• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

State V Casad not precedential

509rifas

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
252
Location
Yakima County
I don't know if this has been mentioned here before but State V Casad is an unpublished opinion, meaning: it is not law.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 Unpublished opinion is not law.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.
 

Bookman

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
1,424
Location
Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
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.
 

Mainsail

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,533
Location
Silverdale, Washington, USA
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:

509rifas

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
252
Location
Yakima County
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.
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
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.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

Mainsail

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,533
Location
Silverdale, Washington, USA
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:

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
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.
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
He seemed intrigued with shooting who? :uhoh:
Just shooting guns, have a feeling he never has.

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. :cool:
 
Top