Weekly Roundup for the week of August 17, 2026
Division I
Pretrial Release Conditions – Pretrial drug monitoring patches are a search under Article I, Section 7, and must therefore be supported by authority of law to be lawful. Here, neither RCW 10.21.045, nor CrRLJ 3.2, provided authority of law. And neither the compelling interest test, nor the “special needs” exception to the search warrant requirement applied. The drug monitoring patch, and the process for obtaining the patch, reveal more personal information than necessary. Thus, the patch condition was not narrowly tailored, and not lawful. Bailey-Cobb v. Snohomish County District Court, No. 87738-1-I (Aug. 17, 2026)
Double Jeopardy – When a defendant pleads guilty to a lesser offense, double jeopardy does not bar another prosecution based on the same conduct if the state previously lacked the evidence needed to prove the greater charge beyond a reasonable doubt despite having acted diligently to obtain that evidence. The court based its decision on the “Diaz exception” to the double jeopardy rule, citing Diaz v. United States, 223 US 442 (1912). State v. Tuufuli, No. 88372-1-I (Aug. 17, 2026)
Miller-Fix Resentencing – De facto life-without-parole sentences are unconstitutional only for those juvenile offenders whose crimes reflect youthful immaturity, impetuosity, or failure to appreciate risks or consequences. That was not the case here. Rather, the defendant and another youth spent at least a year planning the murders and chose to act before they turned 18 so they would receive less severe punishment if caught. The trial court correctly applied the Miller factors at resentencing. Thus, the 46-year sentence that the court imposed at the resentencing was constitutional, despite the defendant being 17 years old when he committed the murders in 1997. State v. Baranyi, No. 87297-4-I (Aug. 17, 2026)