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

[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.

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...

You know they set up different branches of Govt so as to check and balance each other out. It only goes along with their own distrust of Govt, and knowledge that once you Centralize all Govt into one, and that they all have the same power, then they knew then that abuse of power would exist.

[JLS]

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...

You know they set up different branches of Govt so as to check and balance each other out. It only goes along with their own distrust of Govt, and knowledge that once you Centralize all Govt into one, and that they all have the same power, then they knew then that abuse of power would exist.

Right.

Those three branches of government are executive, legislative, and judicial.  Not WSP, State Parks, and Liquor Control Board.

If you're going to roll your eyes at others, the least you could do is organize your facts correctly and make an articulate argument.

[trophyhunt]

I voted for less authority, I think.  Those rangers at mount rainier have an attitude, I don't think they should have authority outside the parks.  I almost think their guns should be taken away, but the incident when the ranger was killed keeps me in support of them having guns. 

[REHJWA]

Quote from reply #9

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"..
[/quote]

Tell this to:
1. The federal judge who sentenced the Ranchers in Oregon over a $100 back fire to save there business.....

2. Over zelues WDFW fish cops.

I do support clarifying which and where authorities have jurisdiction...

[bigtex]

I voted for less authority, I think.  Those rangers at mount rainier have an attitude, I don't think they should have authority outside the parks.  I almost think their guns should be taken away, but the incident when the ranger was killed keeps me in support of them having guns.

This has no impact on national park rangers (such as Mt Rainier) only state.

FYI, the Pierce County Sheriff deputized National Park Rangers at Mt Rainier for the first time ever about a year ago which gives them Deputy authority outside the park now.

But again, this bill is simply for the state guys not the NPS guys

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[trophyhunt]

Interesting, I swear I've seen them pull people over outside the park on 410.  Thanks for the info

[bigtex]

Interesting, I swear I've seen them pull people over outside the park on 410.  Thanks for the info

There's a national basically deputization agreement with all the land management agencies. So basically a NPS Ranger can act as a USFS LEO, a USFWS LEO, etc. So in your case the NPS Ranger may have pulled someone over on 410 under their USFS LEO authority if that part of 410 was still on USFS lands. But basically once their off federal lands they are now Pierce County deputies.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[bigtex]

I want to point out something because i think a few are confused.

Currently state law does not dictate where State rangers have authority, it just says they have police powers. Agency policy dictates they are only to use it on park lands.

So if a state ranger was driving thru downtown Seattle (no state park lands) today and pulled someone over and arrested them for DUI the case could be made that under state law they could do so, they simply violated agency policy.

This is why the bill is titled "clarifying" ranger authority and not "expanding ranger authority."

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[dreamunelk]

I will give it a yes because of the clarification.  That said, living in an area with several State parks I am not impressed with State Parks police officers.  Based on my experience they are not the brightest and lack in professionalism and knowledge.  I rank them with national Park Police officers.  This come from someone who works closely with many L. E. agencies. 
It is ironic that the first time I seen this post was not more than 30 minutes after watching a State Parks officer drive in a gas station parking lot like he had no clue of his surroundings with absolute arrogance.  He could have cared less that he cut off several people.  All to get gas and buy some junk food.

[csaaphill]

I think each should only do what they are set up to do no more.
WDFW- wildlife and making sure you have the appropriate tags for not running warrant checks which is state police, or local.
Forest service making sure your not starting fires, or other destructive things, and at campsites that have pay vouchers make sure your paying. Not going around playing LEO
So yes less authority make them do what they're supposed to be doing, and not crying for more money/ authority doing stuff they were never intended to do in the first place.

[bigtex]

I think each should only do what they are set up to do no more.
WDFW- wildlife and making sure you have the appropriate tags for not running warrant checks which is state police, or local.
Forest service making sure your not starting fires, or other destructive things, and at campsites that have pay vouchers make sure your paying. Not going around playing LEO
So yes less authority make them do what they're supposed to be doing, and not crying for more money/ authority doing stuff they were never intended to do in the first place.

So I assume you voted yes??

Because like I said, right now current law is so vague that realistically a ranger can do enforcement all over the state and simply violate agency policy, not law. If this bill were to pass, the law would not be so vague.

[Fl0und3rz]

I am typically against expansion of LE dominion beyond their scope of competence.  In this instance, it seems like more of a common sense clarification, and the limited expansion that is apparent in the OP, while creating some possibilities for potential abuse, does not seem so unreasonable. 

I voted yes.

[bigtex]

I am typically against expansion of LE dominion beyond their scope of competence.  In this instance, it seems like more of a common sense clarification, and the limited expansion that is apparent in the OP, while creating some possibilities for potential abuse, does not seem so unreasonable. 

I voted yes.

Let us not forget that State Park Rangers have the authority to enforce ALL state laws within parks. You got some Rangers making a ton of DUI arrests a year, I know many LEOs who hate doing DUIs because they are tricky. So I don't think there is a competency issue. Because of this, the state has found there would be no financial cost to this bill simply because they have all the training.

Realistically all it does is it says Rangers have authority in:
-Parks (duh)
-At state ran Sno-Parks as long as they are on public lands (always been lots of confusion about this, State Parks run the Sno-Parks but it's not an actual "park" so would Rangers have authority?)
-Within 1 mile of the park if the offense somehow impacts the park (this would be new, but is similar to a city cop seeing something a block out of his city and taking action)
-The two emergency situations (It was a long standing thought that if an agency asks for help that State Parks could go and help, the Attorney General said no because nowhere in state law does it allow that. To me this is a no-brainer. If a cop asks for help, the Ranger a block away in full police uniform should be able to help)
-Fresh pursuit (Similar to above, the agency always thought they had this, but it was murky, this would bring them in line with a county/city officer seeing something in their jurisdiction but the offender doesn't stop until they are outside the jurisdiction)
-City/County deputization (currently allowed under state law, no change)

[Fl0und3rz]

Agreed.  That is why I noted that it seemed like common sense and voted yes.  I have not read the detractors' posts, however.

[Firedogg]

 I was always under the impression that most state parks officers who had done acedaemy time were commissioned officers in "the state".  This must be cleaning up some language for those officers without a state law enforcement commission.