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 Merge Sheriffs Department with the DOC
(Click here to view the original thread on the MassCops Message Board)

Posted by: BartA1

Do you think that the County Sheriff's Departments should be absorbed by the Massachusetts Department of Corrections?

Posted by: pucknut

Even though the mission is the same (to protect the public) the methods are totally different. Thats like saying that all City and Town police could be absorbed by the State Police. Believe it or not, not all the Sheriff's are looking to intrude into Police work, they have some resources that Police need (information, Technology, housing) if you need it fine, if you don't, thats fine too. The differences are the amount of time that inmates are serving. Im not saying who is better (Sheriff's vs. DOC) just different. The Patrolman who works in say Plympton and the Patrolman who works in Brockton are the same job, but yet totally different. I dont know if this helps or not. forgive me for the rant.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by pucknut @ Mon Sep 20, 2004 12:26 pm

Even though the mission is the same (to protect the public) the methods are totally different. Thats like saying that all City and Town police could be absorbed by the State Police. Believe it or not, not all the Sheriff's are looking to intrude into Police work, they have some resources that Police need (information, Technology, housing) if you need it fine, if you don't, thats fine too. The differences are the amount of time that inmates are serving. Im not saying who is better (Sheriff's vs. DOC) just different. The Patrolman who works in say Plympton and the Patrolman who works in Brockton are the same job, but yet totally different. I dont know if this helps or not. forgive me for the rant.

They did it in CT. County Jails are run by DOC. It works fine.

Posted by: MarkBoston

Conn. now has Marshals instead of deputies. So what has changed besides the name?

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkBoston @ Mon Sep 20, 2004 9:12 pm

Conn. now has Marshals instead of deputies. So what has changed besides the name?

The SD's were merged with the DOC. Now DOC Personnel staff all county jails. There are NO LE/Correction Deputies in CT. If you work for CT DOC you could be stationed at say, New Haven CC (County Jail) or Northern Correctional (Supermax Prison).

The Sheriffs Dept ran Court Security until it was abolished due to numerous scandals. Now the Marshals run Court Security.

Posted by: HousingCop

Aww Hell, while we are at it, why not just consolidate the Court Officers into the DOC as well as the Sheriff's Departments? Make the courts and DOC / SD all one big happy family.

Well some of you may sense the humor in the above post but some will take it literally as it is written. I am not in favor of merging anybody. Last merge I saw was around 1992/1993 and I still hear bitches & moans coming from those guys. Even though they got to retire with an extra 5 years, better rank structure and a HUGE pay raise. They even had t-shirts made up saying their job was now dead with a headstone on it with RIP M__ 1993. A bit childish? Perhaps.

I am in favor of merging all the Sheriff's Departments into one big unit, with just 1 Sheriff to run the whole thing state wide. Savings for 13 Sheriffs at $150K each + bennies etc..... Well you do the math. Never mind their support staff, Special Sheriff's etc... Remember, County time is up to 2 1/2 years while State time is 2 1/2+

The DOC/SD merge probably won't happen because of union issues. Look at the amount of $$ spent by these unions each election cycle to politicians & you will see that they have a powerful voice on Beacon Hill.

Posted by: BartA1

Eddie for once you and I agree on an issue. The problem with any merge would be the politcal lobbying by the Sheriffs and their loyalists to stop it from happening. I would assume to abolish 13 county sheriffs offices it would require ratifying the Mass Constitution, and after the Gay Marriage nightmare I dont two thirds of the nitwits at the state house agreeing to anything like that. Oh well just another idea gone.

Posted by: thumper2168

Wouldn't have to change a thing just leave the Sheriff as the figure head or get rid of County Govt. like we already for once and save us all some money so we can spend it on the right things.. 98% of the Deputies would love this because they are hard working guys behing the wall and would love the pay raise, as they dont kiss ass and try to get an outside hack job......

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by thumper2168

Wouldn't have to change a thing just leave the Sheriff as the figure head or get rid of County Govt.

Getting rid of county government is an excellent idea, but if we left the Sheriffs as a figurehead, what exactly would they do without Sheriff's Departments? They'd just be more politically connected hacks, only with zero responsibilities. Like we have a shortage of those right now.

Posted by: GateKeeper

Seniority, time in for shifts / days off, (State / County CO's) would be the driving edge that will never let this happen.

We in the DOC will never let it happen being in fear of our seniority dates. Those in the County will never let it happen being in fear of losing their seniority dates.

Posted by: SinePari

Quote:

Originally Posted by GateKeeper

Seniority, time in for shifts / days off, (State / County CO's) would be the driving edge that will never let this happen.

We in the DOC will never let it happen being in fear of our seniority dates. Those in the County will never let it happen being in fear of losing their seniority dates.

It happened with the MSP. People got screwed, but it happened anyway.

Posted by: Mr.90/24

I already spoke my mind on the Sheriffs and the waste of money this state is spending to fund their crazy equipment, which they don't need. Yes on the merger.

Posted by: mpd61

Quote:

Originally Posted by SinePari

It happened with the MSP. People got screwed, but it happened anyway.

Thank God I got to keep my mustache!

Posted by: DODK911

If your talking about saving money, you could also go the other way and say get rid of town Police Dept's and merge them with the Sheriffs Dept. like down south and leave the big cities like Boston, Worcester, and Springfield; this way you could get rid of 325 or so Police Chiefs at salories of $85'000-$150'000 look at all the money the state would save then. Just a thaught if the idea is to save money.

Posted by: DoD102

Quote:

Originally Posted by DODK911

If your talking about saving money, you could also go the other way and say get rid of town Police Dept's and merge them with the Sheriffs Dept. like down south and leave the big cities like Boston, Worcester, and Springfield; this way you could get rid of 325 or so Police Chiefs at salories of $85'000-$150'000 look at all the money the state would save then. Just a thaught if the idea is to save money.

Not to mention it would probably increase professionalism in the rural areas like Franklin Co. Some of those little depts are quite...."unique?......

But don't tell the Chiefs that!

Posted by: mpd61

Quote:

Originally Posted by DODK911

WHOA!!!!!

What municipal chief is funded by federal or state funds or grants? Arguably a verrrry small percentage of patrol positions are funded that way. Remember that some municipalities lay off cops from time to time due to budget cuts, their own local budget. Theres no savings to the Commonwealth here.

Secondly, very few municipalities would see any tangible benefit from shifting over to Sheriffs. No deputies are going to have the more intimate and focused knowledge of a municipal officer serving his single town. Response time and number of personnel available would be impacted. Lets spend more time and $$$ sending most of these deputies through the FT Police academy. Lets spend some more $$$ on setting up the required communications net and other infra-structure changes required for the sub-stations where these deputies would have to operate from. Probably have to buy more cruisers $$$, or maybe we could just spend a little bit more $$$ by painting/lettering/standardizing the cruisers that the Sheriffs would take over from the towns. Oh, maybe the towns would rather not give up the cars, they ask for a fair price $$$ from the county. Oh Damn, we're in Massachusetts, most county gov't has been eliminated except for registry of deeds.

Relax my federal friends. I know one of you stated earlier that he got no courtesy from a local once. Think a deputy will treat you different?

Sheriffs taking over patrol in Massachusetts is a controversial subject. At the current state of affairs, it's actually quite impractical! And as Arte Johnson always said;
"verrrrrry interesting, but schtupid"

Posted by: DODK911

I'm not in a huff brother, the post was about merging two different agencies to save money and combining 13 Sheriffs position would save a lot of money, and all I was saying is if we eliminated 320 or so Police Chiefs look at the savings there, but your right towns are not funded by the state, so your not really saving the state much money. You got me there It was a bad comparison.

P.S. I have never had trouble getting courtesy when needed, its just there is no brotherhood (for the most part) amoungst LEO's in this state.

Posted by: MSP75

The Sheriffs are a strong political force and suck in state funds like a black hole. That is where money would be saved.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by DODK911

Cities and towns will never give up their authority to appoint their own police officers. MGL 41-99C allows the establishment of regional police districts, which would make perfect sense for small PD's out west, but no one has taken advantage of it yet.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/41-99c.htm

Posted by: mpd61

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

Excellent points my well-paid municipal brother-in-arms

Posted by: GateKeeper

Ah, do you all see why this will never happen? It's gone from the Sheriff's to the DOC to the Sheriff's to the PD's!!

My home field rights are secure, I'm not a PO. The laws I enforce are behind the walls, never to be seen by most!

I win, you lose! You Union Busters should Join a Brotherhood.

You guys and girls keep jockeying for home field advantage!

Posted by: countymounty

I'm not so quick to recommend merger since the duties and responsibilities of each agency has distinct differences. What I WOULD like to see is MGL changed so that Sheriff's are appointed to their positions by the Governor, and accountable to the Executive Branch. This would begin to breakdown SOME of the hackery that takes place. As long as Sheriff's need to fend for their jobs every six years, they will inevitably run their organziations entirely on political favortism, instead of competence.

Posted by: Wolfman

If the Sheriffs are appointed by the Governor, how would this remove political favoritism from the position? The complexities of a politically unbiased appointment process are so convoluted that the most logical solution is to dissolve the hierarchy entirely and absorb the facets into existing State and Local entities. Duplicity and nepotistic appointments would cease, more funding and control would be available to local departments, and MSP is available statewide for everything from patrol augmentation in sparsely populated areas to crime scene services without cost or competition to the local departments.

Posted by: Dane

Quote:

I'm not so quick to recommend merger since the duties and responsibilities of each agency has distinct differences.

Could you expand on this a bit? Just wondering if the duties are similar enough or are they so different that they would preclude any sort of consolidation. What comes to mind is consolidation of the RMV with the MSP. No one could have imagined a trooper working in a registry prior to 1992. Same goes for some of the duties that were exclusive to the MDC and Capitol Police. Likewise, an RMV or Capitol cop could probably never have foreseen patrolling Rte. 495 or working plainclothes in the MSP Gang Unit when he took his respective exam back in the 80s.

Posted by: countymounty

[quote=Wolfman]If the Sheriffs are appointed by the Governor, how would this remove political favoritism from the position? The complexities of a politically unbiased appointment process are so convoluted that the most logical solution is to dissolve the hierarchy entirely and absorb the facets into existing State and Local entities.

I didn't say that it would be politically unbiased if the Sheriff's were appointed. However, making the position of Sheriff similar to that of a Cabinet member or Commissioner who reports to the Chief Exective, would begin to elimiate a lot of the political (and sometimes criminal) baloney that inevitably results from having a person who answers to nobody but the electorate (an electorate that is too disinterested and apathetic to hold him accountable) fend for his career every six years. Average voters and the media don't pay attention to the Sheriff like they do to the Governor and the Executive branch. Incorporating the Office of Sheriff into the Executive Branch would make an immediate impact on the overall operations.

Posted by: countymounty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dane

The first thing that comes to mind is that merging the department that oversees each and every state prison in the Commonwealth with all the County jails and Houses of Correction, including all the transporation of inmates (the bulk of which is done by the sheriff's, all the fugitive apprehension, all the reintegration programming (the bulk of which is done by counties because they deal with populations that change constantly as opposed to DOC which has longer-term inmates) not to mention the civil process that the Sheriff's are charged with would create a HUGE HUGE bureaucracy if it was all under one Commissioner. In addition to that, numerous laws would have to be rewritten because sentencing and penalties hold that those consisting of 2.5 years and less are remanded to the Sheriff, and longer sentences are remanded to the DOC Commissoner. I can't think of another state agency that would be as large, and responsible for a more divergent range of responsibilties, than a DOC that absorbs all the county sheriff;'s offices. It would have a tendency to be much less efficient. In contrast, simply making each Sheriff report to the Governor and/or Public Safety Commish. would eliminate the "personal feifdom" complex that occurs with many sitting sheriff's and create more efficiency and acountability. It could also be done more easily and expeditiously. The bottom line here is how do you get accountability as easy as possible. My argument is that when someone knows that when their bad job performance or poor decision-making can result in them losing their job TOMMORROW, as opposed to what a amounts to losing their job in a crap shoot with the uninformed voters SIX YEARS FROM NOW, they tend to be, ahhhhh, "slightly" more responsible.

Posted by: PearlOnyx

Mounty,

I think you bring up an interesting point about the term issue as well. With Sheriff's serving six year terms, with no term limits, it only feeds more in to this "personal fifedom" concept. I've found that when the election does come around, with an already disinterested populace, any iniscretions which may have occured during the sheriff's previous term are often long forgotten over such a long period of time. It also leaves employees and the public, stuck with mismanagement, should they elect a sheriff who isn't necessarily the best at his or her job.

Posted by: Mr.90/24

The Sheriffs are not Police Officers and should never be. If you want to patrol the towns and cities of this commonwealth then take a Civil Service Exam. If you want to get into the units and patrol the State then take the MSP Exam, good luck with the academy! I mean no disrespect but I am sick and tired of hearing about how the Sheriffs take $$ for toys they don't need. The Sheriffs need to be more accountable for the inmates in the correctional facilities. Furthermore, they should be picking up prisoners in the State, City, and Local cells for overnight housing. Please lets tell it like it is, stop wasting time and money and do your required jobs. If the Cities and towns need assistance, that's why we have the State Police! Thanks.

Posted by: k9sheriff

Mr. 90/24, you certainly have a right to your opinion, but make sure you get your technical facts straight.According to a appeals court judge, by definition of the law, a Deputy sheriff is a Police officer by the fact that a Deputy and Police officer both have the power of criminal and civil authority.You bring up the civil service exam, so does that mean all of the Police officers that work for non - civil service towns, that never had to take an exam to get hired or promoted shouldn't be patrolling their towns?Why do they need to be more accountable for the inmates, has there been some kind of massive conpiracy or numerous escapes by the inmates that we don't know about.?It's the job of the judge and jury to hold them accountable which is why they go to trial to be found innocent or guilty.We just babysit the low-lifes!my particular department doesn't turn away any safekeeps from Police departments.Because of this we are so overpopulated, inmates are housed in warehouses, and i've lost count of how many officers we have are out on workmans comp. from injuries from fights and assaults.As from all their so called toys, remember that two of these sheriff departments are part of N.E.M.L.E.C. and these toys are there for all of the area police departments to use at any time.The cities and towns that use the resources of my department do so because they choose to.Contrary to what you might think, not all cities and towns fawn over the State Police.Just something for you to think about.

Posted by: SinePari

Quote:

Originally Posted by k9sheriff

As from all their so called toys, remember that two of these sheriff departments are part of N.E.M.L.E.C. and these toys are there for all of the area police departments to use at any time.The cities and towns that use the resources of my department do so because they choose to.Contrary to what you might think, not all cities and towns fawn over the State Police.Just something for you to think about.

Another story of duplicity. Aside from the federal funds, a constituant my look at the "toys" and say, why pay county taxes for that stuff? Most people don't even know there is an elected Sheriff scoffing millions of tax dollars from the largest budget in every county.

We're paying taxes for:
City/Town gov't
County gov't
State gov't
Federal gov't

What benefit is there to county gov't in this state anyway? Do I give a crap about the neighboring towns if there is no leadership at the county gov't level, besides the Sheriff? Hell no.

Posted by: nirtallica

Quote:

Originally Posted by k9sheriff

Mr. 90/24, you certainly have a right to your opinion, but make sure you get your technical facts straight.According to a appeals court judge, by definition of the law, a Deputy sheriff is a Police officer by the fact that a Deputy and Police officer both have the power of criminal and civil authority.You bring up the civil service exam, so does that mean all of the Police officers that work for non - civil service towns, that never had to take an exam to get hired or promoted shouldn't be patrolling their towns?Why do they need to be more accountable for the inmates, has there been some kind of massive conpiracy or numerous escapes by the inmates that we don't know about.?It's the job of the judge and jury to hold them accountable which is why they go to trial to be found innocent or guilty.We just babysit the low-lifes!my particular department doesn't turn away any safekeeps from Police departments.Because of this we are so overpopulated, inmates are housed in warehouses, and i've lost count of how many officers we have are out on workmans comp. from injuries from fights and assaults.As from all their so called toys, remember that two of these sheriff departments are part of N.E.M.L.E.C. and these toys are there for all of the area police departments to use at any time.The cities and towns that use the resources of my department do so because they choose to.Contrary to what you might think, not all cities and towns fawn over the State Police.Just something for you to think about.

So if this is the case, then why don't Deputy Sheriffs make arrests then? Why aren't Sheriffs issued citation books from the Registry? Why is that The New Bedford Police Chief went to court and had the Sheriffs removed? If the Sheriffs have a constitutional right, then why all the fuss? If the Sheriffs had their way, The MSP would be patrolling the highways, cities and towns would be greatly restricted jurisdictionally and the Sheriffs would eat up all the funding available. The Sheriffs are greedy,period.In this state, their services are not needed. I was working the Taunton Flood watch and I saw the Bristol County Deputies. Most of them were unsat. They couldn't even direct traffic correctly. The ones I saw drove around like they thought they owned the place, yet did absolutely nothing. The State Police did all the road blocks, ran the staging area and the command post and Taunton PD did the patrols. The Sheriff acted like the big hero. What exactly has he done in all this except shoot his mouth off. He can't even run a correctional facility right, never mind a disaster relief. Not all cities and towns want the Sheriffs either. The reason cities and towns use the Sheriffs is because the Chief can boss around the Sheriffs, but can't do the same to the MSP. And if you really want to get technical, by State law, the Colonel of the MSP is the ranking officer in the state, not the Sheriff.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by k9sheriff

So do constables. Should they start wearing uniforms, driving marked cruisers, and engaging in law enforcement operations?

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by nirtallica

And if you really want to get technical, by State law, the Colonel of the MSP is the ranking officer in the state, not the Sheriff.

I've often heard that, but no one can actually cite the specific law. My PD regulations state that if we're involved in mutual aid, we are to take orders from supervisors of the agency having jurisdiction of the area, whether it's the state police or another city/town. If we're on our own turf, we're under no obligation to even acknowledge anyone except our own people.

Posted by: mpd61

Quote:

Originally Posted by k9sheriff

According to a appeals court judge, by definition of the law, a Deputy sheriff is a Police officer by the fact that a Deputy and Police officer both have the power of criminal and civil authority..

O.K.

Since you want to be "Technical", which case law are you specifically citing that states "a deputy sheriff is a police officer by the fact that a deputy and a police officer both have the power of civil and criminal authority"

What a horses ass!!!!!!

Posted by: k9sheriff

mpd61, Commonwealth v. Baez and previous case law that they used for there decision in this case. way to much for me to get int or do I even care to. JACKASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: k9sheriff

Excuse me for the literate ones, I meant (their)

Posted by: k9sheriff

mpd61, I'm really only kidding with the Jackass, I don't consider myself a police officer or pretend to be one.Many of the officers on this web site have obviously worked for a sheriff's department and know the true nature of the crap that goes on.Alot of it is beyond embarrassing and I try to avoid alot of these idiots whenever I can.The smart ones know that the primary job of the sheriff's departments in this state is corrections.The sheriff's departments are not set up to work as a police departments, even if some of them have been through a full time or part time academy.Some of the stuff I see in my own department is enough to make your head spin.There are too many of these dopes that just cannot accept the fact that in Mass, the sheriff's deal in corrections, our primary job.There is nothing I can do about some of these departments getting all of these toys.I know it's because of the grant writers they have.I'm not an expert on the system, or how it is regulated to give out grant money.When i first saw the Middlesex incident command vehicle I wondered what the hell they would ever use it for.But anyway I have to defend the sheriff bashing once in a while, seeing thats who I work for.I have my own take home k-9 vehicle, my primary job is working in and around the jail with my k-9.We provide mutual aid on a constant basis for local cities and towns for k-9 callouts.We know that our job is for k-9 searches and apprehensions and leave it at that.We don't hang aroud and pretend that we are police.where I work we have a good working relationship with the locals (at least on k-9 issues)because we know where the line is drawn.If I'm at a coffee shop and in uniform and someone mistakes me for a police officer and starts to ask me a question regarding motor vehicle issues or so forth, I make it a point to let them know that I am not a police officer and they would have to ask their local police that question.I let them know that I do not perform motor vehicle stops or issue citations, that is not my job.I am very content in my job that I perform,but unfortunately there are too many morons I work with that cannot understand this.Maybe someday the legislatue will at least require a civil service exam for the sherii'f departments that are state employees.Who knows.too much politics in this state.

Posted by: SinePari

Quote:

Originally Posted by k9sheriff

I am not a police officer and they would have to ask their local police that question.I let them know that I do not perform motor vehicle stops or issue citations, that is not my job.

Well said, however, how do you explain the K9 deputy from WCSD on a solo traffic stop in Worcester on I-190 a few months ago? He definitely wasn't doing a "mutuail aid" of sorts, nor were there any other agency officers/troopers in the AO. And the dog was just sitting in the back, enjoying the view.

Lights on, stopped behind the vehicle, terrible location BTW, flashlight in hand, chatting it up with the driver. I know what I saw, big letters "WORCESTER COUNTY SHERIFF K-9", and I'd like someone with your insight that could help enlighten me/us.

Posted by: BSRanch

by absorbing the Sheriff's Department you are taking an enforcement group that has established itself there to be a good department. The crime in that area covered by the Sheriff, if absorbed will go up. We are facing the same thing in our area right here. The City wants to contract with the Sheriff and break up the current Police department. It will cost them in a work force, Crime statistically here has been prove to go up, but the council will not hear any of it they like the idea of saving that 1.2 million dollars on budget by contracting with the sheriff's department.

Posted by: countymounty

Quote:

Originally Posted by BSRanch

by absorbing the Sheriff's Department you are taking an enforcement group that has established itself there to be a good department. The crime in that area covered by the Sheriff, if absorbed will go up. We are facing the same thing in our area right here. The City wants to contract with the Sheriff and break up the current Police department. It will cost them in a work force, Crime statistically here has been prove to go up, but the council will not hear any of it they like the idea of saving that 1.2 million dollars on budget by contracting with the sheriff's department.

Other than your anecdote, can you point to a study that shows a statistically significant relationship between intervention by the sheriff's dept. and a rise in crime? Crime rises for a variety of reasons, at numerous times. Unless you can show that your example is a causal affect, it's not valid.

Posted by: countymounty

Not all, but most criticism I see here from cops directed at the notion of Sheriff's 'enforcing laws' stems from snobbery and classism, and maybe some territorialism rather than reasonable objective thinking.

PD's certainly have their share of boobs. However, the boobs in PD's have the benefits of: better training offered more often; more "respect" from the public (much of which is derived from the fact that the cops can cite and arrest them) and cops who go out there and screw-up are much more likely to be protected and covered up by their fellow street cops. Am I saying that there are as many F-ups in PD's as there are in Sheriff's departments? No. But proportionally and given all of the above, I'd say it's not as different as some would like it to seem. I remember a time when the Met's were some of the most corrupt cops in state. Troopers have been charged with rape, and locals have been charged with drugs. Those are just the cases that made it into thesystem and media. If sheriff's are properly trained and screened, there should be no objection to them enforcing laws.........unless your concerns are that you want to feel "superior" or you are "territorial" because of prestige, detail money or other personal reasons. If by adding trained qualified deputies to the arsenal or toolbox of community policing, you can help to reduce crime in certain areas, why would you object? Would you object to a deputy who arrives to help save your ass from a traffic stop gone bad? Would you tell him/her to F-off and go home because they aren't as prestigious as you think you are? If the powers of sheriff's are in the law (and they are, in Title VI of the MGL, Chapter 37) then why not use them to fight crime? Who do you think swore in all the officers who worked the DNC out of their jurisdiction? The suffolk sheriff, that's who. Why? because sheriff's powers are complete and countywide. The US Marshall does the same thing in certain situations because the Marshall's powers are primarily the same as a sheriff except on a Federal scale rather than county.

Posted by: mpd61

K9 Dude!

Excellent points regarding your Primary duties and public response to being a P.O. I knew you would have to bring in Baez or Howe case law if baited.... We must all agree that those narrow-focus case laws have decided that Deputies have limited Police Officer powers in certain circumstances. It is NOT a blanket Deputy = P.O. decision.

In any event, here in Plymouth County, our S.D. is an excellent partner in L.E. With BCI, K9, Fugitive Recovery, and other resources well utilized. You won't see this Sheriff and his Deputies at Photo-ops, Driving Winnebago's halfway across country, and patrolling the City of Brockton uninvited!

Posted by: k9sheriff

SinePari,I am not familiar with that incident out in Worcester County.I don't know why he pulled over the vehicle.I will not pull over a vehicle while in my cruiser unless it is such a blatant act that is being committed in front of me and it is going to potentialy cost another person their life if I do not react.Even at this I will immediatly get in contact with the local department via radio or phone to advise them of the situation and ask them for advise until they arrive.I am smart enough to know that Until you are actually talking to the driver of the vehicle there is no way of knowing who I could be dealing with if I tried to pull over said vehicle by myself to play hero.What do I do If the person is strung out on drugs,just committed a murder, crazy or so forth.I will not put myself in that position or possibly bring a lawsuit upon myself or the town I am in.I don't know what it is that they are trying to prove out in Worcester by pretending to be police officers and working traffic enforcement.In my county we have enough to do with the jails alone to keep busy.You definately cannot have some sheriff's office working in another town that already has a police department and trying to run their own system.It's just ludicrous!I can easily see why alot of the police departments are getting pissed off.I would be too.I know I quote cases about Commonwealth v Baez and so forth, but only in the text of their purpose, which is to show what the laws and acts from the legislature are trying to convey.This state is so screwed the way they wrote the laws and it has done nothing but caused more problems.The bottom line is that the sheriff's in Massachusetts are not police officers, do not serve in this function, the state is too small for that many agencies(unlike the south or midwest).I know that if I wanted to be a police officer I could have taken the civil service exam like everyone else.I got my job on the k-9 unit without having to hold a sign or give any money.I like what I am doing and am content with where I am in my life.We have outside agencies who conduct our k-9 interviews to keep the politics out of it.I only wish the rest of these idiots in some of the sheriff's departments could get a clue and figure out their role in the machine that is working(RP).they are doing nothing but cause alot of headaches for everyone.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by countymounty

If by adding trained qualified deputies to the arsenal or toolbox of community policing, you can help to reduce crime in certain areas, why would you object?

IT'S NOT THEIR JOB!!!!!!

If a sheriff has the money to be sending deputies outside the jail, then he obviously has too big of a budget, and should send the excess cash to the cities & towns, who can then deploy properly trained, experienced police officers to deal with law enforcement issues.

Constables also have all the law enforcement authority of police officers. Shall we start sending them out on the street, also? How about the hacks who get deputy badges in exchange for campaign contributions? They're Chapter 37 also, right?

Posted by: USMCTrooper

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

IT'S NOT THEIR JOB!!!!!!

Constables also have all the law enforcement authority of police officers. Shall we start sending them out on the street, also? How about the hacks who get deputy badges in exchange for campaign contributions? They're Chapter 37 also, right?

Actually,
No, they do not. Police officers hold the power of constables and beyond. It is not the reverse.
No, they are under Ch 41.
No, the Massachusetts Appeals Court in 1989 ruled constables are elected or appointed persons who hold no regular employment to a city, town or state government and cannot claim association to or any connection with a political subdivision of the Commonwealth.
Ramponi v. Weymouth Board of Selectmen

Posted by: countymounty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

IT'S NOT THEIR JOB!!!!!!

That's some pretty deep thinking you do there buddy. Using your logic, nobody should EVER do ANYTHING in pursuit of the public good if it's NOT THEIR JOB!!!! Yeah, that really makes society a better place. Again, the only reason someone like you would object to adding trained, qualified deputies (and I'll reiterate TRAINED, QUALIFIED, in case you don't get it, again) to the arsenal in the war on crime would be purely territorial, snobbish, parochial, or because you want to feel "better than" the deputy. I'm sorry, those reasons don't count. Most of us want what's best for society, not what makes your sorry ass FEEL BETTER about yourself. If the citizenry and government officials want it to be their job, then it will be THEIR JOB.....whether you like it or not. And, as the Trooper graciously pointed out, Constables are a poor analogy since their duties and role have always been of a civil nature. The MGL provides for broad powers for Deputy sheriff's. Given the proper training and mandate, there are few logical reasons why we wouldn't want them to assume some role in combatting crime in those areas where the policy makers deem appropriate.

Posted by: countymounty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

How about the hacks who get deputy badges in exchange for campaign contributions? They're Chapter 37 also, right?

No, they aren't. In the department I worked for they were called "Reserve Deputy sheriff's, and they held no police authority whatsoever. And I believe that the pratice of giving badges to political contributors has ceased in most counties.....and rightfully so.

Posted by: mpd61

Quote:

Originally Posted by countymounty

The MGL provides for broad powers for Deputy sheriff's. Given the proper training and mandate, there are few logical reasons why we wouldn't want them to assume some role in combatting crime in those areas where the policy makers deem appropriate.

1. Which MGL(s) specifically provides for "broad powers" for deputy sheriffs, as opposed to earlier identified case laws granting "narrow powers" in limited circumstances?

2. Why seek to solicit a "mandate" and then (mis)appropriate funding to "properly train" a group of deputies to provide whats already here (Municipal Police) As K9 Sheriff articulated logically, this is not the south or western U.S., It's not needed here.

3. Which "policy makers" are you referring to empower to deem what roles are "appropriate" by the elected sheriff and his deputies? The town selectmen or city councils? (cannot)The D.A.? (not likely) how about the legislature? (They don't write MGL's for such purposes)

You are advocating for something that is NOT currently a practice, nor even a necessity here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Bristol and Worcester Sheriffs are spending lots of $$$ on functions and equipment that have no tangible effect on crime here in Mass. Please articulate how Incident Command Vehicles, trips to New Orleans, photo ops at leaking dams, and playing in LEC's is impacting on crime. I'm really sorry, but there are some Sheriffs who are NOT doing these things, and are still pretty involved in the partnerships they have established with P.D.'s in their respective counties.

Peace be with you................

Posted by: no$.10

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpd61

... Please articulate how Incident Command Vehicles, trips to New Orleans, photo ops at leaking dams, and playing in LEC's is impacting on crime.

Bravo!
Yes, countymounty, Please articulate...

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by USMCTrooper

Actually,
No, they do not. Police officers hold the power of constables and beyond. It is not the reverse.

Therefore, constables possess the same powers of arrest that police officers have. I've lost count of how many times I've assisted constables making arrests, usually for dead-beat dad warrants.

Quote:

Originally Posted by USMCTrooper

No, they are under Ch 41.

I was referring to the hacks with deputy badges. Sheriffs derive their authority from Chapter 37, not Chapter 41. My father (who was a banker) was appointed as a deputy sheriff, and nowhere did the ID card or badge say "honorary".

Quote:

Originally Posted by USMCTrooper

No, the Massachusetts Appeals Court in 1989 ruled constables are elected or appointed persons who hold no regular employment to a city, town or state government and cannot claim association to or any connection with a political subdivision of the Commonwealth.
Ramponi v. Weymouth Board of Selectmen

That doesn't change the fact they have powers of arrest, which was my point to begin with.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by countymounty

Again, the only reason someone like you would object to adding trained, qualified deputies (and I'll reiterate TRAINED, QUALIFIED, in case you don't get it, again) to the arsenal in the war on crime would be purely territorial, snobbish, parochial, or because you want to feel "better than" the deputy.

If you go back and read some of my other posts, you'd know that I have a lot of respect for deputies and corrections officers. It's a tough job that I'm not sure I could do myself. However, when you say "trained and qualifed"....to whose standard? If you had ever been a street cop, you'd know that the police academy, even the full-time academy, does not prepare you to work the street. That's why you spend antother two months with a veteran officer, because that's where you're going to learn the job. Ask any veteran cop, and unless they had incompetent FTO's, they'll tell you they learned the job during field training, not the academy. To suggest that a deputy sheriff is qualified to work the street because they graduated the police academy, ESPECIALLY the reserve/intermittent academy, is beyond laughable. Every time I've been an FTO, I'm shocked at how little the new recruits actually know about being a street cop.

Quote:

Originally Posted by countymounty

I'm sorry, those reasons don't count. Most of us want what's best for society, not what makes your sorry ass FEEL BETTER about yourself. If the citizenry and government officials want it to be their job, then it will be THEIR JOB.....whether you like it or not.

Were you playing "Stars & Stripes Forever" when you typed that?

My "sorry ass"? I've forgotten more about police work than you'll ever know, my friend, and you can take that to the bank. Anytime you want to compare commendations and arrest numbers, you let me know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by countymounty

And, as the Trooper graciously pointed out, Constables are a poor analogy since their duties and role have always been of a civil nature.

Constables have the same powers of arrest that a police officer has. That was my point. Would it be okay for them to start conducting law enforcement operations also?

Quote:

Originally Posted by countymounty

I can think of quite a few reasons....incompatible communications with the PD, distrust from the PD, inadequate training/experience, and the simple fact that the police don't want you there. You should have the good sense to not go someplace where you're not welcome.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by countymounty

And I believe that the pratice of giving badges to political contributors has ceased in most counties.....and rightfully so.

Uhhh....no, it hasn't. They may be more discreet about it, but it hasn't stopped.

Just a few months ago, I got "badged" with a deputy star during a traffic stop, complete with an ID card stating the person was duly sworn as a deputy sheriff. I then had to engage in a few minutes of word games in order to find out their actual status. I finally asked, "Do you receive a paycheck from Plymouth County"? The grudging response was "Well, no, but I really am a deputy sheriff". Right.

Over $100 later, he found out how much I don't like people flashing hack badges at me. The really ironic thing is that if he didn't flash the fake tin, he would have just gotten a written warning. If he was a real deputy, he wouldn't have even gotten that.

Posted by: SinePari

I really love the fact that members from other parts of the county are posting about problems here in MA. When you are working in VA or CA, there is a tangible difference between Sheriffs there and the ones here. If you guys were originally from here (which it seems you were), perhaps your judgement has changed since you've left.

When a city/town wants to contract with a Shefiffs Dept in CA, it's because there is no state-wide agency with full police powers. The CA State Police was absorbed into the Highway Patrol, whose primary jurisdiction ends at the off-ramps of the highways. In VA, there are county/city PDs and county Sheriffs Depts, who have full-time academies and full police powers state/county-wide.

As said before, southern and western states view the Sheriffs as a very real, productive part of the law ENFORCEMENT part of the system. Unlike here, where the Commonwealth has no county government to speak of, EXCEPT the Sheriff Dept.

Posted by: countymounty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

When I typed that line, I kind of thought you would use it to run off on a tangent from the original subject..........and you did! How about staying on point? If that still happens now and then, it has nothing to do with full-time officers, or the subject at hand.

Posted by: countymounty

Quote:

Originally Posted by SinePari

I really love the fact that members from other parts of the county are posting about problems here in MA. When you are working in VA or CA, there is a tangible difference between Sheriffs there and the ones here. If you guys were originally from here (which it seems you were), perhaps your judgement has changed since you've left.

Since when do you speak for my "judgement" before I left Mass or now? For that matter, since when do you speak for what everyone in Mass wants? I was born and raised in Massachusetts, and I haven't been gone that long. I don;t need lectures from you on how things work in Virginia, or in Mass. I've worked in both, and I never brought up how thing s work in otehr parts of the country because we're not talking about other parts of the country. We're talking about Massachusetts. If your argument here is that because I no longer live in MA, I'm not entitled to discuss the workings of my home state (and the state in which many of my family members and friends live) then you have a WEAK argument. Try speaking to what I actually say, instead of to what you think I should say or feel. Part of your argument seems to be that because we've done things in such and such a way for decades in Massachusetts, that's the way it's SUPPOSED to continue to work. That reasoning is almost as narrowminded and parochial as saying "it's not their job"............really, can't you brainchildren come up with anything better? I can;t believe that a couple of you are really cops, the way you constantly stray from the facts here and let yourselves be guided by your own little insecurities when you discuss these issues. Remember "objective reasonableness" from your Con law classes? Try to practice it. And please dont try to tell me how I felt when I lived in MA as opposed to now, because you don't know anything about how I feel or felt, and it just makes you look stupid. Now, why shouldn't TRAINED, QUALIFIED deputies be used in areas where crime is out of control, to AUGMENT existing deployment>?

Posted by: k9sheriff

countymounty,I'm sure you have the right intentions and I agree with alot about what you are saying, but never the less i'm not anti my own department but more of a realist.Let me give you some examples of why TRAINED,QUALIFIED deputies shouldn't be used.First of all i'm amazed that I was able to get my job on k-9 the old fashioned way, by earning it through hard work and merit.This means more to me than getting it handed to me, because I value the respect of the legitimate employees I work with instead of the pathetic hacks.If there were deputies out working the streets how many do you think would be doing this because of their qualifications.Probably none.How do you think I felt when I saw an a few correctional officers with one year on the job be put on an investigation unit and sent through a full time police academy compared to my (at that point) ten years on the job.No interviews for the position just hand picked.ONE FU*%$N year.Are you kidding me!How much respect do you think they got.Why should these idiots be out working the street pretending to be police officers instead of what their real job is, correctional officers.Oh, and then my friend from a local department a few months later(who actually was my partner at the jail years earlier before he became a police officer)asks me about one of these deputies and is telling me about how stupid he is and how and cannot even fill out a complaint form.This deputy somehow was assigned to work with a drug task force,which by the way didn't last long.This officer he is talking about really is that stupid.I don't know how he passed the police academy.But anyway, guess what some of these hardcore deputies did a year later with the police academy certificate?they said, screw you sheriff, thanks for the free training and went to a police department.How about the officers who work their ass off and get nothing in return.Do you know how many officers get special priviledges because of who they know?Everyone else gets screwed.Trust me, these jerks are not qualified, even with the right training to work out on the street.This goes with most of the sheriff's departments.How much law enforcement experience do you think the High sheriff's have.I only know one Diopalo(middlesex),but he doesn't seem to be that popular right now.The point i'm trying to make is that if things were done in a fair,equal manner, there was a civil service exam for hirings, things were based on merit, education and true qualifications, then maybe.It's never going to happen in this state.Just look at the Legislatures you have.More important to them to go to Spain instead of passing the right laws and saving childerens lives.Makes me sick.There are alot of good employees in the sheriff's departments and until they are recognized and given the same opportunities for advancement as everyone else then we shoould not have anyone out working the street.Anyway thats the job of of the police officers.Why change the system, it works fine.

Posted by: mpd61

k9 buddy,

It's clear that Countymounty will not respond to my three (3) basic questions posed to him. He'd rather try to engage in emotional banter with Delta and others. I'm sure he's happy in Virginia, so maybe he should just stay with that model.

Posted by: PearlOnyx

K9,

I'm a page or two behind, so I might respond twice, or to something old. I just wanted to applaud your response! It is definitely on point. You know as well as I do, that for the most part, people do not get these opportunities for the right reason. I too, believe that as long as the antics that take place in the Sheriff's departments take place, we will continue to be lacking in respect and authority. We need a quality and "hack free" hiring process, and quality training, if we are to branch out in to law enforcement more. I do not see that happening any time soon. It seems "same as always" politics continue to prevail, and quality officers like you and I get left in the dust. Good guys like you and I work in "the clink" everyday, while Middlesex passes out our badges for free (or not so free), and officers from many departments, with no time in, little training and no experience are out on the street playing cop. As always, I continue to be embarrassed by the public examples of my profession. Ninety percent of Deputy Sheriff's and Correctional Officers are good guys who work hard behind the fences, while the other ten percent continue to publicly make us look like fools. Great post K9!

Posted by: k9sheriff

PearOnyx, it's sad to say,but I am one of the lucky ones where I receive alot more freedom than the officers working there ass off in the housing units.I know officers who have literally put in 30 time off slips in a row, only to have every one of them denied due to lack of officers.And here countymounty thinks we should be out patrolling playing police officer.He doesn't understand that you cannot sell sand to the arabs.Many of the people that post on these topics are former correctional officers and can attest to what we are saying.Where we work there is an severe lack of the amount of officers that should be employed.I think Wolfman said it another post about getting time off.Until issues like these are corrected, the last thing the sheriff's need to think about is working out on the streets as police officers.I also know this is true about manpower problems in other counties just by talking to other correctional officers.

Posted by: SinePari

Quote:

Originally Posted by countymounty

Dude...totally irrational behavior there...really...chill the hell out.

Why do you keep posting TRAINED, QUALIFIED? Can't you see that we're saying that they are NOT trained nor qualified? If that's your solution, then how do we get there? It's already been beaten to death here: fair hiring practices and full time academies. Period. Until then, the Sheriffs Depts will always get shit from the other agencies. If you don't like it, stay in VA.

Posted by: countymounty

Quote:

Originally Posted by SinePari

Sorry you can't keep up with the big dogs when it comes to logical thinking. "Stay in Virginia".......there's a real good one. haha. How about reponding to the points I raised instead of simply reposting the entire thing and then tell me to chill out. I'm perfectly chilled but if I'm gonna come here and type, I'm gonna use my brain when I do it. Wasn't your last argument that it's not their job? Now you're saying that the deputies aren;t trained? Well, last I checked, any of the deputies that have been allowed to do road work, have been certified by the MCJTC. The reason I keep saying trained and qualified is because you keep telling us that none of them are. I will cede the fact that many of them are NOT. But any moron can see that those aren';t the deputies Im talking about. So given the above, do you have any reasonable arguments to make as to why, in certain high crime areas, trained and qualified deputies shouldn't be used to augment existing patrols? Believe me, I'm very open to hearing those reasons and Im open to changing my opinion in the face of such persuasaion. But all I see coming from you and your ilk, is petty parochial bullshit. ANything new?

Posted by: countymounty

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpd61

k9 buddy,

It's clear that Countymounty will not respond to my three (3) basic questions posed to him. He'd rather try to engage in emotional banter with Delta and others. I'm sure he's happy in Virginia, so maybe he should just stay with that model.

I dont see those three basic questions that were posed to me. Where are they? I'm not shy, believe me. Ask any intelligent questions you want and I'll either answer, or tell you I have no opinion on them.

Posted by: countymounty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

I

I can think of quite a few reasons....incompatible communications with the PD, distrust from the PD, inadequate training/experience, and the simple fact that the police don't want you there. You should have the good sense to not go someplace where you're not welcome.

First of all they don't want ME there because I'm a cop and live in Virginia now. However, with that said, if the community decides they want the deputies there to augment their law enforcement, that's their call, not the call of the Police. The Feds and the Police often have incompatible communications as well. Is your argument that one of the two should be remanded to the sidelines? You;re an idiot. When you can get your point across like a thinking adult, maybe someone will start listening to you.........the rest of your post was just kindergarten bullshit and won't be responded to on this end. Ok, Joe Friday?

Posted by: countymounty

Quote:

Originally Posted by k9sheriff

PearOnyx, it's sad to say,but I am one of the lucky ones where I receive alot more freedom than the officers working there ass off in the housing units.I know officers who have literally put in 30 time off slips in a row, only to have every one of them denied due to lack of officers.And here countymounty thinks we should be out patrolling playing police officer.He doesn't understand that you cannot sell sand to the arabs.Many of the people that post on these topics are former correctional officers and can attest to what we are saying.Where we work there is an severe lack of the amount of officers that should be employed.I think Wolfman said it another post about getting time off.Until issues like these are corrected, the last thing the sheriff's need to think about is working out on the streets as police officers.I also know this is true about manpower problems in other counties just by talking to other correctional officers.

That's not what I think. Let me summarize what I think, so a couple of other people here wont be continually putting words in my mouth. My opinion is this and it's VERY simple: IF a community decides that it wants to supplement its enforcement efforts with deputies who have been sufficiently trained and qualified, then the community should have the right to do it. The law allows it and, given the mandate from the community, and the proper qualfiications as well as a compelling need, I don't see any logical reasons why it shouldn't happen. Nowhere have I ever said that the SD should immediately be deployed on to the streets of any county to enforce the laws. So far, what I've seen from several "officers" here is snobbery and classist type answers that really have no relevance or purpose. One jackass even tried to marginalize my opinion based on the fact that he falsely belived me to still work for a sheriff''s department. That's the kind of crap that means nothing as far as I'm concerned. If you think you're better than a deputy because of your job title, then you're an oxygen thief with ego issues, as far as I'm concerned. And if you are more concerned with your image, your exclusivity of authority, your ego, or your refusal to develop relationships with other agencies, than you are with the safety and welfare of the community.....then you really have no business being an LEO. To the moron who tried to insult me by inferring that I'm a flag waving jingoist: I do this work because I believe in those kinds of ideals. Of course I like to make money, but there are plenty of other ways I could have gone to make money. Most of the people I know who do this work also belives in those kinds of ideals and not stritly to make money. It's sad that there are those of you who do it for more selfish reasons.

Posted by: mpd61

Try looking back only two pages to just last evening:

Quote:
Originally Posted by countymounty
The MGL provides for broad powers for Deputy sheriff's. Given the proper training and mandate, there are few logical reasons why we wouldn't want them to assume some role in combatting crime in those areas where the policy makers deem appropriate.

1. Which MGL(s) specifically provides for "broad powers" for deputy sheriffs, as opposed to earlier identified case laws granting "narrow powers" in limited circumstances?

2. Why seek to solicit a "mandate" and then (mis)appropriate funding to "properly train" a group of deputies to provide whats already here (Municipal Police) As K9 Sheriff articulated logically, this is not the south or western U.S., It's not needed here.

3. Which "policy makers" are you referring to empower to deem what roles are "appropriate" by the elected sheriff and his deputies? The town selectmen or city councils? (cannot)The D.A.? (not likely) how about the legislature? (They don't write MGL's for such purposes)

You are advocating for something that is NOT currently a practice, nor even a necessity here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Bristol and Worcester Sheriffs are spending lots of $$$ on functions and equipment that have no tangible effect on crime here in Mass. Please articulate how Incident Command Vehicles, trips to New Orleans, photo ops at leaking dams, and playing in LEC's is impacting on crime. I'm really sorry, but there are some Sheriffs who are NOT doing these things, and are still pretty involved in the partnerships they have established with P.D.'s in their respective counties.

Peace be with you................

P.S.

County,

Please understand that we back here in Mass have seen what happens when someone tries to return with a Model from where you are and implement it here (FLYNN)
Now couple this with the above questions and see what you can come up with to respond

Posted by: PearlOnyx

Folks,

On a side note, let's stick to the subject and keep it easy on the personal stuff. Essentially, tone it down a bit.

Posted by: SinePari

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpd61

Please understand that we back here in Mass have seen what happens when someone tries to return with a Model from where you are and implement it here (FLYNN)
Now couple this with the above questions and see what you can come up with to respond

He won't...he'll just use the words "parochial, snobbery, ilk, and kindergarden" again, trying to sound all high and mighty without answering your posts.

I guess I'll be out hanging with the little dogs, because I can't keep up with his majesty.

Posted by: countymounty

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpd61

Try looking back only two pages to just last evening:

Quote:
Originally Posted by countymounty
The MGL provides for broad powers for Deputy sheriff's. Given the proper training and mandate, there are few logical reasons why we wouldn't want them to assume some role in combatting crime in those areas where the policy makers deem appropriate.

1. Which MGL(s) specifically provides for "broad powers" for deputy sheriffs, as opposed to earlier identified case laws granting "narrow powers" in limited circumstances?

2. Why seek to solicit a "mandate" and then (mis)appropriate funding to "properly train" a group of deputies to provide whats already here (Municipal Police) As K9 Sheriff articulated logically, this is not the south or western U.S., It's not needed here.

3. Which "policy makers" are you referring to empower to deem what roles are "appropriate" by the elected sheriff and his deputies? The town selectmen or city councils? (cannot)The D.A.? (not likely) how about the legislature? (They don't write MGL's for such purposes)

You are advocating for something that is NOT currently a practice, nor even a necessity here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Bristol and Worcester Sheriffs are spending lots of $$$ on functions and equipment that have no tangible effect on crime here in Mass. Please articulate how Incident Command Vehicles, trips to New Orleans, photo ops at leaking dams, and playing in LEC's is impacting on crime. I'm really sorry, but there are some Sheriffs who are NOT doing these things, and are still pretty involved in the partnerships they have established with P.D.'s in their respective counties.

Peace be with you................

P.S.

County,

Please understand that we back here in Mass have seen what happens when someone tries to return with a Model from where you are and implement it here (FLYNN)
Now couple this with the above questions and see what you can come up with to respond

Quick reply before I leave for work:

1) In chap 37 as well as in Executive Orders. There are also other legal references that I'll cite, but dont have the time to research the details right now. They are well established. The powers are what give most large campus PD's the authority to detain/arrest off property. I'm generally familiar wth some of the case law cited however I'm not well-read enough on them to discuss them. I don't know the details and the broader implications of the decisions on existing state law to have an educated discussion on them at this point.

2) That would be up to the individual community as far as I'm concerned. There could be dozens of variables, depending on the situation. My point is that communities decide how they want to do these things, within the boundaries of state law and the Constitution. Not individual cops or unions. As I said earlier, many deputies are already trained, and just need extra field training. Hiring more full time municipal cops will be more costly and may not be necessary n some instances.

3) My first thought is with the people of a particular locality.......through their elected officials.

As for yoursummarial questions, I never implied that the games Sheriff;s currently play are impacting on crime. It would be more helpful if you focus on what I actually type, instead ofon the words attributed to me by other people. Lastly, since I now live in Virginia, I'm obviously not officically "advocating" anything. I'm offering an opinion, and having a dicsussion. That opinion is based on a good amount of work and life experience both as a deputy and a police officer, as well as an employee of the Mass judiciary. I never implied mine was the perfect and correct answer, only an opinion. I asked for sensible reasons why it couldn't be policy and I got some fairly stupid replies more of a personal or petty territorial nature than a sound policy nature. I was never one to try and run around and play street cop when I worked for SD's. That is not, nor was it ever, the topic of my discussion. However, I'm all for using addition resources and tools to fight crime. And, since many sheriff's are becoming better trained, why not use them when needed? Despite the clowns I worked with some HIGH quality people in sheriff's departments. Folks with impressive military, educational, and civilian credentials. Not all sheriff's are boobs. Similarly not all Met's were Gerry Clemente exam-scammers.

Posted by: jo

County Mounty,

There are approximately 200 separate statutory references to the authority and/or duties and powers of Sheriffs and Deputies contained in the Massachusetts General Laws. These statutory references generally fall into three categories: arrest, search and seizure, correctional administration, and execution of court decrees.

There have also been two court cases in the last 12 years which focused primarily on law enforcement issues. Those cases are Howe and Baez. In the Howe case, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed that Sheriffs have retained their common law powers in addition to those powers found in statutory grants. In the Baez case, the Appeals Court found that a Deputy Sheriff is a Police Officer for the purposes of enforcement of the state motor vehicle code.

These cases are important because they represent recent judicial thinking regarding the historical "common law" powers of Sheriffs. In a 1989 memorandum written for the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, which discussed the Howe case, Association Attorney Jack Collins stated "the Howe decision reinforces the notion that the Sheriff and his Deputies maintain their status as peace officers... In general, the scope of duties of the Sheriffs and his Deputies is largely enhanced if the General Laws are interpreted to supplement the common law duties of the Sheriff." A current reading of the law would indicate that duties have generally been enhanced.

Pursuant to MGL 37-2 a Sheriff is required to annually post bond with the State Treasurer "with such sureties as the Superior Court shall order and approve, conditioned to perform faithfully his own duties and to be responsible for the official acts of his Deputies." Moreover, it is a long held principle of legal interpretion that the Sheriff is personally liable for the acts of his Deputies, Knowlton v Bartlett (MA 1822). This ancient decision is in keeping with the modern view that the Sheriff and his surety are liable for the acts of Deputies done under color of or by virtue of their office, (70 American Jurisprudence, Sheriffs). Under the General and Common Law, liability is not only created by default, malfeasance and misfeasance, but also by nonfeasance or failure to do what duty requires to be done. The sheriffis therefore bound by law and oath of office to minimize the threat of liability. This liability becomes tangible when sworn officers fail to prosecute violations which occur in their presence or otherwise come to their notice.

I personally do not think that Sheriff's Deputies should be "on patrol". However I do think Deputies that are on the road for one reason or another have a duty to act should they come in contact with a crime being commited in their presence. I also feel that Deputies that are TRAINED and HAVE or DO work for a Police Department could be assigned to special units such as k9, Search and Rescue, DARE, TRIAD, Narcotics, Fugitive Apprehension and special transport teams to assist Cities and Towns that are perfroming major sweaps.

I hope some of the above info helps.

Posted by: mpd61

Quote:

Originally Posted by countymounty

I'm generally familiar wth some of the case law cited however I'm not well-read enough on them to discuss them. I don't know the details and the broader implications of the decisions on existing state law to have an educated discussion on them at this point.
Then perhaps by your own volition, you should listen, rather than spout off against others.

2) That would be up to the individual community as far as I'm concerned. My point is that communities decide how they want to do these things, within the boundaries of state law and the Constitution. Hiring more full time municipal cops will be more costly and may not be necessary n some instances.
So what if the "individual community" wants to hire cops?

3) My first thought is with the people of a particular locality.......through their elected officials.

As for your summarial questions, It would be more helpful if you focus on what I actually type, instead of on the words attributed to me by other people. However, I'm all for using addition resources and tools to fight crime. And, since many sheriff's are becoming better trained, why not use them when needed? Despite the clowns I worked with some HIGH quality people in sheriff's departments. Folks with impressive military, educational, and civilian credentials. Not all sheriff's are boobs. Similarly not all Met's were Gerry Clemente exam-scammers.
O.K. then...... Because using Deputies obviously takes them from whatever else they're supposed to be doing, right? And if by being "better trained" to be away from the Jails/Courts, why not spend that $$$ on municipal patrol officers?

Maybe you should just admit that you're an inflexible proponent of Deputies assuming the role of Police officers in Mass. In the original context of DOC v. Sheriff, this would help get back on track.

Posted by: THE RP

Unfortunately I think all of the discussion involving the statutory powers of our sheriffs just clouds the primary issues at hand currently.
There are no professional police officers who would not welcome assistance at any time from other professional law enforcement personnel. The issues at hand currently in this state for the most part revolve around the fact that our sheriffs have chosen to ignore their primary duties and responsibilities in an attempt to interject themselves into other aspects of the law enforcement world that they traditionally have not had a hand in. The reason for this is not in the best interest of the public or the law enforcement community it has been clearly driven by ego, power, stature and the possible political gain that can be attained. This is no secret.
As in previous posts I must submit that if the sheriffs simply cleaned up their respective acts and carried out their primary duties in a efficient manner this discussion would be non-existent. Then and only then would the rest of us out here be less disparaging and obstructionist.
If I am expected to work the streets alongside another department at any time I need to know that the people I am working alongside have at least some sort of credible background making them qualified to share in the ultimate responsiblities that we will face. I also need to know that their respective organization has a credible and respectable basis upon which they operate. This is currently lacking with our Sheriffs and it is no secret.
It is simply idiotic to think that by one stroke of some magic wand that the sheriffs can provide additional police officers in our neighborhoods or on our streets. That is what they want people to believe and that is what they wish to do. The adverse ramifications of this are mind boggling. Adverse ramifications for both the police on the streets and the people we serve.
I have previously submitted that it is paramount that the people that have been empowered by the sheriffs to believe that they can go out and simply drive around and be real police must come to grips that it's not that simple and it is up to them to realize that this grand scheme is not only silly but dangerous. Dangerous for everyone involved. It is not TV and it is not cinema. It is for real.
One can simply dismiss the dissenting views of the cops and troopers on the street as being greedy or territorial but that is childish and inane. It's not about turf and it's not about money. It's about professionalism, tradition, honor, integrity and safety. Take note that some of those premises are the basic principals of our profession and principals taken quite seriously by the majority of us out here. Thats where our sheriffs come up short and mainly and most importantly in the integrity category. Not all the people themselves involved in this grand charade lack integrity but in the aspects of the organization and the leadership of the organization is where it is failing. The top being the leadership and the organization being the basis. The failings at those levels causes everything in between to become tainted and I for one cannot ignore this and I truly believe that this is the fundamental problem that cannot be ignored by any other professional police officer in this state.
This is why threads like this come about and similar threads come about. This is why the police on the street look at our sheriff departments with utter contempt and distrust. It's not about the law and specific legal power. It's about a huge collection of fundamental problems that need to be addressed in how these departments operate. Then there will be integrity and with that comes trust. Then and only then will there be some level of acceptance and cooperation.
Unfortunately, once again, I must directly address those of you who wish to join my world on the street. Until you clean up your mess you are not welcome in my world. The risks are too great for me, my brother and sister officers on the street and the public we serve. VERY SIMPLE. ACCEPT IT and WORK TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS.

Posted by: jo

Solving the problem is not always that easy. It is no different than a fed looking down on a trooper, a trooper on a local, and a full timer on a part timer. Everyone wants to think they are bigger and better than the other. We all have screws on our departments like it or not. When you, as an individual have to work with another officer from another agency make your decision on a personal level not on what agency he or she makes their living from. In my position I tend to work with many different departments some good, some bad. Some agencies have the most screw ball chiefs you could imagine but have great guys that work the road. Sheriffs are not much different. You should not judge a deputy by their sheriff nor an officer by his chief.

Posted by: THE RP

jo...

There is no doubt that it is not an easy problem to solve. It's not a matter of anyone looking down on anyone else. That inferiority complex crap doesn't wash with this discussion it just lends to the practice of ignoring the systematic organizational problems that plague the Sheriffs departments in Mass. I wholeheartedly agree with you that there is deadwood on every one of our jobs. That again is not the problem.
The problem is this....Think about being in an incident where you are acting in concert with your respective county's Sheriffs deputies. No problem right. Probably good guys 0- street experience but good guys trying to break in and learn the job. So thats Ok to a point right because they are good guys right? How about when that illustrious five year veteran, 0-street experience, Sheriff's department captain shows up and starts giving orders. He might not be giving you orders but those orders will immediately effect you one way or another. Could be nothing but then again it could be huge....HUGE. Just the beginning of a hypothetical thought. I am sure we could all come up with hundreds and we could probably expand on them.
But it is that five year captain that vividly portrays the exact reason we all are having this discussion. It is the organizational flaws that made this five year captain that are the same flaws that we as a group cannot ignore because it is epidemic. It is the norm within these departments to hire questionable individuals. It is the norm for them to promote illegitimately. It is the norm for them to spend huge amounts of money on showpiece items of equipment with no legitimate use. No doubt we all have slugs on our jobs and have seen poor leadership and know of screwball chiefs and hacks. The comparison cannot be made because the difference on our respective jobs, at least the majority of them, is that these slugs and suck bosses are the exception and not the norm and it does not compromise our function nor our effectiveness. I believe that the piss poor state of affairs within the Sheriffs departments have already compromised them and their potential effectiveness and legitmacy on the street.

The point of this thread is simple. Merge or no merge. Well lets look at it. It's a mess. Either fix it or get rid of it. Very common sense, they won't fix themselves so MERGE....Instead we have the faction out there saying...yep, big mess lets spread that mess all over the place and make it more of everyone else's mess also. It defies logic and serves only the interests of the political monster Sheriffs and their minions who want to slide into real cop jobs. Nobody else. If all of these followers held signs for someone else, more realistic and more common sense, maybe they could eventually take a step forward. But right now its a fraud and anyone taking part in the fraud is going to be looked upon disparagingly. And its pretty clear that the fraud is not welcome on our streets and there is no way one of these toy soldier patrol deputies will last one shift out there in any sort of effective manner without the support of the rest of the law enforcement community. Thats just the reality of it. By the way, you cannot buy my support with Tanks and Winnebagos. You have to earn my trust and then and only then will I support you.

This is becoming an exhausting merry-go-round of stupidity on the behalf of those who cannot accept the fact that their job is to serve civil process and oversee the care and custody of the counties prisoners. Thats it. Get over it. Every square inch of this state has police coverage. We don't need you on the street. We need you to excel in your respective field. If you choose not to do so then screw and we will find an alternative like a merger or how about some of those corporate jails, theres an idea....lets think about that one; privately run county jails. No more sheriffs and their inferiority complexes...very soothing...

Posted by: clarkiek

RP
You must have been one of those kids that was beat on in high school. Your books knocked out of your hand and ran home to your mommy. Now your a COP and can push people around and tell all about your stupid opinions

Posted by: Wolfman

Once again, clarkiek fails to disappoint with his razor sharp wit and intellectual retort. Hats off!!!

Posted by: THE RP

Thats Ok Clarkie, I know how much it must suck pulling into that parking lot every day, over and over again looking at the same walls and the same fence over and over again...I understand your frustration...but once again you prove my point, it's all about integrity..and you also prove that you will never be able to call yourself a cop for real..unless of course you're on vacation and you're flashing your dime store tin to some Florida cop asking for a break on a speeding ticket...Go with god, but remember, when you look yourself in the mirror. You're not the real deal and judging from the intelligence level of your posts you never will be...

Maybe we can amend this thread to DOC Merge with an IQ test...Nahhh..then Clarkie would be back screwing up our orders at the drive thru.

Posted by: lawdog671

I'm curious if COUNTYMOUNTY'S trained and qualified deputies include the TV repairman who came to my house, plumbers crack hanging out, that pulled out a current badge of office and ID card from a local SO that I used to work for? And informed me that we were "brothers in arms?" Or the female in my town that I personally stopped for illegally attaching plates, unreg/uninsured, etc...who told me "I'm a cop now too" recently after recieving the appointment for campaign work to get the Sherriff elected? Oh and she is involved in real estate. Unfortunately these people pretend to derive there authority from the same place as some of the trained and qualified people there. And before you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, before I arrived at my current place of employment, I worked for that same SO for 6 years.
My own personal opinons...

Posted by: mpd61

WOW!

The RP hit the nail DEAD ON...................I'm in awe, why didn't I say it the way he did?
Thanks for the post!
=D>

Posted by: countymounty

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpd61

Maybe you should just admit that you're an inflexible proponent of Deputies assuming the role of Police officers in Mass. In the original context of DOC v. Sheriff, this would help get back on track.

Please back up your claim that I'm an "inflexible proponent" of Deputies assuming a street patrol role. Also, what could possibly be my motive for holding that position based on what I've written ? Otherwise, the fact that you failed to recognize any of the brutally honest answers I gave in response to your questions and instead choosing to go down a path of marginalizing my opinion as being from someone who is "inflexible", it may be safely assumed that you're an "inflexible" opponent of allowing anyone else on to your self-proclaimed "turf", even if whatever new proposal is better for the public-at-large. My position is one which is open to looking at different ideas that may work better or may help in some areas. I never said I have all the answers, and I never made a proposal to allow all deputies in all counties to assume a street law enforcement role. I never even made the implication. In contrast, your approach is that you know what's best for everyone, and you have all the answers on the issue. If anyone has an inflexible position, it would be you, not me. With you it's "my way or the highway." You last whined (and insunuated that I don't have the balls to answer you) when I didn't answer your little questions (because I don't sit here day and night scrolling the board for each post.) Now that I provided honest, thoughtful answers to your post you insult me personally by making an accusation that is about as inaccurate as can be, without providng any basis at all for your claims. Pretty funny actually. If you're going to make such a claim, the least you could so is point to specific points I made that would support your claims. I don't think you can do it with what I've written on this board. (assuming you don't do what most cheap-shot-artists like you do, and take my words out of their context.) Maybe the Troopers were right when they bitched about letting those inferior, corrupt, Met's and Registry cops into their ranks? I mean, who would have thought that a bunch of Parkway Patrolmen and Safety Inspections Police would have become Troopers overnight?

Posted by: nirtallica

Quote:

Originally Posted by clarkiek

RP
You must have been one of those kids that was beat on in high school. Your books knocked out of your hand and ran home to your mommy. Now your a COP and can push people around and tell all about your stupid opinions

Hey clarliek, do you work for MCSD?

Posted by: countymounty

Quote:

Originally Posted by jo

County Mounty,

There are approximately 200 separate statutory references to the authority and/or duties and powers of Sheriffs and Deputies contained in the Massachusetts General Laws. These statutory references generally fall into three categories: arrest, search and seizure, correctional administration, and execution of court decrees.

There have also been two court cases in the last 12 years which focused primarily on law enforcement issues. Those cases are Howe and Baez. In the Howe case, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed that Sheriffs have retained their common law powers in addition to those powers found in statutory grants. In the Baez case, the Appeals Court found that a Deputy Sheriff is a Police Officer for the purposes of enforcement of the state motor vehicle code.

These cases are important because they represent recent judicial thinking regarding the historical "common law" powers of Sheriffs. In a 1989 memorandum written for the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, which discussed the Howe case, Association Attorney Jack Collins stated "the Howe decision reinforces the notion that the Sheriff and his Deputies maintain their status as peace officers... In general, the scope of duties of the Sheriffs and his Deputies is largely enhanced if the General Laws are interpreted to supplement the common law duties of the Sheriff." A current reading of the law would indicate that duties have generally been enhanced.

Pursuant to MGL 37-2 a Sheriff is required to annually post bond with the State Treasurer "with such sureties as the Superior Court shall order and approve, conditioned to perform faithfully his own duties and to be responsible for the official acts of his Deputies." Moreover, it is a long held principle of legal interpretion that the Sheriff is personally liable for the acts of his Deputies, Knowlton v Bartlett (MA 1822). This ancient decision is in keeping with the modern view that the Sheriff and his surety are liable for the acts of Deputies done under color of or by virtue of their office, (70 American Jurisprudence, Sheriffs). Under the General and Common Law, liability is not only created by default, malfeasance and misfeasance, but also by nonfeasance or failure to do what duty requires to be done. The sheriffis therefore bound by law and oath of office to minimize the threat of liability. This liability becomes tangible when sworn officers fail to prosecute violations which occur in their presence or otherwise come to their notice.

I personally do not think that Sheriff's Deputies should be "on patrol". However I do think Deputies that are on the road for one reason or another have a duty to act should they come in contact with a crime being commited in their presence. I also feel that Deputies that are TRAINED and HAVE or DO work for a Police Department could be assigned to special units such as k9, Search and Rescue, DARE, TRIAD, Narcotics, Fugitive Apprehension and special transport teams to assist Cities and Towns that are perfroming major sweaps.

I hope some of the above info helps.

Jo,

That is the most informative, enlightening, and SUBSTANTIVE post I've read here in a long time. Thank you for reassuring us that the mentality of the average author of posts in this forum may not be that of an 18 year old.

Posted by: popo

Yes he does, K9 i believe.

Posted by: countymounty

Quote:

Originally Posted by THE RP

Thats Ok Clarkie, I know how much it must suck pulling into that parking lot every day, over and over again looking at the same walls and the same fence over and over again...I understand your frustration...but once again you prove my point, it's all about integrity..and you also prove that you will never be able to call yourself a cop for real..unless of course you're on vacation and you're flashing your dime store tin to some Florida cop asking for a break on a speeding ticket...Go with god, but remember, when you look yourself in the mirror. You're not the real deal and judging from the intelligence level of your posts you never will be...

Maybe we can amend this thread to DOC Merge with an IQ test...Nahhh..then Clarkie would be back screwing up our orders at the drive thru.

First you say it's not about "looking down" on others, and that "inferiority complex" doesn't wash (actually it's a superiority complex held by some officer's, like you, but that's another story), and then you post the above. I think it's easy to see how it can be taken as snobbery when given the above. The thing is that most cops don't possess your type of attitude (thank God). I remember when I had taking criminal justice courses in college before I decided what I wanted to study. There were always those "super cops" in each class. You know, the ones who knew it all, had been security in every hospital in the area (a needed and worthy position i might add, that's not my point here), were going through NERPI, were "special police", had FID's and, in some cases, hangun permits etc etc. They talked cop, lived cop, breathed cop and knew everything about police work (or so they thought) all before they had even reached their 20th birthday hahaha. And they were always out trying to "impress" others by wearing their police boots, half of someone uniform they possessed from some part-time job, or answering all the questions in the class. Thoise people grew up to be some of the jackazz's on this forum. Rigid, inflexible, superior, all-knowing, and obnoxious. It's as if they didn't become real humans before they became police officers. Guys like you make my stomach turn. For you, it's not about serving the public, helping people out, and putting down bullies. It's about feeding your ever insatiable EGO. You're just a bully with a badge.

Posted by: mpd61

Okay........Can anyone say over the top? boiling over? pissed-off? (Just don't say inflexible)

Posted by: no$.10

Countmounty,

Do you not see the irony here?

These folks are just trying to push you over the edge, and it would seem they have succeeded, to some extent.

REAL police training and experience teaches you how NOT to react when this is done to you. Often, when working on the road, fine citizens will attempt to make you lose your composure by saying, or doing, whatever they see gets a "rise" out of you.

If you can't see it for what it is worth, then you have added legitimacy to the "real cops" complaint, which I believe is "Don't get into something you are not prepared for..."

I rest my case.

PS please take the time to use spell check.

Posted by: THE RP

COUNTYMOUNTY you make a good point regarding that post but your conclusions about me are wrong. I should not have let Clarkies insulting behavior deflect my attention from the discussion at hand. I martyred him for you guys and that was a mistake after all he did me the favor of proving my point. I should have just thanked him.
I would also like to thank whoever did the typing for him since it appears as though his intellect level lends more towards the use of crayons.

You guys have to just get over it. Law, statute, case law, court decision, past practice, urban assault vehicle, Winnebago with blue lights, press conferences, five year veteran captains, police academies, cruisers, patrol deputies....Its all meaningless. You have a role. A role defined by a long tradition. Strive for excellence in regards to your role and help clean up the mess within. Then we will talk about whether we need help on the street. Right now, as a whole, we do not and we do not need your mess to become ours in any way, shape or form. It's nothing personal. You have our respect for the job you do here in this state. But you guys have to get over it and carry on with your job instead of trying to change it because it isnt working out. Simple common sense.

Posted by: countymounty

Quote:

Originally Posted by no$.10

Countmounty,

Do you not see the irony here?

These folks are just trying to push you over the edge, and it would seem they have succeeded, to some extent.

REAL police training and experience teaches you how NOT to react when this is done to you. Often, when working on the road, fine citizens will attempt to make you lose your composure by saying, or doing, whatever they see gets a "rise" out of you.

If you can't see it for what it is worth, then you have added legitimacy to the "real cops" complaint, which I believe is "Don't get into something you are not prepared for..."

I rest my case.

PS please take the time to use spell check.

Which edge was I pushed over? Enlighten me. Your last comment about using spell check tells me all I need to know about you. As a side note, maybe you can give me some pointers on typing so I don''t annoy you anymore with typo's. Hah