Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Sb 6135

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    1

    Sb 6135

    Papers Please?

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,605
    Quote Originally Posted by servicetechcms View Post
    Papers Please?
    Presume this is to what you refer:

    Summary of Bill (Recommended Substitute): WDFW Law Enforcement. Peace Officers
    Given Authority to Briefly Detain a Person Being Issued a Notice of Infraction (NOI). Allows
    peace officers, when issuing an NOI, to detain a person long enough to identify the person,
    check for outstanding warrants, and complete and issue NOI. Also requires the person
    receiving NOI to provide the officer with his or her name, address, and date of birth,
    including reasonable identification upon officer request. Failure to identify oneself is a
    misdemeanor.
    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/bil...0ENRM%2012.pdf
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    bill link: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summ...6135&year=2011

    2012 REGULAR SESSION
    Jan 12 First reading, referred to Energy, Natural Resources & Marine Waters. (View Original Bill)

    Jan 26 Public hearing in the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources & Marine Waters at 1:30 PM. (Committee Materials)

    Feb 2 Executive action taken in the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources & Marine Waters at 1:30 PM. (Committee Materials)

    Feb 3 ENRM - Majority; 1st substitute bill be substituted, do pass. (View 1st Substitute) (Majority Report)

    Passed to Rules Committee for second reading.
    Last edited by slapmonkay; 02-07-2012 at 08:56 PM.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Hmm now why would this be coming from Fish & Wildlife??
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    Hmm now why would this be coming from Fish & Wildlife??
    You have to start somewhere. You can't just jump to a general rule of "show me your papers" that would cause to much uproar.....
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Regular Member waterfowl woody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Silvana, Washington, USA
    Posts
    137
    say I am fishing and forget to remove the barb from my hook, in a barbless hook area, and a game warden comes and checks my gear and finds out that i made a mistake.(just an example of commen fine) So under this change I would be hand cuffed and treated like a criminal?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,761
    So under this change I would be hand cuffed and treated like a criminal?


    Detained. Not arrested.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by waterfowl woody View Post
    say I am fishing and forget to remove the barb from my hook, in a barbless hook area, and a game warden comes and checks my gear and finds out that i made a mistake.(just an example of commen fine) So under this change I would be hand cuffed and treated like a criminal?
    Then that would be one of your requisite three felonies for the day. Just two more to go!

    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    Detained. Not arrested.[/COLOR]
    From stories on here, too many LEOs seem not to know the difference. How many have been thrown in chains while not even officially "detained?"
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,761
    So what, exactly, are the changes? Don't general authority peace officers already have the authority to detain and ID when writing a NOI?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    So what, exactly, are the changes? Don't general authority peace officers already have the authority to detain and ID when writing a NOI?

    That is what I was thinking, I thought WDFW already had the authority to do the stuff they list.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    Detained. Not arrested.[/COLOR]
    Detained is equivalent to arrest, albeit temporarily for the determination of how long the arrest should proceed.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,605
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    Detained is equivalent to arrest, albeit temporarily for the determination of how long the arrest should proceed.
    +1

    Any stop that is not fully consensual is an arrest.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,761
    An arrest is a legal state of being. You are being compelled to submit to a criminal judicial process.

    A detainment is a physical state of being. You are being physically stopped from leaving.

    You don't have to be detained to be arrested, and you don't have to be arrested to be detained.

    No one around here has heard of "arrest by citation"?

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    An arrest is a legal state of being. You are being compelled to submit to a criminal judicial process.

    A detainment is a physical state of being. You are being physically stopped from leaving.

    You don't have to be detained to be arrested, and you don't have to be arrested to be detained.

    No one around here has heard of "arrest by citation"?
    Arrest is seizure of a person. Detention is seizure of a person. They differ only in the colloquial usage and estimated duration, not in their legal standing. For purposes of search and seizure inquiry, detention is arrest.

    Quote Originally Posted by http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/422/873/case.html#878
    The Fourth Amendment applies to all seizures of the person, including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest. Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U. S. 721 (1969); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 392 U. S. 16-19 (1968). "[W]henever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has seized' that person," id. at 392 U. S. 16, and the Fourth Amendment requires that the seizure be "reasonable." As with other categories of police action subject to Fourth Amendment constraints, the reasonableness of such seizures depends on a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers. Id. at 392 U. S. 20-21; Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523, 387 U. S. 536-537 (1967).
    Quote Originally Posted by http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/466/210/case.html#215
    "Obviously, not all personal intercourse between policemen and citizens involves 'seizures' of persons. Only when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has restrained the liberty of a citizen may we conclude that a 'seizure' has occurred."

    Terry v. Ohio, supra, at 392 U. S. 19, n. 16. While applying such a test is relatively straightforward in a situation resembling a traditional arrest, see Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200, 442 U. S. 212-216 (1979), the protection against unreasonable seizures also extends to "seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest." United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873, 422 U. S. 878 (1975). What has evolved from our cases is a determination that an initially consensual encounter between a police officer and a citizen can be transformed into a seizure or detention within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, "if, in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave." Mendenall, supra, at 446 U. S. 554 (footnote omitted); see Florida v. Royer, 460 U. S. 491, 460 U. S. 502 (1983) (plurality opinion).
    Quote Originally Posted by http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=499&invol=621
    To constitute a seizure of the person, just as to constitute an arrest - the quintessential "seizure of the person" under Fourth Amendment jurisprudence - there must be either the application of physical force, however slight, or, where that is absent, submission to an officer's "show of authority" to restrain the subject's liberty.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,761
    Your citations do nothing but further clarifiy my position. They certainly do not define arrest as detention.

    I hereby seize your citations as my own and proffer them to further buttress my position.

  16. #16
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,605
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    Your citations do nothing but further clarifiy my position. They certainly do not define arrest as detention.

    I hereby seize your citations as my own and proffer them to further buttress my position.
    Detention occurs whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his or her freedom to walk away, or approaches and questions an individual, or stops an individual suspected of being personally involved in criminal activity. Such a detention is not a formal arrest. Physical restraint is not an essential element of detention.


    Detention is also an element of the tort of False Imprisonment.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/detention

    Ah but there is more and the lines do blur.
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/arrest

    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    449

    Infractions

    Quote Originally Posted by waterfowl woody View Post
    say I am fishing and forget to remove the barb from my hook, in a barbless hook area, and a game warden comes and checks my gear and finds out that i made a mistake.(just an example of commen fine) So under this change I would be hand cuffed and treated like a criminal?
    WDFW enforcement code

    RCW 77.15.160
    Infractions Record catch Barbed hooks Other rule violations.
    A person is guilty of an infraction, which shall be cited and punished as provided under chapter 7.84 RCW, if the person:

    (1) Fails to immediately record a catch of fish or shellfish on a catch record card required by RCW 77.32.430, or required by rule of the commission under this title; or

    (2) Fishes for personal use using barbed hooks in violation of any rule; or

    (3) Violates any other rule of the commission or director that is designated by rule as an infraction.
    [2000 c 107 237; 1998 c 190 17.]
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    RCW 7.84.020
    "Infraction" defined.
    Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definition in this section applies throughout this chapter.

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


    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>

    So ..........as long as your infraction is declared not to be a criminal offense or break any other "rule defined as an infraction"
    you likely will not be issued a notice of infraction. If it is found that you have committed an infraction then there will be monetary penalties , not to exceed five hundred dollars per each infraction.

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

    I see this bill as another attempt at stop and ID.

    ~Whitney
    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,761
    you likely will not be issued a notice of infraction.


    You mean likely will be issued a NOI. Right?

    I wish NsOI would go away all together and every civil infraction was treated as a criminal offense. The rules for civil court are basically even - preponderance of the evidence. Criminal court is tilted in favor of the defendant.

    Did you know that in a civil infraction case, you can be forced to testify against yourself?

  19. #19
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    449

    What?

    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    You mean likely will be issued a NOI. Right?

    I wish NsOI would go away all together and every civil infraction was treated as a criminal offense. The rules for civil court are basically even - preponderance of the evidence. Criminal court is tilted in favor of the defendant.

    Did you know that in a civil infraction case, you can be forced to testify against yourself?[/COLOR]

    Yes , "will be issued" Thank you for the assist.

    I did not know you could be forced to testify against yourself in a civil infraction case. Where would I find the provision with regard to this.?

    ~Whitney
    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,761
    Where would I find the provision with regard to this.?


    When charged with a civil infraction, the state is suing you. It's a civil case. You can be put on the stand and questioned under oath.

    The right against self incrimination only applies in criminal matters.

    I'm not sure there's a provision I can point to - that's just how it works in civil cases.

  21. #21
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,605
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    [/COLOR]

    When charged with a civil infraction, the state is suing you. It's a civil case. You can be put on the stand and questioned under oath.

    The right against self incrimination only applies in criminal matters.

    I'm not sure there's a provision I can point to - that's just how it works in civil cases.
    Not necessarily so.
    http://www.sualaw.com/Appearances-Ar...ivil_Cases.pdf
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •