Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf

Citation: Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source: Official source
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/989681.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,750 chars

Possessing ammunition for “practice” for calibers of weapons not
currently assigned to a member of the office in this quantity is not
reasonable. Possessing ammunition in “case” quantities for “practice”
ammunition defies reason. The purpose of “Practice” ammunition
generally is to use the ammunition for weapons you are assigned in
order to be proficient in the use of the weapon. If you are not assigned a
.308 caliber weapon by Benton County, there is no reasonable need for
the county to pay for an employee to practice with this ammunition.
This conclusion also applies to the 9mm and the .22 caliber
ammunition.

Id. at 68-69. Commander Law indicates that he himself had an above average

quantity of practice ammunition at less than 500 rounds. Id. at 69.

11
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
In re Recall Charges Against Benton County Sheriff Gerald D. Hatcher,
No. 98968-1

In his declaration, retired BCSO Detective Lee Cantu states that in his decades

of experience, he has rarely seen practice ammunition distributed by a case. Id. at 84.

He states that it was “highly questionable” for Sheriff Hatcher to have that much

ammunition in his possession, especially when it came from one specific invoice

order. Id. Further, he states,

In indicating “highly questionable” above it is my opinion that if a
person associated with the Benton County Sheriff’s Department,
regardless of rank, had in their possession and control, thousands of
practice ammunition that derived from a single invoice order, it would
be presumptive evidence of criminal activity in the absence of a very
specific justification.

Id.

If the recall petitioners convince the voters that these facts are true, then the