Casad is unpublished and not useable for precedent. State v. Spencer is the case that provides the explanation of the factors needed to fall afoul of .270
"in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons." you need all the factors and a holstered firearm being visible doesn't hit all of them, without adding additional actions or circumstances. IMO, YMMV.
We look to
State v. Maciolek to find what the court thinks of 'warrant alarm'...
Yes,
State v. Maciolek is controlling with respect to the scope of the "warrants alarm" clause in .270 (Spencer doesn't get as specific about what "does" or "does not" constitute warranting alarm).
Although Casad is sexy, it simply is not precedent law. If you (or your attorney) attempt to rely on it, you will be violating Washington Court Rules, General Rule 14.1(a) and not only will it be summarily ignored by the court, but the party citing to it may be sanctioned (fined). Please do not rely on it.
GR 14.1(a) reads: "Washington Court of Appeals. A party may not cite as an authority an unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals. Unpublished opinions of the Court of Appeals are those opinions not published in the Washington Appellate Reports." If an unpublished case cannot be cited in appellate court, then it cannot be cited in Superior Courts or Courts of Limited Jurisdiction.
Q: Why are some cases published and others not?
A: In addition to the "official reasons" referenced above by Lammo, frequently, courts will seek to get a particular resolution for a particular case (usually very fact specific) and don't want that holding to become precedent.
Q: Why do they do that?
A: Because.
But, to confuse matters even more, if a case is in federal court (not Washington state court where virtually all .270 cases are prosecuted), one
can cite to unpublished opinions.
Go read Maciolek.
State v Spencer a court upheld Mr. Spencers conviction on the basis that his carrying a AK style rifle with an attached magazine down the street late at night avoiding eye contact with passing cars "warranted alarm" but they had a golden opportunity to say that carrying a firearm in and of itself warrants alarm.
To the best of my knowledge, only Spencer, Josh and Kurk Kirby have been prosecuted, and only spencer and Josh were convicted. Certainly Bellingham PD has a reason to silence SVG and ring him up on charges, but they haven't successfully prosecuted him.
Actually, there are many more reported (published) cases about charges for alleged violations of .270; some where the defendant was convicted and some not.
Spencer is inapposite to open carry. The Spencer court, while making favorable comments about .270, was about display of long guns. There is no law regarding whether a long gun is or is not displayed when carried. The most significant value of the holding in
Spencer is that the term "warrants alarm" implicates the reasonable person standard. As such, although some people may find the mere open display of a gun shocking, a "reasonable person" would not be "alarmed" for the purposes of .270. Presumably because the mere open display of a gun is fully protected by 2Am and Art. I, section 24 of the WA Constitution.
But it can set a precedent and be cited in other districts/courts.
No, it cannot set a precedent. It is unpublished, and therefore not precedent in
any court. However, it may be cited to as
persuasive authority in other courts if those other courts rules allow it. But, not in Washington (although GR 14.1(b) allows us to cite to unpublished opinions from other jurisdictions, we can't cite to our own -- go figure).
Forgive my ignorance, but what does it mean for a case to be "published". If it was ruled on isn't that precedence in itself?
A "published" or "reported" case (both mean the same, but are used in different contexts) is one that the court intends to be precedent and can be cited as controlling law. An "unpublished" case cannot be used as controlling law.