Show Me Your Papers Please

[whitney]

SB 6135 Modifies provisions relating to enforcement of fish and wildlife violations.  This is very broad and frankly unclear with regard to whom may legally "check my credentials". 

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6135-S.pdf

A person who is a peace officer as defined in chapter 10.93 RCW may detain the person receiving the infraction for a reasonable period of time necessary to identify the person, check for outstanding warrants, and complete and issue a notice of infraction under RCW 7.84.050. A person who is to receive a notice of infraction is required to identify himself or herself to the peace officer by giving the person's name, address, and date of birth. Upon request, the person shall produce reasonable identification, including a driver's license or identicard. Any person who fails to comply with the requirement to identify himself or herself and give the person's
current address is guilty of a misdemeanor.

"Ex officio fish and wildlife officer" means

(a) A commissioned officer of a municipal, county, or state agency having as its primary function the enforcement of criminal laws in general, while the officer is acting in the respective jurisdiction of that agency;
(b) An officer or special agent commissioned by one of the following: The national marine fisheries service; the Washington state parks and recreation commission; the United States fish and wildlife service; the Washington state department of natural resources; the United States forest service; or the United States parks service, if the agent or officer is in the respective jurisdiction of the primary
commissioning agency and is acting under a mutual law enforcement assistance agreement between the department and the primary commissioning agency;
(c) A commissioned fish and wildlife peace officer from another state who meets the training standards set by the Washington state criminal justice training commission pursuant to RCW 10.93.090, 43.101.080, and 43.101.200, and who is acting under a mutual law
enforcement assistance agreement between the department and the primary commissioning agency; or
(d) A Washington state tribal police officer who successfully completes the requirements set forth under RCW 43.101.157, is employed by a tribal nation that has complied with RCW 10.92.020(2) (a) and (b), and is acting under a mutual law enforcement assistance agreement between the department and the tribal government.

[lokidog]

"Upon request, the person shall produce reasonable identification, including a driver's license or identicard."

I'm not sure but do you have to carry a DL or other official ID if you are not driving a car or truck?  I had a coastie give me crap for not having my DL in my boat.  I was not fishing at the time though I had my fishing gear and fishing license in the boat.

[bigtex]

Under this legislation the term "ex officio fish and wildlife officer" is actually further clarified, and NOT broadened. I am heading out for the day right now, when I get home tonight I will explain this legislation. If you are an hunter/fisherman, you want this legislation to pass. There are some parts that will increase penalties for poaching. Will explain more tonigh.....

So please do not "freak out" with what you see in the definition until after I post tonight 

[whitney]

Under this legislation the term "ex officio fish and wildlife officer" is actually further clarified, and NOT broadened. I am heading out for the day right now, when I get home tonight I will explain this legislation. If you are an hunter/fisherman, you want this legislation to pass. There are some parts that will increase penalties for poaching. Will explain more tonigh.....

So please do not "freak out" with what you see in the definition until after I post tonight 

My responsibility to know and understand the laws and regulations are the same as any driver that operates a motor vehicle on the roads must know the corresponding motor vehicle laws.  This bill seems well intentioned but how can I be expected to know that a park ranger or any other "ex officio"  is working in conjunction with WDFW and thus has  the authority of a WDFW officer? 

This is a law enforcement bill and I have difficulty with the broad stroke of pseudo law enforcement officer.   The language in this bill would find me guilty of a misdemeanor even if I was engaged in legal activity and refused to produce a drivers license.  My point here is a person engaged in legal activity has purchased the necessary license and tags or stamps. If you cannot produce said license you are now in violation of WDFW statutes, period. 



Looking forward to your reading your take on this.

~Whitney

[rasbo]

I never carry my DL on the water or in the woods walking,all you need to do is give them you name dob,and address or I will show my hunting or fishing license,from there they can figure it out....

[pianoman9701]

"Any person who fails to comply with the requirement to identify himself or herself and give the person's
current address is guilty of a misdemeanor.

I believe you're not required to carry ID anywhere in the US, but if you have it, you're required to present it upon request. You are required to tell the officer truthfully who you are and where you live, if asked. I don't have a problem with this. Not having ID is also not PC for search.

[Elkaholic daWg]

 

SB6135
   Sponsors:   Senators Hargrove, Swecker, Rolfes, Delvin, Regala, Ranker, Shin, Fraser
    By Request:   Department of Fish and Wildlife


 Companion HB2364
   Sponsors:   Representatives Blake, Chandler, Dunshee, Armstrong, Hinkle, Orcutt, Lytton, Van De Wege, Kretz, Wilcox, Tharinger, McCune
    By Request:   Department of Fish and Wildlife

Notice our buddie Hans Dunshee likes it.
 So when the other LEOs can detain and check hunters out DFW will be able to transfer money out of enforcement and to ?? More bureaucrats?? Wolves?? Backyard wildlife??

 Show me your papers, right, unless it's a green card (or not) our libbies do
the exact opposite there!

 Constitutional issues later (after bigtex explains it to us)


 And yes I almost always have it with me, but a new law and a new charge is just another few degrees the water warms. Lawyer party again I would guess.

[Mike450r]

"Any person who fails to comply with the requirement to identify himself or herself and give the person's
current address is guilty of a misdemeanor.

I believe you're not required to carry ID anywhere in the US, but if you have it, you're required to present it upon request. You are required to tell the officer truthfully who you are and where you live, if asked. I don't have a problem with this. Not having ID is also not PC for search.

Not required to carry ID but if you do not have ID and they feel they have reason to want to know who you are you can be held until they are satisfied that they have correctly identified you. 9 times out of 10 they will take your word for it and run the name and address given but if they are suspicious it could be more of a hassle and take some time.

[pianoman9701]

"Any person who fails to comply with the requirement to identify himself or herself and give the person's
current address is guilty of a misdemeanor.

I believe you're not required to carry ID anywhere in the US, but if you have it, you're required to present it upon request. You are required to tell the officer truthfully who you are and where you live, if asked. I don't have a problem with this. Not having ID is also not PC for search.

Not required to carry ID but if you do not have ID and they feel they have reason to want to know who you are you can be held until they are satisfied that they have correctly identified you. 9 times out of 10 they will take your word for it and run the name and address given but if they are suspicious it could be more of a hassle and take some time.

I guess that's the chance you take when you decide to go out without ID. I always have mine and don't see any problem with showing it.

[Special T]

Mike there is the rub huh... Many things we put up with as reasonable lawabiding citizens actually erode our rights in the name of expediancy. Having to Prove you are innocent  is not the same thing as Innocent until proven otherwise. Coopertation is the main sticking point for making you suspect.

[bigtex]

Ok let’s get started.

First off the way the original poster posted made it look like this whole thing (requiring ID and ex officio) as one new law. That is false; these are actually two different sections of the bill. What SSB 6135 (SB 6135 has been replaced) does is changes many fish and wildlife laws, most are technical issues that wont really be noticed by the general public but rather are how the laws are to be enforced. This legislation is at the request of WDFW.

Subsequent posters have sort of also provided some false information, hopefully this clears that up.

Section one of the bill is the one that Whitney posted about identification. Here is the explanation of that section in plain English: Allows peace officers, when issuing an NOI (notice of infraction), to detain a person long enough to identify the person, check for outstanding warrants, and complete and issue NOI. Also requires the person receiving NOI to provide the officer with his or her name, address, and date of birth, including reasonable identification upon officer request. Failure to identify oneself is a misdemeanor.

This essentially means that if you commit an offense which is considered an infraction (non-criminal) law enforcement has the authority to detain a person long enough to identify the person, check for outstanding warrants, and complete and issue the citation. This does NOT mean officers will be wandering around asking for ID’s from people who haven’t committed a violation. In order for Section One to apply you MUST have committed an infraction, these rules already apply for those offenses considered to be criminal.


Now to the “ex officio fish and wildlife officer” part. This is under Section 3 of the legislation. In the state of Washington (and most other states) ANY law enforcement officer can enforce fish and wildlife laws. So in regards to Whitneys and Elkaholic posts about non-WDFW law enforcement enforcing fish and wildlife laws, they already can and that will not change under this legislation. What this legislation does is clarify some things about the definition of the ex officio fish and wildlife officer.

Here is the current definition under state law:

"Ex officio fish and wildlife officer" means a commissioned officer of a municipal, county, state, or federal agency having as its primary function the enforcement of criminal laws in general, while the officer is in the appropriate jurisdiction. The term "ex officio fish and wildlife officer" includes special agents of the national marine fisheries service, state parks commissioned officers, United States fish and wildlife special agents, department of natural resources enforcement officers, and United States forest service officers, while the agents and officers are within their respective jurisdictions.

Here is the proposed “new” definition of the term:

(a) A commissioned officer of a municipal, county, or state agency having as its primary function the enforcement of criminal laws in general, while the officer is acting in the respective jurisdiction of that agency;
(b) An officer or special agent commissioned by one of the following: The national marine fisheries service; the Washington state parks and recreation commission; the United States fish and wildlife service; the Washington state department of natural resources; the United States forest service; or the United States parks service, if the agent or officer is in the respective jurisdiction of the primary commissioning agency and is acting under a mutual law enforcement assistance agreement between the department and the primary commissioning agency;
(c) A commissioned fish and wildlife peace officer from another state who meets the training standards set by the Washington state criminal justice training commission pursuant to RCW 10.93.090, 43.101.080, and 43.101.200, and who is acting under a mutual law enforcement assistance agreement between the department and the primary commissioning agency; or
(d) A Washington state tribal police officer who successfully completes the requirements set forth under RCW 43.101.157, is employed by a tribal nation that has complied with RCW 10.92.020(2) (a) and (b), and is acting under a mutual law enforcement assistance agreement between the department and the tribal government.

So this law does nothing in regards to the enforcement ability of fish and wildlife offenses by city police, county sheriff, or WSP. Where the change is in federal agencies, DNR and state parks. Right now under the current definition ANY federal officer could enforce WDFW laws, yes even the Secret Service could. This legislation limits only the following federal agencies to enforce them: NOAA/NMFS, USFWS, USFS, and NPS. What these federal agencies as well as DNR and State Parks will do is enter into a law enforcement agreement with WDFW basically saying these agencies have the authority to act Ex officio fish and wildlife officers and enforce Washington fish and wildlife laws. Some states have laws similar to the ones in WA where the enforcement ability is given to the feds in state law; others have laws similar to the proposed where an agreement between the state and feds are required.

So why the change? Really the change has to do with the feds. It is against federal law to violate state fish and wildlife laws while on federal lands, this applies in all states. So all federal officers can enforce state fish and wildlife laws using their federal authority, however a violation of a state law is actually a federal crime. What many states (including WA) have done is said federal natural resource agency officers can act as Ex officio fish and wildlife officers (or whatever the term is in that state) and enforce state fish and wildlife laws at the state. The hope was that the way the law was written is that the feds could cite for violations of state offenses into the county courts like all other non-federal officers, and not have to go through federal courts. However some county prosecutors have said that all the current definition does is allow federal officers to enforce fish and wildlife laws at the federal level, even though that authority is already given to them under federal law. So you have some counties allowing federal officers to give state tickets for fish and wildlife offenses, and others not allowing this and the officer can only use federal courts. So what’s the problem with this? We have all heard of the license suspension process after a certain amount of fish and wildlife citations. Unfortunately that does not apply to federal courts. So if you are cited for a fish and wildlife offense into federal court that citation does not go on your fish and wildlife offense record. But if a federal officer cites you into the local county court the offense will go on your F&W record.

I am sure some of you are having questions about part (d) of the definition in regards to tribal officers. Several years ago the legislature clarified training requirements (making them exactly the same for non-tribal officers) for tribal officers who seek certification to work as county deputies. Several counties in this state give tribal officers the authority to act as county deputies and thus allowing them to arrests non-tribal members. Part (d) says that if a tribal officer wants the authority to enforce fish and wildlife laws he must first meet those requirements that were passed several years ago, which is basically all of the proper hiring process and training any city, county, or state officer has received AND the tribe must sign an agreement with WDFW similar in nature to the ones with the feds. SO BEFORE ANYBODY FREAKS out and says the tribe will be enforcing WDFW laws on non-tribal hunters. Part (d) is basically a political move to help the bill get passed. It in no way requires WDFW to sign this agreement. In fact if WDFW did sign an agreement with the tribe every WDFW Officer would be pissed. Once again, this is simply a political move, so that some rep doesn’t ask about the forgotten tribal cops.

SSB 6135 and its accompanying bill in the house are HUGE and will really help fish and wildlife enforcement. I will be creating another thread on this bill and its highlights, hope to have it posted by Friday.

[whitney]

I appreciate your efforts to clear up the terminology in this bill but I believe there is also room for improvement with regard to constitutional provisions. I will explain with regard to section one and again in section 8.

Section 1.2(b)
 A person who is a peace officer as defined in chapter 10.93 RCW may detain the person receiving the infraction for a reasonable period of time necessary to identify the person, check for outstanding warrants, and complete and issue a notice of infraction under RCW 8 7.84.050. A person who is to receive a notice of infraction is required to identify himself or herself to the peace officer by giving the person's name, address, and date of birth. Upon request, the  person shall produce reasonable identification, including a driver's license or identicard. Any person who fails to comply with the  requirement to identify himself or herself and give the person's current address is guilty of a misdemeanor.

The colored section is unlawful stop and Id.  Washington is not a Stop and ID state any attempt to do so should be considered unconstitutional.  The law enforcement officer can "request" all they want but there is not a current law that says "I shall" provide ID in the form of ..........

This is where we but heads.

~Whitney

[bigtex]

I appreciate your efforts to clear up the terminology in this bill but I believe there is also room for improvement with regard to constitutional provisions. I will explain with regard to section one and again in section 8.

Upon request, the  person shall produce reasonable identification, including a driver's license or identicard. Any person who fails to comply with the  requirement to identify himself or herself and give the person's current address is guilty of a misdemeanor.

The colored section is unlawful stop and Id.  Washington is not a Stop and ID state any attempt to do so should be considered unconstitutional.  The law enforcement officer can "request" all they want but there is not a current law that says "I shall" provide ID in the form of ..........

This is where we but heads.

~Whitney

Whitney- I think you are missing something. This person has ALREADY committed a violation. The reason they are ID'ing them is so they can fill out the citation, check warrants, etc.

[Elkaholic daWg]

 So do I read it right that if you only have say a hunting license, and give an accurate current address=no misdemeanor?


 

[bigtex]

So do I read it right that if you only have say a hunting license, and give an accurate current address=no misdemeanor?

Well first off you need to have committed a violation that is categorized as a civil infraction. Then you must provide an accurate name, DOB, and address. If the officer asks then you must provide an ID. If an officer doesn't request an ID then no crime. If they ask and you refuse then you committed a misdeameanor. Or if you fail to provide your name, DOB, and address you committed a misd.

But remember a violation must have occured in order for this to start going. If you are just out hunting and haven't committed a violation then this doesn't apply.

[whitney]

For a violation to occur you must have committed an infraction.
So here is the definition for infraction. 

RCW 7.84.020
"Infraction" defined.   
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definition in this section applies throughout this chapter.

     "Infraction" means an offense which, by the terms of Title 76, 77, 79, or 79A RCW or *chapter 43.30 RCW and rules adopted under these titles and chapters, is declared not to be a criminal offense and is subject to the provisions of this chapter.
[2003 c 39 § 3; 1999 c 249 § 503; 1993 c 244 § 3; 1987 c 380 § 2.]
Notes:
     *Reviser's note: Chapter 43.30 RCW was recodified or repealed in its entirety by chapter 334, Laws of 2003. See Comparative Table for chapter 43.30 RCW in the Table of Disposition of Former RCW Sections.
     Severability -- 1999 c 249: See note following RCW 79A.05.010.
     Intent -- 1993 c 244: See note following RCW 79A.60.010.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/dispo.aspx?cite=75
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=76
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=77
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=79
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=79A
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=43.30
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.84
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.84.100
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. and ...........

So ..........as long as your infraction is declared not to be a criminal offense or break any other "rule defined as an infraction" (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.15.020)

you likely will be issued a notice of infraction.(http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.84.030)

 If it is found that you have committed an infraction then there will be monetary penalties , not to exceed five hundred dollars per each infraction. (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.84.100)

I don't know about you but I sometimes need to get some other things done before immediately recording my catch. 

How can I possibly know, or better yet how can a law enforcement officer possibly know these are all infractions.  If I am charged and later cleared because of ignorance it is bad for all of us.

Clearly this is a liability for the State of Washington to Unlawfully detain me if I subsequently sue the State for 4th amendment violations.

Simply put how can you enforce the law if you cannot articulate what an infraction is?  My recourse for a mistake is to sue.  This should be improved before passing the bill.

~Whitney

[Elkaholic daWg]

 Yes it WILL make the lawyers happy.

[bigtex]

How can I possibly know, or better yet how can a law enforcement officer possibly know these are all infractions.  If I am charged and later cleared because of ignorance it is bad for all of us.

Clearly this is a liability for the State of Washington to Unlawfully detain me if I subsequently sue the State for 4th amendment violations.

Simply put how can you enforce the law if you cannot articulate what an infraction is?  My recourse for a mistake is to sue.  This should be improved before passing the bill.

All law enforcement officers know what a criminal offense is and what an infraction is. If they don't, then they need a new job.

It is not that hard.

[Elkaholic daWg]

 In my 50 plus years I have met a few that needed a new job! (for more than just that reason)

[bigtex]

I need to clarify further. RCW 7.84 are regulations for natural resource infractions. RCW 7.80 are regulations for essentially non-natural resource infractions (speeding, drinking in public).

The identification requirement that this bill is requesting for natural resource infractions under 7.84, is already a requirement for all other non-natural resource infractions and has been since 1987.

Here is the law requiring you to show ID when being cited for infractions that are not natural resource of nature:

RCW 7.80.060

Person receiving notice — Identification and detention.

A person who is to receive a notice of civil infraction under RCW 7.80.050 is required to identify himself or herself to the enforcement officer by giving his or her name, address, and date of birth. Upon the request of the officer, the person shall produce reasonable identification, including a driver's license or identicard.

A person who is unable or unwilling to reasonably identify himself or herself to an enforcement officer may be detained for a period of time not longer than is reasonably necessary to identify the person for purposes of issuing a civil infraction.

Each agency authorized to issue civil infractions shall adopt rules on identification and detention of persons committing civil infractions.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.80.060

[whitney]

Clearly bigtex and I disagree. 

It is not that hard. When was the last time you bought a hunting license? You had to show your ID when you bought it, now you even have a WILD ID.  If I am in the field and my license is checked what reason is there to provide further ID? (other than to harass or provoke)

The problem here is the law abiding citizen once more has to bear the resultant effect of the scofflaw bunch of people that initiate bills like this.

~Whitney

[bigtex]

If I am in the field and my license is checked what reason is there to provide further ID? (other than to harass or provoke)

The problem here is the law abiding citizen once more has to bear the resultant effect of the scofflaw bunch of people that initiate bills like this.

You are missing the point! If you are out in the woods getting your license checked nobody will ask for your ID! This involves people who have just committed a violation! NOT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS!

[boneaddict]

I haven't shown ID to buy a license for years.   In fact I buy them for my Dad and wife as I know what I am doing on there and its easier for me.   


This law abiding citizen will gladly show his ID whenever asked by ANY law enforcement officer.  Hell, I'd offer them a cup a coffee around my campfire any cold night or blustery day.   They are doing a thankless job, that I am glad they are doing.   

[Knocker of rocks]

You are missing the point!

That seems to be Whitney's strong suite

[Elkaholic daWg]

" NOT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS!"
Maybe Knocker, but these folks make it harder EVERY session to be just that. as they ignore federal and state constitutions at whim!

[Knocker of rocks]

I read it as a clarification of the fact that a LEO who is in the act of issuing a citation for a non-felony can ask for proof of identification.  In lieu of production of said ID, an individual may be reasonably held until identification is made.

This is already on the books, and is the status quo.  As BigTex stated, this is only a clarification.

The police are not authorized to ask for ID without PC.  You are also allowed to ask if ID is required.

Whitney repeatedly claimed that this law would allow the police to demand ID from any individual, for any reason.  He missed the caveat that this law only affects individuals receiving an infraction. 

[bigtex]

I read it as a clarification of the fact that a LEO who is in the act of issuing a citation for a non-felony can ask for proof of identification.  In lieu of production of said ID, an individual may be reasonably held until identification is made.

This is already on the books, and is the status quo.  As BigTex stated, this is only a clarification.

The police are not authorized to ask for ID without PC.  You are also allowed to ask if ID is required.

Whitney repeatedly claimed that this law would allow the police to demand ID from any individual, for any reason.  He missed the caveat that this law only affects individuals receiving an infraction.

100 percent correct however this applies for non-criminal offenses which are classified as infractions, not just non-felonies. Criminal offenses are felonies, gross misd, and misd.

[PlateauNDN]

I haven't shown ID to buy a license for years.   In fact I buy them for my Dad and wife as I know what I am doing on there and its easier for me.   


This law abiding citizen will gladly show his ID whenever asked by ANY law enforcement officer.  Hell, I'd offer them a cup a coffee around my campfire any cold night or blustery day.   They are doing a thankless job, that I am glad they are doing.

   X's 2  If you're not breaking any laws or a Law Abiding Citizen then what do you have to worry about or hide? 

[whitney]

I will concede I may be a little over the top with this, perhaps I have failed to make my point.

If you look at section one of the bill the only thing I have contention with is the line that says “shall produce reasonable identification”.  This is the line I believe should be improved or removed and will ask you to weigh in on. 

I am being cited for taking too many clams from the beach.  I provide my license and articulate may name and address for the officer.  Then I am requested to provide reasonable identification.  There are lots of reasons I may not have ID (I kayaked to the beach).    I have, by the letter of the (proposed) law complied, I have identified myself yet I cannot provide any ID besides my license.   

1. What constitutes “reasonable identification”?
2. Can I also be charged with misdemeanor because I cannot provide “reasonable identification”?

~Whitney

[bigtex]

I will concede I may be a little over the top with this, perhaps I have failed to make my point.

If you look at section one of the bill the only thing I have contention with is the line that says “shall produce reasonable identification”.  This is the line I believe should be improved or removed and will ask you to weigh in on. 

I am being cited for taking too many clams from the beach.  I provide my license and articulate may name and address for the officer.  Then I am requested to provide reasonable identification.  There are lots of reasons I may not have ID (I kayaked to the beach).    I have, by the letter of the (proposed) law complied, I have identified myself yet I cannot provide any ID besides my license.   

1. What constitutes “reasonable identification”?
2. Can I also be charged with misdemeanor because I cannot provide “reasonable identification”?

~Whitney

The act you described of overlimit clams is a criminal offense and in criminal offenses you are already required to show I'd. Once again this legislation aligns natural resource infractions with all other infractions.

[Elkaholic daWg]

 Eliminate the "clam' offense and insert any  natural resource infraction you can think of and then answer.....

  I provide my license and articulate may name and address for the officer.  Then I am requested to provide reasonable identification.  There are lots of reasons I may not have ID (I kayaked to the beach).    I have, by the letter of the (proposed) law complied, I have identified myself yet I cannot provide any ID besides my license.   

1. What constitutes “reasonable identification”?
2. Can I also be charged with misdemeanor because I cannot provide “reasonable identification”?

[Knocker of rocks]

Can I also be charged with misdemeanor because I cannot provide reasonable identification?

In one of his earlier posts, BigTex clarified that also.  The individual may be held until his identity is reasonably confirmed.

Not having ID is not a crime with exceptions, prime among these is procession of any sort of operators license

[Knocker of rocks]

   X's 2  If you're not breaking any laws or a Law Abiding Citizen then what do you have to worry about or hide?

Thomas Jefferson thought we should worry

[bigtex]

1. What constitutes “reasonable identification”?
2. Can I also be charged with misdemeanor because I cannot provide “reasonable identification”?

1- Here is the exact language of the proposal: "A person who is to receive a notice of infraction is required to identify himself or herself to the peace officer by giving the person's name, address, and date of birth. Upon request, the person shall produce reasonable identification, including a driver's license or identicard." The term "reasonable identification" appears to be either a DL or ID.

2- Pretty simple answer- "Any person who fails to comply with the requirement to identify himself or herself and give the person's current address is guilty of a misdemeanor." Now most officers would know a difference between a refusal to comply with providing an ID, and simply not having their ID on them (back at truck, etc).


ONCE AGAIN this law is already on the books for non-natural resource infractions (most of your everyday traffic violations fall under this) and has been for 25 years. All this does is make this law apply to natural resource infractions. I don't know about you, but if this law has been on the books for 25 years and hundreds of infractions are written everyday where the officer is requesting ID, I am pretty sure some constitutional law lawyer would have been all over this if it was not constitutional.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

So do I read it right that if you only have say a hunting license, and give an accurate current address=no misdemeanor?

Well first off you need to have committed a violation that is categorized as a civil infraction. Then you must provide an accurate name, DOB, and address. If the officer asks then you must provide an ID. If an officer doesn't request an ID then no crime. If they ask and you refuse then you committed a misdeameanor. Or if you fail to provide your name, DOB, and address you committed a misd.

But remember a violation must have occured in order for this to start going. If you are just out hunting and haven't committed a violation then this doesn't apply.

Just for the sake of argument, not taking one side or the other.................

What if no infraction or violation really occurred?  What if the LEO just wanted to screw with you? Say he makes something up and charges you.  Or what if he makes an honest mistake, and misinterprets the law or the circumstances and charges you? In either of those cases, you'd be forced to show your ID and if you didn't you'd be guilty of a misdemeanor, correct? Even if you were innocent in the first case.

[bigtex]

So do I read it right that if you only have say a hunting license, and give an accurate current address=no misdemeanor?

Well first off you need to have committed a violation that is categorized as a civil infraction. Then you must provide an accurate name, DOB, and address. If the officer asks then you must provide an ID. If an officer doesn't request an ID then no crime. If they ask and you refuse then you committed a misdeameanor. Or if you fail to provide your name, DOB, and address you committed a misd.

But remember a violation must have occured in order for this to start going. If you are just out hunting and haven't committed a violation then this doesn't apply.

What if no infraction or violation really occurred?  What if the LEO just wanted to screw with you? Say he makes something up and charges you.  Or what if he makes an honest mistake, and misinterprets the law or the circumstances and charges you? In either of those cases, you'd be forced to show your ID and if you didn't you'd be guilty of a misdemeanor, correct? Even if you were innocent in the first case.

Once again if no violation occured then this law wouldnt apply. An officer cannot make up a law and charge you with it.

Infractions are the pettiest offenses in WA. If an officer misinterprets an infraction then something is wrong. Examples of natural resource infractions: barbed hooks, failure to record catch, lifejackets, dog off leash. These aren't complex violations.

[Special T]

Oh, babed hooks are a good example... The officer may say "it isn't crimped  or filed enough."
I don't think this new law changes anything. I still have the concern that Whitey has... I have been asked for Id as a passenger in a vehicle, and the implication was that if i didn't comply the the "Burn't tail light" might become an issue for the driver... Leos have a hard job, and utilize as many tools as possilbe to catch bad guys.... The real problem is that they don't really do anything with bad guys anymore. Hell the govenor is talking about releasing lots of said bad guys early to save $$$.... So the new law might be just a paperwork clarification, but the underlying problem is still there... 

[Sitka_Blacktail]

It is not that hard. When was the last time you bought a hunting license? You had to show your ID when you bought it, now you even have a WILD ID.  If I am in the field and my license is checked what reason is there to provide further ID? (other than to harass or provoke)

~Whitney

I can think of a couple reasons Whitney. First, to make sure that you are really the person who's hunting license you show them. Picture ID will confirm that. Maybe you are from out of State and "borrowed" somebody's license to hunt or fish.  They want to be sure they charge the right person and that you'll show up to take care of the charges.

Or maybe you "stole" someone else's ID.  A case was just prosecuted in Oregon where a poaching ring was broken up because somebody used a girlfriend's ID to purchase a license.

http://special.registerguard.com/web/updates/26542236-55/deer-hunting-donoho-season-donohos.html.csp

"The Donohos got caught, Hall said, when an associate in the poaching ring, Miguel Kennedy, helped them “bring the scheme to a new level by stealing his ex-girlfriend’s identity in order to create a completely fake hunter profile.” Kennedy was sentenced June 13 to eight months in prison after pleading guilty to identity theft, forgery and illegally transferring hunting tags in the case.

The ex-girlfriend “really blew this whole thing out of the water,” the prosecutor said, when she went into an Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife office, puzzled by a “tooth envelope” she had received in the mail. The wildlife department sends such envelopes to hunters, asking them to mail back a tooth from the deer they reportedly killed, for analysis by researchers monitoring deer populations."

So you can see why they want to be sure you are who you say you are or your non pictured hunting license says you are.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Leos have a hard job, and utilize as many tools as possilbe to catch bad guys.... The real problem is that they don't really do anything with bad guys anymore. Hell the govenor is talking about releasing lots of said bad guys early to save $$$.... So the new law might be just a paperwork clarification, but the underlying problem is still there... 

Funny you should mention that. In the poaching ring article above, it looked like the father in son were going to have to spend some time in the pokey during hunting seasons besides losing their hunting privileges for life. But then I found this article.

http://special.registerguard.com/web/newslocalnews/26975711-41/jail-county-donoho-lane-poaching.html.csp

[Special T]

Well my comment wasn't just about hunting laws... I try and be a stand up guy and not mess up too much. That said i', tired of all the little laws that are used as "Law enforcemnt tools" but not actually enforced. Example... I'm driving my PU that screams REDNECK in the evening. I'm pulled over and asked for my drivers lic and registration. After they run my Lic i usually ask what the reason for pulling me over was... There are several canned answers but here are just a couple..
1 The trailer ball on your bumper obscured your LP
2 The LP lite is out on you bumper
3 the mud flaps on your truck arn't quite low enough
4 your tires stick out too far from the fender

You starting to get the drift?  I KNOW these are tools because i have had conversations with LEO's that i know about this stuff... How many of these "infractions" are written up? Not many.. Mostly just an informative warning is sufficeint, unless of course they need probable cause to make a "contact" with some one that looks like a DB... When i'm driving my hunting truck i fit that bill i guess... 

Laws are full of these small devices that are not enforced to polite citizens that do as thier told.  Well I resent even these small invasions of my space and rights BECAUSE the STATE screws up so much of everything else they touch.

Leo's enforce pooorly written laws that they rarely have input on, and then one inforced have little real recourse on! 

I know a LEO that had is patrol car hit by some non english speaking person with no ID... This POS was let go like a catcha and release stealhead while I have to get pestered by this crap?  The system is broken, my faith is gone, and can only PRAY the people i come in contact are as hard working and HONEST as I try to be. 

[Elkaholic daWg]

 Great post "T" I totally agree and have not brought up the state constitution yet.  Which I believe all LEO are sworn to protect. Am I wrong?

[whitney]

I suppose if I looked at this from the perspective of a scofflaw rather than a good steward and law abiding citizen I could see how ID would be useful to a LEO.  I really want to understand this but feel like it is the proverbial bill we must pass to see what is in it. 

I appreciate and respect all opinions presented here regardless of weather or not I agree.  This is what makes our country so unique.  I will resolve to wait this one out and see what happens.

Thanks for your take on this.

~Whitney

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Don't get me wrong Special T. I believe too many of the "infractions" are used for fishing expeditions and harassment. They are made to give LEOs a way around Constitutional protections.  Just like Sheriff Joe Arpaio having people stopped and checked out because they look Hispanic.

I'm all for following the law, but that includes LEOs too.

[Knocker of rocks]

Just like Sheriff Joe Arpaio having people stopped and checked out because they look Hispanic.

Kind of like those old fossils at the Augusta Golf Club, when Dr. J was arriving for a celebrity tournament, and the guard asked him if he was a caddy.

The good Dr. answered "the only caddy here is the one I'm driving".

[Special T]

Sitka, I like Joe... But your example of him is spot on as to the REAL problem.... The problems is what we do with bad guys/aliens, not how to catch them. They don't call Jail the revolving door for nothing... most cops focus on the "Apprehension" side of the problem, because that is how they can affect change.  I have talked to LEO's that said "Ya well i caught him and let him go, but WHEN I catch him a couple of more times he'll actually see some jail time!"  WTF

Now to be fair, cops don't place the sentences on bad guys. It shows just how absurd needing new "Tools" for apprehension are.  The problem is what we do with these jack wagons once they are caught!

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Now you're on to something T.

[Special T]

The sad part is its not rocket science... Now they shouldn't excute the firstimer that snags a fish, or whacks a deer under a point restriction... However when someone is caught in the act of something the 2nd time they should know better. I make mistakes and break laws. I try not to but the $$$ taken from me makes me try harder

[Machias]

Thanks BigTex for your time on this issue!!