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

[stevemiller]

OK I got that part,now back to jurisdiction,statewide for these groups?And is it right to say that in say king county the sheriff has more jurisdiction than state patrol?

[bigtex]

OK I got that part,now back to jurisdiction,statewide for these groups?And is it right to say that in say king county the sheriff has more jurisdiction than state patrol?

WDFW and WSP can go everywhere and do anything.
LCB can go everywhere and only do alcohol, some drugs, and some tobacco.
State Parks can enforce all state laws on State Park lands, but none off Park lands.
DNR can enforce all state laws on DNR lands, but none off of DNR lands.

A city officer or Sheriff's deputy has the same jurisdiction (under RCW it is known as "general authority) as WDFW or WSP. The difference is the sheriff is limited to his county, the state officer is not. A trooper or WDFW officer can do the exact same things a city officer or deputy sheriff can do.

[bigtex]

2/5 Update

Big change to the bill that was passed out of committee today.

The 2013 and 2014 bill would have given the LCB general authority and also permitted LCB Officers into the state law enforcement academy. As of right now LCB, DNR, Tribal agencies, and State Parks can get into the state law enforcement academy but they get in if there are no other officers taking that spot, if an agency submits a late request for an officer to attend the LCB (or agency listed above) gets bumped to the next class. This means you can have LCB Officers working for sometimes up to a year before attending an academy. It was really bad around 2005-6 when agencies were hiring officers by the ton and the LCB decided to send their new officers to the Idaho academy.

Now DNR gets around this by only hiring experienced officers. Tribal agencies can send their officers to the federal BIA academy, and State Parks sends their new LE Rangers to the NPS seasonal LE academy (same hours as the state LE academy) at Skagit College. So this means LCB is still sitting there with no concrete way of getting into an academy. The legislation in 2013 and 2014 basically said that LCB Officers are on par with the other full authority agencies when it came to academy attendance.

The proposed amendment I listed several days ago would have taken away the full authority provision and just granted authority over three new RCW titles. The academy provision remained. That amendment was removed by the sponsoring legislator.

The bill as passed today did not include any expansion of law enforcement powers to the LCB but simply says the state LE academy will treat LCB as general authority officers and allow them to attend. No more bumping to another class because they work for the LCB.

The vote today consisted of all Democrats voting in favor as well as Republicans Hope and Hayes (Hope is a former LEO, Hayes is a current LEO). The three Republicans voting against were Ross, Klippert (current LEO), and Holy (former LEO).

[bigtex]

I received a message asking why the proposed amendment (granting authority over three new titles) was dropped. I don't know the official reasoning but here is my guess.

It would obviously be beneficial for the LCB to get authority over those three new titles but that actually would still create problems. As of right now LCB Officers cant break up a fight because they don't have authority over assaults, and legally they cannot hold anyone till local LE shows up for offenses outside their authority.

So for a natural resource connection think of this. If the LCB Officer had authority over traffic, as was proposed in the bill and a LCB Officer is behind a guy swerving all over the road and he pulls the individual over. Turns out the guy isn't drunk he was just texting, but it also turns out there is an out of season deer in the back of the truck. Under the first bill which granted general authority the LCB Officer actually could have processed the case himself, or could have held the vehicle and driver and called for WDFW. But if the proposed amendment would've passed the LCB Officer could not legally hold the driver/vehicle because the deer violation is not under the three proposed titles, and the guy could drive off. Again, an officer cant hold someone for a violation outside their authority.

Under the proposed amendment the LCB wouldn't have gotten additional authority to enforce legend drugs, precursor drugs, or medical marijuana violations because those don't fall under RCW 69.50. They still couldn't have cited someone for smoking in a bar, yet could cite a minor with a cigarette and so on

This is why it makes sense that DNR Officers and State Parks LE Rangers can enforce all laws within their state lands.

[trophyhunt]

So  this brought a question to my mind, what do citizens have authority to do when they witness a crime in progress?  We have all heard of citizen arrest, what exactly does that mean? Can I hold a person down who I catch , for example, stealing mail until an officer shows up? Or any other crimes? If so, why wouldn't a LCB officer do the same?  Or are citizen arrest illegal?  Thanks

[bigtex]

So  this brought a question to my mind, what do citizens have authority to do when they witness a crime in progress?  We have all heard of citizen arrest, what exactly does that mean? Can I hold a person down who I catch , for example, stealing mail until an officer shows up? Or any other crimes? If so, why wouldn't a LCB officer do the same?  Or are citizen arrest illegal?  Thanks

It's a good question, and I already talked about an LCB Officer doing a citizens arrest but I will do it again.

WA's citizen arrest law is not under state statute but rather case law, which to me is a big red flag. Basically you are going by what some judges opinion is, rather then law.

WA Citizens Arrest:
Under Washington law, a private person can conduct a citizen’s arrest for a misdemeanor if the misdemeanor: (1) was committed in the citizen’s presence and (2) constituted a breach of the peace. State v. Gonzales, 24 Wn. App. 437, 439, 604 P.2d 168 (1979); Guijosa v. Wal-Mart Stores, 101 Wn. App. 777, 791, 6 P.3d 583 (2000).

A person can also conduct a citizen’s arrest for felonies. See State v. Malone, 106 Wn.2d 607, 724 P.2d 364 at FN1 (1986) citing State v. Miller, 103 Wn.2d 792, 698 P.2d 554 (1985) and State v. Gonzales, 24 Wn. App. 437, 604 P.2d 168 (1979).

Now back to an LCB Officer making a citizens arrest. I don't know of any agency in this country that allows their officers to make citizens arrests for something outside their authority and I believe it was brought up in the LCB hearing.

A lot of it has to do with liability. Who is more likely to be sued for something that occurred during a citizens arrest, John Doe the local farmer, or the LCB Officer in full uniform that says the arrest occurred because he was a citizen and not an LEO. Of course the LCB Officer would most likely be sued.

I'll say this, I've been in a lot of law enforcement bill hearings in Olympia, whenever a citizen is against any type of expansion of authority and brings up "citizens arrest" as a route against the bill, you can see the eyes roll from every committee member from a mile away

[trophyhunt]

Thanks, I bet you don't hear about too many citizen arrest's?  Seems real risky to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bigtex]

Thanks, I bet you don't hear about too many citizen arrest's?  Seems real risky to me.

Cant remember the last time I heard of one in WA. I personally would never do something that is simply found in case law rather then state statute.

[stevemiller]

Thanks, I bet you don't hear about too many citizen arrest's?  Seems real risky to me.

Cant remember the last time I heard of one in WA. I personally would never do something that is simply found in case law rather then state statute.

Really!In the eyes of the court citizens arrest happens all the time.UM  shoplifters caught by store keepers or security. RCW 9a.16.020

[Mike450r]

Thanks, I bet you don't hear about too many citizen arrest's?  Seems real risky to me.

Cant remember the last time I heard of one in WA. I personally would never do something that is simply found in case law rather then state statute.

Really!In the eyes of the court citizens arrest happens all the time.UM  shoplifters caught by store keepers or security. RCW 9a.16.020

Store security are commissioned by the PD in the city where they work to make arrests for shoplifting,  in Seattle and Tacoma the good looking ones sometimes get extra work as vice sting hookers.

[bigtex]

Thanks, I bet you don't hear about too many citizen arrest's?  Seems real risky to me.

Cant remember the last time I heard of one in WA. I personally would never do something that is simply found in case law rather then state statute.

Really!In the eyes of the court citizens arrest happens all the time.UM  shoplifters caught by store keepers or security. RCW 9a.16.020

The RCW you listed is not citizens arrest Steve. The RCW you listed is a defense if someone uses force to hold someone for a police officer.

For more on citizens arrest in WA: http://www.dol.wa.gov/business/securityguards/docs/citizenarrest1.pdf

[stevemiller]

Thats what a citizens arrest is I just gave the RCW you give case law.You have all these answers,let me ask you this,If a state patrol officer breaks up a fight between a husband and a wife does he take the guilty to the jail or does he call the local leo to come to the scene?

[bigtex]

Thats what a citizens arrest is I just gave the RCW you give case law.You have all these answers,let me ask you this,If a state patrol officer breaks up a fight between a husband and a wife does he take the guilty to the jail or does he call the local leo to come to the scene?

Read the state issued document I linked, it specifically states that citizens arrest in WA is not under state statute but rather by several court decisions.

Regarding your WSP question it's completely up to the Trooper. He can either handle the case himself or he can call for a local LEO. Just like how a Deputy or Trooper can arrest/charge someone for having an out of season deer in the back of the truck, or they can call WDFW. I know a WSP Trooper about 2 years ago made a hound hunting case on the Olympic Peninsula

WDFW has handled rape and domestic violence cases, WDFW has also called the county/city for rape and domestic cases.

[stevemiller]

That state issued document does not say that.what line or paragraph do you see that i dont. The RCW is clear.....

[bigtex]

That state issued document does not say that.what line or paragraph do you see that i dont. The RCW is clear.....

Second page second paragraph "While Washington has no statute concerning citizen’s arrests..."

And on the website "How to Make a Citizen’s Arrest":

"In the early part of America’s history, common law governed the power to make citizens’ arrests. Today, that power is governed by state statute. Every state in the U.S., except for a few states like North Carolina and Washington, have statutes granting private citizens the power to make arrests"

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2011/12/06/how-to-make-a-citizens-arrest/