Post by: bigtex on January 20, 2016, 10:40:10 AM
HB 2765 sponsored by Representative Kretz (R), Moscoso (D), Griffey (R), Hayes (R), and Holy (R) clarifies the law enforcement authority of State Park Rangers. Under the bill State Park Rangers would have authority in the following circumstances:
-On State Park lands
-In "winter recreation facilities" (aka Sno-Parks) no matter what the land ownership is, as long as it's a state run Sno-Park
-On public lands within 1 mile of a State Park boundary if the offense impacts park visitor safety or resources
-Throughout the state, in response to an emergency involving an immediate threat to human life or property
-In response to the request of a peace officer with enforcement authority
-When in fresh pursuit (Ranger attempts to contact/pull someone over in the park and they flee out of the park)
-Outside of the above situations when 'deputized' by a County Sheriff or city Police Chief
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2765.pdf
Post by: bigtex on January 20, 2016, 11:22:16 AM
Realistically, this bill is a watered down version of a bill a couple years ago that would've granted statewide full authority to Rangers. This bill would certainly broaden their current authority (currently just on State Park lands), but not to the full/general authority that a bill proposed several years ago.
Post by: Wazukie on January 20, 2016, 11:30:05 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 20, 2016, 11:34:25 AM
I would guess that the Rangers in my area, Klickitat County, must be deputized as the respond to incidents outside the parks all the time. :dunno:Yea that would be the case.
I do know that the former Klickitat County Sheriff deputized DNR, so I wouldn't be surprised if the former/current also deputized State Parks. I do know that the current Klickitat County Sheriff has said he would deputize federal land management LEOs (US Fish and Wildlife, Forest Service, etc) if they wanted it.
Post by: timberfaller on January 20, 2016, 11:49:19 AM
I don't think to many "elected" Sheriff's will "deputize" a park ranger! :dunno: I sure wouldn't! of the one's I have met! :o
Post by: bigtex on January 20, 2016, 11:53:14 AM
If Kretz sponsored it, IT is probably something GOOD for the People of WA!! :tup:You'd be surprised. Most Sheriff's in WA do deputize DNR, USFS, BLM, etc. State Parks is just starting to seek deputations from Sheriff's over the past few years.
I don't think to many "elected" Sheriff's will "deputize" a park ranger! :dunno: I sure wouldn't! of the one's I have met! :o
Post by: birddogdad on January 20, 2016, 11:54:18 AM
Post by: Tom Reichner on January 20, 2016, 11:54:37 AM
Under the bill State Park Rangers would have authority in the following circumstances:This is the line that concerns me. "Threat to property" could be interpreted in many ways, and a loose interpretation could be used to cover just about anything. For example:
.........
...........
-Throughout the state, in response to an emergency involving an immediate threat to human life or property
..........
............
Say a state park ranger sees me on private property climbing over a barb-wire fence. He thinks I don't have permission to be on that land. He can say that I climbed over the fence in a way that could loosen the top strand of wire, and that is a threat to property. So now he thinks he has the right to detain me until he contacts the landowner to see if I have permission.
Or what if I am on federal land and pull off the road and park in a grassy open area. The state ranger can say that I am a threat to property because my hot muffler might start a grass fire. So now he thinks he has the right to fine me for parking illegally, or to detain me until the federal authorities show up.
In either of the above cases, what I am doing would be none of the officer's business, because he is a state park ranger and I am not in a state park. But the new law could be twisted in such a way that would give him the right to hassle me, despite the fact that I am not in a state park. Sheesh! What a terrible bill this is!
Post by: bigtex on January 20, 2016, 12:01:16 PM
so the purpose of clarification is what I am working to understand. I wonder if this stems from the fiscal park closures of the past and lack of real jurisdictional authority or overstepping the authority they had or the shooting of a Ranger in the Rainier complex?I don't think it has anything do with any of those situations.
Realistically I think a lot of it has to do with an Attorney General's opinion of a few years ago. The AG said limited authority officers (Parks, DNR, Liquor Control) could not respond to mutual aid requests ("oh sh** we need help) from outside agencies unless the officer was deputized within that city/county. So say a mall shooting occurred within three blocks of a State Park, it was in the opinion of the AG that a State Park Ranger could not respond unless they were formally deputized. State Parks couldn't enter into an agreement with the city/county saying if sh** hits the fan then a ranger could respond. This would mean Parks, DNR and Liquor Control would have to have all of their officers deputized by every county and city agency in the state. This bill would fix that.
Post by: bigtex on January 20, 2016, 12:10:02 PM
Both of those situations are certainly far stretches and in my opinion impractical.Under the bill State Park Rangers would have authority in the following circumstances:This is the line that concerns me. "Threat to property" could be interpreted in many ways, and a loose interpretation could be used to cover just about anything. For example:
.........
...........
-Throughout the state, in response to an emergency involving an immediate threat to human life or property
..........
............
Say a state park ranger sees me on private property climbing over a barb-wire fence. He thinks I don't have permission to be on that land. He can say that I climbed over the fence in a way that could loosen the top strand of wire, and that is a threat to property. So now he thinks he has the right to detain me until he contacts the landowner to see if I have permission.
Or what if I am on federal land and pull off the road and park in a grassy open area. The state ranger can say that I am a threat to property because my hot muffler might start a grass fire. So now he thinks he has the right to fine me for parking illegally, or to detain me until the federal authorities show up.
In either of the above cases, what I am doing would be none of the officer's business, because he is a state park ranger and I am not in a state park. But the new law could be twisted in such a way that would give him the right to hassle me, despite the fact that I am not in a state park. Sheesh! What a terrible bill this is!
For #1 officers don't go looking around seeing if people are hopping fences and then trying to track down the landowner to see if they had permission. It works the other way, a landowner sees someone hopping their fence and they call LEOs.
For #2 your not going to see State Rangers just driving around federal lands looking for violations if this bill were to pass. In this situation you could have any LEO from any agency detain you for the hot muffler in grass situation. WDFW could see you and call in the USFS or other federal agency. It's actually illegal to do what you stated on WDFW lands in times of high fire severity. Also, in this case the actual offense isn't even a crime it's an infraction (petty offense ticketable only), you'd be hard pressed to find an officer who would think a violation that isn't even a crime would be a "threat to property"..
Post by: ohopluke on January 21, 2016, 04:11:20 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 23, 2016, 05:54:12 PM
I don't know if there's enough law enforcement rangers out there to make much of a noticeable difference one way or another.:yeah:
I think most people probably think that State Park Rangers already possess this authority.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 24, 2016, 12:22:13 PM
Post by: csaaphill on January 24, 2016, 09:23:27 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 24, 2016, 09:38:49 PM
no because our forefathers wanted each type of GOVT leo etc... to be separate. which is why were here now with lots of usurpations against our civil rights.And when did George Washington say that the State Park Rangers shouldn't have authority outside of parks??? I seem to forget that speech....
And actually Phil under current state law if a State Park Ranger wanted to they could start enforcing law anywhere in the state because the current law is so vague into what their authority actually is. If that was to happen they would be compliant with state law but not agency policy. It's only agency policy that says currently rangers cant enforce law outside parks without being deputized...
Post by: csaaphill on January 25, 2016, 12:19:09 AM
:rolleyes: You know they set up different branches of Govt so as to check and balance each other out. It only goes along with their own distrust of Govt, and knowledge that once you Centralize all Govt into one, and that they all have the same power, then they knew then that abuse of power would exist.no because our forefathers wanted each type of GOVT leo etc... to be separate. which is why were here now with lots of usurpations against our civil rights.And when did George Washington say that the State Park Rangers shouldn't have authority outside of parks??? I seem to forget that speech....
And actually Phil under current state law if a State Park Ranger wanted to they could start enforcing law anywhere in the state because the current law is so vague into what their authority actually is. If that was to happen they would be compliant with state law but not agency policy. It's only agency policy that says currently rangers cant enforce law outside parks without being deputized...
Post by: JLS on January 25, 2016, 06:07:40 AM
:rolleyes: You know they set up different branches of Govt so as to check and balance each other out. It only goes along with their own distrust of Govt, and knowledge that once you Centralize all Govt into one, and that they all have the same power, then they knew then that abuse of power would exist.no because our forefathers wanted each type of GOVT leo etc... to be separate. which is why were here now with lots of usurpations against our civil rights.And when did George Washington say that the State Park Rangers shouldn't have authority outside of parks??? I seem to forget that speech....
And actually Phil under current state law if a State Park Ranger wanted to they could start enforcing law anywhere in the state because the current law is so vague into what their authority actually is. If that was to happen they would be compliant with state law but not agency policy. It's only agency policy that says currently rangers cant enforce law outside parks without being deputized...
Right.
Those three branches of government are executive, legislative, and judicial. Not WSP, State Parks, and Liquor Control Board.
If you're going to roll your eyes at others, the least you could do is organize your facts correctly and make an articulate argument.
Post by: trophyhunt on January 25, 2016, 06:41:34 AM
Post by: REHJWA on January 25, 2016, 07:38:49 AM
For #2 your not going to see State Rangers just driving around federal lands looking for violations if this bill were to pass. In this situation you could have any LEO from any agency detain you for the hot muffler in grass situation. WDFW could see you and call in the USFS or other federal agency. It's actually illegal to do what you stated on WDFW lands in times of high fire severity.
Also, in this case the actual offense isn't even a crime it's an infraction (petty offense ticketable only), you'd be hard pressed to find an officer who would think a violation that isn't even a crime would be a "threat to property"..
[/quote]
Tell this to:
1. The federal judge who sentenced the Ranchers in Oregon over a $100 back fire to save there business.....
2. Over zelues WDFW fish cops.
I do support clarifying which and where authorities have jurisdiction...
Post by: bigtex on January 25, 2016, 07:42:03 AM
I voted for less authority, I think. Those rangers at mount rainier have an attitude, I don't think they should have authority outside the parks. I almost think their guns should be taken away, but the incident when the ranger was killed keeps me in support of them having guns.This has no impact on national park rangers (such as Mt Rainier) only state.
FYI, the Pierce County Sheriff deputized National Park Rangers at Mt Rainier for the first time ever about a year ago which gives them Deputy authority outside the park now.
But again, this bill is simply for the state guys not the NPS guys
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Post by: trophyhunt on January 25, 2016, 07:45:15 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 25, 2016, 07:49:46 AM
Interesting, I swear I've seen them pull people over outside the park on 410. Thanks for the infoThere's a national basically deputization agreement with all the land management agencies. So basically a NPS Ranger can act as a USFS LEO, a USFWS LEO, etc. So in your case the NPS Ranger may have pulled someone over on 410 under their USFS LEO authority if that part of 410 was still on USFS lands. But basically once their off federal lands they are now Pierce County deputies.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on January 25, 2016, 08:00:50 AM
Currently state law does not dictate where State rangers have authority, it just says they have police powers. Agency policy dictates they are only to use it on park lands.
So if a state ranger was driving thru downtown Seattle (no state park lands) today and pulled someone over and arrested them for DUI the case could be made that under state law they could do so, they simply violated agency policy.
This is why the bill is titled "clarifying" ranger authority and not "expanding ranger authority."
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Post by: dreamunelk on January 25, 2016, 07:27:37 PM
It is ironic that the first time I seen this post was not more than 30 minutes after watching a State Parks officer drive in a gas station parking lot like he had no clue of his surroundings with absolute arrogance. He could have cared less that he cut off several people. All to get gas and buy some junk food.
Post by: csaaphill on January 25, 2016, 11:22:54 PM
WDFW- wildlife and making sure you have the appropriate tags for not running warrant checks which is state police, or local.
Forest service making sure your not starting fires, or other destructive things, and at campsites that have pay vouchers make sure your paying. Not going around playing LEO
So yes less authority make them do what they're supposed to be doing, and not crying for more money/ authority doing stuff they were never intended to do in the first place.
Post by: bigtex on January 26, 2016, 08:57:04 AM
I think each should only do what they are set up to do no more.So I assume you voted yes??
WDFW- wildlife and making sure you have the appropriate tags for not running warrant checks which is state police, or local.
Forest service making sure your not starting fires, or other destructive things, and at campsites that have pay vouchers make sure your paying. Not going around playing LEO
So yes less authority make them do what they're supposed to be doing, and not crying for more money/ authority doing stuff they were never intended to do in the first place.
Because like I said, right now current law is so vague that realistically a ranger can do enforcement all over the state and simply violate agency policy, not law. If this bill were to pass, the law would not be so vague.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 26, 2016, 09:07:38 AM
I voted yes.
Post by: bigtex on January 26, 2016, 09:24:51 AM
I am typically against expansion of LE dominion beyond their scope of competence. In this instance, it seems like more of a common sense clarification, and the limited expansion that is apparent in the OP, while creating some possibilities for potential abuse, does not seem so unreasonable.Let us not forget that State Park Rangers have the authority to enforce ALL state laws within parks. You got some Rangers making a ton of DUI arrests a year, I know many LEOs who hate doing DUIs because they are tricky. So I don't think there is a competency issue. Because of this, the state has found there would be no financial cost to this bill simply because they have all the training.
I voted yes.
Realistically all it does is it says Rangers have authority in:
-Parks (duh)
-At state ran Sno-Parks as long as they are on public lands (always been lots of confusion about this, State Parks run the Sno-Parks but it's not an actual "park" so would Rangers have authority?)
-Within 1 mile of the park if the offense somehow impacts the park (this would be new, but is similar to a city cop seeing something a block out of his city and taking action)
-The two emergency situations (It was a long standing thought that if an agency asks for help that State Parks could go and help, the Attorney General said no because nowhere in state law does it allow that. To me this is a no-brainer. If a cop asks for help, the Ranger a block away in full police uniform should be able to help)
-Fresh pursuit (Similar to above, the agency always thought they had this, but it was murky, this would bring them in line with a county/city officer seeing something in their jurisdiction but the offender doesn't stop until they are outside the jurisdiction)
-City/County deputization (currently allowed under state law, no change)
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 26, 2016, 09:48:09 AM
Post by: Firedogg on January 26, 2016, 12:25:48 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 26, 2016, 03:42:09 PM
I was always under the impression that most state parks officers who had done acedaemy time were commissioned officers in "the state". This must be cleaning up some language for those officers without a state law enforcement commission.
Nope this is for all of them. They all go thru an LE academy that is the same length as the state LEO academy. All have a state LE commission.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on February 05, 2016, 07:16:02 PM
Today (2/5) the House Public Safety Committee unanimously passed an amended bill which outlines WA STATE Park Ranger authority as the following:
-On State Park lands
-On State Park managed Sno-Parks (does not need to be on State Park lands, simply managed by State Parks which most are)
-On public roadways which bisect park lands (such as a county road with park lands on both sides)
-When deputized by a Sheriff/Police Chief
-In response to a request from an LEO with authority
-In fresh pursuit
-When physical injury to a person or substantial damage to property occurs, or is about to occur, within the presence of the ranger
Realistically, all the bill does is write in law what prior to 2004 was the longstanding interpretation of State Parks law enforcement authority.
This is the first time the House Public Safety Committee has voted unanimously to clarify/increase law enforcement authority of State Parks, Liquor Control, or DNR. The fact that this bill passed unanimously is substantial...
Post by: bigtex on February 15, 2016, 07:16:52 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 15, 2016, 07:30:40 PM
I am typically against expansion of LE dominion beyond their scope of competence. In this instance, it seems like more of a common sense clarification, and the limited expansion that is apparent in the OP, while creating some possibilities for potential abuse, does not seem so unreasonable.:yeah: agreed
I voted yes.
If Kretz sponsored it, IT is probably something GOOD for the People of WA!! :tup::yeah: The other reason I voted yes!
Post by: fireweed on February 23, 2016, 07:21:25 AM
Post by: bigtex on February 23, 2016, 04:20:30 PM
I've always thought it was odd that a state park had it's own Law Enforcement branch. Seemed like a waste of money. If they need patrols, work with counties--There are many small towns all over the state without police, and the only ones to respond are county deputies. But since the decided to keep the LEO in state parks, perhaps them being there could go the other way--they can help the county deputies respond in the small towns and rural areas most state parks are located in or near.Almost all of the states have a LE branch for their state parks. In some states a game warden is also a park ranger in that they enforce fish and wildlife laws in their area but they are also responsible for the LE in their park and they live in the park, this is typically seen in less populated states. Many states also have a combined Fish/Wildlife & Parks agency where they have game wardens and park rangers. Colorado was the most recent state that combined their wildlife and parks agencies. In terms of Park Ranger LE authority, WA is in the middle. Some states such as Oregon only give their Rangers ticket authority and only for park violations, other states grant their Park Rangers with full statewide LEO authority.
Under WA law an incorporated city (sometimes referred to as a town) must have a police force. This is done either by the creation of an actual police department or through paying the Sheriff's Office or another city to do the policing. A city cannot simply say that they have no crime and if someone does call 911 the SO can handle it. In unincorporated areas (where there are small unofficial 'towns') it's the SO's responsibility.
Post by: bearpaw on February 23, 2016, 04:49:52 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 23, 2016, 04:58:21 PM
In my newsletter from Kretz I think he said this is moving forward.Passed the House has a Senate hearing tomorrow.
Post by: bigtex on February 26, 2016, 04:23:13 PM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on March 02, 2016, 03:46:54 PM
The substitute bill passed the Senate today with a 46-1 vote. It now goes to Inslee for his signature.
When the new law takes effect State Park Rangers will have authority in the following situations:
-On State Park lands
-On State Park managed Sno-Parks (does not need to be on State Park lands, simply managed by State Parks which most are)
-On public roadways which bisect park lands (such as a county road with park lands on both sides)
-When deputized by a Sheriff/Police Chief
-In response to a request from an LEO with authority
-In fresh pursuit
-When physical injury to a person or substantial damage to property occurs, or is about to occur, within the presence of the ranger
Post by: bigtex on April 06, 2016, 04:04:52 PM
Post by: turbo on April 06, 2016, 04:49:22 PM