Seattle Attorneys Blog
In a recent case, the Washington Supreme Court considered whether the court rule and statute related to juvenile bench warrants can be harmonized.
Upon a guilty plea to fourth degree assault in March 2022, the juvenile was sentenced to seven months’ community supervision with a number of conditions.
The state moved for a bench warrant later that month, alleging the juvenile posed a serious threat to public safety pursuant to JuCR 7.16. The state alleged she was associating with an older male with gang associations, a criminal history, and a pending investigation relating to an alleged crime against the juvenile. The state argued his criminal history and the age difference “creates a situation where [the juvenile] too poses a serious threat to community safety.”
The juvenile’s attorney argued the state had alleged a threat to the juvenile’s own safety, but not a serious threat to public safety.
It was unclear from the record whether the court issued a bench warrant either at that time or when the state made another motion a few days later based on the same facts.
The state moved for another bench warrant a few months later, arguing the juvenile violated four conditions. The probation officer’s report stated she attempted suicide while drinking with the older male on June 1. It also stated she left her mother’s residence on July 13 and had not returned when the state filed the motion on July 18. The state further alleged the juvenile had not been taking her medications.
The state restated its allegations regarding the older male. It also alleged the juvenile was under pretrial release conditions for other pending charges for which the older male was a codefendant. The state argued her association with him created a situation where she posed a serious threat to public safety.
The juvenile again argued the state’s request was based on its concerns for her personal safety, but JuCR 7.16 did not authorize a bench warrant to protect the juvenile’s own safety.
Additional details about the suicide attempt were provided at the hearing. The police report stated she was intoxicated and struggled with police officers when they arrived. She allegedly tried to bite the first responders. According to the Court, however, the state’s argument focused on the juvenile’s threat to herself. The state also argued that there had been multiple incidents requiring the police to respond, which prevented them from handling other calls or responsibilities.
The judge ruled the juvenile was a threat to public safety based on the attempted suicide and intoxication. Law enforcement and first responders put themselves at risk in responding to the juvenile’s actions and were not available to assist others, which could be considered “a substantial and significant community safety risk.” She also ruled the juvenile’s substance use and failure to take her medication was a substantial risk to “society as a whole.” The judge issued a bench warrant and findings the juvenile met the standard for a “serious threat to public safety” because she was noncompliant with court orders and therefore not available for rehabilitation and “her suicidal tendencies” and mental health and substance issues put the community at risk.
Appeals Court
The juvenile appealed. The appeals court ruled the facts did not meet the serious threat to public safety standard. The majority also ruled there was an irreconcilable conflict between JuCR 7.16 and RCW 13.40.040. RCW 13.40.040(1)(a) provides a juvenile may be taken into custody if the court finds probable cause they committed an offense or violated terms of a disposition or release order.
Generally, court rules govern procedural matters and statutes govern substantive issues. The majority concluded JuCR 7.16 was substantive and that it prevented courts from holding juveniles who did not present a serious threat to public safety accountable under the Juvenile Justice Act. The court ruled this conflicted with the legislature’s policy for the Act to apply to any juvenile who violated a criminal law.
Procedural Rule
The juvenile petitioned for review by the Washington Supreme Court.
Case law has held that “any form of order, writ, summons or notice given by authority of law for the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction of a person or bringing him into court to answer” is procedure. See State v. Fields. The Court noted that the purpose of a bench warrant is to “[bring the person] into court to answer and therefore concluded that rules relating to issuing bench warrants are procedural.
The state argued JuCR 7.16 had such significant impact on the enforcement of the Juvenile Justice Act that it should be considered substantive. The Court rejected the argument that the size of the effect of a rule transformed the rule from procedural to substantive.
The Court concluded the rule is procedural and therefore within the Court’s rule-making authority.
Harmonizing the Rule and Statute
The Court then considered whether the rule and statute whether the rule and statute could be harmonized.
Both parties argued they could not be harmonized, but the Court disagreed. The Court determined the two could be harmonized as “equally valid prerequisites” to issuing a bench warrant. It is possible for a court to find probable cause that the juvenile committed an offense or violated an order under RCW 13.40.040(1)(a) and that the violation posed a “serious threat to public safety” under JuCR 7.16. If the court made both findings, it could issue the bench warrant. Even if they could not be harmonized, the rule would govern because they were procedural.
Serious Threat to Public Safety
The parties agreed the juvenile court erred because there was insufficient evidence the juvenile was a “serious threat to public safety.” The appeals court found the juvenile court’s reasoning the juvenile’s suicidal ideation constituted a serious threat to public safety due to the potential need of first responders was “too attenuated” to constitute a serious public safety threat.
The Court agreed with this holding but further noted that a “serious threat to public safety” is not present if the threat is only to the individual’s own personal safety. A court must consider the “individual circumstances” surrounding the juvenile’s specific failure to appear or alleged violation of an order.
The Court acknowledged that the threat of future assaults on first responders could pose a serious threat to public safety, but the parties’ arguments and the court’s decision were not based on assault. The Court also noted that the parties and court had not mentioned the potential risk of people trying to help or stop the juvenile from harming herself. This risk could also pose a serious threat to public safety.
The Court also noted that the serious threat must be present when the bench warrant is requested. The juvenile’s suicide attempt had occurred more than a month before the court issued the bench warrant and was no substantive discussion whether the circumstances continued to pose a serious threat.
The Court reversed the appeals court’s decision, although three justices dissented, disagreeing that the rule was purely procedural.
Call a Criminal Defense Attorney
If your child has been accused of a crime, a knowledgeable Washington juvenile defense attorney can fight to protect their rights. Set up a consultation with Blair & Kim, PLLC by calling (206) 622-6562.