Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf

Citation: Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/893900.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,710 chars

constitution does not guarantee the right to access bail via a sufficient surety.

Subsection (b)(4) was therefore modeled after a federal scheme that may not have

appreciated Washington's unique constitutional framework.

Nonetheless, it is possible to read CrR 3 .2(b) consistent with our surety

guaranty. Even though CrR 3 .2(b)(4) does not satisfy article I, section 20 on its own,

the rule as a whole requires the court to impose the least restrictive alternative that

reasonably assures the accused's appearance. As noted, CrR 3 .2(b)( 5) allows a court

to "[r]equire the execution of a bond with sufficient solvent sureties, or the deposit

of cash in lieu thereof." This provision safeguards a defendant's right to a surety

bond as an alternative to putting up cash or collateral, thus providing an option that

will often be less restrictive than the scenario contemplated in CrR 3.2(b)(4). A

court setting bail is obligated to allow the option listed under CrR 3.2(b)(5) unless it

finds such a surety arrangement will not adequately secure the defendant's

appearance. Other than general discussion about whether the current state of the

commercial bail bonding system adequately ensures appearance, this record contains

no particularized findings about Barton's likelihood of appearance.

To the extent that the trial court's October 18, 2012 order excluded a surety

bond under CrR 3.2(b)(5) from the list of options available to Barton, it was more

restrictive than CrR 3.2(b) as a whole allows and contrary to article I, section 20.

We hold that the October 18, 2012 order entered in this case improperly prohibited

Barton's access to a surety as guaranteed by article I, section 20.