It has been a long-standing practice that police may photograph and take the fingerprints when they arrest a suspect. The photos and fingerprints can then be used by law enforcement agencies to compare with other photos and fingerprints to solve other crimes.

With modern improvements in science and technology, the field of DNA testing and analysis has become a standard method of identification of persons. It is used commonly to solve crimes, determine parentage, establish guilt and importantly, occasionally determine innocence after a conviction. 28 states now allow DNA to be taken upon a felony arrest.

Maryland is one of those states. In the case before the Supreme Court, Alonzo King was arrested on an assault charge in 2009 and his DNA was taken. It was found to match the DNA sample in a 2003 unsolved rape case. The defendant was subsequently convicted of the rape, based in part on DNA evidence and sentenced to a life term in prison.

Mr. King appealed the rape conviction and the case wound its way through the appeal process to the United States Supreme Court. He wanted the court to declare that the law allowing the taking of the DNA sample upon his arrest was an unconstitutional search and a violation of his right to privacy.

The court refused to rule that the Maryland law was unconstitutional. The court likened the taking of an arrestee’s DNA to be much like a photo and fingerprint. The court declared it was not a violation of a person’s federal rights to have DNA taken at his arrest and his DNA compared to the national database and used against him to prove his guilt of a different crime.

Whether or not this change makes it into Washington law is another matter. Federal law sets the minimum standard, but in Washington, our courts have sometimes decided that the Washington Constitution provides more protection than the federal constitution and has ruled some things unconstitutional in Washington that are permitted under federal law. The Washington legislature will no doubt consider whether there should be such a law and if they pass it, our courts will decide if it is legal in Washington.

The competing bills in each house have these essential elements in common:

• Felony DUI: Current law requires it to be the 5th DUI in 10 years. Each bill would change that to the 4th;
• Stronger penalties (jail and financial) for repeat DUI offenders including treatment options;
• Mandatory arrest and booking into jail for repeat DUI offenders;
• Mandatory Ignition Interlock Devices for repeat DUI offenders as condition of release;
• Increased penalty for DUI drivers with children under 16 in the car;
• Aggravated circumstance available when DUI or felony driver is wrong-way on highway.

Both versions also harmonize impaired driving laws with the state’s new legal intoxicant, marijuana, making it clear that driving while impaired can be not only DUI, but also negligent driving and affect commercial driving licenses.

The Legislature is right to focus on the repeat, chronic impaired driver and those with extremely high BAC levels as the best target for our scarce public safety resources. Of the 156 Washington State citizens killed in impaired driving incidents in 2011, 74 percent involved a driver with a BAC of more than .15, nearly twice the legal limit of .08. Repeat DUI offenders account for about 17% of all arrests, but pose an inordinate public safety risk.

It is important to note that we have made progress as a society in bringing awareness to impaired driving. Twenty-five years ago, 27,253 people were killed in collisions caused by drunk drivers in the United States. In 2011, that number was reduced to 9,878. That’s a 64% decrease in alcohol-related traffic fatalities each year. Public awareness of the dangers of drunk driving, tougher enforcement and penalties, better treatment options for those struggling with substance abuse, and even improved vehicle safety are all contributors to this extraordinary drop.

But 9,878 deaths are still too many, and it does not count the lives shattered by serious injuries sustained by victims of vehicular assault. We can do better, in the prevention and the response to driving under the influence.
Used with permission from the Prosecutor’s Post by Daniel Satterberg Prosecuting Attorney of King County.

After the sexual assault last September, Mr. Rickard fled to Montana, but he was arrested there and brought back to Stevens County to face the charge.

Judge Monasmith heard from the victim’s mother, two brothers, and other family members. Judge Monasmith then sentenced Samuel Rickard to 96 months (8 years) in prison. As a result of this conviction, Mr. Rickard will also be subject to Department of Corrections supervision for the rest of his life and will be required to register as a sex offender. Deputy Prosecutor Lech Radzimski represented the state in this case.

About one year ago, a number of stolen grave markers were found in the yard of a Chewelah man. The investigation revealed that he had stolen the grave markers from several county graveyards. His intention was to perform some “religious rite” with these grave markers. He was arrested and charged, but before he was arraigned it became obvious that he was incompetent to proceed.

He was sent to Eastern State Hospital and remained there until October when an order finding him competent was entered and the case moved forward temporarily. But from January 2013 to March 20, 2013 the progress of the case was again delayed due to questions about his competency.

At the Plea and Sentencing hearing on May 21, 2013, Mr. Terry L Verhaag pleaded guilty to three counts of Unlawful removal of Grave Markers. Each of these counts had aggravating circumstances attached to them, due to the large number of headstones involved. While the Standard Range for the offense is 0-12 months, he was sentenced to 22 months of Prison. Matt Enzler represented the state in this case.

There is a sentencing schedule or guideline, which governs felony cases. The SRA Sentencing Reform Act imposes a schedule that controls most felony sentencing. The sentence range a particular defendant is exposed to is based on several factors. Among them are: the crime which is being adjudicated at the time and its seriousness level; whether other crimes are simultaneously being adjudicated; the past criminal history of the defendant which takes into consideration whether some of the criminal history will not be considered, (washed out) due to periods of good behavior, and whether or not certain statutory sanctions are mandatory.

For example, The Hard Time for Armed Crime act requires that certain firearms charges run consecutive to each other. The application of this law results sometimes in very lengthy sentences for one defendant as compared to another.

Occasionally the court will deviate from the guidelines when reasons exist and one or other of the parties ask for it. The deviation may be up or down depending on the situation. There are also DOSA, SOSA, POSA alternatives which the court can impose if it sees fit, (usually over the objection of the prosecution) because these (Drug, Sex, Parental) Offender Sentencing Alternatives greatly reduce the prison time a person will serve. These are treatment alternatives.

In District court, the limitations and guidelines imposed by the SRA are not applicable because this court deals with non-felonies, misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors. (90 and 364 days in jail maximum sentences respectively) The sentencing in District court is much more dependent on the discretion of the court. This means that punishment for gross misdemeanors can sometimes exceed that for a felony. If the SRA guidelines limit a felony to 30 to 90 days in jail, a similar offense classified as a gross misdemeanor might have a maximum of one year. Thus there is often more time available as a sanction for District Court cases than for Superior Court matters. I agree that it is kind of weird, but that is how it is.

Before the ambulance arrived, another person, later identified as the defendant’s son, arrived on scene and broke a window to the vehicle and was able to remove the driver. The doctor noticed the driver’s poor coordination and slurred speech. The doctors informed them that an ambulance was on its way. But rather than waiting, the defendant’s son told the doctors he was taking the driver to the emergency room. At no point did the driver or his son provide names any information to anyone on scene.

The driver left the scene with his son. He did not go to the hospital. Law enforcement was able to track down the son that night due to the doctors providing 911 his license plates. Law enforcement was told that while on route to the hospital, the father demanded to be taken home, and the son took his father home. The son also told law enforcement that his father was drinking, but he didn’t know how much. Law enforcement went to the driver’s home, but no one appeared to be there. Later it was learned he was taken to another person’s home.

On 4-16-13, Mr. Steven Edward Swiger went to trial for Physical Control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants, Reckless driving, and Hit and Run with property damage. At trial, Mr. Swiger argued that he was not the driver of the vehicle, and he had not been drinking. After a 2 day trial the jury found the defendant guilty on all counts.

Mr. Swiger was sentenced on May 8th 2013. At sentencing, the state informed the court the defendant had 9 prior DUI convictions, and a felony hit and run conviction and other convictions. The court gave the defendant the maximum sentence of 2 years and 90 days in jail and an $11,000 fine plus costs and assessments and restitution.

Deputy Prosecutor Nick Force represented the state with Saundra Richartz assisting.

The emergency rule followed a written request from a bi-partisan group of legislators who asked the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission to use their rulemaking authority to address the problems experienced by people in communities which are most affected by the wolf recovery program. The WDFW acknowledges that the wolf population is increasing rapidly in Washington State. They estimate there are at least 10 packs of wolves active in the state and estimate about 50 to 100 animals. Most of the packs are in Stevens, Ferry, Okanogan and Pend Oreille counties. There are also packs in Canada whose members range into these northern counties.

Washington Wildlife Commission Chair Miranda Wecker reaffirmed the commitment of the Wildlife Commission to the goal of gray wolf recovery but acknowledged that by passing the rule, the Wildlife Commission is trying to address the legitimate need of residents to protect their domestic animals.

The rule allows farmers, ranchers, and domestic animal owners, including their employees or agents to kill one wolf if it is attacking their animals under certain conditions.
• The rule applies only in the eastern third of the state, designated in the state Wolf Conservation and Management Plan as the Eastern Washington Recovery Region.
• The rule allows the owner of a domestic animal to kill only one wolf, for the duration of the regulation.
• The lethal removal must be reported to WDFW within 24 hours, and the carcass must be provided to the department.
• The owner of the domestic animal that was attacked must grant access or help the department gain access to the property where the wolf was killed to enable investigation and data collection.
• Anyone who kills a wolf that was not attacking a domestic animal as spelled out in the rule will be subject to criminal prosecution for the illegal taking of endangered wildlife.

The state has released statistics for DUI cases charged and resolved for every county in Washington in 2012. State wide there were 35,385 DUIs charged. Of these cases 15,277 or 43% ended up with guilty to DUI resolutions either by plea or by jury verdict.

In Stevens County, 123 persons were charged with DUI in 2012. Of those, 71 % of cases that started out as DUI ended up with a plea to DUI or a guilty jury verdict. This percentage ties Stevens County with Columbia County for the third highest percentage of DUI cases charged and resolved with DUI, behind only Cowlitz with 75% and San Juan with 78%. (San Juan County charged 45 DUIs in 2012 and Columbia charged 7).

While Stevens County has about 10 DUIs per month, our much larger neighbor, Spokane County, had more than 2,200 DUIs during 2013 or nearly 200 per month.

There were only 9 Stevens County cases that were dismissed. These were the result of deferred prosecutions, which, although we usually object to the court granting them, we have very little control over it because state law affords defendants one deferral in life. We did not dismiss a single DUI as a result of a problem in the case itself.

The statistics are a little hard to interpret, due to the fact that many DUI charges start out in one year and are resolved in the following year. On average, it takes about 4 to 8 months for a DUI charge to wind its way through the court. There several court dates involved. Lawyers are appointed, motions filed and decided, trial dates set and finally trials. Some cases can take much longer due to various factors.

Overall, we are significantly above the state and Spokane county averages for people pleading guilty to DUI and trials per DUI. We are also significantly below the state and Spokane county averages for differed prosecutions for DUI, reducing DUI, and dismissals.

The statistics show that Law Enforcement agencies in Stevens County do a good job in building the DUI cases, and that Deputy Prosecutors Nick Force and Saundra Richartz are carrying through on that good work with aggressive prosecution efforts.

Among many quotes attributed to him is this. “It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”

Recently it was the task of our office to give some advice to one of the county divisions regarding a proposed tax levy. The question had to do with the limitations on levies. The exact question is not so important, but in trying to answer it, we needed to understand this sentence from Article 7 of the Washington Constitution.

(a) By any taxing district when specifically authorized so to do by a majority of at least three-fifths of the voters of the taxing district voting on the proposition to levy such additional tax submitted not more than twelve months prior to the date on which the proposed initial levy is to be made and not oftener than twice in such twelve month period, either at a special election or at the regular election of such taxing district, at which election the number of voters voting “yes” on the proposition shall constitute three-fifths of a number equal to forty percent of the total number of voters voting in such taxing district in at the last preceding general election when the number of voters voting on the proposition does not exceed forty percent of the total number of voters voting in such taxing district in the last preceding general election; or by a majority of at least three-fifths of the voters of the taxing district voting on the proposition to levy when the number of voters voting on the proposition exceeds forty percent of the number of voters voting in such taxing district in the last preceding general election. (Whew)

This is not a sentence that my English teacher would have liked. 198 words in one sentence are too many. It would be a nightmare to diagram. Etc.

(I think that we got to the point where we thought we could understand it, but then again I am not really sure.) We need Mr. Madison again.

The man was charged by the United States in Federal Court because the Grizzly Bear is labeled an endangered species. Killing an endangered species is punishable by imprisonment for up to one year and a fine of $50,000. The law says these animals should not even be molested. The criminal charges against the man were eventually dismissed as the result of the involvement of several senators and public support for the man.

The people of the state have a legitimate interest in the protection of animals and wildlife. They have expressed that interest by enacting laws that are designed to balance the interests of the animals and the people who must live with the animals in their back yards.

The Washington State legislature is dominated and controlled by the large urban population on the west side. Most of the people there have no concept of what it is like to have bears, wolves or cougar near by which are capable and often inclined to kill livestock, pets or children. I suspect that if the folks on the west side had the same experiences as the people here do, they would pass laws that would allow folks to kill these large predators when they threaten livestock, domestic animals and people.

It is also a reality that the majority can and does pass laws that are imposed on the minority. The rights of the few give way to the rights of the many. There are those who would argue that the majority has no right to impose its will on the minority, but the majority decided a long time ago that this is the way government will work. The majority controls the process.

A wise man said, “None of us are as dumb as all of us.” Sometimes the legislature gets it right and sometimes not. Historically, the control of predators was not done by the vote of the people; free people looking out for and protecting themselves did it. We cannot depend on others to protect us.

“This is not the kind of problem even the best-intentioned people, with  unlimited resources, could ever expect to solve….

I don’t find any simplistic answers, but if there are any at all, they have to do with establishing a healthy living environment for children and adolescents beginning in the home and in the public schools and the community where there is a good self-image and a concern for others … and avoiding this anomie … this… ‘I’ll do my thing, let everyone else do theirs.’  This is the self-serving kind of society we have developed.

You just have to turn on your television and see the violence and filth and selfishness and glamorizing of drugs and violence. Then people wonder that this can influence their children. To me, it has become an idiocy….

We have all these terribly damaged persons, psychopathic personalities, people with problems with drugs and alcohol, and then people think they can send them to prison and change them for the better. That’s stupidity … absolute stupidity.”

Our society is faced with problems earlier generations never faced. Many children growing up today get their values from television and movies and violent media games. One of the most popular games portrays the scene from behind a gun as the “player” shoots and kills his enemies. There is plenty of digital gore that accompanies the action.

Adults can see these things and reason that it is not real and is simply a depiction.  But children who are exposed over and over to these scenes lose that ability to distinguish between reality and this virtual world.  We become what we experience. Children learn from what is around them.

We know abused children are much more likely to become abusers.  Children who are exposed to violence in the home are much more likely to be violent when they are adults.  Jails and prisons do not make most people better, but we have to have them to protect ourselves from the violent and dangerous among us.  I agree with Mr. Reed, there are no simple answers.