MassCops - Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network, A Mass Police Web Portal

Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network

Massachusetts Police News, Information and Discussions on MassCops

Pages: 1 2

Main Page Bill#2132 Citation issue in Jeopardy??????
(Click here to view the original thread on the MassCops Message Board)

Posted by: mpd61

This just in.....................
Rumor has it that Senator Lees is trying to torpedo the bill that just passed the House and Senate, what a complete jerk! MADD will go berserk against this guy!

Anybody else have any hard intel? I've spoken with Salem State and Bridgewater State P.D.'s and Senator Lees and Senators Joyce and Murray. YIKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: SSPO#11

I guess we'll find out today......

A member of SPAM recently said that they do not want this bill to pass. Their reason was "if this bill passes it will make it easier for the Sheriffs Department to do the same."

This state is unreal........cops hate cops.

#11

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSPO#11

A member of SPAM recently said that they do not want this bill to pass. Their reason was "if this bill passes it will make it easier for the Sheriffs Department to do the same."

I hate to say I told you so, but.......I told you so.

Posted by: mpd61

I had heard that Senator Lees was paying homage to SPAM. I guess that a simple solution to this, if SPAM and the esteemed Senator have their way, is for me to drive to the Middleboro barracks and get my citations there. That way the Colonel is issuing them to "us" (Police officers) and they can be comfortable that I'm not a Deputy!

Unfreaking REAL!!!!!!

Posted by: SSPO#11

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpd61

I had heard that Senator Lees was paying homage to SPAM.
Unfreaking REAL!!!!!!

Senator Lees is on the Senate Ethics and Rules Committee which recommended the bill ought to pass on 08/04/05.

#11

Posted by: fscpd907

It’s a shame that we are getting caught in the middle of the SPAM vs. Sheriff battle. SPAM members must realize that we are not trying to overstep our authority or jurisdiction. We do not want to start regionalized State College Police CH. 90 teams and would only be enforcing motor vehicle violations on college property.

This important issue will ensure safety and security for all Massachusetts State and Community College faculty, staff, students and visitors. I feel this issue will also ensure a better standard of living to community members would live in the neighborhoods that surround campuses across Massachusetts.

Without Senate bill 2134 we can not fully service the public safety needs of our community members.

Posted by: bbelichick

I don't know if all this is fact but I can understand somewhat why this is becoming a problem.

I personally have no problem with Campus Police enforcing CH 90 on their College grounds.

Maybe this whole Sheriffs thing is causing a backlash onto the Campus guys.

Posted by: Otto

Quote:

Originally Posted by fscpd907

It’s a shame that we are getting caught in the middle of the SPAM vs. Sheriff battle. SPAM members must realize that we are not trying to overstep our authority or jurisdiction. We do not want to start regionalized State College Police CH. 90 teams and would only be enforcing motor vehicle violations on college property.

This important issue will ensure safety and security for all Massachusetts State and Community College faculty, staff, students and visitors. I feel this issue will also ensure a better standard of living to community members would live in the neighborhoods that surround campuses across Massachusetts.

Without Senate bill 2134 we can not fully service the public safety needs of our community members.

Divide and conquer... works every time.

Remember, unions exist for the welfare of their members, not public safety.

Posted by: SSPO#11

Next time I have an OUI.......I will be sure to call my local barracks for assistance.

#11

Posted by: SSPO#11

***UPDATE****

This bill has been postponed until March 22nd by the Senate.

Posted by: fscpd907

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otto

Divide and conquer... works every time.

Remember, unions exist for the welfare of their members, not public safety.

How would this bill jeopardize any member of SPAM? This legislation will not affect MSP jobs, details or specialized units. I could understand Framingham PD and MSP having a problem if we wanted to patrol off campus and write violations on Rt. 9 but this issue limits our authority to campus owned property. I understand that SPAM needs to protect its members and they do a tremendous job. I wish our union had the power to sway political issues at the State House but we can’t even get a decent detail rate.

I can understand if the MPA voiced its concern about this but State College Police Officers receive most if not all our training directly from the State Police. The MSP should know the level of our training and it’s a shame that they are fighting to squash this bill

Posted by: USMCTrooper

Does anyone here have any actual articles on this or written details? Is this a rumor? Did someone slip in an unfavorable amendment to the bill that would be anti MPA/SPAM? This is the first I've heard of it. Nothing has come across our Union bulletins asking for us to call in support/against the bill either. Lees is from this area too. Lastly, Lees isn't running for re-election. As an outgoing Republican in a Democratically controlled Senate, it would be a monumental task to defeat this bill single handedly......

Posted by: Macop

MPA and SPAM, unfucking believable.

Posted by: fscpd907

Quote:

Originally Posted by USMCTrooper

Does anyone here have any actual articles on this or written details? Is this a rumor? Did someone slip in an unfavorable amendment to the bill that would be anti MPA/SPAM? This is the first I've heard of it. Nothing has come across our Union bulletins asking for us to call in support/against the bill either. Lees is from this area too. Lastly, Lees isn't running for re-election. As an outgoing Republican in a Democratically controlled Senate, it would be a monumental task to defeat this bill single handedly......

The only solid information we have (FSCPD) is from speaking with Troopers that are currently enrolled in the evening continuing education program. They stated that SPAM is against the legislation due to possible future action by the Sheriff’s Department. They personally do not seem to have any issues with us enforcing CH. 90 on campus property but did express valid concerns about expansion of Sheriff patrol functions.

Posted by: mpd61

More Fact:

Having spoken directly with SPAM and their lobby reps (Branden Assoc) the "official" reply was that SPAM was has neither supported or protested this bill. I faxed the history and text of the bill to their Chief of Staff. They understand now that Statutory powers exist for CH.90 only at the STATE Schools. They also know this does not seek to give us extraneous jurisdiction.

Again I made it clear that this bill amends language to clarify to RMV that they should issue uniform citations to State and Community College Police Chiefs.

The wheels are slippin....................

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpd61

More Fact:

Having spoken directly with SPAM and their lobby reps (Branden Assoc) the "official" reply was that SPAM was has neither supported or protested this bill. I faxed the history and text of the bill to their Chief of Staff. They understand now that Statutory powers exist for CH.90 only at the STATE Schools. They also know this does not seek to give us extraneous jurisdiction.

Well, there you go. If Brandon and Associates isn't fighting it, then SPAM isn't either.

Posted by: Wolfman

Quote:

Originally Posted by fscpd907

But apparently, this is not the case.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Posted by: fscpd907

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfman

But apparently, this is not the case.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

We were working with bad information......................

I will admit lack of "Attention to Detail" on my part.

Posted by: Irish Wampanoag

Quote:

Originally Posted by fscpd907

We were working with bad information......................

I will admit lack of "Attention to Detail" on my part.

Understandable we campus cops are the middle of a turf battle with MSP and Sheriff's. We CP know where we stand on the echo system of law enforcement (at least most department do!) so we are quick to defend any rumors that may reduce our authority or ability to carry out or duties. I had a feeling the information was bogus.

"Who loves you Mass State Police".

Posted by: wsc109

I believe that the EPO'S are included in the same bill. Here is a copy of a story that ran in the Worcester Telegram back in November:

Nov 4, 2005

Not enough tickets to ticket ATVs

Environmental Police frustrated

By Kim Ring TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF

Environmental Police who have been issuing citations to all-terrain vehicle and snowmobile operators for years say it’s unlikely they will be able to enforce some laws that apply to such conveyances much longer, and that state police are fighting a bill that would fix the problem.

The Environmental Police are being denied the ticket books they use to cite those allegedly in violation of state laws. The citation books are issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, who earlier this year sent a letter to the Office of Environmental Affairs warning that unless state law is changed, the books will no longer be provided.

A bill that officials said would solve the problem appears to be stalled in the state Legislature after opposition from the state police union, leaving Environmental Police feeling helpless. They are using up the tickets they have, and estimate those will last about a year.

“Once those (ticket) books are gone, we’re going to be in a quagmire,” said Len Roberts, incoming president of the Environmental Police Officer’s Association. The union is part of the larger Coalition of Public Safety bargaining unit.

The issue has local police worried, because they rely on the environmental officers to help them deal with recreational vehicle problems. Some said their departments are already financially strapped and cannot afford to devote staff to the trespassing and property damage complaints, and they cannot afford to buy the equipment to which the environmental officers have ready access.

“It’s absolutely insane,” New Braintree Police Chief Bert Duvernay said. “How are we going to get these guys (who ride illegally)? We don’t have ATVs.”

Chief Duvernay said his department relies heavily on Environmental Police, whose work he praised. He said he has seen one of the Environmental Police officers track down a trespassing snowmobile rider so quickly that the man arrived home from his jaunt over neighbors’ properties to find the officer waiting for him.

In Ware, Police Chief Dennis Healey wonders how his department can add recreational vehicle enforcement to an already long list of tasks. With the town still reeling from a murder, tracking down ATV and snowmobile operators who cause problems is not something to which he can devote resources, and he would rather leave that to the Environmental Police.

Local chiefs said they will probably be forced to call state police to help handle some ATV and snowmobile calls if the Environmental Police cannot issue tickets. Some chiefs said they might hand over a ticket book for the environmental officers to use in their towns.

While the legislation to remedy the problem was moving along, it has been in a holding pattern since July in the Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security, which gave it a favorable report in April. The problem, according to State Sen. Stephen M. Brewer, D-Barre, is between the state police union and the Environmental Police.

“It’s a tough issue,” Mr. Brewer, who filed the bill, said. “I would like the EPOs to get their ticket books back, and I’m trying to broker some compromises.”

But a turf war between the two agencies seems to be heating up. An April letter from the State Police Association of Massachusetts, known as SPAM, to state legislators urges opposition to the measure. The letter, signed by union president John P. Coflesky and SPAM legislative counsel Donald B. Flanagan, charges that Environmental Police would be handed “new authority beyond their training and expose the state to increased legal liability.”

One Environmental Police officer, who asked that his name not be used, said his training included several hours of classes in motor vehicle law and that he has rarely written a ticket for a car traveling on a public roadway.

He said Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 21A, Section 10C gives environmental police the same authority as other officers. The law, in part, reads: “Environmental police officers shall have and exercise throughout the commonwealth, subject to such rules and regulations as the director, with the approval of the secretary, may from time to time adopt, all the authority of police officer and constables, except the service of civil process.”

The officer also challenged whether the authority is new, because tickets have been handed out by Environmental Police for decades. Environmental Police officers believe Mr. Brewer’s bill should be passed.

But the state police union is clearly a bigger lobbying force on Beacon Hill. The Environmental Police union has just 100 members. According to the letter from SPAM, that union serves 2,000 state troopers. Campaign finance documents revealed that in 2004, SPAM donated $10,000 to various political candidates, while the Environmental Police Officer’s Association spent $200.

Officials from the Registry believe the Environmental Police don’t need the ticket books.

Robert Creedon III, a spokesman for the Registry of Motor Vehicles, said the Environmental Police can still issue tickets from the books they use for other offenses.

Mr. Roberts said those tickets, called Uniform Environmental Citations, are different from the Uniform Motor Vehicle Citations and are not used for motor vehicle offenses.

Mr. Creedon said ATVs and snowmobiles are considered recreational vehicles, not motor vehicles, and violations for them need not be written on the uniform citations. But the Environmental Police disagree. They point to Chapter 90 of the state’s general laws and interpret a definition in that section to mean snowmobiles and ATVs are motor vehicles that are registered with Environmental Police for off-road use only.

“A recreation vehicle and a snow vehicle, both as defined in section twenty of chapter ninety B, and a motorized bicycle, as defined herein, shall be considered a motor vehicle for purposes of this chapter,” Section 1 of Chapter 90C reads.

Several calls seeking comment from SPAM president Coflesky and a call to Mr. Flanagan were not returned.

Posted by: USMCTrooper

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irish Wampanoag

I had a feeling the information was bogus.

"Who loves you Mass State Police".

In lieu of apologies, large monetary donations may be made to my vacation fund......

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by wsc109

Officials from the Registry believe the Environmental Police don’t need the ticket books.

If EPO's have the authority to issue motor vehicle citations, which they clearly do, why would the RMV decide they don't "need" citation books? Better yet, why does SPAM care?

I will never understand why it is in Massachusetts that the ability to issue traffic citations, among the most mundane of our tasks, is guarded like a nuclear secret, and somehow relates to your legitimacy as a police officer.

Posted by: SSPO#11

First of all......The EPO bill is different from the bill than the CPO Bill. The CPO bill is much further along. As stated in previous posts: we are not looking for extended jurisdiction or to infringe on the MSP or local PD's.

FSCPD907......alothough there is new information about SPAM not opposing the bill.....you did hear your information from Trooper Martinsen's mouth so you still were right.

Has anyone called Mr. Lees office to see what the issue is then?

#11

Posted by: mpd61

I spoke with Lois in Senator Lees office, she would not deny that Senator Lees was trying to stop the bill............

Draw your own conclusions.

Posted by: SSPO#11

I called and spoke with clerk who told me that he was "against the bill." He said Senator Lees legal aide has been fielding all the calls on this matter but of course she was not in the office.

What does this clown want us to do with our OUI's? Let them go?

#11

Posted by: j809

Make all your OUIs a P/C and transport all of them on his front lawn.

Posted by: mpd61

somebody needs to get ahold of M.A.D.D. asap!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Macop

I can't believe MSP is trying to block the EPos, I am begining to loose more and more respect for the MSP as I hear these ridiculous storys. How are they gonna do thier jobs, maybe the MSP wants to, let em merge if they if thats the case. And I read something about EPOs don't have the training, tell that to the EPOs that were in my MPOC, what the hell more do they want. SPAM is getting out of control, and now it seems like they are just shitting on everyone, what a joke they are.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSPO#11

First of all......The EPO bill is different from the bill than the CPO Bill. The CPO bill is much further along. As stated in previous posts: we are not looking for extended jurisdiction or to infringe on the MSP or local PD's.

FSCPD907......alothough there is new information about SPAM not opposing the bill.....you did hear your information from Trooper Martinsen's mouth so you still were right.

Has anyone called Mr. Lees office to see what the issue is then?

#11

I don't know who Trooper Martinsen is. Is he on the SPAM E-Board?

If not, then he probably isn't involved in any legislative type stuff.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSPO#11

What does this clown want us to do with our OUI's? Let them go?

PC them, and have your union reps call the media. Keep a running tab of how many OUI's you couldn't lock-up, which will look terrific in the papers.

The only thing some politicians understand is bad publicity.

Posted by: Macop

Good point Delta!!

Posted by: SSPO#11

Union reps? HAHAHA. We have the single worst union on the face of this planet. I wish we could do that Delta. I dont want to start up another thread about our awful union.

I would like to find out for sure where the opposition is coming from.

#11

Posted by: PBC FL Cop

I can remember a day when it was the criminals and their defense attorneys who were the ones trying to take away or limit police authority, its good to see now its the police doing it!!

Posted by: j809

Give every officer Peace Officer status like other states do and you are a police officer everywhere in your state.

Posted by: SSPO#11

Has anyone heard of a post on a message board hurting legislation?

hmmmm.....?

#11

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSPO#11

Union reps? HAHAHA. We have the single worst union on the face of this planet. I wish we could do that Delta. I dont want to start up another thread about our awful union.

I'm talking about the executive board you elected. They can talk to the media, even if your department has a gag-order, as long as they're identified as union officials. In other words, your president can say pretty much whatever he wants to the media, as long as he's identified as "Joe Blow, President of IBPO Local 000" and not "Officer Joe Blow of the ______ Police Department.

You'd be very surprised at what a little negative publicity, or even the hint of negative publicity, can do.

Posted by: 94c

I see an opportunity for citations on the black market. meet me in the cemetary at 0400....

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by j809

Give every officer Peace Officer status like other states do and you are a police officer everywhere in your state.

Can you imagine the hissy fit that SPAM would have over that?

Posted by: coppah914

Trooper Martinsen is one handsome devil.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

Can you imagine the hissy fit that SPAM would have over that?

You would love the Sheriffs responding to calls and performing Operations in Quincy?

SPAM's job is to protect the work of it's members, as is your Union's.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

You would love the Sheriffs responding to calls and performing Operations in Quincy?

You're comparing apples to moonrocks. What j809 was referring to is a peace officer statute, meaning if you're a police officer somewhere in the state, you're a police officer everywhere in the state. Since I carry a gun pretty much 24/7, it would be nice to have legal protection if I had to take action as a police officer outside my jurisdiction.

To answer your question; Except in an emergency, I don't want any other law enforcement agency responding to calls in Quincy (even though you guys try once in awhile), but I would have no problem whatsoever with an off-duty (or even on-duty if they happened to be in Quincy on business) Boston, Braintree, or any other police officer (not deputy sheriff) making an arrest in Quincy. There are plenty of bad guys to go around. We're talking about right of arrest here, not responding to calls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

SPAM's job is to protect the work of it's members, as is your Union's.

Can you explain to me how opposing a peace officer statute, which has worked very well in Maine, California, and New York, to name but three states, protects the work of your members? How about opposing environmental police officers being issued M/V citation books? Is making sure that OUI's can't be prosecuted by EPO's protecting the work of your members also?

There is a difference between protecting the work of your members, and acting like a bully because you've been able to get away with it for so many years.

Posted by: fscpd907

Quote:

Originally Posted by coppah914

Trooper Martinsen is one handsome devil.

I don’t know about the handsome

but you definitely got he devil part right

Posted by: j809

I agree with Delta784, again!! I used to get upset about Sheriffs and Chapter 90, but in reality who cares. As long as they get the same level of training, a FT academy, it does not matter. If you look out of state, Sheriffs provide police services to unincorporated areas, not to cities and towns that already have an operational police force. I think Peace Officer status works and like Delta said, there are many states that show it works. I think it is unfortunate that MSP is trying to influence the outcome of the bills affecting campus and EPO Police. This will just make more PDs bitter against MSP and in the long run I believe it will be detrimental to MSP. There are so many bad guys for everyone and I don't think anyones job is in any jeopardy. I mean there is only so much OT and details you can work anyways.

Posted by: Macop

Ya, but not to screw other cops!!

Posted by: Macop

You would love the Sheriffs responding to calls and performing Operations in Quincy?

SPAM's job is to protect the work of it's members, as is your Union's.

The post above is in response to this one

Posted by: dcs2244

Quote:

If you look out of state, Sheriffs provide police services to unincorporated areas, not to cities and towns that already have an operational police force.

If you "look out of state", the counties have a strong governmental role which does not exist in Massachusetts. They levy taxes and support themselves, independent of state funding. Where the population of a county is not sufficient to support a road patrol, the sheriff performs only his primary task: jailer. The state police provide the road patrol in those areas. Further, the county runs the health department, welfare department and several other services that are provided here by the cities and towns.

In Massachusetts, the state police provide police service for local towns that cannot provide them for themselves. I am unaware of complaints of "lack of service" in Troops B and C from those entities.

Herein lies the crux of the argument: why should the Massachusetts taxpayer provide support for both a sheriffs and state police road patrol function?

I know I'm "off-topic", but this is the direction this thread has taken. As far as I'm concerned, I have no problem with the EPO's or CPO's issuing UTC's. I do have a problem with sheriffs offices having that ability...it is a duplication of services...as has been argued here over the years, ad nauseum.

If you want to discuss the proper role of the sheriff in Massachusetts, start another topic. It has no bearing on the issue at hand regardless what SPAM or the MPA say.

Posted by: Macop

Hail To Nemlec, We Should Start Wmlem For Wmass And Selec For Southeastern Mass Cmlec For Central Mass !!

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macop

Hail To Nemlec, We Should Start Wmlem For Wmass And Selec For Southeastern Mass Cmlec For Central Mass !!

Wow, you sure are funny.

Posted by: SouthSideCobras

Why must every topic turn into an MSP vs. Sheriff debate? It gets old fast and it seems to be the same group fighting the same battle.

Posted by: heyyou

I do not understand why there is such a debate. If sheriffs were given law enforcement power it would be like other states where they patrol rural areas and don't go into the cities. I always figured it would be an advantage especially in Western MA, as long as training was adequate. I always figured the more backup the better.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by heyyou

I do not understand why there is such a debate. If sheriffs were given law enforcement power it would be like other states where they patrol rural areas and don't go into the cities. I always figured it would be an advantage especially in Western MA, as long as training was adequate. I always figured the more backup the better.

"The more backup the better" argument always comes from those that aren't full time Police and are looking for an easy way on, even if it means donating their way to a badge.

The Patrol Deputies are poorly trained, politically motivated and UNNECESSARY. Even the County C/O's that work in the Jails hate them.

The local Police and the State Police provide the Policing for Western Mass. It has been explained hundreds of times. This is Massachusetts. There are NO unincorporated towns in Mass. Every town has a local PD and those that are part time are policed by the MSP. The Sheriffs are Jailers. PERIOD.

What works in other States is not necessarily appropriate in Mass. In Texas, Constables are cops. Maybe we should let some of the wingnut Constables we have seen on this board go out on patrol, right?

Posted by: Macop

I was not trying to be funny, I am serious I would love to see it happen!!

heyyou you are right, after working in Wmass for 4 yrs I agree it would work very well out there. I think if the Franklin County Sheriff's sent Deputies to the MPOC the service would be better than the State. When I went off duty I would put the State on call and they would be running 2 patrols for multiple towns, I used to hang out with a few Troopers that would tell me that when the f/t officers form small towns went off duty they would be ass out. The FCSO would be able to provide more patrols. I don't thimk it wold work in other counites, maybe Hampshire. No disresepct meant to the MSP.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macop

I was not trying to be funny, I am serious I would love to see it happen!!

heyyou you are right, after working in Wmass for 4 yrs I agree it would work very well out there. I think if the Franklin County Sheriff's sent Deputies to the MPOC the service would be better than the State. When I went off duty I would put the State on call and they would be running 2 patrols for multiple towns, I used to hang out with a few Troopers that would tell me that when the f/t officers form small towns went off duty they would be ass out. The FCSO would be able to provide more patrols. I don't thimk it wold work in other counites, maybe Hampshire. No disresepct meant to the MSP.

You are full of sh*t. SP Shelburne Falls handles that area just fine. Always has, always will. If the FCSO can "provide more patrols" then they are overbudgeted and should surrender that money to the State.

This would never happen, so keep dreaming.

Posted by: mpd61

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

Wow!!!!

bbelichick, your blood pressure needs to be regulated dude! A guy relates fact about how his western mass town handed over off-tour coverage to MSP and how it effected Troopers there. Then he offers an opinion about FSCO and if they had FT academy, WHOA!!!! Incoming rounds from bbelichick!!

WTF does this have to do with Bill 2132? Grow up and settle down. You show your true anti-everybody-else colors again!

I submit that MADD take the lead on this and all the cops here STAND DOWN and quit tearing each other up!

Posted by: Macop

Calm down, no one is questioning the ability of the Troopers, it is a man power issue not ability. I know most of the Shelburne Troopers and get along very with most of em. Hell when I was out bouncing up 91 I never got any nasty looks (not that it would have mattered) but the point is that I am not bashing them at all. But having worked out for a long time I know that the FCSD would be a great asset, again it would not work in most of the state, in fact just that county and MAYBE Hamsphire county. 2/3 sherrifs patrols IN ADDITION to the state and it would work. Well i'm sure the attutudes woundnt, cause cops hate each other in this state.

Posted by: dcs2244

The basic whine here (on this board) seems to be that the state only has a 'desk and two'. This simply is not true. That is the minimum staffing allowed by contract. The desk-and-two scenario may occur occasionally, but rarely.

If your argument is manpower...then hire more staties and increase minimum manning. The state already has the logistics in place for patrol...the sheriff does not.

Further, the county does not levy taxes and does not support itself. Is not the sheriff's budget provided by the state? How about we consolidate the sheriffs into the DOC since the money all comes from the same place anyway? No more 'sheriff'...just CO's.

If you'd like to have a strong county government..."like other states"...then that means that the cities and towns must surrender some autonomy. Say 'good bye' to your fiefdoms like the health department and licensing boards...they can be done more uniformly through the county, for less money and with less people. Further, some roads would be designated 'county roads'...the local DPW's would loose out. And as to the Sheriff's office, the borderline communities (tax revenue-wise) could save money by contracting the sheriff to patrol your towns rather than maintain a police department.

Understand that this does not mean that the sheriff would hire the displaced cops...anymore than the state would. Nor would it mean that there would by a deputy assigned to your town...just as a trooper is not assigned to your town.

As bbelichick has said...the system we have works fine in western mass. If you prefer a sheriffs patrol...simply move to a place that has one. But beware: even in places that have civil service sheriffs (oops...nasty surprise...most SO's require you to pass that nasty test for employment as a road deputy...sorry, whackers!) the commissioned officers serve at the pleasure of the sheriff...and county politics is partisan dem/repub...the new guy gets elected, it's back to deputy for the previous command staff...with an appropriate cut in pay.

Be careful what you wish for...

Posted by: bbelichick

Exactly, DCS. Why create a whole new level when you could just raise the staffing of the level already in place?

As far as MACop's "facts", they are NOT facts. I know exactly where he works, they do not "hand off" coverage. They sign on and off. His PERCEPTION of what happens when he signs off and FACT are two different things.

Then he offers that if a politically motivated, NON POLICE agency were to hire more guys, they could provide Police services? What kind of logic is that?

The system is that the P/T local PD's provide services for part of the day. be it 8 hours, 12 hours...whatever.

This is depending on their manpower and frankly sometimes whether it's a weekend or a holiday and they feel like working. I mean, Cops don't work on Christmas for crying out loud...right?

They also are "on-call" and you would be surprised how many times they just don't answer if they don't feel like responding to a particular call.

The MSP handles the 24 hour service, and usually if it's a big call, they go anyway whether the local PD is working or not.

If it's an issue, get SP Shelburne up to a Desk and 3 or 4. Thing is, it's not a problem. he's making issues where there are none.

Posted by: mpd61

Somebody just kick me!

Posted by: Macop

As far as MACop's "facts", they are NOT facts. I know exactly where he works, they do not "hand off" coverage. They sign on and off. His PERCEPTION of what happens when he signs off and FACT are two different things

Hey pal dont tell me my facts are wrong I was there for 4 years I know what I am talking about. And yes COVERAGE WAS HANDED OFF cause I did it every dam night at 2am and there was no false perception, I knew how the system worked when I was there. Ill debate with ya if ya want, but dont be an asshole and tell me about shit I dealt with first hand.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macop

As far as MACop's "facts", they are NOT facts. I know exactly where he works, they do not "hand off" coverage. They sign on and off. His PERCEPTION of what happens when he signs off and FACT are two different things

Hey pal dont tell me my facts are wrong I was there for 4 years I know what I am talking about. And yes COVERAGE WAS HANDED OFF cause I did it every dam night at 2am and there was no false perception, I knew how the system worked when I was there. Ill debate with ya if ya want, but dont be an asshole and tell me about shit I dealt with first hand.

Garbage. You call on a code 4 or a code 5. That doesn't preclude MSP from responding to calls there at any time.

And any discussions you had with B-2 Troopers are not verifiable and shaky data at best. You worked in a community of 2000 people. It's not like the gang bangers were tearing up the joint. Stop trying to make it look like the MSP couldn't handle it. I know for a FACT that they can.

Your contention that the FCSD should be expanded instead of properly funding LE Agencies already in place makes your entire argument suspect.

Quote:

there was no false perception, I knew how the system worked when I was there

So do I.

Posted by: Blueflu1

Quote:

There are NO unincorporated towns in Mass. Every town has a local PD and those that are part time are policed by the MSP

Just a correction BB, Devens I believe is an unincorporated town and has no local PD. Yes I know, the SP has a barracks there and patrols it.
Other then that, I agree with BBelichick for once.

Posted by: Macop

Nemlec Statewide!!

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueflu1

Just a correction BB, Devens I believe is an unincorporated town and has no local PD. Yes I know, the SP has a barracks there and patrols it.
Other then that, I agree with BBelichick for once.

Devens? You mean Ayer? Ayer has a Police Dept.

I believe every town in Ma is required to at least have a Chief, even if they do nothing. There are towns like Hancock and others that really have no Police force to speak of but do have a Chief.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macop

Nemlec Statewide!!

If you don't work in Bernardston anymore, where do you work now?

Why are you so interested in expanding local Police powers? Are you from the camp of (as one CEMLEC member put it)

"It's our only chance to get out of our towns!"

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macop

BBchick why dont you just shut up and stick to what you know, which aint much.

Hilarious. I obviously know more than you do about the issues you have discussed.

Apparently your perceived "area of expertise" extends to "policing in Bernardston, Ma". Strangely enough, you don't know much about that, either.

Interesting tactic, however. You get proven wrong, and tell the correct person to "shut up."

Very witty.

Posted by: dcs2244

I went to Bernardston once...for a fatal...I apologize for apparently not performing my duties in due form and contributing to Macop's dissatisfaction with the MSP.

Solution: do not call me to clean up your eff-up.

Call the FCSO when you need specialized expertise.

Posted by: mpd61

You know seriously..................

I have to laugh at how bbelicchuck-up can get all pissed off and vein-poppin at the drop of a hat. But when somebody else starts to get worked up, they're being childish or don't have their facts straight. dcs22 to sixty-in-two, where the HELL did Macop say you guys came into Bernardston and "Effed -up"? When people start talking about the MSP superiority attitudes and territorial grudge matches, you guys flatulate right into the flames.

Maybe you two guys should go to New Braintree and teach a stress-relief course!

Posted by: SSPO#11

Wow.....this has moved way off topic. How about those CPO's and the M/V citations?

I was thinking, this is exactly what Massachusetts Policing is.......ARGUMENTS over jurisdication.

#11

Posted by: j809

Quote:

He was the acting Chief for over a year too, but now he works for a larger PD down southern Mass. And Devens has troopers assigned there, it's C-9 barracks with a Troop Commander and all. They patrol Devens until it becomes its own town or maybe it will go back to the the three towns, Ayer, Harvard and Shirley. Listen this whole thing was about the Ch90 bill but again it took a life of its own regarding Sheriffs. I don't see Sheriffs patrolling any communities in my 20 years that I have left on the job so I don't know why everyone is in such an uproar. Also, going back to the CH90 issue regarding Campus Cops and EPOS, I think SPAM should not have tried to stonewall these bills if they did at all, and save all their energy for the real important stuff that might come down the pipe, like Sheriffs getting books. If you crywolf for every little thing, the State Reps and Senators know it and won't take you seriously.

P.S. Alot of guys on here are always trying to stir shit up to get emotions going. I know this for sure.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpd61

You know seriously..................

I have to laugh at how bbelicchuck-up can get all pissed off and vein-poppin at the drop of a hat. But when somebody else starts to get worked up, they're being childish or don't have their facts straight.

Well, only if they don't have their facts straight.

And MACop doesn't have his facts straight.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by j809

Great, he was the "Acting Chief", which in a community that size equates to a patrol officer.

And it was MACop that started the crap about the FCSD patrolling.

Posted by: Macop

bbelichick, I don't see any reason to continue discussing this with you, apperantly you can't have a disagreement without getting all bothered. My area of policing is nothing you would know about, your comment was designed for a negative response, its not my fault that things work that way out there and you don't like it, too bad I suppose.

dsc2244 Please paste and copy from a post that I complained or otherwise specifically said anything negative about the MSP and the level of service. You may have a hard time doing so seeing how I did not, so I am confused why you are chimming in. And your offer not to call MSP for specialized stuff is mute, we call the Sherrif's office for specialzed issues already and they do a pretty good job without the ego.

Its amazing how these two got all pissed off from my posts and not once did I badmouth the MSP, just goes to show the ego and mentality of our superior brothers, must be all that electric blue.

NEMLEC STATWIDE!!!
Ok I'm done with this post

Posted by: bbelichick

I know plenty about your "area of policing".

Apparently more than you.

Your love of NEMLEC betrays your dissatisfaction with the community you work in. If you don't like it, transfer to a bigger community, try to get on the State Police or move out of state.

I'm wonder how the "Northeast Massachusetts LEC" can be statewide? Are there that many local guys up in NE Mass that hate the towns they patrol in and need to get out of them to feel good about themselves?

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macop

And your offer not to call MSP for specialized stuff is mute, we call the Sherrif's office for specialzed issues already and they do a pretty good job without the ego.

Great. You call non-police to do Police functions. You are a real brain surgeon. I'm sure the Jail Guards are REAL good at Specialized stuff. Good luck in Court.

By the way, I believe the word you were looking for is "moot", not "mute"

mute

Refraining from producing speech or vocal sound.
1. Often Offensive. Unable to speak.
2. Unable to vocalize, as certain animals.
Expressed without speech; unspoken: a mute appeal.
Law. Refusing to plead when under arraignment.

moot adj.

Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question.
1. Law. Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled.
2. Of no practical importance; irrelevant.

Posted by: j809

Quote:

I'm wonder how the "Northeast Massachusetts LEC" can be statewide? Are there that many local guys up in NE Mass that hate the towns they patrol in and need to get out of them to feel good about themselves?

It doesn't have to do with being unhappy, but being a member of an LEC offers more opportunities to do other extra stuff, get more training then if they worked for a smaller PD, they would not have the same opportunity. The idea of moving on to MSP or a bigger city like Worcester, Boston, is not realistic and it is not what some guys want to do. Maybe a guy with 10 years on a local PD does not want to start from scratch with MSP and do 5+ years of patrol before putting in for a specialized unit and lateraling to Boston,Worcester, Brockton is not an option as they do not take laterals. Look I can appreciate SPAMs position, it's about money and if I were on the MSP I would be behind you 100%. But there really are lots of bad guys and there really is $$ for everyone. Speaking with LEC guys, these are good guys and are not looking at taking anybody's job away from them, they have families to feed like everyone else.I am curious, how much of an impact did the LECs have on the MSP's overtime.

Posted by: Wolfman

Quote:

Originally Posted by j809

Speaking with LEC guys, these are good guys and are not looking at taking anybody's job away from them, they have families to feed like everyone else.

But as time wears on, that's exactly what is going to happen. As local communities become more reliant on the LEC services, they will not fill vacancies or maintain self-sufficiency out of necessity. Look at regional school districts. Do they hire fewer teachers overall? Regional fire districts? Some nice toys, but overall, fewer positions because you're drawing from a pool.

The training is great, sure, but ultimately you're being played by your administration, who save money by not keeping these functions in town and thus hire fewer officers ion the long run.

Posted by: bbelichick

Not to mention the GENIUSES that call the Sheriffs for Police services. Do these people have Unions in town? What the F are they thinking?

Maybe we can arm the teachers and they can start doing police stuff as well. Hell, the Firefighters are around 24/7, why not call them for Police services?

What a bunch of dopes. They think they are hurting the State Police, but they are just signing up for their own professional demise.

Posted by: urban_blues

Since this thread has taken quite a turn, here's a different bill (senate # 1164) that's neither about CPOs nor Chapter 90 of the General Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; it has an awful lot to do with deputies, though.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/st01/st01164.htm
http://www.mass.gov/legis/184history/s01164.htm

Judging from the history, this bill appears to have died in committee. I wonder if it's time for this thread to do the same.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by dcs2244

The basic whine here (on this board) seems to be that the state only has a 'desk and two'. This simply is not true. That is the minimum staffing allowed by contract. The desk-and-two scenario may occur occasionally, but rarely.

Oh, I beg to differ. Around here, it's very commonplace. I hear the H troopers complain about it, all the time.

And, it's not a "whine". You could have a "desk and two" or a "desk and fifty" for all I care, it makes no difference to me. What I do care about is when we get stuck with accidents/calls on state roads/property because the state police refuses to sufficiently staff the local barracks. We never got stuck with anything when the Mets were around, because they had 10-15 officers per shift out of both the Blue Hills and Old Colony (South Boston) stations.

Do you think the quality of police services is better or worse with two troopers patrolling the same area that used to be patrolled by 10-15 Mets?

Posted by: 94c

I wish I had a dollar for everytime I've heard my dispatcher say, "State is tied up and they won't be able to respond". But man, aren't they everywhere on the day shift.

Posted by: quality617

Quote:

Originally Posted by urban_blues

Since this thread has taken quite a turn, here's a different bill (senate # 1164) that's neither about CPOs nor Chapter 90 of the General Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; it has an awful lot to do with deputies, though.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/st01/st01164.htm
http://www.mass.gov/legis/184history/s01164.htm

Judging from the history, this bill appears to have died in committee. I wonder if it's time for this thread to do the same.

I despise the state's online listing. It's rarely up to date. Here's the tracking from Lexis:

STATUS:
01/05/2005INTRODUCED.01/05/2005To JOINT Committee on MUNICIPALITIES AND
REGIONAL GOVERNMENT.01/05/2005Filed as Senate Docket 78706/08/2005In JOINT Committee on MUNICIPALITIES AND
REGIONAL GOVERNMENT: Heard. Eligible for
Executive Session.06/08/2005In JOINT Committee on MUNICIPALITIES AND
REGIONAL GOVERNMENT: Set aside for Study.06/13/2005From JOINT Committee on MUNICIPALITIES AND
REGIONAL GOVERNMENT: Accompanied Study Order
H 4160.
Not that this is much better. The study order gives them until Dec 2006 to report.

Posted by: mpd61

I just got a good idea....................................

Lets have a "pissing olympics" we can have teams from Environmental, Municipal, State, Campus, Sheriffs, LEC's, Harbormasters, DOD, V.A. etc.
Everybody gets together and has a few beers, then you break into the teams and piss all over each other! Foxnews Sports could cover it!

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by 94c

I wish I had a dollar for everytime I've heard my dispatcher say, "State is tied up and they won't be able to respond". But man, aren't they everywhere on the day shift.

Mention the word "gun" over your department frequency, and all the previously unavailable troopers will be coming out of the woodwork.

All, and then some.

Posted by: bbelichick

Well, then say the crash involved a gun.

I don't care what your experience is with H Troop. It is different in B Troop and SP Shelburne doesn't need McDonald and his band of merry green men patrolling in Franklin County.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

Well, then say the crash involved a gun.

That's worth a shot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

I don't care what your experience is with H Troop. It is different in B Troop and SP Shelburne doesn't need McDonald and his band of merry green men patrolling in Franklin County.

I don't know, or care, what happens in B Troop or Franklin County. That area might as well be part of New York to me. I was responding to dcs2244, who stated;

"The basic whine here (on this board) seems to be that the state only has a 'desk and two'. This is simply not true".

Notice he didn't say "That's not true in Frankin County", or "That's not true in Western Massachusetts". It was a blanket statement, which I know isn't true in greater Boston. That was my point.

Posted by: mpd61

So anyway..................

Hey bbelichick, what is your position on Bill#2132? Care to weigh in without the sheriff issue?

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpd61

So anyway..................

Hey bbelichick, what is your position on Bill#2132? Care to weigh in without the sheriff issue?

As I stated WAY back on page 1:

"I don't know if all this is fact but I can understand somewhat why this is becoming a problem.

I personally have no problem with Campus Police enforcing CH 90 on their College grounds.

Maybe this whole Sheriffs thing is causing a backlash onto the Campus guys."

I have no problem with Campus Police enforcing Ch 90 on their College campus grounds.

For that matter, I couldn't care less if the EPO's get ticket books, either.

Posted by: urban_blues

Quality617: thanks for the update. I should have known better than to rely too heavily on that site.

Posted by: j809

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

Well there we go, matter settled. Have SPAM call the legislators that are trying to block it and tell them you guys endorse it. Simple

Posted by: Irish Wampanoag

[quote=bbelichick]" in Mass. Every town has a local PD and those that are part time are policed by the MSP.

I know four towns that dont have local PDs Dana, Enfield, Greenwich, Prescott. They are wet towns too!!!!

Now back too the real question when can I start writing warning instead of civil citations. I am also going to stop discriminating against white people!!!

Posted by: Dane

Quote:

I know four towns that dont have local PDs Dana, Enfield, Greenwich, Prescott. They are wet towns too!!!!

Those towns are covered by the MSP Underwater Recovery Team.

Posted by: Macop

Hail To Nemlec And The Cape Cod Regional Lec!!

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macop

Hail To Nemlec And The Cape Cod Regional Lec!!

You're a one trick pony, huh "Chief"?

Posted by: Macop

That respone came quicker than I thought it would, lol.

Posted by: SPO123

This thread is a riot...what started as a discussion on CPO's getting citations (whoohoo) turned into a heated diatribe over ... nothing. Time to end this thread and start one called

"MSP v County v Local v Campus v Animal Control v Meter Maids" lol

Posted by: Mikey682

So has any campus department gotten more V books? Whats the status of this thing?

Posted by: jyanis

Was it heard today?? If so, what gives??

Posted by: mpd61

I've got my fingers and toes crossed that MADD will get this through!

Posted by: SouthSideCobras

I wish you State and Community College Cops luck with 2132. Any specific reasons for the delayed vote?

Posted by: SSPO#11

06/27/05 S Reported from the committee on Higher Education
06/27/05 S New draft of S767, S775 and S776
06/27/05 S Bill reported favorably by committee and referred to the committee on Senate Ways and Means -SJ 497
08/04/05 S Committee recommended ought to pass
08/04/05 S Referred to the committee on Senate Ethics and Rules -SJs 744-745
09/19/05 S Committee reported that the matter be placed in the Orders of the Day for the next session
09/19/05 S Rules suspended
09/19/05 S Read second and ordered to a third reading -SJ 813
09/20/05 S Read third
09/20/05 S Amendment adopted
09/20/05 S Amendment adopted
09/20/05 S Passed to be engrossed -SJs 819-820
09/22/05 H Read; and referred to the committee on House Ways and Means -HJ 655
01/31/06 H Committee recommended ought to pass and referred to the committee on House Steering, Policy and Scheduling -HJ 1167
02/13/06 H Committee reported that the matter be placed in the Orders of the Day for the next sitting for a second reading -HJ 1197
02/15/06 H Read second and ordered to a third reading -HJ 1203
02/16/06 H Read third (title changed) and passed to be engrossed -HJ 1212
02/21/06 H Enacted -HJ 1216
03/08/06 S Postponed to Wednesday, March 22 -SJ 1549
03/22/06 S Motion to lay on the table pending and postponed to the next session

Pending what?

#11

Posted by: USMCTrooper

I assume the Legislature follows Roberts Rules of Order. This sounds like someone made a motion to table it or they have indicated they will table it and such action has been postponed until the next meeting.

http://www.robertsrules.org/motions.htm

Posted by: NottinghamSheriff

Coming to a roadtest RMV near you.........the Sheriffs. SPAM doesn't want it anymore.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by NottinghamSheriff

Coming to a roadtest RMV near you.........the Sheriffs. SPAM doesn't want it anymore.

Afraid not. Road Tests will be done by civilians, with Troopers staffing the Registry for Law Enforcement purposes.

No Star wearing hacks allowed.

Posted by: SSPO#11

Once again........this thread takes another turn off topic.

Posted by: bbelichick

It's another attack by the one post wonders.

Posted by: j809

I don't think SP should have given up the RMV gig, it had some integrity in there with a police officer giving you the road test vs. a civilian.

Posted by: Macop

What does MSP care if Sherrifs do it, they gave it up didnt they?

Posted by: Wolfman

Word has it that the Department of Admin & Finance gave it up.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macop

What does MSP care if Sherrifs do it, they gave it up didnt they?

As per A & F, it will be a civilian position, now and forever.

The MSP will continue to perform all Law Enforcement function required by the RMV.

No hacks needed, thanks.

Posted by: SPINMASS

Their was an intimidation factor with a trooper giving you the test. I think more people will pass, who shouldn't pass because their are civilians doing the tests.

Posted by: j809

So is the MSP still going to do CDL testing or is that going civilian too?

Posted by: bbelichick

I believe just D & M will be civilianized.

Posted by: j809

Thank God, the last thing we need in this state is third party licensing for CDL drivers. They do in Florida, schools issue the test and give you a certificate to pickup your license.

Posted by: SSPO#11

Since we are off topic all together.......

http://www.turnto10.com/news/8232279/detail.html

Nice grab by the Sheriff!

#11

Posted by: Macop

Yea it was, but I'm sure that certain powers that be will not be able to see through the fact that it was a Sheriff, regardless of what he did.

So what new with the bill?

Posted by: mpd61

Well.....................

We're off to the statehouse today, with our shiny shoes, shaved faces, ties and brushed teeth! Stay tuned for the update tomorrow!

Hope somebody brings a camera!

Posted by: Delta784

I wish you well, but I think you're in for an uphill battle.

Posted by: mpd61

Update:

Theres always next week...............We shall return

Posted by: 4424

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

Afraid not. Road Tests will be done by civilians, with Troopers staffing the Registry for Law Enforcement purposes.

No Star wearing hacks allowed.

bbelichick, the way you always seem to slam SO's if we were people of color,you would be charged with a hate crime. Why don't you grow up, do your job and don't worry about what everybody else is doing. If you spent as much time furthering your own career than you do slamming SO's you'd be running the whole MSP.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4424

How do you know I'm not?

And by the way, when the Deputies try to be cops, ALL Police should take action. They are NOT Police, and are trying to take Police jobs. And don't LIE and say they aren't.

By the way, nice job playing the race card in a non-race issue. How very Johnny Cochran of you.

Posted by: 4424

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

Not trying to be a cop, just doing a job that i'm trained to do and that i'm authorized by law to do.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4424

Not trying to be a cop, just doing a job that i'm trained to do and that i'm authorized by law to do.

Keep telling yourself that.

You're only correct if you are talking about Corrections.

I am authorized to criminally charge someone with Adultery. Do I do it? No. Why? Because it's an outdated, no longer relevant or necessary part of MGL.

Just like the Sheriffs.

Posted by: 4424

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

No really, how do you feel about sheriff's, have you been wronged be one? Why are you so anti-sheriff? I'm not being a smart ass I'm just trying to figure out why you harbor such ill feelings towards them? Is it all sheriff's/deputies? I am actually interested in why you feel as you do.

Posted by: bbelichick

I have NO problem with guys who do THEIR jobs, ie C/O's.

I HATE people that try to get in the back door without putting in the sweat. LE Deputies, Constables who try to be police, posers.

We all have a role in this field. Play your role. If your job is to be a Jail Guard and you hate that, apply to a Police Department. Don't kiss the Sheriff's butt and get appointed a Deputy and the suck butt even more to get put on a Task Force or whatever. That's just WRONG and in the long run you get ZERO respect from the real police. They make work with you if ordered to, but when in comes right down to it, if they can toss you away they will in a heartbeat.

Posted by: SouthSideCobras

4424

How would you feel if POLICE OFFICERS attended half ass Reserve Corrections Academies and starting working in your facilities? How about if my Department bought an entire fleet of prisoner transport vans and opened a jail? The jobs are completely different and each serves a value public service. We are not trying to do your job please don’t try and do mine.

Posted by: Macop

4424 don't waste your time, its like talking to a wall, a dumb one.

Posted by: bbelichick

This from a Sheriff lover?

I bet all the cops in your town LOVE you, "Chief".

Posted by: SSPO#11

The is state is soooo backwards that even REAL police officers do not have the proper tools or authority to do their job. I have no problem with Sheriffs but Constables are a whole other story.

#11

Posted by: 4424

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

I have NO problem with guys who do THEIR jobs, ie C/O's.

I HATE people that try to get in the back door without putting in the sweat. LE Deputies, Constables who try to be police, posers.

We all have a role in this field. Play your role. If your job is to be a Jail Guard and you hate that, apply to a Police Department. Don't kiss the Sheriff's butt and get appointed a Deputy and the suck butt even more to get put on a Task Force or whatever. That's just WRONG and in the long run you get ZERO respect from the real police. They make work with you if ordered to, but when in comes right down to it, if they can toss you away they will in a heartbeat.

bbelichick, First of all a new thread should be started just for this subject. You dont understand my job has nothing to do with the jail, I never was a co and I never wish to be. You dont seem to understand that the Sheriff's Office is not only behind the fence but also on the other side of it. There is so many other different divisions within the sheriff's office that you dont seem to understand. I would suggest that you check so's web sites and look around at all the different services provided by each s.o. Let me ask you this: How do you feel about paying to house, feed,educate,clothe,e.t.c. somebody elses child? The s.o. is the only law enforcement agency that enforces court orders to physically arrest non supportive parents. In my county alone in just the past year we have arrested and bought before the court nonsupportive parents that were in arrears of over $324,000.00. And it just so happens that approx. 63% of those arrested also had a active w.m.s. warrant. What i'm trying to get at is that you need to see the whole picture and not just the s.o. as keeper of the jail. Theres is more to it than what you think. Theres plenty of work out there for everybody, you dont have to worry about your job security. And before you toot the training/police experience horn you should be aware that all the field officers from my department have worked for police departments before coming to this department . They have done everything you do. Before you determine that all s.o.'s have "hackers" out on the streets I suggest that you go department by department look at whos providing what services, and what level of training each department has and make your opinions based on that.

Posted by: bbelichick

So, 4424.

You ARE a hack Deputy. The truth comes to light.

As far as your claims that the SO's are "the only Agency that arrests non-supportive parents", that is BS. The MSP SPDU's do that as well.

The Sheriffs do NOT belong out from behind the walls. Period.

I know what department you work for, your Correctional Facility is outdated. Maybe the Sheriff should drop some cash on that and cut you and your brethren loose.

I hope you know what the REAL workers, the C/O's think of you and your hack squad.

Posted by: 4424

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

So, 4424.

You ARE a hack Deputy. The truth comes to light.

As far as your claims that the SO's are "the only Agency that arrests non-supportive parents", that is BS. The MSP SPDU's do that as well.

The Sheriffs do NOT belong out from behind the walls. Period.

I know what department you work for, your Correctional Facility is outdated. Maybe the Sheriff should drop some cash on that and cut you and your brethren loose.

I hope you know what the REAL workers, the C/O's think of you and your hack squad.

Dear b(bitchin?) belichick,There you go talking out of your ass AGAIN. You dont know what you talking about, tell me the last time MSP made a probate arrest in Franklin County. You try to talk like you the all knowing god of law enforcement, when you actually dont know the facts. Come on debate me about this so I can prove you wrong and make you look like the little b**** that you actually are. I wonder if your comrades have any respect for you(I doubt it). Again I'm not taking your job from you by doing my job, it seems like your very worried that sheriff's offices while take your job - it's not going to happen. We do what we are empowered to do and you do what your empowered to do, and believe it or not sometimes we are both doing the same things(whether you like it or not). If you want to keep bitching about you vs. us, I suggest you go to legislature and change the laws, you seem to think you can do anything so go ahead and change the law if your that intimidated by the sheriff's. Lets see how fast you get laughed at.

Posted by: bbelichick

Well, I guess I know you're wrong because I was involved.

And it wasn't a "probate arrest" it was a Deadbeat Dad designated by the DOR.

My comrades have plenty of respect for me. You, on the other hand, are the red headed stepchild of the REAL Sheriff's employees, the Corrections Officers. They HATE the Sheriff's hacks.

I am certainly not the all knowing God of Law Enforcement, but I sure as hell know more than a guy who isn't even a Police Officer, ie YOU.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4424

I suggest you go to legislature and change the laws, you seem to think you can do anything so go ahead and change the law if your that intimidated by the sheriff's. Lets see how fast you get laughed at.

In the works, my man.

And the correct word isn't intimidated, it's DISGUSTED.

Posted by: 4424

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

In the works, my man.

And the correct word isn't intimidated, it's DISGUSTED.

I guess your the man for the job, go teach those politicians how indispensable you are.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4424

I wonder if your comrades have any respect for you(I doubt it).

Due to the fact that they all HATE the Sheriffs as much as I do, I'd say I'm in pretty good company.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4424

I guess your the man for the job, go teach those politicians how indispensable you are.

Speaking of politicians, how much did you have to donate to get your job?

I know some guys that are pretty unemployable, I figure a few bucks to the good Sheriff will guarantee them a slot at your high speed outfit. How about it?

Posted by: 4424

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

In the works, my man.

And the correct word isn't intimidated, it's DISGUSTED.

I guessed right you didn't even touch on the questions I posed to you. Let's go , can you answer the questions or not???

Posted by: 4424

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

Not a dime, Answer the questions tough guy instead of diverting the discussion in a different direction. I guess you dont check facts before you answer questions.

Posted by: 4424

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

Due to the fact that they all HATE the Sheriffs as much as I do, I'd say I'm in pretty good company.

So that means your right in back of me in line?

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4424

So that means your right in back of me in line?

You guys are right around Constables in the pecking order.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4424

Not a dime, Answer the questions tough guy instead of diverting the discussion in a different direction. I guess you dont check facts before you answer questions.

What question is that? Like I said, I know from personal experience that Sheriffs aren't the only ones who arrest on DOR warrants.

And if they do perform that function, it's because no one else wants to.

Posted by: Delta784

I have no desire to enter the sheriff vs. police debate, but on the issue of deadbeat dads, can we (police) even arrest on a civil capias? Everyone I've been involved with was assisting constables, and the warrants I've seen, IIRC, were directed at the sheriffs of the various counties, their deputies, and constables of the cities and towns. They aren't entered into WMS, so the only reason they enter my radar screen is when a constable requests an assist.

Posted by: bbelichick

You can when DOR requests a Warrant. It usually occurs when they are out of State and big time deadbeats. Then the local Police arrest them and you have to travel to pick them up.

Posted by: 4424

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

I have no desire to enter the sheriff vs. police debate, but on the issue of deadbeat dads, can we (police) even arrest on a civil capias? Everyone I've been involved with was assisting constables, and the warrants I've seen, IIRC, were directed at the sheriffs of the various counties, their deputies, and constables of the cities and towns. They aren't entered into WMS, so the only reason they enter my radar screen is when a constable requests an assist.

Delta, Your right on the money with your answer,I was looking to see how smart bbelichick was. The Probate judge is authorized to issue a W.M.S. warrant after a waiting time of six months. That is the only time it can be served by a P.O. . Unfortunately I have never seen it happen in my county, I would just assume making non support of a child a felony a saving taxpayers money supporting families other than their own.

Posted by: 4424

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

You can when DOR requests a Warrant. It usually occurs when they are out of State and big time deadbeats. Then the local Police arrest them and you have to travel to pick them up.

DOR can request all day long, if a judge wont issue one your s.o.l.

Posted by: sylvester

who cares ...?

Posted by: bbelichick

What are you trying to prove? You said:

"The s.o. is the only law enforcement agency that enforces court orders to physically arrest non supportive parents."

I said BS. A WMS WARRANT is an order to arrest from the Court.

And I have arrested people on warrants for non-support.

Period.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Delta, Your right on the money with your answer,I was looking to see how smart bbelichick was.

Smarter than you, obviously.

Posted by: 4424

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

Smarter than you, obviously.

I didn't see you come up with the answer, had to wait for back up? The others will cover your as* as usual.

Posted by: bbelichick

What the hell are you talking about? You are mentally ill.

If I knew as little as you, I wouldn't have a decent job and I'd have to be a Deputy.

Posted by: 4424

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

What are you trying to prove? You said:

"The s.o. is the only law enforcement agency that enforces court orders to physically arrest non supportive parents."

I said BS. A WMS WARRANT is an order to arrest from the Court.

And I have arrested people on warrants for non-support.

Period.

O.K. lesson for the day, PROBATE CAPIAS (bbelichick, thats something that is issued by the Probate Court commanding "SHERIFF'S,DEPUTIES or CONSTABLES" to apprehend a defendant) not P/O's, they cannot serve civil process. You see this is the first step to the process, then if the defendant cannot be found in your county, you return that to the court, and if the judge see's fit it THEN gets entered into W.M.S., at that point the warrant can be served by anybody authorized to serve criminal process( and hey guess what! even then a Deputy can serve it because a deputy can serve both civil and criminal).

Posted by: 4424

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

Smarter than you, obviously.

And my daddy can beat up your daddy!

Posted by: bbelichick

Nobody cares.

By the way, I was wondering...This isn't a full time gig for you is it? I mean, what the hell do you do all day?

How many stupid civil warrants can there be to serve in Franklin County?

Do you just sit around waiting for a Civil Warrant to be issued or do you sweep up around the Sheriff's Office?

Or is this a part time gig?

Posted by: 4424

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

Nobody cares. You seem to care, until you realize your wrong then you come back with incoherant blubs that mean nothing.

By the way, I was wondering...This isn't a full time gig for you is it? I mean, what the hell do you do all day? What you obviously can't handle.

How many stupid civil warrants can there be to serve in Franklin County? why don't you check and let me know ALMIGHTY BBELICHICK!!!

Do you just sit around waiting for a Civil Warrant to be issued or do you sweep up around the Sheriff's Office? NO WE GO OUT AND GET THE ONES YOU CAN'T.

Or is this a part time gig?

No this is a fulltime gig, making a ass out of you is a hobby.

Posted by: bbelichick

So, then while you're not out arresting scary broke dirtbags...Do you clean up for the Sheriff? Get his coffee?

There are only so many deadbeat dads. What do you do the other 37 hours of the week?

Posted by: 4424

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

So, then while you're not out arresting scary broke dirtbags...Do you clean up for the Sheriff? Get his coffee?

There are only so many deadbeat dads. What do you do the other 37 hours of the week?

Again you have no clue on how many dead beat parents there are I suggest you go to DOR website and see the many,many names on it. So again your wrong!!!

Posted by: bbelichick

All in Franklin County, too huh?

Wow, you are an important man.

The Sheriff called. Large D&D, light with 2 sugars. And you did a crappy job on the "cruiser" too. Wax it again.

Posted by: SSPO#11

Soooooo how about those Campus Police Officers and their fight to get their citation books back?

#11

Posted by: Mikey682

Traffic law obeyance has been pretty slim on the campuses I've taken rides through at work...stop signs might as well not exist, and crosswalk lines are pointless. They are definately an easy place to get alot of activity. When the campuses get thier V's back, there are going to be some expensive surprises handed out alot more.

Posted by: j809

What is the status on the V books after you guys went into Boston?

Posted by: Macop

4424 no point in wasting you time with him.

Posted by: Irish Wampanoag

Quote:

Originally Posted by j809

What is the status on the V books after you guys went into Boston?

Postponed it until Tuesday April 4th. Rumor has it Senator Lees is attaching an amendment to bill 2132 to exclude Community College from receiving Ch90 books

Posted by: j809

Wtf?

Posted by: Sgt Jack

WTF is up with this guy...why should he care which state school writes CMV's...Christ the way some the students drive around my place I could go through a book in a day....I love the logic..I can send you to jail but I can't give you a ticket.....

Posted by: policebound24

Is it true Bridgewater State College, BU, Bentaly and BC still write citation.

Posted by: Sgt Jack

Bridgewater may still have some ticket books stockpiled...As far as BU and BC go....I think if they tried to even write a CMV Boston Police would have a major sh*t fit...As far as Bently goes not sure I know they stop MV's on their campus..... I don't know if they actually have RMV books to cite though

Posted by: soxrock75

Some State colleges may have cite books laying around but the private schools definitely don't have any. In Boston, the BPPA would have a cow if BC, BU or NU got any books. As it is, they don't like having them on "their" streets now.

Posted by: mpd61

Quote:

Originally Posted by policebound24

Is it true Bridgewater State College, BU, Bentaly and BC still write citation.

Aw come on...............
This illustrates all the rumor, confusion and garbage that abounds. Of course BSC writes citiations. Heck we're still writing Chapter 90 V's here.

If you think BU and those other private colleges are writing CMVI you better give them a call and get straightened out.

Posted by: rg1283

Senator Lees whoever (daughter, son, friend of a friend) probably got a ticket for driving around like a typical numb nut at a Community College. I think its a bunch of BS how they have to change a law because the RMV has a thumb up their ass and its more of an administrative policy it seems then a law. Wasting time contesting a bill like this is ridiculous since there are only so many working days that the legislature has.