Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: State V Casad not precedential

  1. #1
    Regular Member 509rifas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Yakima County
    Posts
    253

    State V Casad not precedential

    I don't know if this has been mentioned here before but State V Casad is an unpublished opinion, meaning: it is not law. It's on the state info for WA and kinda insinuates that it is law, but it is not. Unpublished opinion is not law.

    What it is is just exemplary. That is, that is how State V Spencer is interpreted, carrying a gun in public is not RAS. This can help you if you are carrying in public and you are stopped and you show the officer State V Casad because it is clearer than Spencer, but it in itself is not law, it wont help you in court unless the judge and prosecutor are idiots (which is definitely an option) but at appeals it's Spencer that rules. Casad is all according to the rules of Spencer, there is nothing new from it. Don't make any mistakes based on what Casad says.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424

    State V Casad not precedential

    Thank you. Most of us who have been around a while are aware of this. But, I haven't seen it addressed for a while and it's good to have it out there for the newer folks.

    BTW Welcome back. Whoever you are. As long as you aren't Boo-Boo.
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  3. #3
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532
    Quote Originally Posted by 509rifas View Post
    This can help you if you are carrying in public and you are stopped and you show the officer State V Casad because ....
    Why on earth would anyone show a court case to a cop?

    "Am I being detained?" If no, then shut up. Don't talk, debate, or argue. Don't show them a pamphlet, court case, or naughty pictures of your wife. If you re not being detained then leave.

    "Am I being detained?" If yes, then ask, "For suspicion of what crime am I being detained?" If the cop is investigating an actual crime (nearby bank hold-up, etc.) say as little as possible and see the above. If the cop is "investigating" because someone called that you are carrying a gun openly, shut up, it's not a crime. Don't talk.

    In all cases be polite.
    Last edited by Mainsail; 03-07-2013 at 04:02 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410
    ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
    What he said.

    Good to see you here, Mainsail!

  5. #5
    Regular Member 509rifas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Yakima County
    Posts
    253
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainsail View Post
    Why on earth would anyone show a court case to a cop?

    "Am I being detained?" If no, then shut up. Don't talk, debate, or argue. Don't show them a pamphlet, court case, or naughty pictures of your wife. If you re not being detained then leave.

    "Am I being detained?" If yes, then ask, "For suspicion of what crime am I being detained?" If the cop is investigating an actual crime (nearby bank hold-up, etc.) say as little as possible and see the above. If the cop is "investigating" because someone called that you are carrying a gun openly, shut up, it's not a crime. Don't talk.
    There's a number of different ways to deal with it that all have their particular advantages. If the cop was shown the case and continued to act illegally they will have trouble claiming good faith, for example. Some people enjoy politely arguing points of law.

  6. #6
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by 509rifas View Post
    There's a number of different ways to deal with it that all have their particular advantages. If the cop was shown the case and continued to act illegally they will have trouble claiming good faith, for example. Some people enjoy politely arguing points of law.
    My rule of thumb is to never argue the law with a cop. If you piss him off (even if being polite, or worse, even if you're right and he isn't), you stand a better than excellent chance of going to jail.

    I gave this advice to one of my clients just today.
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    My rule of thumb is to never argue the law with a cop. If you piss him off (even if being polite, or worse, even if you're right and he isn't), you stand a better than excellent chance of going to jail.

    I gave this advice to one of my clients just today.
    I can attest to that, LOL

    I pissed off a Cop once and got arrested for disturbing the peace in a bar with a rock & roll band going full blast, I was right the Cop was wrong, I went straight to jail, did not pass go and did not get $200s.

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Don't argue case law with cops in a stop.

    Don't "cooperate" either. Respectfully assert your rights, they are after all hard won.

    There is a way to mention, Casad in court though in a round about way.....mention the court ruling before the appellate one and then say it was struck down......Bellingham City Attorney gave John and I that tip.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Regular Member bmg50cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    WA - North Whidbey/ Deception Pass
    Posts
    307
    "save it for the judge."

  10. #10
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532
    Quote Originally Posted by 509rifas View Post
    There's a number of different ways to deal with it that all have their particular advantages.
    How many have you tried? The legal experts (defense attorneys etc) and the people who have experience with police encounters all disagree with you.

    If the cop was shown the case and continued to act illegally they will have trouble claiming good faith, for example. Some people enjoy politely arguing points of law.
    Why do you believe this, in other words, do you have objective evidence that this is true? The officer either knows the law or he doesn't, but nothing you show him will change his mind. If he stops you then you are classified as a suspect- that will be your new name for the police report. He is not going to trust any document given to him by a suspect, to do so would be against his training and common sense. No judge is going to say he didn't act in 'good faith' by refusing to be distracted by some paper an armed suspect claims is the law. You cannot seriously believe that.

    The police officer isn't talking to you because he enjoys a good debate with his afternoon doughnut, he's trying to find a reason to arrest you. You talking only helps him. In the end if he decides make the claim that you seemed unstable or intoxicated, he'll put you in jail and there is no recourse for you. No lawyer will take your case (in a civil suit) because you consented to the encounter. No judge will say he acted in bad faith because nobody, even on our side, wants someone unstable to be armed with a gun.

    Look, you do whatever you want. The people who have tried the 'different ways' know what works best. If you want to reinvent the wheel, have fun.
    Last edited by Mainsail; 03-08-2013 at 10:51 AM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainsail View Post
    How many have you tried? The legal experts (defense attorneys etc) and the people who have experience with police encounters all disagree with you.


    Why do you believe this, in other words, do you have objective evidence that this is true? The officer either knows the law or he doesn't, but nothing you show him will change his mind. If he stops you then you are classified as a suspect- that will be your new name for the police report. He is not going to trust any document given to him by a suspect, to do so would be against his training and common sense. No judge is going to say he didn't act in 'good faith' by refusing to be distracted by some paper an armed suspect claims is the law. You cannot seriously believe that.

    The police officer isn't talking to you because he enjoys a good debate with his afternoon doughnut, he's trying to find a reason to arrest you. You talking only helps him. In the end if he decides make the claim that you seemed unstable or intoxicated, he'll put you in jail and there is no recourse for you. No lawyer will take your case (in a civil suit) because you consented to the encounter. No judge will say he acted in bad faith because nobody, even on our side, wants someone unstable to be armed with a gun.

    Look, you do whatever you want. The people who have tried the 'different ways' know what works best. If you want to reinvent the wheel, have fun.
    Arguing with LE, been there, done that and it does not work.

    Am I free to go, I do not consent to any searches or seizures, I want to talk to my Attorney is about all you need to ever say to a Cop.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    There is a way to mention, Casad in court though in a round about way.....mention the court ruling before the appellate one and then say it was struck down......Bellingham City Attorney gave John and I that tip.
    Outstanding. Very nice advice.

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by heresolong View Post
    Outstanding. Very nice advice.
    I was pretty stoked when he suggested that. We got the feeling he likes us although he is on the opposing side of having to represent the city. I think when the whole thing is over he might be open to be invited to go shooting he seemed fairly intrigued.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I was pretty stoked when he suggested that. We got the feeling he likes us although he is on the opposing side of having to represent the city. I think when the whole thing is over he might be open to be invited to go shooting he seemed fairly intrigued.
    He seemed intrigued with shooting who?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Spokane
    Posts
    9
    Mr. Target, Mrs. Pop can, I can think of a list of others that might need to be shot as well.

  16. #16
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Don't argue case law with cops in a stop.

    Don't "cooperate" either. Respectfully assert your rights, they are after all hard won.

    There is a way to mention, Casad in court though in a round about way.....mention the court ruling before the appellate one and then say it was struck down......Bellingham City Attorney gave John and I that tip.
    I'm pretty sure that Casad wasn't struck down. As I recall, the trial court ruled that the stop of Casad had no RAS nor PC and suppressed the evidence that LE had confiscated from him when he was arrested. The state appealed and Div. II affirmed. Without the evidence they unlawfully seized, the state had no case and dismissed on remand.

    That said, while one cannot properly cite to an unpublished opinion, there is nothing to preclude making the same legal arguments (complete with legal authority) that were made in Casad. Lawyers do it all the time.
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    He seemed intrigued with shooting who?
    Just shooting guns, have a feeling he never has.

    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    I'm pretty sure that Casad wasn't struck down. As I recall, the trial court ruled that the stop of Casad had no RAS nor PC and suppressed the evidence that LE had confiscated from him when he was arrested. The state appealed and Div. II affirmed. Without the evidence they unlawfully seized, the state had no case and dismissed on remand.

    That said, while one cannot properly cite to an unpublished opinion, there is nothing to preclude making the same legal arguments (complete with legal authority) that were made in Casad. Lawyers do it all the time.
    Maybe he meant to say to mention the original case before appeal.

    Borrowing is an artist greatest tool.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •