On November 16, 2006, the State of Washington settled a wrongful imprisonment claim against the Department of Corrections (DOC) for $5,000.

Mario Garcia was convicted of burglary and assault and sentenced to 21 months imprisonment and 9-18 months of supervised release. The DOC incarcerated Garcia once for at least 75 ...

Washington State’s Pierce County Jail paid $5,000 to settle an unlawful imprisonment claim. On March 14, 1999, Binh Thai Nguyen was arrested in Cowlitz County and booked in the Pierce County Jail. Nguyen was released on March 16, 1999, because the arrest warrant was for Binh Hoa Nguyen.

Nguyen was ...

"Mere Propinquity" Not sufficient Probable Cause for Search of Home

On March 22, 2006, a Sheriff’s Deputy was shot and killed while conducting a traffic stop in Bernalillo County, New Mexico. The search for the primary suspect in the slaying led investigators to seek and obtain a search warrant for the residence of the suspect’s in-laws, Rick, Cindy and Chara Poolaw. Believing there was no probable cause for the search of their residence, nor their concomitant detention, the Poolaws filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the action constituted unreasonable search and seizure.

Plaintiff's attorney, George L. Bach, Jr., argued investigators lacked probable cause for the search and relied solely on their familial relationship with the suspect to motivate it. The district court denied the Defendants the qualified immunity they requested and granted summary judgment in favor of the Poolaws.

On appeal the 10th Circuit agreed with the district court ruling, citing various case law establishing it takes more than a familial tie to a criminal suspect to give rise to sufficient probable cause for a search. Citing Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85,91 (1979) specifically, the court stated "mere propinquity to others independently suspected of criminal activity ...

On April 1, 2008, the Washington Department of Corrections (DOC) agreed to pay $87,000 to a former prisoner who was incarcerated 339 days beyond his lawful release date.
On September 7, 2000, Chris Weddle was sentenced for unlawful manufacture of a controlled substance. The DOC computed Weddle’s sentence as 57 ...

by David M. Reutter

A political brouhaha arose in October 2009 in the wake of a North Carolina appellate court decision which held that a “life sentence is as an 80-year sentence for all purposes.” While the ruling applies only to defendants convicted of crimes between 1974 and 1978, Governor Beverly Perdue assailed the decision and vowed not to release any prisoners who would benefit from the judicial opinion.

The uproar began after the North Carolina Supreme Court declined to review a ruling by the Court of Appeals in a case brought by state prisoner Bobby E. Bowden, who was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder in 1975.

Bowden’s original death sentence had been vacated and concurrent life sentences were imposed. Since becoming eligible for parole in 1987, he had received annual parole reviews. Recognizing that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-2 (1974) applied to him, Bowden filed a Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus ad subjiciendum in December 2005.

Just six weeks after the filing, the trial court rejected Bowden’s argument that under state law a life sentence is to be considered 80 years, and that with the application of sentence reduction credits he was entitled ...

Concerns are growing that small claims courts in Indiana may be taking actions that amount to the return of debtors’ prisons, sparking national debate on the issue. This has occurred despite objections from the state’s Court of Appeals as well as a state constitutional ban on imprisonment for debt.

Several small claims courts in the southern part of Indiana have been jailing, or threatening to jail, debtors who fall behind on court-ordered payments. In a recent case in Perry County, Circuit Court Judge M. Lucy Goffinet ruled in a civil case that a defendant must pay $25 per month or he would sit “at the Sheriff’s Department.”

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the “trial court improperly threatened [the defendant] with imprisonment for his failure to propose a plan to pay the judgment.” See: Button v. James, 909 N.E.2d 1007 (Ind.App. 2009).

In the words of Alan W. White, professor of consumer law at Valparaiso University, such actions by a small claims court are “absolutely not a routine practice anywhere else in the country.” The issue gained national attention, being featured in a report on CBSMoneywatch.

Judges from Vanderburgh Superior Court, another Indiana small claims court known for ...

In February 2008, the state of Washington entered into a stipulated judgment to settle a lawsuit for damages filed in Pierce County Superior Court by Mark Stephen Rice. In settling the suit, which was filed in June 2007, the state of Washington paid Rice $30,000 plus costs and attorney’s fees ...

New York prison officials lack the authority to require prisoners to serve Post-Release Supervision (PRS) that was not ordered by the sentencing court, according to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court.

In February 2000, Sean Earley pleaded guilty to burglary in New York and was sentenced to six years in prison, but did not receive any PRS. Earley, his attorney, the prosecutor and the judge were all unaware, however, that NY Penal Law § 70.45 had recently been enacted, which mandated the imposition of PRS.

In February 2002, Earley first learned that at some point after his sentencing the New York Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) had administratively added a five-year PRS term to his sentence without informing him.

After unsuccessfully exhausting his administrative remedies, Earley filed a motion with the trial court for resentencing. He argued that DOCS’ modification of his sentence deprived him of due process of law and effective assistance of counsel. The court denied Earley’s motion, finding that because PRS was mandatory, his request to remove it from his sentence could not be granted. The court did not comment on the lack of notice and denied ...

by John E. Dannenberg

In two rulings in the same case, the California Court of Appeal distinguished the speedy trial rights versus the waiver-of-appearance rights of state prisoners who are facing detainers for probation violations.

Although California prisoners may waive their right to appear so as to speed up the process whereby their probation violation sentence may begin to run concurrent with their existing prison sentence (under Penal Code § 1203.2(a)), they are nonetheless entitled to a speedy trial on any newly-lodged detainer or warrant pursuant to Penal Code § 1381.

Submitting a demand for a speedy trial to the district attorney’s office triggers a 90-day period to bring the defendant physically to court. Otherwise the charges must be dismissed. However, an apparent conflict exists when the detainer is not for a new offense but for a probation violation for an already tried offense.

In the instant case, state prisoner Braulio P. Gonzalez filed a § 1381 demand for a speedy trial as to his alleged probation violation. The court denied his request because he had already been convicted of the underlying offense, with the sentence suspended, and was only waiting to have the sentence imposed. At issue was whether ...

A Washington state woman has been awarded $174,000 in damages after the Washington Department of Corrections (DOC) miscalculated her sentence, causing her to stay in prison an extra 18 months.

Melanie Hinkle was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder in the second degree and was sentenced to 120 months in ...