×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Prisoners' Spouses Challenge Washington 35% Law
Past issues of PLN have detailed the litigation in Wright v. Riveland, the federal class action suit challenging the legality of RCW 72.09.480, a Washington state statute that mandates the seizure, without exceptions, of 35% of all funds sent to prisoners. On May 16, 1997, a class action suit was filed in King County (Seattle) superior court on behalf of the spouses of all prisoners in Washington challenging the legality of the law. The class representative, Suzanne Dean, is married to a prisoner. With 60,000 people under DOC jurisdiction and subject to the statute (13,000 are held in prison, the remainder are on "community supervision,") it is estimated that 10,000 people are married to prisoners and thus subject to the statute's provisions on the seizure of community funds.
The lawsuit claims that RCW 72.09.480 violates the federal constitutional rights of the plaintiffs by denying them equal protection of law by illegally discriminating between class members and all other married spouses in the state who are not subject to having 35% of community property funds seized by the state if they share the funds with their spouse. The plaintiffs' right to due process is violated as the funds are seized without a hearing. The law also violates the U.S. constitution's ban on bills of attainder which single out groups of people for punishment; the takings clause of the fifth amendment and the first amendment's right to free speech and religion.
The lawsuit claims that the plaintiffs' state constitutional rights are violated as Article VIII, § 1 of the state constitution requires uniformity in property taxation; Article XIII, § I requires that penal institutions be supported by the state; the seizure statute also violates the plaintiffs rights to due process under the privileges and immunities clause, the takings clause as well as the free speech and special legislation provisions of the state constitution by singling out the community property of free citizens married to prisoners. The statute also violates RCW 43.135, which was enacted as Initiative 601, and imposed spending and taxation limits on the state. Funds seized under RCW 72.09.480 are earmarked until the year 2000 to build up the DOC's prison industries programs. In essence, having the families of prisoners pay for the enslavement of their relatives.
The lawsuit seeks a declaration that RCW 72.09480 is unconstitutional under the state and federal constitutions; an order enjoining enforcement of the seizure statute; restitution of all money seized under the statute, with interest, and attorney fees.
The plaintiffs are represented by Chris Youtz and Brian Esler of the Seattle law firm of Sirianni and Youtz, the same attorneys who represent the prisoner plaintiffs in Wright v. Riveland. The case is Dean v. Lehman, case no. 97-2-2906-1-SEA. PLN will report developments in both suits as they progress.
The lawsuit claims that RCW 72.09.480 violates the federal constitutional rights of the plaintiffs by denying them equal protection of law by illegally discriminating between class members and all other married spouses in the state who are not subject to having 35% of community property funds seized by the state if they share the funds with their spouse. The plaintiffs' right to due process is violated as the funds are seized without a hearing. The law also violates the U.S. constitution's ban on bills of attainder which single out groups of people for punishment; the takings clause of the fifth amendment and the first amendment's right to free speech and religion.
The lawsuit claims that the plaintiffs' state constitutional rights are violated as Article VIII, § 1 of the state constitution requires uniformity in property taxation; Article XIII, § I requires that penal institutions be supported by the state; the seizure statute also violates the plaintiffs rights to due process under the privileges and immunities clause, the takings clause as well as the free speech and special legislation provisions of the state constitution by singling out the community property of free citizens married to prisoners. The statute also violates RCW 43.135, which was enacted as Initiative 601, and imposed spending and taxation limits on the state. Funds seized under RCW 72.09.480 are earmarked until the year 2000 to build up the DOC's prison industries programs. In essence, having the families of prisoners pay for the enslavement of their relatives.
The lawsuit seeks a declaration that RCW 72.09480 is unconstitutional under the state and federal constitutions; an order enjoining enforcement of the seizure statute; restitution of all money seized under the statute, with interest, and attorney fees.
The plaintiffs are represented by Chris Youtz and Brian Esler of the Seattle law firm of Sirianni and Youtz, the same attorneys who represent the prisoner plaintiffs in Wright v. Riveland. The case is Dean v. Lehman, case no. 97-2-2906-1-SEA. PLN will report developments in both suits as they progress.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Dean v. Lehman
| Year | 1997 |
|---|---|
| Cite | King County Sup. Ct. Case No. 97-2-2906-1-SEA |
| Level | State Trial Court |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |