Court Opinion

ID: 9626183
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:04:39.285222+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:22.707774
License: Public Domain

Worswick, C.J.
(dissenting) — In my view, a fair reading of the cases cited in the lead and concurring opinions requires nothing more of law enforcement than what was done here. A defendant cannot be considered unavailable if his whereabouts are known and no reasonable effort is made to bring him into court. State v. Peterson, 90 Wn.2d 423, 585 P.2d 66 (1978); State v. Hattori, 19 Wn. App. 74, 573 P.2d 829 (1978). This means that law enforcement is expected to act on the information it has, but that is all it means.
Charges have been dismissed for lack of diligence only in those cases where the State knew the whereabouts of the *556accused but made no effort to bring him to trial within the time limits of the rule.1 If the police had no idea where he was or had been given a wrong address, the accused was considered unavailable until appropriate authorities were informed of his whereabouts. E.g., State v. Bledsoe, 31 Wn. App. 460, 643 P.2d 454 (1982); State v. Perry, 25 Wn. App. 621, 612 P.2d 4 (1980).
This case is factually similar to State v. Perry, supra. Here, as in Perry, the police had a wrong address. In Perry, they mailed a summons which was returned as undeliverable. A warrant was then issued but no attempt was made to execute it until the prosecutor learned of Perry's arrest in another county. The court found that the State had acted with sufficient diligence. It was not required to. contact the defendant's parents (whose address was known), or his attorney. State v. Perry, 25 Wn. App. at 623. Perry cannot be significantly distinguished.2
The Kitsap County authorities checked both of the *557addresses they had for Wirth and found that she no longer lived at either one. They kept her file active and, when another address was discovered, acted on it promptly. This was enough to constitute a diligent, good faith effort under existing case law as I read it. We cannot require more without imposing a standard too subjective to provide meaningful guidance. The charges should not have been dismissed. I would reverse.3
Review denied by Supreme Court March 15, 1985.

In State v. Carpenter, 94 Wn.2d 690, 619 P.2d 697 (1980), the Olympia police not only knew the accused's address, they had contacted him there, and he had come into the station at their request. The information in State v. Alexus, 91 Wn.2d 492, 588 P.2d 1171 (1979) indicated that the defendant was in the Clark County Jail, and officials there would have informed the prosecutor that he had been transferred to Walla Walla. However, no effort was made to contact him. In State v. Peterson, 90 Wn.2d 423, 585 P.2d 66 (1978), police knew where the accused lived and corresponded with him at least twice. In State v. Striker, 87 Wn.2d 870, 557 P.2d 847 (1976), the defendants' attorney knew their whereabouts and he kept in touch with police. Moreover, one of the defendants was actually brought in for a court appearance. In State v. Williams, 87 Wn.2d 916, 557 P.2d 1311 (1976), the defendant remained in custody from the time of his arrest, shortly after the information was filed, until his trial. In State v. Allen, 36 Wn. App. 582, 676 P.2d 501 (1983), the action was ultimately dismissed because the State did not act promptly after the defendant's lawyer contacted police and gave them his new address. He was considered unavailable until that time, however. In State v. Breaux, 20 Wn. App. 41, 578 P.2d 888 (1978), investigators obtained an accurate address for the defendant the day after the crime, and included it on the warrant information form, but made no timely use of it.

The only substantial difference is that Perry knew he was being sought, while Wirth did not. Since unavailability does not involve fault on the part of the defendant (see State v. Carpenter, 94 Wn.2d at 693-94), that difference is not important.

The trial judge also concluded that Wirth's constitutional right to a speedy trial had been violated. This conclusion was not supported by any convincing evidence in the record and cannot be upheld. See State v. Schapiro, 28 Wn. App. 860, 626 P.2d 546 (1981); State v. Johnston, 27 Wn. App. 73, 615 P.2d 534 (1980).