Legislation Would Expand DNR Law Enforcement Authority

[bigtex]

House Bill 1399 was introduced today sponsored by Reps Stanford, Tharinger, Moscoso, Takko, Appleton, Berquist, and Liias. This legislation would give general law enforcement authority to DNR Law Enforcement Officers. Currently only WDFW and WSP are the only state agency general law enforcement agencies. DNR is considered a limited authority law enforcement agency since under state law their law enforcement authority is tied to DNR lands. What this legislation would do is establish law enforcement authority throughout the state, no matter what the land ownership is, just like WDFW and WSP.

Currently DNR seeks county sheriff commissions from most of the counties in the state. When a sheriff grants these commissions it essentially allows DNR Officers to act as a general authority officer within that county, no matter who owns the lands.

A similar bill was introduced last year but did not make it out of committee. Some sheriffs are historically against such bills, mainly because they view it as a loss of power for them.

The bill would not change DNR LEO’s pay or retirement. Currently all general law enforcement officers are in a state law enforcement and firefighter retirement system, DNR would remain in the limited authority retirement system.

http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/default.aspx?Bill=1399&year=2013

[pianoman9701]

BT, what is the training for DNR LE? Also, would this expand their authority to all law enforcement in WA or is it only for wildlife/fishing enforcement? Thanks

[bigtex]

BT, what is the training for DNR LE? Also, would this expand their authority to all law enforcement in WA or is it only for wildlife/fishing enforcement? Thanks

Currently DNR only hires lateral (experienced) officers. They do not hire "new" officers. And almost all DNR LEOs are actually retired, mostly from WSP and using DNR as a retirement job. So they have all attended either the WSP academy or the CJTC academy (all agencies other then WSP go here). So it is the same training as any other law enforcement agency in the state.

Currently DNR, like State Parks can enforce all state laws on their agency lands. So a DNR Officer can arrest for DUI on DNR lands under state law. Now if DNR has an agreement with the sheriff they can enforce all state laws off of DNR lands. What this would do is expand their authority to enforce all laws throughout the state, just like WSP and WDFW.

[pianoman9701]

OK, and so why is this good for us? Are our police departments all under-staffed?

[bigtex]

OK, and so why is this good for us? Are our police departments all under-staffed?

Hypothetical (and it happens quite a bit):

DNR Officer in a county that does not commission DNR Officers leaves DNR lands to go to another nearby DNR area. While enroute he observes some type of violation/offense/crime (think of anything), under state law he has no authority to act and all he can do is radio it in, which is essentially the same thing a private citizen would do by calling 911. Had that DNR Officer had general law enforcement authority he could've acted, just like WSP or WDFW. Now what if that DNR Officer was behind a drunk driver who then swerves off the road and plows into a family out for a walk?

Let's say they are up on DNR lands and see a violation (again, anything) occuring on the USFS/WDFW lands across the street. If the DNR Officer doesn't have a county commission he cannot do anything. How long do you think it would take for a deputy/trooper/WDFW Officer to get to some location up in the woods? Kittitas County Sheriff's Office average response time to 911 calls is almost 1/2 hour, imagine how long it would take them to get to some location up in the woods. And FYI, Kittitas does commission DNR, BLM, and probably USFS.

There is a reason why the majority of the Sheriff's in the state give commissions to DNR Officers. The problem with commissions is you have to do them county by county. It can also be political, some sheriff's don't work well with outside agencies and won't grant commissions. You can also go from a current sheriff that is pro-DNR and the next Sheriff pulls the commissions. Or it could be the DNR LEO wrote the sheriff's brother a ticket and the sheriff pulls the commissions.

[pianoman9701]

But, hypothetically, couldn't it also mean that a local sheriff knows that his local DNR guy is a headstrong jackhole and doesn't give him authority to exercise legal authority in his community out of respect for the rights of his residents and to avoid the possibility of abuse of those residents? Our nation's law enforcement system is set up in such a way as to create a chain of enforcement from town>county>state (multiple agencies)>federal (multiple agencies), so that the lowest authorized arm of LE, the one who's most likely to have a pulse on the people under his jurisdiction, has the ability to authorize or deny authority of broader agencies based on his personal knowledge of local demographics and circumstances. If we take that authority away from the lowest rung of the ladder, don't we risk inappropriate enforcement at the hands of someone who doesn't have the best interests of the local community at heart, but only the best interests of his own department or advancement?

[bigtex]

But, hypothetically, couldn't it also mean that a local sheriff knows that his local DNR guy is a headstrong jackhole and doesn't give him authority to exercise legal authority in his community out of respect for the rights of his residents and to avoid the possibility of abuse of those residents? Our nation's law enforcement system is set up in such a way as to create a chain of enforcement from town>county>state (multiple agencies)>federal (multiple agencies), so that the lowest authorized arm of LE, the one who's most likely to have a pulse on the people under his jurisdiction, has the ability to authorize or deny authority of broader agencies based on his personal knowledge of local demographics and circumstances. If we take that authority away from the lowest rung of the ladder, don't we risk inappropriate enforcement at the hands of someone who doesn't have the best interests of the local community at heart, but only the best interests of his own department or advancement?

Right now many of the commissions DNR has are agency wide, for example any DNR Officer hired immediately becomes a Kittitas County Deputy, he may never ever work in Kittitas County. However there are some where it is just for an individual officer(s).

I get what you are saying about the local mentality, but I haven't heard any sheriff's publicly say they have issues with WSP or WDFW operating as a general authority law enforcement agency in their county, what would be different with DNR? Especially since there are only about 10 DNR Officers statewide.

[pianoman9701]

BT, do you know if this legislation is unilaterally endorsed by the county Sheriffs? If so, I would have no problem with it and will go to my reps with it.

[bigtex]

BT, do you know if this legislation is unilaterally endorsed by the county Sheriffs? If so, I would have no problem with it and will go to my reps with it.

At last years legislation two sheriff's spoke out against it, just like they did when WDFW was trying to get general authority. It wasn't a coincidence that these 2 sheriff's were 2 of the few that don't commission DNR. About 25-30 of the 39 counties commission DNR. You should also realize that for some counties it just wouldn't be necessary for DNR to seek county commissions. For example, it wouldn't be necessary for DNR to get county commissions in Whitman County since there is very little DNR land there.

At last year's hearing the DNR Chief (Larry Raedel) briefed the committee an basically the agency's stance. While DNR Officers Chris Rankin and Jason Bodine explained more field/hypothetical situations. Rankin (who mainly patrols King, Pierce, Kitsap, and Mason Counties) told the hearing that the county he works in the most, and has the most crime adjoining DNR lands, is the one county in his patrol area that doesn't give county commissions to any outside agency (it's actually a King County Sheriff's Office policy to not grant commissions to outside agencies).

They will not publicly say it, but the reason some sheriff's are against it is because they think it is a loss power for them. Basically just one more officer/agency that is in their county and doesn't report to them. When there was a proposal to move WDFW and DNR LE to WSP the state sheriffs association was formally against it. They did not say it publicly but they viewed it as the creation of a state police force, since WSP would then have traffic enforcement, fish/wildlife enforcement, forest enforcement, state crime lab, fire marshal, etc.

From a public safety standpoint, I am for this legislation.

[pianoman9701]

Can you tell me how Sheriff Lucas from Clark Co. stands on this legislation?

[bigtex]

Short write up about a new DNR LEO receiving a county commission from Pacific County:

http://washingtondnr.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/dnr-law-enforcement-officers-help-keep-counties-safe-too/

[bigtex]

Can you tell me how Sheriff Lucas from Clark Co. stands on this legislation?

Unfortunately I do not know off the top of my head, I will look into it. I once saw a list of sheriff's that granted authority to DNR on a agency wide basis (meaning all DNR Officers are considered county deputies) but haven't seen it in a year or two. Off the top of my head the following either grant it on an agencywide or individual basis:

Pierce
Snohomish
Whatcom
Skagit
Lewis
Pacific
Klickitat
Kittitas

Like I said there are 25-30 counties that do grant authority, but the above listed are the ones that I personally know of. I know King doesn't I would suspect Skamania doesn't as well. The current Skamania Co Sheriff is very opposed to outside LE agencies and was one that spoke out last year against similar legislation.

[pianoman9701]

Our Sheriff is not in favor of this bill because of the reasons I had asked about before - it takes away the power of local law enforcement to manage who has authority in their territory. In addition, he told me that it's the position of the WA State Sheriffs' Assn that this kind of jurisdictional authority is NOT granted in a blanket manner, but by a county to county basis.

It's my opinion that the more local government is kept, the more benefit it is to our liberties and our democratic process. I'll be supporting my local sheriff on this and not supporting the bill. Thank you BT for your input and the information you provided.

[buckfvr]

But, hypothetically, couldn't it also mean that a local sheriff knows that his local DNR guy is a headstrong jackhole and doesn't give him authority to exercise legal authority in his community out of respect for the rights of his residents and to avoid the possibility of abuse of those residents? Our nation's law enforcement system is set up in such a way as to create a chain of enforcement from town>county>state (multiple agencies)>federal (multiple agencies), so that the lowest authorized arm of LE, the one who's most likely to have a pulse on the people under his jurisdiction, has the ability to authorize or deny authority of broader agencies based on his personal knowledge of local demographics and circumstances. If we take that authority away from the lowest rung of the ladder, don't we risk inappropriate enforcement at the hands of someone who doesn't have the best interests of the local community at heart, but only the best interests of his own department or advancement?

   That is already a glaring problem , and it doesnt involve the DNR leo.

[bigtex]

Our Sheriff is not in favor of this bill because of the reasons I had asked about before - it takes away the power of local law enforcement to manage who has authority in their territory. In addition, he told me that it's the position of the WA State Sheriffs' Assn that this kind of jurisdictional authority is NOT granted in a blanket manner, but by a county to county basis.

It's my opinion that the more local government is kept, the more benefit it is to our liberties and our democratic process. I'll be supporting my local sheriff on this and not supporting the bill. Thank you BT for your input and the information you provided.

Not surpised the state Sheriff's Assn is against this bill. They have been against every effort to increase state law enforcement authority, no matter which agency it is.