WDFW LE Great Resource for HuntWA - Please Be Respectful

[snowpack]

I think if you aren't in the act of driving and there is gear such that it can be assumed reasonably that the vehicle is a temporary residence, then a warrant is needed to search the part of the vehicle that contains the personal effects in the 'occupied' area.

[Daytonite]

UCWARDEN did an excellent job in Columbia County when he was here.  Respected and hard working.

Yes he did!  

[Elkrunner]

I personally have not had any issues with any fish and wildlife officers.  Have I met a few that were a bit of an arse?  Once, but you have to remember these guys are all alone in most cases and patrolling the back woods.  On top of that they are contronting a bunch of rednecks with guns.  I think I might be a bit jumpy.  For the most part most of my run in with the fish and wildlife have been ok. 

[ucwarden]

I personally have not had any issues with any fish and wildlife officers.  Have I met a few that were a bit of an arse?  Once, but you have to remember these guys are all alone in most cases and patrolling the back woods.  On top of that they are contronting a bunch of rednecks with guns.  I think I might be a bit jumpy.  For the most part most of my run in with the fish and wildlife have been ok.

Search of vehicles (and searches in general) are very difficult to nail down.  Search and seizure laws change every year, and there are many discussions and classes on this topic.
The F&W law, which is most applicable to this thread is RCW 77.15.094 and reads:

Fish and wildlife officers and ex officio fish and wildlife officers may make a reasonable search without warrant of a vessel, conveyances, vehicles, containers, packages, or other receptacles for fish, seaweed, shellfish, and wildlife which they have reason to believe contain evidence of a violation of law or rules adopted pursuant to this title and seize evidence as needed for law enforcement. This authority does not extend to quarters in a boat, building, or other property used exclusively as a private domicile, does not extend to transitory residences in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and does not allow search and seizure without a warrant if the thing or place is protected from search without warrant within the meaning of Article I, section 7 of the state Constitution. Seizure of property as evidence of a crime does not preclude seizure of the property for forfeiture as authorized by law.

I am not an attorney (thank god) so I can't and won't give legal advice, however; if you are ever in a sitaution where you feel your rights are being violated, object verbally (if oyu want) but do not interfere in any way.  Let your attorney sort things out.

[Hi-Liter]

I personally have not had any issues with any fish and wildlife officers.  Have I met a few that were a bit of an arse?  Once, but you have to remember these guys are all alone in most cases and patrolling the back woods.  On top of that they are contronting a bunch of rednecks with guns.  I think I might be a bit jumpy.  For the most part most of my run in with the fish and wildlife have been ok.

Search of vehicles (and searches in general) are very difficult to nail down.  Search and seizure laws change every year, and there are many discussions and classes on this topic.
The F&W law, which is most applicable to this thread is RCW 77.15.094 and reads:

Fish and wildlife officers and ex officio fish and wildlife officers may make a reasonable search without warrant of a vessel, conveyances, vehicles, containers, packages, or other receptacles for fish, seaweed, shellfish, and wildlife which they have reason to believe contain evidence of a violation of law or rules adopted pursuant to this title and seize evidence as needed for law enforcement. This authority does not extend to quarters in a boat, building, or other property used exclusively as a private domicile, does not extend to transitory residences in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and does not allow search and seizure without a warrant if the thing or place is protected from search without warrant within the meaning of Article I, section 7 of the state Constitution. Seizure of property as evidence of a crime does not preclude seizure of the property for forfeiture as authorized by law.

I am not an attorney (thank god) so I can't and won't give legal advice, however; if you are ever in a sitaution where you feel your rights are being violated, object verbally (if oyu want) but do not interfere in any way.  Let your attorney sort things out.

I am an attorney and deal with search and seizure claims. Pretty much what UCwarden said is correct. However, most of my claims go straight to federal court. I wish they would stay in state court.

WDFW has more authority to check you than a police officer, its in the statue. However, if you agree verbally to anything you consented to a search and its over.

[pianoman9701]

So, according to RCW 77.15.094, they can only search without a warrant when "they have reason to believe contain evidence of a violation of law or rules adopted pursuant to this title and seize evidence as needed for law enforcement.", or, if you give them permission to do so. I read this to mean that they DON'T have the right to search your vehicle just because they think you've been hunting. Hi-Liter, what say you?

[Hi-Liter]

Only if they watched you do something like take fish, waterfowl, big game etc. But if you consent its over. Sometimes and I am sure some will chime in on this, an officer will push it and see how far he can get with you. I would just let them search, but I would say to them " I am not consenting to this and I want my lawyer," after you say this shut-up! That way any evidence seized maybe "fruits of the poisonous tree" and let the judge decide.

IMO if you say no, then GW should get a warrant. But, GW has more authority to check you and your vehicle because you are purchasing a "license" to take state or federal game that is the difference than a police officer just stopping you and searching your vehicle with or without consent.

[pianoman9701]

But that reason to believe there's evidence, as opposed to them just having the authority because you have a license, is a big distinction. Even seeing you loading fish if the fish are in season wouldn't meet that burden of proof.

[Hi-Liter]

What is the loading of fish. Watching you unload fish from a cooler in your truck while fishing (in public), probably reasonable suspicion to search and ask for license? watching you unload fish from your cooler in your truck at home-tell him to get a warrant you don't have consent. Yes I would agree about evidence v. authority because of a license.

[LndShrk]

I have always found LEO's to be very amicable when in the field or on the water. 



More importantly I thank those willing to come on here and participate to help inform us of the nuances in the laws that may not be so clear.
I understand that the Enforcement officers do not make the laws they only enforce as interpreted. 

If we do not like the laws then it is up to us to change them through the appropriate processes.

[bigtex]

WDFW has more authority to check you than a police officer, its in the statue. However, if you agree verbally to anything you consented to a search and its over.

Hi-Liter,

In 2012 the legislature granted "ex officio fish and wildlife officers" the same search and inspection authority as WDFW Officers. As you probably know, ex officio officers are city, county, state, and some federal officers. However, in order to run a formal wildlife check station there still must be an actual WDFW Officer there.

[pianoman9701]

I've always thought that Fish and game officers were a benefit to the community, but their reputation has changed in recent years.  What I mean by this is the transformation of the "Game Warden" into the "Game Cop" and the associated attitude change that came with it.  I grew up with game wardens walking around the woods full of armed hunters checking licenses and fish catch.  They were polite, they were professional, and they were respected.   The law enforcement type Game Warden you see today is not like that.  I could appreciate the local warden and his task of checking hunters and fisherman if it was done with a modicum of politeness and professionalism.  This "show me your hands" mentality is offensive to me as a law abiding hunter.  I frankly don't care if the warden has to deal with other than honorable people.  He chose his job from all that were available to him, the low life element you are forced to deal with is no excuse to be offensive to everyone you meet.  The argument that you have to assume the worst is is a rationalization.  You don't have to assume the worst you choose to.  I have always viewed a hunter as a trusted person, someone who goes to the trouble and expense of licensing himself.  Someone who invests in equipment and firearms, and hunts.  This is not someone you should assume will shoot you without cause.  Interestingly when I lived in Germany my hunting license automatically made me a "trusted citizen", you showed it with your ID any time you  were asked.  It was assumed that you were a reputable person because you were a hunter. 

Remember this is the job you chose.  If it is that scary to you then choose another.  There are law enforcement types out there who can approach a scary guy or situation and not be an ass when they do it.  That is the professionalism of the LEO field showing thru.  Everyone doesn't have that in their personality and they should take that into consideration when it comes to their job.   

So, you have personally been treated disrespectfully by a gamie, or is this because of things you've heard? I've got to say, I hear guys talk about this on HuntWA and in all of the interactions I've had with DFW-LE, none have been anything but professional and courteous. Of course, I go out of my way to smile and try to put them at ease, as well as being within the law. As far as asking to see your hands is concerned, I certainly would understand them being cautious around loaded firearms in the field. This is one of the few occupations in the world where most of the civilians you contact are armed, and usually with really high-powered stuff.

[LndShrk]

I've always thought that Fish and game officers were a benefit to the community, but their reputation has changed in recent years.  What I mean by this is the transformation of the "Game Warden" into the "Game Cop" and the associated attitude change that came with it.  I grew up with game wardens walking around the woods full of armed hunters checking licenses and fish catch.  They were polite, they were professional, and they were respected.   The law enforcement type Game Warden you see today is not like that.  I could appreciate the local warden and his task of checking hunters and fisherman if it was done with a modicum of politeness and professionalism.  This "show me your hands" mentality is offensive to me as a law abiding hunter.  I frankly don't care if the warden has to deal with other than honorable people.  He chose his job from all that were available to him, the low life element you are forced to deal with is no excuse to be offensive to everyone you meet.  The argument that you have to assume the worst is is a rationalization.  You don't have to assume the worst you choose to.  I have always viewed a hunter as a trusted person, someone who goes to the trouble and expense of licensing himself.  Someone who invests in equipment and firearms, and hunts.  This is not someone you should assume will shoot you without cause.  Interestingly when I lived in Germany my hunting license automatically made me a "trusted citizen", you showed it with your ID any time you  were asked.  It was assumed that you were a reputable person because you were a hunter. 

Remember this is the job you chose.  If it is that scary to you then choose another.  There are law enforcement types out there who can approach a scary guy or situation and not be an ass when they do it.  That is the professionalism of the LEO field showing thru.  Everyone doesn't have that in their personality and they should take that into consideration when it comes to their job.   

So, you have personally been treated disrespectfully by a gamie, or is this because of things you've heard? I've got to say, I hear guys talk about this on HuntWA and in all of the interactions I've had with DFW-LE, none have been anything but professional and courteous. Of course, I go out of my way to smile and try to put them at ease, as well as being within the law. As far as asking to see your hands is concerned, I certainly would understand them being cautious around loaded firearms in the field. This is one of the few occupations in the world where most of the civilians you contact are armed, and usually with really high-powered stuff.

 

[turkeyfeather]

I've always thought that Fish and game officers were a benefit to the community, but their reputation has changed in recent years.  What I mean by this is the transformation of the "Game Warden" into the "Game Cop" and the associated attitude change that came with it.  I grew up with game wardens walking around the woods full of armed hunters checking licenses and fish catch.  They were polite, they were professional, and they were respected.   The law enforcement type Game Warden you see today is not like that.  I could appreciate the local warden and his task of checking hunters and fisherman if it was done with a modicum of politeness and professionalism.  This "show me your hands" mentality is offensive to me as a law abiding hunter.  I frankly don't care if the warden has to deal with other than honorable people.  He chose his job from all that were available to him, the low life element you are forced to deal with is no excuse to be offensive to everyone you meet.  The argument that you have to assume the worst is is a rationalization.  You don't have to assume the worst you choose to.  I have always viewed a hunter as a trusted person, someone who goes to the trouble and expense of licensing himself.  Someone who invests in equipment and firearms, and hunts.  This is not someone you should assume will shoot you without cause.  Interestingly when I lived in Germany my hunting license automatically made me a "trusted citizen", you showed it with your ID any time you  were asked.  It was assumed that you were a reputable person because you were a hunter. 

Remember this is the job you chose.  If it is that scary to you then choose another.  There are law enforcement types out there who can approach a scary guy or situation and not be an ass when they do it.  That is the professionalism of the LEO field showing thru.  Everyone doesn't have that in their personality and they should take that into consideration when it comes to their job.   

Totally agree! You chose to be in the service business. Seems some have forgotten that. Customer service is customer service. Doesn't matter if you are working the local retail store or as a game officer. Attitude is everything. Treat people the way you want to be treated.

[Bob33]

"I grew up with game wardens walking around the woods full of armed hunters checking licenses and fish catch.  They were polite, they were professional, and they were respected.   The law enforcement type Game Warden you see today is not like that."

You don't know what I see, and having hunted in Washington for many decades I can emphatically state that I don't see what you see.

I see the vast majority of enforcement officers as professional and respected. A few aren't, but using a broad brush as you do is unjustifiable unless you've met every single enforcement officer and been treated poorly. Have you?

Perhaps you are the cause of this poor treatment?