fetch
Regular Member
imported post
Does anyone know if RCW 9.41.270 has been rewritten because of the Casad case?
Until the RCW 9.41.270 is rewritten, Casad or not, it will be that way in the Spokane Municipal Code, (SMC).
From my understanding the Casad case can only come into play after a warrants alarm incident has happend.
The SMC quotes the first paragraph of RCW 9.41.270 word for word. The city att was adamant about pointing out the wording in all of the first paragraph, not just the warrants alarm part, of RCW 9.41.270.
The city att knows it is legal to OC on city owned property, parks, etc. because of RCW 9.41.290. Our conversation was that it falls on our sholders to not incur the unlawful circumstanses of RCW 9.41.270.
This again brings us back to educating the people to the point that walking through a park OC'ing, no matter the time of year or event, does not cause alarm of any kind. OC'ing has to become a common sight.
Does anyone know if RCW 9.41.270 has been rewritten because of the Casad case?
Until the RCW 9.41.270 is rewritten, Casad or not, it will be that way in the Spokane Municipal Code, (SMC).
From my understanding the Casad case can only come into play after a warrants alarm incident has happend.
The SMC quotes the first paragraph of RCW 9.41.270 word for word. The city att was adamant about pointing out the wording in all of the first paragraph, not just the warrants alarm part, of RCW 9.41.270.
The city att knows it is legal to OC on city owned property, parks, etc. because of RCW 9.41.290. Our conversation was that it falls on our sholders to not incur the unlawful circumstanses of RCW 9.41.270.
This again brings us back to educating the people to the point that walking through a park OC'ing, no matter the time of year or event, does not cause alarm of any kind. OC'ing has to become a common sight.