Prosecuting Attorney Investigating Predator Problem In Stevens County

[pianoman9701]

Wolves being such a tourist boost for the state and such a fluffy hugable creature and all (sarc), I could see the moron in charge pushing the AG to take that on.

[bearpaw]

It's on again but I missed getting the whole number, I forgot the last two or three numbers I think it was something like this: RCW 77.15.

The lady is upset that WDFW refuses to do anything to the predator and blames her for not locking up the animals at night in a cougar proof building. They said their family has lived on that land for over 100 years and never had problems until the last few years.

WDFW is failing us!

[Skyvalhunter]

It's not going to get any better my guess.

[Ridgeratt]

Cougar Proof Building.   

[bigtex]

It's on again but I missed getting the whole number, I forgot the last two or three numbers I think it was something like this: RCW 77.15.

Hmm. That's the fish and wildlife enforcement code (laws you can be charged with) and I don't see anything in there establishing the county programs like you mention. And in reality if the law did exist it wouldn't be in 77.15.

Come on Dale get me the full code! 

[bearpaw]

It's on again but I missed getting the whole number, I forgot the last two or three numbers I think it was something like this: RCW 77.15.

Hmm. That's the fish and wildlife enforcement code (laws you can be charged with) and I don't see anything in there establishing the county programs like you mention. And in reality if the law did exist it wouldn't be in 77.15.

Come on Dale get me the full code! 

I'll try to be Johnny on the spot next time it's on! 

[CAMPMEAT]

Boy, the rest of the state sure has abandoned the residents of Stevens County. I'd be arming and hounding up. I hope the sheriff won't allow WDFW LE jurisdiction in his county while his residents clean things up.

What's he going to do, arrest WDFW Officers for exercising the authority granted to them under state law? Good luck, even the most anti-fed sheriffs have never done such a move against federal LEOs (even though they always threaten it)

I honestly think the prosecutor has the most power in this. He could start declining to prosecute WDFW cases.

Since when does the federal agencies have more rights than Joe Public for being arrested by the elected Sheriff of a county who has the ultimate authority to arrest a federal appointed LEO ? I think it's more of a courtesy thing more than anything else. Can you provide the proof they are not allowed to arrest a federal anybody ?

[Special T]

Some one just call the procecutor!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[bigtex]

Boy, the rest of the state sure has abandoned the residents of Stevens County. I'd be arming and hounding up. I hope the sheriff won't allow WDFW LE jurisdiction in his county while his residents clean things up.

What's he going to do, arrest WDFW Officers for exercising the authority granted to them under state law? Good luck, even the most anti-fed sheriffs have never done such a move against federal LEOs (even though they always threaten it)

I honestly think the prosecutor has the most power in this. He could start declining to prosecute WDFW cases.

Since when does the federal agencies have more rights than Joe Public for being arrested by the elected Sheriff of a county who has the ultimate authority to arrest a federal appointed LEO ? I think it's more of a courtesy thing more than anything else. Can you provide the proof they are not allowed to arrest a federal anybody ?

Some sheriff's have stated they will arrest a federal LEO for enforcing certain laws, typically those which are not liked in the area such as off road closures. A sheriff will come out and say if the BLM/USFS enforce this closure I will arrest them! Well under what authority? What law is the federal LEO breaking? It's Congress and the President which have approved the laws that enacted that closure, just like it's the legislature and governor which have approved the laws that enact our hunting and fishing seasons. It's all political showboating, in fact it's actually illegal to prevent a federal employee from carrying out their duties, doesn't matter if its a federal LEO or federal maintenance employee picking up garbage. Which is probably why no sheriff has ever acted on their threat

[pianoman9701]

I'm not sure I understand. If the FBI is operating within Stevens Co., don't they have to check in with the sheriff to perform their duties? I thought that any LE has to answer to the Sheriff in his county in WA because he's the only one elected by a vote of the people. The others are appointed.

[bigtex]

I'm not sure I understand. If the FBI is operating within Stevens Co., don't they have to check in with the sheriff to perform their duties? I thought that any LE has to answer to the Sheriff in his county in WA because he's the only one elected by a vote of the people. The others are appointed.

No.

Some sheriff's claim that since they are the only ones elected then everyone must answer to them. But SCOTUS has consistently ruled that's not the case. City, state, federal, tribal agencies do not answer to the sheriff. The only time they do is if they want county authority. So if a DNR Officer (which under state law only has authority on DNR lands) wants authority off DNR lands the sheriff can deputize him. If the DNR Officer pisses him off then the sheriff can pull that authority and he would be stuck to just enforcing laws on DNR land.

About 25 sheriff's in WA deputize DNR Officers, 14 don't. So in 25 counties DNR Officers can pull you over on main street, and in 14 they can't and can only work DNR lands.

In Utah no sheriff's deputize BLM Rangers, so they can't arrest/cite anyone into state court but they can into federal court. Some sheriffs in Utah deputize USFS LEOs, so those LEOs can cite/arrest individuals into state or federal court.

[pianoman9701]

Understood and thanks for the clarification. I wish it were my way, though. Seems more democratic.

[CAMPMEAT]

I'm not sure I understand. If the FBI is operating within Stevens Co., don't they have to check in with the sheriff to perform their duties? I thought that any LE has to answer to the Sheriff in his county in WA because he's the only one elected by a vote of the people. The others are appointed.

No.

Some sheriff's claim that since they are the only ones elected then everyone must answer to them. But SCOTUS has consistently ruled that's not the case. City, state, federal, tribal agencies do not answer to the sheriff. The only time they do is if they want county authority. So if a DNR Officer (which under state law only has authority on DNR lands) wants authority off DNR lands the sheriff can deputize him. If the DNR Officer pisses him off then the sheriff can pull that authority and he would be stuck to just enforcing laws on DNR land.

About 25 sheriff's in WA deputize DNR Officers, 14 don't. So in 25 counties DNR Officers can pull you over on main street, and in 14 they can't and can only work DNR lands.

In Utah no sheriff's deputize BLM Rangers, so they can't arrest/cite anyone into state court but they can into federal court. Some sheriffs in Utah deputize USFS LEOs, so those LEOs can cite/arrest individuals into state or federal court.

All the Border Patrol Agents I know in and around Ferry and Stevens Counties are deputized.

What I've read states, the Sheriff has the authority to arrest a Federal Agent is why I was asking..

[bigtex]

I'm not sure I understand. If the FBI is operating within Stevens Co., don't they have to check in with the sheriff to perform their duties? I thought that any LE has to answer to the Sheriff in his county in WA because he's the only one elected by a vote of the people. The others are appointed.

No.

Some sheriff's claim that since they are the only ones elected then everyone must answer to them. But SCOTUS has consistently ruled that's not the case. City, state, federal, tribal agencies do not answer to the sheriff. The only time they do is if they want county authority. So if a DNR Officer (which under state law only has authority on DNR lands) wants authority off DNR lands the sheriff can deputize him. If the DNR Officer pisses him off then the sheriff can pull that authority and he would be stuck to just enforcing laws on DNR land.

About 25 sheriff's in WA deputize DNR Officers, 14 don't. So in 25 counties DNR Officers can pull you over on main street, and in 14 they can't and can only work DNR lands.

In Utah no sheriff's deputize BLM Rangers, so they can't arrest/cite anyone into state court but they can into federal court. Some sheriffs in Utah deputize USFS LEOs, so those LEOs can cite/arrest individuals into state or federal court.

All the Border Patrol Agents I know in and around Ferry and Stevens Counties are deputized.

I know Ferry & Okanogan have historically deputized USFS.

It really helps both agencies. If the county gets a 911 call of a domestic assault occurring and the deputies are 30 minutes away but a federal LEO who is deputized is 5 minutes the federal LEO could handle the call. But if that federal LEO isn't deputized he can't do anything since a domestic assault isn't a federal crime.

[bigtex]

Understood and thanks for the clarification. I wish it were my way, though. Seems more democratic.

Think about the mess.

The current Franklin County Sheriff has decided to not deputize any agencies. So does that mean all state officers (WDFW, WSP, etc.) city officers, etc. should move out of Franklin County? Who then does all the traffic enforcement? Fish and wildlife enforcement? Polices the cities?

The King County Sheriff for several different sheriff's had the same policy. Would WSP, WDFW, Liquor Control, State Parks, and all cities just move out and the sheriff would handle it all? Of course not.

I agree that it would allow for more "local control" especially regarding local issues but it's not how it works in any state.