If I live outside of Washington, can I do a deferred prosecution?

The scenario presented here is if you live outside of Washington, but received a DUI or Physical Control charge while in Washington, say on vacation, can you do an RCW 10.05 deferred prosecution?

First, for a brief overview of what a deferred prosecution is, see my blog post here.

So, what makes this issue complicated? The complicating factor is that a deferred prosecution requires the person seeking it to do two years of treatment followed and an additional three years of probation.

The statute makes reference that the treatment must be done in an "approved substance use disorder treatment program as designated in chapter 71.24 RCW." RCW 71.24 states that an "'[a]pproved substance use disorder treatment program' means a program for persons with a substance use disorder provided by a treatment program licensed or certified by the department [of Social and Health Services] as meeting standards adopted under this chapter." The qualifications for DSHS approval are somewhat onerous.

Normally, this would mean that someone who lived in Connecticut and got a DUI in Washington who wanted to pursue a deferred prosecution in Washington would have to do their treatment at a DSHS approved facility. DSHS will only approve facilities in Washington. So, effectively, the out-of-state person would have to move to Washington for two years to do their treatment. The problem should be obvious: that someone who lives in Connecticut should not be deprived of the ability to pursue a deferred prosecution due to the fact that they live in Connecticut.

Okay, so what next? Well, if you look at RCW 10.05.150, you will see that it states that "[a]ll treatment within the purview of this section shall occur within or be approved by a state-approved substance use disorder treatment program as described in [chapter 71.24 RCW]." The bolded language is key. You may have a state-approved agency approve the out-of-state treatment agencies plan. So, the person in Connecticut would seek out a treatment agency in Connecticut, and have the an approved Washington agency review and approve the plan.

If you need help defending your Washington State DUI or Physical Control case, or even seeking assistance in pursuing a deferred prosecution, give us a call at Kottkamp & Yedinak, PLLC at (509) 667-8667.

If they were charged, they must have done something wrong, right?

Recently, it came out that a police department in Florida was looking for random black people to pin unsolved crimes on. Whistleblowers have outed the practice, but how much harm has already been done?

In another case, an officer from California was found to be taking bribes and obstructing justice.

Often, when examining potential jurors who may be selected to serve over a criminal case, several will answer that the defendant in the case must have done something wrong or he would not be there and be charged with a crime. They expect that there must be evidence against him, and even if it is not presented to them during the trial, some will believe that it was withheld due to lawyers (usually the defense) outside of their presence.

The examples from Florida and California here show that sometimes this is not the case. The sole reason for pinning these crimes on innocent people was to boost the department's stats. This was the justification for blaming people for crimes that they did not commit. These innocent people were being charged with serious offenses, which could have lasting impacts on their freedom, financial obligations, could require probation, could cost them certain rights (voting, firearms), and cause many other very harsh and very serious consequences.

In order for the justice system to work properly, not only must police and police investigations be held to some higher accountability and jurors must be more open-minded to the very real problems with the criminal justice system.