Criticism by officers unjust

Ethics rules encourage lawyers to defend judges unjustly criticized. Unjust criticism published on June 2 (“Behind the divide on bail reform, frustration over ‘revolving door’ “) demands a response.

Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich and Sgt. Pat Bloomer criticized Court Commissioner Steven Grovdahl for the pretrial release of Jordan Knippling and Gary Oliver. A review of the transcripts of those hearings reveals a different story.

Pretrial release is decided in an open, public hearing. Both sides are entitled to present evidence. Judges can make decisions only upon the evidence before them. The state presented no evidence in either hearing. None. Objective, validated screening favored release in both cases.

In the Knippling case, the state agreed to release. It is at best disingenuous that Knezovich failed to mention this to your reporter. In the Oliver case, there was no evidence presented to the judge on Mr. Bloomer’s suspicion of ongoing criminality. The officers told more to your reporter than they gave to the judge. Where I come from, these are known as cheap shots.

But more concerning are the officers’ comments that betray ignorance of the law. It is astonishing that these leaders have such little understanding of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.

In their world, an accusation is enough to imprison a citizen by way of high bail. But the Supreme Court, in Stack v. Boyle, 1951, held this practice unconstitutional. We are fortunate to have courageous judges to make these difficult, often unpopular, but nevertheless constitutional decisions every day.

Phillip Wetzel, attorney at law

Spokane