SB 6130 & HB 2394 Would Grant More LE Authority to Liquor Officers MAJOR CHANGE

[bigtex]

Weird, I swear the guys in green trucks have people pulled over more times than not when ever I go over that pass. I may be wrong on the exact color of the truck.

Ya Forest and Park Service only have white LEO vehicles. There are some green USFS LEO vehicles but they are only on the Mexico border so they don't get confused with Border Patrol.

oh, I'm not sure where this pic was taken. It's on their web site.

That's a very old picture from I believe the 1990s from a USFS LEO in the Maine area. Up until around 2000 the USFS LEOs had green vehicles, now all are white except for the border.

But NPS has had white patrol vehicles for as long as I can remember.

[bigtex]

I've always thought that the LCB would be great partners with WDFW in enforcing sanitary shellfish laws.

There's really a couple components to the law but one of them is selling uncertified shellfish. Basically meaning the restaurant/store didn't get the shellfish legally.

Well what state LE entity is always in stores and restaurants? Liquor Control Board

Who enforces sanitary shellfish laws? WDFW

LCB can't enforce these laws because they a) don't have general authority and b) even with this bill they couldn't because these laws are under RCW 69.30 and the only addition to LCB authority would be RCW 9, 9A, and 46.

I think we would see a significant increase in the amount of sanitary shellfish offenses if LCB Officers could enforce the laws.

Right now a LCB Officer could open a fridge to look at the alcohol in an Asian restaurant and if he saw illegal clams he would have no authority over them.

[Special T]

This bill is getting closer to what i may find acceptable. 2 reason why i don't like general athority. The laws are complex, and if it is necessary for the state to have "specialized" agencies to deal with certain issues then they should focus on those issues. I can see how a DUI directly relates to a LCB job description, A speeding ticket does not. I would think that witnessing an assult should be covered as well, why? Bar brawl... The shell fish issue may be nice, but ithink that is pushing the line... You might be able to convince me of it but  .

Just because 85% of the rest of the states are doing something does NOT mean we should be also. There is a lot of Dumb stuff happening in other states, and I  DO NOT want washington to be like the East Coast or California. That justification to me is a non starter and is for people that cannot sell the needed expansion of government. EVERY time i hear some one say it we should give them a knee jerk HELL NO! Explain yourself! 

[bigtex]

This bill is getting closer to what i may find acceptable. 2 reason why i don't like general athority. The laws are complex, and if it is necessary for the state to have "specialized" agencies to deal with certain issues then they should focus on those issues. I can see how a DUI directly relates to a LCB job description, A speeding ticket does not. I would think that witnessing an assult should be covered as well, why? Bar brawl... The shell fish issue may be nice, but ithink that is pushing the line... You might be able to convince me of it but  .

And under the amended bill an assault would fall under their authority. And that's the problem right now, a LCB Officer could walk into a bar and see an assault and would have no legal standing to break it up and arrest the assaulter, yet could walk over to the bartender/bouncer and arrest them for allowing for the fight to happen and then cite the business. Doesn't make sense to me at least.

I personally don't think the battle is over here. The next battle with this bill is going to be traffic. You see sheriffs in other states complaining about feds enforcing state laws, which laws are they all upset about? Traffic, they could care less about the natural resource stuff, they just hate having the BLM/USFS doing traffic stops. So I think that is the next "battle" these guys will be facing.

But to me it makes perfect sense for them to have traffic, especially for DUI. And I can already see a LCB policy being something along the lines of "an LCB Officer cannot make a traffic stop unless the driver is creating a dangerous situation" so the guy with no seatbelt or license plate light will not be pulled over.

I think it's interesting the legislature didn't include the public/indoor smoking law which I know LCB Officers run into. The offenses aren't even criminal acts, they are infractions, yet that section of laws would still be outside their authority.

[iusmc2002]

Right now a LCB Officer could open a fridge to look at the alcohol in an Asian restaurant and if he saw illegal clams he would have no authority over them.

Illegal clams?  Really?!  Great argument for needing more authority.....

[bigtex]

Right now a LCB Officer could open a fridge to look at the alcohol in an Asian restaurant and if he saw illegal clams he would have no authority over them.

Illegal clams?  Really?!  Great argument for needing more authority.....

Now you are putting words in my mouth, I never said they need more authority so they can simply do clams.

I said if they had general authority then they could be partners with WDFW and enforce those laws.

I don't think LCB needs more authority just so they can do clams, they need more authority because of the other public safety crimes occurring in liquor establishments.

[bigtex]

I've seen it with this legislation and legislation regarding the other agencies as well as WDFW. Some people think that if one of these limited authority agencies encounter something outside their authority they should just call city, county, state. And for those that want WDFW to go back to the days of just fish and wildlife (mid 1980s) they say the same thing.

Here is the problem, in law enforcement there is a saying along the lines of "if you catch it, you clean it." Basically meaning if you see the fight, you stop the fight, you arrest the assaulter and take him to jail. You don't stop the fight and ask for the Sheriff/PD. You don't run a car, it comes back stolen and then call the locals. Basically, you finish your own mess. It came up during the LCB hearing where the Chief said right now his officers can do administrative financial investigations, but cant do criminal financial investigations and when they give the criminal aspect to a PD/SO rarely do they investigate.

It's very similar in the non-LE world. Would a car mechanic want to essentially fix something that another mechanic has already started, or would he rather be the mechanic from the get-go? Would a carpenter want to come into a project in the middle, or be the original contractor?

I was recently reading a LE forum and a Sheriff in California told the state and feds (land management agencies) that they will back up and support them, but "if you catch it, you clean it." So if CA Fish and Wildlife gets a guy with meth, then it's a CA Fish and Wildlife case, the county will come out and assist, but that's all they will do.

Right now there is a lot of catching, and passing on with the LCB. Not much "catching and cleaning."

[Elkaholic daWg]

Like your first paragraph.  t LEO / Mechanics

[Knocker of rocks]

It about the clams, in more ways than one

[bigtex]

They allready have the authority just like all the citizens of this state,,,,,,,,,,,,,Call it in.I've called Leo several times on drunk or out of control drivers.Its not very often that a LEO does anything before he/she calls it in any way.Before a LEO pulls over a drunk driver they call it in first,pull the driver over and the other LEO know whats going on and can assist,and do most of the time.So these other groups trying to get the authority dont need it any more than any of us. 

So when that DUI driver in front of a LCB Officer goes off the road and kills a pedestrian walker in your mindset this is ok? Because that's what your saying steve. You don't want a dangerous driver to be pulled off the road just because the officer has LCB on his badge and not WSP, Sheriff or City. You act like LEOs are around every corner, what if the closest non-LCB Officer able to stop the DUI driver is 30 minutes away from the LCB Officer? The Skamania Sheriff said this last year at the committee hearing and he was basically booed out of Olympia and the Sheriff's Association doesn't even want him to testify on bills anymore.

I'd hate to be a legislator and have the media ask me why the DUI driver who killed someone couldn't be taken off the road even though there was a state law enforcement officer driving behind them.

Sorry Jimmy your dad died because a drunk driver hit him, even though there was a state law enforcement officer behind him he couldn't pull the driver off the road because some people don't want LCB Officers to take dangerous people off the roads....

[Knocker of rocks]

Sorry Jimmy your dad died because a drunk driver hit him, even though there was a state law enforcement officer behind him he couldn't pull the driver off the road because some people don't want LCB Officers to take dangerous people off the roads....

Thank god you were able to pull out the old tried and true "it's all about the children"

Is there a "I wanna puke" icon?

[bigtex]

Sorry Jimmy your dad died because a drunk driver hit him, even though there was a state law enforcement officer behind him he couldn't pull the driver off the road because some people don't want LCB Officers to take dangerous people off the roads....

Thank god you were able to pull out the old tried and true "it's all about the children"

Is there a "I wanna puke" icon?

I wasn't even trying to the whole "all about the children" thing. You can change my statement to sorry jimmy your wife/dad/mom/brother/etc it's all the same thing.

There is a reason why most states (both heavily democratic and heavily republican states) have realized that a cop is a cop. Doesn't matter if your badge says WSP, WDFW, or LCB. But for some reason we fail to realize this in WA.

[Crunchy]

Having read through this thread I have yet to see one decent argument against it.  Ask any cop what they need, and the reply is almost always MORE cops.  They are being asked to do more with less, and every state, county, and city agency are going through major cuts or barely holding on. 
I would prefer that the state give the money and responsibility to the local sheriff's office, but if that wasn't an option then I would still support it.

[stevemiller]

I just read the comments section on this bill from the LCB and it says if certain conditions have been met by the LCB officer,What are these conditions?

[Knocker of rocks]

Having read through this thread I have yet to see one decent argument against it.  Ask any cop what they need, and the reply is almost always MORE cops.  They are being asked to do more with less, and every state, county, and city agency are going through major cuts or barely holding on. 
I would prefer that the state give the money and responsibility to the local sheriff's office, but if that wasn't an option then I would still support it.

But in this case they are requesting to do more.