Post by: bigtex on January 16, 2014, 08:27:41 PM
Senate Bill 6130 sponsored by Senators Roach (R), Kline (D), and Kohl-Wells (D), as well as House Bill 2394 sponsored by Reps Moscoso (D) Takko (D), Ryu (D), and Hope (R) was introduced today in the legislature. The bills were requested by the Liquor Control Board. These bills would grant full law enforcement authority to Liquor Enforcement Officers of the Washington State Liquor Control Board. Currently these officers only have authority over alcohol, tobacco laws only as they pertain to minors and taxation, and the majority of the drug laws as a result of the marijuana initiative. This bill would put Liquor Enforcement Officers on par with city police, county deputies, etc and would make the LCB join WSP and WDFW as the only two state agencies with full law enforcement authority.
Now last year there was a similar bill in the house. The bill passed out of committee with bipartisan support but did not get voted on in the appropriations (money) committee. So what is different this year:
1- Last year the bill was backed by the agency, but not requested by the agency like this year.
2- This year there is both a House AND a Senate bill
3- This is probably the most important section, and that is money. Under Criminal Justice Training Center (state LE academy) rules when a full authority officer either quits being an LEO or goes to a limited authority agency (liquor control, DNR, State Parks) there is a 2 or 3 year period where their training certification stays active, after that time they would have to attend the law enforcement academy again. So as an example, if a Kittitas Sheriff's Deputy became a DNR Officer then 5 years down the road he wanted to be a deputy again, he would have to go to the academy again, even if he never truly stopped working in LE. So last year the bill had a huge cost because many of the LCB Officers that were prior city officers, deputies, or troopers had gone past that 2/3 year period. So about 97% of the LCB Officers would have to go through the full academy and the state would have to pick up the cost. Under these bills there is a provision that states that if an individual came to the LCB and had already attended the full law enforcement academy they would not have to attend the academy again, the provision goes on to say if an officer had not attended the full law enforcement academy they would have to take a bridge/equivalency academy (this is actually the same thing occurred when the Depts of Fisheries and Wildlife gained full LE authority in the 1980s). The vast majority of LCB Officers fall under the provision of already attending a full academy, those that don’t fall under that bridge/equivalency course which isn’t expensive at all. Under the liquor and marijuana initiatives the LCB is given money for enforcement, and that is where the funding will come for the academy.
Now just for clarification, EVERY LCB Officer has attended some LE academy. For several years the CJTC created a LCB only academy which just covered laws under the LCB authority several officers attended that, a handful of LCB Officers around 2005-7 attended the Idaho police academy, and several are former State Park Rangers, the individuals who attended these “non” full law enforcement academy would take the bridge/equivalency course.
I already posted in another thread, but the LCB will soon pass WDFW as the second largest state LE agency in WA. The liquor and marijuana initiatives put a lot of funding and pressure on the LCB to rigorously enforce public safety laws.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 17, 2014, 07:07:38 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 17, 2014, 03:54:20 PM
Each year there is less opposition to these bills. Several years ago the WA Sherriff's Association, several Sheriff's themselves, and the Washington Association of Sheriff's and Police Chief's opposed the DNR bill at the hearing.
Last year the DNR, LCB, and Parks bill had a committee hearing the same morning. The only opposition was WASPC and the Skamania County Sheriff. The Skamania County Sheriff is starting to get the reputation of being a radical in Olympia and legislators basically hammered him for turning these bills into a turf war. If you listed to his testimony, which turned into questioning you could hear him get frustrated and become upset.
I think one reason we are seeing less opposition from Sheriff's is for two reasons. One is that Sheriffs are getting younger, a lot of your older "cowboy like" sheriffs are gone, younger LEOs are known for being more supportive of interagency cooperation and supporting other agencies in general. Another is more Sheriff's in WA are former WSP Troopers then ever before, they are generally more supportive of state agencies.
For many years I always said DNR would gain full LE authority before the other agencies, I now think LCB will. Having an agency request this legislation is a HUGE step. Not many legislators oppose agency requested legislation.
Post by: trophyhunt on January 17, 2014, 04:11:15 PM
No way. We have enough cops and this would infringe on the authority of the county sheriffs. This bill should be dumped and I'm writing to my Senator and Reps to do so.i have to agree! We don't need any more wanna be cops out there, I'm referring to the parks guys having guns and full LE authority.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 18, 2014, 10:50:48 AM
:yeah: Thanks for the alert, now to contact my legislators. Anything Kline likes I wouldn'tNo way. We have enough cops and this would infringe on the authority of the county sheriffs. This bill should be dumped and I'm writing to my Senator and Reps to do so.i have to agree! We don't need any more wanna be cops out there, I'm referring to the parks guys having guns and full LE authority.
Post by: bigtex on January 18, 2014, 12:28:17 PM
Last year the DNR, LCB, and Parks bill had a committee hearing the same morning. The only opposition was WASPC and the Skamania County Sheriff. The Skamania County Sheriff is starting to get the reputation of being a radical in Olympia and legislators basically hammered him for turning these bills into a turf war. If you listed to his testimony, which turned into questioning you could hear him get frustrated and become upset.
I actually had the opportunity of running into a law enforcement legislative liaison type person yesterday and this bill came up in the discussion. They said in their opinion WASPC is really starting to look bad in the eyes of the legislators. I guess many legislators are starting to see the only reason they are opposed to such bills is a simply turf war. Last year a Public Safety Committee Representative actually asked the Skamania County Sheriff that if a LCB, DNR, or Parks LEO was behind an obvious DUI driver in his county would he want them to have the authority to pull that person over, the sheriff said no and that he would want his deputies to do so. Supposedly that statement kind of sent a buzz through the legislature. An actual sheriff saying he didn't want a DUI driver to be pulled over simply because the officer worked for LCB, DNR, or Parks. Kind of the opposite of public safety eh?
They also believe that this is the first time an agency has actually requested general authority since around 2002 when WDFW did it. And the unofficial word is that the LCB will submit this type of legislation every year until it does pass.
Post by: Crunchy on January 18, 2014, 12:59:58 PM
Post by: washelkhunter on January 18, 2014, 01:15:22 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 18, 2014, 01:44:00 PM
Last year the DNR, LCB, and Parks bill had a committee hearing the same morning. The only opposition was WASPC and the Skamania County Sheriff. The Skamania County Sheriff is starting to get the reputation of being a radical in Olympia and legislators basically hammered him for turning these bills into a turf war. If you listed to his testimony, which turned into questioning you could hear him get frustrated and become upset.
I actually had the opportunity of running into a law enforcement legislative liaison type person yesterday and this bill came up in the discussion. They said in their opinion WASPC is really starting to look bad in the eyes of the legislators. I guess many legislators are starting to see the only reason they are opposed to such bills is a simply turf war. Last year a Public Safety Committee Representative actually asked the Skamania County Sheriff that if a LCB, DNR, or Parks LEO was behind an obvious DUI driver in his county would he want them to have the authority to pull that person over, the sheriff said no and that he would want his deputies to do so. Supposedly that statement kind of sent a buzz through the legislature. An actual sheriff saying he didn't want a DUI driver to be pulled over simply because the officer worked for LCB, DNR, or Parks. Kind of the opposite of public safety eh?
They also believe that this is the first time an agency has actually requested general authority since around 2002 when WDFW did it. And the unofficial word is that the LCB will submit this type of legislation every year until it does pass.
Then you're going to have the majority of those cases tossed out of court, heck a deputy that does DUI every day has a hard time getting a conviction. I'm just against this super trooper idea of LE work. You need specialists who send cases to court and keeps abreast of all the changes and tweaks his/her cases to maximize conviction rates. I just don't see a LCB officer becoming proficient in bringing cases to the court and getting convictions on things that are outside their area of expertise.
I mean you might as well put them on the water enforcing boater laws :bash: I've had that happen to me, a deputy trying to give me a citation for no life jackets being worn on a boat greater than 19 feet long AND with sleeping quarters! :bash:
Post by: bigtex on January 18, 2014, 01:59:48 PM
I agree and disagree with you. What agency is the biggest "feeder" for LCB (as well as DNR) Officers? WSP. Pretty sure every WSP Trooper arrested a couple DUI's in their years. Every officer, doesn't matter if your a deputy, trooper, or city officer has their expertise. But just because a Deputy is good at drug enforcement, doesn't mean they shouldn't do DUI's or respond to domestics.Then you're going to have the majority of those cases tossed out of court, heck a deputy that does DUI every day has a hard time getting a conviction. I'm just against this super trooper idea of LE work. You need specialists who send cases to court and keeps abreast of all the changes and tweaks his/her cases to maximize conviction rates. I just don't see a LCB officer becoming proficient in bringing cases to the court and getting convictions on things that are outside their area of expertise.Last year the DNR, LCB, and Parks bill had a committee hearing the same morning. The only opposition was WASPC and the Skamania County Sheriff. The Skamania County Sheriff is starting to get the reputation of being a radical in Olympia and legislators basically hammered him for turning these bills into a turf war. If you listed to his testimony, which turned into questioning you could hear him get frustrated and become upset.
I actually had the opportunity of running into a law enforcement legislative liaison type person yesterday and this bill came up in the discussion. They said in their opinion WASPC is really starting to look bad in the eyes of the legislators. I guess many legislators are starting to see the only reason they are opposed to such bills is a simply turf war. Last year a Public Safety Committee Representative actually asked the Skamania County Sheriff that if a LCB, DNR, or Parks LEO was behind an obvious DUI driver in his county would he want them to have the authority to pull that person over, the sheriff said no and that he would want his deputies to do so. Supposedly that statement kind of sent a buzz through the legislature. An actual sheriff saying he didn't want a DUI driver to be pulled over simply because the officer worked for LCB, DNR, or Parks. Kind of the opposite of public safety eh?
They also believe that this is the first time an agency has actually requested general authority since around 2002 when WDFW did it. And the unofficial word is that the LCB will submit this type of legislation every year until it does pass.
You run yourself into trouble when you start judging people by their agency and not the individual officer. One of the best DUI officers in King County for several years was a State Park Ranger at Flaming Geyser. There are WDFW Officers who would sh** their pants if they had to do process a DUI, others could do it with their eyes closed.
Post by: KFhunter on January 18, 2014, 02:33:26 PM
I know of no testing or grading, or other crediting system that enables an officer to enforce a law they have no clue about, worse if the LCB gets this authority then we could see stat driven enforcement to "validate" their reasoning for this SB 6130 and HB 2394.
This would force officers with little to no experience enforcing a law in a field they know nothing about. DUI might not be a good example, how about chasing down a kid on an ATV?
I've witness that too where an agency not normally enforcing such a law chases a kid on an ATV to the point the kid is going to kill himself or be severely hurt. They were chasing this kid down the railroad tracks and he had no helmet on! He was a little feller too.
BAD BAD ju ju to chase a kid and have him become a vegetable with a brain injury
That dumb expletive was running full lights and sliding that g-ride around trying to catch that kid, I was shaking my head :DOH:
Some of this stuff might look good on paper but you get out in the field and see some of this stuff in practice and you wonder what the heck were they thinking??
Post by: Jingles on January 18, 2014, 03:12:47 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 18, 2014, 06:01:21 PM
What do you suggest to keep someone with no experience enforcing a law they know nothing about if not by agency?The large majority of LCB Officers are previous full authority officers who simply moved to the LCB, they've been through the full academy. They've been trained to handle everything just like a county deputy or PD officer. Those that didn't attend the full academy will go to a specialized bridge/equivalency course to train them on the new laws they will be enforcing, which is exactly what happened when the Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife received more authority in the 1980s. Very few LCB Officers have spent their entire LE career with the LCB, most started with WSP, a PD, or SO.
I know of no testing or grading, or other crediting system that enables an officer to enforce a law they have no clue about, worse if the LCB gets this authority then we could see stat driven enforcement to "validate" their reasoning for this SB 6130 and HB 2394.
This would force officers with little to no experience enforcing a law in a field they know nothing about. DUI might not be a good example, how about chasing down a kid on an ATV?
Post by: KFhunter on January 18, 2014, 06:47:05 PM
Post by: Atroxus on January 18, 2014, 07:33:40 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 18, 2014, 08:03:32 PM
So if an individual carried a firearm into a bar which is a clear violation of WA law the LCB Officer would have no authority to cite/arrest the individual. Yet they could arrest the bartender or bouncer for allowing the gun in the bar, and cite the business for allowing a gun in the bar. Why is this? Because such violation is not found in the alcohol RCW but rather the firearms RCW, outside of LCB authority.
If a fight occurred in a bar the LCB Officer would have no authority to break up the fight or arrest the assaulter. Yet they could arrest the bartender or bouncer for allowing the fight to happen, and cite the business for allowing the fight. Again, assault is not within the alcohol RCW.
If an individual is smoking a cigarette in a bar, they are outside LCB jurisdiction because LCB Officers only have authority over tobacco laws as they pertain to minors and taxation, not public smoking laws.
Even in a bar or nightclub the LCB only has authority over alcohol, some tobacco and drug laws. So it's not like a bar or nightclub is the equivalent to a State Park for a LE Ranger, where they can enforce all laws.
And quite honestly everybody at one time had those thoughts were they are driving down the road and see a DUI, reckless driver, assault or whatever crime in progress and just wished they were a police officer. Well guess what, even though LCB Officers have arrest authority, carry firearms, and are dispatched by the WSP, they are just like all other citizens and cant do a damn thing in these situations under their current authority.
Post by: bigtex on January 18, 2014, 08:07:07 PM
HE77 just make everyone a full authority Law enforcement officer unless they have been convicted of a felony.
I know you are talking about general citizens, but actually most states no longer have limited and full authority law enforcement officers. In most states now you are a law enforcement officer and enforce all laws. You may work for State Parks, or Liquor Enforcement and that's your mission, but you don't ignore the crime happening in front of you. In WA, DNR, Parks, and LCB Officers have to ignore those crimes happening right in front of them even though they are state officers carrying firearms and look like every other LEO.
Post by: KFhunter on January 18, 2014, 08:24:42 PM
What do you suggest to keep someone with no experience enforcing a law they know nothing about if not by agency?The large majority of LCB Officers are previous full authority officers who simply moved to the LCB, they've been through the full academy. They've been trained to handle everything just like a county deputy or PD officer. Those that didn't attend the full academy will go to a specialized bridge/equivalency course to train them on the new laws they will be enforcing, which is exactly what happened when the Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife received more authority in the 1980s. Very few LCB Officers have spent their entire LE career with the LCB, most started with WSP, a PD, or SO.
I know of no testing or grading, or other crediting system that enables an officer to enforce a law they have no clue about, worse if the LCB gets this authority then we could see stat driven enforcement to "validate" their reasoning for this SB 6130 and HB 2394.
This would force officers with little to no experience enforcing a law in a field they know nothing about. DUI might not be a good example, how about chasing down a kid on an ATV?
It's not fair to our LCB officers, but this story was in my mind as a wrote those two posts above.
http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/06/20103-college-girls-suspected-of-buying-alcohol-arrested-at-gun-point-by-police-after-actually-buying-bottled-water/ (http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/06/20103-college-girls-suspected-of-buying-alcohol-arrested-at-gun-point-by-police-after-actually-buying-bottled-water/)
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/29/college-student-arrested-thrown-in-jail-after-buying-bottled-water/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/29/college-student-arrested-thrown-in-jail-after-buying-bottled-water/)
Quote
It should have been just a simple trip to the grocery store to buy bottled water, cookie dough and ice cream for a sorority event.
Instead, six plainclothes officers swarmed University of Virginia student Elizabeth Daly, who was ultimately arrested and spent the night and next afternoon in jail, the Charlottesville Daily Progress reported.
College Student Arrested & Thrown in Jail After Buying Bottled Water
Getty Images
What happened? The officers — men and a woman — were state Alcoholic Beverage Control agents who suspected the 20-year-old walking to her car that night had just bought a pack of beer. One agent jumped on the hood of her SUV and Daly said one drew a gun. Panicking and not knowing who they were, she tried to get away.
“They were showing unidentifiable badges after they approached us, but we became frightened, as they were not in anything close to a uniform,” Daly said in a written account of the April 11 incident.
“I couldn’t put my windows down unless I started my car, and when I started my car they began yelling to not move the car, not to start the car. They began trying to break the windows. My roommates and I were…terrified,” she stated.
She dialed 911 as she pulled out of the parking lot and stopped for an agent’s car with lights and sirens, the Daily Progress reported. Once she realized who the agents were, she apologized profusely.
Nevertheless, Daly was charged with two felony counts of assaulting a law enforcement officer after she grazed two agents with her SUV trying to flee, and one felony count of eluding police.
She spent the night and afternoon in jail, and was facing prison time and thousands of dollars in fines before the charges were dropped Thursday.
Charlottesville Commonwealth’s Attorney Dave Chapman told the Daily Progress he’d never seen a case like this in 34 years of experience.
“It wouldn’t be the right thing to do to prosecute this,” he said.
The Alcoholic Beverage Control said Friday it’s reviewing the incident. A spokeswoman said a female agent saw “what appeared to be an underage person in possession of what appeared to be a case of beer.”
“The agent identified herself as a police officer and was displaying her badge,” agency spokeswoman Kathleen Shaw said in a statement. “The agents were acting upon reasonable suspicion.”
Post by: KFhunter on January 18, 2014, 08:29:43 PM
So tell me why someone from WSP or other agency would want to become an LCB officer?
It smacks to me of a place for ROJ/ROAD and washouts, but is it really a desirable job attracting our best and brightest?
Post by: bigtex on January 18, 2014, 08:32:04 PM
What do you suggest to keep someone with no experience enforcing a law they know nothing about if not by agency?The large majority of LCB Officers are previous full authority officers who simply moved to the LCB, they've been through the full academy. They've been trained to handle everything just like a county deputy or PD officer. Those that didn't attend the full academy will go to a specialized bridge/equivalency course to train them on the new laws they will be enforcing, which is exactly what happened when the Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife received more authority in the 1980s. Very few LCB Officers have spent their entire LE career with the LCB, most started with WSP, a PD, or SO.
I know of no testing or grading, or other crediting system that enables an officer to enforce a law they have no clue about, worse if the LCB gets this authority then we could see stat driven enforcement to "validate" their reasoning for this SB 6130 and HB 2394.
This would force officers with little to no experience enforcing a law in a field they know nothing about. DUI might not be a good example, how about chasing down a kid on an ATV?
It's not fair to our LCB officers, but this story was in my mind as a wrote those two posts above.
http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/06/20103-college-girls-suspected-of-buying-alcohol-arrested-at-gun-point-by-police-after-actually-buying-bottled-water/ (http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/06/20103-college-girls-suspected-of-buying-alcohol-arrested-at-gun-point-by-police-after-actually-buying-bottled-water/)
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/29/college-student-arrested-thrown-in-jail-after-buying-bottled-water/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/29/college-student-arrested-thrown-in-jail-after-buying-bottled-water/)
Gotcha. Can't view an agency simply because of a bad incident by the same type of agency in another state, and I think you agree.
LCB has come along ways, in the past 25 years or so. They've gone from basically a group of people who dressed up in suits looking like federal special agents who liked to drink, to actual LEOs to the point now where they actually have a formal uniform just like every other agency. Their "new" Deputy Chief just retired as an Asst. Chief from WSP. A lot of their supervisors are former WSP. So they aren't a bunch of rejects, or idiots.
Post by: JLS on January 18, 2014, 08:35:43 PM
What do you suggest to keep someone with no experience enforcing a law they know nothing about if not by agency?The large majority of LCB Officers are previous full authority officers who simply moved to the LCB, they've been through the full academy. They've been trained to handle everything just like a county deputy or PD officer. Those that didn't attend the full academy will go to a specialized bridge/equivalency course to train them on the new laws they will be enforcing, which is exactly what happened when the Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife received more authority in the 1980s. Very few LCB Officers have spent their entire LE career with the LCB, most started with WSP, a PD, or SO.
I know of no testing or grading, or other crediting system that enables an officer to enforce a law they have no clue about, worse if the LCB gets this authority then we could see stat driven enforcement to "validate" their reasoning for this SB 6130 and HB 2394.
This would force officers with little to no experience enforcing a law in a field they know nothing about. DUI might not be a good example, how about chasing down a kid on an ATV?
It's not fair to our LCB officers, but this story was in my mind as a wrote those two posts above.
http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/06/20103-college-girls-suspected-of-buying-alcohol-arrested-at-gun-point-by-police-after-actually-buying-bottled-water/ (http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/06/20103-college-girls-suspected-of-buying-alcohol-arrested-at-gun-point-by-police-after-actually-buying-bottled-water/)
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/29/college-student-arrested-thrown-in-jail-after-buying-bottled-water/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/29/college-student-arrested-thrown-in-jail-after-buying-bottled-water/)QuoteIt should have been just a simple trip to the grocery store to buy bottled water, cookie dough and ice cream for a sorority event.
Instead, six plainclothes officers swarmed University of Virginia student Elizabeth Daly, who was ultimately arrested and spent the night and next afternoon in jail, the Charlottesville Daily Progress reported.
College Student Arrested & Thrown in Jail After Buying Bottled Water
Getty Images
What happened? The officers — men and a woman — were state Alcoholic Beverage Control agents who suspected the 20-year-old walking to her car that night had just bought a pack of beer. One agent jumped on the hood of her SUV and Daly said one drew a gun. Panicking and not knowing who they were, she tried to get away.
“They were showing unidentifiable badges after they approached us, but we became frightened, as they were not in anything close to a uniform,” Daly said in a written account of the April 11 incident.
“I couldn’t put my windows down unless I started my car, and when I started my car they began yelling to not move the car, not to start the car. They began trying to break the windows. My roommates and I were…terrified,” she stated.
She dialed 911 as she pulled out of the parking lot and stopped for an agent’s car with lights and sirens, the Daily Progress reported. Once she realized who the agents were, she apologized profusely.
Nevertheless, Daly was charged with two felony counts of assaulting a law enforcement officer after she grazed two agents with her SUV trying to flee, and one felony count of eluding police.
She spent the night and afternoon in jail, and was facing prison time and thousands of dollars in fines before the charges were dropped Thursday.
Charlottesville Commonwealth’s Attorney Dave Chapman told the Daily Progress he’d never seen a case like this in 34 years of experience.
“It wouldn’t be the right thing to do to prosecute this,” he said.
The Alcoholic Beverage Control said Friday it’s reviewing the incident. A spokeswoman said a female agent saw “what appeared to be an underage person in possession of what appeared to be a case of beer.”
“The agent identified herself as a police officer and was displaying her badge,” agency spokeswoman Kathleen Shaw said in a statement. “The agents were acting upon reasonable suspicion.”
The story you cited deals with having people of very poor judgement in a uniform, regardless of which agency they work for. I could probably find you hundreds of stories of incompetence from municipal police departments and county sheriff's offices too. No profession, company, or agency is immune from idiots.
Post by: KFhunter on January 18, 2014, 08:36:11 PM
with that in mind I don't have so much of a concern now, and it makes since.
Post by: bigtex on January 18, 2014, 08:38:01 PM
I don't know anything about LCB officers other than their job description, I don't know any personally.That's a good question and not many people know about them. From the few I've known, I would have no problem putting them in a deputy or city officer uniform. I know a few and from what I've gathered is there are two types.
So tell me why someone from WSP or other agency would want to become an LCB officer?
It smacks to me of a place for ROJ/ROAD and washouts, but is it really a desirable job attracting our best and brightest?
1- Is the recent retiree from a full authority agency who still wants to be in LE but doesn't need to be running and gunning to domestics and so forth all night long. I heard they've hired something like 10 recently retired WSP Troopers within the past year or so.
2- The agency is basically a set your own work schedule agency. So for someone who doesn't need to be out running and gunning and maybe wants more of a personal life this agency fits you. It's not like most PD's and SO's where you rotate shifts every couple months. You make your own schedule, you can work from home, you have a lot of freedom.
Post by: Crunchy on January 18, 2014, 08:42:06 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 18, 2014, 08:43:50 PM
If liquor control board officers go through the same acedemy as all other LEOs what makes their ability to enforce laws any different than another of county or city officer or deputy? Their commision is with the state, not state liquor control board.
It's under state law that LCB Officers can only enforce alcohol, some tobacco, and some drug laws. Just like how state law limits DNR LE to just DNR lands. And under state law the agency is defined as "limited authority"
Post by: KFhunter on January 18, 2014, 09:33:01 PM
The story you cited deals with having people of very poor judgement in a uniform, regardless of which agency they work for. I could probably find you hundreds of stories of incompetence from municipal police departments and county sheriff's offices too. No profession, company, or agency is immune from idiots.
It's not fair to our LCB officers, but this story was in my mind as a wrote those two posts above.
exactly right, so I put the little disclaimer on there. Someone was going to link that story eventually so I went ahead and did it.
Post by: blackdog on January 18, 2014, 09:34:12 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 18, 2014, 09:51:54 PM
I would be more comfortable giving the County sheriffs department the LCB and DNR law enforcement contracts and the problem is solved.I can only see that being increased costs to the state. King County alone has about 20 LCB Officers making about 50k a year in terms of salary. If the LCB told King County SO they want to contract and have 20 King County Deputies do LCB work (basically same staffing level), LCB would have to pay a lot more considering a King County Deputy at top step makes about 80k per year. Go to each county and you will see that many (not all) pay deputies more then they pay LCB Officers. Then you bring in training, how long does it take to teach a deputy about the different types of liquor and server licenses? If a deputy only lasts a year or two working liquor enforcement how often will the LCB have to provide training? There is a reason why when a deputy or city officer gets some type of liquor violation outside of the regular stuff (selling to minors, etc) they call LCB. And now you need to remember is that LCB is responsible for marijuana growing and sales enforcement.
There is a reason why the majority of states have a state liquor enforcement agency, it's because it works. If it worked better with counties then you would see that. It's just like when people say fish and wildlife enforcement should be under WSP, only two states operate that way. Why should WA follow the lead of 2 states when 48 others aren't doing it?
Post by: KFhunter on January 18, 2014, 10:07:13 PM
A lot of folks on here were all for legalizing MJ, but with that comes state controls and LE
Post by: bigtex on January 18, 2014, 10:11:37 PM
remember this is all on the front burner because of the recent changes to the MJ laws.:yeah:
A lot of folks on here were all for legalizing MJ, but with that comes state controls and LE
As well as putting liquor in grocery stores. The initiative and voters said they wanted to take the state out of the liquor selling business and have a larger role in public safety...well here you go
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 19, 2014, 09:08:20 AM
I would be more comfortable giving the County sheriffs department the LCB and DNR law enforcement contracts and the problem is solved.I can only see that being increased costs to the state. King County alone has about 20 LCB Officers making about 50k a year in terms of salary. If the LCB told King County SO they want to contract and have 20 King County Deputies do LCB work (basically same staffing level), LCB would have to pay a lot more considering a King County Deputy at top step makes about 80k per year. Go to each county and you will see that many (not all) pay deputies more then they pay LCB Officers. Then you bring in training, how long does it take to teach a deputy about the different types of liquor and server licenses? If a deputy only lasts a year or two working liquor enforcement how often will the LCB have to provide training? There is a reason why when a deputy or city officer gets some type of liquor violation outside of the regular stuff (selling to minors, etc) they call LCB. And now you need to remember is that LCB is responsible for marijuana growing and sales enforcement.
There is a reason why the majority of states have a state liquor enforcement agency, it's because it works. If it worked better with counties then you would see that. It's just like when people say fish and wildlife enforcement should be under WSP, only two states operate that way. Why should WA follow the lead of 2 states then 48 others aren't doing it?
That post seems to make just as good of a case to keep them liquor enforcement specific. Does it not?
Post by: KFhunter on January 19, 2014, 09:15:07 AM
I think they'd be like the WSP DOT enforcement, they're the guys doing commercial truck enforcement.
You don't see them pulling over speeders too often as their focus is on commercial trucks, but if they see something egregious they'll can/will pull you over.
but normally you'll just cruise on by while they look for the next semi truck to pull over.
Post by: bigtex on January 19, 2014, 09:17:21 AM
I don't see how it does? The large majority of the officers are previous general authority officers so they wont need extra training, they already know the "system." And if anything you are getting a lot of new general authority officers cheaper then you would deputies in most areas. If this bill would pass LCB would be the lowest paid state general authority agency (LCB, WDFW, WSP).I would be more comfortable giving the County sheriffs department the LCB and DNR law enforcement contracts and the problem is solved.I can only see that being increased costs to the state. King County alone has about 20 LCB Officers making about 50k a year in terms of salary. If the LCB told King County SO they want to contract and have 20 King County Deputies do LCB work (basically same staffing level), LCB would have to pay a lot more considering a King County Deputy at top step makes about 80k per year. Go to each county and you will see that many (not all) pay deputies more then they pay LCB Officers. Then you bring in training, how long does it take to teach a deputy about the different types of liquor and server licenses? If a deputy only lasts a year or two working liquor enforcement how often will the LCB have to provide training? There is a reason why when a deputy or city officer gets some type of liquor violation outside of the regular stuff (selling to minors, etc) they call LCB. And now you need to remember is that LCB is responsible for marijuana growing and sales enforcement.
There is a reason why the majority of states have a state liquor enforcement agency, it's because it works. If it worked better with counties then you would see that. It's just like when people say fish and wildlife enforcement should be under WSP, only two states operate that way. Why should WA follow the lead of 2 states then 48 others aren't doing it?
That post seems to make just as good of a case to keep them liquor enforcement specific. Does it not?
Post by: Bofire on January 19, 2014, 09:19:02 AM
I knew a LCB guy, great guy and a friend, he was a retired state custody cop, prison guard.
Carl
Post by: bigtex on January 19, 2014, 09:20:19 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 19, 2014, 09:22:59 AM
:)OK so the academy/commission cost is covered. Would there be other costs? before I retired we always said it costs 100k to put a cop on the street. training, guns, uniforms, car, radios computers, office space, etc.Well all of those costs are already covered. LCB Officers have all the gear that other LEOs have. All LCB Officers have computers in their cars, there are still some PDs and SOs that don't have computers. They are already dispatched by WSP, and so on. Also, the liquor and marijuana initiatives provides a lot of funding to the LCB for LE and that is where any extra costs will be covered out off.
I knew a LCB guy, great guy and a friend, he was a retired state custody cop, prison guard.
Carl
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 19, 2014, 09:23:58 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 21, 2014, 03:41:04 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 21, 2014, 03:51:22 PM
For those that said they would be contacting their reps in opposition to this bill. What, if any response did you receive?
The cops kicked my front door down, tazed me and sprayed me with mace.
Just like they do every week
Post by: bigtex on January 21, 2014, 03:58:31 PM
Man you lead a tough life :chuckle:For those that said they would be contacting their reps in opposition to this bill. What, if any response did you receive?
The cops kicked my front door down, tazed me and sprayed me with mace.
Just like they do every week
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 21, 2014, 04:00:14 PM
Post by: JLS on January 21, 2014, 04:04:04 PM
For those that said they would be contacting their reps in opposition to this bill. What, if any response did you receive?
The cops kicked my front door down, tazed me and sprayed me with mace.
Just like they do every week
Did they tell you why they did it? :)
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 21, 2014, 04:14:49 PM
For those that said they would be contacting their reps in opposition to this bill. What, if any response did you receive?
The cops kicked my front door down, tazed me and sprayed me with mace.
Just like they do every week
Did they tell you why they did it? :)
'cause I like it?
Post by: csaaphill on January 26, 2014, 07:11:22 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 27, 2014, 01:58:07 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 28, 2014, 08:12:26 PM
I actually watched the hearing as I was in Olympia for other reasons. Some things I noticed that differed from this years hearing and last year's:
- Last year the Skamania County Sheriff testified against the bill and basically pulled the "this attacks the sheriff's authority" line which didn't sit too well for him and he basically got booed out of the building, his reputation in Olympia was ruined in many eyes by some of the things he said. This year the Pierce County Sheriff testified and he was more politically correct he basically just said leave the LCB handling liquor, tobacco and drug crimes. So very similar to how some people want WDFW to just do fish and wildlife.
- There was a lot more questioning done of LCB LE staff this year by the committee members. A lot of hypothetical situations asked where their LE authority is and isn't. Seemed like many members where shocked just how little LE authority they have.
WASPC (the group which represents the actual Sheriff's and Chief's) was there in opposition. WACOPS (which represents all LEOs from the newest recruit to the recent retiree) is in favor of the bill.
WASPC and WACOPS are kind of in a battle for power right now. Both are big LE endorsements so politicians don't want to lose these group's endorsements. The former WACOPS President is a House Public Safety Committee member and current LEO. It sounds like WASPC is starting to lose their ground/fight in these types of bills as it's becoming obvious the only reason they oppose them is giving more LE authority to the state (aka a turf war).
Post by: bigtex on January 28, 2014, 10:20:58 PM
1- Some or all DNR LEOs are commissioned as county deputies already in 25 counties
2- DNR LE currently consists of 12 LE personnel, compared to about 80 with Liquor (which are slated for 20 more officers) and about the same with Parks
3- Almost all DNR LEOs are former WSP Troopers
Post by: bigtex on January 31, 2014, 10:34:26 AM
RCW 9 (Crimes and Punishments
RCW 9A (Criminal Code)
RCW 46 (Traffic)
The general consensus a the hearing is that something needed to be done this year. It looks like this is a step towards that.
Post by: trophyhunt on January 31, 2014, 10:52:15 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 31, 2014, 10:56:52 AM
Why traffic? I still don't like this bill at all, like said earlier, too many wanna b cops already. And I have tons of respect for the good ones!DUI, Reckless, and Aggressive Driving right in front of LCB Officers
LCB Officers have always said almost every night they see someone stumble out of a bar, get in their car and drive away. No authority right now to do anything. Give them traffic authority and they can pull over the DUI in front of them.
To me, this is a good medium point. I'd still prefer general authority because there are some of those random offenses that can occur in front of these officers yet they still wont have authority. As an example, under this legislation the officers still wouldn't have authority over someone smoking a cigarette in a bar, or someone smoking medical marijuana in public.
These aren't "wanna b cops" they already have statewide arrest authority, firearms, and patrol vehicles. To me, a "wanna b cop" is a security guard.
Post by: trophyhunt on January 31, 2014, 11:03:01 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: iusmc2002 on January 31, 2014, 11:09:58 AM
What the hell is the point of having all these separate agencies, that do the same damn thing, but have to have their own admin sections and directors? If they have the same job, put them under ONE agency, with ONE name, with ONE director and save the state a little money....
They work for LCB. Let them worry about LCB business..... You know damn well it will turn into a revenue generator before long. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. More LEO=more needing justification to have/keep them. Then what? I just don't understand why people think MORE outside control of their lives is a good thing?!
Post by: bigtex on January 31, 2014, 11:14:19 AM
I just wouldn't want an over zealous LCB guy pulling me over for going 5 over the speed limit cause now he can, I agree with you about the drunk getting into their car. The other wanna be's I think of is the state park azz in mnt Rainer park that eye balls me cause my tires are loud and he thinks I'm going 2 miles over the speed limit up there. It seems they really enjoy letting us know they have a gun now and can write us tickets.You may want to get your facts straight. State Parks don't work at Mount Rainier, those are federal LE Rangers. They have had LE authority (firearms and arrests) since around 1915.
State Park Rangers have always had law enforcement authority, they just weren't required to wear firearms until 1994, however they could always have had personal firearms.
Also, LCB has no plans to get Radar/Lidar.
Post by: trophyhunt on January 31, 2014, 11:19:19 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on January 31, 2014, 11:19:38 AM
It's how it works everywhere.
What the hell is the point of having all these separate agencies, that do the same damn thing, but have to have their own admin sections and directors?
I've already said the idea of all state law enforcement personnel having full LE authority is not new, it's how it's done in most states. WA is a rarity when it comes to still having limited authority state agencies.
Something like 85% of the state liquor enforcement agencies in the US have full authority LE officers.
It was mentioned at the hearing, even Utah which is a big anti-state, ant-fed LE state has full authority liquor officers. I also know they have statewide full authority state parks and wildlife officers. Several years ago I was driving through Utah and saw a Utah wildlife officer make a traffic stop on the state hwy.
Post by: bigtex on January 31, 2014, 11:21:32 AM
Ok, the guys in the green trucks that work on chinook pass.Well both Forest Service and National Park Service law enforcement officers have white patrol vehicles.
The only people driving green rigs I am guessing are USFS personnel who aren't law enforcement. USFS does give some non-LE personnel authority to write tickets for like fees and fires but they don't have firearms or make traffic stops....
Post by: trophyhunt on January 31, 2014, 11:27:17 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on January 31, 2014, 11:29:13 AM
Weird, I swear the guys in green trucks have people pulled over more times than not when ever I go over that pass. I may be wrong on the exact color of the truck.Ya Forest and Park Service only have white LEO vehicles. There are some green USFS LEO vehicles but they are only on the Mexico border so they don't get confused with Border Patrol.
Post by: trophyhunt on January 31, 2014, 11:30:48 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: trophyhunt on January 31, 2014, 11:32:59 AM
oh, I'm not sure where this pic was taken. It's on their web site.Weird, I swear the guys in green trucks have people pulled over more times than not when ever I go over that pass. I may be wrong on the exact color of the truck.Ya Forest and Park Service only have white LEO vehicles. There are some green USFS LEO vehicles but they are only on the Mexico border so they don't get confused with Border Patrol.
Post by: bigtex on January 31, 2014, 11:36:22 AM
That's a very old picture from I believe the 1990s from a USFS LEO in the Maine area. Up until around 2000 the USFS LEOs had green vehicles, now all are white except for the border.oh, I'm not sure where this pic was taken. It's on their web site.Weird, I swear the guys in green trucks have people pulled over more times than not when ever I go over that pass. I may be wrong on the exact color of the truck.Ya Forest and Park Service only have white LEO vehicles. There are some green USFS LEO vehicles but they are only on the Mexico border so they don't get confused with Border Patrol.
But NPS has had white patrol vehicles for as long as I can remember.
Post by: bigtex on January 31, 2014, 04:25:54 PM
There's really a couple components to the law but one of them is selling uncertified shellfish. Basically meaning the restaurant/store didn't get the shellfish legally.
Well what state LE entity is always in stores and restaurants? Liquor Control Board
Who enforces sanitary shellfish laws? WDFW
LCB can't enforce these laws because they a) don't have general authority and b) even with this bill they couldn't because these laws are under RCW 69.30 and the only addition to LCB authority would be RCW 9, 9A, and 46.
I think we would see a significant increase in the amount of sanitary shellfish offenses if LCB Officers could enforce the laws.
Right now a LCB Officer could open a fridge to look at the alcohol in an Asian restaurant and if he saw illegal clams he would have no authority over them.
Post by: Special T on January 31, 2014, 04:46:07 PM
Just because 85% of the rest of the states are doing something does NOT mean we should be also. There is a lot of Dumb stuff happening in other states, and I DO NOT want washington to be like the East Coast or California. That justification to me is a non starter and is for people that cannot sell the needed expansion of government. EVERY time i hear some one say it we should give them a knee jerk HELL NO! Explain yourself! :twocents:
Post by: bigtex on January 31, 2014, 04:53:18 PM
This bill is getting closer to what i may find acceptable. 2 reason why i don't like general athority. The laws are complex, and if it is necessary for the state to have "specialized" agencies to deal with certain issues then they should focus on those issues. I can see how a DUI directly relates to a LCB job description, A speeding ticket does not. I would think that witnessing an assult should be covered as well, why? Bar brawl... The shell fish issue may be nice, but ithink that is pushing the line... You might be able to convince me of it but :dunno:.And under the amended bill an assault would fall under their authority. And that's the problem right now, a LCB Officer could walk into a bar and see an assault and would have no legal standing to break it up and arrest the assaulter, yet could walk over to the bartender/bouncer and arrest them for allowing for the fight to happen and then cite the business. Doesn't make sense to me at least.
I personally don't think the battle is over here. The next battle with this bill is going to be traffic. You see sheriffs in other states complaining about feds enforcing state laws, which laws are they all upset about? Traffic, they could care less about the natural resource stuff, they just hate having the BLM/USFS doing traffic stops. So I think that is the next "battle" these guys will be facing.
But to me it makes perfect sense for them to have traffic, especially for DUI. And I can already see a LCB policy being something along the lines of "an LCB Officer cannot make a traffic stop unless the driver is creating a dangerous situation" so the guy with no seatbelt or license plate light will not be pulled over.
I think it's interesting the legislature didn't include the public/indoor smoking law which I know LCB Officers run into. The offenses aren't even criminal acts, they are infractions, yet that section of laws would still be outside their authority.
Post by: iusmc2002 on January 31, 2014, 09:47:50 PM
Right now a LCB Officer could open a fridge to look at the alcohol in an Asian restaurant and if he saw illegal clams he would have no authority over them.
Illegal clams? Really?! Great argument for needing more authority.....
Post by: bigtex on January 31, 2014, 10:21:18 PM
Now you are putting words in my mouth, I never said they need more authority so they can simply do clams.Right now a LCB Officer could open a fridge to look at the alcohol in an Asian restaurant and if he saw illegal clams he would have no authority over them.Illegal clams? Really?! Great argument for needing more authority.....
I said if they had general authority then they could be partners with WDFW and enforce those laws.
I don't think LCB needs more authority just so they can do clams, they need more authority because of the other public safety crimes occurring in liquor establishments.
Post by: bigtex on February 01, 2014, 04:45:34 PM
Here is the problem, in law enforcement there is a saying along the lines of "if you catch it, you clean it." Basically meaning if you see the fight, you stop the fight, you arrest the assaulter and take him to jail. You don't stop the fight and ask for the Sheriff/PD. You don't run a car, it comes back stolen and then call the locals. Basically, you finish your own mess. It came up during the LCB hearing where the Chief said right now his officers can do administrative financial investigations, but cant do criminal financial investigations and when they give the criminal aspect to a PD/SO rarely do they investigate.
It's very similar in the non-LE world. Would a car mechanic want to essentially fix something that another mechanic has already started, or would he rather be the mechanic from the get-go? Would a carpenter want to come into a project in the middle, or be the original contractor?
I was recently reading a LE forum and a Sheriff in California told the state and feds (land management agencies) that they will back up and support them, but "if you catch it, you clean it." So if CA Fish and Wildlife gets a guy with meth, then it's a CA Fish and Wildlife case, the county will come out and assist, but that's all they will do.
Right now there is a lot of catching, and passing on with the LCB. Not much "catching and cleaning."
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 02, 2014, 07:17:28 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 02, 2014, 07:31:24 AM
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2014, 12:37:58 PM
They allready have the authority just like all the citizens of this state,,,,,,,,,,,,,Call it in.I've called Leo several times on drunk or out of control drivers.Its not very often that a LEO does anything before he/she calls it in any way.Before a LEO pulls over a drunk driver they call it in first,pull the driver over and the other LEO know whats going on and can assist,and do most of the time.So these other groups trying to get the authority dont need it any more than any of us. :twocents:So when that DUI driver in front of a LCB Officer goes off the road and kills a pedestrian walker in your mindset this is ok? Because that's what your saying steve. You don't want a dangerous driver to be pulled off the road just because the officer has LCB on his badge and not WSP, Sheriff or City. You act like LEOs are around every corner, what if the closest non-LCB Officer able to stop the DUI driver is 30 minutes away from the LCB Officer? The Skamania Sheriff said this last year at the committee hearing and he was basically booed out of Olympia and the Sheriff's Association doesn't even want him to testify on bills anymore.
I'd hate to be a legislator and have the media ask me why the DUI driver who killed someone couldn't be taken off the road even though there was a state law enforcement officer driving behind them.
Sorry Jimmy your dad died because a drunk driver hit him, even though there was a state law enforcement officer behind him he couldn't pull the driver off the road because some people don't want LCB Officers to take dangerous people off the roads....
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 02, 2014, 01:06:57 PM
Sorry Jimmy your dad died because a drunk driver hit him, even though there was a state law enforcement officer behind him he couldn't pull the driver off the road because some people don't want LCB Officers to take dangerous people off the roads....
Thank god you were able to pull out the old tried and true "it's all about the children"
Is there a "I wanna puke" icon?
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2014, 01:12:12 PM
I wasn't even trying to the whole "all about the children" thing. You can change my statement to sorry jimmy your wife/dad/mom/brother/etc it's all the same thing.Sorry Jimmy your dad died because a drunk driver hit him, even though there was a state law enforcement officer behind him he couldn't pull the driver off the road because some people don't want LCB Officers to take dangerous people off the roads....Thank god you were able to pull out the old tried and true "it's all about the children"
Is there a "I wanna puke" icon?
There is a reason why most states (both heavily democratic and heavily republican states) have realized that a cop is a cop. Doesn't matter if your badge says WSP, WDFW, or LCB. But for some reason we fail to realize this in WA.
Post by: Crunchy on February 02, 2014, 08:55:34 PM
I would prefer that the state give the money and responsibility to the local sheriff's office, but if that wasn't an option then I would still support it.
Post by: stevemiller on February 02, 2014, 08:58:40 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 02, 2014, 09:07:18 PM
Having read through this thread I have yet to see one decent argument against it. Ask any cop what they need, and the reply is almost always MORE cops. They are being asked to do more with less, and every state, county, and city agency are going through major cuts or barely holding on.
I would prefer that the state give the money and responsibility to the local sheriff's office, but if that wasn't an option then I would still support it.
But in this case they are requesting to do more.
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2014, 11:06:49 PM
Another point I wish to make here bigtex is jurisdiction how is that supposed to work?A municipal cop has jurisdiction in his or her city,a sheriff has the entire county,And state patrol has the state highways.This bill would give these other groups statewide authority? :dunno:
You were correct up until state patrol.
State patrol has statewide authority, not just on the highways. They are essentially the "super" county deputy in that they can go in all counties and do everything. WDFW and WSP are the two state agencies with this authority.
The original bill would have made LCB join the list of WDFW and WSP, LCB could have gone everywhere and done anything.
Now the bill will just limit LCB the additional authority of traffic (RCW 46), RCW 9 (crimes and punishment, and RCW 9 (WA Criminal Code).
Right now LCB has statewide authority simply over alcohol, most drugs, and tobacco laws as they pertain to taxing and use by minors.
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2014, 11:09:23 PM
I just read the comments section on this bill from the LCB and it says if certain conditions have been met by the LCB officer,What are these conditions?
When the hearing for the bill happened the bill being discussed would have granted full law enforcement authority for LCB Officers and most would need additional training.
Now the bill is simply granting authority over three new RCW sections and not granting full LE authority. No additional training is needed.
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2014, 11:10:36 PM
I would prefer that the state give the money and responsibility to the local sheriff's office, but if that wasn't an option then I would still support it.
I am sure you already know this but the state doesn't give money to non-state law enforcement agencies. This is how it works in most states. County/city agencies are funded by their city/county funds.
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2014, 11:13:26 PM
I agree and disagree with you. They are certainly asking for more authority, but they aren't going to be sitting up on I-5 running traffic or any additional duties. They are simply wanting authority to deal with the things they already encounter during their jobs already.Having read through this thread I have yet to see one decent argument against it. Ask any cop what they need, and the reply is almost always MORE cops. They are being asked to do more with less, and every state, county, and city agency are going through major cuts or barely holding on.But in this case they are requesting to do more.
I would prefer that the state give the money and responsibility to the local sheriff's office, but if that wasn't an option then I would still support it.
It was said in the committee hearing. A fight happens in a bar and LCB is there, they cant do anything but call for city/county. You now have at least 2 officers from at least 2 agencies dealing with a situation which in many cases can be handled with one full authority officer. How much money is being wasted here?
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2014, 11:15:10 PM
Also I would like to point to RCW 9A.16.020,To show what I meant when I said every citizen of Wa. state allready has that authority.9A.16.110 for the bar fight brought up. :twocents:
You also need to understand law enforcement agencies. Agencies (nationwide) tell their officers do NOT get involved in anything outside your authority. The idea of an on-duty officer making a citizen arrest for something outside their authority is grounds for termination in most agencies :twocents:
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2014, 11:17:33 PM
You said the LCB Officer should call in the DUI, which I assume means have a deputy, trooper, city cop pull the drunk over?No bigtex, thats not what I said,I would like for you to quote me word for word on that statement and show me exactly where it is.And I guess since he was booed out of the hearing Im not alone with my mindset,now am I?They allready have the authority just like all the citizens of this state,,,,,,,,,,,,,Call it in.I've called Leo several times on drunk or out of control drivers.Its not very often that a LEO does anything before he/she calls it in any way.Before a LEO pulls over a drunk driver they call it in first,pull the driver over and the other LEO know whats going on and can assist,and do most of the time.So these other groups trying to get the authority dont need it any more than any of us. :twocents:So when that DUI driver in front of a LCB Officer goes off the road and kills a pedestrian walker in your mindset this is ok? Because that's what your saying steve. You don't want a dangerous driver to be pulled off the road just because the officer has LCB on his badge and not WSP, Sheriff or City. You act like LEOs are around every corner, what if the closest non-LCB Officer able to stop the DUI driver is 30 minutes away from the LCB Officer? The Skamania Sheriff said this last year at the committee hearing and he was basically booed out of Olympia and the Sheriff's Association doesn't even want him to testify on bills anymore.
I'd hate to be a legislator and have the media ask me why the DUI driver who killed someone couldn't be taken off the road even though there was a state law enforcement officer driving behind them.
Sorry Jimmy your dad died because a drunk driver hit him, even though there was a state law enforcement officer behind him he couldn't pull the driver off the road because some people don't want LCB Officers to take dangerous people off the roads....
And what happens if that other officer doesn't get their in time to pull the individual over and now the driver has killed someone? LCB cant make traffic stops for traffic offenses.
Post by: stevemiller on February 02, 2014, 11:22:55 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2014, 11:23:19 PM
There are still counties in WA that don't have 24/7 Sheriff and WSP coverage. So a LCB Officer driving home after doing bar closing checks at 3AM has a drunk in front of him the closest Sheriff and WSP Officer is at home on-call. What do you do? Just keep following him for 30 minutes hoping he doesn't kill someone until Sheriff/WSP shows up?Hire more police officers.You said the LCB Officer should call in the DUI, which I assume means have a deputy, trooper, city cop pull the drunk over?No bigtex, thats not what I said,I would like for you to quote me word for word on that statement and show me exactly where it is.And I guess since he was booed out of the hearing Im not alone with my mindset,now am I?They allready have the authority just like all the citizens of this state,,,,,,,,,,,,,Call it in.I've called Leo several times on drunk or out of control drivers.Its not very often that a LEO does anything before he/she calls it in any way.Before a LEO pulls over a drunk driver they call it in first,pull the driver over and the other LEO know whats going on and can assist,and do most of the time.So these other groups trying to get the authority dont need it any more than any of us. :twocents:So when that DUI driver in front of a LCB Officer goes off the road and kills a pedestrian walker in your mindset this is ok? Because that's what your saying steve. You don't want a dangerous driver to be pulled off the road just because the officer has LCB on his badge and not WSP, Sheriff or City. You act like LEOs are around every corner, what if the closest non-LCB Officer able to stop the DUI driver is 30 minutes away from the LCB Officer? The Skamania Sheriff said this last year at the committee hearing and he was basically booed out of Olympia and the Sheriff's Association doesn't even want him to testify on bills anymore.
I'd hate to be a legislator and have the media ask me why the DUI driver who killed someone couldn't be taken off the road even though there was a state law enforcement officer driving behind them.
Sorry Jimmy your dad died because a drunk driver hit him, even though there was a state law enforcement officer behind him he couldn't pull the driver off the road because some people don't want LCB Officers to take dangerous people off the roads....
And what happens if that other officer doesn't get their in time to pull the individual over and now the driver has killed someone? LCB cant make traffic stops for traffic offenses.
You said hire more officers? How much do you want your taxes to go up so we can have an officer within 5 minutes response time of every road in WA 24/7?
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2014, 11:24:19 PM
Dont forget the part where I said the courts are the first to be blamed for the DUI problem not the LEO.10 DUI's and still not in prison,I hear it all the time.I agree. The ability to punish a DUI offender is there, the punishment being handed down is not consistent with the crime :twocents:
Post by: stevemiller on February 02, 2014, 11:25:36 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2014, 11:28:03 PM
Exactly.And why do you think this is? :yeah: I'm sorry maybe I need a tin foil hat but dont Communist countries have set ups like this where all LEO wear the same uniforms and cover all aspects of law.Well just about every state in the union allows their State Patrol to enforce all aspects of law within the state.
Almost all states allow their fish and wildlife officers to enforce all aspects of law within the state
Almost all states with alcohol enforcement agencies allow their officers to enforce all aspects of law within the state.
And it most states it has been like this longer then probably all of us have been alive.
Then you have states that have full authority law enforcement officers working for the Horse Racing Commission, Community College Police all with full statewide authority.
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2014, 11:29:30 PM
I see your point with this and dont have a lot to say about it,But let me ask you this,Would you pull over after 3 am when an unmarked car without sirens or lights tries to pull you over?LCB Officers have vehicles with lights, sirens, are dispatched by WSP (like all other state agencies), and wear a uniform with the big word "POLICE" on their back....
So if I saw a car looking like that behind me, yes I would.
Post by: stevemiller on February 02, 2014, 11:30:22 PM
Post by: stevemiller on February 02, 2014, 11:33:18 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2014, 11:38:31 PM
What exactly does it meen they are dispatched by WSP?CPS is dispatched by the Sheriffs dept.WA Fish and Wildlife, WA Dept of Natural Resources, WA State Parks, LCB, US Forest Service and some other smaller agencies all use the same frequency on WSP radio with Troopers.
So if someone calls in a poaching it goes over WSP radio. If a State Park Ranger checks someone for warrants its on WSP radio. If a LCB Officer says their going into a bar it goes over the WSP radio. If a report of a liquor violation occurs, WSP dispatchers contact LCB over the radio.
All of this is on the same frequency.
So in King County you may hear a Trooper making a traffic stop on I-5, followed by a WDFW Officer checking someone for warrants at Lk Washington, a USFS Officer checking someone's driving license status on Snoqualmie Pass and a LCB Officer saying their going into Joe's Bar.
Post by: stevemiller on February 02, 2014, 11:44:10 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2014, 11:59:28 PM
OK I got that part,now back to jurisdiction,statewide for these groups?And is it right to say that in say king county the sheriff has more jurisdiction than state patrol?
WDFW and WSP can go everywhere and do anything.
LCB can go everywhere and only do alcohol, some drugs, and some tobacco.
State Parks can enforce all state laws on State Park lands, but none off Park lands.
DNR can enforce all state laws on DNR lands, but none off of DNR lands.
A city officer or Sheriff's deputy has the same jurisdiction (under RCW it is known as "general authority) as WDFW or WSP. The difference is the sheriff is limited to his county, the state officer is not. A trooper or WDFW officer can do the exact same things a city officer or deputy sheriff can do.
Post by: bigtex on February 05, 2014, 10:19:29 PM
Big change to the bill that was passed out of committee today.
The 2013 and 2014 bill would have given the LCB general authority and also permitted LCB Officers into the state law enforcement academy. As of right now LCB, DNR, Tribal agencies, and State Parks can get into the state law enforcement academy but they get in if there are no other officers taking that spot, if an agency submits a late request for an officer to attend the LCB (or agency listed above) gets bumped to the next class. This means you can have LCB Officers working for sometimes up to a year before attending an academy. It was really bad around 2005-6 when agencies were hiring officers by the ton and the LCB decided to send their new officers to the Idaho academy.
Now DNR gets around this by only hiring experienced officers. Tribal agencies can send their officers to the federal BIA academy, and State Parks sends their new LE Rangers to the NPS seasonal LE academy (same hours as the state LE academy) at Skagit College. So this means LCB is still sitting there with no concrete way of getting into an academy. The legislation in 2013 and 2014 basically said that LCB Officers are on par with the other full authority agencies when it came to academy attendance.
The proposed amendment I listed several days ago would have taken away the full authority provision and just granted authority over three new RCW titles. The academy provision remained. That amendment was removed by the sponsoring legislator.
The bill as passed today did not include any expansion of law enforcement powers to the LCB but simply says the state LE academy will treat LCB as general authority officers and allow them to attend. No more bumping to another class because they work for the LCB.
The vote today consisted of all Democrats voting in favor as well as Republicans Hope and Hayes (Hope is a former LEO, Hayes is a current LEO). The three Republicans voting against were Ross, Klippert (current LEO), and Holy (former LEO).
Post by: bigtex on February 06, 2014, 12:14:05 PM
It would obviously be beneficial for the LCB to get authority over those three new titles but that actually would still create problems. As of right now LCB Officers cant break up a fight because they don't have authority over assaults, and legally they cannot hold anyone till local LE shows up for offenses outside their authority.
So for a natural resource connection think of this. If the LCB Officer had authority over traffic, as was proposed in the bill and a LCB Officer is behind a guy swerving all over the road and he pulls the individual over. Turns out the guy isn't drunk he was just texting, but it also turns out there is an out of season deer in the back of the truck. Under the first bill which granted general authority the LCB Officer actually could have processed the case himself, or could have held the vehicle and driver and called for WDFW. But if the proposed amendment would've passed the LCB Officer could not legally hold the driver/vehicle because the deer violation is not under the three proposed titles, and the guy could drive off. Again, an officer cant hold someone for a violation outside their authority.
Under the proposed amendment the LCB wouldn't have gotten additional authority to enforce legend drugs, precursor drugs, or medical marijuana violations because those don't fall under RCW 69.50. They still couldn't have cited someone for smoking in a bar, yet could cite a minor with a cigarette and so on
This is why it makes sense that DNR Officers and State Parks LE Rangers can enforce all laws within their state lands.
Post by: trophyhunt on February 06, 2014, 12:40:17 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 06, 2014, 01:00:50 PM
So this brought a question to my mind, what do citizens have authority to do when they witness a crime in progress? We have all heard of citizen arrest, what exactly does that mean? Can I hold a person down who I catch , for example, stealing mail until an officer shows up? Or any other crimes? If so, why wouldn't a LCB officer do the same? Or are citizen arrest illegal? Thanks
It's a good question, and I already talked about an LCB Officer doing a citizens arrest but I will do it again.
WA's citizen arrest law is not under state statute but rather case law, which to me is a big red flag. Basically you are going by what some judges opinion is, rather then law.
WA Citizens Arrest:
Under Washington law, a private person can conduct a citizen’s arrest for a misdemeanor if the misdemeanor: (1) was committed in the citizen’s presence and (2) constituted a breach of the peace. State v. Gonzales, 24 Wn. App. 437, 439, 604 P.2d 168 (1979); Guijosa v. Wal-Mart Stores, 101 Wn. App. 777, 791, 6 P.3d 583 (2000).
A person can also conduct a citizen’s arrest for felonies. See State v. Malone, 106 Wn.2d 607, 724 P.2d 364 at FN1 (1986) citing State v. Miller, 103 Wn.2d 792, 698 P.2d 554 (1985) and State v. Gonzales, 24 Wn. App. 437, 604 P.2d 168 (1979).
Now back to an LCB Officer making a citizens arrest. I don't know of any agency in this country that allows their officers to make citizens arrests for something outside their authority and I believe it was brought up in the LCB hearing.
A lot of it has to do with liability. Who is more likely to be sued for something that occurred during a citizens arrest, John Doe the local farmer, or the LCB Officer in full uniform that says the arrest occurred because he was a citizen and not an LEO. Of course the LCB Officer would most likely be sued.
I'll say this, I've been in a lot of law enforcement bill hearings in Olympia, whenever a citizen is against any type of expansion of authority and brings up "citizens arrest" as a route against the bill, you can see the eyes roll from every committee member from a mile away
Post by: trophyhunt on February 06, 2014, 01:04:51 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on February 06, 2014, 01:16:04 PM
Thanks, I bet you don't hear about too many citizen arrest's? Seems real risky to me.Cant remember the last time I heard of one in WA. I personally would never do something that is simply found in case law rather then state statute.
Post by: stevemiller on February 06, 2014, 04:11:37 PM
Really!In the eyes of the court citizens arrest happens all the time.UM shoplifters caught by store keepers or security. RCW 9a.16.020Thanks, I bet you don't hear about too many citizen arrest's? Seems real risky to me.Cant remember the last time I heard of one in WA. I personally would never do something that is simply found in case law rather then state statute.
Post by: Mike450r on February 06, 2014, 04:26:01 PM
Really!In the eyes of the court citizens arrest happens all the time.UM shoplifters caught by store keepers or security. RCW 9a.16.020Thanks, I bet you don't hear about too many citizen arrest's? Seems real risky to me.Cant remember the last time I heard of one in WA. I personally would never do something that is simply found in case law rather then state statute.
Store security are commissioned by the PD in the city where they work to make arrests for shoplifting, in Seattle and Tacoma the good looking ones sometimes get extra work as vice sting hookers.
Post by: bigtex on February 06, 2014, 05:55:48 PM
The RCW you listed is not citizens arrest Steve. The RCW you listed is a defense if someone uses force to hold someone for a police officer.Really!In the eyes of the court citizens arrest happens all the time.UM shoplifters caught by store keepers or security. RCW 9a.16.020Thanks, I bet you don't hear about too many citizen arrest's? Seems real risky to me.Cant remember the last time I heard of one in WA. I personally would never do something that is simply found in case law rather then state statute.
For more on citizens arrest in WA: http://www.dol.wa.gov/business/securityguards/docs/citizenarrest1.pdf (http://www.dol.wa.gov/business/securityguards/docs/citizenarrest1.pdf)
Post by: stevemiller on February 06, 2014, 06:46:46 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 06, 2014, 07:38:16 PM
Thats what a citizens arrest is I just gave the RCW you give case law.You have all these answers,let me ask you this,If a state patrol officer breaks up a fight between a husband and a wife does he take the guilty to the jail or does he call the local leo to come to the scene?Read the state issued document I linked, it specifically states that citizens arrest in WA is not under state statute but rather by several court decisions.
Regarding your WSP question it's completely up to the Trooper. He can either handle the case himself or he can call for a local LEO. Just like how a Deputy or Trooper can arrest/charge someone for having an out of season deer in the back of the truck, or they can call WDFW. I know a WSP Trooper about 2 years ago made a hound hunting case on the Olympic Peninsula
WDFW has handled rape and domestic violence cases, WDFW has also called the county/city for rape and domestic cases.
Post by: stevemiller on February 06, 2014, 08:35:54 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 06, 2014, 08:40:49 PM
That state issued document does not say that.what line or paragraph do you see that i dont. The RCW is clear.....Second page second paragraph "While Washington has no statute concerning citizen’s arrests..."
And on the website "How to Make a Citizen’s Arrest":
"In the early part of America’s history, common law governed the power to make citizens’ arrests. Today, that power is governed by state statute. Every state in the U.S., except for a few states like North Carolina and Washington, have statutes granting private citizens the power to make arrests"
http://www.artofmanliness.com/2011/12/06/how-to-make-a-citizens-arrest/ (http://www.artofmanliness.com/2011/12/06/how-to-make-a-citizens-arrest/)
Post by: stevemiller on February 06, 2014, 08:52:54 PM
Post by: stevemiller on February 06, 2014, 08:55:25 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 06, 2014, 09:03:51 PM
Ok.So I guess the rcw just makes it legal when done in the circumstances given.Whats the diffAll the law does is create a defense for someone using force, it has nothing to do with authorizing a citizens arrest.
For example under subsection 6, "Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person"
This simply means if someone is on a hospital mental health hold and the person runs out of the hospital, a hospital security guard can put the individual on the ground and not face any legal issues. It doesn't say the security guard can arrest the individual.
This RCW simply has to do with use of force, not authorizing citizens arrest.
Post by: bigtex on February 06, 2014, 09:05:15 PM
Sorry I dont meen any disrespect but you do seem pretty 1 sided on the color of the law.No problem. But there simply is not a statute in the State of WA that says a citizens arrest is lawful. The authority for citizens to arrest has simply came from court cases. The legislature has tried several times to enact a statute for citizens arrest but it never passes.