State Of Washington, Respondent V. Michael Degalvez Williamson, Appellant

EiLED
OOURT OF APPEALS OlY
STATE OF WASHINGT011
2018 FEB 26 Ni 8:39
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON, )
) No. 75762-8-1
v.
Appellant, )
)
)
DIVISION ONE
)
MICHAEL DEGALVEZ WILLIAMSON, )
)
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Respondent. ) FILED: February 26, 2018
)
BECKER, J. — Appellant Michael Williamson is challenging a no-contact
order that bars him from the Sound Transit Link light rail. The no-contact order
was imposed after Williamson was found guilty of two counts of indecent
exposure, both of which occurred aboard the light rail.'We conclude that the no-
contact order was reasonable to protect the public and did not violate
Williamson's constitutional right to travel.
Williamson was witnessed masturbating aboard the Sound Transit Link
light rail on July 3, 2015, and again on December 3, 2015. Because of
Williamson's criminal history, which includes six prior indecent exposure
convictions and a conviction for second degree rape, law enforcement was able
to identify Williamson.
The trial court sentenced Williamson to 12 months' confinement. The
State proposed a no-contact order barring Williamson from public transportation

No. 75762-8-1/2
offered by Sound Transit. This order would have included Sound Transit buses
and the Sounder train as well as the light rail. Williamson objected, noting that
he did not have a car and the ban on using public transportation would leave him
unable to attend religious services or his required mental health treatment. The
trial court agreed that the no-contact order requested by the State was too broad.
The State then proposed a no-contact order barring Williamson only from riding
the light rail. The trial court entered the order.
A crime-related no-contact order is reviewed for abuse of discretion. State
v. Corbett, 158 Wn. App. 576, 597, 242 P.3d 52(2010). "Abuse of discretion
occurs when a decision is manifestly unreasonable or exercised on untenable
grounds or for untenable reasons." Corbett, 158 Wn. App. at 597.
Williamson argues that it would have been reasonable to prohibit him from
contacting the individuals to whom he exposed himself, but the no-contact order
as entered constitutes an unconstitutional restraint on his right to travel. This
argument is not persuasive.
There is no constitutional right to a particular means of travel. State v.
Scheffel, 82 Wn.2d 872, 880, 514 P.2d 1052(1973), appeal dismissed, 416 U.S.
964 (1974). In Scheffel, the appellant challenged the revocation of his driver's
license following his third conviction for driving under the influence. Scheffel, 82
Wn.2d at 874. The court upheld the prohibition on driving, stating "the right to
travel is not being denied. The defendants are being prohibited from using a
particular mode of travel in a particular way, due to their repeated offenses, in
2

No. 75762-8-1/3
order to protect the public at large which we find to be reasonable under the
circumstances." Scheffel, 82 Wn.2d at 880-81.
Except for the prohibition on riding the light rail, Williamson is unrestricted
in his travel. He remains free to utilize Sound Transit's bus and train lines as well
as King County's own system of public transportation. The order, contrary to
Williamson's assertion, is neither vague nor overbroad.
Williamson's victims were random, notable only for their presence on the
light rail. There is no reason to believe that an order prohibiting contact with
them would prevent future indecent acts by Williamson. Williamson exposed
himself aboard the light rail twice in the span of six months. The trial court found
the two instances sufficient to establish a pattern of behavior that justifies
prohibiting Williamson from riding the light rail. We conclude the trial court did
not abuse its discretion.
Affirmed.
WE CONCUR:
gettil e	-v-x t
3