Bothell council adopts narrower drug‑loitering rule after judge’s ruling; enforcement paused earlier this summer

The Bothell City Council voted 6‑0 to adopt an ordinance amending Bothell Municipal Code Chapter 9.04.070 on drug loitering, saying the changes respond to a judicial ruling and clarify when officers may charge someone with the offense. The motion was moved by Council member Kurt and seconded by Council member Mankie; Council member Zorns was absent and excused.

The ordinance updates three main elements of the code: the definition of “loiter,” the description of covered locations, and an intent requirement. City Deputy Chief Julie Beard told the council the changes respond to a pro tempore judge's ruling received June 5 that found two portions of the prior law unclear. Beard said the city immediately “ceased using the drug loitering BMC” after the ruling and that staff have “quashed every arrest warrant related to that case.”

Why it matters: Police said the drug‑loitering provision had been used mainly in public shopping areas such as grocery‑store parking lots and sometimes involved people sitting in vehicles. From May 1, 2024, to May 31, 2025, Bothell Police recorded 73 drug‑loitering arrests involving 66 people; over the prior three years the department recorded 209 arrests. Beard told the council about high overlap with other offenses, saying roughly 20 percent of drug‑loitering contacts included additional charges such as domestic violence, vandalism, weapons violations, harassment or theft.

Key changes and law enforcement practice: Deputy Chief Beard described the revised definition of loiter as language that covers lingering or staying in a public place without a valid reason or purpose, explicitly including persons sitting in vehicles. The amended location language narrows the prior wording—previously framed as “public or private place”—to examples of public places such as commercial areas, parking lots and buildings so the code is not unconstitutionally broad. The ordinance also adds a mens rea element, requiring that the person act “knowingly” and “in a manner reasonably believed” to facilitate the commission of drug activity; city attorney Eileen Kiefer explained that the intent element raises the burden of proof and helps limit the statute's scope.

Staff described how officers would document intent: signs of intoxication, visible paraphernalia, statements from individuals, vehicle interior observations, and the person's prior contacts or court‑issued stay‑out orders. Beard and Kiefer said those factual details are what prosecutors would use to show the requisite intent in charging documents.

Legal and implementation notes: Kiefer said the judge's ruling targeted only the two portions of chapter 9.04 related to the loiter definition and the drug‑loitering offense; the remainder of the chapter remains in force. Council members asked whether past arrests would be vacated; Beard said the city had quashed outstanding warrants and was in ongoing discussions with the prosecutor about how far back to apply relief. The ordinance includes a delayed effective date (about 30 days) to allow for the possibility of a referendum challenge, staff said.

Discussion and questions from council: Council members pressed staff for more data on which arrests resulted in referral to therapeutic courts (the Adult Recovery Court in Snohomish County), and Beard said she is working to obtain that breakdown. Council members also asked how the “knowingly” requirement would be proved; Kiefer and Beard described interrogation statements, observable intoxication, paraphernalia and criminal history as components prosecutors would cite.

What the vote does and next steps: With the ordinance approved 6‑0, the amended language will take effect after the stated waiting period unless successfully challenged. Staff said they will resume enforcement under the revised code only after the effective date and after coordination with the prosecutor's office. The police department will continue to participate in therapeutic‑court processes for qualifying cases.

Community impacts and limits: The council and staff emphasized the change is a narrow fix rather than a repeal. They said the intent language and the narrower location definitions are designed to avoid criminalizing ordinary activities (for example, waiting in a vehicle to pick up a prescription) while preserving a tool to address repeated, observable public drug use tied to other criminal behavior.

Timeline: City staff stopped enforcing the drug‑loitering provision on June 5 when the prosecutor's office notified the city of the ruling; staff then spent several months consulting with the prosecutor and city attorney and drafting amendments that the council adopted at this meeting.

Speakers quoted or paraphrased in this article are identified in the council transcript and are listed in the article's speakers section.