430 P.3d 677
Wash. Ct. App.2018Background
- Jeffrey Brettell sexually assaulted two 14‑year‑old girls in 2013–2014, using alcohol, marijuana, and promises of jobs to facilitate the crimes; searches and images on his devices supported the offenses.
- He pleaded guilty to two counts of rape of a child in the third degree and one count of commercial sexual abuse of a minor, and was sentenced to 72 months confinement plus 36 months community custody with 27 community‑custody conditions.
- Brettell filed a personal restraint petition (PRP) collaterally challenging six community custody conditions as vague or beyond statutory authority; he withdrew some earlier challenges.
- The State conceded one condition—prohibiting frequenting “areas where minor children are known to congregate”—is unconstitutionally vague.
- The Court of Appeals vacated that condition and remanded for revision; it rejected Brettell’s remaining vagueness and statutory‑authority challenges and denied relief as to those conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Brettell's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Condition prohibiting frequenting “areas where minor children are known to congregate” — vagueness | Phrase fails to give fair notice; chills rights | State conceded the condition is vague | Condition is unconstitutionally vague; vacated and remanded for correction |
| Condition barring association with “known users or sellers of illegal drugs” — vagueness | “Known” is ambiguous as to who must have the knowledge; “users/sellers” and “illegal” are unclear | Ordinary‑person understanding and statutory authority make it sufficiently definite; “known” refers to defendant’s knowledge | Not impermissibly vague; condition upheld |
| Drug/alcohol conditions (no possession of controlled substances except prescription; no drug paraphernalia; UA/Breathalyzer testing) — exceed statutory authority/crime‑related | Not sufficiently crime‑related so court lacked authority | Facts (drug/alcohol used to facilitate assaults; victims intoxicated) show nexus; some conditions are waivable by statute | Conditions are authorized and sufficiently crime‑related or are statutorily waivable; upheld |
| Plethysmograph testing as directed by treatment provider — authority to order | Court lacked authority; condition didn’t expressly require participation in sexual deviancy treatment; CCO cannot order the test | Plethysmograph testing is allowable as part of crime‑related sexual deviancy assessment/treatment and is directed by a certified provider, not the CCO | Condition upheld as authorized and tied to treatment/monitoring |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bahl, 164 Wn.2d 739 (Washington Supreme Court) (vagueness standard for community custody conditions)
- United States v. Vega, 545 F.3d 743 (9th Cir.) (interpreting “associate” conditions and the effect of adding “known”)
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court) (federal Controlled Substances Act preemption implications for marijuana)
- State v. Riley, 121 Wn.2d 22 (Washington Supreme Court) (permitting restrictions on association when reasonably necessary)
- State v. Llamas‑Villa, 67 Wn. App. 448 (Wash. Ct. App.) (upholding terms like using, possessing, dealing as providing fair notice)
- City of Spokane v. Douglass, 115 Wn.2d 171 (Washington Supreme Court) (vagueness analysis and standards for prohibition language)