Back in mid-November, when the Lewis County Sheriff’s Office posted its first statement on Initiative 1639 following passage by voters, I thought it was a well-measured statement. I still do.
In fact, I thought it was expressly unfortunate that the sheriffs office’s well-stated assurances to a nervous citizenry were lumped in with other elected and appointed law enforcement heads who seemed to infer that they would not comply at all with the new regulations brought about by I-1639.
As time went on into the new year, I realized that many of the statements being released were happening in waves and shared a common language — so I did some digging. If you read my last column on the topic, you’ll remember that it was found that the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) had published “suggested” language on I-1639 (if an agency was “choosing” to make a statement) on a couple of occasions that correlated with these statements.
After that column ran, I began to think further on the topic. Were sheriffs and police chiefs bypassing their local governing elected and appointed legal authority by releasing language from WASPC — an active law enforcement lobbyist group — on I-1639 directly?
When LCSO released its statement, I didn’t think much of it in that regard. Sheriff Rob Snaza and Prosecutor Jonathan Meyer are fundraising buddies and seem to travel mostly as two peas in a pod — I suppose I assumed they had probably spoken on the matter.
Yet I wondered if WASPC and its internal policy directors were overstepping their bounds by potentially inserting themselves between citizen-elected and appointed legal heads.
Think about it: We elect our own public legal professionals — prosecutors. Should law enforcement heads be making these statements at all?
WASPC has also been involved on the back end of legislation conversations regarding clarifying I-1639. Was it disingenuous for them to give law enforcement heads suggested language while also lobbying for law enforcement on the legislative side? Did WASPC use law enforcement heads as political pawns in this scenario? If so, at what expense?
In some cases, I think more recent statements by law enforcement heads have gone the way of grandstanding for likes, clicks, shares and comments on individual law enforcement agency Facebook pages and other digital properties. Since law enforcement challenge videos and other things have become common on social media, I’ve noticed that agencies are often attempting to “one-up” each other — and sometimes that leads to real-life problems for law enforcement.
On Thursday evening, the Morton Police Department posted a grand statement in dramatic fashion on its Facebook page. Where the LCSO statement is a single paragraph posted on social media, Chief Roger Morningstar opens in epic fashion to a full-page letter, typed and signed with a photograph of said letter posted to their Facebook page.
The first full paragraph is a historical account of Washington becoming a state. The second paragraph is a personal statement that seems to indicate that Chief Morningstar does not support I-1639. The third paragraph closes with some questionable logic paths.
In the second paragraph, Morningstar states that he “cannot in good faith support I-1639 without violating” his oath and the Constitution. Try as I may, I was unable to understand from Morningstar’s letter exactly which parts of I-1639 he was concerned about. He goes on further to state that he’s okay with background checks, and that mental health is a valid concern, and that he’ll still refer potential violations to the Prosecutor’s Office for consideration.
The letter did not explain what part of I-1639 the chief was specifically objecting to, while yet affirming many of the major parts of I-1639.
Later in the second paragraph, he writes that he “cannot support our Fourth Amendment rights violated.”
Now, I’ve read all 30 pages of I-1639. I cannot identify anything in the language that calls any officer to violate the Fourth Amendment. I see nothing that directs law enforcement to enter homes, business, etc. Nothing of the sort.
While seemingly opposed, Morningstar still affirms that “any violations brought to our attention will be investigated and forwarded to the Prosecutor’s Office for review.”
My frustration here is that this grand letter is released — with a lot of suggestive rhetoric — and you’ve got citizens saying “yeah, right on, Chief!” and yet I’m not sure the letter really says anything. Which part of I-1639 is Morningstar not going to comply with? He seems to affirm most parts of the legislation. Yet the commenters vastly interpreted the statement as one of non-compliance.
What parts of the second and fourth Amendments is he concerned about? He did not illustrate.
Did the Morton City Council know that Morningstar was posting this statement? Did they approve it? Did their municipal legal representation? If Morningstar doesn’t comply with part of I-1639, and someone goes on to commit a crime with a weapon, does this now make the whole city of Morton liable because of this ambiguous statement? Would that bankrupt the city?
As I read the entirety of I-1639, I’m just not clear from Morningstar’s letter what exactly about I-1639 that he objects to. I feel like these statements are now just the “trendy” thing to do because all the rebel, elected bad boy sheriffs are doing it.
It would be great to get some clarity from Morningstar and the city of Morton on these specific questions. Statements matter.
•••
Brittany Voie is a columnist for The Chronicle.
