Khandelwal v. Seattle Mun. Court

• Citation: 431 P.3d 506
• Decision Date: 03 December 2018
• Docket Number: No. 78058-1-I,78058-1-I
• Parties: Anita KHANDELWAL, Interim Director, King County Department of Public Defense, Respondent, v. SEATTLE MUNICIPAL COURT; the Hons. Karen Donohue, Willie Gregory, Anita Crawford-Willis, C. Kimi Kondo, Ed McKenna, Damon Shadid, and Adam Eisenberg; John Doe 1-50, Jane Doe 1-50, Appellants.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

431 P.3d 506

Anita KHANDELWAL, Interim Director, King County Department of Public Defense, Respondent,

v.SEATTLE MUNICIPAL COURT; the Hons. Karen Donohue, Willie Gregory, Anita Crawford-Willis, C. Kimi Kondo, Ed McKenna, Damon Shadid, and Adam Eisenberg; John Doe 1-50, Jane Doe 1-50, Appellants.

No. 78058-1-I

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1.

FILED: December 3, 2018

Ryan Boyd Robertson, Robertson Law PLLC, 1218 3rd Ave. Ste. 1518, Seattle, WA, 98101-3068, for Petitioner.

Mark Bruns Middaugh, Attorney at Law, 710 2nd Ave. Ste. 250, Seattle, WA, 98104-1765, Nicholas David Gross, Northwest Defenders, 710 2nd Ave. Ste. 200, Seattle, WA, 98104-1703, Anita Khandelwal, King County Department of Public Defense, 710 2nd Ave. Ste. 1000, Seattle, WA, 98104-1744, for Respondent.

PUBLISHED OPINION

Andrus, J.¶ 1 Seattle Municipal Court and its seven elected judges appeal a superior court order to hold preliminary appearance hearings no later than the close of business the next court day. We affirm.

FACTS

¶ 2 Rule 3.2.1 of the Criminal Rules for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (CrRLJ), entitled "Procedure Following Warrantless Arrest - Preliminary Hearing," provides in pertinent part:

(d) Preliminary Appearance.

(1) Adult. Unless an accused has appeared or will appear before the superior court for a preliminary appearance, any accused detained in jail must be brought before a court of limited jurisdiction as soon as practicable after the detention is commenced, but in any event before the close of business on the next court day.

CrRLJ 3.2.1(d)(1). The purpose of this preliminary appearance hearing is to provide the accused with an attorney, and to inform her of the nature of the charges against her, her right to the assistance of counsel, and the right to remain silent. CrRLJ 3.2.1(e)(1). If the court denies an accused’s request for release at the hearing, the court must also determine whether probable cause exists to believe the accused committed the crime and set bail. CrRLJ 3.2.1(e)(2). The probable cause and bail decision must be made no later than 48 hours after arrest. CrRLJ 3.2.1(a) ; Westerman v. Cary, 125 Wash.2d 277, 289, 892 P.2d 1067 (1994).

¶ 3 Seattle Municipal Court conducts preliminary appearance hearings in the King County jail six mornings each week—Monday through Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 12:00 p.m. One of the seven municipal court judges presides over these jail hearings.

¶ 4 In October 2017, King County Department of Public Defense (DPD) attorneys representing defendants on the jail calendar filed affidavits of prejudice—now known as notices of disqualification¹ —against the judge assigned to that calendar. CrRLJ 8.9(c) provides that whenever a judge is disqualified, "the judge shall immediately make an order transferring and removing the case to another judge." Seattle Municipal Court informed DPD that it had no other judicial officer available to handle preliminary appearance hearings for those who exercised their right to file a notice of disqualification. The court thereafter instituted a policy that if an accused filed a notice of disqualification against the judge presiding over the in-custody preliminary appearance hearings, the court would transfer the matter to a different judge to make an in-chambers probable cause finding, to set bail, and to set a future arraignment date. As Judge Karen Donohue, then Presiding Judge at Seattle Municipal Court, explained:

For decades, Seattle Municipal Court has held probable cause hearings on the record at the same time [as] the preliminary appearance and arraignment hearings are held. The court rules do not, however, require this procedure. Under CrRLJ 3.2.1, the court must determine probable cause within 48 hours of arrest, and there is no requirement for the criminal defense attorney to be present. Where [a notice of disqualification] is filed at the preliminary appearance calendar, our response is to ensure that

the defendant receives a probable cause determination within the 48-hour timeframe and then attempt to schedule the defendant to appear before a judge as quickly as possible in the event they do not post bond and remain in custody.

... Where an affidavit is filed, this court continues to provide the defendant with a preliminary appearance as quickly as possible consistent with CrRLJ 8.9 and the practical administrative limitations that exist with our court. Based upon the workload of the [c]ourt, and due to the limitations placed on us by the [In re the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of] Eng[, 113 Wn.2d 178, 776 P.2d 1336 (1989),] decision we do not have judges who are able to jump from calendar to calendar if an attorney files [a notice of disqualification].^{[2 ]}

¶ 5 In early December 2017, a pro tempore judge was covering the Saturday preliminary appearance calendar, and eight defendants filed notices of disqualification. A municipal court judge remotely reviewed the police reports for the six cases needing probable cause determinations, found probable cause, set bail, and set these cases over to the following Monday’s calendar for arraignment. The following Monday, December 4, 2017, the judge presiding over the in-custody calendar was confronted with 58 cases. The judge concluded the number of cases exceeded what could be completed in one morning and that Seattle Municipal Court did not have judicial resources available for an afternoon calendar in the jail. The judge set six cases over to the following day, Tuesday, December 5, 2017. Two of these cases had already been continued from the prior Saturday calendar because of notices of disqualification. The other four were individuals who had not filed disqualification notices. Seattle Municipal Court made probable cause and bail decisions in each case within the 48-hour deadline. But two individuals did not appear before a judge within 48 hours of their arrest, and, according to DPD, four individuals spent an additional night in jail.

¶ 6 On December 12, 2017, DPD, on behalf of its clients, petitioned King County Superior Court for a writ of review challenging Seattle Municipal Court’s policy of delaying preliminary appearance hearings for those who file a notice of disqualification. DPD argued that Seattle Municipal Court’s policy violated CrRLJ 3.2.1 and penalized individuals who exercised their right to file a notice of disqualification by requiring them to remain in jail longer than they would have otherwise. Seattle Municipal Court countered that because it had made probable cause and bail determinations within the required 48-hour timeframe, it was inconsequential that the preliminary appearance hearing took place after the time specified in the rule. It maintained that technical violations of the preliminary appearance rule should be disregarded where the 48-hour rule for probable cause and bail determinations had been satisfied.

¶ 7 On January 22, 2018, the superior court granted DPD’s writ of review. It determined that Seattle Municipal Court’s policy ensured that probable cause determinations were made within 48 hours of arrest and, thus, did not violate any arrestee’s constitutional rights. It concluded, however, that the policy violated CrRLJ 3.2.1(d)(1) which "unambiguously require[s] that when an individual is subjected to a warrantless arrest and held in jail, he or she must be brought before a judicial officer for a preliminary appearance hearing ‘the next court day’ following the arrest." It further concluded that filing a notice of disqualification did not waive the defendant’s right to a timely preliminary appearance hearing. It ordered:

The Seattle Municipal Court shall provide all persons detained in the King County Jail following a warrantless arrest on a misdemeanor

or gross misdemeanor charge a preliminary appearance hearing the next court day following his or her arrest regardless of whether he or she files [a notice of disqualification] against the judge initially assigned to hear that appearance.

Seattle Municipal Court appeals.

ANALYSIS

¶ 8 Seattle Municipal Court raises three arguments on appeal. First, it argues that because it makes probable cause and bail determinations within the constitutionally required 48-hour deadline, CrRLJ 3.2.1 should be interpreted to give the court flexibility to relax the "next court day" deadline when a defendant files a notice of disqualification under CrRLJ 8.9. Second, it contends that the "next court day" deadline in CrRLJ 3.2.1 is not mandatory but is, instead, merely a guide. Finally, it contends that its policy is a reasonable response to an extraordinary circumstance, which excuses strict compliance with the rule.

¶ 9 We reject Seattle Municipal Court’s first two arguments because the language of the rule does not support them. And while we are sympathetic to the administrative burden Seattle Municipal Court faces under Eng, the record is insufficient to demonstrate an "extraordinary circumstance" justifying a delay in preliminary appearance hearings.

Standard of Review

¶ 10 RCW 7.16.040 sets out the grounds for granting a writ of review. A superior court may grant a statutory writ of review if (1) there is no appeal or adequate remedy at law and (2) the inferior tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction or acted illegally.³ State v. Chelan Cnty. Dist. Court, 189 Wash.2d 625, 630, 404 P.3d 1153 (2017) ; Dep’t of Labor & Indus. of State v. Bd. of Indus. Ins. Appeals of State, 186 Wash. App. 240, 244, 347 P.3d 63 (2015). We review a superior court’s order granting a writ of review de novo. Dep’t of Labor & Indus. of State, 186 Wash. App. at 244, 347 P.3d 63.

A. Compliance with constitutional probable cause and bail determination deadlines does not justify non-compliance with CrRLJ 3.2.1.

¶ 11 Seattle Municipal Court argues that the superior court erred in concluding that its policy violates CrRLJ 3.2.1 because it has ensured that every arrestee receives a probable cause and bail decision within 48 hours of arrest. It...