Opinion ID: 1124567
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Great Writ of Antiquity

Text: The majority's treatment of this subject prompts special concern because it arises in the context of an admittedly meritorious petition for writ of habeas corpus. We recognize a rule of construction which strictly construes statutes which trench upon liberty. In re Detention of J.R., 80 Wash.App. 947, 956, 912 P.2d 1062 (1996) (As civil commitment statutes authorize a significant deprivation of liberty, they must be strictly construed.) (citing In re Swanson, 115 Wash.2d 21, 27, 793 P.2d 962, 804 P.2d 1 (1990) and In re LaBelle, 107 Wash.2d 196, 205, 728 P.2d 138 (1986)); In re Swanson, 115 Wash.2d at 31, 793 P.2d 962, 804 P.2d 1 (In light of the clear language of the statute and Washington case law concerning statutes impacting liberty interests, the time limits at issue [in this civil commitment] must be strictly construed.); Dunner v. McLaughlin, 100 Wash.2d 832, 850, 676 P.2d 444 (1984) ([S]tatutes that involve a deprivation of liberty are to be strictly construed.) (citing In re Cross, 99 Wash.2d 373, 379, 662 P.2d 828 (1983)). Habeas corpus review requires the court to examine the `legality of an individual's confinement,' thereby insuring the `integrity of the process resulting in imprisonment.' [4] At the heart of habeas corpus is the principle that in a civilized society, government must always be accountable to the judiciary for a man's imprisonment.... Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 402, 83 S.Ct. 822, 829, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963). Our courts have long hailed the writ of habeas corpus as the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action. Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290-291, 89 S.Ct. 1082, 1086, 22 L.Ed.2d 281 (1969). Our jurisdiction likewise acknowledges the fundamental importance of habeas corpus as the state constitution expressly guarantees the writ's availability, [5] while our courts reference it as the Great Writ of antiquity.... [6] The Supreme Court has avowed there is no higher duty than to maintain [habeas corpus] unimpaired. Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19, 26, 59 S.Ct. 442, 446, 83 L.Ed. 455 (1939). Equally, no higher duty befits our court than to deliver up the man unlawfully confined. [7] I would therefore, at minimum, not strain the statute to deny this or any man the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus. Unfortunately, and gratuitously, the majority does exactly that.