DOCSLIB.ORG

Khandelwal V. Seattle Municipal Court, 6 Wash.App.2D 323 (2018) 431 P.3D 506

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Khandelwal V. Seattle Municipal Court, 6 Wash.App.2D 323 (2018) 431 P.3D 506 Khandelwal v. Seattle Municipal Court, 6 Wash.App.2d 323 (2018) 431 P.3d 506 [2] Certiorari 6 Wash.App.2d 323 Scope and extent of review in general Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1. An appellate court reviews a superior court’s Anita KHANDELWAL, Interim Director, King order granting a writ of review de novo. County Department of Public Defense, Respondent, v. SEATTLE MUNICIPAL COURT; the Hons. [3] Courts Construction and application of rules in Karen Donohue, Willie Gregory, Anita general Crawford-Willis, C. Kimi Kondo, Ed McKenna, Damon Shadid, and Adam Eisenberg; When interpreting court rules, the court approaches the rules as though they had been John Doe 1-50, Jane Doe 1-50, Appellants. drafted by the Legislature. No. 78058-1-I | FILED: December 3, 2018 [4] Appeal and Error Statutory or legislative law Synopsis Appeal and Error Background: Department of Public Defense (DPD) filed Rules of court in general petition for writ of review challenging municipal court's policy of delaying preliminary appearance hearings for those The meaning of a court rule, like a statute, is a who filed notice of disqualification. The Superior Court, King question of law subject to de novo review. County, No. 17-2-32021-8, Dean S. Lum, J., granted writ. Municipal court appealed. [5] Courts Construction and application of rules in general [Holding:] The Court of Appeals, Andrus, J., held that a Court rules are subject to the same principles of preliminary appearance hearing must occur no later than the construction as are statutes. close of business of the next court day after a warrantless arrest. [6] Courts Affirmed. Construction and application of rules in general When the language of a court rule is plain and West Headnotes (10) unambiguous, courts give the language its full effect. [1] Certiorari Nature and scope of remedy in general [7] Courts Certiorari Construction and application of rules in Existence of other remedy in general general A superior court may grant a statutory writ of Language in a court rule is unambiguous unless review if (1) there is no appeal or adequate it is susceptible to more than one reasonable remedy at law and (2) the inferior tribunal has meaning. exceeded its jurisdiction or acted illegally. [8] Arrest © 2020 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Khandelwal v. Seattle Municipal Court, 6 Wash.App.2d 323 (2018) 431 P.3d 506 Presentation to magistrate, etc.; *326 **507 ¶ 1 Seattle Municipal Court and its seven arraignment elected judges appeal a superior court order to hold A preliminary appearance hearing must occur no preliminary appearance hearings no later than the close of later than the close of business of the next court business the next court day. We affirm. day after a warrantless arrest, even if the court is confronted with a notice of disqualification. CrRLJ 3.2.1. FACTS ¶ 2 Rule 3.2.1 of the Criminal Rules for Courts of [9] Courts Limited Jurisdiction (CrRLJ), entitled “Procedure Following Power to regulate procedure Warrantless Arrest - Preliminary Hearing,” provides in pertinent part: The Washington Supreme Court has the authority to issue procedural rules that go beyond the (d) Preliminary Appearance. protections provided by the United States Constitution as long as there is a nexus between (1) Adult. Unless an accused has appeared or will appear the rule and the court’s rule-making authority before the superior court for a preliminary appearance, over procedural matters. any accused detained in jail must be brought before a court of limited jurisdiction as soon as practicable after the detention is commenced, but in any event [10] Statutes before the close of business on the next court day. Mandatory or directory statutes CrRLJ 3.2.1(d)(1). The purpose of this preliminary A “mandatory provision” in a statute is one appearance hearing is to provide the accused with an attorney, which, if not followed, renders the proceeding and to inform her of the nature of the charges against to which it relates illegal and void; a “directory her, her right to the assistance of counsel, and the right provision” is one the observance of which is not to remain silent. CrRLJ 3.2.1(e)(1). If the court denies an necessary to the validity of the proceeding. accused’s request for release at the hearing, the court must also determine whether probable cause exists to believe the accused committed *327 the crime and set bail. CrRLJ 3.2.1(e)(2). The probable cause and bail decision must be made no later than 48 hours after arrest. CrRLJ 3.2.1(a); Appeal from King County Superior Court, Docket No: Westerman v. Cary, 125 Wash.2d 277, 289, 892 P.2d 1067 17-2-32021-8, Honorable Dean S. Lum, Judge (1994). Attorneys and Law Firms ¶ 3 Seattle Municipal Court conducts preliminary appearance Ryan Boyd Robertson, Robertson Law PLLC, 1218 3rd Ave. hearings in the King County jail six mornings each week— Ste. 1518, Seattle, WA, 98101-3068, for Petitioner. Monday through Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 12:00 p.m. One of the seven municipal court judges presides Mark Bruns Middaugh, Attorney at Law, 710 2nd Ave. over these jail hearings. Ste. 250, Seattle, WA, 98104-1765, Nicholas David Gross, Northwest Defenders, 710 2nd Ave. Ste. 200, Seattle, WA, ¶ 4 In October 2017, King County Department of Public 98104-1703, Anita Khandelwal, King County Department Defense (DPD) attorneys representing defendants on the of Public Defense, 710 2nd Ave. Ste. 1000, Seattle, WA, jail calendar filed affidavits of prejudice—now known as 98104-1744, for Respondent. notices of disqualification 1 —against the judge assigned to that calendar. CrRLJ 8.9(c) provides that whenever a judge is disqualified, “the judge shall immediately make an order PUBLISHED OPINION transferring and removing the case to another judge.” Seattle Municipal Court informed DPD that it had no other judicial Andrus, J. officer available to handle preliminary appearance hearings © 2020 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Khandelwal v. Seattle Municipal Court, 6 Wash.App.2d 323 (2018) 431 P.3d 506 for those who exercised their right to file a notice of been continued from the prior Saturday calendar because of disqualification. The court thereafter instituted a policy that notices of disqualification. The other four were individuals if an accused filed a notice of disqualification against the *329 who had not filed disqualification notices. Seattle judge presiding over the in-custody preliminary appearance Municipal Court made probable cause and bail decisions in hearings, the court would transfer the matter to a different each case within the 48-hour deadline. But two individuals judge to make an in-chambers probable cause finding, to set did not appear before a judge within 48 hours of their arrest, bail, and to set a future arraignment date. As Judge Karen and, according to DPD, four individuals spent an additional Donohue, then Presiding Judge at Seattle Municipal Court, night in jail. explained: ¶ 6 On December 12, 2017, DPD, on behalf of its clients, For decades, Seattle Municipal Court has held probable petitioned King County Superior Court for a writ of review cause hearings on the record at the same time [as] the challenging Seattle Municipal Court’s policy of delaying preliminary appearance and arraignment hearings are held. preliminary appearance hearings for those who file a notice of The court rules do not, however, require this procedure. disqualification. DPD argued that Seattle Municipal Court’s Under CrRLJ 3.2.1, the court must determine probable policy violated CrRLJ 3.2.1 and penalized individuals who cause within 48 hours of arrest, and there is no requirement exercised their right to file a notice of disqualification by for the criminal defense attorney to be present. Where requiring them to remain in jail longer than they would have [a notice of disqualification] is filed at the preliminary otherwise. Seattle Municipal Court countered that because appearance calendar, our response is to ensure that *328 it had made probable cause and bail determinations within the defendant receives a probable cause determination the required 48-hour timeframe, it was inconsequential that within the 48-hour timeframe and then attempt to schedule the preliminary appearance hearing took place after the time the defendant to appear before a judge as quickly as specified in the rule. It maintained that technical violations of possible in the event they do not post bond and remain in the preliminary appearance rule should be disregarded where custody. the 48-hour rule for probable cause and bail determinations had been satisfied. ... Where an affidavit is filed, this court continues to provide the defendant with a preliminary appearance as quickly ¶ 7 On January 22, 2018, the superior court granted DPD’s as possible consistent with CrRLJ 8.9 and the practical writ of review. It determined that Seattle Municipal Court’s administrative limitations **508 that exist with our court. policy ensured that probable cause determinations were made Based upon the workload of the [c]ourt, and due to the within 48 hours of arrest and, thus, did not violate any limitations placed on us by the [In re the Application for arrestee’s constitutional rights. It concluded, however, that a Writ of Habeas Corpus of] Eng[, 113 Wn.2d 178, 776 the policy violated CrRLJ 3.2.1(d)(1) which “unambiguously P.2d 1336 (1989),] decision we do not have judges who are require[s] that when an individual is subjected to a warrantless able to jump from calendar to calendar if an attorney files arrest and held in jail, he or she must be brought before [ 2 ] [a notice of disqualification].
Load more

Recommended publications
  • No. 97934-1 Court of Appeals No. 79285-7-I in the SUPREME
    FILED SUPREME COURT STATE OF WASHINGTON 11312020 11 :46 AM BY SUSAN L. CARLSON CLERK No. 97934-1 Court of Appeals No. 79285-7-I IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF SEATTLE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, Respondent, v. JOEL HOLMES, Petitioner. ANSWER TO PETITION FOR REVIEW PETER S. HOLMES Seattle City Attorney CINDI WILLIAMS, WSBA #27654 Assistant City Attorney Attorneys for Respondent City of Seattle Human Rights Commission Seattle City Attorney’s Office 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2050 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 684-8200 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page(s) I. IDENTITY OF THE RESPONDENT ..................................................1 II. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................1 III. NATURE OF CASE AND DECISIONS BELOW ..............................1 A. Statement of Facts .....................................................................1 B. Seattle Human Rights Commission Procedural History ...........2 C. Superior Court Procedural History ...........................................3 D. Court of Appeals Procedural history. .......................................4 IV. ARGUMENT ........................................................................................4 A. The Supreme Court should not accept review because the decision of the Court of Appeals is not in conflict with a decision of the Supreme Court or a published decision of the Court of Appeals. .............................................4 B. Holmes’ Petition does not raise a significant question of law under the Constitution
    [Show full text]
  • Letter to Seattle City Council and City Attorney Holmes Regarding
    Anita Khandelwal Director 710 Second Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 [email protected] June 22, 2020 Dear Members of the Seattle City Council and City Attorney Holmes, As the world watched Minneapolis police officers, including Derek Chauvin, murder George Floyd, the connection between our criminal legal system and centuries of violent oppression of Black people was, once again, laid bare. Police act with such impunity because the criminal legal system — including prosecutors and courts — legitimizes and supports their actions. As more people become aware of this longstanding reality, more people join in the demand to defund police. However, in order to stop the systematic and violent oppression of Black and Brown people, we must not only defund police, we must also defund the system that criminalizes poverty and legitimizes police violence. This means divesting from a criminal legal system that is racist, ineffective, and expensive, and recognizing that a community-led response is the best way to secure the health and safety of the community. Right now, Seattle has the opportunity to do just that. We call on the City Attorney’s Office to exercise its discretion to stop prosecuting most misdemeanor offenses and on the Mayor and City Council to immediately defund the prosecution of those offenses and reduce Seattle Municipal Court’s probation department. The money saved from these reforms must then be reinvested in our communities. For the individuals who continue to be charged with crimes in Seattle Municipal Court, the Court should become a leader in restorative justice responses in the community to help communities heal rather than further traumatize through the use of destructive incarceration.
    [Show full text]
  • Seattle Municipal Court
    Seattle Municipal Court The Honorable C. Kimi Kondo, Presiding Judge (206) 684-5600 http://www.seattle.gov/courts/ Judicial Branch Overview The Seattle Municipal Court (Court) processes more cases than any other municipal court in the State of Washington with seven elected judges and five and one-half appointed magistrates. The Court is authorized by the State of Washington and the Seattle Municipal Code to adjudicate misdemeanors, gross misdemeanors, infractions (e.g., traffic infractions, parking violations, and other infractions), and civil violations related to building and zoning offenses. The Court is committed to excellence in providing fair, accessible and timely resolution of alleged violations of the Seattle Municipal Code in an atmosphere of respect for the public, employees and other government entities. The Seattle Municipal Court values and recognizes its employees and volunteers. The Court is a contributing partner working with the Police Department, the City Attorney and the defense bar toward a safe and vital community. The Court works with community organizations to increase access to services for residents and enhance compliance with court-ordered conditions. Court probation and day reporting staff monitor defendant adherence to court orders, assess treatment needs and help direct them to social service resources. The Court leverages additional outside agency resources with City funds to encourage defendants to successfully complete court orders. The Court Resource Center, staffed by volunteers, offers services, including, but not limited to, the following: • GED preparation classes; • assistance in voicemail, cell phone, and PO Box sign up; • employment readiness classes; • chemical dependency "Living in Sobriety" classes; • housing assistance; • identification replacement assistance; • assistance in applying for state Department of Social and Health Service benefits; • mental health treatment referrals; and, • direct computer connection to Seattle Public Library.
    [Show full text]
  • Seattle Municipal Court the Honorable Ed Mckenna, Presiding Judge
    Seattle Municipal Court The Honorable Ed McKenna, Presiding Judge (206) 684-5600 http://www.seattle.gov/courts/ Judicial Branch Overview The Seattle Municipal Court (Court) is authorized by the State of Washington and the Seattle Municipal Code to adjudicate misdemeanors, gross misdemeanors, infractions (e.g., traffic infractions, parking violations, and other infractions), and civil violations including those related to building and zoning offenses. The Judicial Branch of Seattle government has seven elected judges and six appointed magistrates (5.5 FTEs). There are more cases processed here than any other municipal court in the State of Washington. The Court is committed to excellence in providing fair, accessible and timely resolution of alleged violations of the Seattle Municipal Code in an atmosphere of respect for the public, Court employees and other government entities. The Court works closely with the Seattle Police Department, the City Attorney and the defense bar toward a safe and vital community. The Court also partners with community organizations to increase access to services for residents and enhance compliance with court-ordered conditions. The employees and volunteers of the Court are recognized as a valued part of the organization with many of them working directly with the defendants. Court staff involvement with defendants includes monitoring adherence to court orders for probation and day reporting, assessing treatment needs, and directing them to social service resources. Probation Officers and volunteer staff are
    [Show full text]
  • Seattle Municipal Court Judicial Overview
    Seattle Municipal Court The Honorable Ed McKenna, Presiding Judge (206) 684-5600 http://www.seattle.gov/courts/ Judicial Overview The Seattle Municipal Court (Court) adjudicates misdemeanors, gross misdemeanors, infractions (e.g., traffic and parking tickets, traffic camera violations, and other violations), and civil violations related to building and zoning offenses. The Judicial Branch of Seattle government has seven elected judges and six appointed magistrates. There are more cases processed here than any other municipal court in the State of Washington; in 2019, 10,090 criminal cases were filed and 56,500 criminal hearings were held at Seattle Municipal Court. Approximately 568,000 infraction tickets were processed during 2019, with over 59,281 magistrate hearings held. The Court is committed to excellence in providing fair, accessible and timely resolution of alleged violations of the Seattle Municipal Code in an atmosphere of respect for all. The Court is a leader in implementing innovative programs and services, utilizing evidence-based best practices and harm reduction strategies, using data to continually evaluate practices and inform new strategies, and taking a holistic approach that benefits Court participants and ensures ongoing public safety. Whether individuals come to the Court to resolve a ticket or appear at a criminal hearing, the Court strives to meet people where they are and remove barriers to success, with the goal of reducing racial disparities and recidivism. Court Programs and Services The Court partners with community organizations to provide a wide variety of services at the Community Resource Center, a social service hub located in the courthouse. The Community Resource Center is open for the entire public’s use and is woven into all the Court’s strategies for supervising individuals, community outreach and reentry support.
    [Show full text]
  • Seattle Municipal Court
    Seattle Municipal Court The Honorable Karen Donohue, Presiding Judge (206) 684-5600 http://www.seattle.gov/courts/ Judicial Branch Overview The Seattle Municipal Court (Court) is authorized by the State of Washington and the Seattle Municipal Code to adjudicate misdemeanors, gross misdemeanors, infractions (e.g., traffic infractions, parking violations, and other infractions), and civil violations including those related to building and zoning offenses. The Judicial Branch of Seattle government has seven elected judges and six appointed magistrates (5.5 FTEs). There are more cases processed here than any other municipal court in the State of Washington. The Court is committed to excellence in providing fair, accessible and timely resolution of alleged violations of the Seattle Municipal Code in an atmosphere of respect for the public, Court employees and other government entities. The Court works closely with the Seattle Police Department, the City Attorney and the defense bar toward a safe and vital community. The Court also partners with community organizations to increase access to services for residents and enhance compliance with court-ordered conditions. The employees and volunteers of the Court are recognized as a valued part of the organization with many of them working directly with the defendants. Court staff involvement with defendants includes monitoring adherence to court orders for probation and day reporting, assessing treatment needs, and directing them to social service resources. Probation Officers and volunteer staff
    [Show full text]
  • The Municipal Court of Seattle
    *APPEAL NOTICE* THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF SEATTLE City of Seattle Notice of Appeal Criminal Civil Infraction v King County Superior Court Case No: _______________________________ ______________________________ Other Jurisdiction: ______________ Defendant Municipal Court of Seattle Case No _______________________________ DOB: Appeal Bond: _____________________ Appellant: ______________________________ Defendant Plaintiff (Please Print Your Name) Seeks review by the King County Superior Court of the Judgment of the Municipal Court of Seattle entered Case number(s):___________________________________________ on ___________________________. (Date) Name of Appellant Attorney for Appellant WSBA No Home Address Affiliation & Address City State Zip Code City State Zip Code Day Telephone Evening Telephone Day Telephone Evening Telephone Name of Respondent Attorney for Respondent WSBA No Home Address Affiliation & Address City State Zip Code City State Zip Code Day Telephone Evening Telephone Day Telephone Evening Telephone Dated this _________________ day of __________________________, Year _____________________. 33-009 Notice of Appeal March 2018 Original – Court /Copy - Defendant IMPORTANT INFORMATION CONCERNING YOUR APPEAL Regardless of the type of case you are appealing, you are responsible for immediately filing a copy of the Notice of Appeal with the Seattle City Attorney’s Office – Criminal Division, 701 Fifth Avenue Suite 2050 (5th at Columbia), Seattle, Washington 98104-7097. Your Notice of Appeal must be delivered in person, and will not be accepted by mail, online/email, or by facsimile (FAX). The King County Superior Court will send you the King County Superior Court case number, the case schedule and further instructions. It is important that you read and follow those instructions. When contacting the King County Superior Court, use the case number they have assigned to your appeal.
    [Show full text]
  • Judge Karen Matson Donohue King County Superior Court
    Judge Karen Matson Donohue King County Superior Court Judge Karen Donohue was appointed to the King County Superior Court by Washington State Governor Jay Governor Inslee, effective March 2018. She is currently the Assistant Criminal Chief and will assume the role of Criminal Chief in January 2020. Judge Donohue is a member of the court’s Executive Committee and the Personnel Committee. Judge Donohue served for seven years on the Seattle Municipal Court (SMC). She served on SMC’s Executive Committee as Assistant Presiding Judge, followed by a term and a half as Presiding Judge. As the judge assigned to oversee technology, Judge Donohue led the court in becoming paperless and in updating the 30 year old case information system. Prior to being elected to the bench in 2010, Judge Donohue worked as a Judge Pro Tem in several district and municipal courts, in a general practice firm, as a law clerk/bailiff, prosecutor and defense attorney, consultant and solo practitioner and as General Counsel at a global telecommunications consulting and network development firm. She also worked for a game board company, where she was the co-creator of a pirate-themed game and oversaw logistics and regulatory work. In 1998, Judge Donohue relocated to Dublin with her family for a year, where she acted as General Counsel to an Irish mobile phone company. Judge Donohue earned her bachelor’s degree from the University of Washington and her law degree from Seattle University School of Law. She is a Trustee on the Washington State Superior Court Judges Association (SCJA) and serves on several committees with that organization, including the Ethics Committee, the Racial Justice Workgroup and the Equity & Fairness Committee.
    [Show full text]
  • Reframing Response: Trauma-Informed, Trauma-Aware September 5-6, 2019
    2019 Domestic Violence Symposium Reframing Response: Trauma-Informed, Trauma-Aware September 5-6, 2019 Room assignments for the breakout sessions are included on a separate document in your packet. Agenda – Thursday, September 5, 2019 TIME EVENT SPEAKER 7:30 a.m. Registration, Breakfast & Coffee 8:15 a.m. Welcoming Remarks Dean Annette Clark Seattle University School of Law Dan Satterberg King County Prosecuting Attorney 8:30 a.m. Acknowledgement of Tribal Lands 8:45 a.m. Looking Forward, Looking Back: The Evolution of System Justice Bobbe J. Bridge (ret.) Response 9:30 a.m. The Impact of Trauma: Risk, Resilience, Response Lucy Berliner, MSW Director Harborview Center for Sexual Assault and Traumatic Stress; Clinical Associate Professor, University of Washington School of Social Work & Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences 10:30 a.m. Break (25 minutes) 10:55 a.m. – WORKSHOPS – Session 1 (90 minutes) 12:35 p.m. 1A Successful Coordinated Community Response Courtney Pettitt Legal Advocate Join us to learn about a case study with collaboration. We Spokane YWCA will discuss the story of what happens up front and behind the scenes to hold a DV offender accountable, while at the Sgt. Jordan Ferguson, M.A. same time using our collaboration of prosecutors, law Major Crimes Domestic enforcement and advocates to ensure victim safety. Violence Unit Spokane Police Department Audience: General Level: All 1 Reframing Response: Trauma-Informed, Trauma-Aware TIME EVENT SPEAKER 1B Project Engage: Trauma-Informed Interviewing for Patrol Chief Andrew McCurdy Officers City of Covington This course is designed to be presented in roll calls and other brief training sessions.
    [Show full text]
  • System Failure, Part 2: Declines, Delays, and Dismissals
    System Failure Part 2 DECLINES, DELAYS, AND DISMISSALS – WHY MOST SEATTLE MISDEMEANOR CASES NEVER GET RESOLVED AND THE IMPACTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY September 2019 Abstract A report by a former public safety advisor to the City of Seattle commissioned by neighborhood business groups examines new data from city agencies showing that most non-traffic criminal cases that Seattle Police send to the City Attorney’s Office never result in a meaningful resolution because of case declines, case filing delays, and a high rate of dismissal. The report discusses how the poor performance of Seattle’s criminal justice system results in under-reporting of crime from chronic victims, low police morale, and helps perpetuate crime and incarceration cycles for vulnerable individuals. Scott P. Lindsay Declines, Delays, and Dismissals – Why Most Seattle Misdemeanor Cases Never Get Resolved 1 Declines, Delays, and Dismissals – Why Most Seattle Misdemeanor Cases Never Get Resolved Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................ 3 Primer on Misdemeanor Criminal Justice ...................................................... 6 1. Declines: The City Attorney’s Office declines to file charges in almost half of all non-traffic-related criminal cases that Seattle police refer for prosecution. ............ 8 2. Delays: The City Attorney’s Office takes on average 6 months to file cases when the suspect is not in custody. .................................................................. 10 3. Dismissals: Four-in-ten non-traffic-related misdemeanor cases filed by the City Attorney’s Office achieve no meaningful resolution. ...................................... 22 4. Consequences: The dysfunction of Seattle’s criminal justice system has real impacts on victims, policing and defendants. ............................................... 28 A. Impacts on Victims ......................................................................... 28 B. Impacts on Policing ......................................................................... 31 C.
    [Show full text]
  • Trends in MISDEMEANOR in Seattle
    Trends in MISDEMEANOR ARRESTS, REFERRALS, & CHARGES in Seattle Jacqueline B. Helfgott I William S. Parkin I Christopher Fisher Lauren Morgan I Simran Kaur CRIMINAL JUSTICE Trends in Misdemeanor Arrests, Referrals, & Charges in Seattle is part of the Misdemeanor Justice Project at John Jay College of Criminal Justice Research Network on Misdemeanor Justice funded by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. Helfgott, J.B., Parkin, W., Fisher, C., Morgan, L., & Kaur, S. (October 25, 2018). Trends in Misdemeanor Arrests, Referrals, & Charges in Seattle - Final Report. Seattle, WA. Page 1 of 92 Trends in Misdemeanor Arrests, Referrals, and Charges in Seattle Jacqueline B. Helfgott, Ph.D. William S. Parkin, Ph.D. Christopher Fisher, Ph.D Lauren Morgan, M.A. Simran Kaur, B.A. Candidate October 25, 2018 Suggested Citation: Helfgott, J.B., Parkin, W.S., Fisher, C., Morgan, L., & Kaur, S. (October 25, 2018). Trends in misdemeanor arrest rates in Seattle - Final Report. Seattle, WA. Helfgott, J.B., Parkin, W., Fisher, C., Morgan, L., & Kaur, S. (October 25, 2018). Trends in Misdemeanor Arrests, Referrals, & Charges in Seattle - Final Report. Seattle, WA. Page 2 of 92 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project would not have been possible without the generous funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation and the John Jay College of Criminal Justice Misdemeanor Justice Project of which the Research Network on Misdemeanor Justice (RNMJ) is a part. We are fortunate that Seattle was selected as a site to be part of the RNMJ and are grateful to Dr. Preeti Chauhan, Director of the Misdemeanor Justice Project and Principal Investigator of the RNMJ and RNMJ Executive Director Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Complaints to Municipal Court of Seattle
    Complaints To Municipal Court Of Seattle disentanglesLegless Parker unheededly. nibbles, his Ageing chanterelles Stafford chaffs usually dispraises outlays effortlessly.some tribrach Perineal or behold Rochester infinitely. spoliates, his poop assay Respondentsalsofrequently mentioned ongoing commitment to court to of municipal seattle city attorney and went on your licence on advancing the moving or warrant a need Civil Procedure Forms King one Law Library. United states supreme court terminated and should take your request deferred finding you want to their entirety of criminal cases involving my request to court may use? CO JUSTICE COURT ROXBURY DIST JUSTICE 111 S 13TH SEATTLE WA 957. Ben eyde was easily a crime was even fewer successful outcomes they did not uncommon for over to court to seattle municipal court building could. Batali was born in Seattle Washington on September 19 1960 to Marilyn LaFramboise and. From Speeding Tickets to Mr Tickles Why Seattle Municipal. Pete Holmes the Seattle City had sent a value letter to Seattle Municipal Court. Professional with a DUI in Seattle Municipal Court Recommends Geoffrey Burg In December of 2009 I was pulled over for suspected DUI after graduate work. State military Court to certify the aisle against the Seattle council that tomorrow. Following divorce death a Judge James S Conatser last month Gerkin will roll as blue City's municipal court judge found a permanent replacement is found. Banished The New Social Control an Urban America. In Seattle Criminal Courts the government brings a manner against a defendant who is. MUNICIPAL COURT drop BOX 17 SOAP LAKE MUNICIPAL COURT. The Municipal Court bar is authorized by Washington State Statute to.
    [Show full text]