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.