WDFW Looking to Decriminalize Many Violations So Prosecutors Can Handle Cases

[bigtex]

This has a lot of moving parts, so we begin:

Prior to 2012 many fish and wildlife misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors could be adjudictated by paying a fine on the ticket (known as bail forfeiture). This was different then all other crimes in WA which required a mandatory court date. Around 2010 the WA Supreme Court issued an administrative decision revoking the ability to pay a bail forfeiture, this rule took effect in 2012. WDFW, defense attorney's and prosecutor's were against this decision. What this meant was that a guy cited for fishing without a license (a misdemeanor) would now face a mandatory court appearance, whereas before he would've paid a $109 fine that was listed on the ticket. What this also meant is that EVERY fish and wildlife misdemeanor ticket would have to be approved by the prosecutor's before being actually filed in court, this of course led to many tickets not being filed.

What WDFW did in 2012 was ask the legislature to decriminalize certain offenses from misdemeanors to infractions (similar to a speeding ticket). The idea was that this would lessen the burden on courts and prosecutors for the onslaught of mandatory appearances. The legislature passed the bill, but in reality did little help.

Almost 8 years later WDFW is now asking the legislature to pass a bill stating almost all recreational fishing and non-big game hunting misdemeanors can also be charged as an infraction. The way it would work is that if you catch an offender say with one trout over the limit he could face an infraction ticket or a misdemeanor charge, realistically it would be the infraction. Now the only option is the misdemeanor route. The idea is that if the bill passes "everyday" violators would mostly be charged with infractions and the "big" offenders will be the only ones charged with misdemeanors. This also means the only cases going in front of a prosecutors desk are the bigger, more agregious violations, and not every fishing without a license case.

[vandeman17]

I am all for anything that would make the more serious offenses prosecuted AND convicted more harshly.

[WSU]

I'm all for it.  It's ridiculous to have things like inadvertently forgetting to pinch your barb being treated as real crimes.

[bigtex]

I'm all for it.  It's ridiculous to have things like inadvertently forgetting to pinch your barb being treated as real crimes.

Well that one is already an infraction, and has been for a long time. 

[WSU]

I just googled that after I posted.  You are correct!  My point is the same with some of the criminalized conduct though.

[ctwiggs1]

Bigtex, would this be at the officer’s discretion?

[bigtex]

Bigtex, would this be at the officer’s discretion?

In theory yes, but in reality it would be up the prosecutor's decision. As an example, lets say an officer does encounter an individual with say one trout over the limit and he decides to cite him as a misdemeanor instead of an infraction. Since it's a misdemeanor it then goes to the prosecutor's office. The prosecutor can either continue to charge the case as a misdemeanor, or decide it's going to be an infraction.

In most counties I am willing to bet the vast majority of the offenses would now be charged as infractions. The smaller counties where maybe there isn't as much of a reluctance to prosecute "everyday" cases they may continue to file as misdemeanors.

[Mudman]

Good idea bad bill.  Nope I hate it.  Give more power and judgement to officer?  Its their job to enforce laws not interpret them.  We have judges for that.  Maybe prosecutors should hammer the bad guys and quit trying to hammer the little guys?  Raiding their house and freezers because they have a pic on facebook of a fish or geo tag pic in wrong spot?    I do think this would make things better and officers would likely do good job with it I don't agree with it as too much discretion and potential for bias/ corruption etc.  It already exists in many ways but I don't think it is correct answer.  Clean up bill with specific requirements and penalties/limits etc so officer can enforce that and not make up their own rules.  Hey I like you here is a fine.  Hey your a dumb jerk I am prosecuting you.  No we don't need this in our system.  Besides it will fuel disrespect to officers.  I can hear 2 hunters talking now.  :I got a ticket for small crab in pot!"  Other Hunter says "What?  I got hammered cause I have brown eyes, brown skin, voted for Hillary, or something.  What was officers name?"  And there ya go...  See my point or am I just being stupid?

[Special T]

Is it just me or does it seem that this issue has run in a big circle?

 It seems like we are nearly back to where we started... Did we learning anything from it?

[Mudman]

Probably not.  Im bad.  Im a cynic.  I don't trust "we from Gooberment n here to help".  Less is better imop.  Try it cant be worse right?  Maybe it turns out better.  I don't have any answers just concerns.

[bigtex]

Is it just me or does it seem that this issue has run in a big circle?

 It seems like we are nearly back to where we started... Did we learning anything from it?

Not sure what you are getting at...

[Special T]

Is it just me or does it seem that this issue has run in a big circle?

 It seems like we are nearly back to where we started... Did we learning anything from it?

Not sure what you are getting at...

I remember the discussion of making everything a mandatory court appearance because severe poachers and such were receiving light slaps on the wrist. System becomes overloaded and now we are back to fines with some discretion. To me it appears that  the real issue is prosecutors and changing of the game violation laws hasn't really done anything... I'm guessing that it is just rearranging chairs on the deck with no real change from the beginning point.

[bigtex]

Is it just me or does it seem that this issue has run in a big circle?

 It seems like we are nearly back to where we started... Did we learning anything from it?

Not sure what you are getting at...

I remember the discussion of making everything a mandatory court appearance because severe poachers and such were receiving light slaps on the wrist. System becomes overloaded and now we are back to fines with some discretion. To me it appears that  the real issue is prosecutors and changing of the game violation laws hasn't really done anything... I'm guessing that it is just rearranging chairs on the deck with no real change from the beginning point.

Nobody wanted mandatory appearances for everything. It was an administrative rule change made by the Supreme Court. WDFW, county prosecutors, and even the public defenders associations were against it, but the Supreme Court changed the rule anyways.

[ctwiggs1]

We need more prosecutors!

[bigtex]

In my personal opinion, this is probably the best thing that WDFW and the legislature can do to sort out this mess. I doubt the Supreme Court will go back and say "oops" and bring back bail forfeiture. Even with bail forfeiture if someone contested a misdemeanor charge it then went to the prosecutors office who had to prepare for a full on jury trial for something like one fish over the limit or fishing without a license. Often times this would lead to the prosecutor's office dismissing the case. For several years in Spokane County if you were cited for a misdemeanor fish/wildlife violation and pled not guilty the prosecutor's office would automatically dismiss the case.

By making those types of violations infractions it takes the prosecutors office out of it and turns it more into a traffic court trial where it is the officer vs the defendant.