SENATE BILL REPORT

SHB 692

BYHouse Committee on Judiciary (originally sponsored by Representatives Niemi, Locke, Jacobsen, Leonard, Sanders, P. King, May, Brough, L. Smith and Sprenkle)

Changing opium dens to houses where controlled substances are made or used in moral nuisance statute.

House Committe on Judiciary

Senate Committee on Law & Justice

Senate Hearing Date(s):February 17, 1988; February 24, 1988

Majority Report:     Do pass as amended.

     Signed by Senators McCaslin, Vice Chairman; Halsan, Hayner, Madsen, Nelson, Newhouse, Talmadge.

Senate Staff:Dick Armstrong (786-7460)

                February 24, 1988

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON LAW & JUSTICE, FEBRUARY 24, 1988

BACKGROUND:

Moral nuisances include houses of prostitution, places where illegal gambling occurs, places where fighting, drunkenness or breaches of the peace occur, and opium dens.

Prosecutors may proceed against a person who maintains a nuisance in two ways.  First, a prosecutor may proceed against the perpetrator of a moral nuisance or the property owner in a civil action if a person "with knowledge maintains a moral nuisance."  A person found guilty of this may be fined up to $25,000.  Second, prosecutors may initiate abatement procedures against the perpetrator of a nuisance or the owner of the property where the nuisance is maintained.  This allows for immediate shutdown of the alleged nuisance pending determination that a moral nuisance actually exists.  Under the statute a person who maintains a moral nuisance, or the owner of the property who has actual or constructive notice of the maintenance of such nuisance, may be fined $300.

SUMMARY:

Buildings where illegal narcotics are used or delivered, commonly known as rockhouses, are moral nuisances.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SENATE AMENDMENT:

Buildings used for the purpose of unlawfully selling or manufacturing illegal drugs are declared to be a nuisance if such activity has an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood.  Buildings determined to be a nuisance are to be placed in the custody of the court and remain closed for a period of one year unless released sooner by the court. 

Upon filing a compliant of a nuisance, a court hearing must granted within three days.  Procedures are set forth for a court to determine if a building is a nuisance and issue an order of abatement.

Prior to a court hearing a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction may be granted if the person seeking the order gives a bond or other security of not less than $1,000 to pay damages to a person wrongfully restrained.

An Order of Abatement may not be entered if the owner had no knowledge of the nuisance or has made reasonable efforts to abate the the nuisance, has not been guilty of any contempt of court, and will prevent the building from being a nuisance for a period of one year.

An intentional or willful violation of an abatement order is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 and imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.

Existing law regarding the interception and recording of conversations involving illegal controlled substances is modified to recognize the sophistication of the illegal drug trade in the state.

A conversation involving illegal drugs may be intercepted and recorded with the consent of one party to the conversation, but without prior judicial approval, for the sole purpose of protecting the safety of the consenting party.  A police commander must provide detailed written authorization for the recording and within 15 days a report must be sent to a court having jurisdiction and the Administrator of the Courts.  Evidence from the recording is not admissible in court unless the consenting party was a victim of assault or murder or unless the nonconsenting party gives permission.

A conversation involving illegal drugs may also be intercepted and recorded with the consent of one party to the conversation, but without prior judicial approval, when the emergent needs of a criminal investigation do not allow sufficient time to obtain judicial approval or there has been an unsuccessful good faith attempt to contact a judge.  A police agency chief or designee must provide a detailed written report on the need for the interception and recording.  A report must be submitted to the presiding judge of a superior court within two judicial days of the recording and an ex parte hearing must be held to determine the validity of the authorization.

Evidence from the recording is admissible only if there has been compliance with the requirements of the act which allow for the interception.

A person who unlawfully intercepts a conversation is liable for (a) actual damages, or liquidated damages of $100 per day; (b) statutory damages of $25,000; and (c) reasonable attorneys fees and costs.  A police employee (but not the agency) is immune from liability if the employee acted in good faith and with a reasonable belief of the lawfulness of the interception or the acts producing liability were performed by another agency employee.

The Office of the Administrator for the Courts is to submit a report to the Legislature by December 1 of each year regarding information on nonjudicially authorized one party consent interceptions.

Appropriation:  none

Revenue:   none

Fiscal Note:    none requested

Senate Committee - Testified:   Detective Jim Geiser, Seattle Police Department; Leo Poort, Legal Adviser, Seattle Police Department