CSS 2020-02-10 Item 1B - Funding - 2 FTE Transport Officers for Inmate Appearances for $188,000

Browse Search

No. 51177-1-II 395; see also Hartzog, 96 Wn.2d at 400 ("A broad general policy of imposing physical restraints upon prison imnates charged with new offenses because they may be `potentially dangerous' is a failure to exercise discretion.") (quoting People v. Duran, 16 Cal. 3d 282, 293, 545 P.2d 1322, 127 Cal. Rptr. 618 (1976)); see also State v. Jaquez, 105 Wn. App. 699, 709, 20 P.3d 1035 (2001) ("[T]he sole reason for the trial court's allowing the use of restraints was because it was general jail policy.... [A] court's decision to defer to the security policy of correctional officers is unjustifiable."). "While prison officials may be well positioned to assist the trial court in deciding matters of courtroom security, they are in no position to weigh and balance the many factors the court must consider when determining whether, and in what manner, a defendant should be restrained during a court proceeding." Walker, 185 Wn. App. at 796-97. Generally, an error that violates a defendant's constitutional right is presumed to be prejudicial. Finch, 137 Wn.2d at 859. But the State can overcome the presumption by showing that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Finch, 137 Wn.2d at 859. "A claim of unconstitutional shackling is subject to harmless error analysis." Hutchinson, 135 Wn.2d at 888. B. IVMOOTNESS As an initial matter, the State argues that the issue of whether the trial court violated Jackson's right to due process by failing to make an individualized determination on the necessity of restraints during pretrial hearings is moot. We disagree. "Generally, we do not consider claims that are moot or that present only abstract questions." Lundstrom, 6 Wn. App. 2d at 392. An issue is moot when the "court can no longer provide effective relief." State v. Gentry, 125 Wn.2d 570, 616, 888 P.2d 1105 (1995). 20