Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board Sued For Unlawful Seizures

PRESS RELEASE
NOTE: This Motion was WITHDRAWN because the State filed bogus
9:00 am Friday the 13th criminal charges against Levi and the legal team decided to focus
2000 Lakeridge Drive SW, Bldg 2 Olympia, WA 98502 solely on those for the moment. I apologize for any confusion
but you can blame the LCB for that.
Marijuana Seizure Values: State of Washington - $25.5M. The rest of the Country - $27M
Levi Lyon is entertainment director of Hempfest here in Washington who is at the head of a
lawsuit that threatens to expose the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board as a completely
corrupt entity with no true enforcement powers. Mr. Lyon has a documented history of
progressive education about responsible marijuana use.
But today he sits in potential ruin at the hands of the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis
Board after they confiscated his Vans as criminal tools because Mr. Lyon’s partner was smoking
marijuana in a registered RV at a Disc Golf, Food and Clothing Drive. Undercover agents
attended the event then later showed up with warrants that did not contain any signed Affidavits
for the vans. In a Zoom interview Mr. Lyon recalls there being a problem with the Warrant in the
field that day.
Advocates with Stafne Law Advocacy and Consulting asked for his files but have never seen any
sworn Affidavit supporting the seizure of the vans.
Weeks later a Good Samaritan obtained a different signed Affidavit that the Agency used to
obtain electronics from the van, but no one has any proof that Officer Robbie Slattery is in fact a
Licensed Peace Officer authorized with full authority here in Washington.
In fact there is pending legislation now with Bill No. HB 1626 - 2019-20 that would allow LCB
to enforce State Laws but it has not been enacted.
Meanwhile the DEA reports that Washington State has led the entire Country on Civil Marijuana
Forfeitures for the past two years, with $25M being 5 times the take in second place California.
Washington alone comprises half of the take for Seizures in the entire Country.
Industry lawyers and legislators in Washington who are advocating for full legalization under HB
1945 have noted a conundrum that allows for the disturbing growth of abusive forfeiture laws:
Marijuana remains legal to buy and to own and to smoke in private…. Which is precisely what
Mr. Lyon and his crew believed they were doing in their RV that day. Had they been drinking in
the RV it is a safe bet that the buses would still be in their possession.
A Hearing is set in the Thurston County Superior Court at 9:00 am. Friday the 13th where video
coverage will be provided. To see an informational video and more information please visit his
web page at https://www.lyonpridemedia.com/
Superior Court of Washington, Thurston County
Plaintiff / Petitioner:
20-2-01045-34
LEVI LYON, LYONPRIDE MUSIC ET AL., Case No.
Notice of Hearing for Civil Motions

Defendant / Respondent:
WA STATE LIQUOR & CANNABIS BOARD (NTHG)
To the Court Clerk and all parties:
1. A court hearing has been scheduled for: 13 March 2020.
The hearing will be before the assigned Judge or Commissioner.

9:00 am Friday the 13th
The hearing will take place at: 9521
2000Tilley RoadDrive
Lakeridge South,
SW, Building #E, Olympia,
Bldg 2 Olympia, Washington.
WA 98502
2. The name of the motion or type of hearing is: Show Cause for Replevin
Required: The motion was filed X with this notice or previously on: _____________ (date).
3. The hearing should be scheduled as a:

Unlawful Detainer Motion (Friday 9:30 a.m.)
Trial Setting under LCR 40 (Friday 9:00 Administrative Session – DO NOT GO TO COURT).
Dispositive Motion -- Summary Judgment, CR 12(b)(6), or CR 12(c) motion (Friday 9:00 a.m.)
X Other Civil Motion (Friday 9:00 a.m.)
Warnings!
• If you do not go to the hearing, the court may sign orders without hearing your side.
• You will need to check that the session is available before you schedule a hearing. You can see
whether a session is full on the Clerk’s website: www.co.thurston.wa.us/clerk.
• If this notice is incomplete or contains an incorrect date, time, or conflicting information, your hearing
may not be scheduled and you will not be notified. You can verify whether a hearing was scheduled at:
https://odysseyportal.courts.wa.gov/odyportal.
• You need to schedule this hearing at least six business days ahead of time. More time is required for
dispositive motions (28 days) and some other matters. Consult local and state court rules.

(12/20/19)
4. Declaration of Service 5. Person Scheduling this Hearing:
I declare that on March 4, 2020, I, Richard Podszus !
Name of party: Levi Lyon
deposited in the United States mail, ! delivered through
a legal messenger service, X personally delivered, a Sign: _______________________________________
copy of this notice of hearing, the motion, and all
Print Name: Levi Lyon
paperwork filed along with the motion, to all people listed
below in section 6. WSBA # ___________________________ (if attorney)
Address: 3628 E. Portland Avenue,

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of
Washington State that the foregoing is true and City/State/Zip: Tacoma, WA, 98466
correct. Telephone: 253.606.4541
Signed at Thurston, Cty, Washington, on 4 March 2020.
Email: levilyon@me.com
Richard Podszus (printed name)
_________________________________(signature) Date: 3 March 2020
6. Names and Contact Information for Everyone Notified of this Hearing
Name: Scott M. Jackson Name: Thurston County Narcotics Task Force______________
Attorney for: Thurston County Attorney for: __N/A__________________________________
WSBA #: #26844 WSBA #:_____N/A__________________________________
Address:120 State Avenue N.E.,

Address: 2000 Lakeridge Dr S.W., Building 2, Olympia, PMG 173, Olympia, WA 98501
WA 98502
360.786.5540 360.786.0572
Name: Bob Ferguson, Washington State Attorney General. Name: ____________________________________________
Attorney for: Thurston County Narcotics Task Force Attorney for: ____________________________________
WSBA #: 26004 WSBA #: _______________________________________
Address: Office of the AG 1125 Washington Street, SE. Address: ________________________________________

Olympia, WA 98504-0100
___________________________________________
Address: ____________________________________
Telephone: ______________________________________
____________________________________________
Telephone: ____________________________________
Name: ________________________________________ Name: __________________________________________
Attorney for: __________________________________ Attorney for: ____________________________________
WSBA #: ______________________________________ WSBA #: _______________________________________
Address: ______________________________________ Address: ________________________________________
______________________________________________ _______________________________________________

(12/20/19)
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
FOR THE COUNTY OF THURSTON
Replevin STAFNE LAW Acacy & Consulting

Page 1 239 N. Olympic Ave.
Arlington, WA 98223
The Original Filing Cover Page with Notary Jurat.
The Motion has since been reformmated.
20-2-01045-34
LEVI LYON, LYONPRIDE MUSIC Case No.:
ET AL.,
PLAINTIFF’S REVISED
Plaintiff. RULE 7.64 DEMAND IN
REPLEVIN AND DEMAND FOR
vs. SHOW CAUSE ORDER
WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR

AND CANNABIS BOARD,
Defendant.

Arlington, WA 98223
NOW COMES PLAINTIFF to file this Demand Sounding in Replevin
as the purported Evidence obtained has been obtained in violation of
Criminal and Civil Rules and in violation of the United States and
Washington Constitutions. A Memorandum in Support is attached
hereto.
I. Introduction and Relevant Background
Levi Lyon is a major promoter for Hempfest. He and Courtland
Crabtree worked together to design a Frisbee disc course on private
property and to promote the safe use of cannabis products as noted in
his press release and Waiver in Appendix A.
“I’ve owned LyonPrideMusic since 2009 and began volunteering
with Seattle Hempfest in 2005 as Entertainment Director. I first became
an advocate for safe driving after my friend passed from drinking,
drugging & driving.
We always welcome our guests a safe, warm place to relax and the
RV was a refuge from the weather on that very cold day.” [However
WSLCB Agents raided him on November 23, 2019, without a signed
Affidavit and without Legislative or legal authority, seizing two RVs and
thousands of dollars in equipment out of malice for the industry].
Lyon maintains that under the current laws Washingtonians and
those visiting the state can legally purchase marijuana but many have
no place to legally imbibe. Lyon claims that “some renters, those in
subsidized housing, the homeless, and tourists visiting our state can buy

Arlington, WA 98223
pot but cannot imbibe it under state law.”
We spent all summer building this disc golf course to serve our
community and feel that this is a misuse of LCB resources. The
marijuana was within the legal limit for possession, the vehicle was
parked on private property, and any use was out of public view,” adds
Lyon. A second Lyon Pride Vehicle was later seized. Arguing that the RV
provided a safe alternative to public consumption Lyon believes that the
arrest and confiscations are contrary to the public interest.
As we shall see throughout this briefing, he is not alone in his
opinion.
Stafne Law Advocacy and Consulting next issued several Public
Records requests pursuant to GR 31.1 and RCW 42.56 to Lewis County
and to Cowlitz County. Both Cowlitz and Lewis Counties repeatedly
claimed that they did not have any responsive documents. See PRR sets
and both Cowlitz and Lewis County Responses in the Declaration of
Micah Anderson (Appendix B).
Cowlitz County did eventually provide documents in Discovery
(Appendix C). As a result it has been established that all available
documents have been produced and that a signed and sworn Affidavit is
conspicuous by its absence. According to Cowlitz County Superior Court
Clerk there was no pending felony case as of January 2, 2020 for Case
number 19-1-00001-08.
To wit: Cowlitz County initially told Stafne Law Advocacy and

Arlington, WA 98223
Consulting that its agencies, auditor and public works do not have any
responsive documents relative to:
1) Washington State Liquor Control Officer Robbie J. Satterly;
2) Lyon Pride Music;
3) VIN: 1FDWE45F0YHA80845;
4) Washington License Plate No: BOY6101;
5) VIN: 1FDKE30G1THB51522 and/or VIN: 1FDKE30G1THB1522;
6) Washington License Plate No: LPMUSIC;
7) 1921 JOHNSON RD. Centralia WA;
8) 18208 40th AVE East. Tacoma, WA;
9) Cortland Crabtree; and 10) Richard E. Podszus.
To wit: Lewis County stated in pertinent part:
From: Cullen Gatten <Cullen.Gatten@lewiscountywa.gov>

Date: Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: Request for Production of Documents per GR 31.1 and/or
RCW 42.56
To: micah@stafnelaw.com <micah@stafnelaw.com This Office conducted
a search as required by the Public Records Act.
“On January 8, 2020, this Office conducted a search of all

reasonable places of where any responsive records to your request
could be. The repository that would include responsive records to
your request would be our online database for active and inactive
case files. Using its search function, this Office conducted a search
utilizing the terms you provided individually for the date range in
question. Then, we used your search terms to do a partial search
for each item. For example, item 1 included ‘Washington State
Liquor Control Officer’ and the name ‘Robbie J. Satterly’. We
searched each part of item 1 separately, and used variations, such
was ‘WSLCB’, ‘WSLCO’, ‘Satterly, Robbie’, ‘Satterly’ and so on. This
system does not include any information for VIN numbers and is
not a searchable criteria. Our search yielded no responsive records

Arlington, WA 98223
from this office. Further, this would imply there is no metadata
responsive, because there’s no responsive electronic records to
your request.
In addition, this Office called Lewis County District Court for

completeness of this search. We asked for a search of any return
on warrants in the date range you provided for any vehicles,
addresses, and individuals. That search yielded no responsive
records. Further, this Office conducted a search in other
databases, such as Odyssey, and the Judicial Information System
for any additional information that might aid us in our search.
Those searches did not reveal additional information that would
alter the search terms. (Id.).”
Returning to Cowlitz, however, that County PRR respondent noted
that there was a Case No. 19-109TNT #7E9327A LCB pending against
Levi J. Lyon and Courtland Crabtree, both of Tacoma, Washington. The
alleged offenses involve the Class C Felony under RCW §69.50.465
conducting illegal marijuana club. The laws of Washington State are in
flux as HB 1945 hangs in the balance: It was reintroduced on January
13, 2020.
Meanwhile the State of Washington perpetuates an evil
conundrum for its inhabitants that welcomes abuse.1 As noted, the
1
Washington State lives in a conundrum: Washington Attorney Bonnie Fong
discussed that fact that it is legal to purchase and to possess marijuana but
it is not legal to smoke it indoors or outdoors: Unfortunately, in Washington,
Cannabis lounges are expressly prohibited under criminal prosecution. Under RCW
69.50.465, it is a Class C felony for anyone to operate a business, for profit
or otherwise, to maintain a location where people can keep or consume Cannabis
on the premises. Aside from the blatant violation of our constitutional right
to assemble, this law is severely harmful to all Cannabis users smoking in
Washington. It is currently illegal to smoke Cannabis in public places. It is
similarly illegal to smoke inside, due to the Clean Air Act. So smokers in
Washington, including both residents and visitors, cannot smoke inside or
outside. What good is legalization if Cannabis users do not have a legal place
to consume Cannabis? Sure, Cannabis is legal - but if every Cannabis user must
break a law in order to smoke Cannabis, are we really truly free to legally
consume Cannabis? Bring it to Bonnie, in NorthwestLeaf June 2019 p.20.

Arlington, WA 98223
Cowlitz Superior Court Clerk eventually provided a set of documents that
include 63 pages of police narrative, inventory and an Affidavit relative to
and event that allegedly occurred on or about November 23, 2019. The
Affidavit contains a signature block for one “Officer Robbie J. Satterly
#145 but in point of fact that Affidavit is unsworn and unsigned by
Officer Robbie J. Satterly or any other human being. (Appendix C). The
Warrant is signed on November 23, 2019. At no point in time has Cowlitz
County, Lewis County, or the State or Narcotics Task Force or any entity
ever provided a signed and sworn Affidavit to Stafne Law Advocacy and
Consulting so at this point this Court may only assume that one does
not exist.2 On or about November 23, 2019 the purported undercover
operation using LCB Officers operating under Color of Law, searched and
seized a white 2000 Ford Econoline bus that is owned by Levi Lyon as a
personal residence, using a warrant that was obtained without a signed
or sworn Affidavit. Significantly in order to obtain access to the van at
which free marijuana samples were being shared, The operation,
conducted with Washington State Liquor Control Board Agents operating
in ultra vires capacity also netted a black 1996 Ford E-350 van and
numerous other purported criminal tools using the same faulty Warrant
2
Plaintiff was preparing this Motion when he received a submission from a Good
Samaritan who inquired of WSLCB. Lo and Behold there now appears a post-hoc
Affidavit, signed on January 8, 2020 by a Judge in Lewis County, a different
County than the one forwarded by Cowlitz. This Affidavit however pertains only
to electronic information observed after the illegal initial Seizure of the
Buses. To be crystal clear Lewis and Cowlitz Counties never gave Stafne Law and
Advocacy ANY SIGNED AND SWORN AFFIDAVIT.

Arlington, WA 98223
with an unsigned and unsworn Affidavit. Both buses are registered as
Recreational Vehicles in the State of Washington.
At this point we have another substantial abnormality: As
contemplated by Fn2, a Good Samaritan asked for and received a copy of
a signed Affidavit that is apparently signed and sworn well after the fact,
on January 8, 2020. It took him not one but two attempts to receive this
information and it was received by and through the Washington State. If
subpoenaed, he will testify:
“Those records came to me through a public records request

to the WSLCB. I never actually had any correspondence
With Lewis County. I had no idea they were involved until I
downloaded these files.” See Appendix D
In this case there was simply no Signed and Sworn Affidavit
predicating the Judge’s Signed Warrant that in turn predicated the bus
Seizure. Not only that, but the signed Affidavit of 8 January is
apparently predicated solely on electronics inventoried after the unlawful
seizure for which no one has ever seen a signed and Sworn Affidavit. Not
only that, Defendant has never seen a confirmatory email from the Judge
nor has he seen a copy of any Order Sealing this case, although it was
reported as sealed.
Not only that, Officer Satterly, on information and belief, is not a
Peace Officer in the State of Washington. At least by his own descriptions
in all of materials before us he is not. Not today, Not yesterday, Not ever.
Notwithstanding this fact the temporary search warrant on Nov. 25,

Arlington, WA 98223
2019 for the bus, the search warrant is to "all peace officers." He cannot
issue that without being a peace officer himself.
II. Argument & Points of Authority.
A. LCB Does not Possess Authority to Actively Engage in Criminal
Prosecution.
Currently pending in Washington House Committee is HB 1626 -
2019-20 “Making the authority of the liquor and cannabis board to
enforce state laws concerning liquor, marijuana, tobacco, and vapor
products more uniform.”
At 50:00 into its Valentines Day at Public Safety Committee
Hearing Rep. Pettigrew states:
“Now that we’ve made cannabis legal it’s important they have the
same level of authority to manage and police that substance as well….”
https://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2019021218
Specifically it proposes in pertinent part:
(4) The board may appoint and employ, assign to duty and fix the
compensation of, officers to be designated as liquor enforcement officers.
Such liquor enforcement officers shall have the power, under the
supervision of the board, to enforce the penal provisions of this title and
the penal laws of this state relating to the manufacture, importation,
transportation, possession, distribution and sale of liquor, marijuana,
tobacco, and vapor products.
They shall have the power and authority to serve and execute all
warrants and process of law issued by the courts in enforcing the penal
provisions of this title or of any penal law of this state relating to the
manufacture, importation, transportation, possession, distribution and
sale of liquor, marijuana, tobacco, and vapor products, and the
provisions of chapters 82.24 and 82.26 RCW.

Arlington, WA 98223
Mr. Lyon respectfully notes that “in House Committee” in
February, 2020 is a far cry from being effectively passed in November,
2019. As such there simply was no authority for WSLCB agents to act in
the manner they have throughout this case, ab initio.
Accordingly the case must be summarily dismissed. But there’s
more: After the Toxic Environment warning letter issued by ten (10) State
Representatives identified in Section III, infra, the Hillard Heintze report
at p. 41 notes:
"However, Lexipol is law enforcement-centric and not necessarily

designed for regulatory agencies, leaving the agency to develop and
include regulatory functions unique to its mission and vision. In
addition, the boiler plate Lexipol policies must be edited, tweaked
or not used, if they do not meet the specific Division’s needs."
WSLCB Independant Review of Enforement Operations and Managment
final Report, December 30.2019
WSLCB even uses boilerplate language from LEXIPOL on search and
seizure policies for cell phone surveillance technology.3
The Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board Enforcement
and Education Division Policy Manual, Search and Seizure section 311
reads “
Seizure 311.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

Both the federal and state Constitutions provide every individual
with the right to be free fromunreasonable searches and seizures.
This policy provides general guidelines for WashingtonState Liquor
3
The perils of such adherence to LEXIPOL are further examined below in Section
III

Arlington, WA 98223
and Cannabis Board Enforcement and Education Division personnel
to considerwhen dealing with search and seizure issues.
311.2 POLICY
It is the policy of the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board
Enforcement and EducationDivision to respect the fundamental privacy
rights of individuals. LCB Enforcement Officers willconduct searches in
strict observance of the constitutional rights of persons being searched.
Allseizures by this division will comply with relevant federal and state
law governing the seizure ofpersons and property.The Division will
provide relevant and current training to officers as guidance for the
application ofcurrent law, local community standards and prosecutorial
considerations regarding specific searchand seizure situations, as
appropriate.
311.3 SEARCHES
The U.S. Constitution generally provides that a valid warrant is required
in order for a search tobe valid. There are, however, several exceptions
that permit a warrantless search.Examples of law enforcement activities
that are exceptions to the general warrant requirementinclude, but are
not limited to, searches pursuant to the following:
•Valid consent
•Incident to a lawful arrest
•Legitimate community caretaking interests
•Exigent circumstances
Certain other activities are recognized by federal and state courts
and by certain statutes aslegitimate law enforcement activities that
also do not require a warrant. Such activities mayinclude seizure
and examination of abandoned property and observations of activities
and propertylocated on open public areas.
Because case law regarding search and seizure is constantly
changing and subject tointerpretation by the courts, each LCB
Enforcement Officer of this division is expected to act ineach situation
according to current training and his/her familiarity with clearly
established rights as determined by case law.
Whenever practicable, commissioned officers are encouraged to contact a
supervisor to resolvequestions regarding search and seizure issues prior
to electing a course of action.”
B. The Post Hoc Affidavit for Electronics is Unlawful and Renders the
Search and Seizure as Unconstitutional.

Arlington, WA 98223
There is a paucity of case law regarding Search and Seizure
without a signed and sworn Affidavit in the entire Country, much less in
Washington State. That’s because any reasonable State Actor, or those
working with State Actors under Color of Law all know that such an
approach is patently unlawful. The case of Texas v. Hodges, Texas Ct.
App No. 07-19-00237-CR (Appendix E) provides guidance in terms off
affirming basic Due Process:
Progress and developing technologies have caused our Court of

Criminal Appeals to adapt its edict in certain respects. For
instance, an oath may now be administered over the telephone. Id.
Yet, neither our research nor the authority cited by the State
revealed an opinion from the high court dispensing with the
almost 100-year-old rule that “an oath must be administered” by a
magistrate or qualified officer to make a document an affidavit….
…..In short, we are bound to follow precedent from the Court of
Criminal Appeals. It said that before a written statement in
support of a search warrant constitutes a “sworn affidavit,” the
requisite oath must be administered before a magistrate or other
qualified officer. Clay, 391 S.W.3d at 99.
The State’s issue on appeal is overruled. The trial court had
reasonable evidentiary basis to conclude that the search warrant
permitting a blood draw was void because it was founded on an unsworn
affidavit. Thus, we affirm its order granting the motion to suppress.
In this case there was simply no Signed and Sworn Affidavit
predicating the Judge’s Signed Warrant that in turn predicated the
Seizure. Not only that, but the signed Affidavit of 8 January is
apparently predicated solely on electronics inventoried after the unlawful
seizure for which no one has ever seen a signed and Sworn Affidavit.

Arlington, WA 98223
Not only that, Officer Satterly, on information and belief, is not a
Peace Officer in the State of Washington. At least by his own descriptions
in all of materials before us he is not. Not today, Not yesterday, Not ever.
Notwithstanding this fact the temporary search warrant on Nov. 25,
2019 for the bus, the search warrant is to "all peace officers." He cannot
issue that without being a peace officer himself. Moreover, in
Washington v. Ettenhoffer, Ct. App Div II No. 28545-2-II. (November 18,
2003) the Court ruled:
We reverse Ettenhofer's conviction. Suppression is the appropriate

remedy. We hold that these failures constitute a warrantless
search in violation of CrR 2.3(c), RCW §10.79.040, and article 1,
section 7 of the Washington State Constitution….. 7
……Thus, by persuasive authority and a reasonable construction
of the warrant rules as a whole, the officers transgressed CrR
2.3(c)s procedures when they searched Ettenhofers shops without
a written, signed warrant, and they violated CrR 2.3(d) when they
failed to give Ettenhofer a copy of such a warrant. The California
courts approach to its rule is well-reasoned and, as its rule is
similar to CrR 2.3(c), persuasive.
State v. Myers 117 Wn.2d 332, 815 P.2d 761 (1991).

Nothing can change any of this, and worse yet the 8 January 2020
Affidavit never was provided to Counsel. That is completely heinous and
offends every notion of Fair Play and Substantial Justice.4
4
Mr. Lyon has become aware of a case in which a Warrant was effectively
backdated but that is a horse of another color because the predicate event – a
signed and sworn Affidavit – had indeed occurred. See People v. Barkley,
Michigan Ct. App 190146, 192430 (September 26, 1997)(Magistrate failed to sign
Service Warrant but signed original and prosecutor’s Warrant then back-signed
the Service copy). We do not have a set of facts remotely similar to that
before this Court, much to the State’s chagrin.

Arlington, WA 98223
C. Procedural Due Process Violations Become Substantive in Nature.
First of all Counsel at the Stafne Law Advocacy and Consulting
never received a copy of the back-dated Affidavit. That much speaks for
itself. Had the Good Samaritan never sought and obtain such materials
from the WSLCB the Plaintiff would have shown up to Court without any
time to prepare his arguments against is ultimately a per se invalid
document. One would hope that this was a pure oversight as the
alternative must make us cringe in our collective boots: Would the
WSLCB be deceitful enough to intentionally withhold such a document,
or is it pure incompetence? Either outcome does not bode well.
D. The Seizure was Unwarranted by the Definitive Statute itself.
RCW §69.50.505 (1)(h)(ii) provides in pertinent part:
The bona fide gift of a controlled substance, legend drug, or

imitation controlled substance shall not result in the
forfeiture of real property;"
and
RCW §69.50.505 (1)(d)((iii) provides in pertinent part:
No conveyance is subject to forfeiture under this section if

used in the receipt of only an amount of marijuana for which
possession constitutes a misdemeanor under RCW
69.50.4014;
Review pp. 7 and 8 for example of the LCB’s own narrative where it
repeatedly describes how Ms. Crabtree “Offered the [Officers] a dab.”
There was no implication of any charge for the dabs whatsoever, because
they were simply a gift for visiting. Moreover, scientific testimony will

Arlington, WA 98223
reveal, if necessary, that the amount of marijuana residue or essence or
oils present on a dab is infinitesimally small compared to the 40 grams
that would have constituted a misdemeanor before HB 1024 repealed
RCW §69.50.4014 anyway. As such, there is yet another reason why this
unlawful taking, punishment and prosecution is patently abusive and
must but summarily rejected by this Honorable Court.
III. Public Policy and the Eighth Amendment Militate in Favor of
Suppression and Return of Property in Replevin.
The application of Seizure and Forfeiture in this case is Draconian.
The Indiana Supreme Court has recently stricken the application of such
laws in a landmark decision on October, 2019 the Court ruled that the
Eighth Amendment prohibitions against Cruel and Unusual Punishment
apply to States and to forfeiture. In Tyson v. Timbs, Case No. 27S04-
1702-MI-70 the Plaintiff in the Lower Court lost a $42,000 Land Rover
out of an alleged $400 sale of drugs.
The Indiana Court had substantial guidance from the Supreme
Court of the United States: In Tyson v. Indiana, 139 S.Ct. 682 (February
20, 2019) the Court unanimously remanded this issue to the Indiana
Supreme Court after that Court had improperly reversed the Rulings of
the Trial and Appellate Courts. The Court opined, inter alia at 686:
After Timbs's guilty plea in the criminal case, the trial court held a
hearing on the forfeiture demand. Although finding that Timbs's
vehicle had been used to facilitate violation of a criminal statute,
the court denied the requested forfeiture, observing that Timbs
had recently purchased the vehicle for $ 42,000, more than four

Arlington, WA 98223
times the maximum $ 10,000 monetary fine assessable against
him for his drug conviction. Forfeiture of the Land Rover, the court
determined, would be grossly disproportionate to the gravity of
Timbs's offense, hence unconstitutional under the Eighth
Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause. The Court of Appeals of
Indiana affirmed that determination, but the Indiana Supreme
Court reversed. 84 N.E.3d 1179 (2017). The Indiana Supreme
Court did not decide whether the forfeiture would be excessive.
Instead, it held that the Excessive Fines Clause constrains only
federal action and is inapplicable to state impositions. We granted
certiorari. 585 U.S. ___, 138 S.Ct. 2650, 201 L.Ed.2d 1049 (2018).
The question presented: Is the Eighth Amendment's Excessive
Fines Clause an "incorporated" protection applicable to the States
under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause? Like the
Eighth Amendment's proscriptions of "cruel and unusual
punishment" and "[e]xcessive bail," the protection against
excessive fines guards against abuses of government's punitive or
criminal-law-enforcement authority. This safeguard, we hold, is
"fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty," with "dee[p] root[s]
in 687*687 [our] history and tradition." McDonald v. Chicago, 561
U.S. 742, 767, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010) (internal
quotation marks omitted; emphasis deleted). The Excessive Fines
Clause is therefore incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
At 697 the Court engaged in historical perspective about the evil events that
precipitated the protections against excessive fines, events steeped in slavery
and racism:
C
The prohibition on excessive fines remained fundamental at the
time of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1868, 35 of 37 state
constitutions "expressly prohibited excessive fines." Ante, at 688.
Nonetheless, as the Court notes, abuses of fines continued,
especially through the Black Codes adopted in several States.
Ante, at 688-89. The "centerpiece" of the Codes was their "attempt
to stabilize the black work force and limit its economic options
apart from plantation labor." E. Foner, Reconstruction: America's
Unfinished Revolution 1863-1877, p. 199 (1988). Under the Codes,
"the state would enforce labor agreements and plantation
discipline, punish those who refused to contract, and prevent
whites from competing among themselves for black workers." Ibid.
The Codes also included "àntienticement' measures punishing
anyone offering higher wages to an employee already under

Arlington, WA 98223
contract." Id., at 200. The 39th Congress focused on these abuses
during its debates over the Fourteenth Amendment, the Civil
Rights Act of 1866, and the Freedmen's Bureau Act. During those
well-publicized debates, Members of Congress consistently
highlighted and lamented the "severe penalties" inflicted by the
Black Codes and similar measures, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st
Sess., 474 (1866) (Sen. Trumbull), suggesting that the prohibition
on excessive fines was understood to be a basic right of
citizenship. 10 For example, under Mississippi law, adult
"freedmen, free negroes and mulattoes" "without lawful
employment" faced $ 50 in fines and 10 days' imprisonment for
vagrancy. Reports of Assistant Commissioners of Freedmen, and
Synopsis of Laws on Persons of Color in Late Slave States, S. Exec.
Doc. No. 6, 39th Cong., 2d Sess., § 2, p. 192 (1867). Those
convicted had five days to pay or they would be arrested and
leased to "any person who will, for the shortest period of service,
pay said fine and forfeiture and all costs." § 5, ibid. Members of
Congress criticized such laws "for selling [black] men into slavery
in punishment of crimes of the slightest magnitude." Cong. Globe,
39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1123 (1866) (Rep. Cook); see id., at 1124 ("It
is idle to say these men will be protected by the States").
The Court went on to unanimously remand the case to Indiana and the
rest is crucial history in the making and Courts across the Country are now
addressing the SCOTUS Opinion and will do so for years to come.
It may very well be a case of First Impression here in Washington
and if not, it is certifiably on the cutting edge of a burgeoning area of
Law. The little people have to be protected against unwarranted
intrusion from the heavy hegemonic hand of the State.
In any event, this case there was no sale of drugs or commercial
activity – dabs were given as gifts to willing participants as noted on the
sign-up waiver which renders the activity beyond the purview of the
Statute, ab initio. Under Tyson while buses do pass muster as an alleged
instrumentality, however on a proportionality scale the WSLCB has

Arlington, WA 98223
effectively shut down Mr. Lyons livelihood as he uses those buses for
multiple purposes, some of which have nothing to do with marijuana.
Further, in this instance, the marijuana was gifted in nominal amounts
as he should be exempted on that basis alone as seen in section II D,
supra.
This particularly true because Washington prides itself on being a
more progressive State than Indiana but in this instance it is definitely
not true, unless the gravamen is going to be the size of the State’s
forfeiture pool:
According to the DEA Washington leads all U.S. States in
cannabis-related forfeiture with a staggering $25,455,108.00 take for
2018, outnumbering California at $4,675,753.00 by 5 to 1. In 2017
Washington led but with a paltry $4,708,157.00 still overshadowing
Indiana at $3,794,230.47 – and we Mr. Lyon reminds the Court of what
measures the Indiana Supreme Court took to address that matter above
in the very section.
Washington holds that position because of an inherently unfair
conundrum that is a recurring theme in this briefing, and for good
cause. In summation recall Fn 2, supra and the conundrum that it
places people like Mr. Lyon in because it makes them “sitting ducks for
the police man:”5
5
D.O.A., David Lee Roth, Van Halen II (1979).

Arlington, WA 98223
It is currently illegal to smoke Cannabis in public places. It is
similarly illegal to smoke inside, due to the Clean Air Act. So smokers in
Washington, including both residents and visitors, cannot smoke inside
or outside. What good is legalization if Cannabis users do not have a
legal place to consume Cannabis? Sure, Cannabis is legal - but if every
Cannabis user must break a law in order to smoke Cannabis, are we
really truly free to legally consume Cannabis?
Bring it to Bonnie, in NorthwestLeaf June 2019 p.20.
Lastly, to the extent that private contractor Lexipol is advising the
WSLCB on policy that is yet another harbinger of Unconstitutionalities to
Come: Spokane Police settled a lawsuit for $49,000 with Gabriel Gomez
two years ago for application of wrongful detainment protocol in the
immigration policies promulgated by the legal and legislative juggernaut.
Add to this mix the toxic nature of LCB Director Russ Hauge, and
we have a recipe for disaster: Ten (10) legislators issued a letter one year
ago regarding his ongoing tenure urging for his non-appointment or
removal. An excerpt follows:
“What we know is that the LCB unevenly, inconsistently and

unfairly applies the rules across the market. They target
enforcement based on complaints (frequently from competitors and
disgruntled employees) and when they enter a business wearing
heavy police vests and carrying guns, they signal what they expect
as part of being there. Not compliance that supports the
regulations, clarifying confusion or addressing questions without
reproach, but a show of authority and intimidation. It should be
unacceptable to anyone who cares about the safe establishment of
this market in Washington – especially as adult use states
increase nationwide, and including Canada – that heavily-
regulated, taxpaying men and women are treated like crimes
waiting to happen in a voter-endorsed cannabis state. It is
unacceptable to us.”
Meanwhile from the Spokane Inlander March 7, 2019:

Arlington, WA 98223
It's almost as if the legalization of marijuana in Washington state
didn't really change perceptions among some people.
At least that's the gist of a Feb. 13 letter sent to Gov. Jay Inslee
from a bipartisan group of lawmakers (including Ritzville
Republican Sen. Mark Schoesler). Specifically, the letter took aim
at Russ Hauge, a board member reappointed to the Liquor and
Cannabis Board by the governor for a six-year term beginning on
Jan. 28. The letter accused Hauge of dishonesty and of
contributing to a "toxic culture" at the LCB that targets marijuana
businesses that operate legally and asked Inslee to rescind his
appointment.
"The ethos at the LCB does not yet effectively separate taxpaying
license-holders who have thrown open the doors to their
businesses, their personal finances and more, from criminals
skulking in dark alleys who sell to kids from the back of a van,"
the letter says. "Washington needs LCB leaders who embrace the
distinction."
The letter’s ten signatories are: Sen. Ann Rivers (R—La Center),
Sen. John Braun (R— Centralia), Sen. Mark Schoesler (R—Ritzville), Sen.
Steve Hobbs (D—Lake Stevens), Sen. Guy Palumbo (D—Maltby), Rep.
Brian Blake (D—Aberdeen), Rep. Kristine Reeves (D—Federal Way), Rep.
Drew MacEwen (R—Union), Rep. Brandon Vick (R—Felida), and Rep.
Steve Kirby (D—Tacoma).
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons this Honorable
Court must now immediately issue stern rebuke to WSLCB, Order
immediate return of any and all items unlawfully seized and issue any
and all other relief it deems appropriate, including dismissal of this
entire Action.

Arlington, WA 98223
An Order to Show Cause pursuant to RCW §7.64.020 must issue
forthwith. Respectfully submitted and SWORN as to all factual matters.
DATED this 4th day of March 2020, at Arlington, Washington
By:_________________________________
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct:
1. At all times hereinafter mentioned I am a citizen of the United States of
America, a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of eighteen years,
not a party to the above-entitled action, and competent to be a witness herein.
2. That on this date I served the foregoing, by way of electronic mail, and
United States Postal Service, and/or Facsimile to the following parties.
Scott M. Jackson WSBA No. 26844

Thurston County Prosecutor Office
2000 Lakeridge Drive SW Building 2,
Olympia, Washington 98502-6045
Email: jackssm@co.thurston.wa.us
Phone: (360)786-5540

Arlington, WA 98223
Fax: (360)754-3358
DATED this ___ day of ________ 2020, at______________, in ____________________

County, Washington.
Respectfully submitted by:
By:_________________________
Name:

Arlington, WA 98223
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I the undersigned did send the foregoing Motion via email

this 5th day of March, 2020 to:
Robert Ferguson
Washington State Attorney General
@judyg@atg.wa.gov
___________________________
CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D.
c/o Stafne Law Advocacy & Consulting
239 N. Olympic Avenue
Arlington, WA 98223
APPENDIX A
“Weed Need our Freedoms Restored”
Responsible use, Dab & Discuss Bus !
For those that I haven’t had the pleasure to connect with in life, my
name is Levi Lyon. I’ve owned LyonPrideMusic since 2009 and began
volunteering with Seattle Hempfest in 2005 as Entertainment Director. I
first became an advocate for safe driving after my friend passed from
drinking, drug’n & driving. In remembrance, I’ve always volunteered to
be the designated driver amongst my friends. I bought my first
“PartyBus” in 2010 to help educate, inculcate, and cultivate awareness
by ways of celebration and event planning. I always strive for positivity,
passion in the task at hand and consider myself a humanitarian.
The Press Release:

On November 23, 2019 the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis
Board performed a raid on a Disc Golf Food and Clothing Drive charity
event produced by Lyon Pride Music, seizing a Recreational Vehicle.
Undercover LCB officers made contact with the event organizers and
requested a place to smoke marijuana. They were allowed to enter the
RV where they were offered a “dab hit.” At that time they revealed they
were law enforcement officers and placed the organizers under arrest.
The raid including at least eight officers assisted in charging Levi &
Courtland with delivery of marijuana, unlawful delivery of a controlled
substance (dabs), and conducting or maintaining a marijuana club. The
company was using the RV as shelter for staff, friends, and family
during the production of the event, storing valuables and acting as a
break room.
“We always welcome our guests a safe, warm place to relax and the
RV was a refuge from the weather on that very cold day,” says Levi
Lyon, owner of the event planning business.
Lyon maintains that under the current laws Washingtonians and those
visiting the state can legally purchase marijuana but many have no
place to legally imbibe. Lyon claims that “some renters, those in
subsidized housing, the homeless, and tourists visiting our state can
buy pot but cannot imbibe it under state law”. We spent all summer
building this disc golf course to serve our community and feel that this
is a misuse of LCB resources. The marijuana was within the legal limit
for possession, the vehicle was parked on private property, and any
use was out of public view,” adds Lyon. A second Lyon Pride Vehicle
was later seized. Arguing that the RV provided a safe alternative to
public consumption Lyon believes that the arrest and confiscations are
contrary to the public interest. “There is no victim to this crime,” he
maintains. “We were parked, out of view, and acting in private,” says
Lyon.
Levi Lyon is available for interview at the contact info below. He is
asking for community support as he works to increase safe access
opportunities for those who wish to legally imbibe marijuana, and wants
to hear from others that might have been unlawfully ticketed for public
consumption.
Courtland Crabtree:
What was it like getting arrested by LCB?
It was traumatic. I’m still trying to wrap my head around the emotions
I’m feeling. We were hosting a food and clothing drive for the
community. A disc golf tournament with our friends and family is a
healthy activity. My 8 yr old daughter was there collecting donations
and running a hot chocolate stand. To be arrested in front of others like
that when we were doing something positive for the community seems
outrageous. The weeks following resorted in being prescribed
medications for anxiety, depression, bipolar and to help with insomnia.
I was scheduled to start computer classes trough Goodwill training in
January but the LCB took my computer. I am just emotionally unstable
and scared to leave the security of my house. I’m now seeking a
therapist and going to group counseling. The past few months have
been a struggle to keep a job and get to regular appointments. It’s just
been outright traumatic for me. My birth certificate and social security
card were in my work bag along with my business license and other
important documents. Documents I need in order to get a job and
make a living. We had been staying in our bus and had our personal
hygiene products on it. As well our bedding, winter jackets and shoes
that we can’t afford to replace. It’s been a struggle trying to wrap my
head around all this and explain to my 8 yr old daughter why our stuff
was taken from us!
The damage has been done!

Our families ecosystem has completely crumbled since the LCB
invasion!
Please help us prepare for the rocky ride ahead as we fight for our civil
liberties (Our Right to Peacefully Assemble), (Protection from
Unreasonable Searches and Seizures), (Protection of Rights to Life,
Liberty, and Property). LyonPrideMusic has just recently been forced
into bankruptcy because of the matters at hand. The house payments
are behind and expect to have $30k-$50k in lawyer fees moving
forward. I can only hope we are able to stand and put a stop to
cannabis culture discrimination. We must band together and help the
state understand our kindness and connection to the earth. Our
spiritual and artistic connection to each other when we consume. We
need clarity in our law and I demand our that the cannabis community
receives the same freedoms or protections as any other society.
Heroine addicts have safe injection sites, why can’t the cannabis
community have areas of safe consumption. The state is double
dipping with 37% tax, nearly zero education or awareness exists! The
controversy and discrepancies amongst LCB officers includes the
states inconsistent interpretation of the law. Why is the state continuing
to bust citizens for pot? I ask anyone reading this rant and our CALL
FOR HELP to support the fight and to create justice for our cannabis
community (BUDTENDERS, GROWERS, SHOP OWNERS &
ANCILLARY BUSINESSES), this effects us ALL please contribute by
sharing this message and make a donation if possible :).
• “We should have the liberty of public communication including the
ability to invite or involve guests, our friends into conversation about the
legal products we consume together”. -Levi Lyon
Levi Lyon
253.606.4541
LeviLyon@me.com
www.facebook.com/LyonPrideMusic09
Info: Text LPMTV to 95577
LYONPRIDE MUSIC LLC
Membership RULES and REGULATIONS
This Agreement, is between myself (“Guest”) and LYONPRIDE Music, LLC and/or all its affiliated organizations; their
representative administrators, directors, and/or contractors, employees; sponsors, advertisers; (“LYONPRIDE”) and
owners and leasers of the premises or vehicles used to conduct the following event/show:
_____________________________________ (“Event”)
! Starting and ending times must be enforced. (Subject to driver/bus availability.) LYONPRIDE MUSIC BUS is NOT
LIABLE in cases of unexpected vehicle breakdowns, accidents, severe weather or anything that may delay a timely
arrival or cause cancellation of the trip. In the event of a cancellation due to mechanical problems, the trip may be
rescheduled for another date. Client will be notified as soon as possible to let them know of unexpected problems that
may postpone trip times.
! There is NO SMOKING allowed on the bus ($100 TOBACCO SMOKING FINE). Alcoholic beverages are NOT
ALLOWED on or outside of the bus during the trip.
! LYONPRIDE MUSIC BUS cannot, by law, supply alcohol to/for Guest(s). LYONPRIDE MUSIC BUS is not
responsible for underage consumption of alcoholic beverages at any time before, during, or after the ride. Driver has
the right to inspect Id’s & containers of passengers who appear underage.
! The LYONPRIDE MUSIC BUS driver, LYONPRIDE employee(s) and/or contractor(s) reserves the right to eject any
individual, whom they deem to be disruptive, intoxicated, to pose a safety threat to themselves or to others, or deemed
to be using an illegal substance.
! For any actions such as fighting, violence, damage to equipment and/or bus, harassment toward the driver, staff or
anyone else in or around LYONPRIDE MUSIC BUS or the Event, the driver, LYONPRIDE employee(s) and/or
contractor(s), reserves the right to terminate the trip and/or evict offending Guest(s). The client will be responsible to
find other transportation and forfeits membership or full fare as a result.
! If a passenger should vomit in or on the bus, there will be an additional charge to Guest of $150.00 payable to the
driver or charged to the Guest’s credit card. The driver will pull over when safe to do so.
! By signing below, Guest agrees to assume full responsibility for any damages to the interior or exterior of the bus that
is caused by any individual prior to, during, or after riding in the LYONPRIDE MUSIC BUS. Guest is liable for the
cost to repair any such damage as well as any cost for loss of “LYONPRIDE Music Bus” service due to such damage.
I have read and agree to the above rules and regulations. NAME_______________________________
Signature: ___________________________
Date: ______________________________
Debit/Credit Card #_________________________________________Exp____________SVC________
I GIVE PERMISSION TO CHARGE MY CARD FOR DAMAGES. Please Initial___________
Show respect for the driver and follow the driver’s instructions.
Client is responsible for any damages to the bus or it’s equipment, accidentally or otherwise.
Violence will not tolerated.
LYONPRIDE MUSIC LLC
WAIVER AND RELEASE OF LIABILITY FORM
WARNING - BY SIGNING THIS FORM YOU ARE GIVING UP RIGHTS TO SUE FOR DAMAGES
Please, read this form carefully.
LYONPRIDE MUSIC BUS is not responsible for any lost or stolen articles during the ride or articles left after the ride has ended.
In consideration of permitting me to participate in this event, I hereby:
(1) acknowledge, that I am I am 18 years or older, of in sound mind before signing this Waiver/Release and that, I am not nor will not
be under the influence of Alcohol and/or any Illegal drugs while or before participating in Event;
(2) warrants and certify that I will at all times act prudently and safely, and will comply with all laws, rules, and ordinances of the City I
will be located in and the State of Washington when on, in, or around the LYONPRIDE Music Bus;
(3) consent to receive medical treatment that may be deemed advisable in the event of injury, accident, and/or illness during this
event;
(4) understand that during this event or related activities I may be photographed or recorded. I agree to allow my photo, audio, video,
or film likeness to be edited, changed or used for any legitimate purpose, (including worldwide broadcast, distribution, and/or public
performance), by the Event holders, producers, sponsors, organizers, and/or assigns and hereby waive all rights over any and all claims
for compensation from our legitimate use of said media footage or use of my image;
(5) am physically fit for participation in this Event, including any excursions, outings, or activities associated with the Event, and have
not been advised to not participate by a qualified medical professional. I certify that there are no health-related reasons or problems
which preclude my participation in this Event, nor any associated excursions, outings or activities.
In consideration of my application and permitting me to participate in this Event, I hereby take action for myself, my executors,
spouse, administrators, heirs, next of kin, successors, and assigns as follows:
(A) Waive, release, and discharge LYONPRIDE, their directors, officers, employees, contractors, volunteers,
representatives and agents, Event sponsors and volunteers from any and all liability arising from the negligence or
fault of the LYONPRIDE, persons or entities affiliated thereto, or other persons similarly released, for my death,
disability, personal injury (minor or severe), property damage, property theft or actions of any kind which may
hereafter accrue to me during, or while traveling to and from, this Event,
(B) Indemnify and hold harmless all entities or persons mentioned in this paragraph from any and all liabilities or
claims (including litigation costs, expenses, attorney fees, and/or loss) made by other individuals or entities as a result
of my actions during this Event, whether caused by the
negligence of release or otherwise,
I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS WAIVER IS INTENDED TO BE AS BROAD AND INCLUSIVE AS PERMITTED BY THE LAWS OF WASHINGTON
AND HEREBY FURTHER AGREE THAT THIS WAIVER AND RELEASE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF
THE WASHINGTON AND THAT IF ANY PORTION IS HELD INVALID, THE REMAINDER OF THE WAIVER WILL CONTINUE IN FULL
LEGAL FORCE AND EFFECT.
I HAVE SIGNED THIS WAIVER AND RELEASE OF MY OWN VOLITION AND I AM LEGALLY COMPETENT TO DO SO. I CONFIRM THAT I
THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS AGREEMENT WILL BE BINDING UPON MY SPOUSE, RELATIVES, HEIRS, KIN, ADMINISTRATORS,
AND SUCCESSORS.
I confirm that I am at the age of legal consent, have read the above waiver and release form and have been advised and provided
ample time to seek legal counsel to review and advise me of my rights as they relate hereto.
LYONPRIDE MUSIC LLC
My signature below certifies that I carefully read the entire above contract, I understand it, and I agree to comply with all of its terms
and provisions.
PRINT NAME of GUEST SIGNATURE of GUEST Date:
1.___________________________ ________________________________________ ___________________
2.___________________________ ________________________________________ ___________________
3.___________________________ ________________________________________ ___________________
4.___________________________ ________________________________________ ___________________
5.___________________________ ________________________________________ ___________________
6.___________________________ ________________________________________ ___________________
7.___________________________ ________________________________________ ___________________
8.___________________________ ________________________________________ ___________________
9.___________________________ ________________________________________ ___________________
10.__________________________ ________________________________________ ___________________
11.__________________________ ________________________________________ ___________________
12.__________________________ ________________________________________ ___________________
13.__________________________ ________________________________________ ___________________
14.__________________________ ________________________________________ ___________________
15.__________________________ ________________________________________ ___________________
16.__________________________ ________________________________________ ___________________
17.__________________________ ________________________________________ ___________________
18.__________________________ ________________________________________ ___________________
19.__________________________ ________________________________________ ___________________
20.__________________________ ________________________________________ ___________________
21.__________________________ ________________________________________ ___________________
22.__________________________ ________________________________________ ___________________
23.__________________________ ________________________________________ ___________________
24.__________________________ ________________________________________ ___________________
25.__________________________ ________________________________________ ___________________
APPENDIX B
Declaration of Anderson STAFNE LAW Advocacy &
Consulting
Arlington, WA 98223
Consulting
Arlington, WA 98223
Consulting
Arlington, WA 98223


Consulting
Arlington, WA 98223
From: Cullen Gatten <Cullen.Gatten@lewiscountywa.gov>
Date: Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: Request for Production of Documents per GR 31.1 and/or RCW 42.56
To: micah@stafnelaw.com <micah@stafnelaw.com>
Mr. Anderson:
On December 31, 2019, you submitted a public records request under GR 31.1 and RCW 42.56,
the Public Records Act, to the Lewis County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, Superior Court
Administration, and the Lewis County Clerk’s Office. This e-mail serves as timely response to
your request under RCW 42.56 from the Lewis County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office to your
request.
In your request, you asked for:

any and all records including but not limited to emails, reports, invoices, affidavits,
warrants, the return of warrant, metadata, etc. involving and/or referencing the following:
5) VIN: 1FDKE30G1TH B51522 and/or VIN: 1FDKE30 G1THB1522;
6) Washington State License Plate No: LPMUSIC;
7) 1921 Johnson RD. Centralia WA;
9) Cortland Crabtree; and
10) Richard E. Podszus
You narrowed the scope of your search to any responsive records regarding the 10 criteria
between November 20, 2019 and December 6, 2019 and you requested for those records to be
made available in digital format for personal inspection.
You submitted attachments of what appear to be images of a warrant. Upon review of these
attachments, Jonathan Meyer responded and asked for clarification if you are making your
request to the correct court, prosecuting attorney’s office, and correct county, because the warrant
appeared to have a Cowlitz County judge’s approval by e-mail. This clarification was requested
on December 31, 2019. Within minutes, you responded that you’ve reached out to multiple
jurisdictions, indicating that Cowlitz County Clerk responded that “they too do not have any
responsive records”. Mr. Meyer’s email did not indicate that there were or were not any
responsive records to your request in the Lewis County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office. This
Office conducted a search as required by the Public Records Act.
On January 6, 2020, this Office conducted a search of all reasonable places of where any
responsive records to your request could be. The repository that would include responsive records
to your request would be our online database for active and inactive case files. Using its search
function, this Office conducted a search utilizing the terms you provided individually for the date
range in question. Then, we used your search terms to do a partial search for each item. For
example, item 1 included ‘Washington State Liquor Control Officer’ and the name ‘Robbie J.
Satterly’. We searched each part of item 1 separately, and used variations, such was ‘WSLCB’,
‘WSLCO’, ‘Satterly, Robbie’, ‘Satterly’ and so on. This system does not include any information
for VIN numbers and is not a searchable criteria. Our search yielded no responsive records from
this office. Further, this would imply there is no metadata responsive, because there’s no
responsive electronic records to your request.
In addition, this Office called Lewis County District Court for completeness of this search. We
asked for a search of any return on warrants in the date range you provided for any vehicles,
addresses, and individuals. That search yielded no responsive records. Further, this Office
conducted a search in other databases, such as Odyssey, and the Judicial Information System for
any additional information that might aid us in our search. Those searches did not reveal
additional information that would alter the search terms.
Micah Anderson <micah@stafnelaw.com>
Request for the production of documents

Myklebust, Staci <MyklebustS@co.cowlitz.wa.us> Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 12:30 PM
To: Micah Anderson <micah@stafnelaw.com>
Micah,
We have provided everything we have. The two documents are the only thing that have been filed. We do not have
any email correspondence between Judge Warning and the officer. Your request should be submi ed to Superior
Court Administra on. Our por on of any request is complete.
Staci
From: Micah Anderson [mailto:micah@stafnelaw.com]

Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 11:23 AM
To: Myklebust, Staci
Subject: Re: Request for the produc on of documents
Stacy,
Thank you for your response. My apologies for any confusion. The Notice of Appearance was simply meant to
illustrate Mr. Stafne's representation. Mr. Stafne and I appreciate the certified copies of the warrant(s). Is it necessary to
submit a new public record request in order to obtain the Affidavit and/or any other sworn testimony and/or the transcript
thereof as described within CrR 2.3(c)? Also, will an additional request be required to obtain the emails exchanged
between Officer Satterly and Judge Warning which leads to the authorizing the warrant via email?
Micah Anderson
Sender notified by
Mailtrack 01/02/20, 10:56:00 AM
[Quoted text hidden]

Micah Anderson <micah@stafnelaw.com>
copy request case #19-1-00001-08

3 messages
Unruh, Karen <UnruhK@co.cowlitz.wa.us> Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 2:33 PM

To: "micah@stafnelaw.com" <micah@stafnelaw.com>
This is a sealed case file. Are you represen ng a felony defendant in a case in our Court?
Karen Y. Unruh, Bookkeeper
Cowlitz County Superior Court Clerk’s Office
312 SW 1st Ave Room 233
Kelso WA 98626
360-577-3016 extension 8310
Or Option 6 from our main telephone number
From: Koenig, Jessica On Behalf Of Cowlitz County Clerk - General

To: Unruh, Karen <UnruhK@co.cowlitz.wa.us>
Subject: FW: Online Form Submi al: COWLITZ COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO COURT FILES OR
RECORDS
From: noreply@civicplus.com [mailto:noreply@civicplus.com]

To: Cowlitz County Clerk - General <Clerk@co.cowlitz.wa.us>
Subject: Online Form Submi al: COWLITZ COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO COURT FILES OR
RECORDS
COWLITZ COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT REQUEST FOR

ACCESS TO COURT FILES OR RECORDS
THE COURT CANNOT PROVIDE A COMPLETE CRIMINAL HISTORY OR
RECORDS CHECK. COPIES MAY NOT BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL
PURPOSES.
TO PERFORM A STATEWIDE SEARCH FOR CASES, PLEASE REFER TO
www.courts.wa.gov
TO PERFORM A CRIMINAL HISTORY SEARCH, PLEASE REFER TO
WWW.WATCH.WSP.WA.GOV
INFORMATION REQUESTED BY:
First Name Micah
Last Name Anderson
BUSINESS NAME Stafne Law Advocacy & Consulting
Address1 239 N. Olympic Ave.
City Arlington
State Washington
Zip 98223
CASE # OR CASE NAME 19-1-00001-08
CASE FILING DATE 12/3/2019
Phone # 3604038700
DOCUMENT NAME OR Warrant(s);

NUMBER REQUESTED: Affidavit(s) in Support of warrant(s); and return of warrant with
itemized inventory.
Thank you
COPY TYPE: ELECTRONIC RECORDS: $.25 per page (if available)
DELIVERY METHOD EMAIL
EMAIL: micah@stafnelaw.com
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
Micah Anderson <micah@stafnelaw.com> Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 3:30 PM

To: "Unruh, Karen" <UnruhK@co.cowlitz.wa.us>
Karen,
Thank you so much for the response. At this time Mr. Stafne has been retained by the claimant in regard to the civil
forfeiture. We were not aware cause no: 19-1-00001-08 is a sealed case nor are we aware that our client is a
defendant in a criminal matter docketed with the Superior Court of Cowlitz County. I would be most grateful if you could
please provide the Order of the Court granting the sealing of cause no: 19-1-00001-08 as well as the cause number of
the pending felony charges associated with cause no: 19-1-00001-08.
Very truly yours,
Micah Anderson
Sender notified by
Mailtrack
--
Micah James Anderson
Myklebust, Staci <MyklebustS@co.cowlitz.wa.us> Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 4:34 PM

To: Micah Anderson <micah@stafnelaw.com>
Cc: "Unruh, Karen" <UnruhK@co.cowlitz.wa.us>
Mr. Anderson,
As I indicated earlier today this office has supplied all documenta on pertaining to the warrant in ques on. We do
not have a pending felony ma er filed for Mr. Podszus. Case number 19-1-00001-08 is not a pending felony case.
Staci Myklebust
Cowlitz County Clerk
312 SW First Ave. Rm 233
Kelso, WA. 98626
C000412-123119 - Public Records Request
Message History (3)
On 1/8/2020 4:40:59 PM, Cowlitz County Public Records wrote:
Subject: [Records Center] Public Records Request :: C000412-123119

Body:

Cowlitz County Washington
January 08, 2020
RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST of December 31, 2019, Reference # C000412-123119
Dear Micah Anderson,
Cowlitz County received a public records request from you on December 31, 2019. Your request mentioned:
“Greetings,
I am Micah Anderson. I am a Paralegal with Stafne Law Advocacy and Consulting. Mr. Stafne has been
retained by Richard E. Podszus and Lyon Pride Music. On November 25, 2019, our clients received a copy of
what appears to be a warrant signed via email by a "Steve Warning" in the official capacity of a Lewis County
Superior Court Judge (see attached).
Wherefore, per GR 31.1 and RCW 42.56, I would be most grateful if you would be so obliged as to provide any
and all records including but not limited to emails, reports, invoices, affidavits, warrants, the return of
warrant, metadata, etc. involving and/or referencing the following:

5) VIN: 1FDKE30G1THB51522 and/or VIN: 1FDKE30G1THB1522;
6) Washington License Plate No: LPMUSIC;
7) 1921 JOHNSON RD. Centralia WA;
9) Cortland Crabtree; and
10) Richard E. Podszus
I wish for records between November 20, 2019, through December 6, 2019. I also wish for these records to be
Page 1
made available in a digital format for Mr. Stafne's personal inspection.”
As discussed in Mr. Berger's letter to you, dated January 3, 2020, I am responding and processing the portion of
your request for public records of Cowlitz County agencies pursuant to RCW 42.56. These agencies have
reviewed their files and have determined there are no responsive documents to your request. Two of our
departments had further information they wanted to provide to you.
The Cowlitz County Auditor's Office noted that if you to would like to obtain vehicle information from the
Department of Licensing or personal information of registered and legal owners of vehicle, all requests must be
submitted directly to Washington State Department of Licensing using the Vehicle Record Request form per
WAC 308-10-075(4)(a).
In addition, the Cowlitz County Public Works searched their records with the criteria you provided and
determined there are no responsive documents to your request. However, please note that if the vehicles you
listed were involved in a collision that damaged Cowlitz County roads property, such as a road sign or a
guardrail, then the license plate number may have been included in a notice to the Cowlitz County Public
Works about the damage to be repaired. I also provided this information to you over the phone today, but you
stated that you did not seek records such as this. If at any time, you wish to request such records, please make a
new request to Cowlitz County Public Works with the information regarding the specific location of the
damaged guardrail or sign.
I am considering this request fulfilled. If you have any questions, or wish to discuss this further, you may
contact my office at (360) 577-3020 ext. 6.
Sincerely,
Jennifer McAninch
Public Records Officer
Page 2
On 1/7/2020 10:07:52 AM, Cowlitz County Public Records wrote:
Subject: [Records Center] Public Records Request :: C000412-123119

Body:

Cowlitz County Washington
January 07, 2020
RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST of December 31, 2019, Reference # C000412-123119.
Dear Micah Anderson,
Cowlitz County received a public records request from you on December 31, 2019. It was a pleasure speaking
with you today. I have created an account for you in our online portal. A temporary password will be sent to
you shortly. Please login and reset your password. If you should have any issues, please do not hesitate to send
me a message or contact me at the below telephone number. The link below is your request number.
Public Records Request - C000412-123119
Thank you very much for allowing us to assist you.
Sincerely,
Jennifer McAninch
Public Records Officer
(360) 577-3020 ext. 6
On 12/31/2019 1:10:52 PM, Cowlitz County Public Records wrote:
Request was created by staff
Page 3
COWLITZ COUNTY P ROSE CUTING ATTORNE Y
RYAN J URVAKAINE N
CH IE F CRIMINAL DE P UTY
TH OMAS LADOUCE UR
CH IE F CIVIL DE P UTY
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ d^ D O U G L AS E . J E NSE N
1/3/2020
Via E -m a il Tr a n sm ission On ly
Mica h J a m es An der son

St a fn e La w
239 N Olym pic Aven u e
Ar lin gt on , WA 98223
m ica h (%st a fn ela w. cor n
Recor ds Requ est Received; RCW 42.56, GR 31 a n d GR 31.1
Dea r Mr . An der son :
I a m wr it in g in r espon se t o you r e-m a il da t ed 12/3 1/2019 en t it led, "Requ est for t h e pr odu ct ion
of docu m en t s per GR 31.1 a n d/or 42.56" t h a t you sen t t o P r osecu t in g At t or n ey Rya n J u r va k a in en ,
J en n ifer McAn in ch , Ch a dwick Con n or s, a n d cer t a in ot h er em ployees of Cowlit z Cou n t y. Th e t ext of
you r e-m a il wa s a s follows:
Gr eet in gs,
I a m Mica h An der son . I a m a P a r a lega l wit h St a fa e La w Advoca cy a n d Con su lt in g. Mr . St a fa e h a s been r et a in ed

by Rich a r d E . P odszu s a n d Lyon P r ide Mu sic. On N ovem ber 25,2019, ou r clien t s r eceived a copy of wh a t a ppea r s
t o be a wa r r a n t sign ed via em a il by a "St eve Wa r n in g" in t h e officia l ca pa cit y of a Lewis Cou n t y Su per ior Cou r t
J u dge (see a t t a ch ed).
Wh er efor e, per GR 31.1 a n d RCW 42.56,1 wou ld be m ost gr a t efu l if you wou ld be so obliged a s t o pr ovide a n y
a n d a ll r ecor ds in clu din g bu t n ot lim it ed t o em a ils, r epor t s, in voices, a ffida vit s, wa r r a n t s, t h e r et u r n of wa r r a n t ,
m et a da t a , et c. in volvin g a n d/or r efer en cin g t h e followin g:
1) Wa sh in gt on St a t e Liqu or Con t r ol Officer Robbie J . Sa t t er ly;

2) Lyon P r ide Mu sic;
3) VIN: 1FDWE45FOYHA80845;
4) Wa sh in gt on Licen se P la t e No: BOY6101;
5)VN: lF DKE 30GlTH B51522a n d/or VIN: 1F DKE 30G1TH B1522;
6) Wa sh in gt on Licen se P la t e No: LP MUSIC;
7) 1921 J OH NSONRD. Cen t r a lia WA;
8) 18208 40t h AVE E a st . Ta com a , WA;
9) Cor t la n d Cr a bt r ee; a n d
10) Rich a r d E .P odszu s
I wish for r ecor ds bet ween N ovem ber 20, 2019, t h r ou gh Decem ber 6, 2019. I a lso wish for t h ese r ecor ds t o be
m a de a va ila ble in a digit a l for m a t for Mr . St a fh e's per son a l in spect ion .
I a m wr it in g t o a dvise you r ega r din g t h e pr ocessin g of you r con solida t ed r ecor ds r equ est .
J en n ifer McAn in ch is Cowlit z Cou n t y's P u blic Recor ds Officer a n d will be pr ocessin g t h e por t ion of
you r r equ est for "pu blic r ecor ds" of Cowlit z Cou n t y a gen cies pu r su a n t t o RCW 42.56. Sh e will be
con t a ct in g you in du e cou r se.
H a ll of J u s t ice • 312 S .W. 1^ Aven u e Kels o, WA 98626
(360) 577-3080 • F a x (360) 414-9121
As you m a y be a wa r e, ' "t h e P RA does n ot a pply t o t h e ju dicia r y.' " Ya k im a v. Ya k im a H er a ld-
Repu blic, 170 Wn .2d 775, 793, 246 P .3d 768 (2011) (qu ot in g Cit y of F eder a l Wa y v. Koen ig, 167
Wn .2d 341, 343, 217 P .3d 1172 (2009)); see a lso WAC 44-14-01001 ("Cou r t r ecor ds J u dges' files,
a n d t h e r ecor ds of t h e ju dicia l br a n ch a gen cies a r e n ot su bject t o t h e a ct ."). In st ea d, ju dicia l r ecor ds
a r e gover n ed by cou r t r u les a n d com m on la w. See id. Ch a dwick Con n or s is t h e Su per ior Cou r t
Adm in ist r a t or . H e will be pr ocessin g t h e por t ion of you r r equ est for r ecor ds of t h e Su per ior Cou r t
pu r su a n t t o loca l m le GR 31.1 a n d will be con t a ct in g you in du e cou r se.
To t h e ext en t you a r e a lso seek in g ca se r ecor ds r ela t in g t o in -cou r t pr oceedin gs, t h e Cowlit z
Cou n t y Su per ior Cou r t Cler k wou ld pr ocess t h a t r equ est pu r su a n t t o GR 31. I wou ld dir ect you t o
t h e Cler k 's pa ge on Cowlit z Cou n t y's websit e a n d t o fill ou t t h e on lin e for m for a ccess t o cou r t filin gs
a n d r ecor ds. Th e lin k t o t h a t for m is a s follows: h t t E s;//www,co.cowlit z.wa ,u s/F or m Cen t er /Cler k s-
Office-7/COWLITZ-COU N TY-SU P E RIOR-COU RT-RE OU E ST-F O-265.
If you h a ve a n y qu est ion s or con cer n s a bou t t h e a bove, feel fr ee t o con t a ct m e.
Sin cer ely,
Da vid Ber ger

Depu t y P r osecu t in g At t or n ey
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-19-00237-CR
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLANT
V.
MARK HODGES, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Lubbock County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2018-493,664, Honorable Drue Farmer, Presiding
January 8, 2019
OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J. and PIRTLE and DOSS, J.J.
The State asks us if an affidavit is an affidavit when no one administered an oath
to the affiant who signed it. The trial court said it was not and granted the motion of Mark
Hodges to suppress evidence involuntary obtained upon execution of a warrant permitting
a blood draw. The affidavit in question was used to obtain the warrant. It was signed by
Officer One at the direction of Officer Two, who then signed the jurat. Both testified at the
suppression hearing that no one administered any type of oath to Officer One. Nor did
the magistrate to whom they presented the affidavit and warrant application administer
any oath to assess the truthfulness of Officer One’s statements. The State argues that
the affidavit nonetheless complied with statute because 1) the affidavit’s preamble said
that “[t]he undersigned Affiant, being a Peace Officer . . . and being duly sworn, on oath
makes the following statements . . .” and 2) Officer One testified that he believed himself
to be under oath due to the foregoing passage and knew he “could be in legal jeopardy if
everything in [the affidavit] wasn’t true[.]” (Emphasis added). We affirm.
Our analysis begins with observing that the standard of review is abused
discretion. It obligates us to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial
court’s ruling, afford almost complete deference to a trial court’s express or implied
findings of historical fact, and consider de novo the application of the law to those facts.
Marcopoulos v. State, 538 S.W.3d 596, 600 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017).
Next, we turn to article 18.01(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It states that
no search warrant shall issue unless sufficient facts are first presented to satisfy the
issuing magistrate that probable cause “does in fact exist for its issuance.” TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 18.01(b) (West Supp. 2019). So too does it say that a “sworn
affidavit setting forth substantial facts establishing probable cause shall be filed in every
instance in which a search warrant is requested.” Id. According to our Court of Criminal
Appeals in Clay v. State, 391 S.W.3d 94 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013), “before a written
statement in support of a search warrant will constitute a ‘sworn affidavit,’ the necessary
oath must be administered ‘before’ a magistrate or other qualified officer.” Id. at 99. Such
has been true “for the better part of a hundred years.” Id. Implicit in the words “must be
administered” is the requirement that someone administer an oath before the writing
becomes a valid “sworn affidavit.”
2
Progress and developing technologies have caused our Court of Criminal Appeals
to adapt its edict in certain respects. For instance, an oath may now be administered
over the telephone. Id. Yet, neither our research nor the authority cited by the State
revealed an opinion from the high court dispensing with the almost 100-year-old rule that
“an oath must be administered” by a magistrate or qualified officer to make a document
an affidavit. It may have come close in its earlier opinion of Vaughn v. State, 146 Tex.
Crim. 586 (1943), where no formal oath was administered to the affiant.
Yet, in Vaughn, the court upheld the affidavit while making several significant
observations. The first was that statute did not prescribe any particular form of oath. Id.
at 589. The second was that an oath is any form of attestation signifying the affiant is
bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully. Id. The third was that the
words comprising the alleged oath suffice if a charge of perjury “might have been
predicated” on them if false statements appeared in the affidavit. Id. The fourth was, not
only that the magistrate (i.e., justice of the peace) to whom the affidavit and warrant
application were presented asked the affiant “if the facts set forth in said affidavit were
true and the witness replied that such facts were true to the best of his knowledge and
belief,” but also that the witness understood he “was taking an oath” at the time. Id. at
588. So, it may be that no formal oath was administered in Vaughn. Nevertheless, a
magistrate actually inquired into the truthfulness of the statements within the affidavit, and
the affiant understood he was taking an oath when inquiry was made.
The circumstances before us have no one with authority to administer an oath
actually administering one in any way, shape, or form. Nor did anyone with authority to
administer an oath actually inquire into the truthfulness of Officer One’s statements within
3
the purported affidavit. These alone distinguished the circumstances here from those in
Vaughn.
And, though Officer One testified that he knew he was under oath when signing
the affidavit, he said so while also acknowledging that he knew no one had administered
any oath. That suggests he somehow placed himself under oath. Yet, the officer did not
testify about the content of the supposed oath he purportedly operated under. Nor did he
testify that the oath obligated him to acknowledge the truthfulness of what he said in the
affidavit. In fact, nowhere in the body of the affidavit did he actually attest that the
representations therein were true or correct. While such language appeared in the jurat
signed by Officer Two, though, it was preceded by the phrase “after being sworn by me.”
That is, it read that, “on this day personally appeared Affiant [Officer One] and after being
sworn by me, affirmed the statements contained therein are true and correct to the best
of his/her knowledge.” (Emphasis added). “[A]fter being sworn by me” tells the reader
that Officer Two somehow swore in or otherwise administered an oath to Officer One.
Yet, the latter conceded at the suppression hearing that Officer Two merely directed him
to sign the affidavit. Officer One was never “sworn by” Officer Two. Nor was he asked
by Officer Two if the statements were true and correct. Simply put, these representations
appearing in the jurat and confirmed by Officer Two’s signature were false.
This leaves us to wonder whether the type of oath Officer One purportedly
operated under in his mind was the type sufficient to satisfy Vaughn. Such an oath would
be one exposing the affiant to charges of perjury if his representations proved false. As
the Vaughn court said, in “perjury cases, the rule is that there is a valid oath sufficient to
form the basis of a charge of perjury when there is some form of an unequivocal and
4
present act, in the presence of the officer authorized to administer the oath, whereby the
affiant consciously takes on himself the obligation of an oath.” Vaughn, 177 S.W.2d at 60.
An “unequivocal and present act” refers to conduct. Adding that to the passage “whereby
the affiant consciously takes on himself the obligation of an oath,” we read Vaughn to
require, at the very least, the affiant to visually manifest through conduct his intent to be
truthful. Officer One 1) having not verbally taken an oath affirming the truthfulness of his
statements, 2) having not actually been asked in some way by anyone if the statements
were true and correct, and 3) having not personally represented in or outside the affidavit
that the statements were true, we are left speculating on the nature of the visible conduct
in which Officer One engaged to manifest his intent to be truthful. We are left to wonder
how the oath he allegedly operated under in his own mind would place him within the
scope of Vaughn’s concept of perjury. Surely, his participation in the execution of an
affidavit where Officer Two falsely said Officer One was “sworn by me” does not satisfy
the requisites.
The trial court noted other peculiarities in the evidence before it. For instance, in
its fact finding number 4, it expressed as follows: “Despite the fact that the affidavit for
search warrant says, ‘The undersigned Affiant, being a Peace Officer under the laws of
Texas and being duly sworn, on oath makes the following statements and accusations,’
at no time was Officer [One] actually sworn to the allegations contained in his affidavit.”
In finding of fact number 5 it stated the following: “Despite the fact that the affidavit for
search warrant says, ‘Before me, an official authorized to administer and authorize this
oath . . . on this day personally appeared Affiant and after being sworn by me, affirmed
the statements contained therein are true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge,’
5
at no time did Officer [Two] administer any such oath to Officer [One].” To that we add
finding of fact number 6 wherein the court said that, “[i]n fact, Officer [One] testified that
he is not required to take an oath prior to submitting an affidavit for a search warrant to a
magistrate, and Officer [Two] testified it is not his practice to administer an oath to an
affiant seeking a search warrant for a suspect’s blood in a driving while intoxicated
investigation.”
Each finding suggests a concern the trial court had with what the officers were
saying, both in the affidavit and their live testimony. The officers seemed to say one thing
in the affidavit only to contradict it through their live testimony. From that concern and the
findings illustrating it, we cannot say that the credibility of the officers played no part in
the trial court’s decision. The opposite seems true. Indeed, one could question the
credibility of Officer One’s testimony about believing he was under oath while at the same
time believing that an oath was unnecessary. And, resolution of those credibility issues
fell within the bailiwick of the trial court.1 And, in the trial court granting the motion to
suppress, it would be appropriate for us to imply that the trial court doubted the veracity
of the officers’ testimony. See Powell v. State, No. 03-10-00728-CR, 2011 Tex. App.
LEXIS 7601, at *12–13 (Tex. App.—Austin Sept. 14, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not
designated for publication) (where explicit fact findings were executed and stating that in
the absence of explicit findings on a contested issue, we assume the trial court made
1 These credibility issues, the manner of their resolution, and our obligation to defer to the way they
were resolved by the trial court tend to rebut the State’s argument that the standard of review at bar is de
novo. We are not required to assume everything the two witnesses said was accurate. Nor was the trial
court. Instead, the trial court was free to disbelieve aspects of their testimony, and we must defer to that.
Sullivan v. State, No. 07-16-00227-CR, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 7810, at *2–3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug. 16,
2017, no pet.) (mem. op, not designated for publication).
6
those implied findings necessary to support its ultimate ruling as long as they are
supported by the record).
In short, we are bound to follow precedent from the Court of Criminal Appeals. It
said that before a written statement in support of a search warrant constitutes a “sworn
affidavit,” the requisite oath must be administered before a magistrate or other qualified
officer. Clay, 391 S.W.3d at 99. It may have occasion to change that edict given its grant
of the petition for discretionary review in Wheeler v. State, 573 S.W.3d 437 (Tex. App.—
Fort Worth 2019, pet. granted).2 Yet, we must leave to the Court of Criminal Appeals the
decision whether to deviate from Clay and other of its edicts, such as “it is that act of
swearing . . . that is essential.” See Smith v. State, 207 S.W.3d 787, 792 (Tex. Crim. App.
2006). And, though some Texas intermediate appellate courts have attempted to
dispense with the need for an administered oath, see, e.g., Ashcraft v. State, No. 03-12-
00660-CR, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 10402, at *16–21 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 20, 2013,
no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (affirming the trial court’s decision to
deny suppression even though no oath was administered), they are not the court with
final say.3 It is the former and its declarations that we must follow.
2 In Wheeler, 573 S.W.3d at 443, the intermediate court of appeals invalidated an affidavit executed
by an affiant to whom no one administered an oath. That it, like the affidavit at bar, contained verbiage in
its preamble about being sworn to and under oath mattered not. According to the court, “[t]his
uncontradicted, affirmative evidence that there was no oath or affirmation to the affidavit compels us to
conclude that the oath recitations relied on by the State were false and cannot render the affidavit sworn.”
Id.
3 One circumstance distinguishing Ashcraft from our case is the apparent absence of a
misrepresentation by the person executing the jurat. That individual did not falsely state that she
administered an oath to the affiant. Nor do the facts recited in the opinion reveal the peculiarities in witness
testimony apparently observed by the trial court here; thus, witness credibility may not have been in play in
Ashcraft.
7
The State’s issue on appeal is overruled. The trial court had reasonable
evidentiary basis to conclude that the search warrant permitting a blood draw was void
because it was founded on an unsworn affidavit. Thus, we affirm its order granting the
motion to suppress.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Publish.
8
APPENDIX F
February 13, 2019
Governor Jay Inslee

Office of the Governor
PO Box 40002
Olympia, WA 98504-0002
Honorable Jay Inslee,
We are writing with some urgency about the re-appointment of Russ Hauge to the Liquor
Cannabis Board of Directors. It has become clear that the approach to regulating under the
authority of the Liquor Cannabis Board (LCB) is not fitting of an administrative agency that lists
its values as, “Respect and courtesy, Professionalism, Open communication, Accountability and
integrity, Continuous improvement, meaningful results and Customer focus.” This Board has
consistently modeled the opposite. We are asking you to withdraw your appointment of Mr.
Hauge and consider other potential candidates.
The ethos at the LCB does not yet effectively separate taxpaying license-holders who have
thrown open the doors to their businesses, their personal finances and more, from criminals
skulking in dark alleys who sell to kids from the back of a van. Washington needs LCB leaders
who embrace the distinction.
We can offer nothing but respect to the women and men who are on the frontlines of enforcing
regulations, especially the handful that have positive working relationships in their territories. In
cannabis, unfortunately those are the exception. Multitudes of licensees have expressed for
years that there are problems in LCB enforcement, and their doubts have been chalked up to
the challenges of a nascent industry. That is not a valid excuse any longer.
What we know is that the LCB unevenly, inconsistently and unfairly applies the rules across the
market. They target enforcement based on complaints (frequently from competitors and
disgruntled employees) and when they enter a business wearing heavy police vests and carrying
guns, they signal what they expect as part of being there. Not compliance that supports the
regulations, clarifying confusion or addressing questions without reproach, but a show of
authority and intimidation. It should be unacceptable to anyone who cares about the safe
establishment of this market in Washington – especially as adult use states increase nationwide,
and including Canada – that heavily-regulated, taxpaying men and women are treated like
crimes waiting to happen in a voter-endorsed cannabis state. It is unacceptable to us.
We have enclosed a copy of a letter submitted to committee members of the House Commerce
& Gaming Committee following a public hearing on enforcement reform legislation last week.
Mr. Hauge and Chris Thompson appeared on behalf of the LCB and on specific points, either
were ignorant of facts, or purposely did not tell the truth. Please review it for a clear
understanding of how far the LCB appears it will go to win, not to be right, but to win. Mr.
Hauge, in his former role as a prosecutor, is expert on identifying and making a case against
someone who he believes has broken the law – proving guilt was his job. Is it possible that this
is not the right background for someone in this role? The role of LCB should not be to “catch”
everyone with the assumption they’re trying to get away with something. The LCB is not the
“anti” Liquor Cannabis Board, despite its prevailing attitude toward these industries.
We are united in our belief that you must hold the leaders at the top of the LCB accountable.
Rejection of the toxic culture at LCB should start with not reappointing Mr. Hauge. As the
industry evolves, we do better as we know better. Here is an instance where we definitely know
we can do better. The LCB has cultivated a culture of enforcement that centers around
violations and license removals as if it was a full jurisdiction law enforcement agency closing
down drug cartels. The LCB itself describes its values as, “Respect and courtesy, Professionalism,
Open communication, Accountability and integrity, Continuous improvement, meaningful
results and Customer focus,” and we are asking you to please hold them to these principles
before the LCB’s enforcement culture undermines the industry so many have worked so long
and hard to build.
Respectfully,
Senator Ann Rivers Representative Drew MacEwen

Legislative District 18 Legislative District 35
Representative Brian Blake Representative Brandon Vick

Senator John Braun Senator Guy Palumbo

Representative Kristine Reeves Representative Steve Kirby

Senator Mark Schoesler Senator Steve Hobbs

APPENDIX G
Is it legal to smoke marijuana

— or drink a beer — in an RV if
you are living in it?
BY DOUG DAHL COURTESY TO THE BELLINGHAM HERALD
JULY 22, 2019 05:00 AM
Text
Question: I live in an RV and I’m a cannabis user. I’m trying to abide by the law, which
says that you can only use cannabis in a private location, which for me is my home. But
my home is a vehicle and I don’t want to get a DUI. Can I use cannabis in my RV
legally?—
Answer: I’ll begin by thanking you for your effort to keep your cannabis consumption
within the bounds of the law.
But if you’re only allowed to consume cannabis at home, and your home can drive on the
road, what do you do? I appreciate your concern, so I’ll start by putting you at ease; this
isn’t actually the problem you think it might be.
Was that person breaking the law by consuming alcohol in a motor vehicle? The answer,
which you’ve probably already guessed, is no.
Washington has a couple of related laws on impaired driving, titled “Driving under the
influence” and “Physical control of vehicle under the influence.” In an effort to grossly
over-simplify, the big difference between the two laws is that in the first one a vehicle is
moving and it the second one it’s not.
Quick side note: Alcohol and cannabis (and any other impairing substances) are all
covered under the same DUI and physical control laws.
Physical control isn’t defined in the law, but if I were going to explain it (which I am), I’d
describe it as when a person has the ability to control the movement of a vehicle. Some
examples that have resulted in convictions include sitting in the driver’s seat with the car
keys in hand, taking a nap while the car is running and even sitting in the driver’s seat of
a car that has broken down.
The courts have traditionally held a pretty broad understanding of physical control. In one
instance, the courts concluded that a passenger who briefly grabbed the steering wheel
and caused a head-on collision was in physical control of the vehicle.
Based on that understanding of physical control, it seems like anyone who’s impaired and
in possession of keys to their RV could be guilty of physical control while impaired.
But the law provides a defense for people who, while they could theoretically drive a
vehicle, obviously don’t intend to drive. In what is called the “safely off the roadway”
defense, the law states that,
“No person may be convicted ... if, prior to being pursued by a law enforcement officer,
the person has moved the vehicle safely off the roadway.
I’m not going to be the one to determine where the line is between physical control and
safely off the roadway, but if your RV is parked in a location that seems semi-permanent,
such as a campsite, driveway or the side-yard of a buddy’s house, and you’ve got the
awning out, the deck chairs set up and the barbecue cooking, it’s clear that you’re safely
off the roadway.
The whole point of the physical control law is to give law enforcement the ability to
intervene when an impaired person is in a position to drive, before they actually put the
car in motion and put themselves and others on the road at risk.
Compliance with the law comes down to how you’re using your RV. Are you using your
RV as a house or as a vehicle?
Given the high cost of housing, I’m encountering more people who are choosing to give
up their apartment and all the associated costs and instead buy an RV as their primary
residence.
For all those who choose that route, you can legally consume cannabis inside, as long as
your RV is being used as a home at the time, and not for transportation.

Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board Sued For Unlawful Seizures

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board Sued For Unlawful Seizures

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

PRESS RELEASE

Notice of Hearing for Civil Motions

1. A court hearing has been scheduled for: 13 March 2020.

The hearing will be before the assigned Judge or Commissioner.

3. The hearing should be scheduled as a:

Notice of Hearing for Civil Motions

Address: 3628 E. Portland Avenue,

6. Names and Contact Information for Everyone Notified of this Hearing

Name: Scott M. Jackson Name: Thurston County Narcotics Task Force______________

Attorney for: Thurston County Attorney for: __N/A__________________________________

WSBA #: #26844 WSBA #:_____N/A__________________________________

Address:120 State Avenue N.E.,

Name: Bob Ferguson, Washington State Attorney General. Name: ____________________________________________

WSBA #: 26004 WSBA #: _______________________________________

Address: Office of the AG 1125 Washington Street, SE. Address: ________________________________________

Name: ________________________________________ Name: __________________________________________

Attorney for: __________________________________ Attorney for: ____________________________________

WSBA #: ______________________________________ WSBA #: _______________________________________

Address: ______________________________________ Address: ________________________________________

Notice of Hearing for Civil Motions

Replevin STAFNE LAW Acacy & Consulting

WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR

Replevin STAFNE LAW Acacy & Consulting

as the purported Evidence obtained has been obtained in violation of

Washington Constitutions. A Memorandum in Support is attached

I. Introduction and Relevant Background

Levi Lyon is a major promoter for Hempfest. He and Courtland

Crabtree worked together to design a Frisbee disc course on private

property and to promote the safe use of cannabis products as noted in

his press release and Waiver in Appendix A.

“I’ve owned LyonPrideMusic since 2009 and began volunteering

with Seattle Hempfest in 2005 as Entertainment Director. I first became

an advocate for safe driving after my friend passed from drinking,

drugging & driving.

WSLCB Agents raided him on November 23, 2019, without a signed

thousands of dollars in equipment out of malice for the industry].

Lyon maintains that under the current laws Washingtonians and

no place to legally imbibe. Lyon claims that “some renters, those in

Replevin STAFNE LAW Acacy & Consulting

community and feel that this is a misuse of LCB resources. The

provided a safe alternative to public consumption Lyon believes that the

arrest and confiscations are contrary to the public interest.

As we shall see throughout this briefing, he is not alone in his

Stafne Law Advocacy and Consulting next issued several Public

Records requests pursuant to GR 31.1 and RCW 42.56 to Lewis County

and to Cowlitz County. Both Cowlitz and Lewis Counties repeatedly

and both Cowlitz and Lewis County Responses in the Declaration of

Micah Anderson (Appendix B).

Cowlitz County did eventually provide documents in Discovery

(Appendix C). As a result it has been established that all available

conspicuous by its absence. According to Cowlitz County Superior Court

To wit: Cowlitz County initially told Stafne Law Advocacy and

Replevin STAFNE LAW Acacy & Consulting

responsive documents relative to:

1) Washington State Liquor Control Officer Robbie J. Satterly;

2) Lyon Pride Music;

4) Washington License Plate No: BOY6101;

5) VIN: 1FDKE30G1THB51522 and/or VIN: 1FDKE30G1THB1522;

6) Washington License Plate No: LPMUSIC;

7) 1921 JOHNSON RD. Centralia WA;

8) 18208 40th AVE East. Tacoma, WA;

9) Cortland Crabtree; and 10) Richard E. Podszus.

To wit: Lewis County stated in pertinent part:

Attorney for: Thurston County Attorney for: N/A________________________________

WSBA #: #26844 WSBA #:_N/A______________________________

Name: Name: __

Attorney for: Attorney for: __

WSBA #: WSBA #: _

Address: Address: __