You are on page 1of 16

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF WASHINGTON
Case No. KC01-192
SAMUEL KANT,
Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE,
Respondents
___________
ON DISCTRIONARY REVIEW FROM THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF SEATTLE
CASE NO. SM01-192

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Table of Citations
ii
Preface
..1
Issues Presented for Review
2
Statement of Case and Facts
3
Summary of the Argument
.. 4
Argument
.....10
Conclusion
.. 12
Certificate of Service
.. 13
Certificate of Compliance with Font Requirement
. 15

TABLE OF CITATIONS
Cases
Page
Griffin v. Clark
55 Id. 364, 42 P.2d 297 (1935)
.. 6, 7
Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) ... 6, 9,
10, & 12
Bender v. City of Seattle
99 Wash.2d 582, 664 P.2d 492 (1983)
... 6, 7, 9
State v. Quincy
122 Wash.App. 395, 95 P.3d 353 (2004)
... 6, 8
Statutes And Other Legal Authorities
9A.56.050 Wa. Stat. (2009)

6, 8
4.24.220 Wa. Stat. (2011)
10 32 Am. Jur. 2d False Imprisonment (2013)
... 9
1 U.S. Const. amend. IV
. 6

PREFACE
In this Brief, the Petitioner SAMUEL KANT will be referred to as
KANT. The Respondent PEOPLE will be referred to as PEOPLE. The following symbols
will be used:

r = Reversed on appeal.

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW


PETIONER SEEKING REVIEW FOR PETIT LARCENY CHARGE BROUGHT
UPON BY PEOPLE. THIS COURT HAS PROPER JURISDICTION TO HEAR
THIS APPEAL AND PETITIONER HAS FILED A TIMELY APPEAL TO THE
COURT PURSUANT TO 8 U.S.C. 1252 (2002).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS


The Washington State Court of Appeals has precedence to follow this case per 8
U.S.C. 1252 (2002).
Receipts from initial exchange of KANT were not admitted by SMC despite
presenting mandatory authority, per State v. Quincy, 122 Wash.App. 395, 95 P.3d 353
(2004). The RESPONDANT additionally failed to address grievances in writing within
established timeline per RCW 9A.56.050 (2009)
Security for Bilmart did not have probable cause to stop and detain KANT, per U.S.
Const. amend. IV 1, and KANT was subjected to false imprisonment, per 32 Am. Jur.

2d False Imprisonment 10, Griffin v. Clark, 55 Id. 364, 42 P.2d 297 (1935), and Bender
v. City of Seattle, 99 Wash.2d 582, 664 P.2d 492 (1983).
Additionally, KANT was not read his Miranda Rights, per Miranda v. Arizona, 384
U.S. 436 (1966), and without notification of constitutional protection police statements
become inadmissible, per Bender v. City of Seattle, 99 Wash.2d 582, 664 P.2d 492
(1983).
During the SMC hearings KANT was ruled guilty, but overlooked facts in applicable
statutes and precedences as listed above allows this matter to proceed before the Court of
Appeals, per 8 U.S.C. 1252 (2002).

Summary of the Argument


On Thursday August 8, 2013, KANT entered a Bilmart national department store
in order to purchase six 4 oz. cans of baked beans with bacon (Hoovers brand) at his
wifes request. Mrs.Kant was displeased that Mr.Kant had purchased Hoovers brand
instead of Handells that she had planned to serve for her book club the following day.
Mr. Kant was re-sent to the store by his wife to exchange the beans for the requested
brand.

KANT then placed his previously purchased Hoovers brand beans into a
shopping cart, and proceeded to the bean aisle where he added the Handells brand beans
to the cart.
KANT placed the cans of Hoovers beans (again, that he previously purchased)
into a cart he believed to contain restock merchandise, and proceeded to the store exit
with the Handells remaining in the cart. There he was stopped by security who had
witnessed these actions. The beans he placed into, what he believed to be restock material
cart, was actually for the food drive. KANT was subsequently detained by store security,
but as a line of sight was never established between the two, until reaching the door, his
detention was in violation of per 32 Am. Jur. 2d False Imprisonment 10, Griffin v.
Clark, 55 Id. 364, 42 P.2d 297 (1935), and Bender v. City of Seattle, 99 Wash.2d 582, 664
P.2d 492 (1983).
Officers Joseph Kopp and Bernard Slickman then arrived to question the then
detained RESPONDANT. The officers did not read KANT his Miranda Rights in
violation of the ruling handed down in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Therefore, testimony offered by the officers in SMC was not admissible, per Bender v.
City of Seattle, 99 Wash.2d 582, 664 P.2d 492 (1983).

Argument
THE STATES CASE AS RULED BY SMC OVERLOOKED SUBSTANTIAL
PRECEDENTS AND PROCEDURES THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO THE CASE
OF KANT, AS WELL AS ALLOWING FOR THE USE OF INADMISSABLE

EVIDENCE.
MATERIAL EVIDENCE NOT ADMITTED:
The first article of contention regards the STATES refusal to release material
evidence that impacted the SMC case. Per State v. Quincy, 122 Wash.App. 395, 95 P.3d
353 (2004):
Admissibility hinges upon the opinion of the trial court that the sources of
information, method and time of preparation were such as to justify its admission.
BenNeth, 34 Wash.App. at 603, 663 P.2d 156 (quoting 5A KARL B. TEGLAND,
WASHINGTON PRACTICE: EVIDENCE LAW AND PRACTICE, 372, at 240 (2d
ed.1982)). The trial court was satisfied that the evidence *402 met the statutory elements
of a business record, and we find no abuse of discretion.
This regards the release of receipts from KANTs original purchase at Bilmart
prior to the alleged theft of beans that justifiably should have been allowed by SMC. The
release of the receipt would have allowed for civil mitigation of this matter.
FAILURE TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS:
PEOPLE failed to provide written notice to KANT within the specified time
requesting financial reimbursement, per Per RCW 9A.56.050 (2009). This statute reads:
An owner or seller demanding payment of a penalty under subsection (1) or (2) of
this section shall give written notice to the person or persons from whom the penalty is
sought. The notice shall state:
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The payment of any penalty demanded of you does not

prevent criminal prosecution under a related criminal provision.


FAILURE TO READ MIRANDA RIGHTS:
The most contentious aspect of this case regards the unlawful detention of KANT
by responding officers failure to read Miranda Rights, and the admissibility of officer
testimony during the SMC trial. The security guard unlawfully detained KANT while
waiting for police to arrive. The unlawfulness of detention is established and affirmed by
Bender v. City of Seattle, 99 Wash.2d 582, 664 P.2d 492 (1983). Headnote five, that
states:
Imprisonment is any restraint of the personal liberty of another; any prevention of
his movements from place to place, or his free action according to his own pleasure and
will; a man is imprisoned when he is under the control of another in these respects or
either of them, against his own will. It is false imprisonment when this is done without
lawful authority.
The case of Bender v. City of Seattle was ruled on by the Supreme Court of
Washington and should have had mandatory authority during the SMC proceedings.
Additionally, 10 32 Am. Jur. 2d False Imprisonment (2013) footnote confirms this
precedent, stating:
It is essential . . . that the restraint be against the plaintiff's will; and if he agrees
of his own free choice to surrender his freedom of motion, as by remaining in a room or
accompanying the defendant voluntarily, to clear himself of suspicion or to accommodate
the desires of another, rather than yielding to the constraint of a threat, then there is no
imprisonment. This gives rise, in borderline cases, to questions of fact, turning upon the

details of the testimony, as to what was reasonably to be understood and implied from the
defendant's conduct, tone of voice and the like, which seldom can be reflected accurately
in an appellate record, and normally are for the jury.
UNLAWFUL DETENTION:
The case of KANT would fall under the aforementioned borderline cases as he
was stopped without probable cause, but unhindered in his movement. The later presence
and questioning officers created circumstances were KANT was unable to leave the
scene. Per Const. Amend. IV 1:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,
but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Since officers did not read KANT his Miranda rights their SMC testimony should have
been ruled inadmissible, as Miranda v. Arizona states:
The Supreme Court, Mr. Chief Justice Warren, held that statements obtained from
defendants during incommunicado interrogation in police-dominated atmosphere,
without full warning of constitutional rights, were inadmissible as having been obtained
in violation of Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
From the above listed statutes and rulings we can see that the SMC ruling was unjust, and
as such, we request this appeal move forward so that proper precedence can be followed
to allow for the administration of a legally sound ruling.

Conclusion
KANT has been subjugated to an extended trial, due in part, to SMCs lack of
admissions of the above listed mandatory authorities, and statutes. This includes:
Unlawful detention, the presentation of inadmissible evidence, and the withholding of
material evidence, as well as not being presented with Miranda Rights. This
unconstitutionally deprived KANT of basic rights, and allowed for an unfair trial. As
such, on behalf of KANT, we request that charges be dropped entirely, and that associated
lawyers fees be paid out by PEOPLE.

BOSS ASSOCIATES,
520 FIFTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WA 98101
By: ___________________
JORDAN BOSS
Washington Bar No. 1010101

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished to all appropriate parties
involved with this case.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH FONT REQUIREMENT
I certify that this brief was typed in 12-point Times New Roman font.
BOSS ASSOCIATES,
520 FIFTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WA 98101
By: ___________________
JORDAN BOSS
Washington Bar No. 1010101

Certificate of Compliance with Font Requirement

Griffin v. Clark, 55 Id. 364, 42 P.2d 297 (1935)


Bender v. City of Seattle, 99 Wash.2d 582, 664 P.2d 492 (1983)
Statutes And Other Legal Authorities
RCW 9A.56.050 (2009).
RCW 4.24.220 (2011).

Action for being detained on mercantile establishment premises for


investigation--Reasonable grounds as defense
...
WA ST 4.24.220
Theft in the third degree

32 Am.Jur.2d False Imprisonment s 10 (1967).


Liability for conversion of goods or merchandise from store or mercantile establishment,
leaving restaurant or hotel or motel without paying Adults, minors Parents,
guardians Notice
...
State v. Quincy
Background: Defendant was convicted in the Superior Court of Snohomish County,
Richard Thorpe, J., of first degree theft from a retail store. Defendant appealed.
Holding: The Court of Appeals held that computerized price records of stolen items were
admissible as business records.
Affirmed.
Griffin v. Clark, 55 Id. 364, 42 P.2d 297 (1935)
Bender v. City of Seattle, 99 Wash.2d 582, 664 P.2d 492 (1983)

Statutes And Other Legal Authorities


RCW 9A.56.050 (2009).
RCW 4.24.220 (2011).

You might also like