CA DFW Enforcement Div....

[Darian]

An interesting and strange article appears in the current issue of the Sacramento News & Review. Check out the link:

https://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/what-39-s-up-with-mavmit/content?oid=17511921

Why are CA DFW Enforcement Division staff loaned out to other agencies POT task forces when they're constantly making a case for more budget/personnel and chose not to update badges/ID's to save money???

Aside from the fact that it seems incredulous that DFW decided to keep their old badges/ID's (DFG) rather than update them to the current department name, seems disturbing to me that DFW enforcement staff (wardens) are being used to assist in stopping mailing of POT, anywhere. Even more disturbing is the use of questionable justification/probable cause (a tail light on an MV out) for tailing/detaining/searching law abiding citizens on the street. I'll bet that the instance described hasn't been the only occurrence of this nature. Add to that a confusing title on badges/ID and it's a formula for potentially dangerous confrontations. Hmmm, I wonder if Wardens get the same standards training that local/state law enforcement officers receive???

At any rate, if wardens are to be used in POT wars, they should being used to arrest illegal growers and eradicate illegal diversions of water. That, at least, might help reduce the rate at which our environment is degrading and help save some fisheries.

[Charlie S]

From experience, I know that game wardens are far more than just "fish cops". They are extremely well versed, for the most part, on environmental laws, and other such state and federal regulations. Because of that they are invaluable in pot and other drug busts because they are able to recognize and cite infractions, misdemeanors, and felonies that regular deputies on the scene might not even consider. This makes for a well rounded team that can make a real difference in terms of prosecution.

Additionally, I would hesitate to give huge credibility to one story unless I was there and observed it myself. So much is written that isn't as it seems, and I have a jaundice view of most published "reports". Also, most folks forget that game wardens are, in fact, state law enforcement officers with the same authority and responsibility to enforce laws they see being broken. To imply that they receive less training or are less qualified than other law enforcement officers in the State of California is demeaning and insulting. To make such an implication, and, yes it was, brings shame on you.

[Darian]

Charlie S,.... What you say about using wardens as part of inter-agency teams may be correct when there's enough staff to carry out primary duties plus participation in POT task forces but if you listen to DFW there sure doesn't seem to be. I seem to recall that you either are or were in law enforcement. So, I can understand the statement, "Additionally, I would hesitate to give huge credibility to one story unless I was there and observed it myself. So much is written that isn't as it seems, and I have a jaundice view of most published "reports"." In this instance, I don't see the same problem you might as there doesn't appear to be a reason for the reporter to lie nor, it appears, was anyones reputation damaged unless you consider that the justification used to "detain" the reporter by the warden; observing him mailing something and tailing him because he had a tail light out. Seems weak to me....

You seem a bit testy on this. I get it, but your attempt to shame anyone for asking a question is ridiculous. A question is a question and deserving of an answer. There was no implication made or intended by asking that question. The point of this post was that use of warden staff for interagency enforcement task forces during periods when resources appear to be scarce doesn't seem to be great management by DFW.

Just as you, I've had some experience with law enforcement classifications/descriptions authorized in the CA Penal Code and can tell you that there're several at the local/state level that are sworn, may or may not carry weapons or attend peace officers standards training. So, the question stands. I think I'll direct that inquiry to the CA DFW Enforcement Division and find the answer.

In the meantime, you need to lighten up....

[Charlie S]

Of course there are several positions under the Penal Code as you described, and some are even sworn. A good example is Corrections Officers who do have limited LEO authority. But they are NOT LEO's with the authority, etc, that comes with attending and passing not only peace officer academy training but also successfully passing FTO supervised training and a probationary period. There are also additional training requirements after an LEO passes initial training that continue through a career.

Sorry I ruffled your feathers but I stand by my stance and beliefs that some folks exaggerate reports and believe that if they throw enough crap some of it will stick. This has been true ever since I learned to read and think for myself so many decades ago. I didn't say that I believed that this was the case in this point, just that I implied I would not base decisions on such a one sided report. As far as as lightening up, it won't happen.

[Mike O]

The DFG cops are far better in the wilds than city sheriff or CHP would be. The pot farmers are using natural resources to farm, including altering steam beds (a DFG jurisdictional issue). They out out bait and poison to kill game. Why shouldn't they be involved?

In addition, The name change was a sop to political correctness, why spend tax money to "update" names on badges?

[Darian]

Mike,.... I agree that wardens are far better for duty in "....the wilds...." and thought I was making that clear. The warden in the article is operating in Sacramento City as a part of an inter-agency task force, apparently, to observe/detect people who are attempting to mail POT in packages(??). Unless you're using a POT smelling dog or standing next to the target while the package is filled/sealed, how do you distinguish whether a person mailing POT or something else??? Since using the mails to send illegal substances is probably a federal crime, why not rely on US Postal Inspectors?? That's their job.

I'm just not sure this team is the highest use of DFW warden staff. I am sure that the I/A teams inner city activity doesn't contribute much to stopping illegal diversion of water or actual stopping of illegal grows in places like Humboldt or Mendocino Counties.

Aside from that, I've had a Post Office Box since the mid-70's and ship/receive all kinds of packages (including a few to you). How long will it be before some I/A team member "detains" me for questioning as a result of watching me?? If detained, I'll bet an interview card would be completed and filed. So, even if not subsequently arrested, my name/ID info would be kept in team records. I don't know about anyone else but I don't like the idea that my name could potentially appear in those records as a result of some agent observing me picking up or mailing packages at FEDEX, UPS or the post office. This is nothing more than a fishing expedition.

It would be interesting to find out how many arrests have been made that resulted in prosecution/conviction of any crime based on this type of investigation and how much the cost per case amounted to....

[Lew Riffle]

Illegal pot farms are an environmental issue and DFW wardens are the front line enforcers in that sector of the illegality. Reasonably they would be a part of a task force going after such activity. If there is any special funding specific to these task forces then DFW is going to utilize it to pay salaries and make the case for more personnel. It is a part of the " civil service industry" and here we have these multi year task forces with DFW wardens specific to it because they are paid for by most likely some federal program. Not weird but scarey since that our game wardens have elite powers as far search and seizure above regular cops in California and maybe this being abused out of it's original intent to check for over limits and such. Yes this is a matter for concern and a line that DFW enforcement should be careful not to cross like this story implies is going on.

[Walter]

DFW cant violate the constitution but many people surrender their rights unnecessarily. Try the "Am I being detained?" line next time. You cannot be unlawfully detained against your will.

Regarding the pot issue, yes, they justify their budget by showing all the "things they are doing."

On the coast they are inept with steelhead and salmon poaching enforcement. During late steelhead season they harass people over abalone while free for alls can happen where they do. Haha, you have to tell calltip they are poaching abalone in the river to get anybody to show up. Lmao.

[Darian]

OK,.... From what I've been able to determine, initial training for Fish & Wildlife Wardens involves an academy. Training provided during attendance appears to be targeted at duties expected to be performed by warden's in rural settings and was approved by the CA Commission on POST. That seems to answer one of my questions.

The activities expected to be performed by wardens are written in such broad terms that it's probably not possible to exclude wardens from urban law enforcement activities. So, as Lew pointed out, DFW can reasonably use wardens on special task forces funded by other agencies to augment their budget.

That leaves a couple of questions to answer. (1) Is this urban surveillance activity to try to stop the use of FEDEX, UPS and/or USPS to mail POT the best use of warden staff and (2) are wardens using their extraordinary powers of search/seizure inappropriately???.

In my view, the answer to the first question is no. Wardens should be working with multi-agency task forces (e.g. CAMP) on detection, eradication of illegal grows, meth labs, illegal diversion of water, illegal use of chemicals/fertilizers/insecticides and illegal clearing of public land, not to mention capture/prosecution of the meth cooks and growers in rural settings. Urban surveillance programs do little to accomplish those objectives. There're already enough federal/local/state law enforcement agents/officers to carry out urban surveillance activities.

Unless there's some admin/legal repercussion, I don't think we'll ever find the answer to the second question.

[SeanO]

Interesting and creative use of wardens, Darian.

I can understand DFG/CDFW helping out other agencies IN THE FIELD but in Sacramento?? Does not make sense to me at all. I would also be upset and flustered if a warden questioned me in an urban setting unless I was fishing.

There are enough pot problems to pursue where it is grown! Pretty easy to find the semi-legal and illegal grows, just google it!

Take care,

ps. I hope the 420 crew and the rest of us legalizes it soon! I'd rather see our river water used to grow that lucrative crop than hay, Easter Lilies or almonds.