I found myself fascinated with the recent Morton Police Chief’s statement on I-1639. As I mentioned last week, the Morton statement went beyond what our local elected sheriff had written. The Lewis County Sheriff’s Office simply affirmed their support and facilitation activities for the Second Amendment and said that LCSO wouldn’t actively start seeking out people for weapons violations — but would refer any potentials violations they came across in accordance of the new law.
While Morton Police Chief Roger Morningstar echoes some of LCSO’s sentiments, his statement goes further to declare Second and Fourth Amendment conflicts.
I emailed back and forth this week with Chief Morningstar after an article about his statement ran in Tuesday’s edition of The Chronicle. The bulk of my questions were trying to establish whether the Chief’s statement was supported by the mayor and city council, and also to establish the type information or education that Chief Morningstar used to form the basis of his opinion and statement.
Morningstar said that he spoke with Sheriff Rob Snaza and members of the east Lewis County community prior to forming his statement. He also said his statement was reviewed and approved by the mayor — former long-time Morton Police Chief Dan Mortensen — as well as members of the council who he spoke with individually. However, all of this discussion occurred outside of a public meeting and there are no known emails or public records to refer to in order to verify the council’s reported stance.
Chief Morningstar is also a Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) member.
Neither he nor the mayor or council sought outside legal counsel prior to the release of the statement. Morton Police Department did not seek the advice of their contracted legal team or the county prosecutor before releasing the statement.
According to LinkedIn, Morningstar started his law enforcement career as a military policeman (non-civilian law enforcement). After the military, he went into corrections in the state of Nevada for a few months before moving into exclusively tribal law enforcement for several years, followed by another few months working in corrections in Washington State before being hired as police chief in Morton.
Morton Police Department appears to be his first civilian law enforcement gig outside of a sovereign nation (where laws can differ).
He also explained via email that, while he does not have any formal academic education in criminal justice or law, he went on to list the “Second Amendment Primer,” the “Constitution Alive Course” available through “WallBuilders,” and the Federalist Papers among others as education. He also noted that he will be attending the “Patriot Academy,” associated with Rick Green of WallBuilders, this year.
Morningstar also said he received “extensive” education in constitutional law during his time at the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission (WSCJTC). Although, a review of the WSCJTC website does not note any constitutional law education in the 720-hour (20 weeks) basic academy — only criminal law and procedure.
Here’s the thing: Chief Morningstar seems like a decent guy. And he’s probably a great police officer and chief, but if I’m being really honest here, I’m just not sure that Chief Morningstar has the administrative or educational background to really make a formal statement on the topic of I-1639 and whether or not it violates the Second and Fourth Amendment without actual legal backup.
A criminal justice perspective and a legal perspective can be two different things — which is why police chiefs and municipal law enforcement officers traditionally avoid these statements of legal interpretation and they are rare.
Morningstar assured me that there was no “shooting from the hip” in writing and releasing this statement — but I would argue that releasing this statement without any actual legal review, by someone who studied law and municipal legal aspects, is a little “hip-shoot-y.”
Former Republican Attorney General of Washington State Rob McKenna theorized in an article that, ultimately, cities or counties could be denied distribution of funds for non-enforcement of I-1639, just like Lewis County doesn’t receive any state marijuana distribution because of their nearly decade long de facto cannabis moratorium.
And, what happens if a Morton citizen reads Morningstar’s I-1639 statement and decides that, because Morton Police Department doesn’t agree with I-1639, that they don’t have to follow the new law? What if they happen to interact with a Washington State Patrol trooper?
After all, Morton PD isn’t the only law enforcement agency in the area — do statements like this unknowingly put otherwise law-abiding citizens at risk to violate laws they don’t believe apply?
Where LCSO did not open themselves up to interpreting I-1639 in their statement, Morton Police Department did.
I didn’t get a response from Morton mayor Dan Mortensen on whether or not the City of Morton’s insurance provider was aware of this statement either. Will cities and counties that make these statements face high insurance rates? Or loss of coverage? Does Morningstar’s statement open them all up to increased personal liability?
It’s not about being pro- or anti- I-1639 — it’s about being a good administrator and steward of your department, city, and tax dollars. Opening them up to possible liability without outside legal consultation simply isn’t doing that.
•••
Brittany Voie is a columnist for The Chronicle. She lives south of Chehalis with her husband and two young sons. She welcomes correspondence from the community at voiedevelopment@comcast.net.
