Clemency board recommends pardon for Dominic LaPreme, citing collateral harms to family and business
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
After testimony from petitioner Dominic LaPreme, his counsel and family, the board voted 4–1 to recommend a pardon to the governor, noting restrictions that impede his business and family life (including contracts on military bases and travel to Canada).
The Washington State Clemency and Pardons Board voted 4–1 to recommend a pardon for petitioner Dominic LaPreme, who told the board that longstanding convictions continue to prevent him from contracting with military and government entities and from traveling to Canada to visit family.
LaPreme, represented by attorney Kurt Bennett, said he was 18 at the time of the offenses and described rehabilitation in custody and post-release: "I've built a family, deep lasting relationships, and several businesses such as HomeStreet Electric," he told the board. Bennett argued a pardon was necessary because some convictions in this case are not vacatable under state law. The prosecutor, Thurston County senior deputy Joseph Jackson, said the office would not take a formal position but noted the legislature has deemed certain offenses not vacatable under RCW 9.94A.640 and that the court had vacated other charges in a separate proceeding.
Board members asked about specific collateral consequences: inability to bid on contracts with Joint Base Lewis-McChord and naval bases, limits on mentoring and coaching youth programs, and barriers to entering Canada. Jacqueline LaPreme, the petitioner’s wife, described family impacts from being unable to travel with her husband to visit relatives in Whistler and Alberta.
Board Member Rhonda Salveson moved to recommend a pardon, Vice Chair Doug Baldwin seconded, and the motion carried 4–1. Chair Raymond Delas Reyes reminded the petitioner that the board’s recommendation is advisory and that the governor holds the final decision.
The board recorded testimony, the prosecution's briefing, and the vote in the public record; details about the specific contracts and the Canadian process were presented by counsel and witnesses during testimony.