The Washington Supreme Court ruled on September 10, 2026, in the case of State v. Peterson, No. 104536-1, determining whether Karen Kathleen Peterson is entitled to a refund of a $900 participation fee she paid to enter a drug treatment program. The court's decision affects individuals who have participated in similar drug court programs in Washington state.
In 2015, Peterson was charged with felony possession of a controlled substance. To avoid a conviction, she entered the Adult Drug Treatment Court program, paying a mandatory fee of $900. After successfully completing the program, the charges against her were dismissed with prejudice. However, in 2021, the Washington Supreme Court ruled in State v. Blake that the law under which Peterson was charged was unconstitutional, allowing those convicted under that law to vacate their convictions and receive refunds of legal financial obligations.
Peterson, not having been convicted, sought a refund of her drug court fee and the vacatur of the dismissed charge. The trial court initially granted her motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, stating that Peterson could not seek relief under the relevant court rule because there was no conviction to vacate. Peterson then appealed to the Washington Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ruled that Peterson could not prevail on her claim for a refund. The court stated, "Due process clause protections require the government to refund LFOs exacted from a criminal defendant as a result of an invalidated conviction. But that is not what happened here." The court explained that Peterson voluntarily paid the fee to avoid a conviction, and since she was never convicted, she was not entitled to a refund under the due process clause.
The court's ruling clarifies that while individuals who were convicted under the unconstitutional statute may seek refunds of financial obligations, those who successfully completed drug court programs without a conviction do not have the same entitlement. This decision emphasizes the importance of understanding the distinctions between being convicted and participating in alternative treatment programs.
The ruling is significant as it sets a precedent for similar cases in the future, impacting individuals who have participated in drug treatment courts across Washington state. It highlights the legal complexities surrounding drug possession laws and the treatment of individuals within the criminal justice system.
Looking ahead, Peterson's case cannot be appealed further as the Supreme Court's ruling is final. However, the implications of this decision may influence future legislation or court rulings regarding drug treatment programs and their associated fees.