Tag Archives: Skagit County Criminal Defense

9th Circuit Federal Court: Gun Prohibitions on Defendants Are “Historical Tradition of Firearms Regulation.”

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

13 Tips Whenever Cops Want to See Your Guns! - YouTube

In United States v. Garcia, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that pretrial release conditions forbidding a defendant from possessing firearms are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.

BACKGROUND FACTS

Mr. Fencl was arrested after police officers found more than 110 guns in his house, including 10 unregistered and untraceable “ghost guns,” 4 silencers, and 3 short-barreled rifles. Officers also uncovered thousands of rounds of ammunition, including armor-piercing and incendiary rounds and a tear-gas grenade.

In a different case, Mr. Perez-Garcia was arrested following a customs inspection at the United States-Mexico border. He was the passenger in a car in which officers found approximately eleven kilograms of methamphetamine and half a kilogram of fentanyl.

Both men were charged with multiple felony offenses. Consistent with the Bail Reform Act of 1984, two federal magistrate judges released Fencl and Perez-Garcia pending their trials. However, both were subjected them to a condition of pretrial release that temporarily barred them from possessing firearms pending trial. The magistrate judges concluded that the firearm condition was the least restrictive way to assure the safety of the community and the defendants’ appearances in court.

On appeal, Fencl and Perez-Garcia contend that the pretrial firearm condition violated their Second Amendment rights. They believe they were unlawfully  prohibited from possessing guns while they are released pending trial.

9TH CIRCUIT’S REASONING AND CONCLUSIONS

In short, the 9th Circuit upheld the appellants’ temporary disarmament as consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The 9th Circuit reasoned that Congress passed the Bail Reform Act of 1984 to respond to the alarming problem of crimes committed by persons on release. The Act authorizes federal courts to release defendants awaiting trial subject to specific conditions that protect the community from the risk of crimes they might commit while on bail. Courts have discretion to choose which conditions will best keep the community safe. Furthermore, some conditions that are necessary to keep the community safe nevertheless burden constitutional rights.

“Bail Reform Act’s firearm condition on Appelants is justified by our nation’s history of disarming criminal defendants facing serious charges pending trial. Based on our historical review, we agree that our society has traditionally subjected criminal defendants to temporary restrictions on their liberty—including restrictions that affect their ability to keep and bear arms—to protect public safety and to ensure defendants’ attendance at trial. As we explain below, the combination of separate but related founding era practices supports this conclusion: (1) most serious crimes were eligible for capital charges; (2) the government had the power to detain, and usually did detain, defendants indicted on capital charges; and (3) once detained, criminal defendants were completely disarmed. The Bail Reform Act’s firearm condition as applied to Fencl and Perez-Garcia fits within this historical tradition of firearm regulation.” ~9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Next, the 9th Circuit explained that during the Founding Era, most serious criminal acts and felonies constituted capital offenses. As a result, defendants indicted on capital offenses were typically detained without bail, effectively disarming them.

With that, the 9th Circuit concluded that the Bail Reform Act’s pretrial release firearm condition as applied to Appellants was relevantly similar to the founding era tradition of disarming criminal defendants facing serious crimes.

My opinion? Often in my criminal practice I see lots in incidents involving guns. Clients ask  whether police can seize their firearms if a crime is pending. And what about situations where there was an incident, but no gun was involved? The short answer is yes, police can seize firearms and other weapons under these circumstances. This often happens in allegations involving Domestic Violence and felonies. However, there needs to be an order issued from a judge.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member face crimes prohibiting the possession of firearms. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

WA Court of Appeals Upholds “Net Nanny” Sting Operation

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Net Nanny' sting nets 21 child predator arrests in Pierce County – KIRO 7 News Seattle

Photo courtesy of Kiro News 7.

In State v. Stott, the WA Court of Appeals held that a “Net Nanny” police sting operation was not outrageous government conduct, even though the police used deception, because the defendant clearly pursued the “victim.”

For those who don’t know, “Net Nanny” sting operations infiltrate online communities where child exploitation activities often take place. Undercover officers pose as minors and engage with individuals involved in soliciting children for sexual purposes. Through careful investigation and monitoring, law enforcement agencies are able to gather evidence and identify perpetrators.

BACKGROUND FACTS

Mr. Stott allegedly communicated with an undercover Washington State Patrol (WSP) officer who was posing as a fictional 13-year-old girl (“Kaci”). Mr. Stott was now targetted in an online sting operation aimed to find and arrest adults seeking sex with children. Stott was apprehended by police upon leaving his home to meet up with “Kaci.” He was charged with numerous sex offenses.

Stott moved to dismiss the charges against him. He claimed he was denied due process as a result of outrageous government conduct stemming from the sting operation. The trial court, after applying the five-factor test outlined in State v. Lively, denied the motion. Stott was convicted following a jury trial. He appealed his conviction on grounds that the trial court improperly denied his motion to dismiss.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The WA Court of Appeals (COA) began by saying outrageous government conduct happens when the actions of law enforcement officers are so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial processes to obtain a conviction. For the police conduct to violate due process, the conduct must shock the universal sense of fairness.

Next, the COA re-analyzed the the five-factor test outlined in State v. Lively. The test addresses whether government conduct constitutes a due process violation under the “totality of the circumstances.” Our supreme court in Lively outlined five factors for courts to consider in determining whether outrageous government conduct occurred: The five factors are (1) whether the police conduct instigated a crime or merely infiltrated ongoing criminal activity; (2) whether the defendant’s reluctance to commit a crime was overcome by pleas of sympathy, promises of excessive profits, or persistent solicitation; (3) whether the government controls the criminal activity or simply allows for the criminal activity to occur; (4) whether the police motive was to prevent crime or protect the public; and (5) whether the government conduct itself amounted to criminal activity or conduct ‘repugnant to a sense of justice.’

1. Whether the Police Instigated the Crime

The COA reasoned the State did not instigate the crime, but merely infiltrated potential criminal activity. Here, the initial advertisement did not specifically target Stott. He initiated the exchange by responding to the ad. Stott continued to text “Kaci” after he learned that she was underage. He did not at any time seek to withdraw from the exchange, even when he expressed some concern that he was possibly being set up. Finally, it was Stott who introduced sexually explicit language to the conversation.

2. Overcoming Reluctance by Persistent Solicitation

The COA held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in weighing this Lively factor against Stott. The COA reasoned that other than brief mentions of his fear of being “catfished,” Stott willingly and repeatedly engaged “Kaci” and made no attempts to discontinue the interaction. Stott did not reject “Kaci” after being told that he was interacting with a minor. Moreover, Stott did not make affirmative attempts to end the conversation. Furthermore, Stott took affirmative steps to meet “Kaci” in person. He drove down to Puyallup to meet her and offered to pay for an Uber to bring her to Seattle on multiple occasions.

3. Control of Criminal Activity

This Lively factor asks “whether the government controls the criminal activity or
simply allows for the criminal activity to occur.” Here, the COA held the trial court rightfully concluded that Stott “was in the driver’s seat.” It reasoned Stott told “Kaci” what acts he wanted her to perform and negotiated how much he was willing to pay. Furthermore, Stott brought up the topics of contraceptives, payment, Ubers, and a meeting location.

4. The Government’s Motive 

This Lively factor asks whether the police motive was to prevent crime or protect the
public. Here, the COA reasoned the trial court rightfully found that the “Net Nanny” operation is designed to catch would-be sexual abusers before they have a chance to sexually assault an actual child. Furthermore, Stott’s suggestion that he was not otherwise inclined to engage in sex with a child and only acquired that inclination in response to “Kaci’s” enticements is wholly belied by the evidence that was presented to the trial court.

5. Repugnant to Sense of Justice

The final Lively factor is “whether the government conduct itself amounted to criminal activity or conduct “repugnant to a sense of justice.” On this issue, Stott argued that the government’s conduct was repugnant because “Kaci” used lewd and vulgar language during her communications. In response, however, the COA determined that Stott was just as lewd and vulgar in his language as “Kaci,” and the evidence presented to the court for its consideration on the motion supports that determination.

With that, the COA  concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Stott’s motion to dismiss for outrageous government conduct. Accordingly, the COA affirmed Stott’s 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.

Prosecution Must Prove Defendant Knowingly Violates a No-Contact Order

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Domestic Violence, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, No Contact Order, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

No-Contact Order Violation | Law offices of Alexander Ransom

In State v. Morales Sanchez, the WA Court of Appeals reversed a defendant’s conviction of Felony Violation of a No-Contact Order. In short, the Court reasoned that for an act to constitute a willful violation of a court order restricting contact, the restrained party must know of the specific provision of the Order that her or his act violates.  Therefore, to prove the mens rea of a willful violation, the State must prove the defendant knew of the specific provision of the Order that his or her act violates. To argue otherwise misstates the law.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The alleged victim Ms. Mejia procured a no-contact order prohibiting Mr. Morales Sanchez from contacting her. The State charged Morales Sanchez with two counts of violation of a court order— domestic violence. The case went to a jury. Ms. Mejia testified at trial as to the alleged violations. According to her, she was home with her children when she heard knocking on her bedroom window. She saw Morales Sanchez outside under a tree and called the police. Ms.  Mejia also testified that, about a week later, she received text messages from the defendant.

In closing arguments, the State Deputy Prosecutng Attorney (DPA) made multiple comments as to the knowledge requirement of violation of a no-contact order. First, it told the jury, “This element does not say the Defendant knew of the provisions of this order and knowingly violated this order. The knowing part refers solely to the violation.” The DPA also said the following:

“And, again, I want to emphasize this, because out of everything I’m going to say, this is one of the most important things for you to remember. This element does not say [Morales Sanchez] knew of the provisions of this order and knowingly violated a provision of this order. What I have to prove to you is that [Morales Sanchez] knowingly violated a provision of this order. There is a big difference.” ~State DPA at Closing Argument

Additionally, the State DPA showed the jury PowerPoint slides consistent with this notion. Morales Sanchez was convicted by the jury as charged. He appealed on arguments that the DPA misstated the law by inaccurately explaining the “knowledge” element of the charge.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The Court of Appeals (COA) began by saying the crime of willful violation of a court order has three essential elements: (1) the willful contact with another; (2) that a valid no-contact order prohibits such contact; and (3) defendant’s knowledge of the no-contact order.

“Willfulness requires a purposeful act,” stated the COA. Inadvertent or accidental contact is not enough. It reasoned that not only must the defendant know of the no-contact order; they must also have intended the contact. Proof that a person acted knowingly is proof that they acted willfully. Furthermore, a defendant cannot be prosecuted unless they know of the existence of the order.

Here, the COA held that the State DPA made an improper remark that merits reversal of the conviction. Here, the DPA explained the law as requiring that Morales Sanchez knew of the order and knew that and knowingly violated a provision of that order. The COA believed the DPA statement was inaccurate:

“We hold that this is a misstatement of the law because it fails to fully explain what a knowing violation includes and instead misleads the jury into thinking the State had to only prove Morales Sanchez knew generally of the existence of an order. Rather, the State is required to prove that Morales Sanchez knew what he was doing and that he knew his conduct was a violation of the order. This remark by the prosecutor fails to appreciate the distinction.”

Without properly explaining this distinction to the jury, the State was relieved of its burden of proof to establish Morales Sanchez’s knowledge of the no-contact order and Morales Sanchez’s knowledge that his willful contact with Rivera Mejia violated the no-contact order. This is a misstatement of the applicable law, and was therefore improper.” ~WA Court of Appeals

In addition, the DPA’s aruments blurs the State’s burden of proof. Here, the DPA failed to convey that the State must prove that Morales Sanchez must have known of the no-contact order, intended the contact, and knew that the contact was a violation of the order.

“We hold that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct because it misstated the elements it was required to prove and thereby relieved itself of the burden of proof before the jury. This had a substantial likelihood of affecting the jury’s verdict. Accordingly, reversal is required.” ~WA Court of Appeals

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.

Liberal Cities Are Embracing Conservative Anti-Crime Measures

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

O.C. prosecutor aims anti-crime campaign at surrounding areas - Los Angeles Times

Politico journalists Paul Demko, Jeremy B. White and Jason Beeferman report that liberal cities are embracing conservative anti-crime measures.

The country’s biggest, bluest cities are embracing tough-on-crime policies that would have been politically heretical just a few years ago. They’re increasing criminal penalties and expanding police power amid fear over a rash of brazen crimes like theft, drugs and assaults.

These Democrat-led policy changes mark a stark reversal from 2020. At that time, the growing influence of progressives fueled a national effort to curb police powers and decreae police budgets following the murder of George Floyd.

Now, Democrats are in retreat on criminal justice.

“I don’t believe it’s progressive to allow people to get assaulted on the streets at night. I don’t believe it’s progressive to allow people to sleep in tents. This is not the city I grew up in. It’s not a city I recognize right now.” ~Mark Farrell, a moderate Democrat challenging San Francisco Mayor London Breed.

Blue cities are pushing these harsher policies even as crime has decreased significantly nationwide, following big spikes during the pandemic. It’s the perception of increased crime that is driving many of these changes as Republicans continue to pillory Democrats as weak on law enforcement in the run-up to the presidential election.

“What we’re seeing now is a recognition that we have to lean in and do more as government to provide for the safety and well-being of our residents.” ~Democrat Brooke Pinto, the Washington D.C Councilmember

CALIFORNIA

In San Francisco, voters passed a ballot initiatives to lift restrictions on police operations and screen welfare recipients for drug use — two traditionally conservative proposals that nevertheless resonated with an overwhelmingly Democratic electorate, illustrating voters’ frustration with public drug use.

NEW YORK

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul announced Wednesday she is deploying the national guard to New York City’s subway system after a violent string of transit attacks, including one instance where a subway conductor was slashed in the neck while on the job.

WASHINGTON D.C.

The nation’s capital has also been beset by angst over crime. Washington D.C. has highest number of murders in more than two decades last year. A series of high-profile crimes in recent months have further heightened anxiety.

My opinion? It appears that politicians are responding to constituents who are fed up with crime problems. The politicization of criminal justice is an important topic in today’s narrative. Democratic Party politicians and officials are trying to cover areas Republicans are successfully jabbing at them – with soft-on-crime policy being the most evident among political strategies the GOP is using against Democratic incumbents.

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.

Most Americans Cannot Believe Violent Crime is Decreasing

Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Violent Crime, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Reported violent crime rate in the U.S. 2022 | Statista

In an article from NPR, journalists , and report that Americans can’t believe that violent crime is decreasing.

In 2020, the United States experienced one of its most dangerous years in decades. According to FBI statistics, the number of murders across the country surged by nearly 30% between 2019 and 2020, The overall violent crime rate, which includes murder, assault, robbery and rape, inched up around 5% in the same period.

But in 2023, crime in America looked very different.

VIOLENCE HAS DROPPED

“At some point in 2022 — at the end of 2022 or through 2023 — there was just a tipping point where violence started to fall and it just continued to fall . . . The national picture shows that murder is falling. We have data from over 200 cities showing a 12.2% decline in 2023 relative to 2022.” ~Jeff Asher, a crime analyst and co-founder of AH Datalytics.

Citing his own analysis of public data, Mr. Asher also found instances of rape, robbery and aggravated assault were all down too. Yet when you ask people about crime in the country, the perception is it’s getting a lot worse.

THE GALLUP POLL

A Gallup poll released in November found 77% of Americans believed there was more crime in the country than the year before. And 63% felt there was either a “very” or “extremely” serious crime problem — the highest in the poll’s history going back to 2000. So what’s going on?

WHY IS VIOLENT CRIME DECREASING?

For cities like San Francisco, Baltimore and Minneapolis, there may be different factors at play. And in some instances, it comes as the number of police officers declines, too.

Baltimore police are chronically short of their recruitment goal, and as of last September had more than 750 vacant positions, according to a state audit report. In Minneapolis, police staffing has plummeted. According to the Star Tribune, there are about 560 active officers — down from nearly 900 in 2019.

In Minneapolis, the city is putting more financial resources into nontraditional policing initiatives. The Department of Neighborhood Safety, which addresses violence through a public health lens, received $22 million in the 2024 budget. And in San Francisco, police there say they’ve been better at making arrests.

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

Washington State Bar Association Approves Lower Caseloads for Public Defenders

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

Overworking Killed 745,000 People in 2016, WHO Finds

Photo Courtesy of: Stock Photos from STOKKETE/Shutterstock

According to U.S. News, the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) has approved far lower case limits for public defenders. This follows an effort to stop them from quitting, to help with recruiting and to make sure they have enough time to represent each client properly. The new limits adopted at a meeting of the Bar’s board of governors are designed to cut maximum caseloads by about two-thirds over the next several years.

“Public defense is in crisis right now,” Jason Schwarz, director of the Snohomish County Office of Public Defense, told the Bar, which regulates attorneys statewide. “If we do nothing, we’re going to remain in crisis.”

Skeptics agree the system is breaking down but are concerned about finding more attorneys to cover the cases. Many counties, especially rural ones, already struggle to employ enough public defenders and get almost no state funding.

“This could be what bankrupts smaller counties like ours, unless the new limits help persuade state lawmakers to allocate more funding . . . At some point, we simply will not be able to pay the bills anymore.” ~Franklin County Administrator Mike Gonzalez

Attorneys are supposed to be provided to criminal defendants who can’t afford to pay, but public defenders are in short supply and busy. So some people who are presumed innocent are spending more time in jail, prosecutions are being dismissed and county costs are climbing.

The Bar’s Council on Public Defense began working on new standards in 2022. In October, the WA State Supreme Court asked the Bar to recommend revisions for the state. This came after a national report reassessed public defender caseloads and proposed a new way of calculating reasonable limits.

During debate Friday, proponents urged the Bar to make the changes.

“I am horrified that in 2024, in our democracy, in this state, people wait before they get their constitutional rights. My clients sit in jail and rot.” ~Adam Heyman, King County Public Defender

For decades, public defender caseloads were capped at 150 felonies or 400 misdemeanors per year. That will change incrementally beginning in 2025 and reach a new cap of 47 felonies or 120 misdemeanors in 2027, with lower maximums for certain case types. A defender working only on murder cases would be limited to about seven per year.

WILL THE STATE SUPREME COURT ADOPT THE WSBA’S RECOMMENDATIONS?

The WA State Supreme Court wields ultimate authority over criminal proceedings and hasn’t decided yet whether to adopt the new limits. The court’s existing rules are modeled on the Bar’s old standards.

The momentum and political will certainly exists. Lawmakers passed a bill this month to train law students and new attorneys to serve as public defenders in rural and underserved areas, but advocates say that is unlikely to solve the crisis overnight.

My opinion? Clearly, public defenders face extremely heavy workloads that prevent them from providing effective legal representation to people accused of crimes. They are asked to juggle too much work against their will, a phenomenon that eventually causes harm to their clients. 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.

Prison: No Country For Old Men

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

These are the 20 oldest prisoners doing time in New Jersey - nj.com

Excellent article in NPR by journalist Meg Anderson reports that the proportion of state and federal prisoners who are 55 or older is about five times what it was three decades ago. In 2022, that was more than 186,000 people.

In Oklahoma, the geriatric population has quadrupled in the past two decades. In Virginia, a quarter of the state’s prisoners will be geriatric by 2030. And in Texas, geriatric inmates are the fastest-growing demographic in the entire system.

More elderly people in prison is largely a sentencing problem, says Marta Nelson, the director of sentencing reform at the Vera Institute of Justice, a criminal justice research organization.

“It all stems from the longer sentences and the longer length of time that people have had to spend serving sentences in the United States, really starting from the ’70s and ’80s, but which became quite well known in the ’90s . . . People who went in as young people then are now aging. So it’s really a story of how we choose to punish people.” ~Marta Nelson, Director of Sentencing Reform at the Vera Institute of Justice

For instance, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, commonly known as the 1994 crime bill, incentivized states to build more prisons and keep people in those prisons for a longer percentage of their sentences. Other tough-on-crime policies — like mandatory minimum sentences and “three strikes” laws, in which the punishments for repeat offenders severely ratchet up — also contributed to why many people who went to prison decades ago are still there.

Today, there are more people serving a life sentence in prison than there were people in prison at all in 1970, according to a 2021 report from the Sentencing Project, an advocacy organization.

Caring for aging prisoners is expensive, but the data on just how expensive is murky. A 2013 study estimated it could be anywhere from three to nine times more expensive than for younger prisoners. And a 2015 report from the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General found that federal prisons with the highest percentage of elderly prisoners spent five times more per person on medical care than those with the lowest percentage of aging prisoners.

My opinion? The idea of releasing elderly prisoners is certainly controversial. As a society, we must be careful about who we incarcerate. Sometimes, prisons don’t make people better. They make people worse.

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.

American Drivers Are Now Even More Distracted By Their Phones

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Distracted Driving, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Reckless Driving, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Distracted Driving Cell Phone Use | Dr. John Lloyd | Motorcycle Crash, Biomechanics, Human Factors Expert

Excellent article by journalist Marin Cogan reports that In the last few years, the data on distracted driving has shown disturbing trends. During the pandemic, American drivers got even more distracted by their phones while driving. The amount of distracted driving hasn’t receded, even as life has mostly stabilized.

THE NUMBERS

Cambridge Mobile Telematics (CMT) Found that both phone motion and screen interaction while driving went up roughly 20 percent between 2020-2022. “By almost every metric CMT measures, distracted driving is more present than ever on US roadways. Drivers are spending more time using their phones while driving and doing it on more trips. Drivers interacted with their phones on nearly 58% of trips in 2022,” a recent report by the company concludes. Additionally, ore than a third of that phone motion distraction happens at over 50 mph.

We’re also spending nearly three times more time distracted by our phones than drivers in the United Kingdom and several other European countries. US drivers spent an average of 2 minutes 11 seconds on their phones per hour while driving, compared to 44 seconds per hour for UK drivers, CMT found.

The company compared the driving behaviors of US and European drivers because road fatalities in the United States surged during the pandemic and European fatalities did not. In 2020, 38,824 people died on US roads. In 2021, that number rose to 42,915 people, and the highest number of pedestrians were killed in 40 years. In 2022, the overall deaths stayed high, around 42,795, among them 7,508 pedestrians. The report also notes how the rise of smartphone use roughly corresponds to the rise in pedestrian fatalities: About 4,600 people were killed while walking in 2007, the year the iPhone was introduced. By 2021, with 85 percent of Americans owning smartphones, the number rose to 7,485.

Department of Justice Prosecutes Someone for Illegally Importing Greenhouse Gases

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

How to Transport a Fridge by Yourself ((( Part 1 ))) - YouTube

A San Diego man who allegedly smuggled refrigerants into the United States from Mexico is the first in the United States to be prosecuted under a recently enacted law aimed at mitigating climate change. The Department of Justice says the case marks the first prosecution in the United States to include charges related to the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act of 2020.

WHAT IS THE AIM ACT?

This law prohibits the importation of hydrofluorocarbons — or HFCs — without approval by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). HFCs are a class of potent greenhouse gases commonly used in refrigeration and air conditioning, aerosols, and foam products. Their climate impact can be hundreds to thousands of times greater than carbon dioxide. The AIM Act, enacted by Congress in 2020, authorizes EPA to phase down the production and consumption of HFCs by 85 percent in a stepwise manner by 2036 through an allowance allocation and trading program. The AIM Act also directs EPA to maximize reclamation of HFCs, minimize releases of HFCs from equipment, and facilitate the transition to next-generation technologies to replace HFCs.

WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT?

Hart is accused of buying refrigerants in Mexico and trafficking them into the US in his vehicle by hiding them under a tarpaulin and tools. He posted the refrigerants for sale on OfferUp, Facebook Marketplace and other sites.

He faces 13 separate charges, including conspiracy, as well as multiple counts of illegal importation and selling imported goods illegally. He could face a maximum of 45 years in prison if convicted on all of the charges and 20 years if convicted on either of the counts related to illegal importation, according to the Attorney’s Office of Southern California. He also faces fines of up to $750,000.

The indictment also alleges that Hart illegally imported HCFC-22, an ozone-depleting substance commonly used as a propellant and refrigerant. In 2020, such applications of HCFC-22 were phased out in developed countries under the Montreal Protocol because of its ozone depleting properties.

WHY SUCH HARSH PROSECUTION FROM THE FEDS?

In short, Mr. Hart’s Tarrest highlights the EPA’s and Justice Department’s efforts to prevent refrigerants that are climate super-pollutants from illegally entering the United States.

“The illegal smuggling of hydrofluorocarbons, a highly potent greenhouse gas, undermines international efforts to combat climate change under the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol. Anyone who seeks to profit from illegal actions that worsen climate change must be held accountable.” ~David M. Uhlmann, EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

The EPA says potent greenhouse gases are typically used for refrigeration, air conditioning, building insulation, fire extinguishing systems, and aerosols. And the global warming potential of HFCs are exponentially more potent than carbon dioxide, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

My opinion? Yes, it is illegal to import certain refrigerants into the United States because of their documented and significantly greater contribution to climate change. Nevertheless, I doubt Mr. Hart actually intended to unlawfully import greenhouse gases. More likely, he simply attempted to buy and sell used refrigerators and was unaware of the environmental impact of his transactions.

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 Legislature Passes Significant Public Defense Bill

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

Public Defenders Urge Legislature to Stop Governor from Cutting Successful Resentencing Program | San Francisco Public Defender's Office

Excellent article in the Seattle Times from journalist Daniel Beekman discussed the passage of Senate Bill 5780. The legislation is a huge win for WA state’s beleaguered criminal legal system. It won early support in the Senate but stalled before last Friday’s deadline to pass the House. Fortunately, it prevailed at the last minute only after a Seattle Times story spotlighted the public defense crisis. It is now headed to Gov. Jay Inslee’s desk to be signed into law.

WHAT IS THE CRISIS AND WHY DOES IT EXIST?

When you’re accused of a crime and don’t have enough money to pay an attorney, the government is supposed to provide you with one. It’s a constitutional right. But many Washington communities are struggling to hire and retain public defenders and to keep up with cases (statewide rules cap the number of cases a defender can handle each year). So some defendants are going without proper representation, even while in jail, and some prosecutions are getting delayed or dismissed. In some places, prosecutors are in short supply, as well.

The crisis exists because the COVID pandemic created backlogs, fewer people are going to law school, young attorneys are choosing other jobs, attorneys certified for high-level felony cases are burning out and policing changes are making cases more time-consuming, among other reasons.

Rural areas and Eastern Washington communities such as Yakima and the Tri-Cities have been hit especially hard, partly because they lack amenities and resources to compete with private sector employers for qualified attorneys. Unlike most other states, Washington relies on its counties to fund their own public defense services, and those costs have grown in recent years.

WHAT DOES SB 5780 HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH?

SB 5780 is meant to combat rampant staffing and caseload challenges that are pushing Washington’s public defense apparatus to the brink of collapse and simultaneously threatening prosecutorial operations. The legislation helps recruit and train more attorneys for crucial jobs in public defense and prosecution.

The bill directs state agencies to set up internship programs for aspiring public defenders and prosecutors in rural and underserved areas. It also directs the agencies to provide training to early-career public defenders and prosecutors. More specifically, SB 5780 calls for the state’s Office of Public Defense to administer a “law student rural defense program.” The program places students and recent graduates as interns with experienced public defenders in underserved communities. Similarly, it calls for the state Criminal Justice Training Commission to oversee a “law student rural prosecution program” placing interns with prosecutors. The interns are supposed to get mentoring, pay and housing stipends, and supervising attorneys may receive some money for their time.

The bill also expands the Criminal Defense Training Academy and the Criminal Justice Training Commission. These organizations train early-career public defenders and prosecutors.

My opinion? The legislation is a step in the right direction. Studies show public defenders face extremely heavy workloads that prevent them from providing effective legal representation to people accused of crimes.

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.