## Facts

- Seth C. Little was charged in Grays Harbor County Superior Court with unlawful possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine).
- Washington enacted RCW 2.28.170, authorizing counties to establish drug courts; the statute provides that counties “may establish and operate drug courts.”
- A drug court under RCW 2.28.170 is a specialized docket aimed at reducing recidivism and substance abuse through judicially supervised treatment, mandatory drug testing, sanctions, and related services.
- At the time of Little’s case, Grays Harbor County had not established a drug court.
- Before trial, Little moved either (1) for access to a drug-court program or (2) dismissal with prejudice, arguing that lack of a drug court in his county denied equal protection because similarly situated defendants in counties with drug courts could seek those programs.
- The trial court denied the motion, and Little was convicted in a bench trial on stipulated facts.

## Issues

1. Whether strict scrutiny applies to an equal protection challenge to county-to-county differences in access to drug courts, based on a claim that a felony conviction implicates fundamental civil rights.
2. Whether RCW 2.28.170’s permissive authorization of drug courts, resulting in geographic variation in program availability, violates equal protection under the federal or state constitutions.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and the denial of Little’s motion to dismiss.
- Strict scrutiny did not apply because Little did not show he was in a suspect class or that there is a fundamental right to participate in a drug-court program.
- The statutory scheme did not create an unconstitutional classification; differences in drug-court availability reflected local implementation choices under a permissive statute.

## Legal Principles

- Equal protection requires similarly situated persons to be treated similarly with respect to the legitimate purpose of the law.
- Strict scrutiny applies only when a governmental classification burdens a suspect class or infringes a fundamental right.
- There is no fundamental constitutional right to access diversionary or treatment-court programming such as drug court.
- A statute that authorizes, but does not require, local governments to provide a program does not, without more, establish a discriminatory statewide classification merely because access varies by county.
- Geographic variation in criminal-justice programs based on local choice is generally reviewed deferentially and is permissible absent intentional discrimination against a protected class or infringement of a fundamental right.

## Conclusion

The court held that Washington’s decision to make drug courts optional for counties does not deny equal protection, even though defendants in counties without drug courts cannot seek those programs, because the scheme creates no suspect classification and implicates no fundamental right.


State v. Little, 66 P.3d 1099 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003)