Tacoma — A Pierce County man who uses a wheelchair and didn’t have proper access to a bathroom and running water in prison was held in “unconstitutionally cruel” prison conditions, according to the Washington State Supreme Court.
A unanimous opinion Thursday explained the court’s reasoning for ordering earlier this year that 78-year-old Robert Rufus Williams’ conditions of confinement were unconstitutional and that the state Department of Corrections needed to improve them or release him. DOC took steps to address those conditions, and the court did not order his release.
“We hold that the Washington Constitution is more protective than the federal constitution in the context of prison conditions and accordingly announce a test to analyze conditions of confinement that provides the protection required by article I, section 14,” of the state constitution, Justice Barbara Madsen wrote for the court. “Under this test, the conditions of Williams’s incarceration violated our state’s cruel punishment clause because those conditions exposed Williams to a significant risk of serious harm by depriving him basic hygienic necessities and those conditions were not sufficiently related to any legitimate penological interest.”
Asked about the opinion and what it means going forward, DOC said in a statement Friday that the agency “is pleased the Court acknowledges the extensive COVID-19 mitigation measures the Department put in place to protect the incarcerated population, and that the Court affirmed that those measures were lawful. The Department acted promptly to comply with the Court’s previous order by moving Mr. Williams to an assisted living housing unit.”
Jacqueline McMurtrie and Kaylan Lovrovich are attorneys with the Washington Innocence Project who represented Williams. They said in a statement Thursday: “We are pleased that the Court recognized Washington’s cruel punishment provision provides greater protection than its federal counterpart. However, Mr. Williams is a 78-year-old, wheelchair bound, Black man with numerous serious health conditions, and we remain gravely concerned about his safety and well being given the Delta variant and the continued COVID-19 outbreaks within the prison.”
There have been 6,612 confirmed cases and 14 deaths in Washington state’s incarcerated population, according to DOC’s COVID-19 data website. Part of the high court’s opinion outlined various steps the agency has taken in response to the pandemic.
The opinion gave this account of Williams’ incarceration:
He was held at the Coyote Ridge Corrections Center in Connell at the beginning of the pandemic, where he had several roommates. He has diabetes, hypertension and uses a wheelchair following a stroke that immobilized the right size of his body.
“Because that cell was dry—lacking a sink or toilet—Williams had to wait for prison staff to unlock his cell and move him to an accessible bathroom facility equipped to accommodate his needs,” Madsen wrote. “Williams often waited long periods of time for assistance to the bathroom. As a result, he was forced to relieve himself in bottles and was unable to keep himself clean.”
‘Objectively cruel’
Williams argued he was being held in conditions that amounted to cruel punishment and violated his constitutional rights. As his case was pending, he tested positive for COVID-19.
“Williams asserted that the surge of COVID-19 throughout DOC facilities showed that DOC was incapable of controlling the outbreak; he also proposed a test for reviewing challenges to prison conditions that would require the State to establish the penological justifications for ongoing confinement in light of ‘new objective data’ showing a punishment’s disparate impact on individuals based on race, age, or disability,” the opinion explained. “… Williams argued that his confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic was cruel.”
The court partly agreed and ordered March 12 that DOC needed to release Williams or fix the conditions he was being held under. The order said the court would file an opinion explaining its decision later.
DOC moved Williams to an assisted living unit, assigned him an aide and gave him an emergency pendant and access to a restroom that complied with the Americans with Disabilities Act, among other things. The court found those measures fixed the unconstitutional conditions.
“We concluded his conditions of confinement—specifically the lack of reasonable access to bathroom facilities and running water, as well as DOC’s failure to provide Williams with appropriate assistance in light of his disabilities—constituted cruel punishment pursuant to article I, section 14 of our state constitution,” Madsen explained in the opinion Thursday.
The high court said the test is whether someone can show the conditions of their confinement “create an objectively significant risk of serious harm or otherwise deprive a person of the basic necessities of human dignity,” and whether those conditions aren’t “reasonably necessary to accomplish a legitimate penological goal.”
Analyzing the first part, Madsen wrote: “… The lack of access to bathroom facilities and running water, as well as routine and lengthy wait times for therapy aides to push his wheelchair resulted in Williams frequently soiling himself. These conditions are objectively cruel.”
Court records show Williams was convicted of assaulting his ex-girlfriend in 2009. She suffered life-threatening injuries and he was sentenced to 22-1/2 years in prison.
Applying the second part of the test to his case, the court found the “violent offense and risk to the community weigh in favor of continuing to confine him in DOC custody. They do not, however, justify housing Williams in severely unhygienic conditions. DOC’s failure to meet Williams’s basic sanitary needs in light of his physical disabilities does not sufficiently further the goals of deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation.”
