Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf

Amend. 2668-S AMS PADD GORR 672 to SUBSTITUTE H.B. 2668, 62d Leg., Reg.

Sess. (Wash. 2012). 2 The motivation for this amendment was apparently the belief

that it was becoming too easy for persons accused of a crime to make bail. See S.B.

REP. on Substitute H. B. 2668, at 2-3, 62d Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 20 12) (explaining
the view of some individuals that the bill as written did not do enough to address a

premium rate for bail).

Against this backdrop, Barton's bail order was entered. As noted, the State

initially asked for the court to impose a condition that Barton deposit 10 percent of

his bond amount in cash before being released on bail. The deputy prosecutor

explained,

The problem that I think my office is concerned about is the fact that it is
possible that Mr. Barton is-- the way that the rules currently are, Mr. Barton
could post bond without having any money put up at all. That's the concern
for the State .
. . . [J]ust yesterday when I was driving around the county campus,
there was somebody who was waving a sign that said something like "you
sign, you walk" with respect to bail. So the requirement of cash is really a
fiction because there isn't cash that's required.

2
Available at http:/Iapps .leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/20 11-12/Pdf/Amend-
ments/Senate/2668-S%20AMS%20PADD%20GORR%20672.pdf.

-5-
 Statev. Barton
 (Peter
   
Richard), 89390-0     

VRP (Aug. 15, 2012) at 7. The deputy prosecutor asked the court to impose bail that

"mean[t] something." Jd. at 8. The trial court did impose a condition that Barton

deposit, in cash, 10 percent of the bond amount before release. See CP at 11 (Order

on Release/Det. ofDef. (Aug. 15, 2012)). But as noted, it later amended its order to