imported post
tyguy808 wrote:
I don't recall the year, but IIRC, it was State vs Casad.
The Casad case was decided in 2007 but, sadly, it is an unpublished decision. Unpublished decisions have no precedential valueand cannot be cited to any court as authority in subsequent cases. Having said that, if I were an attorney representinga client charged with violating RCW 9.41.270, I would evaluate my client's case using the language of the Casad case and I would use that language in any brief I filed with the court.
In Casad, the trial court ruled that Casad was unlawfully detained and suppressed the two rifles and the drugs he was found to be carrying. The State appealed arguing that the stop was lawful to investigate a violation of RCW 9.41.270. The Court of Appeals applied the six factorsoutlined in State v. Spencer, 75 Wash.App. 118, 876 P.2d 939,
(Div. 1, 1994),and found that under the circumstances presented it was not reasonable to conclude Casad was violating RCW 9.41.270. The stop was therefore unlawful and the trial court's decision was affirmed.
The Spencer factors are:
(1) the type of neighborhood in which the weapon was carried; (2) the time of day; (3) the urban environment; (4) the manner in which the weapon was carried; (5) the size and type of weapon; and (6) whether the weapon had a visibly attached clip.
Of course, we all know that a "clip" is a magazine. Spencer included this factor because the court decided that and AK-47 with a visibly attached "clip" was "visibly loaded". Must have had X-ray vision as the case does not state that the magazine was made of clear or smoke plastic. There is also this troubling language in Spencer:
"Any reasonable person would feel alarmed upon seeing, on a residential street at night, a man carrying a visibly loaded AK-47 assault rifle in an assaultive manner. This alarm would be intensified if the man was walking briskly with his head down and avoiding eye contact with passers-by, as Spencer was doing. Furthermore, our conclusion that Spencer's conduct warranted alarm is supported by the kinds of people who were alarmed in this case, including several firefighters, a police officer, and a passing motorist."
I don't know how you can be regarded as acting in an "assaultive manner" if you are walking with your "head down and avoiding eye contact" -- I guess I'm just not enough of a panty wetter.
FWIW, I can guesswhy the court decided not to publish Casad:
1) Casad was a convicted felon who had not had his firearm rights restored, and
2) In addition to being a felon in possession of a firearm, Casad was alsoin possession of acontrolled substance without a prescription.
Not exactly your poster child for Open Carry now, is he.
