Court Opinion

ID: 9607716
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:01:27.544871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:39.778432
License: Public Domain

*72Brachtenbach, J.
(concurring)—While I concur with the result, I am concerned about the failure to recognize a serious issue which the majority does not treat adequately.
The speedy trial question and a claimed violation of CrR 8.3 are intertwined. Snohomish County law enforcement authorities knew for almost 2 months the precise location of the defendant. Yet no arraignment or any other Snohomish County proceedings were undertaken. The majority apparently holds that the knowledge of its law enforcement officials cannot be imputed to the State. The majority focuses solely upon the knowledge of the prosecutor. No analysis or authority is cited for the proposition that the actual knowledge of law enforcement authorities is not of relevance in determining this issue. This record contains neither sufficient facts nor briefing on what could be a pivotal issue, therefore I would affirm; the majority seems to foreclose the issue. The question should remain subject to further scrutiny in an appropriate case.
Utter, J., concurs with Brachtenbach, J.