Snohomish Co. gives up on wildlife crimes

http://www.king5.com/story/news/local/20...rimes/14713483/

EVERETT, Wash. - People fishing without a license or other minor fishing violations are not being prosecuted in Snohomish County

The Snohomish County Prosecutor's Office has told wildlife officers it will no longer prosecute second degree recreational fishing crimes.

That includes violations such as fishing in closed areas, violating limits, illegally hooking, failure to record catches, etc…

Everett Fishing Store owner John Martinis reviewed dozens of cases rejected by the Prosecutor's Office and said it's a decision that can lead to serious problems for salmon and crab.

He said the word is out that you don't need a license to fish in Snohomish County and that will eventually force the end of some fishing seasons.

"We don't have any fish to waste," said Martinis, who owns John's Sporting Goods.

Prosecutors said the decision was made because the State legislature decriminalized minor fishing violations. They said instead of prosecuting misdemeanor crimes, they requested Fish & Wildlife officers write infractions that carry fines but no criminal prosecution.

They also point out their office prosecutes 90 percent of wildlife crimes other than second degree fishing.

State Fish & Wildlife officers report they investigate dozens on second degree fishing crimes during busy fishing days.

Well, I'm interested to hear the different opinions on this. My gut feeling is that these types of low-level crimes just tend to bog down the already-overloaded system even more. Which is obviously why Snohomish county is doing it.

John's quote about not needing a license isn't quite right. There are still penalties for these crimes. They are just fines and don't require people to go to court. A court would usually just give them a fine anyway. String together a couple three of these and they'll end up in court. I would think getting a fishing license would still be cheaper than getting a ticket for not having a license.

Having said all that, I'll be interested to see what the impact will be. And what other people have to say.

"I would think getting a fishing license would still be cheaper than getting a ticket for not having a license."
Yes but, who is going to enforce the collection of the fines?
I think John is correct in thinking there will be at least a drop off in the purchasing of Licenses. It will cause an ever diminishing spiral downwards. ON funds available for fishing projects. I think; however, fines go to the State's general fund.

Somewhere back the State Courts put the kibosh on the agency for paying a fine just by mailing the fine. Something about a big dust up on violating citizens rights. WDF&W enforcement is not exactly a highly thought law enforcement entity. Hopefully someone remembers what pissed of the courts.

Fishing without a license is essentially stealing from the Agency's operating budget. Any fine for that infraction should include the value lost (cost of a license) and that portion of the fine should be dispersed to the Agency by the court of jurisdiction. And maybe the fine for that infraction needs to represent a significant deterrent factor(hint).

Beyond that, if the Legislature has decriminalized certain minor violations is the SnoCo prosecutor's decision simply recognizing the Legislature's action?

Put another way, could the Prosecutor actually pursue criminal charges for violations which the Legislature has decriminalized?

Or has the Prosecutor decided to not pursue criminal charges on violations which remain criminal under the law? If so, that opens another can of worms.

I don't think it was a dust-up on wildlife charges by the courts.

In a discussion with Steve Crown, WDFW LE Chief this morning, it is my understanding that the WA state Supreme Court decided that for any misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor criminal violation, the suspect deserves his/her day in court.

The mailing in of a bail forferiture precluded the opportunity for a judge to make the determination of guilt or innocence. The suspect's not having "due process", even if the person wanted to admit they were wrong, needed to be determined by a judge. That a person could have a negative impact future job applications if the question is asked if the person had ever been convicted of a misdemeanor or higher criminal violation was a concern. A bail forfeiture apparently didn't meet the courts standards.

Additionally, there was the potential that 2 people in a party could each receive a ticket for the same charge(s) and one would forfeit bail ($X) and the other would go to court and get a fine plus jail time....thus creating issues about the "fairness" of the charges.

WDFW has moved some violations out of criminal realm and into the infraction arena. These do not become criminal charges. Infractions can create additional problems since they are not criminal activity and can preclude getting applications for search warrants, how to handle non-payment, and officer safety issues should a contact escalate up the force continuum.

I think the statutes can/should be changed. Whether the courts, the agency, the legislature, and the prosecutors can agree to a different process has to be determined.

I'd like to see wildlife crimes continue to be criminal violations. I'd drop the automatic summons (court appearance) for all but the most serious violations, make most violations a misdemeanor, and institute a straight cash penalty payable within a specific time frame (an admittance of guilt with the person understanding the ramifications down the line on job applications, etc). If the person didn't pay the ticket, it would become an automatic summons into court. Failure to appear in court would be grounds for an arrest warrant. If the person ends up going to court, the fine would be the same as the mail-in fine so everyone is treated the same and if found guilty, the court could not reduce the fine. Obviously, the court would still be able to assess court costs.

I would also re-structure the license suspension process so persons who are chronic violators or whom are charged with multiple violations out of one incident would have their license privileges (hunting and fishing) be suspended for more than the two years currently on the books.

This broad overview of what could happen, if approved by the legislature and courts, would free up officers from having to appear in court and would free up the courts from handling fish and wildlife charges for most cases. Based on past experience, I'd guess that 80% or more of the violations would be handled outside the court system. Where the fine money goes could remain the same.

One also has to wonder about county prosecutors (and judges) who are making what appear to be arbitrary decisions on what they will or will not prosecute. They are put in office to enforce all the laws of the state. If their case load is too high, then something has to change.

There we go! THX BB.

I'm not saying it wouldn't hurt if people didn't buy a license...I'm saying there's still exists a deterrent to NOT fish with one. A fine.

Here's a list of 2nd degree fishing violations (which are misdemeanors) which you have to appear in court for (except in snohomish cry I guess):

http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.380

Those punishable by up to ninety days in jail and a fine of $1,000(!)

Retaining fish even though you forgot your (valid) license is one. That doesn't really seem like something you should need to show up in court for.

Other second degree violations in WA:
prostitution
negligent driving (driver displays signs of alcohol or drug consumption)
trespassing
disorderly conduct
vandalism
formerly, possession of less than 40 grams of marijuana

So basically, if a fisherman bonks a fish, gets checked by WDFW and realizes his license isn't in his vest where it was the other day...Its just as serious as if I were a prostitute or a vandal. Not saying it's right, just saying it's not that serious.

In that context, I can see why it's hard for prosecutors to take these types of fishing violations seriously.

...but if a person forgot his license, he still needs to prove he had one. The info can be checked on-line by the officer. If there is any doubt, the ticket needs to be issued and can be dismissed if the license is produced.

Unfortunately, the realization that a license has been left at home often occurs after a fish has been bonked and the (up to now) happy angler reaches for the license packet to record his catch. Oh XXXX!

So while LE may be able to determine that the angler actually is licensed that angler is also in violation of the requirement to immediately record his catch (if so required by the regs).

Stuff happens and my take is that the law needs to differentiate between not having your license on you for your current activity versus not having purchased one at all whether or not you have actually harvested any fish/shellfish.

These minor incidents need to be treated as infractions in my opinion. Ticket, move on. A 16 year old kid with no license doesn't rise to the level of a criminal act in my book.

Escalation needs to be handled through legislation. 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th degree offenses, with penalties increasing as the incidents warrant.

It's crazy how quick people are to jump on the "I don't need a license, or I can fish where ever and whenever I want" bandwagon.
The fines are still there to be written. Now...you have to just pay the fine instead of going to court and possibly getting the case dropped.
In 90% of cases I've heard of from friends they just end up paying the fine and get no criminal charges anyway.
So what's the point in Snohomish county taking these cases to court just to ultimately have the offender pay a fine in the long run.

Makes perfect sense to me to not prosecute. And keep our court systems open to bigger crimes.

First, John Martinez sensationalized his position and one way or another ended up before the cameras. Then the media failed to provide even a superficial analysis of the issue(s). Oh, yea, sensationalism sells papers/air time.

I agree wholeheartedly!

Guess I was somewhat replying to Phoenix as well. My point was that a fine is and should be a deterrent but fines don't reimburse WDFW for the lost revenue. Hence the idea that whatever the infraction the fine needs to be both a deterrent as well as a means to reimburse WDFW for the lost revenue - or provide the opportunity for the violator to purchase said license after the fact but before court to avoid that portion of the fine.

That is different than having all of fine money go to the agency writing the tickets (and the perception by some that that procedure would encourage shady behavior especially during lean times).

What's to stop an individual from taking their monetary infraction to court for mitigation? Such as a speeding ticket. It would seem to me that the prosecution would drop the charges or severely decrease the ticket if such offenses have been "decriminalized".


Looks like Chinook fishing in A9 is back open!

lol

This without a doubt will encourage dirt bags to cheat!

First, if it was a no license infraction the cost of the required license would not be subject to mitigation. Otherwise, I believe that one can go to court and seek a reduction whether a criminal charge or not.

As far as decriminalizing certain offenses Bushbear has raised some legitimate issues. But should forgetting your license and bonking an otherwise legal fish be a criminal act that may affect your current or future employment opportunites (security clearance issues, etc.)? I do not think so.

If you have a license and a CRC and don't have them with you, there are ways the officer can handle the situation and no charges should be filed.

There aren't too many people that don't know you need a license. "I left it at home is a starting point for some folks" who are hoping for the best outcome. It doesn't work very well. At least in this century it is virtually impossible to get a license back-dated. Things were different in the olden days....made for some interesting investigations and additional charges...

What about fishing in a closed season? or going over limit? What would stop me from taking my boat right now and going shrimping? Then refuse to pay the fine? There has to be some justification. We work too hard to save our fisheries.

We don't need attorney generals and county prosecutors determining or undermining our fisheries. Wrong is wrong in my book and you can't negotiate down a crime. Big fat fines that if proven guilty are not pleaded down. Pay the fine or go to jail. If there are extenuating circumstances, then that is what the court system is for.

I think Bushbear covered this:

"If the person didn't pay the ticket, it would become an automatic summons into court. Failure to appear in court would be grounds for an arrest warrant. If the person ends up going to court, the fine would be the same as the mail-in fine so everyone is treated the same and if found guilty, the court could not reduce the fine. Obviously, the court would still be able to assess court costs."

I heard (did not see) of 9 Chinook leaving the Wallace river in Goldbar last night. so the scumbags seem to have gotten the message.

Mouth of Wallace, Crab Bar, obviously the agency has not cared much about enforcement for a long time!
They chase down boats (which most likely are fishing legal) and let these other area alone for the Russian to snag up a storm!

If there is not a court appearance does the county jurisdiction still share the fine paid?

Dirt bags will cheat, regardless. That is why they are dirt bags.

I was told the guys were tweakers

Prosecutors decline cases all the time, no big deal. With most licenses linked to driver licenses, I wonder if a drivers license can get suspended for unpaid tickets just like with traffic. Get some solid arrests and vehicle impounds from it.

They only ticket when you appear to have money. Wear anything Simms = ticket. Wear a grungy Looney Tunes shirt = free pass. Boat = ticket. Yellow rod = free pass. I have seen this principle in action multiple times in Skytucky country.

checking boats is easy since you can drive to the ramps or run around in an expensive rigid hull inflatable in the salt. it also doesn't cause your shiny boots to get scuffed up.

poaching is already legal in washington if you stay away from ramps or easily accessible areas since the likelihood of seeing an enforcement officer off the beaten path is the same as seeing bigfoot.