Quote Originally Posted by killerweed420
We would already all be covered if they just changed the wording from the original bill. Remove the language "Affirmative Defense" and most all the problems disappear. SHow your medical authorization to a police officer and that should all thats required. No difference than showing the label on a prescription bottle that has your name on it. If the office wants to go any further he will need a judge signed search warrant that states exactly what he's looking for.
But this is what happens when the people drafting these laws have ulterior motives.
Here is what happened KW, the courts used the aff. def. from an assualt case.. in walla-walla.

When you break down the elements of that defense..you find at no point is anyone "authorized" by law to commit this crime...has nothing to do with an officers discretion as pointed out by the courts..but, when you apply the criminal trespass aff. def...it plugs right in...you either have authorization to be where your at or not...i.e. either you have an authorization from your healthcare practitioner to use or not...

It then complies with rcw 69.50.308(e) when read in context..not to mention the intent of rcw69.51A et. seq.

Simple shit isn't it... now go use the free law library I posted and look this up.. Your smart enough to see it.:thumbsup: