Posts Tagged ‘okanogan county’

As sure as Spring is in the air, the 2010 election races continue to take shape.  This last week, candidates for the position of District Court Judge were announced in Ferry County and Okanogan County.  Attorney Henry “Hank” Rawson announced his interest in the position opening for Okanogan District Court Judge.  Judge David Edwards announced that he is retiring and is not running for re-election.  Coverage of Hank Rawson’s announcement is in the print edition of The Omak-Chronicle and is on the KMOW site here.  Rawson’s announcement sets him to run against Rick Weber, who has been on the bench there filling in for the last couple years in District Court.   Rick Weber was the elected prosecuting attorney in Okanogan County up until 2002, when he chose not to run for re-election.  The Wenatchee-World covers the race here.  Both men have served as judges and have run campaigns in the past, and my guess is that we are not going to see a lot of fur flying.  But I guess a blogger can always hope.

In the print edition of the Ferry County View, Republic lawyer Tom Brown announced his candidacy for judge in Ferry County.  The paper doesn’t have the announcement online, but for more info you can check out his Tom Brown for Ferry County Judge site.  Brown’s site announces that his campaign manager is Ray Maycumber.  Maycumber is a popular sheriff’s deputy who was recently promoted to manager of the 911 center, and has been mentioned in earlier posts here and here.  Tom Brown currently works as a deputy prosecutor covering felony cases.  His announcement set him to challenge Lynda Eaton who has not announced her intentions.

In Stevens County, no one has announced a challenge to the sitting judge.  As you recall Gina Tveit was appointed by the Stevens County Commissioners last year to replace Pam Payne, see post.

Comings soon: more on north county prosecutor candidates.

In The Star – Online there was an article about how the State Auditor’s office issued a “finding” that the town of Elmer City improperly “gifted” real estate to its town clerk Renee Tillman.  The small parcel of land was adjacent to property already owned by Tillman.  Okanogan County assesses the land at $5,500.00, but the town of Elmer City sold it to Renee Tillman for only two hundred dollars.  The city did not have it appraised first and did not put it out for public bid. A copy of the report by the State Auditor is online here.  The State Auditor’s only comment is “we recommend the town refrain from making gifts of public funds.”  

Under the Washington State Constitution Article VIII, 7, it is provided that: No county, city, town or other municipal corporation shall hereafter give any money, or property, or loan its money, or credit to or in aid of any individual, association, company or corporation, except for the necessary support of the poor and infirm, or become directly or indirectly the owner of any stock in or bonds of any association, company or corporation.

In deciding whether a public expenditure is a gift under the constitution, the state supreme court focuses on two factors: “consideration” and “donative intent.”  See the 1997 case of King County v. Taxpayers of King County.

The issue of “consideration” is whether the government received adequate compensation for the property.  The town of Elmer City sought to justify its actions by explaining: “The Town of Elmer City would no longer have to maintain the property; the property was of no present or foreseeable benefit to the town. The property then would be placed on the tax rolls.”   Under this rationale, it would make sense for cities to get rid of a lot of property wouldn’t it?  The point is that Elmer City owed it to the taxpayer to get as much as they could for that parcel of land.  It is hard to imagine that all they could get for the land would be $200.

The issue of “donative intent” references whether the intent of the government was to make a gift or do a favor, or if the city simply showed bad judgment.  Unfortunately it simply looks bad when a city makes a deal with its own employee and does not allow the public to even make a bid.

I think a lot of attorneys who practice municipal law would recommend that the parcel of land be returned to the city, and then be resold at public auction.  If no one bids more than $200 than the clerk who purchased the land is in no worse position than she would be already.  However, if the land is really worth more, than the taxpayer really does deserve full compensation.  In times of dire budgetary conditions, the public does not like to read about such deals.  And the public wants to make sure such deals do not occur in the future.

The State Auditor’s report does not mention the acreage of this parcel that Elmer City sold to Renee Tillman for $200.  A person can look up more info on this parcel online here.  This link is to the public records that are online courtesy of Okanogan County’s online land records.  The land in question had the Parcel ID number of 0700020701.  From the link to the county records, a person can see a map of the parcel in question here.  Can this be right?  This map in question shows a pretty sizable parcel of land right in town.  Did Elmer City really sell this for just $200?

The expense of high quality video surveillance equipment has plummeted, and many businesses are installing sophisticated  systems into their businesses.  This is posing a challenge to robbery and burglary suspects.  It seems like you cannot watch the news or go online without seeing photos or video footage of these guys caught in the act.

This youth apparently covered his head with his T-shirt before being caught by a security camera

But burglary and robbery suspects are finding new ways to cover their faces when they are on the job.  I saw this photo to the left in the Olympian online yesterday that the police released with the hope of identifying him.  For the latest Eastern Washington crime/court news, I visit the blog Sirens & Gavels.  The stories in this blog by Meghann Cuniff usually include surveillance photos.  I read the Spokesman-Review in print, but I check their online site for the audio/video content.

This photo depicts Terran D. Schatz, who plead guilt to second degree robbery. Schatz was an Iraq war veteran who apparently became addicted to oxycontin

I follow all the local oxycontin robberies, and have blogged about this in the past, see earlier post.  The pattern that many of these robbers fit, is to try to cover as much of their face as possible without it seeming too suspicious.  Obviously if a person walks into a pharmacy or business with a bandanna over their face then that will alert everyone as to their intentions.  In my experience as a criminal defense attorney, some suspects keep these robberies as low-key as possible, simply presenting their demand to the counter in the form of a note.  In Meghann Cuniff’s blog today,  she posted surveillance footage of a failed armed robbery attempt by a man who allegedly walked into a pharmacy in Hayden with a gun to attempt to get oxycontin.   The suspect left empty-handed because the pharmacy avoids keeping it in stock due to the rash of such robberies.  Notice the suspect’s mannerisms as he walks into the store.  He clearly is aware of the presence of the security camera, and would have likely visited the store in advance to observe the placement.   The suspect casually covers his face with his hand, as if to suppress a cough, but drops his hand down after he passes the camera.   His head is covered with a hood and hat.

Such surveillance videos pose a challenge to the investigator and attorneys handling such cases.  The equipment is difficult to operate, and often times a store owner is not aware of how to duplicate the recording for the police.  In metropolitan areas, specialized robbery or major crimes detectives are well practiced at handling such equipment, but in our more rural counties deputy sheriffs often struggle.  As a defense attorney, I have dealt with armed robbery allegations cases where the video was replayed by the police to see, but was never copied for court or made available to the jury.   Often times, when a copy is made the file is “compressed” reducing the quality of the video footage.  “Compression” is the process by which a larger data file is reduced in size to more easily fit on a disk or flash drive.  Video quality varies from camera to camera, but unlike on TV, it is rare that the video can be significantly enhanced.  When I defended an armed robbery allegation in Okanogan County, I worked with an expert who used Photoflair to try to enhance the image, but it was not very successful.   Photoflair has been used in a lot of high profile cases, and can be helpful, but it is not like on CSI.   In the future, the police will not necessarily need to post the photo of a robbery suspect to solve the crime.  Face recognition software already exists and came on my MacBook when I bought it.  When I add photographs from my camera to my computer, the program recognizes the subjects of the photos and tags the photos accordingly.  It is possible that someday the police could match a photo of a robbery suspect with other photographs the suspect has posted on social networking sites.

Having defended such cases and worked with oxycontin addicts, I grow frustrated with the manufacturer of oxycontin, Purdue Pharma.   As I wrote in an earlier post, pharmaceutical company Purdue-Pharma invented and mass-marketed oxycontin.  The company agreed that it committed a felony when it marketed oxycontin and hid how unsafe it was.  The company faced 600 million in fines after it plead guilty, but the executives never went to jail.  The company encouraged doctors to prescribe it not just to dying cancer patients, but to people with even moderate pain.   Many addicts were thus created.  According to a story in the New York Times, “…Purdue Pharma contended that OxyContin, because of its time-release formulation, posed a lower threat of abuse and addiction to patients than do traditional, shorter-acting painkillers like Percocet or Vicodin.”  Less addictive then vicodin (i.e. hydrocodone)?  Now that really makes me chuckle.   Remember the above video of the robbery suspect who tried to rob the pharmacy but they did not stock oxycontin?  He left empty handed.  He didn’t ask for percocet or vicodin as an alternative.  He knows there is no substitute or no pharmacy drug like oxycontin.  It’s only equivalent is heroin.

The DEA has cut back on prescriptions for oxycontin, but you really can’t put the genie back in the bottle.  Addicts will rob pharmacies rather then suffer the agony of withdrawal.  Further steps are needed to limit oxycontin’s use.

When a person thinks of their constitutional rights, they often think of their right to free speech, or to bear arms, or the right to a jury trial.  The Washington Supreme Court dealt last week with a right that we do not always think of.  That is, the right to a “public” trial.   This was in the case of State v. Strode, a case originating out of Ferry County.  The right to a public trial is in the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads:   In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

In the case of State v. Strode the Supreme Court had to decide whether it was appropriate for a judge to question potential jurors in chambers, as opposed to the open courtroom.   On certain cases, the parties obviously want to know whether a juror has been the victim of, or been charged with the crime in question.   The practice usually involves the judge inviting the juror back to chambers, along with the prosecutor, defense attorney, and defendant.   The State Supreme Court ruled that this may be acceptable in certain circumstances as long as a certain analysis is done on the record justifying the decision.

Although we learn about our constitutional rights in school, lay people I work with are often surprised at the way that the right to a public trial works.   It is often thought that it is acceptable to “close the courtroom” at certain times or even to allow a child witness, for example, to speak to the judge privately in chambers.   Such practices are prohibited by the U.S. Constitution for criminal trials.

This right to a “public” trial has come up several times in my practice as a criminal defense lawyer.  I once had a trial where an undercover cop was testifying about work he did on a case.  Although his identity was known to me and my client, the agent still had other cases that he was working elsewhere in the state.  The prosecutor moved to close the courtroom, but the judge had to deny the motion.

As we know courtrooms are often pretty empty during a trial.  Often times the defendant’s family will be present or a spouse of a juror will attend. However, it is any person’s right to just come in to a court and watch a trial or a docket.  When I travel to different places I often like to visit the local courthouse.  I once sat through a half-day trial in New York City, and when I was in law school, I often sat through jury trials in Spokane.  The right to a public trial belongs to a defendant, but also to the public.  Often times, it is the news media who raises this issue.

I once worked as a defense lawyer on a First Degree Murder case in Ferry County where the issue of a public trial arose.   The electronic locks on the courthouse doors lock automatically at 4:00 p.m.  The attorney general prosecuting the case stepped outside for a breath of fresh air during the recess and was locked out.  After a while, when court was set to resume we wondered where he went and found him outside.   Needless to say, the settings were changed on those locks.  Although it may seem a bit silly to some, locked doors at a courthouse would have required a new trial had it not been fixed.

Several years ago, I had a case in Okanogan County where a 6-year-old child was testifying during a non-jury trial.   The case dragged on through the morning, and people started to arrive for the afternoon traffic court docket.   The courtroom that had been previously empty started to fill up, and the pro tem judge directed the bailiff to post a sign on the door directing defendants to wait outside until their case was called.  I wondered if this was permissible, but the issue never got to the appeal level.

In the case of State v. Strode, the Supreme Court granted the request of the defense attorney for a new trial.

Kino Michael Gomez is accused of first degree murder for shooting Tom Pfaeffle at a motel in Twisp, Washington on July 17th, 2009.   Judging by news reports the prosecutor and the defense lawyer agree on the following facts:   Gomez checked into room 7 of the motel.  Pfaeffle checked into room 8.  The two men did not know each other.   Later in the evening at 10 p.m., Pfaeffle mistakenly tried to entered room 7.  In response, Gomez shot Pfaeffle who died shortly thereafter.  The major disputed fact is how far did Pfaeffle go in trying to enter Gomez’s motel room.  Was the door open or shut?

According to the July 22nd, 2009 Omak-Chronicle, the  Prosecutor stated “the evidence shows the door was not open.”  The Seattle Times in a July 21st story quoted police as stating that Pfaeffle was shot “when he apparently put his room key into the wrong door Friday night. He was hit in the chest by a bullet fired through the closed door.”  In another story Twisp Police Chief Rick Balam was quoted as saying “There’s absolutely no question the door was closed when the shots were fired.”

Most people I talked to seemed to form a strong opinion as to the guilt of Kino Michael Gomez based on reading these law enforcement statements in the media.  Most people asked: “What kind of maniac would shoot through a closed door, just because someone unsuccessfully jiggled the door handle?”   The people posting comments on the internet also formed an opinion as to Gomez’s guilt based on the comments of the police that the suspect shot through a closed door.

“Assuming the man that fired the shots had a ‘legal’ right to own a gun, he has no excuse to fire random shots through a hotel door… at ANYONE.”  See Link.

“Why did he fire THRU the door-after he barred the door. It isnt like someone broke in- Who the fck fires thru a door because they think they are being robbed?”  See Link.

“A man paranoid enough to shoot through a closed door of a motel was probably up to no good to begin with.”  See Link.

“I realize people make mistakes, but this is inexcuseable. YOU DON’T FIRE A GUN THROUGH A CLOSED DOOR.”   See Link.

So does the evidence really show that Kino Michael Gomez shot through a closed door?   The Methow Valley News sent a reporter to the scene to to take photographs of the door which are posted online here and here.

Hmmmmmm.  It is not exactly as Twisp Police Chief Rick Balam described it.  He after all stated “There’s absolutely no question the door was closed when the shots were fired.”   Based on my experience prosecuting and defending homicide cases, the photographic evidence is more consistent with Kino Michael Gomez’s statement to the police.   Kino Michael Gomez was interviewed by Officer Ty Sheehan of the Twisp Police Department, and Gomez stated that “he had been concerned about the lack of a deadbolt on the door and had wedged a chair against the doorknob.”   Gomez told the police ” he awoke to the sound of someone trying to get into the room and had seen the door open and ‘a full silhouette’ of someone in his room.”  See story in Methow Valley News.   Gomez stated that he responded “like it was automatic,” shooting toward the door.

After I looked at the photographs, it appeared that the bullet hit the door frame, and based on the angle of the bullet, the door must have been half way open.

The good reporting of the Methow Valley News has raised a lot of questions in this case.  Good for them for doing their own reporting rather than simply repeating what the police said. The defense attorney Michael Haas is doing a thorough job of raising the right questions too, and has apparently sent his own investigators out to the scene of the shooting.  They had to act quickly because the motel was attempting to repair everything a.s.a.p.

Under Washington law, a person can use deadly force in self-defense if they believe they were in reasonable fear.   If a person claims that they used force against a perceived intruder, it would certainly be relevant how far the perceived intrusion went.  Dave Workman, author of Washington State Gun Rights and Responsibilities, wrote an opinion piece on this case just after the incident.  See Link.  Like most of us at first, he understood the incident to involve shooting through a door that was closed.  I wonder if he has further insights based on Mr. Gomez’s version of events and the photographs and other recent developments.

It will be interesting to see how this case unfolds in the weeks to come.  I don’t envy the defense lawyer or the prosecutor in this case.  I have never met the defense lawyer on this case, but I know the prosecutor a little.   The best prosecutors on cases like this are tough, but also keep an open mind as to new developing facts that could change their mind.   I believes that describes this prosecutor.

What does every one else think about this case?  Can Kino Michael Gomez get a fair trial in Okanogan County?  Has anyone else noticed the racial overtones about some of the internet news comments out there?   I discussed in a blog post last month about friends and family of Amanda Knox who posted a internet site to support the defense of Amanda.  Should Kino Michael Gomez’s family also consider a similar campaign?   I also wrote in a blog post last month about the bearing of arms in public places.  What are the societal costs of an armed populace?

Am I the only one who read in the Spokesman-Review yesterday the AP story about the Louisville, Kentucky pastor who encouraged church-goers to appear for services bearing arms?  See story.  (Sometimes the Spokesman-Review moves their stories offline right away – if so, click here for MSNBC version).  You have to admit, this is a pretty easy way to get attention.  And apparently, the pastor drew in a bunch of newcomers to his church, which is always probably a goal.   Seeing as the bible predates modern firearms by a few millennia, the pastor had a lot to say about guns, including criticisms of the Obama administration.  The pastor seems a little nutty, but he poses an interesting question:  Is it still socially acceptable to bear a firearm just for the heck of it?  A lot of gun enthusiasts hunt, target practice, and keep guns for home defense, and a lot carry concealed weapons.  But what about just wearing one in open while walking down the street, or to the grocery store, or to the city park just for the heck of it?  What about carrying one slung over your shoulder?  I don’t really see this too often, even in the rural Western towns of  Ferry and Okanogan County where I practice law.

If you want to read a really interesting article, check out an earlier Spokesman-Review article about a couple of Idaho teenagers who decided to carry guns with them every where they went.  The 18-year-old brother would wear a 9mm on his hip.  (Note, in Washington you would have to be 21.) And, the 15-year-old brother carried a .22 rifle.   With these weapons in hand, the two visited the public library, city parks, bible study etc.  Even in North Idaho, people called 911 when they saw the armed teens walking down the street.  “If you don’t exercise a right, eventually it will go away,” the older boy explained.  “I’d like to raise people’s awareness that it’s a right, and I hope to encourage others to exercise that right.”  A gentleman from a veterans group explained: “It’s disturbing to see them in a library with guns.”  Really?

The pastor in Louisville mentioned that he thought up the idea of asking parishioners to bring guns to church after he spoke with people who expressed concerns about Barack Obama’s views on guns.  Are we going to see a lot of similar protests in the months to come?

This phenomenon of carrying guns in public places is a rural, Western-states thing.  Under Washington law, cities are free to come up with their own city ordinances on this subject, and many have.

Earlier this week many local Native-American tribes protested the Federal government policies restricting their rights to cross the Canadian border. The problem had been brewing for some time. See High Country News.

When I first moved to Ferry County in 1996, it seemed as if this was the county that was poised to enter big legal battles with the Colville Confederated Tribes.  The two governments were set to square off over who had primary jurisdiction to regulate land owned by non-Tribal members on the Reservation.  The subject dominated local politics and was the subject of frequent letters to the editor.  The Tribes were rumored to have a “million dollar war chest” to fund any litigation with the county.  The county commissioners appointed me county attorney in April 1998, and I urged caution on the part of the county. When you are looking for a good “test case” to bring to court, you don’t necessarily want to join the side of the first non-Tribal landowner to raise his hand.  In the end, a legal battle was avoided, and in my opinion Ferry County and the Tribes have worked together fairly well for the last ten years.

So I am glad to see that it was the Federal government this time that has drawn the ire of the Colville Tribes and has been accused of violating treaty rights.  This has come to the media’s attention rather recently as Tribal members have become fed up with being harassed by U.S. Border officials as they travel to and from their ancestral homelands across the border in British Columbia.  As someone who lives near the border myself, I have often found it frustrating to deal with border officials when I travel to Canada.  In addition, as an attorney I often represent defendants who get caught up in border issues.  The difference, of course, is that local Tribal members have special treaty rights to cross the border.  Under the Jay Treaty of 1794, Native-Americans were granted the right to engage in trade and travel between the United States and Canada, which was then British Territory.  Until 9/11 no one seemed to question the rights of Tribal members to travel to and from Canada with just their tribal ID cards.  But now, there is pressure on the Tribal members to give up the ID cards of their own government and to use passports or state enhanced drivers licenses. Local tribes are now considering issuing their own passports.

This controversy boiled over on June 1st as local Native Americans and Tribal members from Canada staged a protest in the border town of Night Hawk.  The protest was peaceful, but the Omak-Chronicle reported that it involved the removal of a border fence.  The Border Patrol did not try to intervene as the Tribal members crossed the border and back again.  I have to hand it to these protesters.  It took courage to take that step. I would have half expected the Feds to arrest some of them.  But I guess then it would have become a national story, rather than just a regional story.  I hope the Tribes pursue their rights in this respect.  Often it is the local governments or the States that are accused of violating treaty rights,  the Tribes are right to stand up to the Federal government too.  The Tribes in the U.S. sometimes seem to be the favorite underdog of the federal judiciary.  I can easily see the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals approving the rights of Tribal members to set up their own border check point.  However, unlike 10 years ago, when the Colville Confederated Tribes had money set aside for litigation, the Tribes now are suffering a budget crisis.  This border issue is something that I will try to follow closely.

What do you think?  What will come of this issue?  Is it fair to ask Native Americans to use State ID cards when they enjoy rights to sovereignty?

I have run into an interesting issue that I raised in court, only to have the matter settle. If anyone encounters this problem and seeks assistance, I would not mind the pro bono work.  Due to their locations, an Okanogan or Ferry County attorney could challenge the current method of selecting juries.

Under Washington Law, jurors must be selected evenly from the populations as a whole. A problem arises when State Courts conduct jury trials of Indian Defendants. The current method of drawing jurors does not reach Indian residents living on trust or allotted land. Such summonses are a form of state court civil process. Under the case of North Sea Products v. Clipper Seafood, such state civil matters are unenforceable on Indian Reservations. 92 Wn. 2d 236, 595 P.2d 939 (1979) (invalidating a state-court garnishment). Additionally, the punishments under RCW 2.36.170 for failing to report for jury duty do not apply to Indians on trust or allotted lands. RCW 37.12.010 provides that the “…state of Washington hereby obligates and binds itself to assume criminal . . . jurisdiction over Indians and Indian territory,… but such assumption of jurisdiction shall not apply to Indians when on their trust lands or allotted lands within an established Indian reservation…” Indians are 16.5% of the Okanogan county population according to the U.S. census. In Ferry County, the figure is 20%. The exclusion of this body invalidates the process.  Who comes to serve, and who does not come to serve, must be random. One case on point is Brady v. Fibreboard Corp., 71 Wn. App. 280, 857 P.2d 1094 (1993), review denied, 123 Wn.2d 1018, 871 P.2d 599 (1994). In Brady, the court of appeals reversed a jury verdict because of procedural irregularities. When several jurors on the list did not appear, plaintiff’s counsel asked why, and “the judge responded that they had never been called in.” Id. at 282. Other judges had excused the jurors, and the court of appeals reversed the verdict and explained: “The procedures used here abridge the statutory mandate of random selection. It is undisputed that the initial panel of 90 was randomly selected. However, the randomness of the panel was destroyed when 14 of the 90 were eliminated by the process employed here.” Id. at 283. Like the 14 missing jurors in Brady, many native jurors will have “never been called in.” Aside from the constitutional precepts violated, this is a violation of statute mandate reversal. “When statutory jury selection procedures are materially violated, the claimant need not show actual prejudice; rather, prejudice is presumed.” Id. at 283. One case I looked at is Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975). In that case, Louisiana’s method of drawing jurors to court was found to be unconstitutional. Louisiana summoned men to appear, but made women’s attendance optional or voluntary. The court in Taylor v. Louisiana visited earlier cases and explained:
A unanimous Court stated in Smith v. Texas, 311 U.S. 128, 130 (1940), that “[i]t is part of the established tradition in the use of juries as instruments of public justice that the jury be a body truly representative of the community.” To exclude racial groups from jury service was said to be “at war with our basic concepts of a democratic society and a representative government.”

***
We accept the fair-cross-section requirement as fundamental to the jury trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and are convinced that the requirement has solid foundation. The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power – to make available the commonsense judgment of the community as a hedge against the overzealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the professional or perhaps over-conditioned or biased response of a judge. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S., at 155 -156. This prophylactic vehicle is not provided if the jury pool is made up of only special segments of the populace or if large, distinctive groups are excluded from the pool.

The court struck down a murder conviction due to the failure to compulsorily include women in jury pools. The best solution would be to ask our Federal Courts or the Colville Tribal Court to issue jury summonses to the Tribal member for the State. This procedure would render the summonses valid. Unlike a mailed state-court jury summons, a summons of a Federal Court of Tribal Court will compel attendance. It is, of course, a crime to ignore a court order or summons under Federal and Tribal law. The Federal Court clearly can enforce, or re-issue State Court process on reservations. As to the Colville Tribal Courts, their cooperation with State Court process is largely discretionary under Section 1-1-102 of their code. The Ferry County Superior Court Judge could order the Ferry County Clerk to send all on-reservation summonses to the Colville Tribal Court for compulsory lawful services under tribal law.

Steve Graham is an attorney in Okanogan Ferry Stevens County