Conduct of organized society by John C. Street

For good and logical reasons, Pennsylvania’s legislators drafted and enacted laws that depute Wildlife Conservation Officers with general law enforcement powers.

Because of the out-of-the-way places they commonly frequent in the performance of their duties, legislators correctly reasoned there would be occasions when they would be the first, and perhaps the only, law enforcement officers present at the scene of a crime.

Recently these law enforcement powers have been challenged in our county courts.  Yet, despite these challenges, Title 18 (The Crime Code) and Title 34 (The Game and Wildlife Code) remain unchanged; Wildlife Conservation Officers do have the same law enforcement powers as a police officer.      

Ostensibly, the reason for the challenge to the law enforcement powers of Wildlife Conservation Officers is their publicly understood mission.  Their job title (Wildlife Conservation Officer) and the primary body of laws they enforce (The Game and Wildlife Code) imply an exclusive role.  

It is perhaps understandable, therefore, that the cases where the law enforcement powers of a Wildlife Conservation Officer have been questioned in our county courts have been where that officer acted on a non-wildlife related offense in a place where it would normally be handled by a recognized law enforcement entity like the Pennsylvania State Police.  

To date, however, despite county level court cases where the general law enforcement powers of a Wildlife Conservation Officer seem to have been abrogated, neither Title 18 nor Title 34 have been legislatively amended to remove these powers.  And there is only one case that has been taken through the appellate process, i.e., taken to the Commonwealth Court, and been adjudicated against the Wildlife Conservation Officer’s use of their general law enforcement powers.  That single case involved a Wildlife Conservation Officer observing, following and stopping a drunk driver in a manner that was deemed outside “the scope of the officer’s employment.”

Therefore, based on a literal reading of Title 18 and, specifically, Title 34 (see NOTE below) of the Consolidated Statutes of Pennsylvania and lacking a significant body of case law at the Commonwealth Court – the appellate - level, a reasonable and logical person must conclude that Wildlife Conservation Officers have the same and equal powers deputed to police officers. 

(NOTE: Section 901 (a) (17) of Title 34 of the Consolidated Statutes of Pennsylvania reads in part: “When acting within the scope of the officer's employment, [they may] pursue, apprehend or arrest any individual suspected of violating any provision of [Title 18 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, which relates to crimes and offenses] or any other offense classified as a misdemeanor or felony. All powers as provided for in this paragraph will be limited by such administrative procedure as the director [of the Pennsylvania Game Commission], with the approval of the commission, shall prescribe.”)

It is relevant to this dissertation to note that, despite the law enforcement powers granted to Wildlife Conservation Officers through the language of Title 34, Section 901 (a) (17), the Pennsylvania Game Commission is poignantly aware of and sensitive to their publicly understood mission – to “protect and conserve” wildlife – and their respective role in the larger law enforcement community. 

As a result (and in keeping with the caveat, “powers … limited by such administrative procedures as the director … shall prescribe”), the Pennsylvania Game Commission has advised their Wildlife Conservation Officers, through an internally circulated memo, that if they observe unlawful activities that fall outside the normal purview of their jobs, they are to alert the proper law enforcement entity and turn the matter over to the representative of that law enforcement entity upon their arrival on scene.  However, in the event the proper law enforcement entity is unable to respond in a timely manner and the Wildlife Conservation Officer believes there are public safety issues, that officer has the full authority of the law – and, consequently, is expected - to interdict.  

Succinctly, then, when acting within the scope of their employment, a Wildlife Conservation Officer does have the law enforcement power to “pursue, apprehend or arrest any individual suspected of violating any provision of Title 18, the Crimes Code of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes.”  And neither the caveat - “limited by such administrative procedures” - contained in the later section of Title 34, Section 901 (a) (17) nor the Pennsylvania Game Commission’s internally circulated memo are intended to abridge the primary intent or authority of this Statute. 

Laws are defined as “rules of conduct of organized society, enforced by threat of punishment” (Columbia Encyclopedia 1989).   Our law makers – here in Pennsylvania our Senators and Representatives – created our “rules,” the Consolidated Statutes, at the behest of those who elected them to office. 

It was for good and logical reasons that Pennsylvania’s law makers drafted and enacted the Statute that deputes Wildlife Conservation Officers with general law enforcement powers.  Our law makers understood it was imperative to enforce our “rules of conduct,” even in out-of-the-way places.  And who better to do that, they correctly reasoned, than the men and women – our Wildlife Conservation Officers – who could very well be the first, and perhaps the only, law enforcement officers present at the scene of a crime.

As voting citizens of this Commonwealth, we have the right to petition our lawmakers to delete or amend laws if we believe they are unjust.  Often, but not always, the catalyst for this process – of deletion or amendment – comes from the judicial system when court cases (“case law”) reveal flaws in one of our Statutes. 

To date, however, there is neither a citizens’ petition nor a sufficient body of case law to suggest that Title 34, Section 901 (a) (17) should be amended or deleted. 

Therefore, we must insist that, “When acting within the scope of [their] employment, [Wildlife Conservation Officers] may pursue, apprehend or arrest any individual suspected of violating any provisions of [Title 18 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes which relates to ‘crimes and offenses’] or any other offenses classified as a misdemeanor or felony.”