Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Prison Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court of Appeals hears challenge to DOC use of presumptive drug tests in discipline
Summary
At oral argument in Clifton Bell et al. v. Department of Corrections, plaintiffs urged the court to allow class and tort claims over DOC’s use of presumptive drug tests and sought policy changes and some expungement; the state defended the dismissal, citing sovereign immunity, PRP jurisdiction, and lack of a private analog.
The Washington Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Clifton Bell et al. v. Department of Corrections over whether incarcerated people may bring classwide or common‑law tort claims based on the Department’s use of presumptive drug tests.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Lisonbee Veil of Columbia Legal Services told the three‑judge panel the lower court’s dismissal should be reversed for three reasons: incarcerated individuals are not restricted to personal‑restraint petitions (PRPs) for systemic relief; common‑law tort claims should be allowed to go to a jury; and, if common‑law torts are unavailable, the Washington Constitution should supply a remedy. “We ask this court to reverse the lower court’s dismissal for 3 primary reasons,” Veil said.
Veil said the relief plaintiffs seek includes a policy change so DOC will not treat presumptive screening tests as proof of guilt unless confirmed by an accredited laboratory, and relief to prevent punitive sanctions while confirmatory testing is pending. She told the court the complaint and record include declarations showing some people were punished — including placement in solitary confinement — while DOC declined to authorize confirmatory testing. Veil also asserted the tests frequently produce false positives and false negatives and cited examples in the record she said showed unreliable screening results.
Special Assistant Attorney General Kaylin Wood, joined by co‑counsel Erin Williams for DOC, urged the panel to affirm the dismissal. Wood said the legislature has not waived sovereign immunity for constitutional damages and that RCW 4.92.090 requires, for the statute’s limited waiver to apply, some analogous private‑sector conduct. She argued running prisons and disciplining inmates is a governmental function without a private counterpart and that available review of prison discipline is through PRPs, not general civil actions. “The trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s complaint because none of the remedies they sought are legally viable,” Wood told the court.
Wood acknowledged DOC’s duty to protect inmate health and safety and framed the department’s challenged practices in the context of drug‑introduction and overdose problems in custody. She cited 2025 figures presented in the record — three confirmed overdose deaths, three deaths under investigation, and 205 medical emergencies where Narcan was deployed — to explain DOC’s interest in tools to detect contraband. DOC also argued that, even under plaintiffs’ factual allegations, the complaint does not plead a cognizable tort cause of action under existing Washington law.
Judges pressed both sides on legal posture and remedies. One judge reminded counsel that the trial court’s dismissal was decided on the complaint, attachments and public‑agency records and asked counsel to limit argument to that record. The panel also queried whether injunctive relief can be used to correct past infractions or is limited to prospective relief; plaintiffs’ counsel said discovery could reveal untested material or other proof that would warrant clearing past infractions or restoring good conduct time.
The parties disputed whether a private‑sector analog exists for DOC conduct and whether that question is dispositive under the state’s waiver statute and case law. Defense counsel emphasized the state Supreme Court and statute limit courts’ ability to create constitutional torts against the state; plaintiffs’ counsel said that discovery could show individualized wrongdoing and systemic practices that would merit civil remedies.
Both sides relied on documentary exhibits and declarations filed in the trial court. Plaintiffs cited a scientific expert report and declarations of incarcerated individuals; Wood pointed to studies and statutory text she said supported DOC’s privileged authority to govern prisons.
After concluding rebuttal and additional questioning about sovereign‑immunity principles, the panel moved on to the next case. The Court of Appeals did not announce a ruling at the hearing.
