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

1,774 chars

-21-
 Statev. Barton
 (Peter
   
Richard), 89390-0     

CONCLUSION

Article I, section 20 of the Washington State Constitution guarantees those

accused ofbailable offenses the right to access bail by sufficient sureties. Consistent

with both its historical and ordinary meaning, we hold that surety contemplates a

third-party arrangement, as distinguished from the accused depositing cash or

property directly with the court. Barton was ordered to secure his bail with a 10

percent deposit in the amount of the bond "in cash or other security." We hold that

this order, insofar as it disallowed use of a surety, violates the constitutional mandate

of article I, section 20. We vacate the order and remand for proceedings consistent

with this opinion. 10

10
In light of our resolution of this case, we do not address Barton's additional claims
that the bail order violates his constitutional right to equal protection and offends the
constitutional bar against excessive bail.

-22-
 State
v. Barton
  (Peter
   
Richard), 89390-0     

WE CONCUR:

.
Q-
.

-23-
             
State v. Barton (Peter Richard), No. 89390-0
(Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence)

No. 89390-0

GORDON McCLOUD, J. (concurring)-The Washington Constitution,

article I, section 20, states that criminal defendants "shall be bailable by sufficient

sureties." I agree with the majority that this means that criminal defendants have the

right to make bail not just by posting cash but alternatively by using a surety, that is,

a third party guarantor. I agree with the majority's analysis of the meaning and