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

MV Stops on Campus

(Click here to view the original thread on the MassCops Message Board)

Posted by: daveh

All SSPO's have the right to "control movement upon their campus". Being so - Here is a good question that was posed in my department, and remains a topic of discussion.

*remember that private college departments do not have Ch.90 powers*
If you stop a MV for failing to stop at a stop sign, hence, discovering some-sort of substance/firearm in plain view, what PC do you have for stopping that MV in the first place? Stopping for public safety does not exist in the MGL's! Will the prosecution for your arrest be upheld?

2 points of view

1 - Ya, you can stop for public safety - it says so right in
Chapter 73: Section 18. Control, movement and parking of motor
vehicles.

2 - No - Where does it say in any MGL that you can stop a MV for public
safety? There is no PC to stop. The case will not fly.

perplexed


Posted by: EsxPD319

Hmmm good one,

This is how I perceive it, however, I maybe wrong and I have not had the opportunity to challenge it yet either.

On my campus we stop cars all the time for motor vehicle violations related to the rules and regulations governing motor vehicles set forth by the institution. So when we stop a vehicle for speed (which we run radar) or a stop sign we are not stopping it under ch90 we are stopping it in violation of the rules and regulations of the institution. Now, there is nothing in the MGLs that state that a private police dept or state special cannot affect a motor vehicle stop on their own property to enforce the motor vehicle rules and regs of that campus. With this in mind I would say as long as your within the policy and procedures of the institution and enforcing those rules and regs, then whatever crime you come across during that encounter would be valid, as long as you are acting in good faith it should stick (in theory anyway ).


Just my

Ed


Posted by: mazz

As soon as you cross “College Policy” with Mass Law it is not going to fly in court. Because when you are enforcing college policies you are acting as an agent of the college and when you arrest or summons your acting as Police Officer. They are two completely different things.


Posted by: j809

Chapter 22C: Section 63. Employees of colleges, universities, other educational institutions and hospitals; appointment as special officers.

Section 63. The colonel may, upon such reasonable terms and conditions as may be prescribed by him, at the request of an officer of a college, university, other educational institution or hospital licensed pursuant to section fifty-one of chapter one hundred and eleven, appoint employees of such college, university, other educational institution or hospital as special state police officers. Such special state police officers shall serve for three years, subject to removal by the colonel, and they shall have the same power to make arrests as regular police officers for any criminal offense committed in or upon lands or structures owned, used or occupied by such college, university, or other institution or hospital.

Nothing in there states CONTROL OF MOVEMENT OF VEHICLES. You are confusing it with MGL 73 SECT 18.

Chapter 73: Section 18. Control, movement and parking of motor vehicles.

Section 18. The trustees shall make rules and regulations for the control, movement and parking of vehicles on the campus or other land of a state college and may provide reasonable penalties for the violation of said rules and regulations. The trustees may appoint as police officers persons in the employ of such college who in the enforcement of said rules and regulations and throughout the property of such college shall have the powers of police officers, except as to service of civil process. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all fines and penalties recovered for violation of rules and regulations made under authority of this section shall be accounted for by the clerk of the court and forwarded to the trustees of the division of state colleges who shall deposit the same in the scholarship trust fund of such college for scholarship purposes.

That gives state colleges CHAPTER 90 power. 22c 63 does not give you authority to enforce Chapter 90. The only way a private college in MA has CH90 power, is if they are sworn as specials by that town where they work and that local department gives them CH90 books. If that is the case then you are making the arrest/stop not as a campus cop but as the local cop. The local PD agency is used as the agency code. The state colleges have their own CH90 code and they write the ticket or make teh arrest as a independent agency. This decision was made from the case at Fitchburg State College I believe. 73/18 ONLY APPLIES TO STATE COLLEGES. UMASS has the similar powers under MGL 75.

Chapter 75: Section 32A. Control, movement and parking of motor vehicles.

Section 32A. The trustees shall make rules and regulations for the control, movement and parking of vehicles on the campus of the university and on other land of the university, and may provide reasonable penalties for the violation of said rules and regulations. The trustees may appoint as police officers persons in the employ of the university who in the enforcement of said rules and regulations and throughout university property shall have the powers of police officers, except as to service of civil process. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all fines and penalties recovered for violation of rules and regulations made under authority of this section shall be accounted for by the clerk of the court and forwarded to the trustees of the university to be deposited in the scholarship trust fund of the university for scholarship purposes.


Posted by: daveh

Thanks for the tip. I just wonder if it has ever been challenged in court - I am quite sure that it has. So there is no clear cut answer here. Well, unless the person is bouncing off of the curb or has hit a few cars, you won't catch me stopping them. Heaven forbid...


Posted by: j809

It has been challeneged in court and the decision was that State College Police officers have CH90 power under 73/18. Bridgewater State College now receive their CH90 by statute under 90C/1. They are added to the list so they don't really need the 73/18. 73/18 also allows Trustees to appoint police officers without hiring them under 22c/63. This has its pros and cons. Cons are that colleges can give whatever level of training they see fit. 22c/63 require SSPOs to meet certain criteria to get their warrant of appointment. State Colleges do have under their union contract a clause that states all full time police officers must be special state police officers. You can hire reserves under that power though. I would not stop a MV unless you had the power, "FRUITS OF THE POISONOUS TREE". Bad stop, can't cite them, you can even be held accountable for unlawful search and seizure. Deputy Sheriff powers can give you CH.90. Sheriffs do have CH90 regardless of some people think. I believe Worcester County Sheriffs enforce it, made some case law too. The decision said that sheriffs cannot arrest for Operating with Suspended License(You can summons) unless it amounts to a breach of the peace.


Posted by: daveh

Quote:
Originally Posted by JB1971
Bad stop, can't cite them, you can even be held accountable for unlawful search and seizure.
I suppose the question is wheather or not the stop for a college policy moving violation being a public safety hazard "breach of the peace" is a valid stop, or even if it is a valid stop under the community caretaking doctrine. There is no doubt that 75 sec. 32A pertains to my college (not university), but as a general rule, can I effect the stop for said reasons, even without a departmental policy? Does just the premise of being an officer within the commonwealth give a person the obligation to stop for breach of the peace? (say there are numerous students walking around)

Hell, I don't want a lawsuit for searching a MV when something is in plain view! But, if I keep on stopping MV's, this is bound to happen.


Posted by: mpd61

If You are an SSPO at a Private college and you are NOT issued a Citation book for CMVI's, then you should lose in court.

Why?
1. College regulations/policies are not MGL Ch.90
2. 99 & 44/100ths of traffic offenses are NOT criminal offenses
3. Only DMR/DMH/UMass/BSC (by statute) and very few other campus coppers have Ch.90 (specials in town or granted by trustees/ etc.)

I am curious as to what you would use to cite them in any event, say what form of citation and what regulation?


Posted by: j809

[b] There is no doubt that 75 sec. 32A pertains to my college (not university),

That Chapter and section only applies to UMASS POLICE. So unless you are a UMASS CAMPUS that does not apply to you. MGL 75 applies to UMASS SYSTEM.

And that trooper that told you guys you can stop for campus violations, is out of his mind. Again "fruits of the poisonous tree" and unlawful search and seizure. If you are acting on the stop for the college(private) you cannot use evidence found and charge them criminally. I wouldn't do it, check with LEGAL in your college.

P.S. SMATSON whats up with that devil shit webpage under your profile. Little psycho.


Posted by: Tackleberry22

I'm not making a statement on this, but this is just my opinion from what I was told in the academy. I would have to agree with what KMF294 said. Let's say hypothetically speaking; in the list of school parking and driving laws/regulations; there is the speeding and failure to stop at a stop sign. You see the violation occur for failing to stop at a stop sign, you signal the driver to stop to give a citation or warning. As you talk to the driver you notice a bag of cocaine or Pot between the console or on the seat. From there the guy gets arrested and so on and so forth.
To me the stop and arrest would be valid and legal. I could be wrong, but to me the officer is legally present; he/she has broken no boundaries in making the stop. If the officer legally stops a MV and makes an arrest for drugs or illegal firearm in plain view; the arrest is valid. That's what I was told and I could be wrong, since campus police operations can get get grayish at times.


Posted by: j809

The problem with the stop is that the Court ruled that private college police officers do not have the powers to enforce Ch90. Their arguement was that if the law intended to have private college police officers have CH90 then they would have been included in 90C/Sect 1. Therefore you are acting on a rule and regulation based on a private institution. Private institutions cannot pass their own laws that would be enforceable in the courts. Towns can, by enacting bylaws. But you are making a stop based on Ch90 or 89/9 or other MV law. The Court already stated that 22C/63 DOES NOT give you CH90. Just because you are lawfully present does not justify the stop. If I am outside my jurisdiction in another town, someone blows a stop sign, I cant stop that car because I am lawfully present.

I don't even know where lawfully present arguement comes into play, it does not justify a traffic stop. Lawfully present along with other elements are part of the Plain View Doctrine. Plain View is no good if you pull over a MV for an offense that you have no authority to stop for in the first place. i know it's frustrating, but unless you change the laws or become specials in the town that you work in, you have no CH90 power.


Posted by: daveh

Quote:
Originally Posted by JB1971
P.S. SMATSON whats up with that devil shit webpage under your profile. Little psycho.
Lol. Just goofin' - Got in trouble with my man for the other one I posted. The new one is to smite him a playful way, and to make people laugh. I though it was cute.

Here is the real one.
http://www.hometown.aol.com/itsjusts...yhomepage.html

Getting back into the topic, it seems there is some real confusion here. The topic was put up to CLEAR up confusion, intsted, it seems there is more of a mess. In regards to the lawyer trooper at inservice, he did say that as long as a stop was a stop that was in the policy and procedure of the college, or for a stop under breach of the peace or public endangerment we are all set. As pertains to 75 sec. 32A - I believe that it does pertain to my college (not university) on the basis of our ticketing system (i.e. all proceeds go directly to a scholorship fund) and on the basis that campus police does control movement of motor vehicles on campus (we stop vehicles, boot, etc.). Hey, I may be wrong. Perhaps my college just mocks Umass' policy on the scholorship fund thing. Everyone brings up interesting points! I am still confused. As it seems, many of us are.


Posted by: j809

75/32 only pertains to UMASS. If you look MGL Chapter 75, it is all the lawsd pertaining to UMASS. So unless you work for UMASS, 75/32 doesnt pertain to your case. 73/18 pertains to State Colleges and 75/32 pertains to UMASS, same law just different MGL. When you are talking breach of peace, its a whole different issue. Under the breach of the Peace, you can make teh stop and arrest for disorderly or disturbance of the peace if you can show that the driving behavior amounts to the breach of the peace. Whole different issue, it's arrestable not CIVIL MOTOR VEHICLE INFRACTION. I don't know if your department sends you guys to the SSPO or FT MCJTC academy, but they cover that stuff in the academies. Good luck!


Posted by: Irishpride



"Quasi Correction Officer at a Looney Bin".....honestly don't you think that's just a little disrespectful to the patients @ Worchester State Hospital?


Posted by: tomahawk

Quote:
Originally Posted by JB1971
The problem with the stop is that the Court ruled that private college police officers do not have the powers to enforce Ch90.
JB, my private university had written regulations pertaining to parking and traffic, including fines. They were not under Chapter 90, they were university-issued parking tickets. Just like you could check off "Handicapped Parking", you could check "Unreasonable Speed" or "Failure to Stop". They are not Ch. 90 violations, they are campus violations issued by SSPO's under the written policies of the university.

Would that not fly in court? Curious.

-Mike


Posted by: j809

It would not fly in court because again, these are rules and regulations enacted by the college. They can't make laws. You can stop them, I guess for the violation, but you are in the shit when you find out he's suspended or OUI. The whole stop is screwed up and you could be looking at civil action against you and the college. I worked at a private college PD before where we had our own tickets and we also had CH90 from the town. This way students got bagged with our tickets, where money came to us and evryone else got CMVIs. But we had the CH90 authority from the town, which issued us the books.

I know a town, where a police officer pulled over a guy for speeding(JUST SPEEDING). Well he followed him in the next town over and once he pulled over, officer approached him and found out he was OUI. He arrested him. The town got sued and the town lost.

Unlawful arrest or detention
Unlawful search or seizure

The officer pulled him over for a CMVI, not arrestable offense. You have to be very careful, I know allot of guys sweat CH90 and want to have it, but let me tell you, it can get you in the crap too, if not done carefully.
Remember your powers as a private college cop does not give you the authority to enforce CH90 and therefore stop the vehicle, therefore you are working outside the scope of your authority and the college will not back you up, I guarantee it.


Posted by: ntvs

Possibly off topic, but do summer police officers have ch. 90 powers?


Posted by: j809

It's up to the town's police department where you work as a summer officer. The Chief can give 90 books to any officer under his authority.


Posted by: ntvs

wow talk about instant answers!! thanks JB


Posted by: j809

Yeah, i've been dispatching all night till Midnight. Then i go out and play


Posted by: j809

Absolutely correct about Mullen case, same as any other officer working for a municipality, like the town I quoted. However you are incorrect in regards to

Quote:
who do have Ch. 90 on their campus under ch 90 sec 1)
State College police officers do not have CH90 by statute of 90C/1 with the only exception being Bridgewater State College PD. They were added due to some very strong political ties and we'll leave it at that. They receive their CH90 power under 73/18 if you read the case correctly.

Pat Rogers added in his books that the Courts ruled that State Colleges did have 90 under 73/18 and 75/32. I spoke to quite a few people about this and even legal department. I spoke to troopers from the Cert Unit and trust me on this, being lawfully present somewhere DOES NOT give you authority to stop a vehicle for a CMVI offense unless it amount to a breach of the peace.

I know it's frustrating but if the law says YOU CANNOT DO IT and the courts SAID YOU CANNOT DO IT, what makes you think you can. It's like beating a dead horse over and over again. I did a whole study for a thesis on this subject and other campus police issues in the Commonwealth.

And i never went to SSPO in service but i heard of it and it's a joke. Those are troopers teaching it and they have all the powers they need. They don't know about SSPO issues, as a matter of fact SSPO academy doesn't even have a motor vehicle enforcement/CH 90 course part of their curriculum. And it's really amusing to see campus officers over step their judicial boundaries and scope of authority and do stuff that makes me think they are out of their mind. Such issues are pulling MVs over with no firearms and doing things that the college would never back them up on.

And with no disrespect to troopers, but last couple of inservices i went to, we went over cases that were bad and almost all of them were bad case laws generated by MSP. I don't think the MSP cares about SSPOs and if you read all of 22C, no liability ever falls on the MSP. You work for the college and college only. Some people forget that and think they are Mini-Troopers.


Posted by: mpd61

Quote:
Originally Posted by kmf294
The fact is if you stop a vehicle for a violation of a campus regulation (i.e. speeding in a lot) you are legally present. If you are in fact legally present and discover something by means of plain view it is absolutely admissable.
Come on really.................
You guy's need to listen to What JB1971 is saying. He is telling you what MGL and Case Law ARE

Legally present is not applicable here. Do you know that an ISO can enforce College laws and regulations. He/she can issue parking tickets?
They can even stop somebody for going too fast etc. Bottom Line?
It is NOT a Criminal Offense or CH.90 CMVI. NOBODY is acting as a P.O. to initiate that action.

What we have here is/are SSPO's reaching for something they don't have.
Before any of you SSPO's get pissed off, I mean the ones working at PRIVATE colleges without Statutory or appointed (town/Sheriff) CH.90 powers. Sure the Kilo of coke or sawed-off shotgun is confiscated and off the street, but not admissible without an authorized/articulated CRIMINAL reason to stop. Under this context identified in this thread.....................
it ain't there.[/i]


Posted by: EsxPD319

I have a question!

Tufts University, Harvard University and etc conduct stops on a regular basis which lead to drug, OUI arrests. How are they successful being PRIVATE Universities. I know that Tufts are SSPOs and sworn Deputy Sheriffs in Middlesex and Suffolk County with the only town they are sworn in has specials are is Grafton. Deputy sheriffs to my understanding only have ch90 powers for criminal motor vehicle offences, not civil.

How do they handle it?? My home abuts the Tufts Medford campus and I see them stopping vehicle all of the time with some of these turning into arrests...


Ed


Posted by: Crvtte65

Quote:
Originally Posted by kmf294
The fact is if you stop a vehicle for a violation of a campus regulation (i.e. speeding in a lot) you are legally present. If you are in fact legally present and discover something by means of plain view it is absolutely admissable.
According to NU's Rules+Reg's parking lots have nothing to do with CH 90 and therefore MV violations are not enforceable. I'll get the exact wording. Also we own two Boston streets and we can enforce traffic there but we have no MV tickets etc although it is prohibited by our own R+R. We have pulled over others on streets that run through our campus and while we have never arrested anyone nobody has come to complain yet but again it rarely happens.

Edited: two from to


Posted by: j809

Deputy Sheriffs do have CH90 not only for criminal but civil motor vehicle infractions. The only difference is that if a sheriff pulls you over and you have a suspended license they cannot arrest you unless it amounts to a breach of the peace. But they can criminally cite the operator, tow the vehicle, etcc, paper arrest. As far as Tufts go, I believe they are specials in Medford which can give them 90 through Medford. I know a few officers at other PDs, such as BUPD and they don't stop cars. The difference here, is that Harvard PD does not stop a car for failure to signal as a pretextual stop and then find drugs and guns and whatever. They might stop the car because it's a stolen MV, or involved in some crime. I know there are a few HUPD cops on this site, so maybe they can corraborate on this issue.


Posted by: mpd61

God bless you Scott!
=D>
You're leading them back in the right direction. Heaven knows bottom line and quoting verbatim laws doesn't mean anything to them!



Posted by: Crvtte65

Quote:
Originally Posted by EsxPD319
My home abuts the Tufts Medford campus
Ed! We are practically neighbors!

Off topic I know I know...


Posted by: EsxPD319

First let me apologize, I WAS WRONG....


I had comm vs Baez confused and backwards with regards to deputy sheriffs, sorry about that.. Not being a deputy sheriff I wasn't to concerned about keeping up on it, which answers my question with Tufts and other private universities and thats what I get for thinking after doing a double.. MY BAD

I work in both municipal policing and for a private school under c22 s63. I asked my municipal prosecutor and he is getting back to me with the question of being a private police with no ch90 powers, however, enforcing rules and regs set forth by the institution will fruits of the poisonous tree be lost if it unfolds into something else, he didn't think so.. But, he would get back to me with an answer from Essex County anyway.. He believed it would fall under a "keeping the peace function" and he thought something like this was brought before the court once before and it flew.???



Thanks,

Ed


Posted by: daveh

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmooney


"Quasi Correction Officer at a Looney Bin".....honestly don't you think that's just a little disrespectful to the patients @ Worchester State Hospital?
No. Sorry if I offended you though.


Posted by: j809

EssexPD, again under the 'breach of Peace arguement", you can have a good stop under MGL 22C/63 and anything you find will be good. You have top articulate though how the erratic behavior or whatever he/she was doing would be a breach of the peace problem. Guys in here were talking abut stop signs,speeding. The stop you make under the above does not mean you have Chapter 90. As a matter of fact you cannot cite them for the CMVIs that they committed, but have to articulate how the totality of the offenses amounted to a breach of the peace. State College POs can pull anyone over for any CMVI, inspection sticker, failure to signal or whatever, because they have the same CH90 power as their municipal counterparts.


Posted by: EsxPD319

We are not talking about "breach of the peace" he stated a form of "keeping the peace". He started to explain then it got busy.. The gist was something to the effect of a MGL or CMR that is out there that states Institutions/campus' are required to provide the same protection to their residence and student as if they where living off campus in. Like I stated he was going to check with an clerk and DA about it.

I understand that I have NO ch90 powers while I'm working there but we are expected to enforce the rules and regulations set forth by the institution which included making MV stops on campus for traffic violations committed against institution regs. . I inquired at my SSPO inservice and was told this was TOTALLY acceptable even though I don't have ch90.

The way I look at it is WHAT THE CLERK/DA WANTS IS WHAT THEY GET so that will put it to rest with me on the issue on the whole affecting stops on the rules and regs on private property issue.

Ed


I'm done with this topic


Posted by: j809

Good luck, i'd check with a lawyer first and make sure you have a strong union that will back you, it's in your department policies and procedures and you have your home under the Homestead Act.


Posted by: mpd61

Quote:
Originally Posted by JB1971
Good luck, i'd check with a lawyer first and make sure you have a strong union that will back you, it's in your department policies and procedures and you have your home under the Homestead Act.
JB 1971,Give it up!

Againa fool who doesn't want to accept MGL and Case law as fact............ "but I was told at in-service, my municipal prosecutor will look into it, my mommy said not to listen to strangers."


Will these cry-babies ever grow up? Why bother to post reasonable, articulate and fact-based replies to persons who just would rather post,post,post and never LISTEN for a change?



Posted by: j809

Amen brother, it's ok we'll hear about them at the future inservices and how bad case law was made again.


Posted by: EsxPD319

First off mpd161, JB1971... YOU DON"T KNOW ME AND HOW I WORK..

First off...

1) I don't conduct stops on campus unless it is absolutely necessary because of a breach of the peace or some other investigation which amounts to about stopping three cars a year on campus...

2) I write all of my campus MV citations from the info I get off the campus stickers and leave them in their mailboxes here on campus.

3) I accept MGL and CASE LAW thats why I DON"T stop cars for MV violations on campus..

4) My first post "we stop cars all the time on campus" is a blanket statement because we do have officers that do...

HOWEVER..

By my postings I was backing some of the others posts we where told at SSPO in-service that it was okay under the institutions rules and reg. WHY..because I was told the same thing ...WHETHER RIGHT OR WRONG..

SO go ahead, belittle me for looking into it further through my municipal prosecutor and/or investigating it further or going along and playing devils advocate with the postings, AGAIN, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE ARE TOLD THEY CAN DO BY PEOPLE WHOS WORD CERTAINLY MEANS MORE THAN YOURS....The reason why I decided to look into it is simple, many people were told this at various SSPO in-services (myself included)so I was looking into it with the though that there was something out there that I (or you two heros) didn't know changed or new case law.. Because we all know that in-service is for UPDATES and silly me, maybe I understood it as an UPDATE...SO go back and read all of my postings on this topic, they all start with "the way I understood it" or I have a question, etc...

As far as "keeps posting"... YO JACKASS read my last posting, "I'm done with This" is what I said....




Ed


Posted by: j809




Posted by: mpd61

[quote="EsxPD319"]First off mpd161, JB1971... YOU DON"T KNOW ME AND HOW I WORK..

You're right, I don't know You, or how you work. I do know you SOUND like you are an inflexible and stubborn sort

First off...
(actually your second point now)

1) I don't conduct stops on campus unless it is absolutely necessary because of a breach of the peace or some other investigation which amounts to about stopping three cars a year on campus...

2) I write all of my campus MV citations from the info I get off the campus stickers and leave them in their mailboxes here on campus.

3) I accept MGL and CASE LAW thats why I DON"T stop cars for MV violations on campus..

4) My first post "we stop cars all the time on campus" is a blanket statement because we do have officers that do...

So..................You "stop" cars, or don't "stop" cars, or is it only three times a year
HOWEVER..

By my postings I was backing some of the others posts we where told at SSPO in-service that it was okay under the institutions rules and reg. WHY..because I was told the same thing ...WHETHER RIGHT OR WRONG..

SO go ahead, belittle me for looking into it further through my municipal prosecutor and/or investigating it further or going along and playing devils advocate with the postings, AGAIN, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE ARE TOLD THEY CAN DO BY PEOPLE WHOS WORD CERTAINLY MEANS MORE THAN YOURS....The reason why I decided to look into it is simple, many people were told this at various SSPO in-services (myself included)so I was looking into it with the though that there was something out there that I (or you two heros) didn't know changed or new case law.. Because we all know that in-service is for UPDATES and silly me, maybe I understood it as an UPDATE...SO go back and read all of my postings on this topic, they all start with "the way I understood it" or I have a question, etc...

As far as "keeps posting"... YO JACKASS read my last posting, "I'm done with This" is what I said....

Not trying to belittle you but a municipal prosecutor, MSP trooper @ SSPO inservice, ADA, don't usually have much focus and experience on this campus issue. It is case law like Fitchburg State decided by Judges that matters. Not opinions like us dumb flatfoots.
I am not perfect, don't know it all, but a few things are pretty black and white. I would again like to know what form of citation used/amount of fine/what entity paid to/etc.....but instead there's just piss being flung around instead of technical replies.

Sorry again. Guess you quit as you said earlier
[/u][/i][/b]


Posted by: Macop

I dont know how I missed this thread, as far as MPD saying a PRIVATE college Police not being able to stop cars for College M/V rules and regs and then dealing with criminal stuff is wrong. I personally worked for 2 private colleges and enforced campus M/V rules and reg quite heavily and made many drug/sus lic/expired lic summons and all kinds of other criminal cites, and never got one thrown cause I was a campus cop. Bottom line, from personal experience if you are enforcing a M/V rule or reg which is written in your college/campus handbook you can absolutely stop the car and enforce the college violation which makes you lawfully present to deal with any criminal charge. Also I was offered a job at Tuffts and the chief explained to me that there were not specials in Medford and got CH 90 books directly from the registry. The college I last worked for could have had em but the chief didnt want them. I suppose it depends on what courthouse you deal with cause the stuff some of you say wont fly, has flown with me, and this all from personal experience not heard through the grape vine..


Posted by: mpd61

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macop
I dont know how I missed this thread, as far as MPD saying a PRIVATE college Police not being able to stop cars for College M/V rules and regs and then dealing with criminal stuff is wrong. I personally worked for 2 private colleges and enforced campus M/V rules and reg quite heavily and made many drug/sus lic/expired lic summons and all kinds of other criminal cites, and never got one thrown cause I was a campus cop. Bottom line, from personal experience if you are enforcing a M/V rule or reg which is written in your college/campus handbook you can absolutely stop the car and enforce the college violation which makes you lawfully present to deal with any criminal charge. Also I was offered a job at Tuffts and the chief explained to me that there were not specials in Medford and got CH 90 books directly from the registry. The college I last worked for could have had em but the chief didnt want them. I suppose it depends on what courthouse you deal with cause the stuff some of you say wont fly, has flown with me, and this all from personal experience not heard through the grape vine..
Macop,
Hey buddy you're right 100%. Let's face it though, case law is changing many things as frequently as every other year. Remember you could get I.D. from passengers on MV stop, and now can't again? This and other issues have changed back and forth with SJC before. Again, note that you said Tufts had CH 90 books from the RMV. I can't get an answer from these guys posting what they are using to cite and what fines and where payed etc. I'm glad you were able to bring charges and they stuck. I still would expect that your experience is an exception, and that a GOOD defense attorney would be able to work it.

Be safe dude! hey did Jimmy tell you his good news?

Love,
Woody


Posted by: Macop

You are right, the laws change more than my underwear. Christ ive been sitting here for the last hour or so looking at Campus Police in other states, and its very intersting how college police depts in other states are more squared away then cities and towns here. Pa, Ca, Va, Md and some others have very impressive Pds that put large towns/small cities here to shame in every aspect and a lot of other states all cops go to ONE academy and are cops when they graduate, how what a wonderful concept, makes ya wonder what ediots are running or state came from. Yes I heard about Jimmy, I may have some god news myself ill let ya know if I do.

P.S we should make Jimmy buy us a couple of beers next tim eim in Brockton.


Posted by: joe

It seems to me that this issue is easily solved. Have your Chiefs speak with your County Sheriff. Keep your current appointment as SSPO's and also get sworn as Deputy Sheriffs. This will allow you to have chapter 90 powers. It will also allow you to have jurisdiction in the town or for that matter the county that your campus is in. Most Campus Police commonly patrol a city street that may a join one part of a campus to another. You will then have the power to effect a stop on that street and make an arrest if need be. This will also assist you when your at one of your local off campus store getting a coffee. When drunken shit bum spins his tires and speeds off trying to shit on your boots, ah how the tables will be turned. You now would have the jurisdiction and power to effect a stop and arrest. Many towns get cross sworn from one neighboring town to another. This helps the officer's with jurisdiction issues. Really this is no different.


Good luck.


Posted by: Macop

I worked at a private college as an SSPO. With no other powers, I did stop M/Vs for violation of CAMPS rules and regs, nevermind CH 90. I my ARREST reports that came from these stops for 90/23 and other violations I did not even mention CH 90. You have every right to enforce college rules and regs. You are acting as an agent of the college and enforcing college rulesw and regs. Gues what sports fans you are now lawfully present to enforce a criminal offense. Ive been there and done that.


Posted by: PearlOnyx

Somebody had asked about Commonwealth v. Baez and it's relation to Campus Police Officers making civil motor vehicle infraction stops, while acting as Deputy Sheriff's. There is also a case Commonwealth v. Mullen, which I understand conflicts with Commonwealth v. Baez, as it relates to Campus Police Officers, but I don't have the text of it. Hopefully this helps.

A Deputy Sheriff is authorized to make a motor vehicle stop for a civil motor vehicle infraction, under Commonwealth v. Baez. To summarize, ch. 90 ss. 3 states that only a "Police Officer" may issue a civil motor vehicle citation. Ch. 90C ss. 1 states that a Police Officer is any officer authorized to make arrests or serve criminal process. Mass. statutory law and case law give Deputy Sheriff's authority to serve criminal process under Ch. 220 ss. 7, also under Ch. 262 ss.8. So, connect the dots, for the purposes of Chapter 90, via Commonwealth v. Baez, a Deputy Sheriff is a Police Officer for the purposes of making civil motor vehicle infraction stops under Chapter 90. Therefore, a Deputy Sheriff is authorized to make warrantless civil motor vehicle infraction stops. A breach of the peace is not required.

Now, as far as the arrest goes. The arrest is no good. A Deputy Sheriff may only arrest under Commonwealth v. Howe, and later clarified in Commonwealth v. Baez through Commonwealth v. Gorman that a Deputy Sheriff is a Peace Officer and may arrest when the offense consists of a Breach of the Peace, the offense is committed in presence or view of the officer, or the offense is continuing at the time of the arrest but is only interrupted that the offense and the arrest forms part of the infraction. However, later in the decision, the Howe court limits Deputy Sheriff's arrest powers to those specifically enumerated as breaches of the peace. There are also numerous offenses, twenty or so, that a Deputy Sheriff has statutory authority to arrest for.

There is always confusion about Commonwealth v. Baez because the case was in part affirmed and in part denied. The civil motor vehicle infraction was good but the arrest was not. The Baez court did suggest that the legislature review the powers of Deputy Sheriff's, and align them more with the powers of "Police Officers", but that has not taken place yet. Bottom line is that civil motor vehicle infraction stops are ok. Arrests for non-breach of the peace offenses are not. In that situation, you must swear out a complaint at your local court. You'll still get the guy for the offense, but you just can't hook him up and take him with you that day. Hopefully this helped.


Posted by: joe

In response to Pearlonyx, the post is correct. Anyone who is sworn as a Deputy Sheriff should keep in mind under chapter 90 there are only a few arrestable offences. The ones you COULD arrest for are O.U.I., leaving the scene of a personal injury accident, and failure to stop for police, as these are breaches of the peace. The only two you COULD NOT arrest for are having a rev/susp license or operating without a license. You could issue a criminal complaint, which a lot of the time you would do anyway. Also keep in mind while doing your vehicle inventory and you find an arrestable offence, such as guns, drugs or whatever you could then arrest and include the license charge on the complaint.

If you were to stop someone for operating erratically, high rate of speed, marked lanes, or whatever along those lines and you then found out that the operator's license was susp for habitual traffic offences or O.U.I. Now would this rise to a breach of the peace and become arrestable? The court felt that the operator should not be allowed to have a license, because he or she was operating O.U.I. The court takes that license and the subject operates anyway. Now he or she is stopped for the erratic operation or high rate of speed. This operator should not be on the road anyway, because the court has taken his or her license as they have posed a threat to public safety. I think if you were to articulate in your report the reason for the stop and then make the arrest combining the operation with the lic susp you would have a good arrest. Remember to find a "breach of the peace" within the meaning of the Gorman test for authority of officers to arrest motorists without warrants, the act must at least threaten to have some disturbing effect on the public. Operating at a high rate of speed with no license to be operating in the first place could threaten to have some disturbing effect on the public. Also remember in the Baez case it said that the reason for the lic susp was unknown.

Good Luck


Posted by: Irish Wampanoag

Operating to endanger 90/24 and Speeding 90/18 is arrestable all by itself if it is a breach of the peace committed in your presence, regardless of the fact the license is revoked or not.


Posted by: dh18

somewhat on topic... is there a MGL or CMR that layouts that a private institution can enforce parking / vehicle regs on it's property? and how about after you cite someone with no ties to campus are you able to seek a registery non-renew?


Posted by: mpd61

Quote:
Originally Posted by BHCCPD
Operating to endanger 90/24 and Speeding 90/18 is arrestable all by itself if it is a breach of the peace committed in your presence, regardless of the fact the license is revoked or not.
Ahhhh..........
NOT True dude

Operating to endanger (reckless/negligent) C.90 s.24(2) is a Criminal Application, with no right of arrest. I would NEVER arrest anyone for C.90 s.18 either, Whoa man! Be careful when you say "arrestable all by itself"



Posted by: Macop

I know Mullens was Fitchburg State College, if i am correct that challenged the officer that observed a CMVI on a campus road but stopped the car on a city street, right?


Posted by: fscpd907

The FSC Officer observed a M/V pull out of a street maintained by FSC. The M/V almost collided with the Officer, the Officer turned his cruiser around and effected a M/V stop for failure to yield at an intersection C89 S8.
The Fitchburg State College Officer stated in court that he used his authority as an SSPO to effect the civil M/V stop. The Statutory provisions of 22C S56 through 68, are all silent as to the authority of SSPO to enforce civil M/V laws on public ways within their respective jurisdiction. But if the FSC Officer initially effected the stop on a reasonable suspicion of OUI / the stop is good under 22C S63 because OUI is criminal.


Posted by: Irish Wampanoag

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpd61
Quote:
Originally Posted by BHCCPD
Operating to endanger 90/24 and Speeding 90/18 is arrestable all by itself if it is a breach of the peace committed in your presence, regardless of the fact the license is revoked or not.
Ahhhh..........
NOT True dude

Operating to endanger (reckless/negligent) C.90 s.24(2) is a Criminal Application, with no right of arrest. I would NEVER arrest anyone for C.90 s.18 either, Whoa man! Be careful when you say "arrestable all by itself"
Operating to endanger is arrestable if it amounts to a breach of the peace in your presence unless there is a typo in MV violation book. Ch90/18 is arrestable in accordance with 85/11(which I guess I would have to mention, I ASSUMED it would go hand and hand not literally) Speeding which violates an ordinance or by law prohibiting persons from driving at a rate of speed inconsistent with public safety or convenience MAY BE ARRESTED WITHOUT A WARRANT by any officer authorized to make arrests ETC ETC ETC A Deputy Sheriff has powers of city ordinances last time I checked.

According to the scenario discussed the operator with the revoke license is not the breach of peace for the sheriff to make a lawful arrest it was the individuals speed90/18 under 85/11 and his operation to endanger 90/24 where the sheriff can make the arrest, his revoked license is trivial for sheriff power of a lawful arrest.

Op


Posted by: mpc111

Good luck to ya if you locked someone up under 90/18 or 90/17 for that matter. Regardless of what the case law says, I think most Chiefs, ADA's, Judges, etc. would have a problem with it.


Posted by: mpd61

BHCCPD,

Very simply put;

When did you or anyone else on this board EVER arrest ANYBODY for C.90 s. 18 ???????? Anybody out here ever do it? Huh? I'm waiting?


Anybody out here able to tell this gentleman what famous limerick we use over and over for the ONLY arrestable C.90 offenses? (someone tell em!)
\/


Posted by: Macop

Why did the officer from Fitchburg say he was using his S.S.P.O authority. We all know State colleges have ch 90.


Posted by: Irish Wampanoag

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpd61
BHCCPD,

Very simply put;

When did you or anyone else on this board EVER arrest ANYBODY for C.90 s. 18 ???????? Anybody out here ever do it? Huh? I'm waiting?


Anybody out here able to tell this gentleman what famous limerick we use over and over for the ONLY arrestable C.90 offenses? (someone tell em!)
\/

OK I have a homework assignment for you the teacher.

Look Up

Comm vs DeSimone,349 mass 770 (1965)

Comm vs Guillemette,243 mass 346 (1921)

Comm vs Peach,239 mass 575 (1921)

Then we will talk!

Ok for the other statement you mean to tell me you never arrested anyone for speeding on your campus under 85/11 for a 90/17 or 18 MV infracton. Well then you must have well behaved students up there.


Posted by: PATS246

Comm v. Mullen is the case from Fitchburg State. Just more case law to came out of Fitchburg state.


Posted by: mpc111

Ch. 85/11 was written in 1865 when local cities and towns regulated their own speeds under the reasonableness standard. When 90/17(basic speeding) and 18(posted speeding) were introduced, speeds were now regulated by the state. There is no right of arrest, regardless. Also, I work in a city not a campus.


Posted by: j809

Quote:
The FSC Officer observed a M/V pull out of a street maintained by FSC. The M/V almost collided with the Officer, the Officer turned his cruiser around and effected a M/V stop for failure to yield at an intersection C89 S8.
The Fitchburg State College Officer stated in court that he used his authority as an SSPO to effect the civil M/V stop. The Statutory provisions of 22C S56 through 68, are all silent as to the authority of SSPO to enforce civil M/V laws on public ways within their respective jurisdiction. But if the FSC Officer initially effected the stop on a reasonable suspicion of OUI / the stop is good under 22C S63 because OUI is criminal.
_________________
Ok let me explain this case so all can understand it better. If I observe a CMVI in my jurisdiction and all I have is a CMVI , I activate my blue lights and pull you over out of my jurisdiction and find you are OUI, I CAN'T make the arrest unless i am a STATE TROOPER or SWORN SPECIAL in that neighboring jurisdiction. We all know state college PO's have CH90 under 73/18 but you cannot make the arrest like they did. What they should have done is call Fitchburg PD in that situation and take over the arrest. I had a guy a few weeks ago, ran his plate on laptop came back Revoked/Insurance , I went after him and stopped him a couple of hundred feet in the next town. After I stopped him, i found out this was not his car and he had a suspended license and warrant. The other town came down and scooped him for the warrant while i summonsed him for the suspended license and revocation. If I were a special in that town then it would not be a problem.

As far as arresting for speeding, this is something that the Chief from BSCPD brought up one time. God help you if you do make an arrest for speeding. And it is very difficult to arrest someone for negligent operation as to endanger( there is no driving to endanger) using a breach of the peace arguement. BHCCPD remeber alot of those laws were repealed when they rewrote the ch90 laws in 1990 or earlier. I believe alot of them were under Chapter 85.


Posted by: Macop

Any Mis is arrestable if it amounts to the breach of the peace in your presence or view. And I am well aware of the fact that you cannot arrest out of your juristiction if initial reason for the stop was not arrestable. That is not what I was asking. I was asking why is FSC so gun shy on traffic stops. I always thought that Mullens questioned the ability of FSC to enforce CMVI. Which I now know it doesnt, it was only questioning the officer's authority to arrest out of his juristiction in that particular scenerio which he should not have done.


Posted by: TruthSeeker2

Quote:
Originally Posted by BHCCPD
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpd61
BHCCPD,

Very simply put;

When did you or anyone else on this board EVER arrest ANYBODY for C.90 s. 18 ???????? Anybody out here ever do it? Huh? I'm waiting?


Anybody out here able to tell this gentleman what famous limerick we use over and over for the ONLY arrestable C.90 offenses? (someone tell em!)
\/

OK I have a homework assignment for you the teacher.

Look Up

Comm vs DeSimone,349 mass 770 (1965)

Comm vs Guillemette,243 mass 346 (1921)

Comm vs Peach,239 mass 575 (1921)

Then we will talk!

Ok for the other statement you mean to tell me you never arrested anyone for speeding on your campus under 85/11 for a 90/17 or 18 MV infracton. Well then you must have well behaved students up there.
BHCCPD,

Don't get upset but here it comes..............

C.85 s.11 identifies "ordinance or by-law". This speaks to the type of laws enacted by a TOWN. with very few exceptions, municipalities and cities lost control of regulating speed on highways, roads, and ways many moons ago. ( I suppose a town or city could still regulate speed on say a town-owned/maintained way on a park, school, reservation, etc.) But 85/11 does not apply to 99.9% of the asphalt in this commonwealth.

Speed is regulated under C.90 s. 17, or s.18 and there is NO right of arrest.

Negligent Operation, so as to endanger C90. s.24(2) Criminal (No arrest)
Negligent Operation, resulting in homicide by vehicle C.90 s.24G Criminal (No arrest)

Negligent Operation and OUI alcohol/drugs causing serious injury Criminal (Felony) BINGO!!!!!!!!! This you can put the cuffs on!

Have a good one...........

P.S. Don't arrest anyone for speeding!



Posted by: Irish Wampanoag

Well then, I guest the two lawyers who issue the Basic Elements of Massachusetts Criminal Law and Police Powers of Arrest CPS 2000 edition Attorney Patrick M Rogers and Attorney Robin Borges are wrong when they state 90/24 state driving to endanger is arrestable if it is commited in the presence of a police officer and is a breach of the peace. Everyone, Everyone if you have the CPS law book it is no good through them away. I guess 85/11 eventhough it has not been repealed is not really a law then. lol lol lol


Posted by: mpc111

If you wanna keep going on an 1865 statute, knock yourself out. Hope you have a good lawyer. And by the way, my info comes from the 2001 LED Motor Vehicle Law Field Manual. ( a little bit more in depth then the CPS book). I have the CPS books too and know what they say.


Posted by: mpd61

Quote:
Originally Posted by BHCCPD
Well then, I guest the two lawyers who issue the Basic Elements of Massachusetts Criminal Law and Police Powers of Arrest CPS 2000 edition Attorney Patrick M Rogers and Attorney Robin Borges are wrong when they state 90/24 state driving to endanger is arrestable if it is commited in the presence of a police officer and is a breach of the peace. Everyone, Everyone if you have the CPS law book it is no good through them away. I guess 85/11 eventhough it has not been repealed is not really a law then. lol lol lol
Thats right sweetheart! Throw it away because I'm utilizing the
[b]Massachusetts MV Law Comprehensive Index [/b](CPS) by Attorney Patrick M. Rodgers and Ms. Elizabeth Sullivan....2003 edition which apparently supercedes your edition. That's why I can reference C.90 s.24 and it's specific subsections, with right of arrest for each as outlined by Pat Rodgers in his latest book.

And yes honey, C.85 s.11 is a law. It just doesn't apply on most of the roadways in this commonwealth.


Posted by: RPD931

OK... after reading all these threads, there's a lot of SSPO related laws and I understand those fine. What about the Private College PD's that only have Deputy Sheriff powers?...seems like Campus PO's with powers derived from the County can get away with a bit more.


Posted by: davemcs

Wonder if I may interject a quick question amongst all the legalese...

Who has jurisdiction over the commuter rail parking lot @ Bridgewater State? I know BSC patrols the roads on campus, and the "Great Hill Road" leading along the southern edge of campus to the large Student and Railroad parking lots. (25 mph on campus 30 on GH Rd) But I am fuzzy as to whether BSC carries weight in the MBTA Parking lot?

I ask b/c I see BSC affecting MV stops daily ( I was one once..made me miss my train..but no citation..Thank you Officer! \/ )..but all the stops are on BSC property..never in the MBTA lot. And the commuters FLY thru that section of the lot..with seemingly little attention by BSC PD...


Posted by: DC813

The MBTA Police have primary jurisdiction in that lot for obvious reasons. According to an agreement enacted when the college either leased or sold the land to the MBTA for the station, BSC Police and Bridgewater Police share secondary jurisdiction of the lot. So basically BSC cops could make an arrest in that lot, effect MV Enforcement. In addition to that agreement, BSC police are Bridgewater Town Specials......

The reason you don't see a lot of MV enforcement in that lot for speeding is the same reason you don't see most any town enforcing speeding in a parking lot......most parking lots aren't posted and the lot isn't very big.

BSC and Bridgewater Police routinely share responsibilities in that lot.


Posted by: Otto

The Baez opinion should have been appealed, but was not. It was factually incorrect. First, it relied on "Howe," which stated that OUI is a breach of the peace, and sheriffs have the authority to arrest for a breach of the peace, therefor the arrest and stop were good. Nowhere in "Howe" did it say that sheriffs can ONLY arrest for a breach of the peace.
Evidence in "Baez" clearly (criminal complaint application was checked off) showed that he was not arrested for the motor vehicle violation, but for an outstanding warrant. Yet the opinion stated that the deputy should not have arrested him for the violation.
The opinion stated that the defendant was brought to the West Boylston PD. While it happened in West Boylston, it was at the jail, and he was booked there. He was never brought to the PD, nor was there any evidence offered to suggest he was.
The opinion itself admitted that it "produces a discordant result."
When this happens, opinions are supposed to follow common sense. Refusing to submit your license is not a breach of the peace. If a sheriff can only summons for this violation, who does he summons?
I believe this opinion was written by Judge Mel Greenberg (who, I believe, failed to stop for MSP a few years ago).
Read the facts of the case and then the opinion, and you'll wonder if he bothered to read the facts of the case.


Posted by: j809

It was not appealed because it was not a popular thing to do in this Commonwealth. No one wants to see Sheriffs stopping cars, except the SHeriff.



Posted by: Otto

So, are we to assume that you believe that bad, nonsensical case law is acceptable as long as it is "popular."
For the most part, only some in law enforcement care who "gets the bad guy." The general public does not. Those fools only expect their public servants to work co-operatively with each other to enhance public safety.


Posted by: j809

It was a message that was sent. The case they argued was that he had a revoked or suspended driver's licens and a sheriff may not make an arrest unless it amounted to a breach of the peace. The strongest action the deputy could have taken was a summons, unless suspect acted out and it was a breach of the peace, disorderly conduct. I read the case law and did not remember anything about an outstanding warrant. If that was the case then the MV stop would have been bad because the Sheriff, again may not make a traffic stop unless it amounts to a breach of the peace of violation. So unless the deputy articulates that the speeding offense amounted to a breach of peace the stop was not good. Therefore , fruits of the poisonous tree, and everything would get tossed. Look case laws and new laws, bills in Massachusetts are created based on popularity and what is perceived as right. The mutual aid bill that died, died because it was not a popular thing and it would create somewhat of a cluster f*ck. Sheriffs in MA are trying very hard to step up to the plate and try patrol law enforcement functions. This will end very soon, as Lawrence PD won a major battle against the SHeriff and they owe Lawrence PD hundreds of thousands of dollars in back OT pay because they used Sheriffs instead of filling vacancies and OT shifts for the officers. More and more departments will file, unions united and the era of the sheriif in patrol work will end, returning them back to Corrections. It was just a matter of time and it will happen. What i said here might not be popular, I am not trying to start a s*it storm but these are facts. Stay safe!


Posted by: PBC FL Cop

Quote:
Originally Posted by H50
If that was the case then the MV stop would have been bad because the Sheriff, again may not make a traffic stop unless it amounts to a breach of the peace of violation.
H50,

Just FYI, according to the Baez case, the Justices specifically stated that a Deputy Sheriff CAN make a MV stop within their county for a civil infraction and issue a citation for same.


Posted by: Otto

H50, the point I was trying to get across was that the judge screwed it up and made bad law. The reason you do not remember about the warrant is because you probably read the opinion and not a tarnscript of the case. However, the opinion did state that sheriffs have the authority to conduct CMV stops and issue citations.
It is for the legislature to do what is popular, and the courts to do what is right. That is why they are not accoutable to the people.
I believe that most of us on this site are against judges making decisions that are not based on the facts of the case or mis-applying precident and statutes. I would never applaud bad law, just because it suits me.
My dept has been enforcing ch 90 for approx. 15 years on the jail property. My sheriff has absolutely no intention of, or desire to, patrol off of our property. We use it as a tool to enhance security at the jail.
If Lawrence violated the contract, that was wrong. I only know what I read in the article. But could the same arguments be made when task forces are formed and have officers from other communities involved. Remember, bad case law sets bad precident, upon which other cases will be decided.

Enjoying the discourse. You also stay safe.


Posted by: RPD931

As Otoo states, Lawrence violated the contract, not the Sheriffs Dept. I think that will have minimal effect on the Counties that are looking for more patrol type functions.

And like the case said, he had a warrant... that's all they Deputy needed. Stopped for an MV infraction and the guy was "arrested" under the warrant, and like many other Officers do, slap on the other charges. But his "arrest" was stemming from the warrant. Too bad they didn't appeal.


Posted by: PBC FL Cop

They should have appealed the Baez decision, that would have cleared up alot of questions that people have with regards to Sheriffs and Chapter 90.

Stay safe!!


Posted by: PearlOnyx

The Baez decision does clearly allow Sheriff's to make Civil Motor Vehicle Infraction stops. If it's right or not, that's a whole 'nother concept. As far as the Lawrence thing. We did not violate Lawrence's contract. We were requested by the Administration of the Lawrence Police Department. If that violated their contract, then it's on them. It is not the Sheriff's Department's place to enforce the Lawrence Police Union's contract. Please note this is just my opinion, as I am just a screw, and meaningless in the whole matter.


Posted by: USMCTrooper

Just out of curiosity, does that sheriff dept or those deputies have a Union?

Regardless of BAEZ or who has what authority, would the Union for the deputies have supported Lawrence PD Union and worked out a deal or killed the plan respecting LPD Union's grievance/argument?

I am aware of recent (1998 to present) situations where the Chief of a local dept or a legislator has requested the State Police to specifically work in a community or form a special unit of Troopers solely for that community re: increase in crime, etc. In some instances, the end result was either "watered down" or the idea scrapped all together because the patrolman's Union grieved the idea saying essentially, hire more of us or give us OT to do the job FIRST before specifically assigning an outside agency in our workplace AND our Union agreed or supported this. It seems that Unions agree not to step on each other's toes in these potentially politically motivated administratively forced plans.
In one case I was directly aware of, a local Chief decided to use a neighboring town's MC unit to provide traffic control at a busy locale during peak summer days. The patrolman's Union balked at another PD coming into town. SPAM got involved when it learned that this other PD would be patrolling state highways under primary jurisdiction of the State Police-thereby circumventing details/OT for its members. The idea was quickly filed and both the town officers and MSP were given their respective share of the "pie".


Posted by: Otto

I can't speak for Essex, but generally an appointment to the position of deputy sheriff is "at the will and pleasure" of the sheriff.


Posted by: PearlOnyx

USMC, to answer your question, we actually have two unions. The ECCOA consists of mainly line staff, and the IBCO, which is mostly management. Honestly, this is the first I'm ever hearing of this. While, I can't say I'm super involved in our union's activities, I do attend meetings, and stay pretty up on whats going on. I'd be interested to see who was doing the work for Lawrence. I would think that it would be either our Security Investigations/Task Force people, or Civil Process. All of those guys are IBCO, managment union people, that's probably why most of us regular guys weren't really made aware of the problem, because we are a separate union, and weren't offered the work in the first place. I'm going to try to remember to ask one of our union officers when I seem them next.


Posted by: j809

Thursday, July 24, 2003
Arbitrator: Deputy use undercut city police

By Mark E. Vogler
Staff Writer

LAWRENCE -- Since taking command in early 1999, Police Chief John J. Romero more and more has relied on Essex County sheriff's deputies in investigating crimes and making arrests, a move he credits with helping control gangs in the city.

But the Lawrence Patrolmen's Association contends the chief's use of deputies was excessive and deprived city patrol officers and detectives of thousands of dollars in overtime pay and union dues.

An arbitrator ruled last month that the city's deployment of deputies violated its collective bargaining agreement with the 120-member police union and that the members should be paid for overtime they would have earned.

"Overtime has always been one of the big draws of the job," veteran Lawrence police officer and LPA President Alan N. Andrews said. "Considering our base pay, we all need to supplement our income. So, we're obviously pleased with the arbitrator's decision."

Throughout his tenure, Romero has turned to Sheriff Frank G. Cousins Jr. for help in clearing up 10,000 outstanding warrants, combating drug crimes and car thefts, and staffing the Police Department's anti-gang unit. Romero said the sheriff's cooperation is simply a matter of good police work.

"They've been very helpful and have been instrumental in a number of investigations involving gangs and drugs. They've been an integral part in what we've done," Romero said. "Frank Cousins is one of those sheriffs who's really involved in supporting the police departments of Essex County. We've got a great relationship, which we certainly don't want to jeopardize."

However, the patrolman's union claimed in a grievance it filed against the city two years ago that the officers themselves haven't been considered as the use of deputies for work routinely performed by officers has become more common.

"Every position the sheriff's deputies occupied deprived a patrolman or detective of an overtime opportunity. That's the crux of our argument," said Andrews, declining to put a price tag on the amount owed the union.

However, Assistant City Attorney James M. Bowers said the union is seeking close to $600,000 to cover the cost of overtime and missed shift opportunities over a three-year period. He disputes the union's figure and logic.

"They have presented no evidence to date to indicate they've lost any amount of overtime pay," Bowers said, "but, for every hour a deputy sheriff worked with the police, they feel they should receive that hour and overtime in direct pay."

If the city and union cannot reach a settlement for back overtime pay and dues, arbitrator Tim Bornstein said he will convene a hearing to decide an amount.

As a result of the arbitrator's decision, only a handful of deputies assigned to the warrant apprehension team continue to work out of the Lawrence police station.

"We have terminated the use of deputies in the detective division," Bowers said. "If we use them in the future, we have to negotiate the fashion in which they're deployed with the union."

Sheriff's spokesman Paul Fleming said Cousins is committed to helping any police chief who requests assistance on crime fighting, but declined to comment on the arbitrator's decision.

"The Essex County Sheriff's Department was asked to come in and clear outstanding warrants," Fleming said. "Since February 2000 and up until June 5, 2003, the unit has helped clear up 1,522 outstanding warrants."

The arbitrator found nothing wrong with the deputies working on the warrant apprehension team and said he was in no position to determine whether they exceeded their arrest powers as peace officers.

But, he noted that some deputies' work was not confined to warrant apprehension.

"While the city was not the deputy sheriffs' immediate employer, the city used them as though they were city police to perform duties indistinguishable from the duties performed by Lawrence police, and under working conditions that made them wholly indistinguishable from city police," Bornstein concluded.

"They worked side by side with city police, riding in patrol cars and joining in operations. They reported to the city's superior police officers. They were listed on shift rosters with city police. In short, for all practical and operational purposes they were city police officers."

Bornstein said the city's use of deputies to perform non-warrant-apprehension duties disregarded the union's legal and contractual role as the department's exclusive bargaining agent. But he commended the city's apparent motives.

"Its purpose has been to provide enhanced law enforcement for the city," the arbitrator said, "but it has pursued that objective at the expense of its contract obligations.

"If it had sought the union's cooperation in its efforts to augment the city's police department, it might have achieved its objectives without breaching the contract."

The union first objected to the use of deputy sheriffs in 1989, when they were used several nights a year for prostitution stings. Several years later, deputies began participating in drug stings.

Under Romero, deputies participated in all phases of the department's daily police work performed by patrolmen and detectives.

"What's made us effective is that we've been able to partner up with a lot of agencies, including the sheriff's department," Romero said. "That's something I've done my whole police career," he said.

The chief said he hopes the city and union can "find some common ground" in future negotiations over use of deputies.

"It's been our position that any assistance we can get is something we would welcome," Bowers added.

The city denied that increased reliance on sheriff's deputies had a negative impact on the union.

"To the contrary," the arbitrator argued. "Lawrence indisputably faced serious crime issues during that period that required action by the city, making it reasonable to assume that the employer's use of deputy sheriffs adversely affected promotional and overtime opportunities for members of the bargaining unit."


Posted by: Killjoy

Hey sheriffs and deputies, for your next bit of interdepartmental cooperation why don't you kick all the Lawrence PD officers in the balls, sh*t in their cruisers and sleep with all their wives (or husbands)!


Posted by: j809

Quote:
Hey sheriffs and deputies, for your next bit of interdepartmental cooperation why don't you kick all the Lawrence PD officers in the balls, sh*t in their cruisers and sleep with all their wives (or husbands)!
I think some already did!!!!

This article along with a few others where Sheriffs assumed patrol functions and violated contracts were mailed out to all MASSCOP, Teamsters and IBPO Unions. I also heard that SPAM and BPPA are also onboard on this issue to probably put an end to this nonsense.


Posted by: PBC FL Cop

Sounds like a WIN for the police unions and a LOSS for public safety.


Posted by: RPD931

PBC... I think you're right. Again, it seems to be a point where the Union puts themselves before public safety... all because of lost OT...

Some unions make OT seem more important than Public Safety...


Posted by: mpd61

Quote:
Originally Posted by H50
Thursday, July 24, 2003
Arbitrator: Deputy use undercut city police

"While the city was not the deputy sheriffs' immediate employer, the city used them as though they were city police to perform duties indistinguishable from the duties performed by Lawrence police, and under working conditions that made them wholly indistinguishable from city police," Bornstein concluded.

"They worked side by side with city police, riding in patrol cars and joining in operations. They reported to the city's superior police officers. They were listed on shift rosters with city police. In short, for all practical and operational purposes they were city police officers."

The union first objected to the use of deputy sheriffs in 1989, when they were used several nights a year for prostitution stings. Several years later, deputies began participating in drug stings.

Under Romero, deputies participated in all phases of the department's daily police work performed by patrolmen and detectives.."
RPD & PBC,

Come on kids! You both really see no problem with this? Again, where does it start and end? It's really great to see this has been going on since 1989. It's not a territorial thing, it's just common sense.

What's next? Deputies riding along with Environmental Cops? Taking over the School campuses, hospitals, housing, soldiers homes, highways, airports, harbors, humane societies?.................have I jingled anybody's chain yet?

Deputies are empowered, eager, equipped, and educated.

But the above is another example of ENCROACHMENT into an arena in which they are neither traditionally or legally justified.

Why do you guys (and others) keep floggin this horse?



Posted by: PBC FL Cop

The thing that people are missing with the Sheriffs, is the vast amount of intelligence that the Sheriffs have access to inside the jail and HOC. Something that street cops will never have access to.

This appeared to be a situation where the police are using the deputy sheriffs for their intelligence rather than just a body and they were INVITED to work with the local PDs in this case rather than the situation in Bristol County. When the information from inside the jail is shared on the street it not only helps the police with fighting drugs and gangs on the street, but also the sheriffs controling the drugs and gangs inside the jails. The shared intelligence sounded like its been working out well until people felt that the deputys were taking positions that local officers wanted, which although may be frustrating for the local officer, they can't bring to the table what the deputy can (refering to the jail intelligence.) Unfortunately public safety is not always about overtime.

I can see the argument if local detectives were tranfered back to the road and replaced by deputys, but that doesn't sound like the case, although I may be wrong, it sounds like local officers see the deputys in a gang unit or vice squad and would rather see themselves there instead.

What one needs to look at is the coordinated effort as a whole and what everyone brings to the table, rather than who feels that they are losing overtime money or a position they want. Unions are usually fighting for whats best for their officers and thats its job, but unfortunately that is not always in the best interest of public safety.

Hopefully the Lawrence PD and the Essex Sheriffs can come to a agreement on this issue and get back to keeping the public safe, which is their true duty.

This is not ment to be a sheriffs doing police work argument, rather a coordinated effort among the law enforcement comminuty fighting the bad guys.


Stay safe!!!!


Posted by: Otto

PBC, you are right on the money. Any officers who do not have a relationship with someone working in an intelligence unit at their county jail is wasting an invaluable resource.


Posted by: Sarge31

One phrase............ "Eighty Dash Five"


Posted by: Dr.Magoo

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarge31
One phrase............ "Eighty Dash Five"
That's a blast from the past. Another NUPDism.


Posted by: PtlmRube

There is case law on this. It is a case out of Fitchburg State College....the case escapes me but next time I am at the station I will grab it and try a find a link ot post it....Mass Superior court decided the case I believe


Posted by: LeadDog17

Quote:
Originally Posted by PtlmRube
There is case law on this. It is a case out of Fitchburg State College....the case escapes me but next time I am at the station I will grab it and try a find a link ot post it....Mass Superior court decided the case I believe

I believe the case you are referring to is Commonwealth v. Mullen, 1996. If you read this entire thread you will see it cited in several postings.

-Eric


Posted by: RPD931

Here's the case..

http://www.commonwealthpolice.net/case/commM/Commonwealth%20v.%20Mullen,%2040%20Mass.App.Ct.%20 404%20(1996).htm


Posted by: mpd61

oh Jeezus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here we go again, please make them stop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Posted by: NACop

This is getting weird.

On a state campus, (University, College, Community College, MMA etc) SSPO powers are actually a back seat to Police Powers under MGL CH15A sec.22 in which the trustees appoint police officers. They do this much like selectmen do so in a town or municipality. MGL CH73 sec. 18 further defines these powers to include control and movement of motor vehicles. Citations written are processed throught the District Courts, Yada yada yada.

Who gives a damn that the RMV won't issue ticket books to campuses anymore? Who needs 90C/s1? Print your own, the District Courts will process them and hear cases and send disposition to the RMV. So screw the Registry.

Private Colleges don't get any M/V from SSPO. O.K.? NOBODY Does! Arguably, at least looking purely at statute, STATE college P.O.'s appointed by Trustees have more authority than Private college P.O.'s (Yikes, watch the fur fly)



Posted by: 40th MPOC#309

DUCK! RUN FOR COVER!! STAND BY!!!(oops-this isn't the Academy...)


Posted by: RPD931

Quote:
Originally Posted by NACop
Private Colleges don't get any M/V from SSPO. O.K.? NOBODY Does! Arguably, at least looking purely at statute, STATE college P.O.'s appointed by Trustees have more authority than Private college P.O.'s (Yikes, watch the fur fly)
You're right... that's why some schools are Town Specials too...


Posted by: mpd61

Quote:
Originally Posted by RPD931
Quote:
Originally Posted by NACop
Private Colleges don't get any M/V from SSPO. O.K.? NOBODY Does! Arguably, at least looking purely at statute, STATE college P.O.'s appointed by Trustees have more authority than Private college P.O.'s (Yikes, watch the fur fly)
You're right... that's why some schools are Town Specials too...
Right! and Deputy Sheriffs also.

I think that NACop hit the nail on the head;
The STATE campus cops have powers more akin to municipal counterparts when appointed as police officers under MGL's 75 & 73.

SSPO is just icing on the cake for state schools. BSC, Massasoit and other schools have SSPO warrants as part of the AFSCME contract, but it isn't really necessary to have such duality.



Posted by: fscpd907

mpd61

ASFCME ??? Whats that :P / See ya June 10 !


Posted by: RPD931

What's June 10th? You moving up the food chain fscpd?


Posted by: j809

When I went through the academy, Pat Rogers said that a private college or university can write their own bylaws through some state chapter and section where they would have the same power(citation wise) as a 90 ticket. NACOP is right on, you can print your own tickets, and the RMV and towns get shit while the college gets all the dough like they are supposed to as written in 73/18. I say fight the RMV nonsense and appeal it to a higher power. They are not his books (RMV REGISTRAR=GOD).


Posted by: mpd61

Quote:
Originally Posted by RPD931
What's June 10th? You moving up the food chain fscpd?
He could tell you, but then he'd have to kill you. BTW have fun up north Buddy! That was you I heard good things about right?



Posted by: mpd61

Quote:
Originally Posted by j809
When I went through the academy, Pat Rogers said that a private college or university can write their own bylaws through some state chapter and section where they would have the same power(citation wise) as a 90 ticket. NACOP is right on, you can print your own tickets, and the RMV and towns get shit while the college gets all the dough like they are supposed to as written in 73/18. I say fight the RMV nonsense and appeal it to a higher power. They are not his books (RMV REGISTRAR=GOD).
Yimmy!!!!!!!!!!!!
You freaking MGL STUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's all write thank-you letters to the Registrar for the support and assistance that facilitates and enhances our ability to protect the public.


Any RPG toting freaks on Prospect hill lately?


Posted by: j809

Still looking for those damn little bastards with the shoulder launched SA-7s. I'm waiting!! pank:


Posted by: Crvtte65

I cannot believe that this thread is a year old and still going


Posted by: fscpd907

RPD931

No move here / Please see the STATE AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE POLICE OFFICERS post for more details.

or PM DC813


Posted by: daveh

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crvtte65
I cannot believe that this thread is a year old and still going
Just imagine how long the "Worst Colleges to Work For" post would have gone! LOL. It is a hot topic.


Posted by: Crvtte65

hahah that was outta control!!


Posted by: JoninNH

Would one of the campus police officers at a private college who issues private citations for MV infractions please PM me, I have a question or two...


Posted by: copcreamer

Argue what you will, but 2-3 years ago, MIT Police had a foot pursuit (guy B&E vending machines). Foot pursuit to vehicle pursuit from Cambridge over the Longfellow Bridge SU arrested at gunpoint in traffic in Charles Circle Boston.

At booking MIT AO obtained citation book from CPD PO and started writing; Failure to stop PO, Marked lane violations, Driving to endanger etc.

CAMBRIDGE district court no less. . . guilty on all and responsible for MV infractions written by MIT PO. ( 22s63 & Middlesex DS before you ask)

??????

Whaaaaaaawaaaa . . . but we can't!?!?!?! Just do it!


Posted by: Mitpo62

Hey now! I didn't write any citations!




Posted by: copcreamer

No kidding, Lets not confuse MIT AO with MITpo. No pinches while at the 'tute? lol




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

About MassCops, the home for Massachusetts law enforcement.

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

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

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

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

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



vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2008 - Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser

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