Marijuana legalization advocates have gone to work in Kitsap. Supporters of Initiative 1068 held meetings on Bainbridge, in Poulsbo and in East Bremerton this past week.

Greg Jablonski, one of the chairs of Sensible Washington in Kitsap County, had a turnout of about two dozen people at the Sylvan Way branch of the Kitsap Regional Library. Many who came out Wednesday not only signed petitions, but agreed to collect signatures as well.

Charles Voyce, the other chairman for the campaign in Kitsap County, said he’s passionate about legalizing pot.

“I believe adults should be free to do what they want, within limits,” said Voyce.

Here’s the text of the initiative, per the secretary of state’s Web site:

“This measure would remove state civil and criminal penalties for persons eighteen years or older who cultivate, possess, transport, sell, or use marijuana. Marijuana would no longer be defined as a “controlled substance.” Civil and criminal penalties relating to drug paraphernalia and provisions authorizing seizure or forfeiture of property would not apply to marijuana-related offenses committed by persons eighteen years or older. The measure would retain current restrictions and penalties applicable to persons under eighteen.”

Sensible Washington wants to collect 320,000 signatures by July to provide a cushion for the required 241,000.

“We’re just getting started,” Jablonski said.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

John Houston is finally home.

His life, as those who regularly read our paper know, took one heck of a detour.

I met Houston in late 2005 as part of a series on Bremerton’s high violent crime rate. Houston had lived for more than a decade on the streets of Bremerton, using, abusing and selling crack cocaine. Houston never believed he’d get out of that violent and helpless underworld.

But arrested by Bremerton police in 2004, he set out to change his life of addiction, one that held him for about 36 years. It wasn’t easy, but through Kitsap County Drug Court, he got on stable footing and set his sights on a new path — helping young people whose lives teetered on the verge of drug addiction like his. He graduated with an associate’s degree from Olympic College in 2008.

He’s since held jobs in Kitsap, Island County and finally, Renton, with the Puget Sound Educational Service District.

He still sends me — and several others blessed to know his amazing transition — a weekly email about his life. Recently he wrote about his time in Bremerton, and how it’s important to reflect on both the good days and the bad.

“I just remember waking up in the woods, soaked, hungry and hopeless. Just like those blue skies and greenness of the trees, I remember the ugliness of where my addiction took me. Just like with the skies and the trees, I must remember the ugliness in order for me to never return there again. Thank you for your support and I love you.”

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

• DUI related collisions were up 23 percent with 117, compared with 95 in 2008.
• Speed related collisions were up 10 percent with 273, compared with 248 in 2008.
• DUI Arrests in Kitsap County were up by 2 percent in 2009. Troopers removed 858 impaired drivers from the roads in Kitsap compared with 839 arrests in 2008.
• Speed contacts were up 16 percent in 2009. Kitsap troopers contacted 16,788 speeders in 2009, compared with 14,457 in 2008. Out of those contacted, 11 percent more received tickets than in 2008.
• In addition, there were 247 more drivers contacted who were issued tickets for aggressive driving in Kitsap County than in 2008. In 2009, 2,620 drivers were ticketed for aggressive driving violations, compared with 2,373 in 2008.

In neighboring Mason County, the numbers were actually down:

• DUI related collisions were down 45 percent with 45, compared with 82 in 2008.
• Speed related collisions were down 39 percent with 67, as compared with 109 in 2008.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

“Day one went very smoothly,” Kitsap County Prosecutor Russell Hauge said of Monday.

As you may recall, the plan for the county’s courthouse was to route all cases — misdemeanors and felonies — through district court for preliminary, or first, appearances. This new method gives all parties involved — including the defendant — an additional 30 day clock to decide whether to proceed to trial or plead guilty.

If felony defendants fight the charges, then they’ll be placed on a superior court calendar and the case will proceed toward trial. But if they wish to plead guilty, then their first appearance before a superior court judge would be to plead guilty, and likely, be sentenced. The old system might include numerous appearances before the superior court bench, eating up time for all involved.

The new process began Monday. Maury Baker, Kitsap County’s District Court administrator, echoed Hauge’s sentiment that things are going well so far.

They’d planned to have it up and running Jan. 1 this year. It was delayed to March.

And there’s one more thing they haven’t implemented yet — the video system. In the coming months, all jailed defendants will make appearances on video from the jail, rather than be chained together with other defendants and placed in the superior court’s jury box for their first appearance.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Most states, including Washington, have decided the way to combat such a tactic is to put them on the books — create a system that tracks  prescriptions, who they go to, and how many pills go with them.

Opiate-based medications like OxyContin can work wonders for pain. But they can also be abused and have nasty consequences — severe addiction and even death. So establishing a program to keep an eye on frequent users was what the Legislature had in mind in trying to curb such drug use.

The bottom line: we have the law here, but the legislature didn’t fund it, according to Lisa Salmi of the state’s Department of Health.

Salmi says the Legislature passed a bill that created the program in 2007. They gave it $683,000, which hired a program manager. But the Legislature declined to fund it further, Salmi said, and the program maanger was laid off, the program stalled.

She said the program would cost $605,500 to implement, and then $562,000 a year to run.

Monitoring programs have taken off around the country, she said. Forty states either have legislation pending or passed. Thirty-three of them have programs up and running.

The Department of Health has set up a Web site that talks about prescription drug abuse, which you can view here.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

I reported earlier this week that he’d been called to serve, just like everyone else. He made it to the voir dire process in a criminal case before Kitsap County Superior Court Judge Leila Mills, but that was where it ended.

He was asked this question: Could he presume the defendant innocent since the charging documents were filed in his name. (All official documents out of of Kitsap County Prosecutor’s Office, including charging documents, include his name).

“I said no,” Hauge said, and he was dismissed.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

But wait til you take a look at this new gizmo.

It’s a tiny camera, attached to an officer’s ear, that keeps video of daily interactions on the beat. And it’s not a piece of technology in the far off future — it’s being tested right now.

Here’s the story, by USA Today’s Jeff Martin:

“The camera system, sold by Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Taser International, is being tested this month by officers in Fort Smith, Cincinnati, San Jose and Aberdeen, S.D.”

The benefits of such cameras seem obvious. They could be effective in a trial as rock solid evidence (how could a defense attorney argue his client didn’t do something when the video shows he did?). Such cameras could also settle quickly claims of misconduct by police.

How soon will they come to a law enforcement officer’s ear near you? The short answer: don’t hold your breath.

“Ok, Lets see here,” said Dean Byrd of the Mason County Sheriff’s Office. “$5,700 for 50 officers. Thats about $285,000 in hard times when Commissioners seem to be coming to us for reductions so the County’s budget can be balanced.”

“No,” he said, “I don’t think we are going to buy them.”

“They are pretty cool,” added Al Townsend, chief of the Port Orchard Police Department. “We actually had one for a while about a year ago that we tested out.”

But, agreeing with Byrd, it comes down to dollars and cents, Townsend said.

” … Right now it’s clearly the cash issue,” Townsend said. “So none so far, but maybe in the future.”

In Mason County, the first step comes far before such technology, Byrd said.

“We still don’t have cameras or computers in most of our cars,” Byrd said. “We can only dream.”

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Ahh, jury duty. There’s nothing quite like getting that summons in the mail, an invitation to fulfill our civic duty to fairly to impartially weigh the evidence in cases involving our peers in society.

And no one is immune to the task. Not even elected prosecutors.

Kitsap County Prosecutor Russell Hauge received his summons recently, and is on call this week for his chance to get on a panel.

“I’ll call in Sunday night just like everyone else,” Hauge said.

Granted, the odds are slim to none that any judge, especially in a criminal case, would allow the sitting prosecutor on a jury. The conflicts seem steep (for instance, he’d be watching a deputy prosecutor — who answers to him —  try a case).

But even presidents get called for jury duty. George W. Bush was in 2005 and Barack Obama just this year. They too have an armada of reasons why serving on a jury just probably isn’t going to happen.

How far Hauge gets in the process remains to be seen.

“It’s up to the judge,” he said.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

That spurred Pierce County Councilwoman Joyce McDonald to write Kitsap County Prosecutor Russell Hauge, and ask, specifically, why voyeurism charges weren’t filed. She claimed in her letter that she wrote the law itself in her former job as a state legislator. “I would recommend that your deputy take a good look at the law which has been in effect for the past decade,” she wrote. “The law clearly states it applies when video or photographs are taken without permission anywhere there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. I would think that the residents of the nursing home and their families had that expectation of privacy.”

Hauge said he’s received a few letters and wanted to write a response to them. Rather than go through it myself, I will leave it for you to read.

“The case identified (by the case number) is how we refer to the allegations of mistreatment of patients at the Kitsap Health and Rehabilitation Center.  The press coverage and the communications generated by that coverage have given a number of different names to the case.  They all refer to the same central transaction: photos of vulnerable adult patients taken by caregivers.  We have declined to file criminal charges against the caregivers who took part in this abuse.

This decision has caused considerable genuine concern.  Abuse of loved ones by those entrusted with their care is the stuff of nightmares.  By all reports, it’s clear a wrong was done.   If a crime was committed, this office is the only agency that can pursue punishment.  The public is right to ask whether we are doing our jobs.

I have reviewed all the reports on this case.  The Bremerton Police Department did a fine job collecting all the available information.  It’s my conclusion that we cannot seek a criminal penalty for the wrong that was done here.  Here’s why.

First, we have very little direct evidence.  Photos were taken of more than one patient in some state of undress.  The pictures were taken with cell phones.  We know the pictures were shared among some of the employees of the Center, but all have long since been deleted.  From the statements taken, it is not clear how many patients were victimized, perhaps two or three.  It looks like the patients are not aware they had been photographed.  There is no evidence that any of the pictures were retained in any format.  There is no suggestion that the electronic images were shared beyond a small circle at the Center.

The lack of actual photographs does not in itself prevent prosecution.  Statements of those who took the pictures or had seen them could be used to prove the crime of Voyeurism, a Class C Felony punishable by up to five years in prison.  However, to convict a person of that crime, we would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person took the pictures or viewed them ╲for the purposes of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person. RCW 9A.44.105 (2).  That is the language used by the legislature to define the crime.  And unless we can prove the conduct fits squarely within that definition, no crime has been committed.

Most of the employees who saw these pictures were revolted.  Someone reported the violation to the Centerâ•˙s management, and they responded by immediately calling in law enforcement and the appropriate regulatory agency.  We have evidence that three persons, now former employees of the Center, willfully took or shared the photographs.  However, we have no evidence that any of the three — two women and one man — took or shared the pictures to arouse or gratify sexual desires.  They used the pictures to mock the vulnerable people in their care.
Their conduct is abhorrent, but fits no definition of any crime.  That is, their conduct does not meet the standard set by the legislature for punishment by a loss of liberty.  In a number of statutes the legislature has made it clear that this conduct can be the basis of termination, the loss of a professional license, and a civil action for damages by those injured.  (See, for example, RCW 70.02 concerning medical records privacy and RCW 18.130 concerning the regulation of health care professions.)  But we can’t fine them or lock them up.  They are not within the reach of the authority of this office.

All of us who work in this office do so because we want to see justice done.  But our role is limited.  We will review every allegation that a crime may have been committed.  In many cases, that is all we can do.  If the legislature has not mandated imprisonment for the conduct, we can go no further.  We use all of our tools — our investigators, our education, and our imaginations — to find a way to respond, but sometimes we hit a wall.  That is what happened in this case.  We have asked ourselves the same question raised by the many thoughtful and concerned citizens: Can’t we do something to these people?  Unfortunately, and to our great disappointment, the answer is no.”

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Rep. Christine Rolfes, D-Bainbridge Island, is pushing a bill aimed at punishing criminals who used police scanners to aid in their nefarious acts.

House Bill 2595 would create an aggravating factor — and thus a judge could go beyond the standard sentencing range — for folks who listened to police radio scanners “as a means to facilitate a crime.”

“This bill sends a clear message to criminals. It says that using the police scanner as a way to help you commit your crime will not be tolerated,” Rolfes said. “These communications are intended for public safety and notification, not to serve as a tool to be exploited for criminal activity.”

Rolfes’ bill passed the house unanimously Friday and now moves to the Senate for a vote.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post