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

Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network

Massachusetts Police News, Information and Discussions on MassCops

Pages: 1

Main Page Impeding a police officer
(Click here to view the original thread on the MassCops Message Board)

Posted by: sgt128-13

One of our younger officers had a run in with a known subject at a convenience store across the street from the college. The dolt deliberately blocked in the cruiser with his car so the officer couldn't leave. I've been searching the MGL's and can't come up with anything substantial.

I was thinking 272/54 - Under "Disorderly Arrests for Creating a Hazardous Condition Which Serves no Legitimate Purpose. If with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof he or she creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by an asct which serves no legitmate purpose to the actor"

Someone else was thinking about kidnapping... but the officer could've simply walked away.

Any idea what we could charge this tool with? I know I'm missing something.

Posted by: 94c

find out where he lives and slash his tires.

Posted by: Rock

89-7
Wilfully obstruct an emergency vehicle

Posted by: csauce777

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rock

89-7
Wilfully obstruct an emergency vehicle

The guy might be a shitbird, but good luck proving wilful obstruction by simply parking his vehicle. "Sorry Mr. Clerk Magistrate, the lot was full, I didnt realize I blocked him in." Just wait until you see him operating like a jackass, then grab em'.

Posted by: spike9345

Being an asshole in the day or nighttime will always work. The clerks used to understand it also!!!!

Posted by: sgt128-13

Quote:

Originally Posted by csauce777

No, it was definitely wilful. When he was a student at our college, he'd always try to screw with us like this. He got booted for carrying a gun on campus and then he finally got nabbed in an attempted armed robbery of an off-duty PO. He knows we don't like him and figured this was his way at getting back at us.

89-7 will work just fine. Might follow it up with an immediate threat sheet to the RMV to see if they can yank his license for a bit.

Posted by: radiocop

Two words: Tow truck

Posted by: RPD931

-Ticket (89-7)
-Tow truck
- Immediate Threat

What the hell, try all 3 in one shot.

Posted by: Killjoy

They can only dimiss them....

Posted by: RPD931

exactly. The guy will have to pay for the tow, take a day off to go to court to appeal it and then deal with the RMV. That alone would put a hell of a smile on my face...

Posted by: tuffone

Be patient...He is an idiot, he is a pain in the a**, he will screw up and you will have your chance. They always do.

Posted by: NBC515

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuffone

Be patient...He is an idiot, he is a pain in the a**, he will screw up and you will have your chance. They always do.

very true.... could always throw your blue lights on and attempt to back out...there is your impeding an emergency vehicle...

Posted by: BrianC

A few questions............Was he legally parked? Was the officers car legally parked? Was the officer at the store responding to a call, doing a routine check, or just going in to buy something?
Because I don't really understand how the officer could be blocked in.

Posted by: ADA Gumby

I've seen this sort of thing charged as common law interfering with a police officer, but never seen a case on point.

Posted by: spd722

This is a reach, unless the officer felt he was imprisoned and not free to leave:

CHAPTER 265. CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
Chapter 265: Section 26. Kidnapping; weapons; child under age 16; punishment
Section 26. Whoever, without lawful authority, forcibly or secretly confines or imprisons another person within this commonwealth against his will, or forcibly carries or sends such person out of this commonwealth, or forcibly seizes and confines or inveigles or kidnaps another person, with intent either to cause him to be secretly confined or imprisoned in this commonwealth against his will, or to cause him to be sent out of this commonwealth against his will or in any way held to service against his will, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than ten years or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars and imprisonment in jail for not more than two

Posted by: ogzee28

Quote:

Originally Posted by spd722

This is a reach, unless the officer felt he was imprisoned and not free to leave:

CHAPTER 265. CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
Chapter 265: Section 26. Kidnapping; weapons; child under age 16; punishment
Section 26. Whoever, without lawful authority, forcibly or secretly confines or imprisons another person within this commonwealth against his will, or forcibly carries or sends such person out of this commonwealth, or forcibly seizes and confines or inveigles or kidnaps another person, with intent either to cause him to be secretly confined or imprisoned in this commonwealth against his will, or to cause him to be sent out of this commonwealth against his will or in any way held to service against his will, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than ten years or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars and imprisonment in jail for not more than two

Would you please get some help!

See you tonight
Ogzee28

Posted by: spd722

At least it is not treason........yet ogzee28

Posted by: DoD102

If the officer was enroute to a call you could even try obstructing. I forget the MGL though.

It's not the 89-7 under m/v law. It's in the criminal statutes

Posted by: Irish50

Look. It's our job to know the law. Read 272-53. The Officer failed to utilize the law during this incident. 272-53 has a three pronged test. If you have three of the elements you can arrest. 1. The suspect caused OR recklessly created a risk; 2. Of public inconvenience annoyance or alarm 3. the suspect created a hazardous condition (by blocking the emergency vehicle); by ANY ACT; which served no legitimate purpose. This Officer clearly knew the subject, knew the act was intentional and suggested the solution was to walk away???????????

This is the problem with the Officers in the Commonwealth. We have been lulled by the liberal courts into being afraid to act on the law as it is written. We act on PROBABLE CAUSE.

How embarrassed this guys must be to tell this story at work. Hey did I tell you about the guy that punked out the Police the other day and I was afraid to arrest him.

Posted by: DoD102

And that's why GOD created books.

Posted by: ogzee28

Quote:

Originally Posted by spd722

At least it is not treason........yet ogzee28

Treason, as we discussed I want Mayhem damn it! now get out there and bring your numbers up. They are pathetic for the new year!

Later
Ogzee28

Posted by: 94c

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irish50

Look. It's our job to know the law. Read 272-53. The Officer failed to utilize the law during this incident. 272-53 has a three pronged test. If you have three of the elements you can arrest. 1. The suspect caused OR recklessly created a risk; 2. Of public inconvenience annoyance or alarm 3. the suspect created a hazardous condition (by blocking the emergency vehicle); by ANY ACT; which served no legitimate purpose. This Officer clearly knew the subject, knew the act was intentional and suggested the solution was to walk away???????????

This is the problem with the Officers in the Commonwealth. We have been lulled by the liberal courts into being afraid to act on the law as it is written. We act on PROBABLE CAUSE.

How embarrassed this guys must be to tell this story at work. Hey did I tell you about the guy that punked out the Police the other day and I was afraid to arrest him.

He must work for one of those pantyliner police departments. That's why we get no respect out there. He would have gotten locked up and definitely injured when he struck the pavement during the struggle. And if he's actually a Sergeant then those are the reasons I take promotional exams so I don't have to work for people like him.

Posted by: sgt128-13

It wasn't me but a person who worked for the department, and the officer was not on my shift. I'm merely relating the facts of an incident so the presumtion that it was one of my officers and that I'm unfit to supervise are unwarranted.

The officer had gone to a conveinience store just out of jurisdiction (literally, just over the line) to make a purchase. When the officer returned to the cruiser to leave, the officer was apparently "blocked" in. The officer never called for assistance and only related the story after the fact. I'm not sure how each vehicle was parked or if it mattered. The officer was fresh out of the academy and didn't know what to do. Embarassing? Sure. But there are embarassments in every department.

The fact that the officer was just out of jurisdiction I think would be the compelling factor. I can guarantee that if the douchebag did this within jurisdiction he would've gotten thottled. So, what would be the expert advise given that the officer was out of jurisdiction?

Posted by: CPT Chaos

In my humble opinion, even if your out of your jurisdiction you have every right to be in a public place. I don’t care if you driving a police car or an ice cream truck.

Request assistance from a department from within that jurisdiction. (Insert assistance call here: dog barking, loud music, lost child, etc.) I realize that you out of your jurisdiction, but hey, your just trying to be a good citizen.

When the responding officer arrives, explain the situation to him/her along with the punk’s past performance and suggest that he/she block the punk in with his/her clearly marked emergency vehicle and proceed with his/her investigation.

After a short while I’m sure the punk will become agitated enough to become either a public disturbance (in the presence of a police officer, mind you) or at worst ABPO. Either way, he is going to a local lock-up.

Extra points if he is wearing a “wife-beater.”

I’ve seen this done… Fight fire with hotter fire!

Posted by: 94c

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgt128-13

The fact that the officer was just out of jurisdiction I think would be the compelling factor. I can guarantee that if the douchebag did this within jurisdiction he would've gotten thottled. So, what would be the expert advise given that the officer was out of jurisdiction?

Well...seeing that he was out of his jurisdiction, then what makes you think you can charge him with anything less than a Felony? Your officer is shit out of luck so I revert to my first post. Slash his tires.

Posted by: nightcopppa

How are you going to charge him or cite him if it happened in another jurisdiction?

Posted by: sgt128-13

I'm not going to be citing or charging anyone... I simply wanted to know the law in case something like this happend again, only within our jurisdiction.

Posted by: OutOfManyOne

Unless you are sworn in that community as well.

Posted by: nightcopppa

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgt128-13

It sounded to me like you were getting ready to mail the cite and immediate threat the jackass. I must have misread it.

ma police, boston ma police, massachusetts police, massachusetts police, mass state police, mass police, ma, mass, massachusetts, massachusetts, massachutes, massachusetts law, massachusetts polece, police, officer, police officer, cops, police gear, law enforcement, police duty gear, state police, sheriff, law, police supply, police agency directory, police agency, police department, traffic officer, police dept, state trooper, dispatcher, massachusetts county sheriff, massachusetts sheriff, massachusetts department of corrections, ma doc, doc, dept of corrections, police information, civil service, ma civil service, massachusetts crime, police training, police academy, ma police academy, massachusetts officers, masscop, masscops, mpa, bpa, ibpoa, police association, massachusetts police news, massachusetts crime news, mass most wanted, police career information, police patrol, police administration, police books, crime scene training, police discussion, crime discussions, cops

About MassCops, the home for Massachusetts law enforcement.

The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network opened in 1998 and is now a part of the New England Police Network The site is a pro-police discussion forum intended for sworn police officers and civilian law enforcement officials as well as those interested in pursuing a career in law enforcement here in Massachusetts.

The goal of The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network is to provide an informal network of law enforcement officials here in Massachusetts for educational and informational purposes.

The forum covers many topics such as Police Related News Articles, Agency & Profession Discussions, Police Training as well as Law Enforcement Career Information.

The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network and The New England Police Network (NEPN) and it's network sites are privately owned websites/domains and are not affiliated with or endorsed by any government association or agency.

MassCops (masscops.com) and (masscop.com) are privately owned are not affiliated with or endorsed by the Massachusetts Coalition of Police (masscop.org)

3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 49 50 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108