HB 2765: Clarifying Law Enforcement Authority of State Park Rangers PASSED

[bigtex]

There has always been confusion as to the law enforcement authority of State Park Rangers. Current state law simply says "The members of the commission and its designated employees shall be vested with police powers to enforce the laws of this state." State Parks as an agency has always had a policy that their Rangers will only execute state authority on actual State Park lands (unless deputized to enforce law outside the park). Many have said that the current law is so vague that an argument could be made that State Park Rangers could enforce law anywhere in the state. In comparison, the law for DNR Officers actually says "on state lands."

HB 2765 sponsored by Representative Kretz (R), Moscoso (D), Griffey (R), Hayes (R), and Holy (R) clarifies the law enforcement authority of State Park Rangers. Under the bill State Park Rangers would have authority in the following circumstances:

-On State Park lands
-In "winter recreation facilities" (aka Sno-Parks) no matter what the land ownership is, as long as it's a state run Sno-Park
-On public lands within 1 mile of a State Park boundary if the offense impacts park visitor safety or resources
-Throughout the state, in response to an emergency involving an immediate threat to human life or property
-In response to the request of a peace officer with enforcement authority
-When in fresh pursuit (Ranger attempts to contact/pull someone over in the park and they flee out of the park)
-Outside of the above situations when 'deputized' by a County Sheriff or city Police Chief

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2765.pdf

[bigtex]

Something that is really surprising to me is that this is a widely supported bill by the Republicans. The fact that 4 of the 5 sponsors are Republicans is surprising. Hayes and Holy are current/former LEOs.

Realistically, this bill is a watered down version of a bill a couple years ago that would've granted statewide full authority to Rangers. This bill would certainly broaden their current authority (currently just on State Park lands), but not to the full/general authority that a bill proposed several years ago.

[Wazukie]

I would guess that the Rangers in my area, Klickitat County, must be deputized as the respond to incidents outside the parks all the time. 

[bigtex]

I would guess that the Rangers in my area, Klickitat County, must be deputized as the respond to incidents outside the parks all the time. 

Yea that would be the case.

I do know that the former Klickitat County Sheriff deputized DNR, so I wouldn't be surprised if the former/current also deputized State Parks. I do know that the current Klickitat County Sheriff has said he would deputize federal land management LEOs (US Fish and Wildlife, Forest Service, etc) if they wanted it.

[timberfaller]

If Kretz sponsored it,  IT is probably something GOOD for the People of WA!!

I don't think to many "elected" Sheriff's will "deputize" a park ranger! I sure wouldn't! of the one's I have met!

[bigtex]

If Kretz sponsored it,  IT is probably something GOOD for the People of WA!!

I don't think to many "elected" Sheriff's will "deputize" a park ranger! I sure wouldn't! of the one's I have met!

You'd be surprised. Most Sheriff's in WA do deputize DNR, USFS, BLM, etc. State Parks is just starting to seek deputations from Sheriff's over the past few years.

[birddogdad]

so the purpose of clarification is what I am working to understand. I wonder if this stems from the fiscal park closures of the past and lack of real jurisdictional authority or overstepping the authority they had or the shooting of a Ranger in the Rainier complex?

[Tom Reichner]

Under the bill State Park Rangers would have authority in the following circumstances:
 .........
 ...........
-Throughout the state, in response to an emergency involving an immediate threat to human life or property
 ..........
 ............

This is the line that concerns me.  "Threat to property" could be interpreted in many ways, and a loose interpretation could be used to cover just about anything.  For example:

Say a state park ranger sees me on private property climbing over a barb-wire fence. He thinks I don't have permission to be on that land.  He can say that I climbed over the fence in a way that could loosen the top strand of wire, and that is a threat to property.  So now he thinks he has the right to detain me until he contacts the landowner to see if I have permission.

Or what if I am on federal land and pull off the road and park in a grassy open area.  The state ranger can say that I am a threat to property because my hot muffler might start a grass fire.  So now he thinks he has the right to fine me for parking illegally, or to detain me until the federal authorities show up.

In either of the above cases, what I am doing would be none of the officer's business, because he is a state park ranger and I am not in a state park.  But the new law could be twisted in such a way that would give him the right to hassle me, despite the fact that I am not in a state park.  Sheesh!  What a terrible bill this is!

[bigtex]

so the purpose of clarification is what I am working to understand. I wonder if this stems from the fiscal park closures of the past and lack of real jurisdictional authority or overstepping the authority they had or the shooting of a Ranger in the Rainier complex?

I don't think it has anything do with any of those situations.

Realistically I think a lot of it has to do with an Attorney General's opinion of a few years ago. The AG said limited authority officers (Parks, DNR, Liquor Control) could not respond to mutual aid requests ("oh sh** we need help) from outside agencies unless the officer was deputized within that city/county. So say a mall shooting occurred within three blocks of a State Park, it was in the opinion of the AG that a State Park Ranger could not respond unless they were formally deputized. State Parks couldn't enter into an agreement with the city/county saying if sh** hits the fan then a ranger could respond. This would mean Parks, DNR and Liquor Control would have to have all of their officers deputized by every county and city agency in the state. This bill would fix that.

[bigtex]

Under the bill State Park Rangers would have authority in the following circumstances:
 .........
 ...........
-Throughout the state, in response to an emergency involving an immediate threat to human life or property
 ..........
 ............

This is the line that concerns me.  "Threat to property" could be interpreted in many ways, and a loose interpretation could be used to cover just about anything.  For example:

Say a state park ranger sees me on private property climbing over a barb-wire fence. He thinks I don't have permission to be on that land.  He can say that I climbed over the fence in a way that could loosen the top strand of wire, and that is a threat to property.  So now he thinks he has the right to detain me until he contacts the landowner to see if I have permission.

Or what if I am on federal land and pull off the road and park in a grassy open area.  The state ranger can say that I am a threat to property because my hot muffler might start a grass fire.  So now he thinks he has the right to fine me for parking illegally, or to detain me until the federal authorities show up.

In either of the above cases, what I am doing would be none of the officer's business, because he is a state park ranger and I am not in a state park.  But the new law could be twisted in such a way that would give him the right to hassle me, despite the fact that I am not in a state park.  Sheesh!  What a terrible bill this is!

Both of those situations are certainly far stretches and in my opinion impractical.

For #1 officers don't go looking around seeing if people are hopping fences and then trying to track down the landowner to see if they had permission. It works the other way, a landowner sees someone hopping their fence and they call LEOs.

For #2 your not going to see State Rangers just driving around federal lands looking for violations if this bill were to pass. In this situation you could have any LEO from any agency detain you for the hot muffler in grass situation. WDFW could see you and call in the USFS or other federal agency. It's actually illegal to do what you stated on WDFW lands in times of high fire severity. Also, in this case the actual offense isn't even a crime it's an infraction (petty offense ticketable only), you'd be hard pressed to find an officer who would think a violation that isn't even a crime would be a "threat to property"..

[ohopluke]

I don't know if there's enough law enforcement rangers out there to make much of a noticeable difference one way or another.

[bigtex]

I don't know if there's enough law enforcement rangers out there to make much of a noticeable difference one way or another.

I think most people probably think that State Park Rangers already possess this authority.

[Elkaholic daWg]

Looks like at least 50% are happy they don't!

[csaaphill]

no because our forefathers wanted each type of GOVT leo etc... to be separate. which is why were here now with lots of usurpations against our civil rights.

[bigtex]

no because our forefathers wanted each type of GOVT leo etc... to be separate. which is why were here now with lots of usurpations against our civil rights.

And when did George Washington say that the State Park Rangers shouldn't have authority outside of parks??? I seem to forget that speech....

And actually Phil under current state law if a State Park Ranger wanted to they could start enforcing law anywhere in the state because the current law is so vague into what their authority actually is. If that was to happen they would be compliant with state law but not agency policy. It's only agency policy that says currently rangers cant enforce law outside parks without being deputized...