The “Voidable Warrant” Doctrine: Arrest Warrants Issued on Pre-Blake Community-Custody Violations Remain Enforceable until Judicially Set Aside

1. Introduction

State v. Balles, 103582-9 (Wash. Jul. 31, 2025) presented the Supreme Court of Washington with a critical question that has hovered over the post-State v. Blake¹ landscape: Do warrants premised on community-custody violations tied to now-unconstitutional simple-possession convictions become automatically void once Blake was decided, or do they survive unless and until vacated by a court?

Kelly Jay Balles had been sentenced in 2014 for simple possession of cocaine. After serving his prison term, he repeatedly failed to report to his community corrections officer, prompting the Department of Corrections (DOC) to issue an arrest warrant in January 2020. Police executed that warrant in March 2021—one month after Blake was handed down—and discovered drugs, ammunition, and a stolen firearm. The trial court suppressed all evidence, reasoning that Blake retroactively invalidated both Balles’s conviction and the warrant. The Court of Appeals reversed. On further review, the Supreme Court, sitting en banc, affirmed the Court of Appeals, announcing what can fairly be called the “Voidable Warrant” doctrine.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court held that:

• Blake did not ipso facto erase outstanding community-custody sentences or DOC arrest warrants rooted in pre-Blake drug-possession convictions. Those instruments are “voidable,” not “void.”
• Because Balles’s conviction had not yet been vacated when officers executed the warrant in March 2021, the warrant remained valid and the arrest lawful for purposes of the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution.
• The evidence suppression order was therefore erroneous on the Blake ground, and the case was remanded for the trial court to address Balles’s remaining suppression theories (e.g., scope of the search).

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. State v. Blake, 197 Wn.2d 170 (2021) – Declared former RCW 69.50.4013(1) (simple possession) unconstitutional for lacking a mens-rea element. While Blake invalidated the statute prospectively and opened the door to post-conviction relief, Balles clarifies that this relief is not self-executing.
2. State v. Olsen, 3 Wn.3d 689 (2024) & State v. Willyard, 3 Wn.3d 703 (2024) – In plea-withdrawal contexts, the Court emphasized that defendants pled guilty to “valid crimes at the time,” supporting the notion that convictions are presumed valid until vacated.
3. State v. White, 97 Wn.2d 92 (1982) – Created a narrow exception permitting officers to ignore a statute already held unconstitutional in materially identical terms. Balles distinguished White, limiting its reach.
4. State v. Potter, 156 Wn.2d 835 (2006) & State v. Brockob, 159 Wn.2d 311 (2006) – Reaffirmed that statutes are presumed valid until invalidated; White is the exception, not the rule.
5. State v. Ammons, 105 Wn.2d 175 (1986) – Stands for the principle that post-conviction relief must be obtained through established procedures (e.g., PRP, CrR 7.8, RAP 16).
6. State v. Broadaway, 133 Wn.2d 118 (1997) – Held that DOC cannot independently alter sentences; judicial action is required—bolstering the Court’s reluctance to place the burden of “constitutional clairvoyance” on the executive branch.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds in three logical steps:

1. Presumption of Validity & Finality of Judgments: Sentences and warrants based on then-valid statutes retain their operative effect until a court says otherwise. The Court rejected the idea that Blake operated as a “self-executing eraser.”
2. “Void” versus “Voidable” Distinction: A “void” judgment is a legal nullity from inception; a “voidable” judgment remains effective unless and until vacated. Because former RCW 69.50.4013 carried a presumption of constitutionality until Blake, convictions under it are voidable—not automatically void.
3. Institutional Competence & Separation of Powers: Allowing DOC or police officers to unilaterally disregard warrants would improperly delegate judicial power to the executive. Instead, convicted persons must pursue established judicial avenues (CrR 7.8, RAP 16, etc.) to obtain individualized relief.

3.3 Impact on Future Cases and the Criminal-Justice System

• Procedural Roadmap: Defendants must file motions or personal-restraint petitions to vacate simple-possession convictions before claiming ancillary relief (release from community custody, quashing of warrants, offender-score recalculations).
• Law-Enforcement Reliance: Officers may execute pre-Blake DOC warrants without risking suppression solely on Blake grounds, unless and until the warrant is vacated.
• Resource Allocation: Judicial resources will be channeled toward tailored post-Blake relief, rather than litigating whether every ancillary enforcement act after February 25, 2021 was per se unlawful.
• Limiting White: By cabining the White exception, the Court strengthens the presumption of validity doctrine, promoting stability and predictability in criminal procedure.
• Statutory Reform Pressure: Legislators may consider codifying clearer mechanisms for automatic relief in future mass-invalidity situations, acknowledging the administrative burden now borne by courts and petitioners.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Void vs. Voidable

A void judgment is treated as though it never existed; a voidable judgment is currently effective but can be invalidated through proper legal action.

Community Custody

Washington’s analogue to “supervised release” or “parole,” imposed in addition to (or in lieu of) incarceration. Violations can trigger DOC warrants.

DOC Warrant

An arrest warrant issued administratively by the DOC under RCW 9.94A.716 when an offender violates community-custody conditions.

Blake Relief Pathways

Individuals seek vacatur, resentencing, or offender-score recalculations via motions in the sentencing court, CrR 7.8, or personal-restraint petitions.

White Exception

Allows officers to disregard a statute only when an appellate court has previously invalidated materially identical language. Narrowly applied.

5. Conclusion

State v. Balles cements an important post-Blake principle: the invalidation of a criminal statute does not, by itself, dissolve the legal infrastructure (convictions, sentences, warrants) built upon it. Instead, those instruments are voidable and remain enforceable until a court acts. This “Voidable Warrant” doctrine balances the individual’s right to relief with systemic needs for finality and orderly procedure. Going forward, defendants and practitioners must pursue formal judicial channels for Blake-related relief, while law-enforcement agencies may continue to rely on pre-Blake warrants absent contrary court orders. The decision thus offers clarity, preserves separation of powers, and limits the disruptive ripple effects that often accompany landmark constitutional rulings.

¹197 Wn.2d 170, 481 P.3d 521 (2021).