Whatcom County Judge Jones and members of the county's pretrial processes work group reviewed finalized policies for the county's Pretrial Services division and discussed an ongoing validation study of the Public Safety Assessment (PSA) during a virtual work group meeting.

The policies, which Judge Jones said were recently approved, standardize how Pretrial Services closes cases, escalates missed contacts to alleged-violation notices, handles reporting requirements and offers pretrial officers discretion to modify reporting methods (for example, authorizing telephone or Zoom contacts for people without transportation). "We're we're we're just we wanna create some consistency and some accountability for for the work of the pretrial services," Judge Jones said.

Why it matters: The written procedures formally describe practices Pretrial Services staff have been following and set common steps for filing notices to the court and parties when defendants do not make required contacts or when new alleged crimes appear in criminal-history checks. The policies also create a status-report template and a graded violation-response grid meant to calibrate responses based on supervision level (low, medium, high) rather than treating all missed requirements the same.

Key policy details discussed

- Case-closing criteria: Pretrial Services will close a defendant's case on supervision after events such as a guilty plea, dismissal, jury conviction, acceptance into a therapeutic court (for example, Recovery Court), or when the checkbox assigning the defendant to pretrial services is not checked on new or updated release conditions.

- Reporting requirement and discretion: The written policy requires defendants to contact Pretrial Services within 24 hours of release from custody; staff noted that the practical instruction given at release is to report on the next available business day when release occurs outside business hours. The policy also gives pretrial officers discretion to change reporting methods for individual circumstances (phone/Zoom in rural areas), and it lists factors officers should consider when making those decisions. Defense counsel may seek modification of release conditions through the court if they disagree with how reporting requirements are applied.

- Notices and escalation: Pretrial Services will file a "notice of no contact" when a defendant does not report within the required window; separate "notice of alleged violation" filings will be used for new alleged crimes identified through periodic criminal-history checks (performed weekly or monthly, as described) or for extended no-contact periods (for example, 30 days for someone on a high supervision level). Work group members emphasized that the officer's filing is informational to the court and parties; prosecution or defense may then ask the court to modify conditions.

- Violation-response grid: The policies introduce a grid that categorizes violations by seriousness and recommends different responses depending on a defendant's supervision level. The stated goal is consistency and to avoid treating minor missed contacts as equivalent to new criminal allegations.

- Reducing supervision: The policies allow Pretrial Services to recommend reducing or removing reporting requirements for defendants who demonstrate long-term compliance (including examples described of defendants reporting for years while awaiting resolution). Officers are directed to produce status reports upon request that summarize supervision level, duration, reporting frequency, and criminal-history checks to support requests to the court for condition changes.

Public Safety Assessment validation study

Work group members were told the county hired a statistician to produce a validation study of the jurisdiction's PSA and that a preliminary draft report has been received. The group plans to meet with the statistician for questions before broader distribution; Judge Jones said a meeting with the statistician is scheduled for Oct. 8. One member urged that the group not disband or change its format until the validation work can be reviewed together.

Process and next steps

- Distribution and comment: Judge Jones asked members to send comments about the policies to him; he also said the finalized policies would be circulated to Pretrial Services staff. Mallory Hamilton, the Superior Court programs manager, will help distribute materials.

- Meetings: The group agreed to keep a December meeting on the calendar (Judge Jones set the meeting on Dec. 5) and noted the chair may call a special meeting if the statistician's report requires more immediate group review. Members asked that the validation report be circulated in time to allow meaningful discussion ahead of the December meeting.

- Implementation notes: Participants flagged one drafting clarity issue: the written 24-hour reporting rule does not explicitly describe the weekend/holiday reporting practice; staff said the expectation is that release instructions specify the next business day when releases occur outside business hours and that the policy will be clarified.

No formal votes were recorded at the meeting. The meeting was primarily informational and procedural: the policies were described as recently approved by Judge Jones, officers were directed to produce status reports on request, and the PSA validation work is proceeding with a hired statistician.

The group did not make a final decision about permanently consolidating the pretrial work group with the law and justice subcommittee; members favored maintaining the status quo through December while they review the PSA validation report.