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.

[pianoman9701]

Our system of government agrees with them then. More law enforcement is not always good and taking jurisdictional decisions out of the hands of the locals could well undermine democratic principle. His objections were completely in line with my original misgivings and in fact, confirmed them for me. Bigtex, if you were a local mounty, you might well feel the same way. As a state dude, you probably are not thrilled when the feds roll into town and say, "we're here. the rest of you can all go home now." I have great respect for what you and the other DFW LE do for us. I have more respect for democratic principle and liberty. There are limits, as there should be.

[CementFinisher]

sounds like they want to up their revenue collection to me. I SAY A BIG FAT NO!

[bigtex]

sounds like that want to up their revenue collection to me. I SAY A BIG FAT NO!

How would it up DNR's revenue? DNR doesn't get $ from their citations.

[6x6in6]

sounds like that want to up their revenue collection to me. I SAY A BIG FAT NO!

How would it up DNR's revenue? DNR doesn't get $ from their citations.

And that's what surprises me, already knowing this.  Why would it be such a big deal to the county's?   Just the territorial power play kind of thing?

And thanks bigtex for posting up info and links like these here.  Good stuff!!!   

[bigtex]

sounds like that want to up their revenue collection to me. I SAY A BIG FAT NO!

How would it up DNR's revenue? DNR doesn't get $ from their citations.

And that's what surprises me, already knowing this.  Why would it be such a big deal to the county's?   Just the territorial power play kind of thing?

Honestly, Yes!

The "diplomatic" response is "we wan't local control". Well the DNR Officer already works in the county, what difference does it make if they are on DNR lands, or the local highway?

[CementFinisher]

So other than bringing in more money for whoever and being a pain in the A** to everyone who visit these lands and the rural towns near them? what good will this do? I think most of us would beleive that they then wouldnt be taking care of thier land. they would be sitting out on the rural roads leading up to the dnr areas handing out speeding tickets, for having mud falling off your rig and all the other little gems they like to get you for

[bigtex]

So other than bringing in more money for whoever and being a pain in the A** to everyone who visit these lands and the rural towns near them? what good will this do? I think most of us would beleive that they then wouldnt be taking care of thier land. they would be sitting out on the rural roads leading up to the dnr areas handing out speeding tickets, for having mud falling off your rig and all the other little gems they like to get you for

Read my initial posts for your answers. It tells you the benefits of this. And remember, this already goes on in 25-30 counties.

[pianoman9701]

sounds like that want to up their revenue collection to me. I SAY A BIG FAT NO!

How would it up DNR's revenue? DNR doesn't get $ from their citations.

And that's what surprises me, already knowing this.  Why would it be such a big deal to the county's?   Just the territorial power play kind of thing?

Honestly, Yes!

The "diplomatic" response is "we wan't local control". Well the DNR Officer already works in the county, what difference does it make if they are on DNR lands, or the local highway?

Let's put a different spin on this. The feds want jurisdiction over our state law enforcement to the extent that they want all records pertaining to gun registration and CPLs in WA. The State refuses. Is this just a power play thing? Why would it be such a big deal? It's a big deal because the more localized you keep your government, the more it represents you.

Those in E. WA would not benefit from this bill near as much as those in W. WA, because the DNR boys are being sent out of Olympia and by a democrat-controlled state government with democrat ideas and rules. Put this bill down, and enforcement is decided by the people you live with. The local sheriff in Jefferson Co. can decide on his own if he wants to give jurisdiction to DNR LE or not. It might be in your best interest or it might not. Keep as much government local as you can and you'll find that it works the way it's supposed to much more often.

[6x6in6]

Bigtex, is Whatcom County one county that has presently commisioned DNR LE?
I'm not going to call Elfo (yes others, that is the sheriffs name  ) if he has commisioned DNR LE already and waste his time.
Thanks!!

[CementFinisher]

i did read the first page just couldn't find the benefit lol. Eatonville WA, ashford, naches, I think are a good example of them not taking care of their lands and just sitting out on access points between town and the dnr land.

[bigtex]

sounds like that want to up their revenue collection to me. I SAY A BIG FAT NO!

How would it up DNR's revenue? DNR doesn't get $ from their citations.

And that's what surprises me, already knowing this.  Why would it be such a big deal to the county's?   Just the territorial power play kind of thing?

Honestly, Yes!

The "diplomatic" response is "we wan't local control". Well the DNR Officer already works in the county, what difference does it make if they are on DNR lands, or the local highway?

Those in E. WA would not benefit from this bill near as much as those in W. WA, because the DNR boys are being sent out of Olympia and by a democrat-controlled state government with democrat ideas and rules. Put this bill down, and enforcement is decided by the people you live with. The local sheriff in Jefferson Co. can decide on his own if he wants to give jurisdiction to DNR LE or not. It might be in your best interest or it might not. Keep as much government local as you can and you'll find that it works the way it's supposed to much more often.

There are 2 DNR LEO's on the eastside, why? Because most of the DNR land is on the westside. And the DNR land on the eastside that does get patrolled is in the cascade range or in the NE counties, not in the columbia basin or SE WA. DNR could easily have just one LEO for Kittitas County, but instead he is responsible for 15 counties. In fact you could probably have one DNR LEO each for Yakima, Kittitas, Chelan, and Okanogan Counties.

"are being sent out of Olympia" well you could say that for every state law enforcement agency in this state.

[bigtex]

i did read the first page just couldn't find the benefit lol. Eatonville WA, ashford, naches, I think are a good example of them not taking care of their lands and just sitting out on access points between town and the dnr land.

Well 25-30 Sheriff's in this state see a benefit. The benefit is they are able to act as an LEO when something happens right in front of them when they are off DNR lands.

When you say eatonville/ashford I assume you are talking about the Elbe Forest. The officer who handles Pierce County also handles King which is where most of his time is spent since that is where most of the problems are and visitation is. Up until mid-summer 2012 he was also responsible for Mason and Kitsap counties. Do they have a staffing shortage? Duh. The officer for DNR in Yakima and Kittitas Counties has 15 E WA counties under his area.

[pianoman9701]

Defeating this bill wouldn't mean that DNR doesn't get those jurisdictions. It just means that it's up to each county sheriff. I really like being represented locally. Deputies are my neighbors. DNR guys may or may not be. Sorry to disagree with you on this BT. I really like what you do here. I just may not always agree with your or your department's position.

[bigtex]

Bigtex, is Whatcom County one county that has presently commisioned DNR LE?
I'm not going to call Elfo (yes others, that is the sheriffs name  ) if he has commisioned DNR LE already and waste his time.
Thanks!!

Unless something changed in the past 2 or so years yes Whatcom does. Skagit County has as well. Skagit County also commissions National Park Service Rangers. I believe both Skagit and Whatcom commissions USFS Officers as well.

[pianoman9701]

i did read the first page just couldn't find the benefit lol. Eatonville WA, ashford, naches, I think are a good example of them not taking care of their lands and just sitting out on access points between town and the dnr land.

Well 25-30 Sheriff's in this state see a benefit. The benefit is they are able to act as an LEO when something happens right in front of them when they are off DNR lands.

When you say eatonville/ashford I assume you are talking about the Elbe Forest. The officer who handles Pierce County also handles King which is where most of his time is spent since that is where most of the problems are and visitation is. Up until mid-summer 2012 he was also responsible for Mason and Kitsap counties. Do they have a staffing shortage? Duh. The officer for DNR in Yakima and Kittitas Counties has 15 E WA counties under his area.

So they can authorize jurisdiction individually if they need the help. What's the problem with that?

[bigtex]

Defeating this bill wouldn't mean that DNR doesn't get those jurisdictions. It just means that it's up to each county sheriff. I really like being represented locally. Deputies are my neighbors. DNR guys may or may not be. Sorry to disagree with you on this BT. I really like what you do here. I just may not always agree with your or your department's position.

No problem Pianoman. Everybody has their views.

And you are correct, if this bill doesn't pass it just simply means they need to continue to ask sheriff's for commissions until such legislation does pass.

[6x6in6]

Bigtex, is Whatcom County one county that has presently commisioned DNR LE?
I'm not going to call Elfo (yes others, that is the sheriffs name  ) if he has commisioned DNR LE already and waste his time.
Thanks!!

Unless something changed in the past 2 or so years yes Whatcom does. Skagit County has as well. Skagit County also commissions National Park Service Rangers. I believe both Skagit and Whatcom commissions USFS Officers as well.

Thank you!

[CementFinisher]

i did read the first page just couldn't find the benefit lol. Eatonville WA, ashford, naches, I think are a good example of them not taking care of their lands and just sitting out on access points between town and the dnr land.

Well 25-30 Sheriff's in this state see a benefit. The benefit is they are able to act as an LEO when something happens right in front of them when they are off DNR lands.

When you say eatonville/ashford I assume you are talking about the Elbe Forest. The officer who handles Pierce County also handles King which is where most of his time is spent since that is where most of the problems are and visitation is. Up until mid-summer 2012 he was also responsible for Mason and Kitsap counties. Do they have a staffing shortage? Duh. The officer for DNR in Yakima and Kittitas Counties has 15 E WA counties under his area.

LOL Not exactly. Just have the staff acually work and handle more than one task. Nancy who is incharge of the elbe area actually leaves her office and gets out and deals with people dumping, illigaly camping, no discovery passes and shes not an enforcemnt officer. she is acuatlly out earning her paycheck when she is not busy in the office or having meetings with the jeep clubs, hunters, horese groups

[bigtex]

i did read the first page just couldn't find the benefit lol. Eatonville WA, ashford, naches, I think are a good example of them not taking care of their lands and just sitting out on access points between town and the dnr land.

Well 25-30 Sheriff's in this state see a benefit. The benefit is they are able to act as an LEO when something happens right in front of them when they are off DNR lands.

When you say eatonville/ashford I assume you are talking about the Elbe Forest. The officer who handles Pierce County also handles King which is where most of his time is spent since that is where most of the problems are and visitation is. Up until mid-summer 2012 he was also responsible for Mason and Kitsap counties. Do they have a staffing shortage? Duh. The officer for DNR in Yakima and Kittitas Counties has 15 E WA counties under his area.

LOL Not exactly. Just have the staff acually work and handle more than one task. Nancy who is incharge of the elbe area actually leaves her office and gets out and deals with people dumping, illigaly camping, no discovery passes and shes not an enforcemnt officer. she is acuatlly out earning her paycheck when she is not busy in the office or having meetings with the jeep clubs, hunters, horese groups

Under state law DNR and Parks can give limited law enforcement authority commissions to their non-law enforcement employees. About 80 DNR employees who aren't law enforcement officers actually have authority to write DNR citations. I would bet "Nancy" has this authority.

[huntrights]

This type of discussion regarding proposed legislation that can affect all of us is great!  Many of the questions and answers are very enlightening.  Thank you!

[csaaphill]

 
for me but whatever.

[huntinguy]

So, then just who would the DNR guys report to? The local LEO operates according to the dictates of his/her department. Like Seattle before the election, the City guys were told not to enforce the MJ laws but the State was still enforcing.

So, if the County Sheriff said we were or were not going to enforce _____ and the State said the would enforce ___________. What happens?

No, I think this should be left at the local jurisdiction.

[bigtex]

So, then just who would the DNR guys report to? The local LEO operates according to the dictates of his/her department. Like Seattle before the election, the City guys were told not to enforce the MJ laws but the State was still enforcing.

So, if the County Sheriff said we were or were not going to enforce _____ and the State said the would enforce ___________. What happens?

No, I think this should be left at the local jurisdiction.

This doesn't change who they report to. The DNR LEO would still report to the DNR LE Chief in Olympia just like they do today. Just like a WDFW Officer/WSP Trooper reports to a Chief in Olympia.

County Sheriff's only have authority over their deputies, not city cops or state officers. Your example of Seattle PD not enforcing MJ laws only applied to Seattle PD; King County Sheriff, Metro Transit Police, Sound Transit Police, Port of Seattle Police, UW Police, and WDFW all have law enforcement jurisdiction within Seattle city limits and still enforced MJ laws, even though the city said Seattle PD wouldn't.

[bigtex]

To elaborate even more about state officers operating in counties and the so called "local control" problem. We already know WDFW and WSP can enforce any laws anywhere in the state. Well we also have Liquor Control Board Officers enforcing state alcohol, tobacco, and as a result of the marijuana initiative drug laws in all counties no matter who owns the land. There are Gambling Commission Special Agents enforcing state gambling laws anywhere in the state. I personally have never heard a sheriff in WA complain publicly about any of these agencies enforcing laws within their jurisdiction in their county. DNR already has the authority to enforce all state laws on DNR lands, just like state Park Rangers can on State Park lands. It is not as if the Liquor Control Board all of a sudden wants to start doing traffic enforcement which they have never done before.

Many states have completely gotten rid of the different levels of law enforcement, such as liquor control can only do alcohol enforcement, or fish and wildlife can only do fish and wildlife. Many states have the mentality of, "if youre a cop, then your a cop" and the state officers have the authority to enforce all state laws anywhere. There are still the specialized agencies, such as liquor control who specialize in liquor laws, but if they see a DUI in front of them they can do a traffic stop and process the DUI.

Those that constantly say WA is a police state, should really look at what officers/agencies can do in other states...You may be surprised.

[Knocker of rocks]

Those that constantly say WA is a police state, should really look at what officers/agencies can do in other states...You may be surprised.

It isn't a contest

[bigtex]

This bill has it's first hearing in front of the House Public Safety Committee on 2/19.

[bigtex]

For an update on this bill check out the following combined thread:

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,118921.0.html

[Practical Approach]

Pretty sure there is only about 6 DNR enforcement officers statewide.  One for each region.             

[bigtex]

Pretty sure there is only about 6 DNR enforcement officers statewide.  One for each region.           

DNR Chief said today there are 9 DNR Officers. Last year there were 8.

[Practical Approach]

Every little bit helps I guess.  Not many officers for a lot of real estate.