Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Washington Appeals Court affirms legality of open carry

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    State v. Casad, 139 Wash.App. 1032, 2007 WL 1822401 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007) (holding that because the open carry of firearms in “not unlawful” in Washington, that physical evidence and incriminating statements must be suppressed when obtained by police as fruits of a non-consensual encounter initiated by police solely because the subject was observed openly carrying firearms), available at https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/p...3-4.07.doc.pdf.

    The attached Gun Week article by Dave Workman, explains the case, and notes it boosts open carry . . . sort of.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    Sorry mike, but this has been discussed at length already in the Washington forum. The Casad case is an unpublished opinion and carries no authority in Washington courts (or any federal courts for that matter.)

    FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY

    Not Reported in P.3d, 139 Wash.App. 1032, 2007 WL 1822401 (Wash.App. Div. 2)

    NOTE: UNPUBLISHED OPINION, SEE RCWA 2.06.040


    *bold added for emphasis--this copied right out of westlaw...

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    joshmmm wrote:
    Sorry mike, but this has been discussed at length already in the Washington forum. The Casad case is an unpublished opinion and carries no authority in Washington courts (or any federal courts for that matter.)
    It is not true that unpublished opinion hold no weight or never get cited by litigants or judges - in fact, they get cited quite frequently!

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    Mike, I know you are in law school as well so you have access to Westlaw. Lookup citation: RCWA 2.06.040

    Follow the link to the ALR 105 A.L.R.5th 499
    , and scroll down to Washington... find the link to the Allstate case,Kitsap County v. Allstate Ins. Co., 136 Wash. 2d 567, 964 P.2d 1173 (1998)

    The only exception if find is RAP 10.4(h)...which says you can use facts that have already been found in an unpublished opinion... not any rules of law...

    I would love for you to see something I missed, but I don't see any way that someone who has been charged with a crime could cite State v. Casad without getting it published first...

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    116

    Post imported post

    I hate it when Cops get away with blatently LYING and don't get charged for it ... they're no different from any other criminal and any future testimony by them shouldn't be allowed.

    This is great for Open Carry rights!




  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    joshmmm wrote:
    Mike, I know you are in law school as well so you have access to Westlaw. Lookup citation: RCWA 2.06.040

    Follow the link to the ALR 105 A.L.R.5th 499
    , and scroll down to Washington... find the link to the Allstate case,Kitsap County v. Allstate Ins. Co., 136 Wash. 2d 567, 964 P.2d 1173 (1998)

    The only exception if find is RAP 10.4(h)...which says you can use facts that have already been found in an unpublished opinion... not any rules of law...

    I would love for you to see something I missed, but I don't see any way that someone who has been charged with a crime could cite State v. Casad without getting it published first...
    OK, it looks like WA you are correct. State v. Fitzpatrick[/i][/b], 5 Wash.App. 661, 491 P.2d 262, 267 (Wash. App. 1971) ("hold[ing] that unpublished opinions of the Court of Appeals will not be considered in the Court of Appeals and should not be considered in the trial courts. They do not become a part of the common law of the State of Washington. If the trial courts were to consider them it would not only be wasteful of their time but would permit any group of lawyers to collect such opinions and create an unfair advantage by citing cases not available to their opponents").

    However, it seems that Casad[/i][/b] should be published because Fitzpatrick[/i][/b] also declared that "In determining whether a case has sufficient precedential value to justify publication we are considering the following criteria . . .(1) Where the decision determines an unsettled or new question of law or constitutional principle. (2) Where the decision modifies, clarifies or reverses an established principle of law. (3) Where the decision is of general public interest or importance. (4) Where the case is in conflict with a prior opinion of the Court of Appeals. (5) Where the decision is not unanimous."

    Alternatively, not publishing Casad arguably means that there was no need to publish it becausethe result was obvious and did not deal with an "unsettled or new question of law or constitutional principle."

    But as a general matter, don't underestimate the value of unpublished opinions for a few reasons: (1) You as a citizen can still "cite" them - the opinions do exist and everybody knows they do - when the other side in a non-judicial setting comes back "haha the opinion was not published formally," they look like idiots. (2) Other courts around the country have different rules than Wash. So parties before an Oregon Court for example can and do cite unpublished cases as "pursuasive authority," perhaps needing leave of the court to do so; and judges do cite unpublished cases! I lost summary judgment in federal district of Arizona on a class action lawsuit over privacy issues, see Stollenwerk v. Tri-West Healthcare Alliance[/i][/b], 2005 WL 2465906 (D. Ariz. 2005). Guess what - this case was unpublished, AND, despite the case being and is still on appeal to the 9th Cir., about a dozen courts around the US have cited this unpublished case to justify their decisions! Further, in my 3d Cir. district court of PA rulingStollenwerk v. Miller[/i][/b] ruling in favor SSN privacy rights in Pennsylvania gun control schemes, Judge Sanchez on his own cited the unpublished 4th circuit case of Deeds v. County of Fairfax [/i][/b]and said he is explicitly deciding to reject the holding of that case.

    So in sum, yes are correct, but the WA rule appears stricter than many or most states and federal circuits, and I recommend nobody be afraid to cite Casad[/i][/b] in daily civil rights activism, inor outside WA- the holding makes clear sense, and you force the other side to come back, if they dare, with a technical argument that the case is "not published."

  7. #7
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    This is from a recent case:

    Citation of Unpublished Opinion

    RC next contends that the juvenile court committed reversible error when it referred to an unpublished opinion in its oral findings of fact and conclusions of law. This argument fails. We agree with RC that "unpublished Opinions have no precedential value and should not be cited or relied upon in any manner." Skamania County v. Woodall, 104 Wn. App. 525, 536 n.11, 16 P.3d 701, review denied, 144 Wn.2d 1021 (2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 980 (2002). Nevertheless, trial courts unavoidably view unpublished opinions as instructive, even though those opinions have no precedential value. State v. Sanchez, 74 Wn. App. 763, 765, 875 P.2d 712 (1994), review denied, 125 Wn.2d 1022 (1995). Here, although the juvenile court briefly discussed an unpublished Court of Appeals opinion, the court relied on published opinions, including Johnson, for its conclusions of law.

Posting Permissions

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