Ruling Imperils Probation, Other Alternatives To Jail Court Says Governments Liable For Harm Caused By Offenders

People injured by inmates on probation or pretrial release may seek damages from the cities or counties responsible for supervising them, the state Supreme Court decided Thursday.

The 6-3 decision came with a warning from Justice Phil Talmadge that unless the Legislature acts to limit the growing liability of governments for actions of offenders under their supervision, alternatives to jail and prison - such as probation - could become too risky to maintain.

In the case decided Thursday, the court ruled that city and county governments are liable for the actions of offenders who are released pending their trials or who are on probation.

Spokane County Superior Court Judge James Murphy said the decision will put extra pressure on overworked city and county probation officers.

“They get by with what they have, and oftentimes that’s not enough,” Murphy said. “You just have to keep a closer eye on folks, and you have to have the resources to do that.”

There are six city probation officers and five county officers working in Spokane County.

“They all work a high volume of cases,” said Karla Colbert McNeilly, the chief probation officer for Spokane District Court.

Murphy said cities and counties may be able to use the ruling to lobby the Legislature for money to hire more probation officers.

The ruling came in a lawsuit filed against Seattle and King County by the guardian ad litem of a 6-year-old girl raped in 1990 by Barry Lee Krantz.

Krantz at the time was on probation from Seattle Municipal Court for a 1989 lewd conduct conviction, and on pretrial release while awaiting King County charges on a 1990 sexually motivated burglary.

The majority said cities and counties are as liable for the conduct of offenders under their supervision as is the state, which was found to be liable in an earlier court ruling on another case.

“We hold that municipal probation counselors, county pretrial release counselors who have supervisory authority and their employing agencies have a duty to protect others from reasonably foreseeable danger resulting from the dangerous propensities of probationers and pretrial releases under their supervision,” Justice Barbara Madsen wrote for the majority.

The majority agreed that city and county counselors had ample reason to properly monitor Krantz, who had a long history of sex crimes and substance abuse and who had violated probation conditions many times.

For example, they failed to ensure Krantz underwent random or regular testing for drug and alcohol abuse, even though his record showed the abuse led to his criminal behavior, the court noted.

In a dissent written by Justice Gerry Alexander, three justices said they agreed the city was liable but not the county, on grounds that county pretrial release counselors have virtually no power to control the behavior of those under their supervision.

Talmadge sided with the majority, saying it had correctly applied state law, but he added that the law itself threatens the existence of jail and prison alternatives to deal with offenders. He suggested the Legislature revise the law to reduce exposure to lawsuits.

“Release decisions simply cannot be made with great precision,” he wrote. “To the extent that our case law may create what amounts to strict liability for ultimately unfortunate release decisions, the natural consequence will be that local governments will choose to end misdemeanor probation and-or pretrial detention conditions rather than run the risk of extraordinary damage awards should they fail to foretell an individual will cause harm.”