(The Center Square) – The Washington State Legislature’s House Community Safety Committee has voted out a revised version of a bill that places more safeguards around the pretrial release of criminal suspects by court judges. Though the bill cosponsor, Rep. Dan Griffey, R-Allyn, expressed a preference for the original bill, he urged the substitute’s adoption prior to a Thursday Community Safety Committee vote.
The Washington State Constitution provides a right to pretrial release for most individuals charged with a crime, with courts operating from a presumption of release on personal recognizance except under certain circumstances, such as danger the accused will commit another violent crime or lack of assurance the defendant will appear for trial.
House Bill 1252 would add additional requirements before judges could release a criminal suspect prior to trial. The court must explain in a written order the basis for releasing either an adult or juvenile on personal recognizance or on a probation bond less than the prosecutor’s recommendation if the defendant did the following:
Attempted to elude a police vehicle or foot pursuitRequired “substantial resources” to apprehend themThey are charged with a violent offense or an offense involving firearms
The substitute bill also prohibits a monitoring agency from tracking a defendant awaiting trial for a violent or sex crime unless there is 24/7 monitoring and “immediate” law enforcement dispatch for the defendant attempting to either violate restrictions or tamper with the device.
The revised bill strips a variety of other proposed provisions, including a requirement that court to submit written findings supporting releasing an adult defendant to the Administrative Office by the next judicial day. The bill also removed a requirement that the AOC to maintain a database of the orders and publish an annual report on them.
Speaking in favor of the bill changes, Chair Roger Goodman, D-Kirkland told colleagues that “the core of the bill now is without interfering with court rules, which would be a separation powers issue. The court now has to make written findings in more cases than the original bill, actually,” adding that revised bill now includes all violent offenses.
“I think is important as well,” he said.
The sponsor of both the bill and substitute Rep. Lauren Davis, D-Seattle, said the public database requirement for written orders was removed over concerns of their release.
However, she added that the substitute “does retain the core of the bill, which is really trying to infuse some modicum of transparency into the process” of pretrial releases.
Griffey said that while “I like the bill as it was, with the amendments, it does, I think, give the judges a little bit of pause. When you have to actually fill out a form, it engages the brain a little more, and you also know that people can see that form and how that form is filled out. I do think that will help judges make the best decision when it comes to pre-trial release.”
One committee member to oppose the bill was Vice Chair Tarra Simmons, D-Bremerton, who said, “I’d like to look into what is considered a violent offense. I want to do a little more digging on that.”
