• 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.

Lemmo or Rapgood (lawyers especially, or LE) question

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,330
Location
Okanogan Highland
Our local rural public hospital district hospital has recently gone through an expansion, and now has a new administration. This was never a problem before, but the new "CEO" as they like to call her...(70.44.060 does not provide for a "CEO" so I don't know what her real position is....) comes from Wenatchee Valley Medical (a private outfit) and she brought he gunbuster "Weapons free facility" signs with her (at least that is who I am blaming). I sent a letter to the board chair for the hospital district pointing out that these "gunbuster" signs were not lawful and needed to be removed. I have not herad anything back from the board chair.

Now, I have a question: IF I can talk the local CoP into this...can I have LE give them a ticket, and cite RCW 9.41.290 as the violation????
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,671
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Man the Sheriff/police Chief is going to LOVE to get that call......

I hope your cop buddy has a strong union.... And always wanted to be showcased on King5, Komo4, the CBC, and all the major news networks...

I'm not an attorney or a cop, but it would seem so. RCW 9.41.810 seems to provide that violation of all offenses unless otherwise noted of 9.41 are a misdemeanor.

But I really want to know what Rapgood thinks about this!
 
Last edited:

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,463
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
I do not know of any law prohibiting them posting any signage but then to have the weight of law is the issue.

So I guess the question might be is the signage of no weapons enough to meet the restrictions of trespass? I don't believe it does, though I am not an attorney.

RCW 9A.52.090 Criminal trespass — Defenses.
In any prosecution under RCW 9A.52.070 and 9A.52.080, it is a defense that:
(1) A building involved in an offense under RCW 9A.52.070 was abandoned; or
(2) The premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; or
(3) The actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him or her to enter or remain; or
(4) The actor was attempting to serve legal process which includes any document required or allowed to be served upon persons or property, by any statute, rule, ordinance, regulation, or court order, excluding delivery by the mails of the United States. This defense applies only if the actor did not enter into a private residence or other building not open to the public and the entry onto the premises was reasonable and necessary for service of the legal process.

[2011 c 336 § 374; 1986 c 219 § 2; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.52.090.]​
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,463
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
I do not know of any law prohibiting them posting any signage but then to have the weight of law is the issue.

So I guess the question might be is the signage of no weapons enough to meet the restrictions of trespass? I don't believe it does, though I am not an attorney.

RCW 9A.52.090 Criminal trespass — Defenses.
In any prosecution under RCW 9A.52.070 and 9A.52.080, it is a defense that:
(1) A building involved in an offense under RCW 9A.52.070 was abandoned; or
(2) The premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; or
(3) The actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him or her to enter or remain; or
(4) The actor was attempting to serve legal process which includes any document required or allowed to be served upon persons or property, by any statute, rule, ordinance, regulation, or court order, excluding delivery by the mails of the United States. This defense applies only if the actor did not enter into a private residence or other building not open to the public and the entry onto the premises was reasonable and necessary for service of the legal process.

[2011 c 336 § 374; 1986 c 219 § 2; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.52.090.]​

I thought the sign issue has been handled on this site.

I thought, like you, the sign has no legal effect.
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,463
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
I do not know of any law prohibiting them posting any signage but then to have the weight of law is the issue.

So I guess the question might be is the signage of no weapons enough to meet the restrictions of trespass? I don't believe it does, though I am not an attorney.

RCW 9A.52.090 Criminal trespass — Defenses.
In any prosecution under RCW 9A.52.070 and 9A.52.080, it is a defense that:
(1) A building involved in an offense under RCW 9A.52.070 was abandoned; or
(2) The premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; or
(3) The actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him or her to enter or remain; or
(4) The actor was attempting to serve legal process which includes any document required or allowed to be served upon persons or property, by any statute, rule, ordinance, regulation, or court order, excluding delivery by the mails of the United States. This defense applies only if the actor did not enter into a private residence or other building not open to the public and the entry onto the premises was reasonable and necessary for service of the legal process.

[2011 c 336 § 374; 1986 c 219 § 2; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.52.090.]​

I thought the sign issue has been handled on this site.

I thought, like you, the sign has no legal effect.

I do not want to take away from the OP.
The issue I bring is some like to cite as I have in the past as well, that it could become a trespass issue though if open to the public and complied with all lawful conditions accessing the premises then there would be no issue as to trespass.

I feel the OP is also citing that since it is a public entity they cannot use a trespass issue on a lawful behavior.
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,330
Location
Okanogan Highland
I do not want to take away from the OP.
The issue I bring is some like to cite as I have in the past as well, that it could become a trespass issue though if open to the public and complied with all lawful conditions accessing the premises then there would be no issue as to trespass.

I feel the OP is also citing that since it is a public entity they cannot use a trespass issue on a lawful behavior.

The way I read the law, RCW 9.41.290 specifically precludes public entities to post a sign like this, have a policy that requires a sign like this, and to attempt to enforce such a policy.

ENM, RCW 9.41.810 was what I was talking about, but .290 is what is being violated. (that is...IMHO)

I have an email to a lawyer I know here in Okanogan, just to see what he thinks...don't know if he will answer me on this one...but if there is an obvious violation of state law, and you point it out to LE...if they are doing their job, a citation should be issued...NO? Sounds a lot simpler than trying to take the hospital district to court.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
Who owns the Hospital, is it private or public ownership?

IMHO the sheriff will not writ them a ticket for violating RCW9.41,290, because there is no penalty written onto RCW 9.41.290 for violating RCW 9.412.290.

Now there is an RCW that covers unlawful behavior by a public official but I can recall what code number it is at the moment.
 
Last edited:

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,463
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
The way I read the law, RCW 9.41.290 specifically precludes public entities to post a sign like this, have a policy that requires a sign like this, and to attempt to enforce such a policy.

ENM, RCW 9.41.810 was what I was talking about, but .290 is what is being violated. (that is...IMHO)

I have an email to a lawyer I know here in Okanogan, just to see what he thinks...don't know if he will answer me on this one...but if there is an obvious violation of state law, and you point it out to LE...if they are doing their job, a citation should be issued...NO? Sounds a lot simpler than trying to take the hospital district to court.

I do not read RCW 9.41.810 the same as you, if found in violation of this chapter is at minimum a misdemeanor unless otherwise noted as a gross misdemeanor or felony.

RCW 9.41.810 Penalty.

Any violation of any provision of this chapter, except as otherwise provided, shall be a misdemeanor and punishable accordingly.
[1984 c 258 § 312; 1983 c 232 § 11; 1983 c 3 § 7; 1961 c 124 § 12; 1935 c 172 § 16; RRS § 2516-16. Formerly RCW 9.41.160.]​
 
Last edited:

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
Rcw 9a.80.010

Official misconduct.

(1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege:

(a) He or she intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law; or

(b) He or she intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him or her by law.

(2) Official misconduct is a gross misdemeanor.


[2011 c 336 § 408; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 38 § 17; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 §9A.80.010 .]
 

oneeyeross

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
501
Location
Winlock, , USA
Who owns the hospital now? I know when I was born there, back in '55, it was the Sisters who ran St. Martin's Hospital, but that was back in the dark ages. (Wenatchee Valley North, maybe?)

If it's a private institution, I'd think they can have whatever rules they want to have. If that is the case, just conceal it and let it go until you get an answer from whatever powers rule.
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,330
Location
Okanogan Highland
Who owns the hospital now? I know when I was born there, back in '55, it was the Sisters who ran St. Martin's Hospital, but that was back in the dark ages. (Wenatchee Valley North, maybe?)

If it's a private institution, I'd think they can have whatever rules they want to have. If that is the case, just conceal it and let it go until you get an answer from whatever powers rule.

Yes, it is the "same" hospital as used to be St Martin's, or should I say, St Martin's was where it originated... It doesn't look anything like the old St. Martins hospital though, expecially after this latest building program.

It is now a "rural hospital district" called Okanogan hospital district #4, and is organized under RCW 70.44 (It is a PUBLIC hospital, paid for by property tax revenue, or should I say it is a County Owned, Municipal Corporation. Still, it's paid for by property taxes)
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,688
Location
Whatcom County
Official misconduct.

(1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege:

(a) He or she intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law; or

(b) He or she intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him or her by law.

(2) Official misconduct is a gross misdemeanor.


[2011 c 336 § 408; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 38 § 17; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 §9A.80.010 .]


Yep but like you said early trying to get cops to write their fellow government workers a ticket is practically impossible.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
Wait a second, hold the phone.

Are you guys implying that there might be a problem with the fact police, DAs and judges all work for the same team and therefore won't apply or enforce the law against their own?

That's just crazy talk.
 
Last edited:

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,671
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Could a private citizen file in court for a cease and desist order against the hospital district?

In civil court if they have standing to bring suit I do believe.

a family member was a security guard at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, and they banned firearms in the hospital and would have the police trespass anyone who didn't surrender their gun to security at entrance. Technically state law only bans firearms in mental hospitals, but they had some philisophy that said because part of the hospitals has a psyche ward they needed to ban guns in ALL of the hospital. And then their other "escape valve" was they're operated by the University of WA (even though the building itself belongs to King County) so somehow they fell under the WAC that allows universities to ban firearms.... And police trespassed people all the time (but they wouldn't arrest them if they had no license, because arresting patients might lead to them not seeking medical care, yeah HMC is really screwed up) but hey half of harborview's clientelle is probably not smart enough to challenge their citations under preemption anyway.

I don't believe Washington allows private prosecution however....
 

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
990
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
Two thoughts:

Can you be trespassed from a public hospital for violating a rule that is illegal under state preemption? If not, that leads us to thought #2:

Citizen's arrest isn't normally permitted for misdemeanors, but some misdemeanors (such as assault) breach the peace, which does permit a citizen's arrest. If someone breaks the illegal rule and is subject to an assault as hospital staff (or police) attempt to enforce the unlawful order, can a citizen's arrest be made for the resulting breach of the peace?
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
596
Location
Stanwood, WA
Assuming that the hospital is a state owned institution and is not a mental health facility and without researching the nature of the institution, the forbidding of carry of firearms is likely unenforceable due to state preemption. I do not interpret the criminal provision in .810 as applicable. The way I read .290 leads me to believe that it qualifies as an "except as otherwise provided" exclusion (it doesn't say "you can't do this" -- rather, it says any attempt by a state entity is invalid and such local codes and ordinances are preempted and repealed from the get-go). I do not think that the display of signs prohibiting firearms is a criminal violation. Even if it is, courts are likely to merely instruct the institution to obscure the prohibiting language or take down the sign, not convict them of a crime.

If it is, after all, a violation of the law (I really don't think it is) and the prosecuting attorney declines to prosecute, the criminal rules for courts of limited jurisdiction (municipal courts and county district courts -- where most misdemeanors are prosecuted) allow citizens to file criminal complaints when prosecuting attorneys decline to do so. CrRLJ 2.1(c).

Personally, I vigorously discourage citizens from filing criminal charges pursuant to CrRLJ 2.1(c). The consequences for an unsuccessful prosecution can be very expensive.
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,330
Location
Okanogan Highland
Assuming that the hospital is a state owned institution and is not a mental health facility and without researching the nature of the institution, the forbidding of carry of firearms is likely unenforceable due to state preemption. I do not interpret the criminal provision in .810 as applicable. The way I read .290 leads me to believe that it qualifies as an "except as otherwise provided" exclusion (it doesn't say "you can't do this" -- rather, it says any attempt by a state entity is invalid and such local codes and ordinances are preempted and repealed from the get-go). I do not think that the display of signs prohibiting firearms is a criminal violation. Even if it is, courts are likely to merely instruct the institution to obscure the prohibiting language or take down the sign, not convict them of a crime.

If it is, after all, a violation of the law (I really don't think it is) and the prosecuting attorney declines to prosecute, the criminal rules for courts of limited jurisdiction (municipal courts and county district courts -- where most misdemeanors are prosecuted) allow citizens to file criminal complaints when prosecuting attorneys decline to do so. CrRLJ 2.1(c).

Personally, I vigorously discourage citizens from filing criminal charges pursuant to CrRLJ 2.1(c). The consequences for an unsuccessful prosecution can be very expensive.

OK, Found the root? (at least the supposed authorization for) this problem...and am very surprised where this root is (individuals responsible I am not sure, but I have a good idea)

Tonasket City Ordinance 9.22.010. (2003)..specifically states that the hospital will be posted, which is interesting because NVH does not belong to the city of Tonasket, but is owned by the Okanogan Rural Public Hospital District, a municipal corporation organized under RCW 70.44.010.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,688
Location
Whatcom County
Then, trying to get a prosecutor to do something with the citation would be even harder. :banghead: :cuss:

Or to get your sheriff to follow the law when the prosecutor breaks the law. Frustrating.

Wait a second, hold the phone.

Are you guys implying that there might be a problem with the fact police, DAs and judges all work for the same team and therefore won't apply or enforce the law against their own?

That's just crazy talk.

I am not implying or inferring I am outright saying it is so.:p
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
Or to get your sheriff to follow the law when the prosecutor breaks the law. Frustrating.



I am not implying or inferring I am outright saying it is so.:p

So, are you trying to imply that our 'justice' system is like a football game where:

1) You're on one team.
2) 'They' are on the other team.
3) All the refs are picked from the bench-warmers on 'Their' team.
4) Therefore it's reasonable to assume that those refs are not treating your team fairly.

That's just crazy talk ;)

Do you have any real proof of these outrageous allegations? (Birk!)
 
Last edited:
Top