Quote Originally Posted by justpics
For your statement to make sense, I-75 would have to effect areas outside of seattle, but within king co. simply because, "that's where charges are filed"


why don't you tell a cop in federal way he's got to respect I-75 see what happens.
IT'S NOT THE COPS WHO ARE AUTHORIZED TO "FILE CRIMINAL CHARGES..again, silly.

Evidentiary sufficiency.


(1) Decision not to prosecute.

STANDARD: A prosecuting attorney may decline to prosecute, even though technically sufficient evidence to prosecute exists, in situations where prosecution would serve no public purpose, would defeat the underlying purpose of the law in question or would result in decreased respect for the law.

GUIDELINE/COMMENTARY:

Examples

The following are examples of reasons not to prosecute which could satisfy the standard.

(a) Contrary to Legislative Intent - It may be proper to decline to charge where the application of criminal sanctions would be clearly contrary to the intent of the legislature in enacting the particular statute. THIS APPLIES TO THE PROSECUTOR DAN : ^
Intent -- 2007 c 371: "The legislature intends to clarify the law on medical marijuana so that the lawful use of this substance is not impaired and medical practitioners are able to exercise their best professional judgment in the delivery of medical treatment, qualifying patients may fully participate in the medical use of marijuana, and designated providers may assist patients in the manner provided by this act without fear of state criminal prosecution. This act is also intended to provide clarification to law enforcement and to all participants in the judicial system." [2007 c 371 § 1.]

(c) De Minimis Violation - It may be proper to decline to charge where the violation of law is only technical or insubstantial and where no public interest or deterrent purpose would be served by prosecution.
This applies to I-75 ^
Seattle Voters Approve Initiative Making Marijuana Enforcement City's "Lowest Priority" - NORML

(b) GUIDELINES/COMMENTARY:

(i) Police Investigation

A prosecuting attorney is dependent upon law enforcement agencies to conduct the necessary factual investigation which must precede the decision to prosecute. The prosecuting attorney shall ensure that a thorough factual investigation has been conducted before a decision to prosecute is made. In ordinary circumstances the investigation should include the following:

(A) The interviewing of all material witnesses, together with the obtaining of written statements whenever possible;

(B) The completion of necessary laboratory tests; and

(C) The obtaining, in accordance with constitutional requirements, of the suspect's version of the events.

If the initial investigation is incomplete, a prosecuting attorney should insist upon further investigation before a decision to prosecute is made, and specify what the investigation needs to include.

(ii) Exceptions

In certain situations, a prosecuting attorney may authorize filing of a criminal complaint before the investigation is complete if:

(A) Probable cause exists to believe the suspect is guilty; and

(B) The suspect presents a danger to the community or is likely to flee if not apprehended; or

(C) The arrest of the suspect is necessary to complete the investigation of the crime.

In the event that the exception to the standard is applied, the prosecuting attorney shall obtain a commitment from the law enforcement agency involved to complete the investigation in a timely manner. If the subsequent investigation does not produce sufficient evidence to meet the normal charging standard, the complaint should be dismissed.

(iii) Investigation Techniques

The prosecutor should be fully advised of the investigatory techniques that were used in the case investigation including:

(A) Polygraph testing;

(B) Hypnosis;

(C) Electronic surveillance;

(D) Use of informants.

(iv) Pre-Filing Discussions with Defendant

This applies to all leo statewide.^