Washington Prosecutors Are Sounding the Alarm on Proposed Bail Changes

The Washington State Supreme Court is considering significant changes to the rule that governs how bail is set in Washington, and prosecutors, legal experts, and bail industry professionals are urging the public to pay attention. Public comments are open until April 30, 2026. Here's what you need to know.

What Is CrR 3.2, and Why Does It Matter?

If you've ever wondered how a judge decides whether to release someone from jail after an arrest, and if so on what terms, the answer in Washington State is largely contained in a document called Criminal Rule 3.2, or CrR 3.2.

This rule, formally titled "Release of Accused," sets the framework that Washington judges use at bail hearings. It establishes a presumption that defendants should be released before trial, while also laying out the conditions under which bail can be set and what factors judges are allowed to consider when making that decision.

One of those factors, currently written into CrR 3.2, allows a judge to set bail when there is a "substantial danger" that the defendant will "unlawfully interfere with the administration of justice." In practice, this is a broad provision that prosecutors and judges have relied upon to set bail in situations where a defendant might intimidate witnesses, tamper with evidence, or simply pose a risk that the case won't proceed fairly.

The proposed amendment would narrow this language significantly. That's where the debate begins.

What Exactly Is Being Proposed?

The suggested amendment, submitted by the King County Department of Defense, the Washington State Office of Public Defense, and the Snohomish County Office of Public Defense, proposes to tighten the definition of what qualifies as "interference with the administration of justice."

Under the current rule, judges have broad discretion to interpret this standard. Under the proposed change, courts would be limited to considering only whether a defendant is likely to "seek to intimidate or threaten a witness, victim, or court employee, or tamper with evidence."

Proponents of the change argue the existing language is too vague, that it has been misapplied by courts in ways that effectively punish defendants for missing prior hearings rather than for posing a genuine danger, and that limiting bail keeps low-income defendants from being disproportionately detained while awaiting trial.

Opponents, including several prominent Washington prosecutors, argue the change would strip judges of a critical tool and make it harder to protect victims, witnesses, and the broader public.

You can read the full proposed amendment and public comments here.

Who Is Speaking Out, and What Are They Saying?

The debate around this proposal has drawn voices from across Washington's legal and law enforcement community. The concerns are not coming from one side of the political spectrum. They're coming from the people who work inside the system every day.

Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney Mary Robnett

Robnett has been one of the most outspoken voices against the proposed changes. As the elected prosecutor for Pierce County, which includes Tacoma and is one of Washington's most populous counties, she has deep firsthand experience with how bail decisions play out in practice. Her concern is not abstract: she has seen cases where the current "administration of justice" standard provided the only available mechanism to keep dangerous defendants off the streets while cases proceed.

King County Prosecuting Attorney Leesa Manion

King County Prosecuting Attorney Leesa Manion has also raised concerns about the proposal. Manion is a Democrat who has made criminal justice reform a central part of her tenure and is not reflexively opposed to changes that improve fairness in the system. Her concerns about this specific proposal are particularly notable for that reason: when a prosecutor with a demonstrated commitment to reform speaks out against a rule change, it's worth listening carefully to why.

Her worry centers on the practical effect of narrowing the standard in cases where defendants pose a genuine risk to case integrity, even when that risk doesn't rise to the level of explicit witness threats.

Courtney Wimer, Washington State Bail Agents Association

Courtney Wimer, President of the Washington State Bail Agents Association and a bail bondsman with 16 years of experience, sat down with FOX 13 Seattle to explain what the bail industry sees in this proposal.

Wimer's point is grounded in how the bail system actually functions. When a bail bond is posted through a licensed bondsman, a web of accountability is created: the bondsman vets the defendant, a co-signer (often a family member) accepts legal and financial responsibility, and the bondsman has a direct financial incentive to ensure the defendant appears in court. That accountability structure is private, community-rooted, and enforceable. It is what makes the current system work.

Remove the financial accountability of the bail bond system, Wimer argues, and you remove one of the most reliable mechanisms for ensuring court appearances. Watch the full FOX 13 Seattle segment here.

What Would Change in Practice?

It's worth being clear about what this proposal would and wouldn't do, because the debate can quickly become abstract. Here's the practical impact as critics see it:

• Judges would lose discretion in a wide range of cases. Under the proposed language, a judge could only cite the "administration of justice" factor if they could point to specific evidence that a defendant was likely to threaten a witness or tamper with evidence. Broader concerns about a defendant's history of ignoring court orders, pattern of repeat offenses while on release, or other risk factors would no longer fit under this provision.
• Repeat offenders could be harder to hold. Several legal commenters on the proposed rule change have pointed to scenarios where a defendant is repeatedly released and repeatedly re-arrested on new charges. Under the current rule, a judge might cite the "administration of justice" standard as one basis for setting bail in these situations. That option would be effectively removed.
• The private bail bond system could be further weakened. The proposal is part of a broader conversation in Washington about pretrial release reform. Some advocates for the change have also expressed support for eliminating cash bail altogether, a shift that would fundamentally alter the role of licensed bail bond agencies in the state.

The Role of Bail Bonds in Washington's Justice System

We want to be transparent: as a bail bond company, All City Bail Bonds has a direct stake in how Washington's bail rules are written. We think that's worth naming plainly rather than obscuring.

But we also believe, after more than 30 years of serving Washington families, that the private bail system provides something genuinely valuable that is often missing from the conversation about reform.

When someone is released on a bail bond in Washington, their bondsman doesn't just post the money and walk away. They interview the defendant. They verify information. They often require a co-signer, typically a family member or close friend, who accepts legal and financial responsibility for the defendant's court appearances. That co-signer has a personal stake in making sure their loved one shows up. The bondsman has a financial stake. The defendant has the relationship at risk.

That network of accountability is private, fast, and community-rooted. It exists because bail bonds exist. Replace the bail system with government-administered pretrial release, as some reformers ultimately want, and you replace that network with a bureaucratic process that has no equivalent financial incentive structure.

That's not an argument against reform. The bail system has real inequities that deserve serious attention. But it is an argument for being careful about what gets dismantled in the process of improving it.

What Happens Next?

After the public comment period closes on April 30, 2026, the Washington Supreme Court's rules committee will review all submitted comments and make a recommendation to the full Court. The Court may adopt the proposed changes, modify them, or decline to proceed with the amendment.

All City Bail Bonds will continue to follow this closely and keep our clients and community informed as the process develops. If you have questions about how Washington's current bail system works, or what these changes might mean in practice, we're available 24 hours a day to talk it through.