Sheriff Knezovich threatens while Prosecutor Haskell seeks to justify
Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich continues to garner local and national attention for his threats to “clear” Camp Hope by October 14. His bluster gets him noticed. A sub-headline of an article posted to KREM2 reads:
Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich said he will declare the property a nuisance property and cite campers for unlawful assembly if they refuse to leave.
The KREM article is full of Ozzie’s unsubstantiated allegations, and opinions that will resonate with some listeners and repel others. I hear echoes of “I and I alone can fix it” in his statements—but Ozzie will not act alone. He needs legal justification.
The original RANGE Media article drops a hint:
“I do know that the county prosecutor provides legal counsel to the sheriff’s department,” Aho said, “so you might want to check with them.”
Spokane County Prosecutor Larry Haskell’s office was one of several agencies and organizations that have yet to respond to our requests for comment.
Another clue is found buried in subsequent Spokesman coverage tellingly entitled “Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich says homeless encampment an ‘ongoing protest,’ seeks warrant to clear it in October”:
Knezovich said the basis for clearing the camp would be provided by a warrant of abatement being drafted by the Spokane County Prosecutor’s Office. That process, outlined in state law, is different than the chronic nuisance property procedure written into city law. Knezovich said it would take 20 days to draft that warrant.
Whoa! “20 days” to draft a warrant? Think of that. First, not only does Ozzie have to seek legal justification for his strong-arm “clearance” of Camp Hope, but the legal process required to justify his actions through Spokane Prosecutor Larry Haskell’s office is going to take “20 days”. If the law around this issue is so crystal clear why could it possibly require “20 days” to produce a valid warrant?
Here’s where the “rule of law” to which we in this country pay justifiable homage gets a bit murky. Prosecutor Haskell, like every county prosecutor (see P.S. below) exercises “prosecutorial discretion” we would do well to understand. Yes, the law is the law, but how the law is interpreted and applied is, at least initially (before involving a judge) subject to the interpretation governed by the mindset of the County Prosecutor. Prosecutors in the office under the direction of the County Prosecutor (in this case Larry Haskell) attempt to frame an issue that might eventually have to be presented to a judge.
The statute linked in the Spokesman article, RCW 7.48.260, states [the bold is mine]:
When, upon indictment or information, complaint or action, any person is adjudged guilty of a nuisance…order that such nuisance be abated, or removed at the expense of the defendant, and after inquiry into and estimating, as nearly as may be, the sum necessary to defray the expenses of such abatement, the court may issue a warrant...
First, how is a “nuisance” defined as applied to this Chapter 7.48 RCW (the Chapter entitled “NUISANCES”)? We find that in the subchapter RCW 7.48.010 “Actionable Nuisances Defined”:
The obstruction of any highway or the closing of the channel of any stream used for boating or rafting logs, lumber or timber, or whatever is injurious to health or indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to essentially interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of the life and property, is a nuisance and the subject of an action for damages and other and further relief.
Reading that definition of “nuisances” one begins to understand why it might take Mr. Haskell “20 days” to construct a justification for Sheriff Knezovich to march his deputies in and “clear” Camp Hope. Does the process also require that a Spokane County District Court Judge become involved? After all, RCW 7.48.260 says “when any person is adjudged”. I’m no lawyer, but doesn’t “adjudged” imply a ruling by a judge on the strength of the argument, in this case an argument produced by the prosecutor? Or is this the wrong statute?
None of the media coverage of the controversy stirred up by Ozzie’s declaration demonstrates any clear understanding of the justification Haskell will use to give Knezovich the legal green light. In the last paragraph I followed a link offered by Kip Hill in his Spokesman article. A lawyer with whom I discussed this situation suggested that Haskell might try RCW 9A.84.010, the “criminal mischief” statutes under Washington State’s Title 9A, the state criminal code, specifically Chapter 9A.84 RCW, the section on “Public Disturbance”.
A KXLY article says that Ozzie will “will cite people for “unlawful assembly” and arrest them if they do not leave. I’m not a lawyer, but I am a careful reader, and cannot find an “unlawful assembly” statute in the Revised Code of Washington. When two reporters, Knezovich himself, and another lawyer aren’t more clear about what is going to be used to justify Knezovich’s threatened action, it suggests that Knezovich, with his posturing, might have gotten out ahead of the law . (If you have the time check out those RCW links to demonstrate for yourself the vagaries of legal interpretation and how it depends on the mindset of the Prosecutor.)
For Ozzie to send his deputies to Camp Hope to disperse (not solve, but disperse) the “homeless problem” requires Prosecutor Haskell to use his prosecutorial discretion to first pick a statute from among those bandied about and then construct a legal justification around it. Perhaps this will take 20 days. If Ozzie gets to “clear” Camp Hope, once he is dusting off his hands in a gesture of finality, once all the work being done at Camp Hope is brought to a halt (or at least made much harder) by his clearance, all he will have demonstrated is three things:
- It is much, much easier to tear down than it is to build trust and goodwill
- The issue of homelessness won’t go away, it will reappear, but more dispersed, and, once again, more challenging to manage
- When the law is twisted by those in power to justify kicking the downtrodden no one benefits
Keep in mind that Prosecutor Haskell has both an agenda and, by virtue of his position, a great deal of discretion in applying that agenda to his interpretation of the law. On the November 8 General Election ballot independent Deb Conklin offers a great alternative to Haskell who would be less likely to serve as the Sheriff’s always-willing justifier.
Keep to the high ground,
Jerry
P.S. For a short, accurate, and entertaining primer on prosecutorial discretion watch John Oliver’s “Prosecutors” on youtube. It was posted four years ago—and remains painfully relevant.
P.P.S. Finally, none of this has to really play out in court: the damage is done once Ozzie sends in his deputies to “clear” the camp. Some might argue that the damage is done just by leveling the threat. The legal maneuvering based on the details of the warrant will soon drop out of the news. The legal wrangling—and the taxpayer dollars it will cost—will go on long after Sheriff Knezovich has stepped down.
If you liked this post from Indivisible–The High Ground, why not share it?