Let's also recognize that Police Officers do good

TheJeepster said:

I know Aaron1124 is looking to become law enforcement and while he likes and respects the WSP he doesn't want to write traffic tickets all day (completely understand that!). I say take a look at WDFW Enforcement. http://wdfw.wa.gov/enforcement/careers/

Anyone ever had a F&W Officer come up and ask them for ID just because they were open carrying? I haven't.

Click to expand...

I've actually considered Washington Fish and Wildlife Officer, however, my college degree isn't what they're particularly looking for, so I don't think I meet their "minimum" qualifications. Same with the State Park Rangers. I completely respect what WSP does, but, you're right - it's a completely different world of the police force. It's almost as if they're solely a traffic enforcement organization. I know their primary jurisdiction is the interstates, and the majority of crimes that happen on the interstates are traffic violations. It's an excellent job, just not one for me.

maclean said:

Mission focus is different.

DFW cops are looking for a certain subset of criminal activity. They certainly run across all kinds, but they get paid to look for hunting and fishing violations.

City police can enforce game violations too, but they don't spend a lot of time looking for them.

Troopers can arrest for a shoplift, but they don't hang out in a grocery store and most of the time will end up calling in the city or county to handle 9A stuff on this side of the mountains, anyhow.

Also, and this may be a bit of bias on my part, but I would like to think fellow hunters are a slice of the population that doesn't go out of it's way to commit crimes. I'm guessing the bad ones they deal with are thieves/poachers.

Click to expand...

Yes. In Washington State, a police officer is a police officer, regardless of whom they are employed to. Every police officer receives the same commission. They can enforce laws anywhere in the state (and possibly even other states, depending on the state laws), but they're just assigned jurisdictions to make it less complicated. It seems a lot of people believe two major misconceptions. One being that off duty police officers only carry as much authority as a private citizen, and two, being that an officer in the city of, say, Federal Way, cannot enforce laws in the city of Kent.

Aaron1124 said:

Yes. In Washington State, a police officer is a police officer, regardless of whom they are employed to. Every police officer receives the same commission. They can enforce laws anywhere in the state (and possibly even other states, depending on the state laws), but they're just assigned jurisdictions to make it less complicated. It seems a lot of people believe two major misconceptions. One being that off duty police officers only carry as much authority as a private citizen, and two, being that an officer in the city of, say, Federal Way, cannot enforce laws in the city of Kent.

Click to expand...

It isn't quite as easy as that.

The system you are describing is the Mutual Aid Peace Officers Powers Act.

RCW 10.93, for light reading.

Aaron1124 said:

Yes. In Washington State, a police officer is a police officer, regardless of whom they are employed to. Every police officer receives the same commission. They can enforce laws anywhere in the state (and possibly even other states, depending on the state laws), but they're just assigned jurisdictions to make it less complicated. It seems a lot of people believe two major misconceptions. One being that off duty police officers only carry as much authority as a private citizen, and two, being that an officer in the city of, say, Federal Way, cannot enforce laws in the city of Kent.

Click to expand...

Can you imagine the amount of time a Police Officer would be spending in Courts other than in the jurisdiction that hired him if he were to actively pursue crime around the State? I would imagine that that is why WSP turns over most criminal "collars" over to the local authority.

As for your earlier comment that WSP's responsibility is mostly traffic, yes, I agree. However a State Trooper I used to ride with regularly pointed out that their contacts for traffic violations can also lead to arrests for:

Outstanding Criminal Warrants (even from elsewhere in the US)
Stolen Vehicle Arrests and Recovery
Drug Violations such as use and transport for sale.
Recovery of Stolen Property other than Vehicles (example I saw was a car full of stolen electronics)

In short, while traffic is the emphasis, they are not limited in their ability to arrest lawbreakers for other offenses.

joeroket--

Not only is WSP recognized by many for their professionalism, they have also been voted "Best Dressed" a couple of years back. Even with their high level of professionalism, they have their "problem troopers" too. Back when I was a regular "rider" in the late 70's and early 80's I rode with another "Trooper" that would fall in behind a car on the freeway that caught his eye. Wasn't anything wrong with the car or its operation, he'd follow it as long as he could hoping the operator would screw up so he could pull him over. He'd also pull out from the side of the road, turn on the emergency lights after the car was a mile or so ahead, and when he stopped the driver would suggest that he was "running". This individual is not a trooper any more as it was suggested to him he might do better in another job. It is my belief that the WSP has the reputation because they don't tolerate the "cowboys".

amlevin said:

joeroket--

Not only is WSP recognized by many for their professionalism, they have also been voted "Best Dressed" a couple of years back. Even with their high level of professionalism, they have their "problem troopers" too. Back when I was a regular "rider" in the late 70's and early 80's I rode with another "Trooper" that would fall in behind a car on the freeway that caught his eye. Wasn't anything wrong with the car or its operation, he'd follow it as long as he could hoping the operator would screw up so he could pull him over. He'd also pull out from the side of the road, turn on the emergency lights after the car was a mile or so ahead, and when he stopped the driver would suggest that he was "running". This individual is not a trooper any more as it was suggested to him he might do better in another job. It is my belief that the WSP has the reputation because they don't tolerate the "cowboys".

Click to expand...

I forgot about the best dressed award.

I agree they do have their problem troopers but like you said they do move them on as fast as possible. My uncle retired as a Sgt. in Oly, he was the Sgt in charge of the cadets at the capital grounds. He tried to weed out the problem children there so they would never see the streets and there was a point in time when every cadet passed through his supervision.

joeroket said:

I forgot about the best dressed award.

I agree they do have their problem troopers but like you said they do move them on as fast as possible. My uncle retired as a Sgt. in Oly, he was the Sgt in charge of the cadets at the capital grounds. He tried to weed out the problem children there so they would never see the streets and there was a point in time when every cadet passed through his supervision.

Click to expand...

There's the secret. We used to say in the business I was in "You solve your employee problems during the interview, hiring, and training process". "In the end your employees will only be as good as those that handle these processes".

amlevin said:

There's the secret. We used to say in the business I was in "You solve your employee problems during the interview, hiring, and training process". "In the end your employees will only be as good as those that handle these processes".

Click to expand...

That's what the military services do - that is one reason basic is like it is, and why all early training is similar: Weed out those that can't handle the program early as possible...

maclean said:

Fish and Wildlife Officers are peace officers who attend the Basic Law Enforcement Academy and have the same authority as Sheriff's Deputies and Police Officers. In as much, they actually exercise more authority than State Troopers.

77.15.075.

Their inspection authority is granted under 77.15.080.

Click to expand...

Here is the RCW it allows for inspection of equipment tags, licenses etc It does not allow for a search of your person or vehicle etc, I am guessing that the standard Terry Stop stuff would apply.

RCW 77.15.080
Fish and wildlife officers — Inspection authority.

(1) Based upon articulable facts that a person is engaged in fishing, harvesting, or hunting activities, fish and wildlife officers have the authority to temporarily stop the person and check for valid licenses, tags, permits, stamps, or catch record cards, and to inspect all fish, shellfish, seaweed, and wildlife in possession as well as the equipment being used to ensure compliance with the requirements of this title, and may request the person to write his or her signature for comparison with the signature on the license. Failure to comply with the request is prima facie evidence that the person is not the person named on the license. For licenses purchased over the internet or telephone, fish and wildlife officers may require the person, if age eighteen or older, to exhibit a driver's license or other photo identification.

(2) Based upon articulable facts that a person is transporting a prohibited aquatic animal species or any aquatic plant, fish and wildlife officers and ex officio fish and wildlife officers have the authority to temporarily stop the person and inspect the watercraft to ensure that the watercraft and associated equipment are not transporting prohibited aquatic animal species or aquatic plants.

I've never had a negative LEO contact. I have encountered many in the course of OCing, but never had any instance where there was more than a head-nod or 'hello.' This is over a matter of years (see join date).

-G20

Orphan said:

Here is the RCW it allows for inspection of equipment tags, licenses etc It does not allow for a search of your person or vehicle etc, I am guessing that the standard Terry Stop stuff would apply.

RCW 77.15.080
Fish and wildlife officers — Inspection authority.

(1) Based upon articulable facts that a person is engaged in fishing, harvesting, or hunting activities, fish and wildlife officers have the authority to temporarily stop the person and check for valid licenses, tags, permits, stamps, or catch record cards, and to inspect all fish, shellfish, seaweed, and wildlife in possession as well as the equipment being used to ensure compliance with the requirements of this title, and may request the person to write his or her signature for comparison with the signature on the license. Failure to comply with the request is prima facie evidence that the person is not the person named on the license. For licenses purchased over the internet or telephone, fish and wildlife officers may require the person, if age eighteen or older, to exhibit a driver's license or other photo identification.

(2) Based upon articulable facts that a person is transporting a prohibited aquatic animal species or any aquatic plant, fish and wildlife officers and ex officio fish and wildlife officers have the authority to temporarily stop the person and inspect the watercraft to ensure that the watercraft and associated equipment are not transporting prohibited aquatic animal species or aquatic plants.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't the portion in bold above be "loose" enough to allow for search/inspection? It really is a matter of how the Court might view this statement.

Orphan said:

Here is the RCW it allows for inspection of equipment tags, licenses etc It does not allow for a search of your person or vehicle etc, I am guessing that the standard Terry Stop stuff would apply.

RCW 77.15.080
Fish and wildlife officers — Inspection authority.

(1) Based upon articulable facts that a person is engaged in fishing, harvesting, or hunting activities, fish and wildlife officers have the authority to temporarily stop the person and check for valid licenses, tags, permits, stamps, or catch record cards, and to inspect all fish, shellfish, seaweed, and wildlife in possession as well as the equipment being used to ensure compliance with the requirements of this title, and may request the person to write his or her signature for comparison with the signature on the license. Failure to comply with the request is prima facie evidence that the person is not the person named on the license. For licenses purchased over the internet or telephone, fish and wildlife officers may require the person, if age eighteen or older, to exhibit a driver's license or other photo identification.

(2) Based upon articulable facts that a person is transporting a prohibited aquatic animal species or any aquatic plant, fish and wildlife officers and ex officio fish and wildlife officers have the authority to temporarily stop the person and inspect the watercraft to ensure that the watercraft and associated equipment are not transporting prohibited aquatic animal species or aquatic plants.

Click to expand...

RCW 77.15.094
Search without warrant — Seizure of evidence, property — Limitation.
Fish and wildlife officers and ex officio fish and wildlife officers may make a reasonable search without warrant of a vessel, conveyances, vehicles, containers, packages, or other receptacles for fish, seaweed, shellfish, and wildlife which they have reason to believe contain evidence of a violation of law or rules adopted pursuant to this title and seize evidence as needed for law enforcement. This authority does not extend to quarters in a boat, building, or other property used exclusively as a private domicile, does not extend to transitory residences in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and does not allow search and seizure without a warrant if the thing or place is protected from search without warrant within the meaning of Article I, section 7 of the state Constitution. Seizure of property as evidence of a crime does not preclude seizure of the property for forfeiture as authorized by law.

Tomas said:

That's what the military services do - that is one reason basic is like it is, and why all early training is similar: Weed out those that can't handle the program early as possible...

Click to expand...

Respectfully sir, that is horseshit.

As a former military LEO, I can tell you several things you may not know since your service was some time ago.

1. There is no real background examination for a military service member, and the answers during even a security clearance are not verified by polygraph or psych until you exceed TS/SCI. No conviction? You're in. A conviction? You can get in under waiver.

Try that with a law enforcement agency, and your odds are going to be reduced severely.

2. Military police arrest service members for all manner of crimes on a regular basis. As a population they do not behave a whole lot different than the community they are from when they aren't on duty.

3. Basic is good at what basic is for, but it does not weed out criminals.

The whole "military is rosy" but "LEOs have skunks" is really beginning to get tiresome, largely because it is not true.

If it were true, there would be no CID, OSI, NCIS, or CGIS - and I would not have some really cool stories to tell.

amlevin said:

Wouldn't the portion in bold above be "loose" enough to allow for search/inspection? It really is a matter of how the Court might view this statement.

Click to expand...

Its another poorly written law. If you dont have a license and state so that would not allow them to search for one and if you give them one then they could not search for one either becaause they would already have it. I would also think you would have to admit to or they would have to observe you posseing fish or wildlife before they could do a search otherwise they could search every vehicle leaving the local lake. I am guessing the Court would frown on any searches unless the officer had a very good case before the stop occoured. I am also guessing that there are a lot of searches done that would not hold up in court.

maclean said:

Respectfully sir, that is horseshit.

As a former military LEO, I can tell you several things you may not know since your service was some time ago.

1. There is no real background examination for a military service member, and the answers during even a security clearance are not verified by polygraph or psych until you exceed TS/SCI. No conviction? You're in. A conviction? You can get in under waiver.

Try that with a law enforcement agency, and your odds are going to be reduced severely.

2. Military police arrest service members for all manner of crimes on a regular basis. As a population they do not behave a whole lot different than the community they are from when they aren't on duty.

3. Basic is good at what basic is for, but it does not weed out criminals.

The whole "military is rosy" but "LEOs have skunks" is really beginning to get tiresome, largely because it is not true.

If it were true, there would be no CID, OSI, NCIS, or CGIS - and I would not have some really cool stories to tell.

Click to expand...

My brother in law said the same thing. He's currently a military police officer for the Army. He has actually previously mentioned about how easy it is to get in with a criminal history.

maclean said:

Respectfully sir, that is horseshit.

As a former military LEO, I can tell you several things you may not know since your service was some time ago.

1. There is no real background examination for a military service member, and the answers during even a security clearance are not verified by polygraph or psych until you exceed TS/SCI. No conviction? You're in. A conviction? You can get in under waiver.

Try that with a law enforcement agency, and your odds are going to be reduced severely.

2. Military police arrest service members for all manner of crimes on a regular basis. As a population they do not behave a whole lot different than the community they are from when they aren't on duty.

3. Basic is good at what basic is for, but it does not weed out criminals.

The whole "military is rosy" but "LEOs have skunks" is really beginning to get tiresome, largely because it is not true.

If it were true, there would be no CID, OSI, NCIS, or CGIS - and I would not have some really cool stories to tell.

Click to expand...

Not to mention the recent issues that have come to light from both Iraq and A'stan'. If the "screening" was as good as described would we be reading stories like this:

http://www.theskanner.com/article/view/id/13267

If the accounts are true, these civilians weren't just collateral damage, the soldiers carried out a premeditated plan to kill them. Again, if the accounts are true.

Orphan said:

Its another poorly written law. If you dont have a license and state so that would not allow them to search for one and if you give them one then they could not search for one either becaause they would already have it. I would also think you would have to admit to or they would have to observe you posseing fish or wildlife before they could do a search otherwise they could search every vehicle leaving the local lake. I am guessing the Court would frown on any searches unless the officer had a very good case before the stop occoured. I am also guessing that there are a lot of searches done that would not hold up in court.

Click to expand...

Just having a gun rack or fishing pole would probably be enough RAS for a stop and question. Espcially if the lake or hunting area you were leaving/in was out of season. Just a friendly chat. If you doing something out of compliance and know it, your demeanor and body language will tell the story. From there they will probably detain you and conduct searches if necessary. Most people admit to wrongdoing if they are aware of it. Some don't even know they are out of compliance with the laws. When hunting starts up Saturday there will be manned checkpoints around the state to check what hunters took. Most of these take place at vehicle choke points that you have to drive by in the larger hunting areas.

TheJeepster said:

Just having a gun rack or fishing pole would probably be enough RAS for a stop and question. Espcially if the lake or hunting area you were leaving/in was out of season. Just a friendly chat. If you doing something out of compliance and know it, your demeanor and body language will tell the story. From there they will probably detain you and conduct searches if necessary. Most people admit to wrongdoing if they are aware of it. Some don't even know they are out of compliance with the laws. When hunting starts up Saturday there will be manned checkpoints around the state to check what hunters took. Most of these take place at vehicle choke points that you have to drive by in the larger hunting areas.

Click to expand...

I remember reading a case years back where a judge ruled that the absence of a rifle in the rack was enough reasonable suspicion to stop and check the vehicle for a loaded rifle. I just cant remember if it was in Wa. or not. I always thought that ruling was a bunch of crap but then again I do consider myself reasonable.

bump

Police Ride Along

I had my ride along today with a Seattle police officer and am reporting back as I said I would. Very nice young man, 30 or so, polite and professional, but also friendly. He works out of South Precinct on Myrtle St. in south Seattle. Our first stop was to talk to a woman at her home about her grown son whom she hasn't heard from in a couple of months. We went into her home and he spoke with her and wrote down some info and filed a report. It is amazing to me that they have so much paper work; most is done on the in car computer, but not all. Our next stop was at a auto repair shop that was burglarized last night. More paperwork. Next was stopping a lady who ran a red light; no ticket, just a warning. We ate lunch at an Italian place; I had a really good cazone. Then we went to Rainier Beach area where there was a heated argument between two guys. It was under control by the time we got there; the gang unit LEOs were already there. Another unit showed up and we sat and observed for awhile. Then we went to the scene of a hit and run accident; a car hit a van and took off. Then back to the precinct; he had to file paper paperwork for the accident. Everything has to be recorded, everything. As you can see, lots of variety in a typical day; you never know what you will be responding to.
This particular LEO is in law enforcement for the right reasons. We talked about responsibility and community involvement. A lot of the officers do volunteer work in the community and are especially concerned with youth. Some of you who have a chip on your shoulder concerning LEOs should take a ride with one some day. The good ones are definitely in the majority; BTW they don't appreciate the bad ones either. I would hate to see what our society would be like without the good ones. All in all, a positive, interesting experience.

I have been wondering something about ride alongs. I don't know if it's been addressed, though.

Since I haven't heard of any laws that specifically answer this question, can you carry your own firearm while on a ride along? I'm assuming that the front seat is where you ride, so it would not be anywhere that criminals are detained, so I don't think that there's any RCW about it. I'd love to know the answer to this.