Proposed Rules Archives

• Proposed Changes to CrRLJ 3.2.1 - Procedure Following Warrantless Arrest - Preliminary Hearing (in Word Format)
• Comments Received for CrRLJ 3.2.1 - Procedure Following Warrantless Arrest - Preliminary Hearing

Background and Purpose: In the fall of 2012, the Superior Court Judges Association [SCJA] submitted proposed amendments to Superior Court rules CrR 2.3 [Search Warrants] and CrR 3.2.1 [Procedure Following Warrantless Arrest-Preliminary Appearance]. No amendments were proposed for the analogous rules for courts of limited jurisdiction [CLJ] at that time. As a result, an inherent conflict was potentially created between the CLJ and Superior Court rules. The DMCJA expressed concerns to the SCJA regarding the proposed amendments. Thereafter, the SCJA requested that the Supreme Court defer action on its proposed rule amendments to allow the two Associations to confer and try and reach consensus on proposed language. The Supreme Court deferred action on the SCJA’s proposal until September 30, 2013. In the meantime, representatives from the SCJA and the DMCJA have discussed the overall purpose of the SCJA proposal and have come to consensus on language that addresses the concerns of both Associations. As a result of those discussions, the DMCJA hereby submits proposed amendments to three CLJ rules: CrRLJ 2.2 [Warrant of Arrest or Summons Upon Complaint]; CrRLJ 2.3 [Search and Seizure], and CrRLJ 3.2.1 [Warrantless Arrest-Preliminary Appearance].

The purpose of the proposed amendments is to acknowledge that the technology utilized by courts, law enforcement and attorneys for transmitting and preserving documents and recorded testimony has significantly evolved over the years and will continue to evolve. For over a decade, CLJ and Superior Courts in Washington have been receiving and approving search warrants and probable cause determinations via telephone, facsimile and email. The rules continue to require that the court receive the sworn evidence in support of the probable cause determination or warrant application from the prosecuting authority or police officer through reliable methods. Because technology continues to evolve, the various methods of transmitting sworn evidence and issuing probable cause determinations and warrants are not specified in these rules. The rules continue to require preservation of the sworn evidence considered by the court in making the probable cause determinations and issuing warrants.

A minor amendment is proposed to CrRLJ 2.2 to acknowledge evolving technology for recording information. In CrRLJ 2.3 the reference to CrRLJ 8.10 is deleted because GR 31 contains the provisions for public review of court records. The sentences in CrRLJ 3.2.1 were rearranged for clarity.

Because the proposed amendments are part of a three-rule package, this GR 9 Cover Sheet is being submitted with each rule proposal.