Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
- Original Source
- https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/893900.pdf ↗
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
Full Text
1,725 charsrequire, consistent with the language of CrR 3 .4(b)(4), that Barton deposit 10 percent of the bond amount in cash or other security with the registry of the court. CP at 13. This case mainly concerns the meaning of article I, section 20 of the Washington State Constitution. In order to determine if the bail order here is proper, we must first understand the import of the phrase "bailable by sufficient sureties." Because the federal constitution contains no clause requiring that defendants be bailable by sufficient sureties, this is purely a question of state constitutional law. 1. Article I, section 20 of the Washington State Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant who is bailable the opportunity to make bail via a surety The meaning of the phrase "bailable by sufficient sureties" presents a question of first impression. 3 "When interpreting a constitutional provision, we seek to ascertain and give effect to the manifest purpose for which it was adopted." Westerman v. Cary, 125 Wn.2d 277, 288, 892 P.2d 1067 (1994). In doing so, we look first to the plain language of the text "and will accord it its reasonable 3 City ofYakima v. Mollett, 115 Wn. App. 604, 605, 63 P.3d 177 (2003), cited by both parties, considered the propriety of an order that limited a defendant's bail to '"cash only'" under CrR 3.2(b)(5). The court concluded that the language of the criminal court rule required a judge to allow a defendant to elect between a bond or cash in lieu thereof to post bail, but could not order one option to the exclusion of the other. !d. at 609-10. It did not reach the question of whether the order would have been constitutionally permissible under article I, section 20. !d. at 611.