Bill Would Expand LE Authority of Liquor Enforcement Officers

[bigtex]

House Bill 1876 would grant general law enforcement authority to Liquor Enforcement Officers of the Liquor Control Board. Currently these officers can only enforce RCW 66 (Alcohol Laws), RCW 70.155 (Tobacco access to minors), RCW 69.50 (Drugs), RCW 82.24 (Cigarette Tax), RCW 82.26 (Tobacco Tax), and RCW 26.28.080 (Selling tobacco to minors). This bill would grant these officers to enforce all state laws, and put them in line with WDFW and WSP as the only state level general law enforcement agencies.

The authority to enforce RCW 69.50 was actually granted to the LCB when the marijuana initiative passed. Not only do LCB Officers now have the authority to enforce marijuana laws, and some other drug laws, but not all.

The bill has bipartisan support.

http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/default.aspx?Bill=1876&year=2013

[bigtex]

I'll explain my view on this one.

Should LCB Officers have more authority? Yes. Full authority? Eh maybe.

I think they should have the authority to enforce RCW 9 and 9A which are your general crimes. For example, it is idiotic to me that the LCB has the authority to regulate where guns can go in bars, but can't cite/arrest someone for carrying a gun into a bar, but can arrest the bartender/doorguy for allowing the gun in the bar. 

You look at other states their LCB gets involved in a lot more crime regarding liquor establishments, such as trafficking, prostitution, etc. In WA they can't do that.

It would be nice if they could enforce RCW 69.30 which are sanitary shellfish control laws. Basically making sure nobody is selling dirty shellfish. Right now this mainly falls on WDFW. Wouldn't it make sense for the LCB to aid in this enforcement since most of the time their officers are in restaurants and stores.

And finally RCW 70.160 smoking in public place laws. Right now LCB Officers enforce underage possesion of tobacco laws, and other tobacco/cigarette laws. But if someone is smoking in a bar or is standing in front of the door (in violation of the 25 ft rule) they have no authority.

[csaaphill]

again against I smoke so dont' want no one telling me not to.
People who support this will turn over their guns.

[csaaphill]

yep guess who supports it hope anti gun
 

[bigtex]

You can look at most law enforcement bills and a sponsor will be Hope or Hurst.  Why? Because Hope is a current LEO, Hurst is a retired LEO

[bigtex]

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

[bigtex]

again against I smoke so dont' want no one telling me not to.
People who support this will turn over their guns.

And how does this legislation relate to people turning over their guns?

FYI, It does have bipartisan support

[csaaphill]

his name is on a lot of anti gun bill is what i go by and not letting myself to be the type to wait to see what others say on these things.
FYI prolly wont fight this that much just getting my  worth in before it goes through.

[csaaphill]

again against I smoke so dont' want no one telling me not to.
People who support this will turn over their guns.

And how does this legislation relate to people turning over their guns?

FYI, It does have bipartisan support

doesn't make it right just because it has bipartisian suport. i figure anything that limits liberty to only your home, and even then that's not guaranteed any more is going to be bad. Meaning and ya I'm in a minority because I smoke, but seems like only people get fired up over something if it affects them. So for me if I can't light up anywhere but where the Gov deems is ok is heading down an even more slippery slope that where we are.
If guns and they are deemed a public safety hazzard which they already are I can see a whole lot of people going to jail in the near future on these.

[bigtex]

This bill was featured on the KING 5 news tonight:

Posted on February 15, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Right now there are 56 liquor enforcement officers on the job in Washington, policing the state’s bars and liquor stores and keeping an eye out for illegal liquor sales and sales to minors.
 
But their job is about to get harder and more complex. Under I-502, the legal Marijuana Initiative approved last fall, the agency is called on to set up the web of rules and regulations covering marijuana sales and to enforce those rules.

Officer Josh Bolender, lobbying in Olympia on behalf of his union (Washington Federation of State Employees), says pot changes the game.

“Cannabis is a whole new thing for us. It is uncharted territory,” he said.
 
Liquor enforcement officers like Bolender wear a uniform, carry a badge and a gun, but don’t have the same law enforcement powers as other police officers. They are called “Limited Authority” peace officers.

With the number of stores selling liquor tripling in the last year and a half with the privatization of booze and with legal marijuana just around the corner, Bolender and fellow enforcement officers say they’ll be running into some dangerous criminal situations they aren’t authorized to deal with.   

“With the unlicensed sale of cannabis there is often a nexus with other drugs, illegal drugs like methamphetamine, cocaine and heroin,” said Bolender.
 
He and his union are asking the legislator to expand their authority, and provide full law enforcement training for any new hires to the agency. At least 16 more enforcement officers are expected to be hired in conjunction with the implementation of I-502.
 
House Bill 1876, under consideration now in Olympia, would give them the tools they say they need to operate in an entirely new environment.
 
The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs normally opposes the expansion of police power beyond the “Limited Authority” designation. In this case, the WASPC’s Executive Director Mitch Barker tells me they would certainly be willing to “revisit the issue” and try to figure out ways to help Liquor Enforcement Officers do their job.

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Liquor-enforcement-officers-say-they-need-training-to-handle-pot-law-191476381.html

WASPC is the organization which has historically been against granting additional authority to state agencies. They were against WDFW getting general authorit some 20+ years ago

[bigtex]

From what I have been hearing this bill has more "teeth" then the bills to give general authority to DNR and Parks.

Sounds like there will be many current LCB Officers as well as former LCB employees who now work in law enforcement for federal, state, county, city, and colleges testifying in favor. Also doesn't help to be on TV.

[bigtex]

In addition to the 16 new officers planned to be hired for marijuana enforcement. The LCB is seeking funding over the next couple years to hire 60 more officers. This would essentially double their enforcement workforce. LCB would just be behind WDFW in terms of state LE workforce, WSP is obviously number one. The additional officers are being hired due to the problems associated with liquor now in stores and marijuana

[Humptulips]

Here's a question for you and it applies to granting full enforcement authority to any agency. What is the fiscal effect of this? With full enforcement authority does that come with a bigger paycheck ie; more responsibility, more money?

[bigtex]

Here's a question for you and it applies to granting full enforcement authority to any agency. What is the fiscal effect of this? With full enforcement authority does that come with a bigger paycheck ie; more responsibility, more money?

Good question. Technically, no. And if you look at the "fiscal note" for the bills granting general authority to DNR, Parks, and the LCB the total cost is $0.

In terms of retirement systems for this discussion I will describe 3 of the state systems.
- Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) - Almost all of the state employees are in this system
- Public Safety Employees Retirement System (PSERS) - This system is only for limited authority LE. Such as corrections, DNR, Parks, etc
- Law Enforcement Officers and Firefighters (LEOFF) - All non-volunteer firefighters and general authority law enforcement (except WSP) are in this system.

In terms of pay, PSERS is better then PERS, and LEOFF is better then PSERS.

Under the legislation that would move Parks, DNR, and LCB to general authority there is a provision that states it does not allow them to go from PSERS to LEOFF. However, there was a similar provision when WDFW went from limited to general authority, 20 years later the legislature allowed WDFW Officers to enroll in LEOFF.

However down the road these "new" general authority officers can definitely come and say we have more authority, we should get more pay.

LCB Officers got a pay raise about 5 years ago simply because they were the lowest paid officers in the state, and turnover was unbelievable. They got a raise and the turnover issue is gone. And in the LCB bill it actually states that if the LCB sends a new officer through the full police academy they must commit 24 months to the LCB, if they leave earlier they must reimburse the LCB for their training costs. Honestly, LCB Officers already have a good bargaining chip for another raise, as a result of the marijuana initiative they now have authority/jurisdiction over most drug laws, anything from weed to cocaine. They didn't have this authority prior to December 6, 2012

[Special T]

I was talking with a LEO friend of mine tonight and he was talking about the tax implications of the MJ law. He stated that if the State used a FDIC insured bank the Feds would seize the MJ tax money, so in order to run the tax program they would have to set up a "state bank" so that the funds could not be ransacked... so convoluted i got to ask which way is up?