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

Browse Search

No. 51177-1-II The superior court has the discretion to provide for courtroom security to ensure the safety of court officers, parties, and the public. Lundstrom, 6 Wn. App. 2d at 394. In order to balance the interest in courtroom security and defendants' constitutional right to due process, the superior court must determine the extent to which courtroom security measures are necessary based upon facts set forth in the record. Lundstrom, 6 Wn. App. 2d at 394. "The trial court should allow restraints only after conducting a hearing and entering findings on the record sufficient to justify their use on a particular defendant." Lundstrom, 6 Wn. App. 2d at 394. The trial court must perform an individualized inquiry into the necessity for pretrial and trial restraints. Lundstrom, 6 Wn. App. 2d at 395. The Supreme Court has identified several factors that the trial court should consider when deciding whether a defendant should be restrained during trial: "[T]he seriousness of the present charge against the defendant; defendant's temperament and character; his age and physical attributes; his past record; past escapes or attempted escapes, and evidence of a present plan to escape; threats to harm others or cause a disturbance; self-destructive tendencies; the risk of mob violence or of attempted revenge by others; the possibility of rescue by other offenders still at large; the size and mood of the audience; the nature and physical security of the courtroom; and the adequacy and availability of alternative remedies." State v. Hutchinson, 135 Wn.2d 863, 887-88, 959 P.2d 1061 (1998) (quoting Hartzog, 96 Wn.2d at 400). A trial court commits constitutional error when it fails to exercise its discretion. See State v. Clark, 143 Wn.2d 731, 775, 24 P.3d 1006 (2001) ("[W]here no balancing or analysis as to the need to restrain [the defendant] was done, his shackling was constitutional error."). Deferring to general jail policy is an abuse of discretion and constitutional error. Lundstrom, 6 Wn. App. 2d at W