GENERAL RULE 9

RULE AMENDMENT COVER SHEET SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO ARLJ 11

1.     Proponent Organization: BJA Remote Proceedings Work Group

2.     Spokesperson & Contact Info:

Judge Angelle Gerl, Co-Chair BJA Remote Proceedings Work Group – CLJ level Email: AGerl@cawh.org

Phone: (509) 244-2773

3.     Purpose of Suggested Rule Amendment

In this proposed rule change, section (a)(3) is modified to remove the term “in court.” This permits remote testimony. Section (b) is amended to remove the term “face-to- face.” This expands opportunities for remote interviews with probation. This rule does not mandate that interviews be in person or remote, but removes potential that the rule be interpreted to require an in-person interview for all probationers.

During group discussions through the process there were some comments regarding the inability to assess the demeanor and identity of probationer. Members agreed local rules can address preferences of individual jurisdictions but the state rule should be open and flexible on misdemeanant probation matters. Group vote on this was nearly unanimous, with one prosecuting attorney opposing the amendment.

4.     Is Expedited Consideration Requested?

Yes. Expedited consideration is essential. The Supreme Court Emergency Order will be lifted soon and some form of amended or new rules addressing remote proceedings should be passed before the Order is lifted.

5.     Is a Public Hearing Recommended? No.