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

sheriffs department with ch 90- radar teams ??

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

Posted by: jimbo

if the current sheriff in the county i live in gets re-elected, rumor is that he will seek assistance from the local state senator and state rep to get RMV citation books. currently i believe that only police chiefs can issue them - this could change if he succeeds.. how do you feel about deputies forming radar teams and enforcing traffic on the highways or local roads ? the more the merrier or not their job and they are unwelcome ? could this legislation to allow them to do civil traffic enforcement pass ? think about the sheriff in Bristol County who had deputies patrolling New Bedford- they were kicked out - any precedent set ? let's keep this respectfull so it does not get locked-
no insults, us vs.them stuff - could and should it happen - why or why not ??


Posted by: Irishpride

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo @ Sun 31 Oct, 2004
how do you feel about deputies forming radar teams and enforcing traffic on the highways or local roads ?
If they are properly trained and do not overstep their authority I have no problem with it
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo @ Sun 31 Oct, 2004
the more the merrier or not their job and they are unwelcome
More the merrier but there absolutely needs to be a professional working relationship between agencies or it could be very dangerous
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo @ Sun 31 Oct, 2004
think about the sheriff in Bristol County who had deputies patrolling New Bedford- they were kicked out - any precedent set ?
Actually in the New Bedford case the Sheriff withdrew his Deputies voluntarily. In the court case the judge made an initial judgement that the sheriff's detp. had the authority to patrol within the county without the consent of the local PD and refused to order the deputies out of the city. The case was continued and eventually dropped at the request of the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo @ Sun 31 Oct, 2004
could and should it happen - why or why not??
I'm guessing it could pretty easily seeing as the case law (Baez & Mullen) and statues (90s1) that are laid out to allow it. Should it is a much more difficult question to answer. Law enforcement is typically very resistant to major changes and this could end up hurting the professional image of law enforcement overall . But on the other hand if sheriff's dept.'s become more professional (education standards, academy and FTO training, and recruitment of personnel based on qualifications not political hooks) it could be a good thing especially in some towns in my part of the state that only have 2 sector cars on at night and MSP is stretched very thin. Although I feel that if a sheriff's dept. unable to run their correctional facilities in an efficient and effective manner then the last thing they should be worried about is patrol.


Posted by: MiamiVice

Just curious do the cops in Billerica, Norfolk, Cambridge, Plymouth, etc just show up at the Jails and start gaurding prisoners????? That's right I didn't think so, the Sheriff should keep his people in the jails. A 10 or 14 week corrections academy probably dosent address the various Ch 90 rights of arrest, admin inspections, field sobriety testing, patrol interdiction, consent searches, the MV exception doctrine, etc.

Yes I am well aware that many Deputies have been to that fancy Reserve Academy (I once went many moons ago). However my Dept does not have reserve trained officers, so the reserve trained deputies should not be patrolling.

I hope I never hear "should we fil these open shifts tonite......... no we'll just call the sherrif there here for free."


Posted by: MARINECOP

Well said, Miamivice. They should stay in the jails where they belong. That is the profession they chose. If they wanted to be a police officer then shame on them for choosing the wrong profession. I work in a small town near the Worcester house of correction and the last thing I want is the selectman getting word that they can use the sheriffs dept. instead of us for overtime/sickday shifts. I believe that this is where this is leading. If it comes down to that, they better not call on me for back-up or legal advice.


Posted by: mpd61

WOW!!!!

The fur is going to fly AGAIN!

In the context of this thread, Sheriffs are responsible for many things, within a fixed budget. If he/she wants to start spending public $$$ (budget) on duplicating what State, Municipal, Campus and other police agencies do, let them try to justify it. I'm sure CH. 90 enforcement by deputies will help with making the HOC's more secure. And let's not forget how much Homeland Security will be enhanced.

Baez and Mullins were both case law that the justices even admitted were convoluted and conflicting. (garbage)

1. CH.90C s.1 doesn't say "sheriff" anywhere.
2. CH.90C s.2 "each police chief shall issue citation books to each permanent full-time officer of his department..........and to such other officers as he at his discretion may determine."

This foolishness has been flogged for too long. Sheriffs Dept's in a few other states are
police officers by statute, practice, training, budget, and necessity. But this is Massachusetts and they don't have that here. Especially the last which is need!



Posted by: darkknight750il

I am totally against Sheriff getting ch90! I would bet my career if the Sheriff had ch90 right now Danver's would have them take over MV enforcement to end the "silient strike" and the town would be fighting the union trying to fire/layoff as many cops as they could to save money. There are a few small benefits to giving the Sheriff ch90 but overall its a bad deal for all us cops as I can just see everytime a prop 2 1/2% failed to pass, the towns cut police stating the Sheriff has us covered.

Give the Sheriff CH90 in then we'll all


Posted by: frapmpd24

[quote="MiamiVice @ Sun Oct 31, 08:37"] A 10 or 14 week corrections academy probably dosent address the various Ch 90 rights of arrest, admin inspections, field sobriety testing, patrol interdiction, consent searches, the MV exception doctrine, etc.

However my Dept does not have reserve trained officers, so the reserve trained deputies should not be patrolling.

I hope I never hear "should we fil these open shifts tonite......... no we'll just call the sherrif there here for free."

1. As far as training I am aware of the corrections academies being 10 - 14 weeks as well. Do they cover constitutional law, motor vehicle law (including Radar/Lidar/FST/BT Certification), criminal law, 94C or are they more oriented to the issues within corrections? If they do cover those topics, are there any requirements for in-service training, law updates, etc? My point being, if the sherriffs academies do not teach these topics, and a sherriffs officer makes a stop for a CMVI and comes up with more than they bargin for, they may be in a situation where they are not trained properly. But again, not sure what exactly they teach in their academies.

2. On the subject of reserve deputies, we all know the horror stories lately about some just making contributions and being given badges. If the full-time deputies only perform M/V stops on a limited basis at the present time, how much experience to the reserve deputies have to be performing stops? Or are they usually used in a different capacity?

3. I can definately see selectmen getting the bright idea to suppliment their force with Sherriffs Officers because of motivations such as contract negotiations not going well, disaproval with the Chief, not wanting to pay overtime or increase staffing levels rather than resolve differences. We know how many problems "town fathers" can cause because of their own ego's and political gain. Decisons like that would only divide the law enforcment entities rather than promote cooperation due to them being used in labor dispute situations.

If any Sheriffs Deputies/Officers or CO's that would like to offer anything that would be appreciated, especially on the subject of the academy training and what it entails, that would be greatly appreaciated to foster more discussion (not arguments so it gets locked).


Posted by: 2-Delta

My only question is what the hell is the point? It's not like out west or south where there is land inbetween towns/cities that makes it practical to have a sheriffs dept. working as a police dept. but with more jurisdiction. Up here we have town line to town line which is covered by the Municipals and any other statewide roads or local overlapping is up to the State Police. It might not be a bad a idea in theory, but if there's no need for it, then I can't help but think it will only lead to problems amongst LEOs.


Posted by: jimbo

if this jamoke gets re-elected, i predict you will see deputies doing radar on the highway and local streets - and advertising it with a phone number to call for radar requests - naturally with the sheriffs name prominently displayed for political purposes.... my state senator and state rep would probably help to push this possible legislation through - would yours ??? are you sure...


Posted by: RPD931

This particular topic tends to pop up with every County. I think its inevitable that someday we will see Counties on Patrol. I think its only been "luck" that they haven't been out and about already. Sheriff's already have Chapter 90 powers and can give them to any Sworn deputy they want. If they wanted to start street patrols tomorrow they can. The so'called "reserve deputies" (the ones that are badged for giving cash$$) are different than Sworn deputies. The money "Reserve Deputies" are (in most counties) limited to serving Civil Process ONLY and can NOT enforce Criminal Laws and have NO Law Enforcement authority.

In the Sheriff's departments there are "Deputies" and there are "Corrections Officers"... their authority differ.... Although we may generally call them all "Deputies", only the SWORN Deputies are "Deputies" as they are NOT all SWORN.

I'm sure Pearlonyx or someone else in a CSO can chime in on this.

Quote:
My only question is what the hell is the point? It's not like out west or south where there is land inbetween towns/cities that makes it practical to have a sheriffs dept. working as a police dept. but with more jurisdiction. Up here we have town line to town line which is covered by the Municipals and any other statewide roads or local overlapping is up to the State Police. It might not be a bad a idea in theory, but if there's no need for it, then I can't help but think it will only lead to problems amongst LEOs.
If they are the same Deputies assigned to the same area each night, then what is the difference if they also patrol? Especially west of Worcester, there is plenty of rural area for them to patrol . In the smaller towns you may see 3 officers at one call -- and ALL 3 Officers are from 3 different towns because each town only has ONE on duty. The only real issue I have with "deputies on Patrol" is that there needs to be something laid out stipulating that towns CANNOT factor in County patrols because the area is too large for them to be dependable for call response and must continue to maintain there own Police Dept.


Posted by: Wolfman

Quote:
The only real issue I have with "deputies on Patrol" is that there needs to be something laid out stipulating that towns CANNOT factor in County patrols because the area is too large for them to be dependable for call response and must continue to maintain there own Police Dept.
What you're saying here is that "As long as my job isn't in jeopardy, it's ok." Call me biased, but what about someone elses job?

That may be well and good to preserve a town position, but it fails to address that the job you describe the Sheriffs doing is already being done by the State. If it's OK to make the State Police function redundant and justify a possible reduction in SP numbers based on augmentation from a SD patrol, why is it unfair to sacrifice local jobs for the same reason? You know the way the number crunchers work in this state. Any gain in numbers will result in a loss somewhere else.

If there aren't enough patrols to go from area to area, hire more Troopers. It's what they do, they get good training for just this purpose, and they don't want to take your job. In practice, the concept of "the more, the merrier" turns into "the more, the bigger the cluster f**k".


Posted by: JoninNH

Just what county are you refering to, if I can be so nosey?


Posted by: topcop14

If there was a need I would say bring them on. But this I just don't see it. How much chapter 90 do we need ? ? ?
If this goes through you can see the writing on the wall. The sheriffs will be telling the town and city fathers how they can save $ by getting rid of local police and contracting with the sheriff dept.
It happens in Florida.


Posted by: mpd61

Quote:
Originally Posted by RPD931 @ 01 Nov 2004 05:03
Sheriff's already have Chapter 90 powers and can give them to any Sworn deputy they want. If they wanted to start street patrols tomorrow they can.

Absolute garbage!!!!! Quote MGL that specifically states Sheriffs can do this! I'll bet you'll have to try say Baez & Mullins, but that's crap!

The only real issue I have with "deputies on Patrol" is that there needs to be something laid out stipulating that towns CANNOT factor in County patrols because the area is too large for them to be dependable for call response and must continue to maintain there own Police Dept.
More garbage!!!! You're pointing out that; a) County patrols would be unreliable and b) that towns would still be forced to maintain their own Police Dept. WTF????


I am not ripping mad about this issue, but come on, you can take the PD test in April 05, go to law school, or run for sheriff. Otherwise please give this up!



Posted by: Gil

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo @ Mon Nov 01, 02:03
if this jamoke gets re-elected, i predict you will see deputies doing radar on the highway and local streets - and advertising it with a phone number to call for radar requests - naturally with the sheriffs name prominently displayed for political purposes.... my state senator and state rep would probably help to push this possible legislation through - would yours ??? are you sure...
Some very good points have been brought up regarding the Sheriffs getting chapter 90 powers, patrols etc... and while I am still open to discussion about the extra duties that Hodgson has been attempting to implement, I simply will not vote for a convicted felon with an alleged 9th grade education to run a correctional institution. My reasons for wanting Hodgson re-elected are focused on what he has done in the prison and with prison related programs for the last 7 1/2 years. I am all for the volunteer chain gangs aka "tandem work crews," and limitations on inmate rights (limited television, no weights, smokes etc...). As far as the New Bedford incident I agree that Hodgson did cross the line, as for being kicked out of New Bedford I am pretty sure that he withdrew his deputies voluntarily after all of the media attention his decision created.

I am not disagreeing with the concern of many that if the Sheriff's are given the ability to enforce motor vehicle laws and allowed to patrol freely throughout their counties that it may cost us positions both at the local and state level. I just don't want someone who is soft on crime running a prison. Pelletier, who refers to his felony conviction in the courts as "no big deal" in my opinion is soft on crime.

While Hodgson has done some things in the past that I have not agreed with and the fact that I think he focuses a little too much on media attention I still will be voting for him on the 2nd. Pelletier in my opinion is simply not the man for the job.

Posted Mon Nov 01, 09:09:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoninNH @ Mon Nov 01, 08:05
Just what county are you refering to, if I can be so nosey?
Bristol


Posted by: wordstew

Man oh Man there is a big us versus them mentality around here. The irony of the whole situation is this. Some of the law enforcement sheriffs are retired police officers. If they do start patrols and chap. 90 it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.


Posted by: tomfin

nfire: I believe as it stand now Sheriff's can only write a citation for a breach of the peace.
Not all Correction Officer's are deputies. To become a Deputy You have to attend at least a part time Police Academy just like a special or PI in a town.

Sheriff's are there to support the local police Departments by supplying Dogs BCI or even a Dive Team if needed
I not believe that sheriffs will start coming in to anyones town and start enforcing chap. 90's Who is going to pay them The County? I not think so.


Posted by: MiamiVice

Since County Government was all but eliminated here in MA in the mid 90's, as far as I know ALL of the Sheriffs Deputies/CO's are STATE employee's, thats right their check is from the Comm. of MA.


I pay enough taxes, I expect the MSP to be on the Highways, and a the Airport and the Pike, and to have their special units to augment cities and towns (K9-Air-Dive-SERT-etc)

I expect MEMA to handle diasters and such.

DOC to run the State Prisons

My Local PD to Patrol the Town

and last and least- Sheriffs to run the County jail and transport prisoners. This isn't TX or FL, or anywhere else where Sheriffs Patrol County Property and unincorporated areas. Since the mid 90's there is NO MORE County property, it all belongs to the State (Courts, Jails, etc).

If the Sheriffs want to do something useful, how about coming to the local PD's and State Barracks with a Van once a shift and picking up prisoners!!!


Posted by: MSP75

Why is the Sheriff allowed the money to put into these sworn deputy positions? Any extra money that the state has should be directed to more MSP patrol positions (which are needed) or aid to Local PDs. How is this allowed with both SPAM, MPA, etc. always pushing legislatures for more money?


Posted by: jimbo

TOMFIN, do not doubt for a second that a sheriff, particularly the one in my county, would, if re-elected for 6 years seek Ch 90 books and form county wide radar teams. the job of a sheriff is an elected position - radar teams would allow him to put out even more adds and brochures touting a program he provides ... name recognition and results equal re-election... you can also be assured that they would have a phone number to call to request radar at certain locations (circumventing the local/state police). this jamoke seeks to have "county police" - - could it spread state wide - possibly... personally i think the sheriffs dept jobs are too political - i have no problem with Co's, career K9 guys and transportation deputies - i do have issues with part time deputies who think they are police.... by the way, why does it say "Dial 9-1-1" on sheriffs dept cars in this county...they never answer or respond to 9-1-1 calls where I work...think it shows the mentality and objective.....stay tuned and remember to vote.


Posted by: RPD931

My thoughts on the Sheriff Patrols are simple.. I don't want anyone to lose their Jobs, Local or state. But it just seems like the writing is on the wall.

Quote:
I am not ripping mad about this issue, but come on, you can take the PD test in April 05, go to law school, or run for sheriff. Otherwise please give this up!
Took the last test, did VERY well. I'll take it again. I work as a part-time PO now, most towns near me are non-civil circus.... I'm not a Deputy Sheriff, nor am I look to become one. But like I said, the writing is on the wall.


Posted by: JoninNH

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo @ Tue November 02, 2004 2:07 am
by the way, why does it say "Dial 9-1-1" on sheriffs dept cars in this county...they never answer or respond to 9-1-1 calls where I work...think it shows the mentality and objective......
John Q. Public sees a cruiser with a blue light, and the driver is wearing a uniform with a badge and a gun, and probably doesn't know (or care about) the difference between a municipal police officer and a sworn deputy sheriff. All he sees is the gun, uniform and blue lights. So when JQP has an emergency he dials 9-1-1 just like the decal on the car says, and <gasp> a vehicle with blue lights pulls up and a guy wearing a uniform, carrying a gun, gets out.

I don't think that there is a group of deputy sheriffs in a dimmly lit room with smoke wafing about, plotting to take over law enforcement in the Commonwealth. I do see your concern about towns axing positions, and believe me I do NOT want to see anyone get laid off here. I know of a NH town whose board of selectman voted to abolish the town police department and pay the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Department to partrol the town. But this is New Hampshire and a NH Deputy Sheriff is not the same as a MA Deputy Sheriff.

But are you looking at the potential advantages here? More uniforms on the road = safer work enviroment. At a high risk stop, instead of hearing, "Be advised, cover is 15 minutes out" you could have a deputy sheriff roll up? Wouldn't that be better? Just my opinion.


Posted by: E_Javi2

If they are deputies, I don't see why not. In other states they are the ones that do the police work.


Posted by: Wolfman

Then let them go to other states. In Mass they are Corrwections and process servers, let's stick to what we do best.


Posted by: mpd61

Quote:
Originally Posted by VOR @ 02 Nov 2004 08:53
Then let them go to other states. In Mass they are Corrwections and process servers, let's stick to what we do best.
Dude,

They are NOT listening to reasonable arguements like MGL vs. Baez/Mullins, or Training issues, or the statutory and practical differences between Massachusetts and Texas, etc.

No, there are probably NOT any deputies in dark rooms plotting to circumvent democracy. Their Boss the Sheriff already has done so. Many elected officials have powers/mechanisms to circumvent the legislature. Don't believe me? Look at what Scott Harshbugger did to Handguns in this state under the guise of "consumer safety law"

Deputies are valued members of the CJ Team, but they're not cops.



Posted by: union1

Up until Saturday night I was all for the Sheriffs on patrol, however here is what I observed that changed my mind.

While in Salem I saw roughly 60 SD officers doing different functions including road details (these details actually required them to be out of their motor vehicles). Now the first group that I observed which was 3 or 4 of them, one of them I believe was a supervisor were standing in a group talking.. all the while GRIDLOCK was occurring. Now this gridlock started when I was sitting in the traffic. 45 mins later after I was able to park my car I walked by and the one of the SAME vehicles that was in it when it started was still there!! the SD guys were still there just shooting the shit.

Next run in with a SD guy was on a CLOSED street.. Mind you salem has a million people walking around all dressed in some weird costumes. My Fiance and I were dressed up for a function we were attending so we were looking normal. As we began walking across this closed street (next to the fire station) a SD guard who was standing in the middle of the street with one of his boobs "i mean buddys" shouted at My fiance and I to use the crosswalk, I looked at him stunned wishing at that point I had an Egg to toss at him but unfortunately the gods were not in my favor and I had none to throw. So I decided to do the next best thing and walked up to him and asked him if he was there who was guarding the prisoners. I think that stunned him more than he stunned me. (If you are on this board and are reading this I would like to throw a big f-u you boob).

This just goes to show you and it definitely changed my mind about the SD on patrol. STay in the jails and let the real police do the police work.


Posted by: mpd61

Union,

I feel your pain however...........
the above account still has more emotion and opinion than the statutory/historical/practical issues.

If sheriffs are "police" then we better put the ABCC investigators, MSPCA, Tobin toll collectors, etc out htere on patrol WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Posted by: MC1010

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiVice @ Mon November 01, 2004 2:16 pm
If the Sheriffs want to do something useful, how about coming to the local PD's and State Barracks with a Van once a shift and picking up prisoners!!!
Yeah no shit!!!! Everytime we have a prisoner and call the SD to house the prisoner, we get, " sorry, we are under staffed and cant hire any overtime". Oh no shit, but you can come and play cop on the steets, but cant watch a prisoner, which is your PRIMARY job..... GO FIGURE!!!!!!!!!1


Posted by: wordstew

It sounds like some people on this board have a problem with authority unless it's their own.
If all these sheriffs went to the full time academy and attended every type of training possible most here still would not want them on the street. So let us be completely honest it's a percieved threat to your job. That is definitely a very legitimate arguement and one of concern to many who make their living working as a full time police office.

However to castigate these sheriffs is uncalled for. If you feel threatend let the union address it as well they should.


Posted by: MC1010

Its not having a problem with authority, it called doing the job are are trained to do. I was a correctional officer before becoming a Trooper, so i have correctional officer training. So is it fair to say that on one of my days off, and if i would like to get some overtime, that I go to the local Sheriff's Dept. and start doing their job??? Why not, I have 7 years under my belt as a CO. So you cant tell me that this is different, because its not... they are traing to do my job and i am trained to do theirs.... sounds fair to me, but i know that the CO's would be bitching for me taking their work and their overtime....sounds the same to me!!!!!!!!


Posted by: wordstew

Trooper I do somewhat agree with you. My point is those that disagree with the sheriffs on the road have every right to voice it. I would just rather see the posts state their case as opposed to simply bad mouthing the sheriffs dept.
But Hey, it's a free country


Posted by: mpd61

Quote:
Originally Posted by wordstew @ 02 Nov 2004 13:16
Trooper I do somewhat agree with you. My point is those that disagree with the sheriffs on the road have every right to voice it. I would just rather see the posts state their case as opposed to simply bad mouthing the sheriffs dept.
But Hey, it's a free country
We've been citing MGL/Case law/History/comparisons/ etc. The deputies-on-road crew keep ignoring them.


Posted by: wordstew

point well taken


Posted by: PearlOnyx

Wow, there is a lot to address here, but I'll try to get everything:

MC,

Speaking about Sheriff's Departments refusing Inmates, what county do you work in? I can't remember the last time that we refused an Inmate, short of a few who had some serious medical issues.

Union,

Although, if what occured did occur, which it very may well have, do you think you are throwing away the baby with the bathwater? A few bad apples spoiling the bunch maybe? Just for the record, although I am employed by the agency you mention, I no longer work details with them, and have no personal vested interest in the matter.

MPD,

You make a good point that these "changes" aren't being plotted by officers themselves, but administrators and Sheriffs. Hopefully everyone remembers this when they address this issue, so we are not fighting eachother, but the policy put in place by our bosses.

Jimbo,

I think the 911 issue, although it is not printed on cars where I live, is a public service kind of issue. Maybe just to popularize the use of the 911 system. People see a car with blue lights, a police plate, and a uniformed officer, and say to themselves "police officer" regardless of what we really are.

MiamiVice,

To the best of my knowlege, although most county governments were eliminated, all were not. I know my department is now a state funded (no county government department) but from discussion, I have been told that there are still a few dinasours kicking around.
As far as picking up prisoners at barracks and what not. I agree that it would be a great idea. We need to do our primary responsibility perfectly first before we branch out. There are not enough officers or money to do everything we need to be doing corrections wise, to even be thinking about police responsibilities.

Tomfin,

I think you are confusing the legal issue. A Deputy Sheriff is allowed to make an arrest for a breach of the peace, as opposed to a criminal summons for non-breach of the peace crimes. Since the topic is Chapter 90, and you refer to "citation" I would assume you are discussing traffic enforcement. Chapter 90 enforcement for Deputy Sheriffs under Commonwealth v. Baez. However, the court admits that the law is convoluted, and suggests that the legislature address the authority of Deputy Sheriff's.

Gil,

I too would rather see towns and cities get the money to hire more police officers, than expand the authority of the Sheriff's Departments.

RPD,

Excellent point about Reserve Deputies. These guys belong to some sort of "Association" and have no authority, as they are not sworn by the civil clerk of their respective county. A badge and an ID, a Cop does not make.

There is a difference between Corrections Officers and Deputy Sheriff's, and these two are often confused. Deputy Sheriffs have the authorities granted under common law, state statute, and case law to enforce crimimnal law and serve civil process. Corrections Officers do not. They are what their name suggests, correctional officers.

More to Come...


Posted by: USMCTrooper

The "NEW" Police Dept. in Danvers.....DANVERS TERRITORY DEPUTIES



scroll down the page...


http://coloradorangers.org/

Posted Tue 02 Nov, 2004:

SJC to hear Times' lawsuit vs. sheriff
Justices will decide if reserve deputy appointees' names must be released.

By DAVID KIBBE
TIMES BOSTON BUREAU
BOSTON - The state's high court will hear arguments tomorrow on whether the Barnstable County Sheriff's Office is required under public records law to release the identities of more than 200 reserve deputy sheriffs appointed by Sheriff James Cummings since 1999.

The reserve deputies have no law enforcement training or power, according to the sheriff's office. They do fund-raising and charitable work on behalf of the sheriff for senior citizen and youth groups.

But their applications are processed by sheriff's employees on public time and they are sworn in at the sheriff's office. They are also allowed to buy replica badges that are smaller than those carried by full-fledged deputies, but otherwise identical.

The Cape Cod Times, which filed the lawsuit last year when Cummings declined to release the names, maintains the sheriff also has the ability to call the reserve deputies to active duty. The sheriff's office argues that the reserve deputies are members of the nonprofit, charitable Barnstable County Deputy Sheriff's Association, and have a right to privacy.

"These reserve deputies are not sheriff's office employees, and have no law enforcement power," wrote Matthew J. Murphy, general counsel to the Barnstable County Sheriff's Office, in a brief to the court. "The records in question clearly are the records of a private, nonprofit, tax-exempt entity. They are not on their face government records."

The records are kept in the office of Special Sheriff Philip J. Nugnes, vice president of the association, but he does association work on his own time, Murphy said.

The Times said the public has a right to know who was appointed by the sheriff and allowed to carry badges as reserve deputies.

"The records are created through the work of numerous employees acting at the behest of the sheriff, paid for with public funds, and using public facilities," wrote The Times' lawyer, Thomas Crotty, in his brief to the court.

"To the extent that the sheriff tries to claim that the requested records are corporate records of the association, the facts are clear that these records are actually created at the public's expense, by the work of public employees, the vast majority of whom are not members of the association," Crotty wrote.

The seven-member Supreme Judicial Court will hear arguments for about a half-hour tomorrow morningin a Suffolk County courtroom. The court usually issues a written decision several months later.



Similar case in Middlesex County
The case is being watched around the state. The Boston Herald recently filed a similar lawsuit seeking the names of reserve deputies in Middlesex County.
The Massachusetts Sheriffs Association, which represents 14 sheriff's offices across the state, filed a brief in support of the Barnstable sheriff, but also argued that the public information law was "vague and overbroad." The state association's lawyer, Edward O'Brien Jr. of Mashpee, said the SJC should "recognize or create" an exemption in the public records law for public officials to maintain private records.

Taken to the extreme, O'Brien maintained, The Times' argument means that photographs that sheriffs take of their grandchildren at home could be deemed public information because sheriffs are technically on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

"The determination of this court will have an immediate and discernable impact on members of the (sheriff's association) and the agencies and employees they represent," O'Brien wrote to the court. "The records sought are not the records of any sheriff's office, but the records of a third party."

The Times sought the records in February 2003 after Yarmouth police launched a criminal probe into a car dealership owned by Christopher LoPilato, 32, who had been appointed a reserve deputy by Cummings in July 2000. LoPilato, who was indicted on multiple counts of larceny, resigned from the reserve program last year.

The practice of allowing honorary reserve deputies to carry replica badges has been controversial around the country. A number of sheriffs from California to Connecticut have dropped it under political pressure, due to concern about potential misuse of the badges.

Locally, Suffolk, Essex, Plymouth and Bristol counties dropped the practice because it was difficult to keep track of who was carrying the badges and how they were being used.

Murphy wrote that Nugnes is the only Barnstable County employee who spends "more than a few hours a month" on the reserve deputy program. Other sheriff's employees run criminal background checks on nominees to the reserve deputy program. The sheriff, an ex-officio member of the association's board of directors, has the final say on appointments.

Murphy said the criminal checks are required by law because reserve deputies work with seniors and children. But the practice of running background checks on civilian reserve deputies in Middlesex and Barnstable counties has been questioned by Massachusetts Public Safety Secretary Edward Flynn. Flynn said the state will conduct an audit to find out how the Criminal Offender Record Information System is being used across the state.



Case on appeal
Barnstable Superior Court Judge David A. McLaughlin ruled last December that Cummings was not legally required to release the names of the reserve deputies, saying the records were private.
The Times appealed the case, and the SJC agreed to take it on direct appeal, skipping the mid-level appeals court.

Crotty said McLaughlin misapplied the state records law by weighing whether Cummings kept the records in an official or personal capacity - a legal test Crotty said does not exist in state law.

"One will search in vain ... For any reference to a procedural or substantive test for determining whether a record made or kept by a public official or his employee was made in his 'personal' as opposed to his 'official' capacity," Crotty wrote. "Such a procedural or substantive provision simply does not exist."

But Murphy said the judge properly applied a five-step legal test from a 1993 SJC decision in a case brought by the Boston Globe against the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Retirement Board. Murphy said the SJC ruled that for information to be declared public, the agency had to be created legislatively or administratively, had to perform an essential government function, had to receive or expend public funds, had to be controlled by a government official and privacy rights had to be respected.

Murphy said the Barnstable County Deputy Sheriff's Association was run by its treasurer, Jon Hunt, who does not work for the sheriff's department and has a separate address and phone number. The paperwork used by Nugnes is paid for by the association, not the sheriff's office, Murphy said.

"The Barnstable County Deputy Sheriff's Association was not created by the government," Murphy said. "The Barnstable County Deputy Sheriff's Association does not perform an essential government function."

(Published: November 1, 2004)


I would bet that the guys working in Salem were NOT CO's but members of the sheriff's "law enforcement division et al" who are, in fact, untrained, political hacks. Why do I think that? They have them in this area too working details, parades, etc. I'm related to a former one who tries to impress me with tales of over 20 years "on the job" RIGHT! His everday job? 30 years as...... .......a PLUMBER


Posted by: MC1010

Pearlonyx,

I work out in the Berkshires, and I would totally understand if we were trying pedal off either a Q5, a drunk or anyother type of misfit, but we are talking about normal criminals that we just cant have sitting in our cell over the weekend. This happens everytime we call for the house to take a prisoner. We dont have the capacity to hold people more than 8 hours. They need to be able to have running water and necessities like that in the cell, but we dont. Our Barracks was built in the late 1800's and its like a museum, not a jail. It would cost a crap load of money to reconfigure the Barracks to be able to hold more than 2 prisoners, as it is right now, and equip the cells with the needed necessities. We are a short tern hold facility, jails are for LONG term and thats their JOB... We could be like them and say, "oh, you have someone breaking into your home right now??? Sorry, we cant hire any overtime to send someone, but check back tomorrow and maybe we can help you then". I am not trying to piss anyone off with this, but this what we go through all the time. And it get frustratingwhen you get a response like that, but they have lenty of time and manpower to go play cop instead of taking care of their primary function....housing criminals...I have been on both side of this situation, i wanted to be a cop, so i took the test and made it...otherwise i would still be a correctional officer, not a co and a cop.


Posted by: ryan933

If we need more ch. 90 enforcement, or more LAW enforcement in general, then HIRE MORE TROOPERS AND LOCAL COPS!!!!

If we need more jail guards, HIRE MORE SHERIFFS!!!

If the sheriffs want to become cops, they can go the same road the rest of us have gone......get hired by a true law enforcement organization.

Ryan


Posted by: Gil

Candidate Votes Pct.
Thomas Hodgson (Rep.) (i) 128,002 58%
Leo Pelletier (Dem.) 90,866 42%

Bristol County Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson rode overwhelming popular support last night to win a second six-year term.

With all 20 of the county's communities reporting results, the Republican sheriff polled 37,063 more votes than his Democratic challenger, Fall River City Councilor Leo O. Pelletier, including wins in traditional Democratic strongholds of New Bedford, Fall River and Attleboro.

Sheriff Hodgson, 50, the Republican, swept each of the 20 towns and garnered 128,266 votes to 91,203 votes for Mr. Pelletier, a 59-year-old Democrat.

The race was closest in New Bedford, where only 226 votes separated the two. The candidates were separated by 930 votes in their place of residence, Fall River.
As close as those margins were in Fall River and New Bedford, Mr. Pelletier fell far short in Attleboro and Taunton, where the sheriff spent a lot of time campaigning. Sheriff Hodgson won those cities by several thousand votes each.

The sheriff said last night he feels the voters have given him the mandate he sought, which will allow him to continue his reform of the county's correctional system.
"I feel great for all of our supporters who kept themselves up and working at a dignified level," he said.
He was critical of the negative campaigning by the Pelletier campaign in the last week -- a tactic to link the sheriff with convicted SouthCoast crime boss Timothy J. Mello.
Mr. Pelletier was convicted 20 years ago of having two video poker machines in his former Fall River restaurant, the Rockland Diner.
Mr. Hodgson said negative campaigning by any candidate hurts the democratic process and undermines people's confidence in their elected officials. "The county deserves better," he said.
He said he now intends to focus on recidivism by attacking what he called "the front end of the problem."
He said the county needs community centers and social workers to encourage young people to engage in positive activities instead of "hanging out on street corners."
The challenger, who has served on the Fall River City Council for 21 years and has topped the ticket for City Council the last three elections, conceded about 9:45 p.m.
"It's over," he said. "I took a shot and did the best I could. We worked hard. It was the hardest campaign I have ever worked."
Mr. Pelletier thanked his supporters and said he hopes the sheriff doesn't "retaliate" against the many correctional officers who supported Mr. Pelletier's campaign.
"I wish him well and success," Mr. Pelletier said of the sheriff, "and maybe he has learned something from this campaign and to be nicer to the people."
Mr. Pelletier had hoped that Democratic presidential candidate and Bay State junior Sen. John F. Kerry would have long coattails and help him beat the incumbent sheriff.
Mr. Pelletier was banking on big margins over Sheriff Hodgson in New Bedford and especially in Fall River to offset anticipated losses in the northern end of the county where he isn't well known.
Sheriff Hodgson campaigned like he was challenger and said he was following the example of former GOP President Ronald Reagan, running like he was "10 votes behind."
Running for the first time as a resident of Fall River, after moving there five years ago, Sheriff Hodgson wasn't willing to concede the Spindle City to Mr. Pelletier and proclaimed in the weeks before election day that he was campaigning to win.

Voters interviewed yesterday in Fall River, Dartmouth and New Bedford offered very different views of the two candidates.
"When you deal with criminal justice, you need to be a harder guy, and I think Hodgson has that aura," said Karen Souza of Fall River, adding Mr. Pelletier came across as a man with "a good heart."
Many said they disagreed with Sheriff Hodgson's style and his performance as sheriff and said they were voting for Mr. Pelletier.
"You almost feel like an inmate. You walk around on eggshells," said Donald Leung of New Bedford, a retired county correctional officer, after voting at the Buttonwood Senior Center. "I've been through two administrations, and he's (Mr. Hodgson) unbelievable."

A former Ocean City, Md., police officer, Mr. Hodgson moved to New Bedford in 1988 and was elected to the City Council in 1992. He served on the City Council for five years until his appointment as sheriff by Gov. William F. Weld in 1997.

This story appeared on Page A1 of The Standard-Times on November 3, 2004.
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily...4/a01lo702.htm

SHERIFF BRISTOL - Updated 11/03/2004 7:38am
100 reporting precincts
LEO PELLETIER 90,846
THOMAS HODGSON 127,985

SHERIFF ESSEX - Updated 11/03/2004 7:38am
98 reporting precincts
WILLIAM MURLEY 111,820
FRANK COUSINS 189,831

SHERIFF FRANKLIN - Updated 11/03/2004 7:38am
100 reporting precincts
FREDERICK MACDONALD 25,763
ROBERT HUNTER 8,599

SHERIFF HAMPSHIRE - Updated 11/03/2004 7:38am
82 reporting precincts
ROBERT GARVEY 42,312
WILLIAM LYNCH 12,645

SHERIFF NANTUCKET - Updated 11/03/2004 7:38am
100 reporting precincts
RICHARD BRETSCHNEIDER 3,284
DOUGLAS BENNETT 342
KENNETH DAY 96
JOHN MCGRADY 1,654

SHERIFF PLYMOUTH - Updated 11/03/2004 7:38am
100 reporting precincts
JOSEPH MCDONOUGH 108,029
JOSEPH MCDONALD 109,020

SHERIFF WORCESTER - Updated 11/03/2004 7:38am
100 reporting precincts
GUY GLODIS 194,298
WILLIAM MCCARTHY 90,689
FRANK BESHAI 17,735


Posted by: tomfin

Jimbo, You are right why do they have 911 on the side of the cruiser? Hopefully the local POLICE UNIONS won't let the sherifs take there job. The sherrifs department is ALL political and I don't want them patrolling my streets either. But I do like them to handling photo's and prints and supply a dog when needed most of the time they can get there faster then the msp. By using the sherrifs in these areas it give me a chance to get my officers back on the road faster. The county has it's own budget yes which is based on the state budget But the county has the control of that money just like in town or city.


Posted by: Gil

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomfin @ Wed Nov 03, 09:25
Jimbo, You are right why do they have 911 on the side of the cruiser? Hopefully the local POLICE UNIONS won't let the sheriffs take there job. The sheriffs department is ALL political and I don't want them patrolling my streets either. But I do like them to handling photo's and prints and supply a dog when needed most of the time they can get there faster then the msp. By using the sheriffs in these areas it give me a chance to get my officers back on the road faster. The county has it's own budget yes which is based on the state budget But the county has the control of that money just like in town or city.
I really like the way that Plymouth County works with BCI handling the photo's, prints and transportation. I think they may even do photos for crime scene and accidents etc... As far as I know the smaller towns like Plympton really appreciate the assist. They also have a guy at BCI that runs through all of the prints collected every night and enters and compares them to the current database I think it's Ray Burton's son. Although I can see some detectives taking offense to it as this would cut into the many 4 hour call backs for crime scene work....


Posted by: PearlOnyx

I will respond shortly as soon as my technical difficulties end. Can't seem to post right now. Not avoiding the situation =)


Posted by: jimbo

we are drifting from the topic regarding the possibility of legislation allowing full Ch 90 powers , but I want to respond to Gil's post -- we arrest alot more people than any of the nearby towns and we do our own booking and photos - takes less than 5 minutes - I see it every day - even a small town like Plympton can handle that if they tried - why make a big deal out of a five minute procedure and call in an outside agency - think how few Troopers are on the road from any barracks at a given time - i doubt they call anyone in to snap a booking photo and roll fingerprints.... Now I'm curious how many Counties do this mobil response to P.D.'s to take a photo and fingerprints and then leave.. .It would be a different story if they picked up the prisoner at the P.D ,took him to safe keep at the jail, booked him in and bailed him from their facility, but they don't. So why bother calling them for such a quick task


Posted by: Gil

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo @ Wed Nov 03, 11:39
we are drifting from the topic regarding the possibility of legislation allowing full Ch 90 powers , but I want to respond to Gil's post -- we arrest alot more people than any of the nearby towns and we do our own booking and photos - takes less than 5 minutes - I see it every day - even a small town like Plympton can handle that if they tried - why make a big deal out of a five minute procedure and call in an outside agency
I believe that they do take custody of them that's why they do the prints and photos. If the Sheriffs departments are going to stray from the prisons, I would much rather see them take on the role that Plymouth County has put in place rather than what Bristol County has attempted to do. As much as I hated McDounough (and very glad that he is on his way out) I think that they have an excellent BCI unit that is there to assist the locals. Plymouth is not barging in and trying to take control of patrols or motor vehicle law but they are there to assist any city or town that request.


Posted by: jo

Can a Deputy Sheriff make an arrest or issue a citation under chapter 90? If you read Chapter 90 Section 1, DEFINITIONS it states the following.

"Police Officer" or "Officer", any constable or other officer authorized to make arrest or serve process, provided he is in uniform or displays his badge of office.

A Deputy Sheriff is an officer who is authorized to make arrests and serve process. This would indicate he may issue a citation and make a chapter 90 arrest. As he clearly falls under the definition of a Police Officer.

As far as getting a citation book issued the law reads only a Police Chief may issue a citation book. My question would be if a Deputy Sheriff is a Police officer under 90-1 than would his Police Chief be the Sheriff?


Posted by: Dookie

I am new, but I wanted to weigh in on this subject:

1.) Ch 90-1 says nothing about Sheriff's or deputies. End of story.

2.) In the old blue-law, and even Regimental or Revolutionary system of county governments the "High Sheriff" was the law of the land-- and an extraction from our English fathers. Not the same, now, but the legislation has never been changed to reflect the other changes at Beacon Hill.

3.) To me, the MSP is the only county-wide jurisdictional power with the abilities for arrest, Ch. 90 radar and stops, etc. Most of the Deputies are not academy trained. For those that ARE, just because one has the municipal training does not mean that they have legal license to use those powers in the role as Deputy Sheriff.

Let me tell you a few horror stories from the western part of the state.

1.) My county sheriff's department has deputies, right now making ch 90 stops and they have issued citations. Our local police chiefs are freaking bonkers about it and no one understands where they got the ticket books.

2.) Some of these deputies have NO PREVIOUS LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPERIENCE, only a simple "brown-book" training. But they carry firearms and are making, although infrequent, Ch. 90 stops. What concerns me is the ability for these stops to become politically motivated (as we all know can the the motivation for everything in a Sheriff's Department).

3.) One of these higher up Deputies made a Ch 90 stop in a local town, with supposed DUI. He pulled the suspect from the car and administered field sobriety. He determined the subject was intoxicated and made an arrest. The issue goes to court, and the judge asks what police powers or training this Deputy has to make the stop? He says "None". He asks whether or not he has Field sobriety or Breathalizer training: the reply,"None". Case dismissed, another drunk on the streets to kill one of my kids on their bike. Too proud to call for a TRAINED, municipal POLICE OFFICER to do his/her job the right way. Power, or the appearance of, makes people very stupid.

4.) NOW they are talking about arming their process servers-- sending them to a 19 week mandatory academy, reviewing Ch. 90 and handing out .40's. I don't know about you all, but the 70 year old PS delivering perps papers with a sidearm will get waxed before the thought of drawing that weapon is even had.

THIS STUFF IS SCARY. I support local police and the jurisdiction of the MSP to help out where they can. Am I a proponent of having more uniforms on the street? Sure, but not at the expense of the folks in uniform who are trained and qualified to do the jobs they do so well.

I WANT SOMEONE TO TELL ME, DEFINITIVELY, WHETHER OR NOT THE USE OF THESE CH. 90-1 POWERS IS LEGAL!!


Posted by: Wannabe1

Ahhh can ya feel the love. You guys that are worried about losing your jobs...what about all the states that have sheriff depts. patrolling? They always seem to be the places that hire the most municipal and state cops? Unlike Mass where it takes an act of God to get a card in the mail.


Posted by: jimbo

Gil, in the county I'm in they do NOT take the prisoners after taking a booking photo and fingerprints of them at the municipal police station - thats why we see absolutely no need to call BCI - takes us 5 minutes to snap a photo and roll fingers - we are autonomous with that. We are also leaning towards not calling the county K('s as much. A Trooper assigned to the Air Wing said they have FLIR in the copters and are more than willing to help out P.D.s in finding suspects - there are 3 State Police Air Wings in Massachusetts and they can be anywhere in a short time - he added that they often go up for flight time anyway and would love to be used more - I can count on 1 hand the times I've seen a dog find anyone - I have more confidence in FLIR. Dookie, what county are you in ? WHO gave them Ch 90 citation books ? this is exactly what the thread is about, maybe they can get them without new legislation... if so, will it be long before radar and traffic enforcemwnt patrols are advertised by attention loving sheriffs for political gain ? this very well could become common place. Do most police care ? Should we care ?


Posted by: VTCOP

No I'm not a Mass resident, so of course this is biased due impart of the area I live and work. We have sheriffs that do radar patrols and normal lawenforcement patrols. I don't see for any reason other than PUBLIC SAFETY that a county department would want to weigh in on patrols. The only way a Sheriff can take this for political matters is if the sheriff's patrols are doing a good job out on the road and doing what the town's or county tax payers want them to do. Yes this could help influence the next vote. However, I have not seen and doubt that a sheriff would just use this authority for point blank political influence. Obviously the activities would need to be monitored to make certain the sheriff behind his back is not dumping tickets or cases to make sure he has a vote.

Look at the positives that could come out of it. Even if a small department got cut, and the sheriffs were hired for the normal day to day patrols and calls to service, the officer's could most likely get a job with the sheriff, get a bigger area to play in and varying duties. The other issue is that most if not all towns would not want to get rid of their departments. Local control!? HA doubt it.

Personally, I wish our sheriff's up here did more regular patrols instead of just radar. But it is money, and our county department is not run by tax money from the county, but is run by local tax money on a contract.

On an end note, I dont think you officer's that are working down there should worry about job loss due to sheriffs working the road. You ought in stead to help make sure that these deputies by statute get the required training through the mcjtc. This could potentially open a lot of positions in lawenforcment which would help a lot of people acquire a job. You need to also take in the public safety stand point. More officers on the road = more backup = more enforcement of laws.

Just my


Posted by: RPD931

Quote:
THIS STUFF IS SCARY. I support local police and the jurisdiction of the MSP to help out where they can. Am I a proponent of having more uniforms on the street? Sure, but not at the expense of the folks in uniform who are trained and qualified to do the jobs they do so well.
For starters, I don't think we'll be seeing Deputies "walk in off the street" with no LE training conducting patrols. Obviously they would have LE training before they can LEGALLY be empowered to enforce laws in the eyes of the court.

Also, I believe past case laws dictate that Sheriffs can Issue citation books. Worcester County already does Chapter 90 - granted its on the roadways adjacent to their facilities, but they did issue several hundred citations last year... And they've also have chased a few that took off on them. The folks doing the "Exterior Patrols" have all at least completed the Reserve Police Academy.


Posted by: Otto

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dookie @ Wed November 03, 2004 8:25 pm
I am new, but I wanted to weigh in on this subject:

1.) Ch 90-1 says nothing about Sheriff's or deputies. End of story.

Not, "end of story." End of Capter 90 - 1. Much more to story.

2.) In the old blue-law, and even Regimental or Revolutionary system of county governments the "High Sheriff" was the law of the land-- and an extraction from our English fathers. Not the same, now, but the legislation has never been changed to reflect the other changes at Beacon Hill.

Since the legislature has not changed the common law authority of the sheriff, he still retains it.

3.) To me, the MSP is the only county-wide jurisdictional power with the abilities for arrest, Ch. 90 radar and stops, etc. Most of the Deputies are not academy trained. For those that ARE, just because one has the municipal training does not mean that they have legal license to use those powers in the role as Deputy Sheriff.

Maybe to you, not to the courts.

Let me tell you a few horror stories from the western part of the state.

1.) My county sheriff's department has deputies, right now making ch 90 stops and they have issued citations. Our local police chiefs are freaking bonkers about it and no one understands where they got the ticket books.

2.) Some of these deputies have NO PREVIOUS LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPERIENCE, only a simple "brown-book" training. But they carry firearms and are making, although infrequent, Ch. 90 stops. What concerns me is the ability for these stops to become politically motivated (as we all know can the the motivation for everything in a Sheriff's Department).

I know many police officers that have NO PREVIOUS LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPERIENCE with only "brown book" training and they carry firearms and make Ch. 90 stops. I have also heard municipal police officers talking about "keeping an eye out" for a selectmans kid.

3.) One of these higher up Deputies made a Ch 90 stop in a local town, with supposed DUI. He pulled the suspect from the car and administered field sobriety. He determined the subject was intoxicated and made an arrest. The issue goes to court, and the judge asks what police powers or training this Deputy has to make the stop? He says "None". He asks whether or not he has Field sobriety or Breathalizer training: the reply,"None". Case dismissed, another drunk on the streets to kill one of my kids on their bike. Too proud to call for a TRAINED, municipal POLICE OFFICER to do his/her job the right way. Power, or the appearance of, makes people very stupid.

I find it hard to believe that after arresting someone the deputy would tell the judge that he has no police powers. If the chiefs are "going bonkers" the deputy may have thought he would not receive a friendly assist.

4.) NOW they are talking about arming their process servers-- sending them to a 19 week mandatory academy, reviewing Ch. 90 and handing out .40's. I don't know about you all, but the 70 year old PS delivering perps papers with a sidearm will get waxed before the thought of drawing that weapon is even had.

I can't speak about where you are from, but where I am from, the uniformed deputies assigned to serve process have been armed for years, without any problems.

THIS STUFF IS SCARY. I support local police and the jurisdiction of the MSP to help out where they can. Am I a proponent of having more uniforms on the street? Sure, but not at the expense of the folks in uniform who are trained and qualified to do the jobs they do so well.

I WANT SOMEONE TO TELL ME, DEFINITIVELY, WHETHER OR NOT THE USE OF THESE CH. 90-1 POWERS IS LEGAL!!
It is legal. See Comm v. Baez.


Posted by: Delta9

Both MEP and MBTA PD issue CMVIs, where's the uproar against them? I think the only way to ever resolve these issues is to establish a statewide peace officer standard, and put everyone on the same level playing field.


Posted by: USMCTrooper

The MEP ( I assume you mean EPO) and MBTA are defined in genarl parts of MGL as well as their own specific statutes. Sheriffs are not as clear. As courts have said, IF the legislature chose to expand the authority of sheriff's in MGL, they would. They have yet not seen fit to do so. There is a statewide standard - its called the State Police (EPO have statewide power too). But in general, meet the standard, you become a STATE police Trooper. Meet the city standard, you get the idea....There is a reason why the General Court has a distinction between the two.

As for "peace officer" This is Massachusetts, not Nevada. The term has no place in MGL.


Posted by: jo

DOOKIE

I saw your post and wanted to respond to it. Please read Chapter 90 section 1. These are the definitions for chapter 90. It does difine police officer as any officer authorized to make arrests or serve process. A sheriff can make arrests and serve process. This means a sheriff is a police officer for the purpose of chapter 90. I am not making this up or twisting it to meet anyones opinion. Simple black and white MGL.

In regards to your post #3 I am familier with the situation.
You are right in what you said. The deputy did not have field testing training and did not have breath test training. However he is reserve academy trained which would be the same level of training that most town officers have in franklin county on any given night. This does not include Greenfield.

Now back to the stop in question. The deputy, who was operating a police equiped vehicle was operating west on rt 2 in the area of Orange/ Erving he observed an erattic operator. He felt this was a threat to the other motorist on the road. He stopped said vehicle and notified the town police. They responded and they gave field tests, made the physical arrest, towed the subjects vehicle, transported this subject to their station where the subject was given the opertunity to submitt to a chemical breath test by the trained police officer. This all went into the police officers report. Both the police officer and the deputy went to Orange court where the defendant was found not guilty. Right or wrong some times they are found not guilty. This case was not " thrown out ".

I do agree with you and feel that policing should be left to the local and state police. I also feel that no officer from any agency should be undertrained. However if a deputy that is trained, operating a equiped cruiser comes in contact with an erattic operator he should make the stop. If he were to call this in and fail to act while waiting for a local police officer to arrive and make the stop for him it only increases the chance of an accident.

A deputy is a sworn officer and has an obligation to act. Like a police officer the deputy would be held to a higher standard by a jury for failure to act. If he did not act and an accident causing injury followed he and the office of sheriff would be held accountable. Will you pay the settlement?

Posted Thu Nov 04, 16:01:

DOOKIE

Remember the Ware case when the operator was identified and allowed to drive away while oui? Seeing an eratic operator, calling it in and allowing the operation to continue further would be no different. Again we probably agree to some degree about the role of the sheriffs office. But some times liabilty has to take over.

Posted Thu Nov 04, 16:05:

DOOKIE

Remember the Ware case when the operator was identified and allowed to drive away while oui? Seeing an eratic operator, calling it in and allowing the operation to continue further would be no different. Again we probably agree to some degree about the role of the sheriffs office. But some times liabilty has to take over.


Posted by: USMCTrooper

You are a bit off when quoting 90-1. There are TWO definitons for "police officer". In BAEZ, which is what most proponents of this thread use, the Court cited the definition under Ch90C. Ch 90C deals specifically with motor vehicle citations
Here it is:
""Police officer'', any officer, other than an investigator or examiner of the transportation division of the department of telecommunications and energy, authorized to make arrest or serve criminal process, any person appointed by the registrar under section twenty-nine of chapter ninety, any person appointed by the trustees of the University of Massachusetts under section thirty-two A of chapter seventy-five, any person appointed by the trustees of Southeastern Massachusetts university under section seventeen of chapter seventy-five B and any person appointed by the colonel of state police under section fifty-nine of chapter twenty-two C.

Nowhere mentioned by name are sheriffs, constables,etc but it does specify certain campus officers.


Posted by: jo

I agree with you on this but it does still say "authorized to make arrest or serve criminal process" A sheriff may make arrest and serve criminal process.


Posted by: Otto

USMC, the statute you are citing does not mention sheriffs by name. However, it clearly states "any officer ... authorized to make arrests or serve criminal process..."

Sheriffs have this authority statutorily and at common law. They have had it since before there was any such thing as a police officer.

I'm not advocating sheriffs patrolling local communities. That is and should be the responsibility of their police department.

The point is that personal opinions about statutes don't carry the weight of judicial opinions. The judicial opinions have stated that sheriffs can enforce motor vehicle law.


Posted by: USMCTrooper

Where within this, http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/gl-37-toc.htm does it state sheriffs can serve criminal process ? Common law, statute or case law: Sheriffs were never conveyed the authority to make criminal arrests except in cases of breach of the peace. That was in part the ruling of BAEZ and why they were found unable to arrest for 90-23. They cannot make criminal arrests under 90-21, 209A, 94C, etc etc etc This isn't interpretation. It was stated by the Court in BAEZ.


Posted by: Delta9

My point was that there's already other agencies writing CMVIs in communities and no one is proclaiming that they are taking away work or funding from the local PDs or MSP. If the MBTA PD and MEP (an EPO works for MEP, or actually OLE if you really want to get technical.) can write cites with out creating an uproar,what's the real issue with allowing sheriffs to do so as well?

As far as a peace officer standard, i fell that with so many different types of LE positions with an array of powers and another array of academies why not create one standard for them all. Right now you need a special decoder ring to figure out everyone's authority; Aux Police, Reserve Officers, State Campus Police, SSPOs, Special Police Officers, Boston SPOs, Deputy Sheriffs, Constables, Harbormasters, Shellfish Constables, Park Police Officers, Env Police Officers, Deputy Env Police Officers, Fire Wardens, ARL & MSPCA Officers, etc, etc, etc... each of theses positions exercises some "police powers", maybe I'm delusional but I think it would make more sense if everyone went thru the same basic academy before exercising theses powers and in turn were granted the same basic authority to begin with...


Posted by: jo

Commonwealth v. Howe the court held that pursuant to GL c90 s21 a deputy sheriff has authority, within the boundaries of his or her county, to stop and arrest a person, without a warrant, who operates a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.


Posted by: Otto

GENERAL LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS
PART IV.
CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE II.
PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 276. SEARCH WARRANTS, REWARDS, FUGITIVES FROM JUSTICE, ARREST, EXAMINATION, COMMITMENT AND BAIL. PROBATION OFFICERS AND BOARD OF PROBATION


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEARCH WARRANTS
Chapter 276: Section 2 Requisites of warrant

Section 2. Search warrants shall designate and describe the building, house, place, vessel or vehicle to be searched and shall particularly describe the property or articles to be searched for. They shall be substantially in the form prescribed in section two A of this chapter and shall be directed to the sheriff or his deputy or to a constable or police officer, commanding him to search in the daytime, or if the warrant so directs, in the nighttime, the building, house, place, vessel or vehicle where the property or articles for which he is required to search are believed to be concealed, and to bring such property or articles when found, and the persons in whose possession they are found, before a court having jurisdiction.

Search warrants are a type of criminal process. Judging by the order in which the officers are named, the sheriff is either the first one to have been granted the authority, statutorily, and or the chief officer amongst them.


Posted by: jo

WMS warrants are criminal and are all arrestable by a sheriff.

first sentence in c37 s13 They may require suitable aid in the execution of their office in a criminal case. It actually is a crime not to assist them in a criminal case.


Posted by: Otto

Speaking of 37 / 13, this is the statute relied upon by the Commonwealth in Comm. v. Morrissey.

Here, the court allowed an extra-territorial stop of an OUI suspect based on a radio call from an officer at the station of the jurisdiction in which the offence was taking place to the out of jurisdiction officer.

The court said the stopping officer had a duty to aid the other officer who was at the station.

The ironic thing is that the court relied on a sheriff's statute to enhance the authority of a police officer.


Posted by: jo

I also see 209A mentioned. If a violation of a restraining order, beating your spouse or direct disregard for a court order issued by a judge is not a breach of the peace, what is?


Posted by: jimbo

All of the cities and towns in Massachusetts are Incorporated - this is not like some other states that need to use sheriff departments as police. - we have municipal and State Police to enforce the law. Sheriffs are primarily keepers of the jail - and that is an honorable thing and in my opinion, all they should be concerning themselves with.
my main concern is that sign holders or campaign donors to a sheriff will be appointed as a deputy and be out there doing traffic stops -wannabe cops who sleazed their way in...personally, i feel that only active or retired correction officers, police and military should be appointed as deputies - take the politics out of deputy positions and only then will they be respected - i respect the deputies who earned it, but i have no respect for the political appointment types that are so prevalent in Massachusetts.


Posted by: Otto

That is the way it is in Worcester County.


Posted by: jmb153

I have been reading this forum for a while now with a myriad of emotions. With all the Sheriff bashing going on I felt I needed to put my two cents in. But before I get into this overstated topic I will tell you about myself. I am employed by the Sheriff's Department that Jimbo knows well. I have 18 years in, started as a C.O. walking tiers before all this touchy feely direct supervision corrections crap became the buzzword, been through five Sheriffs and my current position for the last five years has been in the Warrant Unit. Should Sheriff Departments run ch. 90? No way!! We have enough trouble trying to accomplish the stuff we said we would do. I know my Department is not trained in OUI or patrol procedures for that matter. Jimbo does have good points regarding the Sheriff's Department role in the grand scheme of Law Enforcement. I have always agreed with the philosophy that my Department is a support service to the local police. I know that there are arguments there i.e. safekeep transport, but for the most part there is no attempt by our fulltime deputies to take over police work. Which of course leads us to the reserve or part time deputy sheriffs. Yes I will be the first to admit that we need work there it should not be like this. However there are some good people in those ranks that are just trying to get there foot in the door, whether it is to get on with the Sheriff's Department fulltime or awaiting the call from there municipal police. Well I have got to run and look forward to all the criticism good or bad to respond to.


Posted by: PBC FL Cop

Why is the authority to write a traffic ticket such a huge deal. What If a deputy sheriff, if of course he/she is trained and experienced, pulls someone over for speeding and writes them a ticket, does anyone really think the sky is going to fall and all the police are going to lose their jobs. Traffic enforcement is not the most integral area of police work. It sound like more if an ego problem than a public safety concern.


Posted by: jmb153

This is Massachusetts


Posted by: wordstew

I don't get it, Sheriffs are allowed to go to the R/I academy and most other courses that are mainly taught by Police, then officers get upset that a Sheriff would attempt to perform Police related duties.

I am not sure about this one but I am willing to bet it was some sort of Police instructor that gave some of these Sheriffs chap 90 classes.

I


Posted by: Dookie

[quote="jo @ Thu Nov 04, 15:08"]DOOKIE

I saw your post and wanted to respond to it. Please read Chapter 90 section 1. These are the definitions for chapter 90. It does difine police officer as any officer authorized to make arrests or serve process. A sheriff can make arrests and serve process. This means a sheriff is a police officer for the purpose of chapter 90. I am not making this up or twisting it to meet anyones opinion. Simple black and white MGL.

The definitions of who does and does not hold Ch 90 powers is abiguous under MGL at best. I respect your definition and find it to be a fair one. Here is my issue: I don't really care what training an Deputy has prior to or during their tenure with the Sheriff's Department. I care MORE about their ability to eexercise the rights and privledges of that training when acting as a Deputy. I don't see the compatibility between the two. This is the Commonwelath of Mass and the roles of our municipal law enforcement are more clearly defined. Sure, he/she can mke arrests and serve process in the interest of general PUBLIC SAFETY, when confronted. But going out looking for arrests or patroling is another complete issue.

In regards to your post #3 I am familier with the situation.
You are right in what you said. The deputy did not have field testing training and did not have breath test training. However he is reserve academy trained which would be the same level of training that most town officers have in franklin county on any given night. This does not include Greenfield.

Agreed-- but does it give him the right to excercise thepowers granted him under MGL when operating in a non-police manner? ARE OUR DEPUTIES COPS? The line is fine, here.

Now back to the stop in question. The deputy, who was operating a police equiped vehicle was operating west on rt 2 in the area of Orange/ Erving he observed an erattic operator. He felt this was a threat to the other motorist on the road. He stopped said vehicle and notified the town police. They responded and they gave field tests, made the physical arrest, towed the subjects vehicle, transported this subject to their station where the subject was given the opertunity to submitt to a chemical breath test by the trained police officer. This all went into the police officers report. Both the police officer and the deputy went to Orange court where the defendant was found not guilty. Right or wrong some times they are found not guilty. This case was not " thrown out ".

Thank you for the clarification of fact, although I still maintain it went down somehwat differently. If I saw a motorist who was intoxicated (or appeared to be a risk to other motorists) I always call it in. One less danger is one less death or homicide.

I do agree with you and feel that policing should be left to the local and state police. I also feel that no officer from any agency should be undertrained. However if a deputy that is trained, operating a equiped cruiser comes in contact with an erattic operator he should make the stop. If he were to call this in and fail to act while waiting for a local police officer to arrive and make the stop for him it only increases the chance of an accident.

We agree completely.

A deputy is a sworn officer and has an obligation to act. Like a police officer the deputy would be held to a higher standard by a jury for failure to act. If he did not act and an accident causing injury followed he and the office of sheriff would be held accountable. Will you pay the settlement?

[b]That is not my assertion, nor is it my issue. Take into account that the politics of Sheriff-dom are severe and at the forefront of operations in many counties. My issue is not responsibility or liability but LEGALITY for Deputies to be engaging in "police work".
What about process servers carrying firearms? What about the conseqences of not minding the "shop" while out playing police officer!

Just thoughts for discussion-- and I appreciate yours.


Posted Thu Nov 04, 16:01:

DOOKIE


Posted by: darkknight750il

The problem is not cop vs. sheriff. Its town politicians, once the sheriff is 90ch and fully trained, I know a lot of smaller towns would cut coverage or try to eliminate 3rd shift stating the sheriff will provide patrols. I know Danvers with its silient strike would use sheriff forces to say screw you to its police force with its ongoing contract issues. I do not think any of the sheriffs will like the extra duties towns will assume of them if they are ch90.


Posted by: RPD931

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkknight750il @ Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:18 pm
....I know Danvers with its silient strike would use sheriff forces to say screw you to its police force with its ongoing contract issues. I do not think any of the sheriffs will like the extra duties towns will assume of them if they are ch90.
Just curious... wouldn't the fines collected from Citations issued by Sheriff's go back to the County's coffers?? If so, then that would defeat the purpose of (Town of) Danvers complaint as far as losing money. Having deputies enforce Ch. 90 would do nothing money-wise for them.


Posted by: darkknight750il

I thought the city where the gig was written got its piece no matter if city cops, MSP, or who ever writes it


Posted by: PBC FL Cop

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkknight750il @ Sat 06 Nov, 2004
I thought the city where the gig was written got its piece no matter if city cops, MSP, or who ever writes it
Your correct


Posted by: jo

Yes ch90 money goes to the town it was written. Warrant recal fines are the same. When we make a warrant arrest the court has requested that we write the town the arrest was made on the warrant so the town gets the money.


Posted by: Gil

Moved the MPTC into to a new thread....


Posted by: bosoxmanny

You know this is no offense to any of you guys, as i grew up my whole life in Mass and hope to one day come back. Like many others I moved away to become a PO and now I'm working in a real busy city in the mid atlantic region. One thing I never understood about Mass is the constant whining and moaning and the turmoil between departments. Now I understand that unions up there are obviously a lot stronger and have more issues than down here but my god. Does it really matter that much if sheriffs write citations? Honestly we probably catch less than 1/4 of the actual traffic violators out there anyway so why would more people helping out be a bad thing?
Down here we deal with a sheriffs office, college PD's, multiple federal agencies, and the State Police just in our city alone. Nobody here complains about that stuff. If we want to do stops up on the highway the state doesnt go bitching to their commander that we're doing it.
I'm not saying everything is hunky dorey down here but for some reason it seems no departments in massachusetts wanna work with each other. It's all a job and we all put our pants on one leg at a time no matter what type of agency you work for. If a sheriff wants to write some stupid citation for something so stupid like "improper display of plates" good luck to them, its not your butt getting laughed at in court by a judge when it goes to a hearing. oh well thats my two cents agree or not but everyone stay safe out there


Posted by: copchika911

I think the sheriff's department needs to stop trying to be more than they are. this isn't the south. We don't have a sheriffs dept. for police business, thats what police departments are for. As I've stated MANY times... Correctional Officers and Police Officers are two totally different positions.

That would be like me saying I was a nanny and now I want to be a drill SGT.... The job may include some similarities...but I say we leave the PD's to enforce Ch.90 powers...and the sheriffs dept to holding the bad guys.


Posted by: NACop

Quote:
Originally Posted by copchika911";p=&quot View Post
I think the sheriff's department needs to stop trying to be more than they are. this isn't the south. We don't have a sheriffs dept. for police business, thats what police departments are for. As I've stated MANY times... Correctional Officers and Police Officers are two totally different positions.

That would be like me saying I was a nanny and now I want to be a drill SGT.... The job may include some similarities...but I say we leave the PD's to enforce Ch.90 powers...and the sheriffs dept to holding the bad guys.
Ya Know...............
I thinks she's right. As pointed out MANY times in this recent thread alone, there is no MGL or Case law here in MASSACHUSETTS that empowers Sheriff Deputies to conduct routine Police duties including CH.90, Emergency response, municipal patrol, MVA, lock-out, business check, Domestic 209A, etc etc etc....

Having said that...........

Otto and you others keep trying to stretch things like Commonwealth v. Howe (OUI) into blanket CMVI, Yada, Yada, Yada. Please just STFU and either go to law school, or get elected to the Legislature and introduce your own bills to straighten this out to better suit your needs.

or...............

Go be a Deputy out West or Down South, it might be easier. In any event,
please settle down. Thanks



Posted by: jo

NACop

Sheriff swears in parole officer to assist in his duties. Example, parole officer doing home visit on one of his guys. His "guy" has a friend with a warrant in the house. Now parole officer can arrest the buddy as well as his own guy.

Sheriff swears in local police on drug task force.
Example, town po follows suspect out of his jurisdiction. Now that he is also a deputy he can still make the stop and arrest if need be.

Sheriff swears in campus police officers.
Example, many campus police commonly use a city street to get from one area of the campus to another. Now they can make a stop and or arrest if need be.

I do not think that deputies should be out on patrol, however attempting to limit their authority will effect many other agencies. I also think if they had no authority, as some have suggested, they would not continue to get requests for appointment by other agencies. I am not trying to stretch anything here. All the appointments I have mentioned above exist.


Posted by: Otto

NACop, I have never suggested that sheriffs should act as primary law enforcement.

However, you state that there are no MGL or case law authorizing sheriffs to do routine police work. You are clearly wrong.

All you have to do is open a book and read the criminal statutes to see that you are wrong. Since you have not done this, you must need reading lessons more that I need a law degree.

Also, I don't need to stretch "Howe" to find the authority to enforce Capter 90. It was clearly acknowleged in "Baez."

The New Bedford case was decided in the sheriff's favor, stating that he could patrol the city without the mayor's permission.

I would appreciate it if you would take the time to find and read some of these, so I won't have to waste my time responding to posts that are your wishfull thinking, poorly disguised as fact.

I don't have a problem with anyone's opinion that there is no need for sheriffs to take over municipal policing. I feel the same way. However, failing to recognize the obvious hurts your credibility.


Posted by: mpd61

Disclaimer: (aka look out, these words indicate he's pissed)

The following post is indicative that this thread is so old and boring, and sooooooo full of opinion vs. fact that it needs immediate locking

Otto,
You ignorant blowfish! MGL/Case law clearly empowers sheriffs and deputies to perform routine police work........CITE IT!!!!!!!!

How does Howe/Baez/Mullins etc. support your opinion regarding deputies performing all routine police functions ? (Strrrrretch)

If you really feel there is "no need for sheriffs to take over municipal policing" why do you vehemently claim there is every right under law for
them to do so?


jo,
You silly suckerfish! Why do you state people are trying to "limit" or even "deny" the authority of the Sheriff? The context of this freakin thread relates to sheriffs actively seeking to perform PATROL functions. Oh yes, it sounds good when you try to make it sound like the "cops" hate the "deputies". That's not What NACop or others were saying.
Bottom line.........
Cite MGL/or Case law that clearly states sheriffs in Mass should perform routine police duties like patrol and traffic enforcement. IT AIN"T THERE!!!



Posted by: jo

Suckerfish?????????? WOW I have been called a lot of things but Suckerfish is a new one. Anyway I guess my question is, are sheriffs in any county currently performing "routine police duties, patrol and traffic duties"? I myself am not aware of any.


Posted by: jo

I do recall recently seeing a city out east where a sheriff sent in deputies to "patrol" I believe the court held that the sheriff was the "peace keeper" for the county and allowed his patrols to continue even though the city police chief wanted them out. Now do not take any of that as the gospel, this was only from memory but I think when that happened it was discussed on this board.


Posted by: k9sheriff

If i'm correct, there is a bill trying to be introduced 787, by two senators that if passed will put an end to all of this once and for all.Supposedly, it will limit the powers of Deputy Sheriff's to county property only.But i,m not a county employee, a state employee.Anyway I have my own take home k9 vehicle and I could give a rats a#$ about pulling over a car for ch.90.I'm happy enough to perform my main duties at the jails and mutual aid when requested.If a car wants to blow by me at 100mph no sweat off my back, I don't need the headache, let the police worry about it.I worry about my main job as a k9 handler and thats it, I stay in that boundry.


Posted by: Macop

If this goes through you can see the writing on the wall. The sheriffs will be telling the town and city fathers how they can save $ by getting rid of local police and contracting with the sheriff dept.
It happens in Florida

And when it happens in Florida the cops who where on the town/city P.D become deputies and get raises, are in a larger agency and have better career opprotunities!!


Posted by: k9sheriff

it's my understanding this bill will limit the powers of deputy sheriff's.


Posted by: Otto

MPD, You have blinders on, so you will never see.

I have a cite. I don't know where to find it online. It stems from the "New Bedford" case. It is Kalisz (mayor) v. Hodgson (sheriff), Bristol County Civil Action Number 2003 - 1076.

The city filed an injunction to keep the sheriff out. The injunction was denied. The court stated that the sheriff could patrol the city. The city did not appeal.

I am sure this will still not be enough for you. I find it odd that you cannot understand how someone can believe that just because someone can do something, they should.


Posted by: PBC FL Cop

They must have some authority, New Bedford has agreed to work with the Bristol County Sheriff in the city;

"Mayor and sheriff unite in fight against gangs
By JOHN DOHERTY, Standard-Times staff writer

JACK IDDON/The Standard-Times New Bedford Mayor Frederick M. Kalisz Jr. and Bristol County Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson announce a plan for sharing information that Sheriff's Office investigators have begun assembling on the county's gangs at a City Hall press conference yesterday afternoon.

NEW BEDFORD -- Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson, who sparred with Mayor Frederick M. Kalisz Jr. last year over his role in New Bedford's fight against street crime, is now on board as a partner with local police against city gangs.

Sheriff Hodgson and Mayor Kalisz met yesterday afternoon to discuss sharing information that Sheriff's Office investigators have begun assembling on the county's gangs.

After the meeting, Mayor Kalisz said city police detectives will work with the Sheriff's Office to glean more information about the gang activity blamed for a string of city shootings, which have left one man dead and two wounded in recent weeks.

"This isn't the end of the conversation," Mayor Kalisz promised. "We're looking at the best ways to share resources to stem this tide."
Since last summer, when a similar run of gun violence shook New Bedford, the sheriff has assigned two officers to undercover work on the county's streets, he said. In addition, officers at the House of Corrections have begun identifying and classifying inmates with affiliations to local, and in some cases national, street gangs.

"I'm also pretty excited about our prospects for our continued work together," Sheriff Hodgson said. "Today, we're making strides to do what people all over the country are trying to do, which is collaborate."
The spirit of cooperation expressed yesterday was a marked change from a year ago.

Then, Sheriff Hodgson brought uniformed corrections officers to patrol the city streets -- after the mayor had forbid him to do so.

A lawsuit filed last summer by the city, challenging the sheriff's jurisdiction on city streets, is still pending in Superior Court. Relations between the city and the outspoken sheriff have been frosty.

"Do we still have a difference of opinion over law enforcement agencies' jurisdiction in the city? Yes," Mayor Kalisz said yesterday. "This time, the sheriff came to us and we talked about specific ways we could best utilize his resources."

The mayor also invited the State Police Gang Unit to the city this month after the string of nearly a dozen shootings ratcheted up anxiety about public safety.

Mayor Kalisz stressed yesterday that the sheriff's assistance is only the latest in a collaborative effort against crime that includes agents from the local office of the Drug Enforcement Administration, agents from the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI.

New Bedford Police Chief Carl K. Moniz yesterday repeated his belief that most of the violence is attributable to loosely organized groups of young men in the city, but said he is interested in seeing data collected by the Sheriff's Office.

"I learn new things every day," he said. "I'm listening to some of this information from the Sheriff's Office in a different way. There are things to be learned."

Looks like Law Enforcement can work together when it wants to!!


Posted by: jo

MPD61

The post from PBC FL COP is what I was talking about in my last post. Also I just got off the phone with the ex. She could not even come up with anything as original as suckerfish. I told her and even she thought it was a good one. Think she wants to meet ya.


Posted by: PBC FL Cop

Judge Refuses To Stop Sheriff's Patrols
City Promises Appeal To SJC

POSTED: 4:37 p.m. EDT September 25, 2003
UPDATED: 8:02 p.m. EDT September 25, 2003

New Bedford's mayor lost a bid in court Thursday to stop Bristol County sheriff's deputies from patrolling city streets.

New Bedford Mayor Vs. Sheriff

A Fall River Superior Court judge turned down the city's request for an injuction, saying the city failed to show there would be "irreparable harm" from the patrols, The Standard-Times reported.

SURVEY
Should sheriff's deputies be patrolling the streets of New Bedford?
Yes, the sheriff did the right thing. 41%
Yes, but the city should give its OK first. 27%
No, the city can take care of itself. 32%


Posted by: Otto

MPD61, It's been a few days since you have been given the cite you asked for, that backs our argument. You have not responded...


Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:
Originally Posted by PBC FL Cop";p=&quot View Post
They must have some authority, New Bedford has agreed to work with the Bristol County Sheriff in the city
Read the article. The Sheriff will be providing information to the Police, not patrolling. The Corrections Departments are valuable sources of information on Gangs.

Patrolling as Police is a different story.


Posted by: Macop

Delta is right there should be one academy and state wide juristiction for all like in VT, end all the bickering. I love seeing chiefs get all bent over the county trying to patrol, I could careless either way, If they start patrolling I'll send in a resume and go hold a sign, LMAO.


Posted by: k9sheriff

Just curious, can anyone tell me about SD00787, "Deputy Sheriff powers" sponsered by state senator Scott Brown.It's listed on the Senate docket.Vor, i'm sure you can tell me.I know the State Police went to him with it.


Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macop";p=&quot View Post
Delta is right there should be one academy and state wide juristiction for all like in VT, end all the bickering. I love seeing chiefs get all bent over the county trying to patrol, I could careless either way, If they start patrolling I'll send in a resume and go hold a sign, LMAO.
YEs, that makes sense. Let's do things like Vermont. I mean, the simple fact that Vermont's population is around 600,000+ and Mass has, oh, around 6 MILLION plus shouldn't sway you.

Different States, different ways of doing things. There is no need for statewide powers for locals.

I guess you aren't a F/T Police Officer, if you are willing to suck a** for the Sheriff just to get a police job?


Posted by: Macop

Ahhhhhh the blood is boiling, now thats the enthusiasm I like to see, some good ole bashing. No actually the population difference does not sway me, although I found the statistical information quite stimulating. Oh looky there you guessed wrong I am a f/t P.O. Not sure why that would matter, but i'm assuming you are a little mad and said that in retaliation. And am I willing to suck ass, mmmmm depends on the job i'm sucking for, I may even go for the front part if its a good enough position, hahaha.


Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macop";p=&quot View Post
Ahhhhhh the blood is boiling, now thats the enthusiasm I like to see, some good ole bashing. No actually the population difference does not sway me, although I found the statistical information quite stimulating. Oh looky there you guessed wrong I am a f/t P.O. Not sure why that would matter, but i'm assuming you are a little mad and said that in retaliation. And am I willing to suck ass, mmmmm depends on the job i'm sucking for, I may even go for the front part if its a good enough position, hahaha.
So you are a F/T PO that would quit a Policing job to be a political Deputy? They must pay peanuts at your job. Why the hell would you even consider that?

And if you can't see the difference between policing in VT and policing in Ma, I don't know what to tell you. VT has that system for a reason, the VSP is so understaffed that there is sometimes ONE Trooper on the Mid shift to cover huge areas.


Posted by: Macop

No they pay me very well, and i doubt I would leave. I just like stirring the pot.


Posted by: PBC FL Cop

If the sheriff's started a county patrol in Mass, I'm sure F/T PO's would be lining up for the job. Bigger jurisdiction more specialty units etc. In FLA city cops leave the PD's all the time for the Sheriff's Office and the sheriff's are elected here as well and politics play a huge role in the agency. S.O.'s are bigger and have more to offer, as they would in the long run if the sheriffs in Mass ever became legitimate law enforcement agencies.

The sheriffs also have the ability to hire off an application, rather than a civil service score, so they could have the pick of the litter, if they wanted to.


Posted by: Hooah

To: All the cops angry at the thought of deputies w/ Ch. 90 responsibilities

I understand. You have a job with politics involved where selectmen hold purse strings and usually lean to the left. You do not want to jeopardize your job with the thought of others working in your jurisdiction, on your streets.

I will try not to anger you when I disagree with some of your positions.

I agree with the need to have standardized training.
I agree that there needs to be a professional relationship between the Chiefs of Police and the Sheriff in a county and not a relationship between the Sheriff and town selectmen (that's the chiefs job).

I disagree that there is not a "need".

I grew up in Somerville, where there is not a need for deputies to be patrolling along side Somerville, Cambridge, Boston, Arlington, Medford, Malden, Brookline, Chelsea or anywhere near these cities (Even though MSP still runs all the old "Metro" stations and patrols along side a lot of these departments).

However, there is definitely a need outside the 495 belt. I have lived in West Brookfield and now in Townsend. Some towns in the central and western parts of the state have extremely small departments. Towns may operate with only one cruiser and share dispatch with two or more towns. These towns are backed up by MSP, because MSP has jurisdiction on the highways that run through these towns. A sheriff, who has trained and equipped deputies, should be able to set up patrol sectors in support of a group of geographically connected towns with the consent and desire of the towns.

I can hear some of my MSP buddies screaming "that's what we're for!"
But MSP cannot easily do this. They have their own jurisdictions, budgets and needs. MSP would only be able to do it with O/T details, paid by the towns (not going to happen).

Earlier in this thread someone stated that a sheriff would not be able to pay for this because they wouldn't have a budget. You must understand, a sheriffs office has an ability to generate revenue that a PD could not imagine. Revenue from fines and asset seizures does not come close to the amount of revenue a smart and dedicated sheriff could generate from legal process alone.

Troopers, Civil Service PO's, Non-CS PO's, Reserves, Auxiliaries, Specials, Sheriffs, Deputies, Agents, Constables all have powers, jurisdictions and job descriptions. The LE world is competitive and at times at odds with itself.

If a sheriff decides to run patrols I would hope it is with the consent and at the discretion of the town chief.

My town has a fantastic PD, but if I go left or right out of my town I hit Mayberry, and seeing a deputy on patrol would not be a bad thing.

'nuff said... I'll wait for the explosive responses.


Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooah";p=&quot View Post
However, there is definitely a need outside the 495 belt. I have lived in West Brookfield and now in Townsend. Some towns in the central and western parts of the state have extremely small departments. Towns may operate with only one cruiser and share dispatch with two or more towns. These towns are backed up by MSP, because MSP has jurisdiction on the highways that run through these towns. A sheriff, who has trained and equipped deputies, should be able to set up patrol sectors in support of a group of geographically connected towns with the consent and desire of the towns.

I can hear some of my MSP buddies screaming "that's what we're for!"
But MSP cannot easily do this. They have their own jurisdictions, budgets and needs. MSP would only be able to do it with O/T details, paid by the towns (not going to happen).
That's absolute garbage. The MSP's jurisdictions INCLUDE all those towns without F/T PD's.

The MSP ARE the Police for these towns, and do a fine job of policing them. There is no need for Sheriffs in Central/Western Mass.

You are tragically misinformed as to the nature of policing in these areas. The MSP doesn't have "jurisdiction on the Highways that run through these towns", they have jurisdiction everywhere in the State of Mass.

In many of those towns, when you dial 911 it is a Trooper that responds. In addition to that, the MSP supplements the towns that have F/T but small PD's by patrolling in Town and backing up the locals.

There is