Panel questions sufficiency of evidence for drug-paraphernalia finding in Golseth appeal

Ariana Downing, an attorney with the Big Washington Appellate Project, told an appellate panel that the Department of Corrections lacked the evidence required to support a disciplinary finding that inmate Sean Golseth possessed drug paraphernalia, and she asked the court to strike that infraction.

Downing said the Department deprived Golseth of due process before removing almost two years’ worth of good-time credits, arguing the record contains no evidence that the modified toilet-paper cores seized from Golseth were used for controlled substances rather than tobacco. "The Department of Corrections owed Sean Golseth due process before it deprived him of almost 2 years' worth of good time credits," Downing said, and she argued that without residue, testing, or other corroboration the more serious drug-paraphernalia finding should not stand.

The significance, she told the panel, is one of degree: Washington administrative rules distinguish tobacco paraphernalia from drug paraphernalia and the more serious classification carries far harsher disciplinary consequences. "If the state wants to pursue that more serious infraction, they really need to come forward with evidence that this is what this was," Downing said.

The state, represented by Mike Wynne, Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Corrections, urged the court to accept circumstantial evidence. Wynne said the combination of recovered homemade pipes showing burn marks and ashes and Golseth’s admissions that he fashioned and used the items to smoke allowed a hearing officer to infer drug use. "The recovery of the pipes that had signs of use combined with the statement of using them," Wynne said, "...gave the hearing officer a reasonable inference that it could have been drugs." He argued that direct evidence (for example, testable residue) is not always required to meet the "some evidence" appellate standard.

Panel members pressed both sides on how far circumstantial proof may go. One judge noted that many cases reach an inference of drugs when drugs are found nearby, but questioned whether the mere presence of a smoking device and burn marks — absent residue or other corroborating facts — is sufficient to elevate the offense from tobacco to drug paraphernalia. "Lack of evidence is a basis to overturn a finding," one judge said during the exchange.

The attorneys agreed on several points: there was no dispute Golseth possessed and used the homemade pipes, and the administrative record includes an inventory entry describing the items as "drug paraphernalia." The parties disagreed on whether that inventory notation, combined with the physical condition of the items and the inmate’s statements, satisfies the minimal evidentiary threshold for the more serious disciplinary classification. Wynne emphasized the hearing officer’s discretion to weigh credibility; Downing stressed that the record lacks the sort of observable residue, testing, or officer training statements that would make a finding of drug paraphernalia reasonably supported.

The panel did not announce a decision at the hearing. The court’s ruling will determine whether the drug-paraphernalia finding — and the disciplinary sanction attached to it — survives appellate review.