Unarmed USFS Ranger Authority?

[coloradokevin]

Okay, so maybe some of you guys can help me sort out this question.

I was target shooting today on National Forest land (which is allowed in my state), in an area that is very well-known, and has been used for this purpose for at least 20 years (I've been going there for about 4 years now).

Anyway, we were contacted by two "officers" in a vehicle that was marked USFS, but was not equipped as an emergency vehicle (it was a Ford Ranger, or something like that). The two officers in this vehicle were unarmed, neither one wore a badge, and neither was equipped with any type of duty belt.

These "rangers" immediately ordered us to unload our firearms and set them on the ground. We complied, for the sake of their comfort. They then began telling us that we were shooting illegally, and claimed that the area we were in qualified as "occupied" (I guess because we were there?), and as a "campsite" (I guess because some idiot had an illegal fire there at some point, and left some burned logs behind?).

This place is well-known to people who live in this area, and I've never seen it used as anything other than a shooting area. It isn't within five miles of any developed campsite, and the only sign of camping were some previously burned logs in the middle of a gravel area. In fact, 15-20 other people were shooting there within an hour of the time that we were contacted today, though no one was around when we were contacted.

The ranger who ran the contact seemed a bit "badge heavy", which was ironic since he wasn't wearing a badge. He threatened to write us on the alleged violations, but eventually gave us a warning after wasting an hour or so of our time.

Does anyone know if these unarmed and unbadged rangers actually have any law enforcement authority? I'm a police officer myself, but I'm far removed from the federal system, and I don't know how they handle these things (from a personnel perspective) on US Forest Service land. I cooperated fully with the officer, and thanked him for his time, but I'm still not convinced that he was in "the right" on this one.

Before the inevitable question is raised: I know these guys were legitimate USFS employees, but I'm not sure of their true authority to cite/arrest people for alleged law violations. Hopefully someone can shed some light on this issue.

 

[Freedom_fighter_in_IL]

If they are indeed Forest Rangers then they by all means have the rights and duties to cite for infractions on national parks land. Just as you have the authority to cite as a LEO even when off duty. I personally have never seen a range on National Forrest land that was not clearly marked as a rifle range and find it hard to believe that that is legal or safe in any fashion.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

a real forest ranger has wider reaching powers than most anyone. now there is a big diff between a ranger and a park employee. did he seem to have the equip to really write you up? ie ticket book? was there a radio in the truck?

 

[coloradokevin]

a real forest ranger has wider reaching powers than most anyone. now there is a big diff between a ranger and a park employee. did he seem to have the equip to really write you up? ie ticket book? was there a radio in the truck?

Well, that's why I'm trying to figure out if he was a legitimate ranger, or just an employee.

He had a warning book, and gave us all written warnings. He had no gun, badge, or other LE-duty equipment, but was obviously working at the time. Never saw a radio, but don't know if one was in the truck.

I personally have never seen a range on National Forrest land that was not clearly marked as a rifle range and find it hard to believe that that is legal or safe in any fashion.

As I said, it is legal to shoot on USFS land in Colorado.

Here's some info on shooting in this particular forest, if you need it:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsinternet/!ut/p/c4/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gDfxMDT8MwRydLA1cj72BTSw8jAwjQL8h2VAQAng7kaQ!!/?ss=110210&navtype=BROWSEBYSUBJECT&cid=null&navid=110250000000000&pnavid=110000000000000&position=BROWSEBYSUBJECT&recid=28024&actid=106&ttype=activity&pname=Arapaho & Roosevelt National Forests Pawnee NG - Target Shooting

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

only way to really find out is call his boss what did his sig on warning say?

the reason i say a ranger has such wide range is they are legal in puerto rico and other territories and almost no one else is

 

[Jeff F]

I have had a little dealing with USFS rangers. We were pioneering a road into 25 acres of private land off of a USFS road up on Mount Rose. We had engineered plans approved by the USFS and we were getting after it pushing over trees with a D9 and a blade and loader following behind grubbing and smoothing things up. We were also cutting pads and driveways for 10 custom homes on 2 acre lots. The developer had pulled all necessary permits and plans.

We had been working for a week when a couple of USFS rangers showed up and asked what we were doing. The foreman told them we were developing 25 acres of private land. They said that we were on USFS land and to stop work at once. The Foreman told them that it was private property, they had no jurisdiction there and that they could go get bent. They leave. Next day about 7:30 in the morning we get a visit from 3 more rangers. These guys were the law enforcement dudes, full uniform, batman belt, guns, badge and enough handcuffs for everybody there and there were quite a few construction workers. They were pissed and had a signed cease and desist order. We got shut down for a week while it got sorted out then went back to work.

The USFS has the rangers and they also have the law enforcement rangers who are sworn Federal officers with full law enforcement and arrest power

 

[Bluehawk]

No badge? No ID shown? = No authority at that point!!!
(did you ask to see some identification????)
Did you see a citation book? If all they had was a warning book then it might have been just two employees who have permission to write warnings but not citations since they are not sworn LEO's.
Under law, an officer must identify himself clearly..either by uniform with proper badge in view...showing his badge if in plain clothes...or better, showing his Dept ID. (anyone can buy a badge).
Of course there are exceptions...running after suspects...an oral identification suffices until caught...etc.
I would certainly call that office and find out what is going on.

 

[coloradokevin]

only way to really find out is call his boss what did his sig on warning say?

Well, there was no signature at all, just his printed name on the warning where it said "officer name". Under officer ID #, he printed the letter "A" followed by five digits. I'm planning to call the USFS office on Monday, as I have a contact who works at the office that covers this ranger district. Hopefully that will shed some more light on the issue.

Personally, I wonder if he fell under some definition of a "special police officer". In my city we give "special police" power to our CITY park rangers, our animal control officers, and a few others. These guys can technically issue citations and what-not, but they don't handle any serious crimes, they are unarmed, and they won't deal with a person who gets confrontational with them (they call us in those cases).

But, that would seem a bit weird in this instance. Why would the USFS expect someone who was unarmed to work in a LE function where they'd be expected to contact groups of armed "violators", many miles from the nearest cover? Seriously, this guy was very lucky that we weren't the type of folks who were looking to commit a crime, as he wouldn't have stood a snowball's chance if we were!

No badge? No ID shown? = No authority at that point!!!
(did you ask to see some identification????)
Did you see a citation book? If all they had was a warning book then it might have been just two employees who have permission to write warnings but not citations since they are not sworn LEO's.

I also wondered if these guys might have just had the authority to write warnings, and not issue actual citations. One way or another, the primary contact ranger was clearly trying to make a big show out of his "serious" decision on whether or not to cite us for the alleged violation (which didn't actually exist in my opinion, or that of any of the other hundreds of people who have used that site in the past couple of decades).

Honestly, when he first approached our group (from the front of our firing line, no less) we immediately called a "cease fire", and placed our long-guns on the ground, just out of simple (standard) range safety/courtesy. I could tell he was with the USFS, and expected the simple (standard) spiel about making sure we kept our shots in a safe direction, and policing our trash at the end. I've had that conversation with plenty of rangers in the past, and didn't expect anything different on this occasion.

When I greeted him he immediately asked us to unload our pistols and place them on the ground. He was clearly uniformed, and driving a USFS vehicle with a partner, but he wore only a name tag (no badge) and he had no duty belt. We complied with this request, just figuring that it would make the contact go more smoothly.

He then immediately launched into a tirade about how we were in violation of a number of statutes, then he pointed towards some tire marks on the back stop (off road) and trash in the area and said that shooters cause those types of problems (none of which were caused by us, and many of which have been going on at all of the local places for years).

I knew he was a USFS employee, but I should have requested a business card just to figure out what his actual function was. In retrospect, for all I know he had no LE authority at all! Either way, we kept it polite, apologized for any confusion on the regulations (telling him that we didn't believe we were in violation), and packed it up for the day. I have his name on the warning, and I'll see what I can find out from there.

Not to turn this thread towards a "strategy and tactics" issue, but my girlfriend and I both agreed that we wouldn't have so easily disarmed ourselves if we had been met by the same person away from the road in the wilderness, sans an official looking vehicle and similarly uniformed partner. In that case I'm not sure how I'd have handled it, but I wouldn't have given up my weapon without some more proof of his standing to provide such an order.

 

[Bluehawk]

If there ever is a next time..politely ask to see identification...and until you do see it and are convinced they are who they say they are NEVER put yer weapon on the ground!!!!!
Point it in a safe direction but do NOT give up control of that weapon until you are damn sure who/what you are dealing with!!!!

 

[luigi]

I have to agree W/ Bluehawk . Anyone can buy a uniform at a uniform shop. Did you identify yourself as a police officer?

 

[Carl N. Brown]

If unarmed unbadged civilians have the citizen's arrest and old hue'n'cry authority to enforce the law, forest rangers without badges or guns have the authority to enforce the law. I am actually a little put out by the modern idea that a gun is a symbol of authority.

Reading the history of Robert Peel who started the British Police ("Bobbies"), every citizen had authority to enforce the law by citizens' arrest, hue-and-cry and so on. Formal police actually had limited authority. There are quite a few stories from the 19th century of bobbies not being armed but using moral persuasion and when that did not work, asking a homeowner for the loan of firearm. In the Alfred Hitchcock film, The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934), the police got guns from a gunshop to besiege a nest of foreign spies (think North Hollywood Bank Robbery Shootout).

 

[Black Knight]

Next time you go shooting there why not take a real off duty law enforcement ranger with you? If this character shows up let the real ranger take care of it. It may be that this character is a seasonal employee who wants to force his way to a full time job. He may actually force his way to the unemployment line or a jail cell.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

I remember a case about 5 years ago where someone defeated a simple marijuana possession charge because the "ranger" who made the "arrest" was not authorized to do so. I don't remember the specific details, but apparently whatever statute created whatever federal agency he worked for did not grant the agency full powers of arrest. I can't remember the details, but this seems like a similar situation.

 

[52grain]

If you do call the office, please let us what is said. I wish that I had national forest land to shoot on. Only have the public ranges around here.

Approaching people shooting from in front of the firing line is monumentally stupid. I expect that whoever it was was inexperienced.

 

[RETG]

I work for the BLM, but not in CO. The USFS, as BLM and the NPS, have non-LE rangers. That is their title, but it usually has trail, recreation or land before the title. They can give warnings, they have no arresting authority.

On BLM lands, they can tell people to get off non-trails, out of WSAs and other illegal to be areas of the lands managed by BLM. If the people ignore them, they can call in LE rangers or a local sheriff. In most BLM areas, the local sheriff has authority to back up on BLM lands.

Under most circumstances, if they spot someone shooting in an area where it is illegal, they are supposed to get on the radio and call in the LE ranger(s) to handle the shooters. If no LE rangers are available, then most likely the main headquarters has monitored the call and requested county sheriff to send someone in LE out. Never know if they are just shooting for fun. So non-armed rangers should consider this and not confront them for their own safety.

Not sure if the USFS will do the same thing. I know in a NP, LE rangers in the park would be dispatched immediately, of course, in a NP no shooting is allowed, so it is a given they are shooting illegal. The NP service has many more LE rangers than BLM so they always have rangers on duty, and they are not patrolling millions of acres with only a couple rangers.

One of the problems on BLM lands is that some areas are made non-shooting legal due to the area being made into a wilderness study area. These WSA areas are hard for the locals to keep up with; therefore, it is usually safer to call first, shoot later and legally. Even a LE ranger usually will not issue a citation if the person is shooting in a new WSA area, and the ranger believes the person did not really know that. But, that is up to the LE ranger, and it is up to the shooter to know where they can legally and safely shoot.

My suggestion is to call the main USFS office and find out if these guys had the authority to warn you away. Chances are they did, but chances are they could have been mistaken in regard to the area you were shooting in.

I do know the forest service rangers in UT are a bit more anal about shooters than the BLM rangers.

 

[medalguy]

I'll add my .02 on this although it's limited info. I own land in NM that backs up to USFS land so I have contact with USFS personnel fairly often. Every true "Ranger" I have had contact with always wore a USFS badge on his shirt and all were wearing the official green uniform. I've NEVER had any contact with a ranger not both in uniform and wearing a badge. I don't think I've ever seen a USFS ranger wearing a sidearm that I can recall.

I have also had contact with a number of BLM personnel, both in their office and on BLM land. I must say all, without exception, were very professional and helpful. They have assisted me in finding a safe place to shoot long range, and when they recommended one place to me that I did not think safe after checking it out (no backstop, just shooting across the prairie) they thanked me for being careful and promptly got their maps out and recommended several other locations. NSFS personnel have never been particularly helpful when I mentioned shooting on USFS land, although they have been helpful in other areas.

I too would suggest you politely ask who they are and ask for ID if anything like this occurs again. They should be willing to show their ID and their badges if they have them. I too would not be quite so willing to put my weapon down, not knowing who I'm being confronted by, especially in a remote location.

 

[jkulysses]

The USFS rangers out here in Oregon travel in 4x4 Ford Explorers or Rangers and say LAW ENFORCEMENT on the sides of the vehicle. They also carry glocks and have AR15's in the middle where a local cop would have a shotgun.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

It is amazing sometimes what tripe we have to put up with on land that is supposedly owned by all American Citizens.

While it may be owned by all American citizens, it still has rules. There are a lot of places that are used as expedient gun ranges and may have been used as such for a long time, but such use still may not be legal or problematic.

coloradokevin, where exactly were you shooting?

 

[RETG]

IF there were NO rules, just imagine how the land would look in a few years. People would use it for a dumping ground, destroying the lands by driving on them (and before you try and burn me, I am an advid off-roader with two hummers, but I go where the trails are not where I think they should be).

As for the Ranger logo. If they are LE, it will also have a gold badge simple on the rear of the vehicle that states, US Law Enforcement. However, land rangers, trail rangers, etc., may also have the logo Ranger on the side but with no LE statement or logo, they are non-LE rangers. However, they do have some authority to tell people they are in the wrong area(s), and to please leave.
They can also take photos, and pass them onto LE and the LEs can then send a citation. We do this often in BLM and it holds up in court if the person can be recognized with a photo and it is clearly illegal what they are doing.

 

[Bluehawk]

They can also take photos, and pass them onto LE and the LEs can then send a citation. We do this often in BLM and it holds up in court if the person can be recognized with a photo and it is clearly illegal what they are doing.

That is incorrect...a sworn LEO must wittness the illegal activity...if they do not and a photo is supplied by the wittness then that wittness is required by law to file a complaint and testify in court. Also...chain of custody is extremly important in a case with photographs as evidence...all persons handling that camera from the time the pic is shot to the time the photos are produced as evidence in court, must be trained in the proper procedures of chain of custody and all persons/procedures must be logged. If ANY one person touches said camera/photos who is not properly trained, the case can and will be thrown out of court!
Trained means certified in most states.

 

[paintballdude902]

USFS rangers are all considered federal LEO. they have all the powers that go along with such. they may not be armed but they will call someone who is.


due to budget cuts in the last few years many conservation authorities pull double duty

 

[RETG]

Bluehawk, I know what I'm talking about, by first hand knowledge.

I'm talking about BLM employees taking the photos, so it is easy to assume they will appear in court; and have appeared in court.

The photos do have to be very exact. In that the faces and identification such as a license plate are clearly visible. Case in point, six months ago, some photos were taken of a group riding in restoration areas, no helmets, but nice bike with great, and unique paint jobs.

Easy to match a face and a plate to the bike. Easy to show they were in a clearly marked restoration area since one biker was flipping the bird at the lady BLM worker as she took his photo. Also the photo of the bike with the licenese plate on the same bike, with the same biker easily determiend by clothes.

Those photo that did not clearly show a plate matched to a driver were no good and no citations could be issued.

However, citation were issued, people appeared in Federal court, and they were found guilty and paid their fines. Overall, three tickets issued, three people paid some hefty fines, and three people went home with a different perspective about flipping the bird and driving around in restoration areas on BLM land.


As for other photo or video evidence, just look at how many times security cameras are used to nail someone and there is NO chain of custody until received by LE. Tell me, what chain of custody is there prior to the police obtaining the video or photo? I'll answer that; NONE. Sometimes, video evidence might be weeks old prior to LE involvment.

Under Evidence Rules, photographs are typically admitted as demonstrative evidence to illustrate testimony. When used purely as demonstrative evidence, legal issues regarding authentication and chain of custody are somewhat relaxed so long as a competent witness can testify that the photograph fairly and accurately depicts the scene about which he or she is testifying. Thus the sworn testimony of the person who took the photos, along with the photos are a good means of finding someone guilty. This might not work with a felony, but sure does work with a misdemeanor. In my original statements, I was not talking about someone committing a felony.

So, yes photos can be used as evidence, even if taken by John Q Public and submitted to LE as evidence.

 

[RETG]

In addition, NOT all USFS rangers are LE. There are interpretive rangers (work primarily in the USFS buildings), there are range rangers (ride around checking on the forests), etc., and the same goes for the park service. Unless they have been trained in LE, and sworn in they are not LE rangers.

In addition, LE rangers; regardless of NPS, USFS, BLM, etc., are required to be armed at all times while on duty. In the case of the BLM, there are approximatley 200+ uniformed LE rangers, and approx. 100 plain clothed LE personnel in the 12 states, plus DC where they work. There are quite a few more in 11 of the 12 areas that fall under the Department of the Interior. (Just a side note to clarifiy, the USFS is not under the DOI, but under the Department of Agriculture.)

 

[NickEllis]

Thanks RETG. Nice to have some informed info on this.

 

[coloradokevin]

RETG,

Thanks for your perspective on this issue. Despite being a full-time LEO myself, I can't say that I'm very familiar with the workings of the USFS (don't deal with them much in the ghetto).

I did get some more information about the ranger I spoke to the other day, and I'll add a more detailed reply when I have a few more minutes to type (I'm heading out the door for work right now).