Tag Archives: Whatcom County Criminal Defense Attorney

Offender Score Post-Blake

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, felony, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Comment | Where is the Literature of Dissent?

In State v. Markovich, the WA Court of Appeals held that an out-of-state conviction for drug possession may not be included in the calculation of an offender score. There is no longer a comparable Washington offense after State v. Blake declared Washington’s strict liability simple possession statute to be unconstitutional.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In the early morning hours of July 13, 2017, police officers broke down the door of an apartment in Everett while executing a search warrant. The defendant Mr. Markovich was sitting on a couch in the front room of the apartment. Officers noticed digital scales, loaded and unloaded syringes, baggies, burnt aluminum foil, and a small stack of cash near the couch. Markovich was handcuffed and led outside the apartment. He had a small “baggie” containing a white substance in his pocket. The substance was later determined to be less than a gram of methamphetamine.

In the bedroom, officers also discovered a black fabric bag containing a larger quality of methamphetamine, heroin, and related drug paraphernalia. Markovich was charged with Possession of Methamphetamine and Heroin With Intent to Deliver or Manufacture.

At trial, Markovich was convicted as charged. The court imposed a high-end standard range sentence of 108 months in prison followed by 12 months of community custody. Markovich appealed on numerous grounds.

While this appeal was pending, the Washington Supreme Court decided State v. Blake, holding that Washington’s drug possession statute, RCW 69.50.4013(1), violated the due process clauses of the state and federal constitutions and was void. 197 Wn.2d at 186. Markovich filed a motion for resentencing in superior court, arguing that he was entitled to resentencing in light of Blake because his two prior out-of-state convictions for drug possession were included in the calculation of his offender score.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

On this issue, the Court of Appeals reasoned that a prior conviction based on a constitutionally invalid statute may not be considered when calculating an offender score.

“A sentence that is based upon an incorrect offender score is a fundamental defect that inherently results in a miscarriage of justice,” said the Court, quoting In re Pers. Restraint of Goodwin. The Court emphasized that the remedy for such a defect is resentencing under the correct offender score:

“In Blake, the Supreme Court declared Washington’s strict liability drug possession statute unconstitutional and void. Because penalties imposed under the invalid statute are void, defendants who were sentenced based on an offender score that included prior convictions under this unconstitutional statute are entitled to resentencing.” ~WA Court of Appeals.

Consequently, although the Court agreed with Markovich on this issue and re-sentenced his accordingly, it nevertheless denied his remaining claims on appeal.

My opinion? Good decision, overall. Our Court’s are dutifully re-calculating offender scores in the wake of the Blake decision. However, this opinion dealt only with convictions from other states.  A specific statute, RCW 9.94A.525(3) treats federal convictions for crimes for which there is no clearly comparable offense under Washington law as a class C felony equivalent in the offender score.  Federal simple drug possession felonies should, therefore, continue to be included in the offender score.

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

COVID-19 Outbreak At Jail

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

Justicia fights for COVID-19 protections for people who are incarcerated - Furman News

Reporter David Rasbach from the Bellingham Herald reports the Whatcom County Jail in downtown Bellingham has seen a COVID-19 outbreak the past few days. The present outbreak has spread to 10 corrections deputies and one person housed at the jail.

Rasbach reports that since late in 2020, all corrections deputies at the jail have been tested for COVID weekly. One of the deputies tested positive on Saturday, Aug. 14.

“Over the following three days, additional corrections deputies tested positive during their weekly screening,” said Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office spokesperson Deb Slater. “We began working with the Whatcom County Health Department to track down the source of the infection.

Apparently, several corrections deputies contracted COVID while booking an individual who was uncooperative. This individual refused to answer any health-related questions or take a rapid COVID-19 test and demonstrated uncontrolled behavior during the booking process.

The sheriff’s office’s Corrections Bureau has since increased its rapid testing of deputies to daily, and additional personal protective equipment protocols have been put in place, according to Slater.

In January, the Work Center had an outbreak that affected 37 people, leading to some of the testing protocols now in place at the jail.

My opinion? A jail sentence should not become a death sentence. And yet our jails and prisons are filled with people with preexisting medical conditions that put them a heightened risk for complications from COVID-19. Our jails and prisons house large numbers of people with chronic diseases and complex medical needs who are more vulnerable to COVID-19. At the beginning of the pandemic, jails cut their populations by as much as 30%, helping to protect many of these people. But states and counties abandoned their efforts to keep jail populations low as the pandemic wore on.

Please review my Legal Guide titled Making Bail and contact my office if you, a friend or family member are jailed and charged with a crime during this COVID-19 Pandemic. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the best step toward justice. Nowadays, it may save your life.

Access Devices

Access Devices, Bail Jumping, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Evidence, felony, Forgery, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Possession of Stolen Property, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

How to Spot a Forged Check | SQN Banking Systems

In State v. Arno, the WA Court of Appeals Division III held that a paper check presented to a bank is excluded from the definition of an “access device.” Such a paper check will not support a conviction for Second Degree Possession of Stolen Property.

BACKGROUND FACTS

The defendant Mr. Ibrahim Arno brought a forged check for $1,000 to a Wells Fargo Bank in May 2018. He was charged with Forgery and Possession of Stolen Property. While his charges were pending, Mr. Arno missed a court date. He was later charged with Bail Jumping.

The case proceeded to trial. The check was nominally written and bore a signature from the victim Mr. Pinnow. He testified that a box of checks had been stolen from his house in 2017 and that the check in question was one of those that had been stolen. He denied writing the check, and the signature on the check did not match the bank’s records. The account the check was drawn on had been closed earlier after several of the stolen checks were fraudulently cashed.

Regarding the Bail Jumping Charge, Mr. Arno testified that he received a scheduling order with several dates crossed out and was “confused.”

A jury found Mr. Arno guilty of all charges. He appealed the Possession of Stolen Property conviction because the statutory definition of “access device” specifically excludes paper checks from its definition.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The Court of Appeals began by saying a person is guilty of second degree possession of stolen property if he “possesses a stolen access device.” An “Access device” is defined as “any card, plate, code, account number, or other means of account access that can be used . . . to initiate a transfer of funds, other than a transfer originated solely by paper instrument.”

“Mr. Arno argues that the statute’s plain language excludes an attempt to transfer
funds by presenting a bad check for payment,” said the Court of Appeals. “We agree. If the exclusion is to mean anything, it clearly applies to the presentation of a paper check at a bank.”

The Court of Appeals rejected the State’s arguments that that it was prosecuting Mr. Arno for possessing an account number, not for presenting a forged check. “The record belies the State’s argument,” said the Court. “In addition, it is clear that the State was not charging Mr. Arno for possessing bank account numbers; it was charging him with possession of a stolen check.”

“We hold that a paper check presented to a bank is excluded from the definition of an access device as ‘a transfer originated solely by paper instrument.’ RCW 9A.56.010(1). Thus, there is insufficient evidence to support Mr. Arno’s conviction for second degree possession of stolen property.” ~ WA Court of Appeals

Nevertheless, the Court of appeals affirmed Mr. Arno’s convictions for forgery and bail jumping.

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

Consensual Seizures

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

MTS Says Its Officers Aren't Bound by New State Use-of-Force Law

In State v. Meredith, the WA Court of Appeals held that a bus passenger consents to a warrantless search and seizure consisting of a bus fare enforcement officer requests the passenger provide proof of payment.

BACKGROUND FACTS

The defendant Mr. Meredith was riding the Swift regional transit bus in Everett late one morning. Two officers from the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office boarded to conduct fare enforcement. When conducting fare enforcement, officers would board a bus at a stop and then ask individual passengers for proof of payment while the bus was driving from one stop to the next. A “chase vehicle” would follow the bus to help with identifying and processing anyone ordered off the bus for nonpayment.

Officer Dalton moved to the back of the bus. He began working his way forward and saying “proof of payment or ORCA card” to each passenger in a conversational tone. His partner moved to the front of the bus and worked backward. The bus drove to its next stop while the officers checked for proof of payment.

Officer Dalton requested “proof of payment or ORCA card” from Meredith, who began to check his pants and backpack. Failure to provide proof of payment could result in a notice of infraction or arrest. The bus continued along its route, and Meredith searched for four or five minutes without producing proof of payment. Officer Dalton ordered him to disembark at the next stop, and they left the bus together.

Officer Dalton asked Meredith for his name and identification. Meredith gave a fake name. Officer Dalton radioed dispatch to run the name, and it produced no returns in either Washington or Colorado. Officer Dalton suspected Meredith gave a fake name. Officer Zelaya arrived to help determine Meredith’s identity.

Officer Zelaya used a mobile fingerprint reader to scan Meredith’s fingerprints. He learned Meredith’s real name and that he had two outstanding felony warrants. Meredith was arrested on his warrants and for committing third degree theft of services for nonpayment of fare. He was charged with Making a False Statement to a Public Servant.

Pretrial, Meredith moved to suppress evidence resulting from Officer Dalton’s fare enforcement. The trial court denied the motion. A jury found Meredith guilty of making a false statement. Meredith appealed under arguments that his constitutional rights were violated by the officers when they executed an unauthorized and warrantless seizure.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The Court of Appeals said the Washington Constitution  provides, “No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.” Furthermore, the WA Constitution protects against unauthorized seizures by government, despite not using the word “seize.”

However, the Court emphasized that Meredith did not allege his privacy was violated. It reasoned that the analysis does not not depend upon the “privacy” of information requested when police merely request proof of payment on public transit. Therefore, a person can be unlawfully seized without a violation of their privacy.

Next, the Court analyzed whether Meredith validly consented to being seized. “We consider whether his consent was voluntary, whether the seizure was limited to the scope of the consent granted, and whether consent was granted by a party with authority to do so,” said the Court. “We determine whether consent was voluntary by considering the totality of the circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable—meaning innocent—person.”

“Here, Meredith freely chose to contract with Swift Transit for transportation. He agreed to pay and provide proof of payment. And as a reasonable rider, he necessarily understood his duty to pay his fare and provide proof of payment when asked. Thus, like the civilian base visitor in Farkas, Meredith was aware of the possible seizure of his person and consented to it.” ~WA Court of Appeals

The Court concluded by saying Meredith voluntarily consented to Officer Dalton’s initial contact. With that the Court affirmed Meredith’s conviction.

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

Policing Mental Health

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

Use of Force against Inmates with Mental Disabilities in US Jails and Prisons | HRW

Excellent article in the Olympian by reporter Brandon Block describes how the Washington State Attorney General’s Office is refuting claims by police departments that new reform legislation – HB 1310 – prevents them responding to non-criminal calls.

A confidential memo issued by an Assistant Attorney and a Deputy Solicitor states the following:

“Washington statutes and case law recognize responding to community caretaking calls as part of a law enforcement officer’s duties . . . Bill 1310 does not prohibit peace officers from responding to community caretaking calls, including mental health calls.” ~Assistant Attorney General Shelley Williams and Deputy Solicitor General Alicia O. Young

Police departments across the state have announced drastic cuts to service and characterized those decisions as a response to a series of police reform and accountability laws that went into effect on July 25. Much of the discrepancy in interpretations has centered on HB 1310, which sets a statewide standard for police use of force and establishes an expectation of “reasonable care” for officers.

HB 1310 allows police to use physical force when necessary to make an arrest or prevent an escape, or when there is “an imminent threat of bodily injury” to the officer, person in question, or someone else. It directs officers to exhaust all possible de-escalation tactics before using force. It also directs police to use the least amount of force needed to overcome resistance, and take into account the characteristics of the person, such as whether they are pregnant, a minor, or are cognitively impaired.

The bill offers a list of possible tactics, including taking as much time as needed, repositioning, calling for backup or additional resources such as mental health workers, or leaving the scene “if there is no threat of imminent harm and no crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed.”

Some law enforcement officials — including the police chiefs in Olympia and Lacey — have interpreted those limitations on use-of-force as instructions not to engage with people until they witness a crime being committed.

“Nothing in the statute’s plain language indicates that specifying permissible uses of force prohibits an officer from responding to community caretaking calls,” the memo reads. “An interpretation that Bill 1310 limits or prohibits law enforcement officers from responding to calls that do not involve a crime — such as community caretaking calls to render aid — is contrary to legislative intent to preserve and protect all human life.”

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

Trial Security

Uncategorized, , , , ,

Courtroom Security: The Hidden Side of The Criminal Trial - Lee Lofland

In State v. Bejar, the WA Court of Appeals held it was not prejudicial to the defendant’s case for jurors to go through enhanced courtroom security screening on a jury trial involving a gang murder.

BACKGROUND FACTS

Mr. Bejar, Jr. was charged with murder in the first degree with a firearm enhancement and unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree. The shooting involved a gang war in South King County that was instigated by gang members disrespecting each other over social media. Mr. Bejar was the alleged shooter, and a member of the South Side Locos gang. The victim was a member of the the United Lokotes gang.

At trial, the judge ordered secondary screening strictly for any courtroom observers.

“There’s been allegations of witnesses being assaulted as a result of this ongoing gang war, and in particular Facebook posts that I read provided here refer to different people as being snitches,” said the trial judge. Consequently, he issued the following secondary screening rules:

  1. Persons entering the courtroom may be subjected to secondary screening, including use of a magnetometer, handheld metal detector, and pat down searches. Persons who fail to comply with screening requirements will not be permitted access to the courtroom.
  2. Except as specifically authorized in this document or by separate order of the Court, no cell phones, cameras, or other electronic devices capable of audio or video recording, or component parts of such devices, will be permitted in the courtroom. Persons entering the courtroom may be required to leave such devices with security personnel . . .

The jury convicted Bejar of all crimes as charged. He appealed on arguments that requiring jurors to go through secondary screening was inherently prejudicial.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The Court of Appeals began by saying that the presumption of innocence is a basic component of a fair trial under our system of justice. In order to preserve a defendant’s presumption of innocence before a jury, the defendant is entitled to the physical indicia. This  includes the right of the defendant to be brought before the court with the appearance, dignity, and self-respect of a free and innocent individual.

“Measures which single out a defendant as a particularly dangerous or guilty person threaten his constitutional right to a fair trial,” said the Court of Appeals. “Such measures threaten a defendant’s right to a fair trial because they erode his presumption of innocence; these types of courtroom practices are inherently prejudicial.”

That said, the Court also reasoned that the average juror takes for granted security screenings in courthouses and other similar government buildings. The court emphasized that jurors are used to passing through security screening, including metal detectors and pat down searches, when entering government buildings or government-controlled spaces within buildings, including airports and other transportation hubs, federal buildings, and courts.

“The fact that there was a secondary screening outside the courtroom in the hallway for cell phones did not suggest particular official concern or alarm; it was not an invasive search or conducted by guards with unusual weaponry or armed presence.” ~WA Court of Appeals

Furthermore, reasoned the Court, the secondary screening allowed for a wide range of inferences, including that such screening was designed to guard against disruptions emanating from outside the courtroom.

“The jurors only had to pass through the secondary screening on the first day of trial,” said the Court.  “On all subsequent days, jurors were allowed to bypass the secondary screening with their juror badges. These factors all served to minimize any potential prejudice to the defendants.”

With that, the Court of Appeals ruled that the secondary screening of the jurors on the first day of trial was not inherently prejudicial.

“These secondary security measures did not single out a defendant as a particularly dangerous or guilty person or threaten his constitutional right to a fair trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in adopting such measures.” ~WA Court of Appeals

With that, the Court of Appeals affirmed Bejas’ conviction.

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

Jury Questions

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Jury Trial, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Should Jurors Be Allowed to Ask Questions During a Criminal Trial? – GRAND JURY TARGET

In State v. Sutton, the WA Court of Appeals held that, when answering a deliberating jury’s questions, a trial court has a responsibility to ensure that the jury understands the law.

BACKGROUND FACTS

Law enforcement executed a search warrant looking for evidence of drug trafficking at an address on in Newman Lake, Washington. At the property, they found the defendant Ms. Sutton and numerous co-defendants. The ensuing investigation led to Sutton and the co-defendants being arrested for the Kidnapping and Murder.

The State charged Sutton with first degree felony murder predicated on kidnapping, first degree kidnapping, and Leading Organized Crime. With respect to the charge of Leading Organized Crime, the State alleged that Sutton did intentionally organize, manage, and direct three or more persons  with the intent to engage in a pattern of criminal profiteering activity, to-wit: Delivery of a Controlled Substance.

Sutton testified in her defense. She admitted she sold drugs, but denied she sold drugs or directed the co-defendants to commit any crimes.

During deliberations, the jury forwarded a written question to the judge.  “For instruction #25, must the defendant have organized (etc.) all three of the listed persons specifically, or just any 3 or more persons (as instruction #24 states)?”

The judge asked counsel for suggestions on how it should respond to the jury’s question. Both the Prosecutor and Defense Counsel agreed the answer was, “Yes.” Ultimately, the trial judge decided that the best answer was to simply direct the jury to refer back to its instructions. Soon after, the jury returned guilty verdicts.

Sutton appealed her conviction on arguments that the trial court abused its discretion by declining the proposed defense jury instruction that accurately stated the law.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The Court of Appeals began by saying that Defendants are guaranteed a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which requires jury instructions that accurately inform the jury of the relevant law. Furthermore, CrR 6.15(f)(1) permits trial judges to give the jury supplemental written instructions on any point of law after deliberations begin. This is done to ensure a jury is informed of the relevant law.

“A trial court should ensure that the jury understands the law . . . When it is apparent the jury does not understand the law, the trial court may and should issue a supplemental written instruction. A failure to do so is inconsistent with its responsibility to ensure the jury understands the law and risks the jury rendering a verdict contrary to the evidence.” ~WA Court of Appeals

Next, the Court of Appeals addressed whether the trial court should have given a supplemental instruction to clarify the law. It raised and dismissed Mrs. Sutton’s arguments that under State v. Backemeyer, a trial court should ensure that the jury understands the law. “Backemeyer is distinguishable from this case,” said the Court of Appeals. “There, it was clear that the jury misunderstood the law. Here, the to-convict instruction was clear.”

The Court further reasoned that the jury’s question did not create an inference that the entire jury was confused or that any confusion was not clarified.

“At a minimum, the jury’s question showed that some jurors wanted assurance they need not be concerned about the different wording in instruction 24. And because the trial court has a responsibility to ensure that the jury understands the law, it should have answered the jury’s question. It could have answered: ‘To convict Sutton of leading organized crime, the State must prove the elements of that crime as set forth in Instruction 25 beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Nevertheless, the trial court’s decision not to answer the jury’s question was not an abuse of discretion.” ~ WA Court of Appeals.

With that, the Court of Appeals upheld Sutton’s conviction.

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

Cell Site Location Info

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Burglary, Cell Phone, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Possession of Stolen Property, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,
Find Your Nearest Cell Tower in Five Minutes or Less: 2021 Edition
In State v. Denham, the WA Supreme Court held there was a sufficient nexus between the defendant’s seized phone records and the suspected criminal activity to support the issuance of a search warrant.
BACKGROUND FACTS
A valuable diamond was stolen from a jewelry store. Within days, the Defendant Mr.  Denham sold that diamond. Police suspected Denham committed the burglary and got a warrant for his cell phone records. Cell site location information included in those phone records placed Denham’s phone near the jewelry store around the time of the burglary.
Mr. Denham was charged and ultimately convicted with second degree burglary and first degree trafficking in stolen property. At Denham’s bench trial, The trial judge cited the
fact that Denham had made phone calls that were routed through the cell tower in
the parking lot of the jewelry store around the time of the burglary. Ultimately, the trial judge found Denham guilty as charged.
Mr Denham appealed his case to the WA Court of Appeals. He challenged the admissibility of the search warrant and the evidence it produced. His argument was that the warrant based on generalizations and did not establish that evidence of wrongdoing would likely be found in his phone records. The WA Court of Appeals agreed with Mr. Denham. The State, however, filed its own appeal. And Mr. Denham’s was heard in the WA Supreme Court.
COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS
The WA Supreme Court began by discussing the admissibility of cell phone records.
“Our constitutions protect individual privacy against state intrusion,” said Justice Gonzalez, who authored the opinion.  He said that under the U.S. Constitution and WA State Constitution, police must have either the authority of a warrant or a well-established exception to the warrant requirement to lawfully intrude into an individual’s private affairs.
“This constitutional protection extends to cell phone location information held by cell phone companies,” said Justice Gonzalez.  He acknowledged that time-stamped data contained in cell phones provides an intimate window into a person’s life, revealing not only his particular movements, but through them his familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.
Next, Justice Gonzalez described how a search warrant should be issued only if it shows probable cause that the defendant is involved in criminal activity and that evidence of the criminal activity will be found in the place to be searched. “There must be a nexus between criminal activity and the item to be seized and between that item and the place to be searched,” he said. “The warrant must also describe with particularity the place to be searched and the things to be seized.”
With that, Justice Gonzalez reasoned that the search warrant affidavits were proper:
“These affidavits present reasonable grounds to believe that the phones associated with the phone numbers belonged to Denham based on Denham’s own use of the numbers with his probation officers and with various businesses, that Denham had the phones around the time of the burglary because of specific facts suggesting he had the phones days before and after the date in question, that Denham burgled the store, and that Denham trafficked distinctive pieces stolen from the store. They also allege that Denham had both phones at the time of the burglary and used one to arrange the sale of the diamond that was the basis of the trafficking charge.
Taken together, this is sufficient to raise a reasonable inference that evidence of burglary would be found in the cell site location information . . . The fact that there are some generalizations in the inferential chain does not defeat the reasonableness of the inference.” ~Justice Gonzalez, WA Supreme Court
Justice Gonzalez concluded by holding that the search warrant contained sufficient detail to conclude that evidence of a crime would more likely than not be found in the cell site location information in telephone company records of Denham’s cell phones.
Accordingly, the WA Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed Denham’s convictions.

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

Crime Moves Up the Agenda

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

Political analyst Thom Serafin: 'People don't like the crime issue, bad schools and they want better neighborhoods and good jobs. It's really simple why people leave the state' | WGN Radio 720 -

Interesting article by  Niall Stanage of The Hill says that a recent poll shows the latest proof that crime is becoming a crucial issue for American voters.

According to Stanage, the new survey from The Washington Post and ABC News found more Americans than at any time in the past 20 years believe crime is an “extremely serious” or “very serious” problem in the area where they live. It also found that 59 percent of adults believe crime is extremely or very serious in the United States as a whole — the highest figure in three years.

Crime had been a pivotal topic in American politics a generation ago, especially during the worst days of the crack epidemic. But its relevance fell, along with the murder rates, from the closing years of the last century until very recently.

Murders nationwide rose by about 25 percent last year, and many major cities fared worse still. In New York City, for example, homicides rose about 45 percent in 2020. Other cities including Miami and Atlanta have seen spikes this year.

Also according to Stanage, although crime rates rose sharply last year, the politics of the issue remained mostly on the back burner as the nation dealt with the COVID-19 Pandemic and the question of how to get Americans back on their feet economically.

Stanage challenges Joe Biden to address the issue:

“There are other reasons for President Biden, in particular, to worry about the poll’s findings. It indicated that 48 percent of adults disapprove of the way he is dealing with crime, while only 38 percent approve.” ~Reporter Niall Stanage, The Hill

Biden laid out a strategy to deal with crime in a June 23 speech at the White House. The president focused largely on trying to disrupt the trade in illicit firearms. He also emphasized that local authorities could use COVID-19 relief funds to hire additional law enforcement officers.

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

Crime Increased in 2020

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

What Can Be Done About the Increase in Violent Crime in Large Cities? | American Police Officers Alliance

Overall crime in Washington State increased in 2020 according to a report released this week by the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC). The annual report tracks crime and arrest data from contributing law enforcement agencies throughout Washington.

The Crime in Washington 2020 report is compiled with data from 233 state, county, municipal, and Tribal agencies and is published in conjunction with the FBI, which will compile and release national data based upon state reports later this year. The report is designed to give residents, elected officials, and law enforcement data-driven information about crime in their communities.

The report shows that in 2020 murders were up almost 47% and have increased overall 67% since 2016. Manslaughter went up 100%, fraud increased by 131%, while drug and narcotic offenses, and reported hate crimes were down slightly. The total number of commissioned officers statewide was down from 1.24 per thousand to 1.19 per thousand people. Washington is ranked 51st out of the 50 states and District of Columbia for the number of officers per thousand people. Reported cases of officers assaulted was up 6% in 2020 and has increased 67% since 2016.

FACTS AT A GLANCE

  • The total population for the State of Washington is 7,656,066.
  • There were 302 murders in 2020; this is an increase of 46.6% compared to 206 murders in 2019. Murders have increased overall 66.9% since 2016.
  • There were 59,134 fraud offenses in 2020; this is an increase of 131.3% compared to 25,562 fraud offenses in 2019. The significant increase in fraud activity in 2020 was due in part to fraudulent unemployment claims related to the pandemic.
  • A total of 468 hate crime incidents were reported, down slightly from 2019 (a decrease of 13.1%).
  • A total of 22,070 persons were arrested for DUI, including 172 juveniles.
  • Drug and narcotic abuse incidents were lower in 2020 (a decrease of 22.7%).
    • There were 8,200 arrests for Drug/Narcotic violations; of that number 4.2%
      were persons under 18 years of age.
    • Possessing/concealing of heroin constituted 23.6% of the total drug abuse incidents; the distributing/selling of heroin accounted for 3.5% of incidents (type of criminal activity can be entered three times in each incident).
  • Full-time commissioned officers totaled 11,231.
  • There was a total of 2,047 assaults on law enforcement officers, this is an increase of 6.2% compared to 1,927 assaults in 2019.
  • Two officers were killed in the line of duty, Washington State Trooper Justin Schaffer and Bothell Officer Jonathan Shoop.
  • There was a total of 59,289 Domestic Violence offenses reported; 13,909 of these offenses were Violations of Protection or No Contact Orders.
  • Domestic Violence offenses made up 49.7% of all Crimes Against Persons and 2.7% of all Crimes Against Property.
  • There were 5,432 Sexual Offenses (forcible and non-forcible) reported in 2020. There was a total of 5,432 victims in these incidents: with a total of 5,026 offenders.

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