An untucked shirt does NOT equal concealment in Washington state--letter from AG

[KennyB]

Okay, so I suppose a little bit of background is in order here...

RCW 9.41.250
Dangerous weapons — Penalty.


(1) Every person who:

(a) Manufactures, sells, or disposes of or possesses any instrument or weapon of the kind usually known as slung shot, sand club, or metal knuckles, or spring blade knife;

(b) Furtively carries with intent to conceal any dagger, dirk, pistol, or other dangerous weapon; or

(c) Uses any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm unless the suppressor is legally registered and possessed in accordance with federal law,

is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.

(2) "Spring blade knife" means any knife, including a prototype, model, or other sample, with a blade that is automatically released by a spring mechanism or other mechanical device, or any knife having a blade which opens, or falls, or is ejected into position by the force of gravity, or by an outward, downward, or centrifugal thrust or movement. A knife that contains a spring, detent, or other mechanism designed to create a bias toward closure of the blade and that requires physical exertion applied to the blade by hand, wrist, or arm to overcome the bias toward closure to assist in opening the knife is not a spring blade knife.

My confusion with the wording for this section of the statue is mostly with the word "furtively" in regards to "Furtively carries with intent to conceal".

fur·tive (fûrtv)
adj.
1. Characterized by stealth; surreptitious.
2. Expressive of hidden motives or purposes; shifty. See Synonyms at secret.

What I had asked several law enforcements on separate occasions was whether an untucked shirt covering a fixed blade knife on a belt is considered "furtively" carrying such a knife. I argued that, "Since that is the way the knife is supposed to be worn, there's nothing secretive about it." I would then ask, "So if a person has a pocket knife in their pocket, is this furtively concealing?" This was then compared to a knife being worn on a belt ( as it was designed ) and whether a shirt obscuring the vision of said knife would be "furtively concealing" it. I insisted that since that is the way the knife was designed to be carried, and that there is very little "secretive" about it worn on a belt on the outside of a person's pants, that it shouldn't constitute as furtive concealment.

In the end I wasn't satisfied with the LEO's rationalization of things. Here is one response which best represents the consensus as a whole...

And I just like to go up to bank teller's windows and demand money while wearing a ski mask and holding a bat. I'm not intending to rob the place, just make a withdrawal, and I happen to like wearing ski masks and was going to batting practice.

My point here is that your "intent" is only knowable to you. As a police officer, if I see a weapon that is willfully concealed, it's a concealed weapon. I can never know if the garment worn was specifically worn to conceal the weapon, because I am not a mind-reader; therefore, I have to go on what is reasonable. If you are wearing a shirt untucked and covering a knife, it is reasonable to believe you intended to conceal it, absent other evidence.

I have also stopped people who had a shirt covering a knife but not a sheath, which was considered a 'good stop', though I did not charge the individual under the circumstances.

It's fair to comment that these police officers were asked on an internet forum and most if not all of them were from jurisdictions outside of my own.

Finally one of them suggest that I contact the Attorney General or a local DA. So that is what I did and I received a reply today.

On behalf of the Attorney General Bob Ferguson, thank you for your inquiry received
February 14, 2013. Your inquiry was forwarded to me for response. I am an Assistant
Attorney General for the Licensing and Administrative Law Division. I am responsible
for firearm reciprocity issues so your letter was forwarded to me for response.

The Attorney General’s Office serves as legal counsel to state agencies and certain
elected officials and cannot, by law, provide legal advice to private citizens. However,
we do try to provide information of a general nature when we can.

In your inquiry you reference RCW 9.41.250 and ask for clarity on subsection (b)
“Furtively carries with intent to conceal any dagger, dirk, pistol, or other dangerous
weapon” and how this would affect carrying a concealed knife. As far as I am aware, no
appellate court has construed this section of the RCW. It would be safe to state that if
you are carrying a otherwise legal knife in a manner in which it is designed to be carried:
folded in pocket, in sheath at side for example; it is unlikely you would run afoul of this
statute.

I hope this information was of assistance to you.

Sincerely,
SUSAN L. PIERINI
Assistant Attorney General

I'm a little confused about this portion and what it means: "As far as I am aware, no appellate court has construed this section of the RCW."

However, going by the section in bold it would appear that my assumption that it is not "furtive" to carry a sheath knife as a sheath knife even if it is obstructed from view by a shirt is correct.

So I suppose the conclusion to be reached here is that (in Washington) a cop may stop you for what they feel is a "concealed" weapon, but being charged/arrested/convicted for it is not likely.


I felt like it would be beneficial to share this with you guys too. Questions/comments/opinions welcome and encouraged.

 

[killgar]

I give you props for contacting your Attorney General to inquire on this matter, and actually getting a response. That being said, I read nothing in that response that I would be willing to bet my freedom, or life savings on, by carrying a conceald fixed-blade.

Using terms like "and cannot, by law, provide legal advice to citizens" and "as far as I am aware" and "it is unlikely you would run afoul" dosen't exactly sound like a clear "green light" to me. It looks to me like the law is vague. And when the law is vague there is room for cops and prosecuters to maneuver, and that's not good for you. Never underestimate the ruthless ambitions of prosecuters, especially on a "weapons" case. One things for sure, the Assistant Attorney General isn't going to show up to set you free if you get arrested and charged with carrying a concealed weapon.

I'm not familiar with Washington law or the general mentality and practice of it's courts, cops, and prosecuters, so I have no advice to offer you on whether or not you should carry knives conceald. I'm just glad I don't live in a place with vague knife laws. Good luck.

 

[Bigfattyt]

The part about "no appellate court has construed" Means that part of the law has not been interpreted or commented on by any of the courts of appeal, let alone the state supreme court of WA. What that other jargon means is that this response is not a formal decision by the attorney general's office. It would not have any binding of legal effect on any officer of the law, nor any prosecutor. It would likely be a persuasive argument that would possibly affect a charging decision. It would also provide a pretty decent defense to present to the jury in a trial, provided the judge allowed it over the objections of the prosecutor.

I am, frankly, shocked you got a response, let alone one that appears to provide useful advice!


WA knife laws are very vague, which means you can be charged if the officer and prosecutor feels so inclined. In my jurisdiction they are still arresting and charging for spring assisted knives, even though the state passed a law expressly exempting them from the prohibition against switchblades. I am still occasionally having to argue the finger points of the law to prosecutor who still don't understand it.

 

[the4th]

This is yet another BS law affording a LEO a way to skirt your protection against stop and frisk statutes. It also allows the prosecutor to pad charges for plea bargaining.

 

[drichardson67]

Hey KennyB, Thanks for going to the trouble to try to find clarification on this. About a month ago, I read through WA's knife law, and was thoroughly dismayed by the apparent intentionally ambiguous and subjective nature of the 'furtive' clause.

Do you know if having a CCP for a sidearm might give a person carrying a knife any more leeway regarding 'furtive' and 'intent'? Is there a difference between 'furtive' and 'concealed? Since the 'intent' of both presumably is concealment? I think I remember reading that an ankle holster for a gun is OK with the CCP, but a boot knife, even with a CCP is not OK. But this makes absolutely no sense to me. Why would it be legal to carry in a certain manner with a gun, but not a knife?

I don't carry anything other than my folding EDC in my pocket, so I personally shouldn't be affected, unless...a LEO thinks I'm acting furtively and the EDC in my pocket...then becomes a problem... The trouble with ambiguous laws.

More clarification is needed.

Thanks again for looking into this, and hopefully our laws will someday make a turn for the rational.