What is criminal child abuse in Washington?

Sometimes I get asked where the line is in terms of physical discipline of children (hitting, spanking, etc.).

In the State of Washington, physical child abuse is not its own crime, but is instead encompassed by the crime of "assault." Assault is broadly defined as any harmful or offensive touching done without the consent/permission of the other person.

However, there is a defense to this allegation if the person accused of assault is a parent or the discipline and the alleged victim is a child. Force is authorized if it is approved in advance by the child's legal parent or guardian for the purposes of restraining or correcting the child.

Any force used must be reasonable and moderate. Also, the law in question, RCW 9A.16.100, presumes that certain forms of discipline are unreasonable (illegal). Those actions are: throwing, kicking, burning, or cutting a child; striking a child with a closed fist; shaking a child under 3; interfering with a child's breathing; threatening a child with a deadly weapon; or any other act that either causes or is likely to cause harm greater than transient pain or temporary marks.

So, physical discipline is acceptable to a degree. It is important to now come close to the line as it could end up in criminal court (and CPS court).


 

Former police found guilty of murdering teen

In a story of police accountability of murdering a teen, Balch Springs police officer who was fired after killing an unarmed, black teenager has been convicted.

While a tragic story of a death of this sort that is happening way more often than it should be, thanks to the family, community, and local prosecutors who were willing to actually investigate and prosecutor the cop for his actions, justice was served.

Hopefully, actions like this will continued to be given a serious look more than the old "I feared for my life" routine and perpetrators will continue to be held accountable.

On-going Draeger Alcotest 9510 Issues

The Draeger Alcotest 9510 has run into a bit of trouble in Massachusetts. Years worth of Draeger breath test results have been undermined and those people have the ability to essentially re-do their cases with the breath result removed. 

Sean Esworthy's Driving Under the Influence (DUI) association memberships

Sean Esworthy is a member of the following associations that focus on Driving Under the Influence (DUI) defense:



The National College of DUI Defense (https://ncdd.com/member-user-page/sean%40wenatcheelaw.com/)

and

The American Association of Premier DUI Attorneys (http://www.aapda.org/directory/name/sean-esworthy/).

Mr. Esworthy is also a member of the Washington Defenders Association.

Visit the Kottkamp & Yedinak firm website at http://wenatcheelaw.com/.

What is the Reid technique and how does it relate to false confessions?

The Reid technique is an interrogation system that was taught to law enforcement. The technique usually consists of seven parts:

(1) Advising the person that they are a suspect based on an investigation and offer them a chance to explain;

(2) Give the suspect an opportunity to avoid some (or all) of the moral blame for the act by blaming circumstances or other persons;

(3) Re-direct or minimize the suspsect's denials of the allegations;

(4) Have the suspect acknowledge the actions in light of their prior statements and reasoning;

(5) For law enforcement to act supportive, sincere, and receptive;

(6) Offer explanations and alternatives that still generate an admission of the guilty conduct;

(7) Obtain witnesses or other evidence (recordings) or the admission(s) of guilt.

The reason it is important to be aware of the technique is that it can lead to false confessions.

According to the innocence project, 1 in 4 people who were established to be wrongfully convicted made a false confession or incriminating statement. These are just in established cases where convictions are overturned. The actual number of false confessions and statements in criminal cases would likely to impossible to determine, but higher than 1 in 4.

The United States Supreme Court decision of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 W.S. 436 (1966), was decided in response to interrogations that were psychologically manipulative. Footnotes 7 and 8 from the Miranda decision cite the Reid technique and similar techniques from police manuals as part of the basis for the decision.

Of key concern were the that the techniques indicated they should be done in privacy (isolating the suspect), displaying confidence in the suspect's guilt, dismissing the suspect's denials or explanations, engage in dogged persistence, to use "good cop/bad cop", and to use ruses.

Based on these concerns, the Court ruled that the suspect must be advised of, what are commonly known today as, their Miranda rights. These rights include advising the suspect of the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. These rights are often repeated on television and in other media. But, have they made a difference?

According to this article, roughly 80% of suspects still waive their Miranda rights and talk to the the police. Based on my own observation of having read thousands of police reports, I would guess the number is actually higher (at least in this jurisdiction). Further, many people "confess" prior to being placed into "custodial interrogation" which is usually about the time that the person is formally arrested.

This means that Miranda does not apply if the police are questioning you during a traffic stop or at the door of your house, even though you are not free to leave. Miranda only kicks in when you are handcuffed and in the back of the police car being driven away from wherever you were and to the police station or jail.

Thus, it is important to remember that you always have the right to remain silent. You should exercise this right. Unless you called the police (and even in some cases where you called the police), they are not there to help you, but to investigate potential criminal activity. Sometimes the investigation just comes down to what other people are saying happened and will lead to an arrest, possibly yours. Remember your rights and that any statements that you make, even if you think they are harmless, can be used against you during your prosecution and trial.