Subscribe in a reader

ISSAQUAH LAW GROUP

Issaquah Law Group: Experienced Counsel; Client Focus

PHILOSOPHY: Formed in 2014, Issaquah Law Group is a law firm with one focus: providing businesses and insurers with high quality legal representation with the responsiveness of a smaller firm. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built upon clear and consistent communication. 

LITIGATION: We work closely with our clients to fully and accurately understand their goals, work collaboratively to formulate specific legal strategies, and execute the agreed plan of action utilizing methods most likely to result in the efficient and effective resolution of the matter. ILG attorneys have a broad base of litigation experience to draw on in all Federal and State courts from on-the-ground investigations to Supreme Court appeals in the areas of personal injury and wrongful death, product liability, commercial general liability, labor & employment, construction litigation, and catastrophic losses due to fire and explosion.

BUSINESS LAW: Rarely is the path from point A to point B a straight line, so our role in a business law practice is to find alternatives, devise workable strategies, and keep your business ideas, goals and objectives moving toward realization. ILG’s business attorneys help clients achieve their goals with respect to business formation, intellectual property, labor and employment, CAN-SPAM, copyright and trademark

COMMUNITY: In addition, the Lawyers at Issaquah Law Group remain active in the legal and civic community. A core commitment of our Issaquah Attorneys is community service. Our attorneys' civic involvement includes the King County Civil Rights Commission; the City of Issaquah Planning Policy Commission; the Northwest Screenwriters Guild, service as a pro tem judge. We live and work in the Pacific Northwest, and we aim to make it a better place.

In addition, through The Amateur Law Professor Blog and LinkedIn postings, we share pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Supreme Court, as well as the pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Courts of Appeal so that our clients can be as update to date on cutting legal issues as we are.

WA Legal Roundup - Div III: Mr. Stabby-pants gets 1st aggro instruction because he was a trespasser; more than guy talking to girl and her getting in car needed for reasonable suspicion of prostitution.

Bea stabbed a guy. Well...cruz wreaked havoc on a guys bathroom in an argument, was shooed out after people got into the bathroom, grabbed a knife...and stabbed a guy. Stabbed him a lot actually.

NewImage

(This guy really should be writing for Cyanide and Happiness)

Basically, he argued that the prosecution wasn't entitled to the first aggressor instruction. He argued that the aggressors were the people barging in. The court said no, you can be an aggressor by wrecking someone's house, causing the need for them to eject you. There was something in there about possible prosecutorial misconduct. Unfortunately, the judge instructed the jury on argument and there really was no prejudice from the statement.

The other case (State v. Diluzio...I'll save you the linkage) out of the court goes down as such: Guy pulls up to girl and talks with her. Cop sees it. He doesn't know the john, he doesn't know the girl, he just assumes she's hooking (which, by the way, I've always wanted to say ever since seeing D.A.R.Y.L.). Defendant moves to suppress because the officer didn't have a reasonable suspicion based on the totality of the circumstances standard:

The facts in Mr. Diluzio's case are similar to those in Doughty and provide even less justification for a stop.  Here, as in Doughty, the investigatory stop was based on the officer's observation.  The officer saw Mr. Diluzio having a conversation with a woman who got into the passenger side of his vehicle.  There was no police informant and the police officer did not see any money change hands and did not overhear any conversations between the two individuals. Neither individual was known to have been involved in prostitution or solicitation activities.  These incomplete observations do not provide the basis for a Terry stop.

Even with the officer's 13 years of experience, the location of the stop, and the lack of open businesses or residences, the totality of the circumstances do not support a conclusion of a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

 

 

Subscribe in a reader