Justice For Jorrell Hicks: Demand an Independent Investigation Into Washington DOC
The Issue
JUSTICE FOR JORRELL HICKS
Demand an Immediate Independent Investigation, Due Process, and Review of His Continued Incarceration
Petition Addressed To:
Governor Bob Ferguson, Washington State
Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC)
Washington State Office of the Attorney General
Appropriate State Oversight Authorities
Petition Organized By: Jasmine Macfarlane, Girlfriend and Advocate for Jorrell Hicks
A Call for Justice, Fairness, and Accountability
We, the undersigned, respectfully but urgently call upon Washington State Governor Bob Ferguson and the appropriate state authorities to initiate an immediate, independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding the alleged community custody violation, disciplinary hearing, and continued incarceration of Jorrell Hicks, a recipient of a conditional commutation.
This petition is not a request for special treatment. It is a demand for fairness, transparency, accountability, and protection of the legal rights that every individual deserves.
A person's freedom should never be taken or restricted without reliable evidence, lawful procedures, and a meaningful opportunity to challenge the allegations against them.
The Central Concern: Evidence Allegedly Dismissed Before the Hearing but Used Against Him During the Hearing
One of the most troubling aspects of Jorrell's case involves how the Washington State Department of Corrections reportedly handled positive drug-test results originating from an outside treatment center.
According to Jorrell's account, he was informed that he had allegedly tested positive for illegal substances through a treatment center.
Jorrell maintained his innocence and actively sought ways to challenge the results and demonstrate that he was not using drugs.
He approached both the treatment center and DOC, requesting assistance, alternative testing, and any available remedies that could help resolve the disputed findings.
DOC personnel reportedly told Jorrell that positive drug-test results from the treatment center did not matter because DOC did not rely on another agency's positive tests and instead relied on its own testing.
However, during his subsequent disciplinary hearing, those same treatment center results were reportedly introduced and used against him in reaching a guilty finding.
This apparent contradiction raises serious questions that deserve independent investigation.
If Jorrell was informed that another agency's testing results would not be relied upon, why were those results subsequently considered in determining his guilt?
Was he given adequate notice that the treatment center's results could be used against him?
Was he afforded a meaningful opportunity to challenge the reliability, accuracy, and admissibility of those findings?
And why did his repeated requests for assistance reportedly go unresolved?
We demand a transparent examination of these questions and the procedures followed throughout his case.
Jorrell Sought Help Before His DOC Violation
One of the most significant concerns is that Jorrell was reportedly attempting to resolve disputed testing results before he received the DOC violation.
According to his account, he approached multiple correctional officers, supervisory personnel, and treatment center staff, requesting assistance and asking what remedies were available to demonstrate his sobriety.
His requests included:
Hair follicle testing as an additional method of evaluating possible drug use over a longer period.
Blood testing as a possible alternative means of evaluating recent drug exposure.
Polygraph examination as another potential avenue for supporting his statements.
Relocation or a change in placement to address concerns regarding his circumstances.
Any other available remedy or assistance that could help him challenge the disputed allegations.
Despite repeatedly seeking help from both DOC and the treatment center, Jorrell reports that neither agency provided meaningful assistance.
These were not simply requests made after he was accused of violating community custody.
He was actively attempting to address the situation before the DOC violation occurred.
His Requests for Help Were Reportedly Corroborated During His Hearing
During his disciplinary hearing, the hearing officer reportedly acknowledged that DOC corroborated Jorrell's testimony regarding his efforts to seek assistance.
This acknowledgment is especially important.
If accurately reflected in the hearing record, it demonstrates that at least some of Jorrell's attempts to seek help were supported by information from DOC itself.
Nevertheless, he was found guilty of the alleged violation.
We respectfully request an independent examination of how his efforts to seek assistance, the responses he received, and any corroborating evidence were considered during the disciplinary proceedings.
Additional Concerns Regarding the Evidence and Hearing
1. Disputed Drug Testing Evidence
Jorrell maintains that he did not use cocaine despite the alleged positive drug-test findings.
We request an independent examination of the original laboratory reports, testing methods, confirmation procedures, reported results, and chain-of-custody documentation.
2. Documented Home Drug-Test Results
Between September 21 and October 26, 2026, Jorrell maintained photographic documentation of multiple home 12-panel rapid drug tests.
According to his supporters, these tests displayed faint lines consistent with negative results under the applicable testing instructions.
Although home screening tests cannot conclusively disprove separate laboratory findings, the documentation deserves appropriate consideration.
3. Denial of Additional Testing
Before his disciplinary hearing, Jorrell reportedly requested a hair follicle test to obtain additional evidence supporting his innocence.
According to his account, the request was denied.
We request a review of the reasons for this denial and whether he received a fair opportunity to challenge the allegations.
4. Concerns About the Disciplinary Hearing
Despite his continued denial of drug use, documented attempts to seek assistance, and the hearing officer's reported acknowledgment of corroborating information, Jorrell was found guilty.
We request an examination of the hearing record, the evidence relied upon, and whether the proceedings complied with applicable legal and procedural requirements.
5. Conditional Commutation and Continued Incarceration
Jorrell is a recipient of a conditional commutation, making the consequences of the alleged violation especially significant.
We request a clear determination of his current commutation status, the legal authority supporting his continued incarceration, and whether all applicable procedures have been followed.
Our Five Primary Demands
DEMAND 1 — IMMEDIATE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION
Initiate an impartial investigation into Jorrell Hicks's alleged violation, the evidence used against him, the treatment center's testing records, DOC's testing records, and the disciplinary hearing findings.
DEMAND 2 — INVESTIGATION INTO INCONSISTENT EVIDENCE HANDLING AND POTENTIAL DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS
Determine why DOC reportedly dismissed the significance of the treatment center's positive drug tests before the hearing but later relied upon those results during the hearing.
Examine whether Jorrell received adequate notice, access to relevant evidence, and a fair opportunity to challenge the allegations.
DEMAND 3 — INVESTIGATION INTO BOTH AGENCIES' FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUESTED ASSISTANCE
Examine the requests Jorrell made to DOC and the treatment center, the responses he received, and the hearing officer's reported acknowledgment that DOC corroborated his efforts to seek help.
Determine whether appropriate assistance, procedures, or available remedies were improperly denied or overlooked.
DEMAND 4 — VERIFICATION OF HIS CONDITIONAL COMMUTATION STATUS AND IMMEDIATE RELEASE IF LEGALLY WARRANTED
Provide a documented explanation of Jorrell's current conditional commutation status and the legal basis for his continued confinement.
If the violation finding is overturned, his detention is determined to lack lawful authority, or another legal basis for release is established, take prompt action to secure his release.
DEMAND 5 — WRITTEN FINDINGS, TRANSPARENCY, AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Provide an appropriate written response explaining the findings of the review, subject to applicable privacy laws.
If procedural violations, misconduct, or unlawful confinement are substantiated, take appropriate corrective action.
Why This Matters Beyond One Person
This petition is about more than Jorrell Hicks.
It is about the integrity of Washington State's correctional system and whether individuals under correctional supervision receive fair treatment when they actively seek assistance.
When a person disputes drug-test results, requests additional testing, approaches multiple agencies for help, and attempts to demonstrate compliance, those efforts deserve meaningful consideration.
When an agency reportedly tells someone that certain evidence does not matter, but that evidence is later used against them, the circumstances deserve a clear and transparent explanation.
A disciplinary finding can carry life-changing consequences, particularly for an individual living under a conditional commutation.
Justice requires reliable evidence, fair procedures, transparency, and accountability.
A Personal Plea From His Girlfriend
As Jorrell's girlfriend, I am deeply saddened and emotionally distressed by the circumstances surrounding his incarceration.
It is heartbreaking to know that someone I love was actively seeking help, requesting additional testing, and asking for any available remedy to demonstrate his innocence before receiving a DOC violation.
He was trying to address the situation before it escalated.
He approached the people and agencies responsible for his supervision and treatment, asking for assistance.
According to his account, the help he requested never came.
What makes this situation even more troubling is that DOC reportedly told him the treatment center's positive drug-test results did not matter, yet those results were later used against him during his hearing.
I am not asking anyone to disregard the law, excuse misconduct, or assume wrongdoing without investigation.
I am humbly asking that these serious concerns be examined independently, fairly, and without unnecessary delay.
I believe Jorrell deserves a meaningful opportunity to challenge the evidence against him, a clear explanation of his legal status, and the protection of every right afforded to him under the law.
I respectfully ask Governor Bob Ferguson, Washington State authorities, and members of the public to recognize the urgency of this situation.
No person should have to fight alone simply to have serious questions about their freedom heard.
Please Stand With Jorrell Hicks
We, the undersigned, call for immediate independent review, meaningful consideration of all relevant evidence, investigation into the responses of DOC and the treatment center, protection of due process, and prompt corrective action where legally warranted.
We ask the public to sign and share this petition so these concerns receive the attention they deserve.
We are not asking that Jorrell Hicks be placed above the law. We are demanding that the law be applied fairly.
JUSTICE FOR JORRELL HICKS
Fair Process. Reliable Evidence. Accountability. Justice.
Respectfully submitted,
Jasmine Macfarlane
Girlfriend and Advocate for Jorrell Hicks
Washington State
22
The Issue
JUSTICE FOR JORRELL HICKS
Demand an Immediate Independent Investigation, Due Process, and Review of His Continued Incarceration
Petition Addressed To:
Governor Bob Ferguson, Washington State
Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC)
Washington State Office of the Attorney General
Appropriate State Oversight Authorities
Petition Organized By: Jasmine Macfarlane, Girlfriend and Advocate for Jorrell Hicks
A Call for Justice, Fairness, and Accountability
We, the undersigned, respectfully but urgently call upon Washington State Governor Bob Ferguson and the appropriate state authorities to initiate an immediate, independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding the alleged community custody violation, disciplinary hearing, and continued incarceration of Jorrell Hicks, a recipient of a conditional commutation.
This petition is not a request for special treatment. It is a demand for fairness, transparency, accountability, and protection of the legal rights that every individual deserves.
A person's freedom should never be taken or restricted without reliable evidence, lawful procedures, and a meaningful opportunity to challenge the allegations against them.
The Central Concern: Evidence Allegedly Dismissed Before the Hearing but Used Against Him During the Hearing
One of the most troubling aspects of Jorrell's case involves how the Washington State Department of Corrections reportedly handled positive drug-test results originating from an outside treatment center.
According to Jorrell's account, he was informed that he had allegedly tested positive for illegal substances through a treatment center.
Jorrell maintained his innocence and actively sought ways to challenge the results and demonstrate that he was not using drugs.
He approached both the treatment center and DOC, requesting assistance, alternative testing, and any available remedies that could help resolve the disputed findings.
DOC personnel reportedly told Jorrell that positive drug-test results from the treatment center did not matter because DOC did not rely on another agency's positive tests and instead relied on its own testing.
However, during his subsequent disciplinary hearing, those same treatment center results were reportedly introduced and used against him in reaching a guilty finding.
This apparent contradiction raises serious questions that deserve independent investigation.
If Jorrell was informed that another agency's testing results would not be relied upon, why were those results subsequently considered in determining his guilt?
Was he given adequate notice that the treatment center's results could be used against him?
Was he afforded a meaningful opportunity to challenge the reliability, accuracy, and admissibility of those findings?
And why did his repeated requests for assistance reportedly go unresolved?
We demand a transparent examination of these questions and the procedures followed throughout his case.
Jorrell Sought Help Before His DOC Violation
One of the most significant concerns is that Jorrell was reportedly attempting to resolve disputed testing results before he received the DOC violation.
According to his account, he approached multiple correctional officers, supervisory personnel, and treatment center staff, requesting assistance and asking what remedies were available to demonstrate his sobriety.
His requests included:
Hair follicle testing as an additional method of evaluating possible drug use over a longer period.
Blood testing as a possible alternative means of evaluating recent drug exposure.
Polygraph examination as another potential avenue for supporting his statements.
Relocation or a change in placement to address concerns regarding his circumstances.
Any other available remedy or assistance that could help him challenge the disputed allegations.
Despite repeatedly seeking help from both DOC and the treatment center, Jorrell reports that neither agency provided meaningful assistance.
These were not simply requests made after he was accused of violating community custody.
He was actively attempting to address the situation before the DOC violation occurred.
His Requests for Help Were Reportedly Corroborated During His Hearing
During his disciplinary hearing, the hearing officer reportedly acknowledged that DOC corroborated Jorrell's testimony regarding his efforts to seek assistance.
This acknowledgment is especially important.
If accurately reflected in the hearing record, it demonstrates that at least some of Jorrell's attempts to seek help were supported by information from DOC itself.
Nevertheless, he was found guilty of the alleged violation.
We respectfully request an independent examination of how his efforts to seek assistance, the responses he received, and any corroborating evidence were considered during the disciplinary proceedings.
Additional Concerns Regarding the Evidence and Hearing
1. Disputed Drug Testing Evidence
Jorrell maintains that he did not use cocaine despite the alleged positive drug-test findings.
We request an independent examination of the original laboratory reports, testing methods, confirmation procedures, reported results, and chain-of-custody documentation.
2. Documented Home Drug-Test Results
Between September 21 and October 26, 2026, Jorrell maintained photographic documentation of multiple home 12-panel rapid drug tests.
According to his supporters, these tests displayed faint lines consistent with negative results under the applicable testing instructions.
Although home screening tests cannot conclusively disprove separate laboratory findings, the documentation deserves appropriate consideration.
3. Denial of Additional Testing
Before his disciplinary hearing, Jorrell reportedly requested a hair follicle test to obtain additional evidence supporting his innocence.
According to his account, the request was denied.
We request a review of the reasons for this denial and whether he received a fair opportunity to challenge the allegations.
4. Concerns About the Disciplinary Hearing
Despite his continued denial of drug use, documented attempts to seek assistance, and the hearing officer's reported acknowledgment of corroborating information, Jorrell was found guilty.
We request an examination of the hearing record, the evidence relied upon, and whether the proceedings complied with applicable legal and procedural requirements.
5. Conditional Commutation and Continued Incarceration
Jorrell is a recipient of a conditional commutation, making the consequences of the alleged violation especially significant.
We request a clear determination of his current commutation status, the legal authority supporting his continued incarceration, and whether all applicable procedures have been followed.
Our Five Primary Demands
DEMAND 1 — IMMEDIATE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION
Initiate an impartial investigation into Jorrell Hicks's alleged violation, the evidence used against him, the treatment center's testing records, DOC's testing records, and the disciplinary hearing findings.
DEMAND 2 — INVESTIGATION INTO INCONSISTENT EVIDENCE HANDLING AND POTENTIAL DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS
Determine why DOC reportedly dismissed the significance of the treatment center's positive drug tests before the hearing but later relied upon those results during the hearing.
Examine whether Jorrell received adequate notice, access to relevant evidence, and a fair opportunity to challenge the allegations.
DEMAND 3 — INVESTIGATION INTO BOTH AGENCIES' FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUESTED ASSISTANCE
Examine the requests Jorrell made to DOC and the treatment center, the responses he received, and the hearing officer's reported acknowledgment that DOC corroborated his efforts to seek help.
Determine whether appropriate assistance, procedures, or available remedies were improperly denied or overlooked.
DEMAND 4 — VERIFICATION OF HIS CONDITIONAL COMMUTATION STATUS AND IMMEDIATE RELEASE IF LEGALLY WARRANTED
Provide a documented explanation of Jorrell's current conditional commutation status and the legal basis for his continued confinement.
If the violation finding is overturned, his detention is determined to lack lawful authority, or another legal basis for release is established, take prompt action to secure his release.
DEMAND 5 — WRITTEN FINDINGS, TRANSPARENCY, AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Provide an appropriate written response explaining the findings of the review, subject to applicable privacy laws.
If procedural violations, misconduct, or unlawful confinement are substantiated, take appropriate corrective action.
Why This Matters Beyond One Person
This petition is about more than Jorrell Hicks.
It is about the integrity of Washington State's correctional system and whether individuals under correctional supervision receive fair treatment when they actively seek assistance.
When a person disputes drug-test results, requests additional testing, approaches multiple agencies for help, and attempts to demonstrate compliance, those efforts deserve meaningful consideration.
When an agency reportedly tells someone that certain evidence does not matter, but that evidence is later used against them, the circumstances deserve a clear and transparent explanation.
A disciplinary finding can carry life-changing consequences, particularly for an individual living under a conditional commutation.
Justice requires reliable evidence, fair procedures, transparency, and accountability.
A Personal Plea From His Girlfriend
As Jorrell's girlfriend, I am deeply saddened and emotionally distressed by the circumstances surrounding his incarceration.
It is heartbreaking to know that someone I love was actively seeking help, requesting additional testing, and asking for any available remedy to demonstrate his innocence before receiving a DOC violation.
He was trying to address the situation before it escalated.
He approached the people and agencies responsible for his supervision and treatment, asking for assistance.
According to his account, the help he requested never came.
What makes this situation even more troubling is that DOC reportedly told him the treatment center's positive drug-test results did not matter, yet those results were later used against him during his hearing.
I am not asking anyone to disregard the law, excuse misconduct, or assume wrongdoing without investigation.
I am humbly asking that these serious concerns be examined independently, fairly, and without unnecessary delay.
I believe Jorrell deserves a meaningful opportunity to challenge the evidence against him, a clear explanation of his legal status, and the protection of every right afforded to him under the law.
I respectfully ask Governor Bob Ferguson, Washington State authorities, and members of the public to recognize the urgency of this situation.
No person should have to fight alone simply to have serious questions about their freedom heard.
Please Stand With Jorrell Hicks
We, the undersigned, call for immediate independent review, meaningful consideration of all relevant evidence, investigation into the responses of DOC and the treatment center, protection of due process, and prompt corrective action where legally warranted.
We ask the public to sign and share this petition so these concerns receive the attention they deserve.
We are not asking that Jorrell Hicks be placed above the law. We are demanding that the law be applied fairly.
JUSTICE FOR JORRELL HICKS
Fair Process. Reliable Evidence. Accountability. Justice.
Respectfully submitted,
Jasmine Macfarlane
Girlfriend and Advocate for Jorrell Hicks
Washington State
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on November 8, 2026