Proposed Legislation: Increase Authority of DNR Law Enforcement

[bigtex]

Since we are in the midst of a legislative session I thought I would periodically post some bills which members of this site might be interested in. Here is the first one.

HB 2472 & SB 6225

In WA there are essentially two types of law enforcement agencies; limited and general authority. General authority agencies can enforce all state laws. Limited authority agencies are either limited in what laws they can enforce or where they can enforce laws. Examples of general authority agencies are city police, county sheriff, college police, port police and then WDFW and WSP which are the only state agency general authority agencies. Examples of limited authority agencies are DNR, Parks, Liquor Control, Gambling Commission.

In the case of DNR under state law they are limited in both what laws they can enforce, but also where they can enforce them. In comparison Parks can enforce all state laws, but only on Park lands. One way DNR can circumvent this issue is by asking the local sheriff to commission a DNR Officer(s). When this occurs the DNR Officer can essentially act as a sheriff's deputy and enforce all laws that a deputy could. Some sheriffs give this authority countywide, others say they can only use it on DNR lands.

The issue that arises is that some sheriff's (such as King Co) do not give commissions to outside agencies. Currently DNR has agreements with about half the counties. For example DNR has this agreement for all their officers in Kittitas County and the sheriff allows to DNR to use this authority anywhere. So a DNR Officer in Kittitas County can enforce all state laws anywhere in the county but as soon as they cross the King County line he is limited to only enforcing a very few amount of laws and only on DNR lands. It becomes very troublesome especially since many of the issues that DNR Officers can run across up in the woods that aren't natural resource related are outside of their state authority.

So what this bill does is shift DNR from a limited authority agency to a general authority agency. This would mean DNR can enforce all state laws on all lands. DNR would have the same authority as WSP and WDFW.

This proposal does come up quite a bit. Will be interesting to see where it goes.

[wraithen]

No offense but I'm hoping it goes nowhere.

[ICEMAN]

Interesting, thanks for posting.

Bigtex, do you feel there is enough of a void to justify the upgrade? A statewide upgrade to deal with King county?

[christopheri]

DNR officers should patroll DNR lands and not be used to patroll lands outside of the DNR boundries. Prime example is the Capital forest. They need more enforcement there. The DIscover pass has helped get some of the crack heads out but it is still a mess up there. I almost never see an officer there and if they are given more authority in other jurisdictions wouldnt that take away from enforcment on DNR lands?

[ICEMAN]

Like with wildlife officers, as they drive out to an area, they may encounter a drunk driver...etc...

[wraithen]

They can call the cops just the same as me. I think they need to figure out how to fix the budget and get more officers, not have 6 guys doing the work of 60. Cops here don't even have to try to find people doing something wrong, they just pick out the biggest offender in sight most of the time. (Traffic)

[Wenatcheejay]

I don't know if this is good or bad? My concern is IMO this State is plundering it's resources and spreading agencies mandates thinner. bigtex, I'd love to hear if you think this would help law enforcement or dilute it more?

[bigtex]

Bigtex, do you feel there is enough of a void to justify the upgrade? A statewide upgrade to deal with King county?

It's not just with King County, that was just my example. There are several counties who have policies against comissioning outside agencies. The problem with commissioning is that it's political. The sheriff can yank the power from DNR at anytime. So if DNR cites the sheriff's brother and the sheriff doesn't like it then maybe he's the type that will pull the authority from DNR. So with using county commissions you have to walk a fine line. You make DNR general authority and it is now out of the hands of the county SO.

Personally I would like to see the legislation in a manner where DNR Officers have general authority on all STATE (DNR, WDFW, Parks) lands. Sort of like how State Park Rangers have full authority only within their parks. But I don't see the importance of making DNR 100% general authority with the ability to enforce all laws everywhere. And if DNR wants to continue to press the issue of authority off state lands they can continue with the county agreements.

However DNR does need some type of increase in their enforcement power because in the counties where the SO does not give county authority to DNR the DNR Officers can not really do a whole lot.

[seth30]

Big Tex,

a good idea to have more authority with DNR, but would this require extra funding, and if so I know we are not getting enough from the discovery pass, so where would the cash come from? 

[bigtex]

DNR officers should patroll DNR lands and not be used to patroll lands outside of the DNR boundries. Prime example is the Capital forest. They need more enforcement there. The DIscover pass has helped get some of the crack heads out but it is still a mess up there. I almost never see an officer there and if they are given more authority in other jurisdictions wouldnt that take away from enforcment on DNR lands?

Capital Forest probably gets the most DNR Enforcement of any DNR lands in the state. What this will really do is increase the laws DNR can enforce. Does it mean that if they are traveling down I-5 and see a DUI they could arrest? Yes it does. However I don't think you'll start seeing DNR doing routine traffic enforcement on I-5

[Humptulips]

Bad idea IMHO. Their wages will go up and they will spend less time on the stuff they were hired to do.
That's what happened to WDFW.

[bigtex]

Big Tex,

a good idea to have more authority with DNR, but would this require extra funding, and if so I know we are not getting enough from the discovery pass, so where would the cash come from?

Generally speaking no extra funding will be needed to simply increase authority. Now DNR Officers could down the road say they deserve more pay since they have more authority. This bill keeps DNR Officers out of the retirement system for firefighters and general authority police agencies, so there is no change in regards to benefits.

Several years ago WDFW was against similar legislation because they believe that if DNR become general authority then they could get more bargaining power for more officers and possibly the money for those officers could have been used for WDFW. That was just one of the mindsets at the time.

[Jingles]

We already have enough Barney fife's out there that because they have a badge period they think they can enforce the laws anywhere I think if they are employed but eh Parks that is their sole jurisdiction same goes for city wanna be cops their jurisdiction should be limited to the city/ town limits where they are employed . To the best of My knowledge we don't live in a police state and don't need every badge toting cop wanna be cop trying to enforce the law.
Give them the authority to enforce the laws but restrict them to the lands where they are employed DNR DNR lands, Parks Parks Lands notwher they just happen to see some one doing 70 in a 55 like the Damned USFS barney here does





 

[seth30]

Big Tex,

a good idea to have more authority with DNR, but would this require extra funding, and if so I know we are not getting enough from the discovery pass, so where would the cash come from?

Generally speaking no extra funding will be needed to simply increase authority. Now DNR Officers could down the road say they deserve more pay since they have more authority. This bill keeps DNR Officers out of the retirement system for firefighters and general authority police agencies, so there is no change in regards to benefits.

Several years ago WDFW was against similar legislation because they believe that if DNR become general authority then they could get more bargaining power for more officers and possibly the money for those officers could have been used for WDFW. That was just one of the mindsets at the time.

Thanks for clearing that up

[buckfvr]

It serves one purpose and only one purpose, and that is to enable them to write more citations.......create/generate revenue for the poor mismanaged state.  They cant afford to increase man power so they are attemptimg to maximize the man power they have.  I personally prefer game wardens to focus on fish and wildlife.....not be out there looking for any and every type violation they can.  They imparticularly need to focus on their primary job description.  Same goes for DNR and any other agency.......the stinkin state just wants something for nothing from everyone.  Why not enlist a bunch of folks to serve as eyes in the woods but let them run around town and anywhere else they want and squeal like pigs about everything.  All that costs them is an occassional special permit or some points......