the Influence (DUI). Many people celebrate the entrance of a new year by drinking with friends and family. Some people may think they have control over their actions or over the vehicle when they drive home drunk. However, law enforcement is aware of this. That’s why many officers patrol the streets on holiday emphasis patrols. Keeping the streets safe is one of their primary duties over the holidays. Therefore, the chances of getting caught are even higher than one might think.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime during the holidays. Don’t tarnish Christmas or New Year’s Eve with a criminal conviction. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

WA State Patrol Kicks Off “Home For the Holidays” DUI Enforcement Campaign

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Reckless Driving, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington State Patrol, Washington State Traffic Commission, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Washington State Police: Home for the Holidays Traffic Safety Campaign | Local | bigcountrynewsconnection.com

Accoding to a press release, the Washington State Patrol (WSP) and the Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC) will work together to enforce DUI pullovers and encourage drivers to make good choices.

The “Home for the Holidays” traffic safety campaign continues now through New Years Eve. Historically, the WSP observes an increase in all collision types during this time frame, as well as an increase in impaired drivers on our roadways.

“While we can’t prevent all collisions, buckling up and slowing down, particularly in wet conditions, dramatically improve the chances that drivers and their passengers will survive a crash and avoid serious injury.” ~Shelly Baldwin, WTSC Director.

Encouraging drivers to make good choices behind the wheel is especially important considering the rise in fatality collisions across Washington state over the past several years. According to preliminary WTSC data, there have been nearly as many fatal collisions between through September 2023 (578) as compared to the same timeframe in 2022 (582). Last year was a 32-year high for fatality collisions across Washington state.

Numbers from the WTSC show 776 lives were lost across the state due to traffic related collisions in the months of October, November, and December from 2018 to 2022. Of those tragedies, 40 percent involved impaired drivers, 30 percent involved excessive speed, 16 percent involved distracted drivers, and 29 percent of those killed were pedestrians or pedal cyclists.

“Fatality collisions are preventable tragedies, and we must all do our part in order to help save lives,” said WSP Chief John R. Batiste. “Buckling up, slowing down, and driving sober can help make sure we all make it home to our loved ones for the holidays.”

Drivers are asked to checklist check road conditions before heading out.

  • Buckle up and ensure all occupants are also properly seat belted before driving;
  • Follow posted speed limits and slow down as necessary in adverse weather and around vulnerable road users, including walkers and cyclists;
  • Increase following distance, especially in adverse weather or low light conditions;
  • Always choose to drive sober;
  • Avoid distractions, such as the use of a hand-held cell phone or watching videos while driving.

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

“No Hostile Contact With Police” Sentencing Condition Held Unconstitutionally Vague

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Burglary, Constitutional Rights, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sentencing, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , ,

Void for Vagueness Doctrine

In State v. Shreve, the WA Court of Appeals held that a felony sentence condition prohibiting the defendant from having any future hostile contact with law enforcement was unconstitutionally vague.

BACKGROUND FACTS

In March 2022, Shreve attended a party at a hotel. He got into a physical altercation with another individual at the hotel. A hotel security guard intervened. When approached by the security guard, Shreve drew a knife and lunged toward him. The security guard blocked the attack and disarmed Shreve. The security guard confiscated the knife and brought Shreve to the lobby.

Police were dispatched. Upon arrival, a police officer saw Shreve seated in the lobby while the security guard stood nearby. Shreve appeared to be intoxicated and angry. The police officer and the security guard initially decided to allow Shreve to leave the hotel without his knife. However. Shreve escalated the situation by suddenly and aggressively moving toward the security guard.

A physical scuffle ensued. The officers forced Shreve to the ground and attempted to handcuff him. Ultimately, Officer Hannity was forced to use his taser to subdue Shreve.

On June 30, 2022, Shreve pleaded guilty to a single count of second degree burglary. Shreve was sentenced the same day. As a first-time offender, Shreve was sentenced to one day of confinement and twelve months of community custody. The sentencing court imposed several community custody conditions, including “No hostile contact with law enforcement/first responders.”

Shreve appealed his community custody sentencing condition. He argued that the community custody condition prohibiting him from having “hostile contact” with law enforcement is unconstitutionally vague and not crime-related. Shreve also argued that the condition was overbroad and infringed on his First Amendment rights.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

Ultimately, the Court of Appeals agreed with Mr. Shreve.

First, it addressed Mr. Shreve’s arguments that his community custody condition is unconstitutionally vague. He asserts the term “hostile” is not subject to a clear definition and is especially susceptible to arbitrary enforcement because it could encompass a wide range of everyday conduct and permit law enforcement officers to decide subjectively for themselves what constitutes hostile behavior.

“Whether a condition is sufficiently specific is a constitutional issue,” said the Court of Appeals. “Due process requires that individuals have ‘fair warning’ of what constitutes prohibited conduct.”

Next, the Court of Appeals applied a two-prong analysis to determine whether a condition is sufficiently specific and not unconstitutionally vague. A condition is not unconstitutionally vague if (1) it defines the prohibited conduct so an ordinary person can understand what the condition means, and (2) it provides ascertainable standards to protect against arbitrary enforcement.

1. THE TERM “HOSTILE” DOES NOT CLARIFY WHAT BEHAVIOR IS PROHIBITED.

The Court reasoned that here, the term “hostile” does not clarify what behavior is prohibited. The term “hostile” has a wide variety of dictionary definitions, which is indicative of its imprecision in this context. An individual’s conduct may be considered hostile when it is marked by malevolence and a desire to injure. However, it may also be considered hostile when it is marked by antagonism or unfriendliness.

“Given the broad range of conduct this term could cover, what the condition prohibits is guesswork. Thus, the ambiguous scope of the term “hostile” fails to provide Shreve with fair warning of the type of behavior prohibited by the condition. The first prong of the vagueness analysis fails.” ~WA Court of Appeals

2. THE CONDITION WAS SUSCEPTIBLE TO ARBITRARY ENFORCEMENT.

The Court of Appeals explained that a community custody condition is unconstitutionally vague when enforcement relies on a subjective standard. It reasoned that here, even assuming Shreve could generally understand what “no hostile contact” means, the condition fails the second prong because it is overly susceptible to arbitrary enforcement.

“Considering that interactions with police officers are often investigative or even adverse in nature, separating hostile contact with law enforcement from an adverse, but non-hostile, contact is simply too subjective to be constitutional.” ~WA Court of Appeals

With that, the Court of Appeals decided  Shreve’s “no hostile contact with law enforcement” condition was unconstitutionally vague.

My opinion? However well-intentioned by the sentencing court to protect law enforcement and first responders from enduring undeserved aggressive interactions, this particular community condition cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.

Clearly, some community custody conditions are unconstitutional. Best to avoid felony convictions altogether. 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.

Gunshot Location Technology: Effective or Not?

ACLU, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Firearm, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

How ShotSpotter CEO says technology can 'change the risk calculation' for shooters - mlive.com

In an interesting story, the Seattle City Council has greenlit funding for a controversial gunshot locator system as part of a larger crime prevention pilot project.

WHAT IS GUNSHOT DETECTION TECHNOLOGY?

Gunshot Detection Technology (GDT) uses sophisticated acoustic sensors to detect, locate and alert law enforcement agencies and security personnel about local illegal gunfire incidents in real-time. The digital alerts include a precise location on a map. It corresponds data such as the address, number of rounds fired, type of gunfire, etc. delivered to any browser-enabled smartphone or mobile laptop device as well as police vehicle MDC or desktop.

GDT is touted to protect officers by providing them with increased tactical awareness. It also enables law enforcement agencies to better connect with their communities and bolsters their mission to protect and serve.

With GDT, officers can more quickly arrive at the scene of a crime with an increased level of safety. They know exactly where the gunfire took place. In many cases, an officer can arrive with the shooter still at the crime scene. If the criminal has fled, shell casings and/or other evidence can be recovered and used for investigative and potential prosecution purposes and key witnesses can be interviewed at the crime scene.

Below are just some of the reports showing how ShotSpotter technology is being rejected by cities and police departments. It can can hurt police response times, result in more racial bias, and violate people’s civil liberties.

POLICE CHIEFS CRITICAL OF SHOTSPOTTER, CITIES PULLING OUT OF CONTRACTS

  • San Antonio’s chief of police led the charge to end the city’s ShotSpotter program. He said, “We made a better-than-good-faith effort trying to make it work.” Instead of renewing with ShotSpotter, he said “We’re going to use that money to provide more community engagement, which ShotSpotter can’t provide.”
  • When Fall River, Massachusetts ended its contract with ShotSpotter, their chief of police said, “It’s a costly system that isn’t working to the effectiveness that we need it to work in order to justify the cost.” 
  • Portland, Oregon decided not to move forward with ShotSpotter in July after their mayor approved a pilot program in 2022. The mayor said he was interested in pursuing better strategies.
  • Atlanta decided not to move forward with the technology after two separate pilot programs led to poor results.
  • Chicago’s mayor promised to get rid of ShotSpotter in the city during his campaign. Their contract with the company is up in February.
  • New Orleans; Dayton, OH; Charlotte, NC; and Trenton, NJ also ended their ShotSpotter contracts.

INEFFECTIVE AND HURTS POLICE RESPONSE TIMES

  • A study found that CCTV paired with ShotSpotter-type technology, as proposed in this budget, “did not significantly affect the number of confirmed shootings, but it did increase the workload of police attending incidents for which no evidence of a shooting was found.”
  • A study published last year of 68 large metropolitan counties in the United States found “ShotSpotter technology has no significant impact on firearm-related homicides or arrest outcomes.”
  • An article by a crime analyst working for the St. Louis Police Department found ShotSpotter-type technology “simply seem to replace traditional calls for service and do so less efficiently and at a greater monetary cost to departments.”
  • A report by the Chicago inspector general found that around 90 percent of ShotSpotter alerts are false positives, resulting in police being dispatched 40,000 times when no gun-related violence had taken place.
  • The technology was found to be ineffective in a report by the City of Atlanta, costing $56,000 per gun recovered – money that would have been more effective in other programs.

CIVIL LIBERTY & EQUITY CONCERNS

  • The ACLU-WA has asked the Council to reject funding ShotSpotter, “given that investing in gunshot detection and CCTV technologies will not prevent crime and violence and will adversely impact communities through increased police violence and heightened privacy risks.”
  • Privacy advocates recently asked the Department of Justice to investigate gunshot detection companies because they lead to over policing of communities of color and may be violating the Civil Rights Act.
  • Faulty evidence from ShotSpotter has been used to wrongfully imprison people like Michael Williams. He was held in Chicago for more than a year before the charges were dismissed and prosecutors admitted they had insufficient evidence, according to an AP report.

My opinion? Only time will tell whether GDT is effective and/or equitable.

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