ADM F. 500 (Rev. 03/22) Order and Judgment
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CM-569
Plaintiff
v.
WHEELING_19
Defendant
VERDICT
COUNT ONE -
UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF POLICE-GRADE EQUIPMENT: GUILTY
ANALYSIS
The possession statute that is being used by the prosecution is a strict liability offense.
This means that the legislature provides no mental state requirement through mental state
descriptor words such as “knowingly,” “intentionally,” or “willfully.” The only elements to the
offense are that (1) the person possesses police-grade equipment, and (2) that person is a civilian
or an off duty government employee exceeding what their department authorizes.
Actual possession is “having physical custody or control of an object.” See US v.
Nenadich, 689 F. Supp. 285. In Exhibit A of the evidence, the defendant can be clearly seen to
have a baton equipped. The defendant had complete control over the baton including when to
swing it, where to put it, and where he wants to transfer it if necessary. Therefore, the court finds
that the defendant was in actual possession of one baton. Furthermore, it is obviously shown in
the exhibit that the defendant was a visitor or “tourist” and therefore is not entitled to hold
government office. Through this, the government has proven the second element of the offense.
VOLUNTARY POSSESSION
Even if the court were to accept the “voluntary possession” argument of the defendant,
which it does not as according to the law, the defendant would still not succeed in casting
reasonable doubt.
To even sustain this claim, the court would need to adopt a piecewise out-of-state
precedent when applying a criminal statute and to apply precedent out of state or go beyond what
is explicitly listed in a criminal statute, we would make the criminal laws inherently vague and
out of reach of the average civilian. The court's job in criminal statutory construction is to clear
any ambiguities according to the Rule of Lenity and extract the elements. The court's job is not
to play legislature and add new elements because it feels it is necessary. It is the job of the Senate
to empirically determine whether such conduct is prohibited under law and our job to determine
if the facts are proven sufficiently to sustain the laws provided by the Senate.
To tickle the fancy of the defendant, the court will still attempt a voluntary possession
analysis. To provide a standard for review as to what is voluntary possession, the court will adopt
a clause from the Texas State Legislature that “Possession is a voluntary act if the possessor
knowingly obtains or receives the thing possessed or is aware of his control of the thing for a
sufficient time to permit him to terminate his control.” See Tex. Penal Code § 6.01(b) This statute
is compliant with the ruling by the Washington Supreme Court as to their strict liability drug
possession charge. See State v. Blake 197 Wash.2d 170, 481 P.3d 521 (2021)
The defendant’s possession was voluntary, and this is supported by the evidence. Given
the testimony from the State’s witness, oEthqnn, the defendant was “holding out a baton whilst
talking about julian the dealer” See Trial Record of 12 Aug 2022. To take out a baton, that
requires that the defendant physically hit a button on their keyboard to equip the item. This is not
a case of a retired peace officer accidentally having a baton in their vehicle. The defendant, while
talking, had sufficient time to terminate the usage of the baton or give it to law enforcement,
which he did not. He was fully aware of the item that he was holding.
SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED.
At Palmer, Ridgeway, this 16th day of August 2022.
/s/ siteowner
RIDING JUSTICE OF THE
SUPERIOR COURT
