Fall 2026 TSRP Prosecutor Bootcamp - EASTERN WA

Who Should Apply?

Criminal Prosecutors currently handling Impaired Driving cases, early career or needing a refresher

Course Objectives:

Provide criminal prosecutors with the skills and training to effectively evaluate, prepare and try misdemeanor drug and alcohol DUI cases; argue motions; defend against common defense tactics; and build a strong and organized prosecution career.

A Non-Exhaustive List of Potential Topics include:  Legal Landscape, IID Enforcement, The Breath Test Instrument, Legal Foundation in BrAC cases, Legal Foundation in Tox cases, Expert Witnesses, Defense Challenges, Foundations and Objections, Motions Practice, Ethics, Intro to Voir Dire, Creating a Trial Binder, Cross-Examination, SFST's, a Wet Lab

Details

Cost:  Attendance is Free!

Format:  Five-Day classroom instruction format:

Start: November 2, 2026 11am

End:  November 6, 2026 12pm

Location:  Airway Heights Fire Dept. (1149 S. Garfield Road, Airway Heights, WA 99001)

Hotel Suggestions (at a government rate) are available on the event page

CLICK HERE FOR DETAILED INFORMATION

All attendees receive CLE credits, course materials, and a completion certificate

Seattle Litigation of Regional Significance - We Have a Ruling!

DOWNLOAD THE MAJORITY AND CONCURRENCE RULING HERE

Seattle v. In Re Delta-9 THC Testing and Analysis

"On Sept.15, 2025, Seattle Municipal Court (SMC) Presiding Judge Anita Crawford-Willis issued an order on criminal motion regarding Delta 9 THC testing and analysis, having determined this issue to be of citywide significance per Seattle Municipal Court Local Rule, SMCLR 8.2.4. Per the order, an en banc panel of SMC Judges Damon Shadid, Andrea Chin, and Catherine McDowall" presided over an evidentiary hearing June 1-5, 2026, to determine: 1) whether the defendants whose blood was analyzed using the Delta 9 THC testing are entitled to a Frye hearing, and 2) regardless of admissibility under Frye, the results of the Delta 9 THC testing are sufficiently reliable under ER 702 to be admitted at trial.  See En Banc Rulings - Courts | seattle.gov. The panel heard from three defense experts followed by City experts: Amanda Black, State Toxicologist; Brian Capron, Assistant Lab Division Commander; Chris Heartsill, NHTSA Midsouth Regional Toxicology Liaison; and Dr. Matt Slawson, NHTSA Northwest Regional Toxicology Liaison.  This litigation was handled by your TSRPs Bradley Lane and Michelle Rutherford as well as Lead Assistant Seattle Prosecutor, Chris Karr.  On July 21,2026, the panel reached a decision and released two rulings, a majority ruling and a concurrence, summarily denying all defense claims.  This litigation potentially affected 100's of THC DUI cases charged in the city of Seattle.  Due to the robust record and pleadings, your TSRPs have assembled a litigation package that you can use in your own court to combat this challenge - you don't need to have another Frye hearing on this issue!  Due to the size of the litigation package and the transcripts, your TSRPs can send these materials to you directly so reach out! Cheers! Brad and Michelle

National Traffic Law Center recently released the updated monograph, Crash Reconstruction Basics for Prosecutors. Reflecting nearly two decades of technological advancement since its original publication, this new edition incorporates developments in vehicle forensics and infotainment systems and examines the legal challenges for prosecutors and law enforcement. The updated monograph is intended to better prepare prosecutors to handle vehicular crash cases with confidence and effectiveness.

 

DOL has released new communications regarding how they are handling legislative changes to Deferred Prosecution and some license suspension rules. These have also been released to other stakeholders: courts, probation departments, and defense attorneys. 

Get a copy of DOL Communications HERE

YOUR SPRING 2026 TSRP NEWSLETTER IS LIVE!

IN THIS EDITION:

• In the News – Unicycle DUI!
• Case Law and Legislative Updates
• Private Tox Lab Analysis – Call for Workgroup Members
• Training Announcements – Bootcamp wrap, DRE School, and more
• Updates from our Law and Justice Partners

DOWNLOAD YOUR NEWSLETTER HERE

WA Crash Prosecutors - We have supreme court opinion in our Div-I case, State v. Wasuge, and unfortunately, they unanimously affirmed the COA panel opinion - no biggie though! This is a Physical Control affected-by case involving toxicologist testimony of "burn off", the AMA recommendation for a 0.05 BAC and some broader implications on Retrograde Extrapolation testimony as that testimony relates to generalities without a specific biographical nexus to qualities possessed by defendant. The court also addressed the Miranda custodial implications that we see in every single one of these "slumper" physical control cases.

Regarding the toxicology testimony, the supreme court didn't disturb the Div-I panel's opinion that it was improperly admitted though they did find it was harmless given the strength of the state's case.  I will say that the supreme court describes all of the other evidence as "properly admitted" evidence which implies that the tox evidence was improperly admitted, so they basically conclude that it was improper without explicitly announcing that ruling.  The court then turned to the Miranda custody argument and found that the officers' interaction with defendant was permissible under the community caretaking exception until they had the defendant exit the vehicle, and at that point the officers' continued detention was supported by reasonable articulable suspicion.  DUH!

This changes nothing for us since the Div-I opinion was released.  Again - to avoid Wasuge concerns on this sort of tox testimony, you're going to need to introduce some biographical information to make it relevant - think CCDL or a line of questioning establishing that, "this defendant is of the stature and build consistent with the average male for which general burn-off calculations apply".  Also, we can generally elicit tox testimony as to the effects of alcohol on the body at various BAC's without invoking per se values and legislative presumptions, something the Div-I panel took issue with.  If the defense argues that this case precludes us from using quantitative tools for BAC calculation, that's flat-out wrong.  Thread the needle and brief it.

If this opinion does anything for us, it makes clear that our usual "slumper stop" is all constitutionally permissible so long as your officer testifies as to the transition between the community caretaking or public safety exception and the RAS investigatory detention.

READ THE OPINION HERE

Let us know if you have any questions

- Cheers!

Brad & Michelle

The Washington Traffic Safety Commission has a new tool to help the community and enforcement professionals identify how Washington classifies different e-mobility devices, where they are legal to ride, and who is authorized to use them. 

The e-ride guide is live! Here's the link:

https://wtsc.wa.gov/erideguide/

Check it out and let us know what you think!

-Michelle and Brad

A new case interpreting RCW 9.94A.753(3) has just been released by Division I and addresses restitution to insurance companies. This is likely to be something Prosecutors needs to be aware of for impaired driving / vehicle collision related cases. We've seen public defense routinely ask to exclude insurance companies from restitution orders based on the Statute. Division I has just clarified the findings required to support such a motion, including consideration of future ability to earn wage/pay restitution. 

Restitution – Before waiving restitution to an insurance company under RCW 9.94A.753(3), a trial court must find both that the defendant does not have a current ability to pay and that the defendant will likely not have a future ability to pay.  Here, because the defendant had no physical or mental debilitation that would prevent work in the future, the court did not err in ordering restitution to the insurance company.  State v. Morgan, No. 86639-7-I (Dec. 29, 2025, Published in part).

DOWNLOAD YOUR FALL 2025 NEWSLETTER HERE

IN THIS EDITION:

• In the News
• Hot Topics in the Law
• Case Law and Legislative Updates
• Training Announcements
• Updates from Our Law and Justice Partners
• TSRPs Around Town
• Resources and Manuals

Enjoy!

Brad & Michelle

On December 4, 2025, the Washington State Supreme Court published Order No 25700-A-1679 which amends the language of rule CrR/CrRLJ 3.2. The Court made some modification to the language proposed by the defense organizations pushing for the rule change. The "interfering with the administration of justice" language has been eliminated and replaced with more specific conduct: "will seek to intimidate or threaten a witness, victim, or court employee, or tamper with evidence or violate a civil or criminal protection order, criminal no contact order, or family law restraining order, and/or conditions of release that protect the safety of alleged victims, witnesses, and the community. The change is effective upon publication.

It would be wise for prosecutors to amend the language used in court to fall within the new rule language where applicable. 

but wait.....there's more!

On the same day, the Washington State Supreme Court also published Order No 25700-A-1676, which provides notice under GR9(g) of suggested amendments to the same rule for 2026. This proposed amendment is also offered by the same defense organizations. The proposal attacks judicial discretion with regard to the meaning of "likely failure to appear." The proposal reads in part: 

Purpose: Replace the CrR/CrRLJ 3.2 standard of “likely failure to appear” with “high likelihood of willful flight from prosecution”; require at least one failure to appear before bail can be imposed under the newly amended “willful flight” prong; enact a $200 cap on bond and warrant amounts for most misdemeanor offenses when a finding is made under the newly amended “willful flight” prong; amend CrR/CrRLJ 2.2 regarding the failure to appear and administration of justice prongs; in both CrR/CrRLJ 3.2 and 2.2, enact strong presumption for deposit of a sum not to exceed 10% of the set bail with the clerk of the court. Comments may be sent to the following

These changes are not yet approved. The Supreme Court has called for comment on the proposal. Comments are due by April 30, 2026. addresses: P.O. Box 40929, Olympia, Washington 98504-0929, or supreme@courts.wa.gov. Comments submitted by e-mail message must be limited to 1500 words.

Please consider making your voice heard and submitting comment on the proposed rule change. 

Information on all Rule-Related Court Order is available on line at Courts.wa.gov. 

~TSRPs Michelle and Brad