Some clarification here is in order. It is untrue that local (state, county, city) police in Washington state are banned or ordered not to cooperate with Federal law enforcement. A few points about that:
- Regarding "cooperation" with ICE. There are two issues that arise here, one is a matter of case law, and has been distorted by the media to the point that everyone has lost sight of it. The other is that there are very real "sanctuary" areas that are exactly what localboy is talking about. The first issue is regarding immigration detainers. There is case law from the 9th Circuit that an ICE detainer does not constitute a legal basis for arrest or detention in a jail. This is problematic for jail operators concerned about holding someone on that basis alone. Most jurisdictions are declining to honor ICE detainers (and were before the national controversy arose and we heard the term "sanctuary cities") because of that. The second issue is very real, but is not a statewide one as only certain jurisdictions (mainly King County/Seattle) are actively working against ICE or refusing to work with them. The ICE detainer issue could be solved by a legislation and/or a change in the ICE legal process which apparently no one in government has been willing or able to do. (If ICE were to come up with warrants for arrest signed by a judge, they would be in a different position than a civil order signed by an ICE agent, which is what an ICE detainer currently is....)
- Regarding working with the Feds outside of ICE, our local law enforcement works together with most of the three letter LE agencies daily, and many departments have co mingled teams of local and Federal law enforcement working together. This is especially true of our larger agencies in Western Washington. There is no legal basis and has been no attempt for a statewide coordinated refusal to cooperate with the Feds, outside of the above ICE issue. Virutally every time you see or hear of a drug task force or Violent offender task force you can almost be certain there is a mix of local and Federal LE participating.
- Twistedtree commented on the thought that states don't have an obligation to enforce Federal law. This is and is not correct. State(local) police/deputies usually have no jurisdiction to enforce Federal law, but as noted above many times work in a cooperative task force and will have a cross commission. Those cross commissions are usually a special commission for the focus of the task force. Local police also do have an obligation to investigate crimes, and when they determine the crime is Federal can legally hold everything and call a Federal agency to take over. There is also a moral obligation to keep order and peace, and call the Feds when warranted. In Washington, it gets muddied by some of the laws the state has passed, such as the legalization of marijuana but for most everything else there is a lot of cooperative work.
- It goes the same way in reverse; Federal LE can be cross commissioned to do work with local enforcement. Again, it is usually part of task force or specialized teams, and not just a cross commission to go out and commit general state law enforcement. The mechanism exist for the USCG to work in partnership with the local marine units to conduct enforcement, but of all the Federal law enforcement they are the least likely to ever do that. You generally don't see them stepping out of their role.
- As for some of the comments here about enforcement; I wouldn't think the individual opinions of a few marine patrol or USCG constitute a consensus on enforcement direction or policy for all of our marine law enforcement here in WA. Just because one local police or sheriff marine unit won't or don't do anything with NDZ doesn't mean others won't. And just because a couple USCG at the boat show today said that, doesn't mean there isn't a new commander telling them something different tomorrow. Remember too, the NDZ is a modification to rules, basically barring discharge from Type 1 and 2 MSDs. Those of us who didn't/don't have those still have to follow the existing rules for type 3 MSDs, which have been no discharge forever and basically require the same type of lockouts. The question would be, has anyone ever done enforcement in the past at all based on the previously existing rules? I don't know. No one has ever inspected my sanitation systems, I haven't even been boarded at sea, only ever been stopped by fish and wildlife checking on fishing licenses.
- Every police agency has to be selective about the laws they enforce. The public would never stand for the criminal justice cost to have enough of everything to have them enforce everything. Also, because most police exist to serve the local community, they will take on the most complained about or relevant issues in that community and focus on those; some unfunded mandates and things they don't have the manpower for will go generally un-enforced. Virtually every city police chief is given priorities by his council, mayor, city manager on what it is important to the city for the police to focus on, and a budget that is commensurate with what those officials can afford/feel is needed to accomplish public safety. Its been a principal of law enforcement since its formal inception that the police only exist with the approval of the people... I would think that the marching orders for our local LE marine units are all focused on doing state boat checks, which does not include the MSD, but things like registration, life preservers, etc. Many marine patrol units in our state are funded in whole or in part by funding from the state, and that funding is allocated based on how many of those checks are accomplished by each agency each year. Outside of doing those checks, the local marine units will be directed to take care of what that agency perceives as the biggest issues they face. I would argue alcohol and reckless operation would likely be a couple things they would rather spend their time on, but I'm sure it varies from agency to agency.
- All the above said, the EPA decision and website is very clear that the Puget Sound NDZ (no DISCHARGE zone) is at the discretion of the state to enact, and therefor police. Its also quite funny to read the WA Dept. of Ecology blog
Washington Department of Ecology: Protecting Puget Sound’s No Discharge Zone which seems to want to make you think the NDZ is a Federal thing, when in fact they just "okayed" WA to do it... Its also interesting to see that there is an active ongoing lawsuit over the NDZ, which could VERY likely be the reason the USCG does not want to touch it right now...
-The WA laws pertaining to this authorize enforcement by local, state or federal agencies. (See
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=173-228&full=true) The actual Washington RCW for penalties, in case no one has seen it is at
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=90.48.140.
- Sheriffs refusing to enforce gun laws is side issue irrelevant to this thread. I don't believe any of those Sheriffs have any borders or jurisdiction on the Puget Sound NDZ. They could very well have marine units on lakes or rivers and would or could potentially have to enforce other existing no discharge laws. That said, there are actual legal remedies available to them to fix those laws they feel are unconstitutional, and it embarrasses the profession to see them talk like that. It would be more helpful if they were to actually work to change or have the laws overturned than give the appearance of being anarchists. Regardless of how you feel about guns and the constitution, its not very dignified. I give them props for having the guts to stand up and say it, but then have to shake my head wondering what they are accomplishing.
FWIW I use orange zip ties on my overboard discharges in the closed position.
