Read first time 02/11/2005.   Referred to Committee on Criminal Justice & Corrections.

     AN ACT Relating to classifying identity theft as a crime against persons; and reenacting and amending RCW 9.94A.411.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

Sec. 1   RCW 9.94A.411 and 2000 c 119 s 28 and 2000 c 28 s 17 are each reenacted and amended to read as follows:
     (1) Decision not to prosecute.
     STANDARD: A prosecuting attorney may decline to prosecute, even though technically sufficient evidence to prosecute exists, in situations where prosecution would serve no public purpose, would defeat the underlying purpose of the law in question or would result in decreased respect for the law.
     GUIDELINE/COMMENTARY:
     Examples
     The following are examples of reasons not to prosecute which could satisfy the standard.
     (a) Contrary to Legislative Intent - It may be proper to decline to charge where the application of criminal sanctions would be clearly contrary to the intent of the legislature in enacting the particular statute.
     (b) Antiquated Statute - It may be proper to decline to charge where the statute in question is antiquated in that:
     (i) It has not been enforced for many years; and
     (ii) Most members of society act as if it were no longer in existence; and
     (iii) It serves no deterrent or protective purpose in today's society; and
     (iv) The statute has not been recently reconsidered by the legislature.
     This reason is not to be construed as the basis for declining cases because the law in question is unpopular or because it is difficult to enforce.
     (c) De Minimis Violation - It may be proper to decline to charge where the violation of law is only technical or insubstantial and where no public interest or deterrent purpose would be served by prosecution.
     (d) Confinement on Other Charges - It may be proper to decline to charge because the accused has been sentenced on another charge to a lengthy period of confinement; and
     (i) Conviction of the new offense would not merit any additional direct or collateral punishment;
     (ii) The new offense is either a misdemeanor or a felony which is not particularly aggravated; and
     (iii) Conviction of the new offense would not serve any significant deterrent purpose.
     (e) Pending Conviction on Another Charge - It may be proper to decline to charge because the accused is facing a pending prosecution in the same or another county; and
     (i) Conviction of the new offense would not merit any additional direct or collateral punishment;
     (ii) Conviction in the pending prosecution is imminent;
     (iii) The new offense is either a misdemeanor or a felony which is not particularly aggravated; and
     (iv) Conviction of the new offense would not serve any significant deterrent purpose.
     (f) High Disproportionate Cost of Prosecution - It may be proper to decline to charge where the cost of locating or transporting, or the burden on, prosecution witnesses is highly disproportionate to the importance of prosecuting the offense in question. This reason should be limited to minor cases and should not be relied upon in serious cases.
     (g) Improper Motives of Complainant - It may be proper to decline charges because the motives of the complainant are improper and prosecution would serve no public purpose, would defeat the underlying purpose of the law in question or would result in decreased respect for the law.
     (h) Immunity - It may be proper to decline to charge where immunity is to be given to an accused in order to prosecute another where the accused's information or testimony will reasonably lead to the conviction of others who are responsible for more serious criminal conduct or who represent a greater danger to the public interest.
     (i) Victim Request - It may be proper to decline to charge because the victim requests that no criminal charges be filed and the case involves the following crimes or situations:
     (i) Assault cases where the victim has suffered little or no injury;
     (ii) Crimes against property, not involving violence, where no major loss was suffered;
     (iii) Where doing so would not jeopardize the safety of society.
     Care should be taken to insure that the victim's request is freely made and is not the product of threats or pressure by the accused.
     The presence of these factors may also justify the decision to dismiss a prosecution which has been commenced.
     Notification
     The prosecutor is encouraged to notify the victim, when practical, and the law enforcement personnel, of the decision not to prosecute.
     (2) Decision to prosecute.
     (a) STANDARD:
     Crimes against persons will be filed if sufficient admissible evidence exists, which, when considered with the most plausible, reasonably foreseeable defense that could be raised under the evidence, would justify conviction by a reasonable and objective fact-finder. With regard to offenses prohibited by RCW 9A.44.040, 9A.44.050, 9A.44.073, 9A.44.076, 9A.44.079, 9A.44.083, 9A.44.086, 9A.44.089, and 9A.64.020 the prosecutor should avoid prefiling agreements or diversions intended to place the accused in a program of treatment or counseling, so that treatment, if determined to be beneficial, can be provided pursuant to RCW 9.94A.670.
     Crimes against property/other crimes will be filed if the admissible evidence is of such convincing force as to make it probable that a reasonable and objective fact-finder would convict after hearing all the admissible evidence and the most plausible defense that could be raised.
     See table below for the crimes within these categories.