Without going into detail, I am an expert on RCW 9A.52.070, 080, and 090.
The section 115 is only the declaration form. The sections I cited are the substantive sections. The young man did not violate the substantive sections.
I’ve read much of the case law on this statute. He did not violate them based on the information in the article.
Please don’t try and convince me I am wrong. You will lose. I am very well known at the Washington State Supreme Court, and at the WSP. My screen name is a excellent clue.
I appreciate your position but the one I used was RCW 9A.52.105 which states:
(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) of this section and upon the receipt of a declaration signed under penalty of perjury, in the form prescribed in RCW 9A.52.115, declaring the truth of all of the required elements set forth in subsection (4) of this section, a peace officer shall have the authority to:
(a) Remove the person or persons from the premises, with or without arresting the person or persons; and
(b) Order the person or persons to remain off the premises or be subject to arrest for criminal trespass.
(2) Only a peace officer having probable cause to believe that a person is guilty of criminal trespass under RCW 9A.52.070 for knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully in a building considered residential real property, as defined in RCW 61.24.005....
And 105 did not separate, but identified the aspect of real property in it’s declaration as buildings also. So there is no difference from a residence or a business.
The further parts of the RCW are available on line. But your determining 115 is not the correct way to do it, is only a technicality as it is the format to get it done. 105 is the action part of the follow on to removal. And that’s what creates the need for 115. Unlawful entry or non removal after request is subject to arrest. Thank you for your entry. Good luck.
rwood