A note from Dave Chapman, King County's Director of Public Defense
Much has changed – and much remains the same – in the world of public defense. What remains the same is that the men and women at the forefront of public defense continue to work tirelessly on behalf of their clients, ensuring that even those who can’t afford an attorney stand equal before the law. What has changed is the organizational structure, the way those public defense services are delivered.
On July 1, the attorneys, investigators, social workers, paralegals and administrators who worked at the four nonprofit public defense law firms that provided public defense services for King County became county employees. The Metropolitan King County Council passed an ordinance in May creating a new Department of Public Defense, with an interim structure comprised of four separate divisions. That new department is now a reality – and a new era in public defense has dawned.
From my perspective, it’s an exciting and important development. This new structure puts public defense where it should be – on par with other leaders in King County’s criminal justice system. It means a stronger voice for public defense in countywide policy and budget discussions. It also means we will be able to provide a holistic suite of services to clients, addressing some of the underlying issues – from homelessness to unemployment – that brought them into the criminal justice system.
So what does the new Department of Public Defense look like? Under the interim structure, the four divisions mirror the four agencies that provided public defense services on a contractual basis for King County. The employees sit in their same desks at their same offices, reporting to their same supervisors.
Should a charter amendment forwarded to voters by the County Council pass in the fall, the department will undergo some more changes. An 11-member advisory board, for example, would be established, reviewing the department’s budget and policies and forwarding to the executive the names of people it believes should head the department; the executive would select from that list. The public defender would serve a four-year term coterminous with the prosecutor, not the executive, and could only be fired for cause. Meanwhile, the Council empaneled a public defense task force that grappled with another issue – how to ensure that innovation and advocacy for criminal justice reform, hallmarks of the four nonprofit law firms, are not lost in this new structure.
Again, this is an auspicious time – full of challenges, to be sure, but also significant opportunities. Ultimately, what matters most is the way these changes translate into services to our clients. My hope is that we’ll build on the county’s strong and storied tradition of public defense and create a system that is even more client-centered, more reform-minded and more able to provide our clients with the rigorous defense and holistic services they deserve. I hope you’ll join me on this journey.
|
The King County Council on Monday, Sept. 23, confirmed Dave Chapman as the director of the Department of Public Defense.
Chapman, a veteran public defender, has served as the interim director since the Council approved the creation of the new department in May of this year. Prior to that, he headed the Office of Public Defense, a division of the Department of Community and Human Services.
"Dave has done an exceptional job managing the creation of a new County department, in response to a state Supreme Court ruling and subsequent settlement that redefined contract public defenders as county employees,” said King County Executive Dow Constantine. “His personal experience as a public defender and his deep commitment to the clients his staff serves have been tremendous assets in this transition.”
A growing number of jurisdictions across the country have decided to limit their participation in civil immigration enforcement, noting the issue has blurred the line between civil and criminal procedures and raised important civil rights questions.
Now, King County is considering joining their ranks.
An ordinance introduced by King County Councilmembers Larry Gossett, Joe McDermott and Larry Phillips would allow King County to honor only those detainer requests from the U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE ) in cases where an individual has been convicted of a serious criminal offense as defined by Washington state law. King County Executive Dow Constantine has also weighed in on the issue, urging the Council earlier this year to consider legislation limiting such holds.
Should it pass, the legislation would mark a departure from the current practice in King County. As it stands now, King County honors all requests from federal immigration authorities to “hold for pick up” immigrant jail inmates, even those who have not been convicted of a crime or have been detained because of a minor offense. Once transferred to federal authorities, the inmates are then taken into ICE custody, where ICE begins the process of determining if they’re deportable.
A broad-based coalition – including several leading public defenders – has expressed grave concern about these ICE holds and the civil rights issues they raise and strongly supports the bill pending before Council. The practice has blurred the lines between civil federal immigration enforcement and local criminal law enforcement, critics say. As a result, the detentions have isolated the county’s immigrant community, leading many to feel afraid to turn to the police, seek help in instances of domestic violence or act as witnesses in criminal proceedings. What’s more, the deportations that result often break up families, creating more hardship for the county’s immigrant community.
Eileen Farley, a division director in the county’s Department of Public Defense, recently testified in favor of the legislation, a bill, she said, that “is a response to the paralysis around immigration reform in Washington, D.C.”
Farley is struck by the broad base of support the legislation is receiving, including support from the King County Sheriff and others in the criminal justice community. That support, she said, underscores the concern many have voiced – that ICE holds are hurting the immigrant community in untold ways.
“What the councilmembers have proposed is not something radical,” she said. “They realize, as do many of us, that ICE holds are not in our community’s best interest.”
According to the bill’s sponsors, the proposed ordinance ensures King County’s practices are actually aligned with ICE’s stated priorities – namely, to apprehend individuals convicted of serious and violent crimes. In its printed policies and public statements, ICE has repeatedly made clear that its enforcement priority is to direct its limited resources to apprehend individuals with serious and violent convictions. The ordinance was drafted to be consistent with these priorities and to focus the county’s limited resources on this group of individuals as well.
The legislation does not change the process for criminal proceedings. No one charged with a crime and being held in King County jail will be released without first appearing before a criminal court judge who makes a determination about whether the person is a danger to the community or a flight risk. And when the County honors an ICE detainer, this involves transferring an inmate to ICE custody after the person has been released from jail.
Ultimately, the ordinance is designed to ensure that immigrants are treated equally in the criminal justice process. A March 2013 study by University of Washington professor Katherine Beckett and doctoral candidate Heather Evans found that ICE detainer requests are not targeting individuals with serious or violent convictions; the majority of immigrants targeted are charged with low level offenses, and many are not convicted of any crime. Individuals targeted for an ICE detainer spend, on average, nearly a month longer in jail, the UW study found; many do not post bail because if they are released they will simply land in the ICE detention center. Further, according to the study, Latinos are disproportionately targeted by ICE detainer requests.
“I don’t see any value or important purpose to keep in jail 28 to 30 additional days folks who were picked up for some low-level misdemeanor or traffic infraction,” Gossett told the Seattle Times. “It becomes a civil-rights issue to me.”
Constantine, in a letter to councilmembers in February, also expressed concern about the impact ICE holds are having on the region’s immigrant community. As a councilmember, Constantine co-sponsored an ordinance that attempted to heighten the public health and safety of county residents by fostering trust and cooperation between immigrant communities and law enforcement. Limiting the circumstances under which detainer requests are honored would be in keeping with this ordinance, he noted.
“In order to protect the health and safety of our communities, King County residents, regardless of their citizenship status, must feel that they can report crime, seek protection from law enforcement, testify in court and access needed health services without fear of other unrelated consequences,” Constantine wrote.
|