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

Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network

Massachusetts Police News, Information and Discussions on MassCops

Pages: 1 2 3

Main Page Letter to Editor-Glodis should be jailer
(Click here to view the original thread on the MassCops Message Board)

Posted by: PBC FL Cop

Monday, October 29, 2007

Glodis should concentrate on being a jailer

This letter is in reference to an article, “State to take 30 county prisoners/Glodis in bind over crowded jailhouse” (Telegram & Gazette, Oct. 11).

Perhaps Mr. Glodis should be concentrating his efforts and resources on improving his jail instead of expanding his agency into law enforcement by purchasing police cars, mobile command posts and K-9 units.

If an elected county sheriff is unable to provide the minimum correctional services to his county and requires the state Department of Correction to bail him out, then maybe the best solution is for the Worcester County House of Correction, and the sheriff’s department, to be absorbed and administered by the Massachusetts Department of Correction.

Although I believe Mr. Glodis does have the best interests of public safety in mind, he needs to take care of his responsibility as a jailer before he turns his efforts toward other services that are already being provided by the local and state police.

WILLIAM CULLEN

Shirley

Posted by: Dane

+1

Posted by: 94c

Can't be a cop?

Be a politician and create your own PD.

Posted by: j809

Nice letter from C-troop Spam rep.

Posted by: Wolfman

Quote:

Originally Posted by j809

Nice letter from C-troop Spam rep.

...and his opinion should count less?

Posted by: nirtallica

Quote:

Originally Posted by j809

Nice letter from C-troop Spam rep.

C'mon. In previous posts, you were a Glodis basher and now you back his play? SPAM rep or not, he makes a valid point. The state is constantly bailing out these power hungry wannabes. The newspapers should focus more of the spotlight on these Sheriffs than on details to see where real corruption lies.

Posted by: PBC FL Cop

Didn't SPAM endorse Glodis for Sheriff??

Posted by: dcs2244

Run the gaol and STFU, Glodis. Once you get that right, THEN there is room for your extracurricular (and unnecessary waste of the taxpayers money) activities.

Douchebag.

Posted by: j809

I am not saying that it is a bad letetr, its great,maybe it came that way,didn't mean it to be. And yes, I concur with his ideas.

Posted by: SinePari

Quote:

Originally Posted by PBC FL Cop

Didn't SPAM endorse Glodis for Sheriff??

The E-Board did, not the membership. They endorsed him because he gave his word (clue #1) that he wouldn't try to expand his office into policing. I voted for Bill McCarthy who taught at QCC and Anna Maria. Great guy, but keeps getting railroaded because he has an R next to his name. SPAM does not cast a vote for each member.

But there is this incestuous relationship between the Worcester County DA and the Sheriff. Both are career politicians and sons of career politicians. I believe things will continue to get more convoluted in the future. Stand by.

Posted by: PBC FL Cop

SPAM should retract their endorsement citing how the "Red Rocker" is a liar. I was shocked they believed his bull. The guy is a power hungry, egomaniac, without any training or real experience, did anyone really believe he wouldn't try and expand his authority?

McCarthy was the only real candidate for sheriff!!!

Posted by: MSP75

Union leadership do not always make choices that the membership endorses.

The choices of the union leadership are not always the choices of its members.

Posted by: str8tshot52

So, according to that letter to the editor, you think if Glodis got rid of the Mobile Command Center, got rid of the K-9 unit, then somehow the overcrowding problem at the jail would magically disappear? You might hate Glodis, you might hate Sheriffs, you might hate corrections, you might hate everyone in the world who isn't MSP, but that argument is quite possibly the dumbest I've heard in a long time.

Alright, Troopers, let me have it.

Posted by: SinePari

Quote:

Originally Posted by str8tshot52

So, according to that letter to the editor, you think if Glodis got rid of the Mobile Command Center, got rid of the K-9 unit, then somehow the overcrowding problem at the jail would magically disappear? You might hate Glodis, you might hate Sheriffs, you might hate corrections, you might hate everyone in the world who isn't MSP, but that argument is quite possibly the dumbest I've heard in a long time.

Alright, Troopers, let me have it.

OK, without reading the 1000+ threads and posts, here's how many in the MSP world feel.

An elected official who receives a coveted endorsement from SPAM should keep their promises or not make ones they won't keep. Yes, it is a sought-after endorsement just like any other organization with a large membership.

We have an appointed Colonel who makes decisions based upon needs of the department and also serves at the pleasure of the Governor. He makes mistakes and has to answer to the Governor and our sworn officers with laws, contracts and department procedures to keep everything in check. An elected sheriff basically tells everyone to get bent. See the difference?

Posted by: resqjyw0

This situation is pretty ridiculous and the letter made some great points.

The only reason why I am not going to rip the guy (Glodis) up one side and down the other is I continue to have the privilege to enjoy killing the birds his prisoners raise as a result of his promise not to dissolve the program if elected. Friday I will be at the HOC in Boylston to get said birds. Saturday I will be seeing them in my gun sights, then in my dogs mouth, then in my game pouch and eventually be part of a delicious meal. Thank you Glodis.

Posted by: str8tshot52

I understand MSP doesn't like to share their toys, and I understand MSP thinks they should be the ONLY law enforcement agency in the state, and I understand that nothing makes MSP more upset than another agency doing a good job....all these things I get.

But to equate a K-9 unit, or a mobile command center, with prisoner overcrowding simply doesn't make any sense. It makes the author of the letter look, for lack of a better word, stupid.

Okay, I think I'm ready....begin the "Trooper Tirade" barrage....

Posted by: j809

Instead of spending money on command centers,cruisers,K-9s and other patrol functions spending ,take that money and make your jail bigger, add more COs and improve your facilities. That is what their money is for,not to form a county police department.

Posted by: resqjyw0

Quote:

Originally Posted by str8tshot52

...to equate a K-9 unit, or a mobile command center, with prisoner overcrowding simply doesn't make any sense. It makes the author of the letter look, for lack of a better word, stupid.

Dude, you're making yourself look stupid. What is the issue here if you seem to have a better handle on it than anyone else? The issue sure isn't lack of space to expand. There is plenty of space there in Boylston to expand. If for whatever reason he didn't want to expand there in Boylston, he could open up another facility somewhere else in Worcester Cty, afterall it is the largest county in the state. The issue is the use of monetary resources. Using money trying to make his SD into a PD is a waste of those monetary resources. That is not his role in LE and the CJ system. He should be using the money to be able to accomodate more prisoners by expanding his facility and hiring more personnel to handle the increase in prisoners.

So now you keep saying you can't find a connection, what do you say is the root of this problem?

Posted by: str8tshot52

You see, that's what doesn't make any sense at all about the argument. The mobile command center was federal grant money, there's no such thing as "patrol" cars since the sheriff's office doesn't perform patrols, and K-9 dogs are not "bought". So you expect the Sheriff to pay for a $50 million facility using about $60,000 in saved money from eliminating these functions?

So if you're going to bash local police for REQUESTING the K-9 unit during narcotics detection and fugitive capture....then fine.

And if you're going to bash the U.S. Postal Service for REQUESTING the K-9 unit to intercept shipments of illegal narcotics....then fine.

And if you're going to bash local police and fire chiefs for calling the mobile command center into tactical response, missing persons, and interoperability training situations....then fine.

All of these are trademark MSP, and I think I can safely assume they always will be. But don't try to equate these things with prisoner overcrowding....it shows you're either completely ignorant, or simply have NO idea how criminals are detained and processed in the judicial system.

Posted by: MSP75

Quote:

Originally Posted by str8tshot52

I understand MSP doesn't like to share their toys, and I understand MSP thinks they should be the ONLY law enforcement agency in the state, and I understand that nothing makes MSP more upset than another agency doing a good job....all these things I get.

But to equate a K-9 unit, or a mobile command center, with prisoner overcrowding simply doesn't make any sense. It makes the author of the letter look, for lack of a better word, stupid.

Okay, I think I'm ready....begin the "Trooper Tirade" barrage....

I am all for working w/ other Police agencies. It is great to meet other officers and to provide cooperation. EVERY agency needs more money. The problem is when a certain agency gets money, that other agencies need for core missions, so that it can fund missions not part of it's core mission.
For example, the MSP does not pursue money for school resource officers and it should not. A small town shouldn't seek money for a patrol helicopter.

Posted by: dcs2244

Quote:

Originally Posted by str8tshot52

No I do not. I think any funds and manpower used by the sheriff should be used to address the problem of overcrowding, and not "tilting at windmills" vis-a-vis mobile command posts, et cetera, ad nauseum.

The state police and the fire marshall have plenty of mobile command posts, and trained people to run them, to go around. Further, the SP do not desire to seize control of a local incident: they are there to support the locals. Just as the state police did not "take over" the recent arson fire in East Longmeadow (ELPD is the investigating agency...troopers from the fire marshalls office, MSP CSS and MSP CARS were there as support services...the invest is East Longmeadow's. Period.).

Now, while the worthy Sheriff Glodis could have provided a mobile command post, he certainly could not have delivered the expertise to support the local department.

Too, though, for some folks it's more important to address the incident without the state police. I reckon this includes those whose mothers were scared by a trooper or who merely wish they worked for a department that was large enough to provide a host of specialities for their cops to entertain.

News flash: even big cities like Springfield, Worcester and Boston have trouble filling that niche. The state police have no such problem and field a force of trained experts to address the needs of local communities. For the goose.

In effect, no need to spend money on the sheriff's office for redundant stuff. If overcrowding in the gaol is a problem, address that, as the sheriff runs the gaol. Period.

Once the sheriff has solved his problem re: the care and feeding of prisoners, then he may look to assisting with law enforcement.

Posted by: str8tshot52

Once again, the interests of public safety take a distant second to the ego's of the MSP.Not one person has been able to explain how removing the mobile command center, or eliminating the K-9 unit, would have anything at all to do with relieving prison overcrowding. Both programs, which have been highly praised by local police departments throughout Worcester County, could disappear tomorrow and the purported savings in manpower and funding would have absolutely no effect on prison overcrowding. I'll make it as simple as I can: new prisons cost a lot of money...more than $50 million for only 250 cells. The flow of inmates into the county corrections system continues at a staggering pace. The idea that removing two successful public safety programs, put forth by those without even a remedial understanding of corrections, would have a positive impact on relieving inmate overcrowding is based on nothing more than an inflated sense of self-worth and territorialism.The Sheriff's Department acts only in a supportive role, providing resources at the direct request of local law enforcement. Training for both the mobile command center and K-9 unit meets and exceeds the highest standards of law enforcement. I guess it's fortunate for the citizens of Worcester County that the legitimacy of public safety programs are decided by the results they achieve, and not the fragile egos of MSP who can't see beyond the paint of the truck. It always amazes me that the seemingly endless litany of complaints and whining from the State Police is focused not on public safety, but are directed towards other agencies and their efforts.

Posted by: resqjyw0

Quote:

Originally Posted by str8tshot52

...there's no such thing as "patrol" cars since the sheriff's office doesn't perform patrols...

Ok. They don't perform patrols. They tried getting the authority to patrol though.

There are a ton of Ford CVPIs over at the HOC that are equipped just like a police patrol car. Within one year of being elected, he had essentially the entire fleet replaced to implement his new scheme and LED lighting on the cars and prisoner transport vans. Do you have any idea how much that could have cost? A F'n lot of money that's for sure. Well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. You can't tell me he got a grant for all that.

They better be using those cars to serve summonses instead of giving them to the local PD and tieing up a sector car to serve them.

Posted by: RPD931

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSP75

Union leadership do not always make choices that the membership endorses.

The choices of the union leadership are not always the choices of its members.

Sounds like a problem.

Also, I am by NO means a big supporter of Mass. Sheriffs getting into the LE patrol functions. However as str8tshot52, how would Worcester county generate $50-$100 million by Glodis "giving up his toys"??? I just don't see it. Many of his "toys" are bought with grant funds with grants dictating the use of said funds.

What we really need is for the bleeding heart liberals in this state to stop crying foul on behalf of the shitbags... and just spend the money on expanding jails. They feel that inmates "need rehabilitation not incarceration". I'm sorry, but I don't believe "Crackhead Chuck" who has 70 - 100 entries on his BOP is going to change. I don't think "Shitbag Ray" is going to stop beating women with multiple 209a's and dozens of Dom. A&B's on his BOP either. Or the drunk who has 8 OUI's and caused serious injury (or even death).

Granted many of these a-holes in lock-up are in there for "minor" offenses (drugs, OUI, HTO), but at what point do we say "Sorry buddy, but you fucked up so you are getting locked-up and staying there". How many of us lock guys up and they sit there and say, because they know, they'll be out in less than 24 hours.. and they ARE. The courts are already a pathetic hurdle for us, now we have to watch shitbags that actually do get convicted walk because the Jails can't hold them? BULLSHIT! or the bleeding heart pathetic liberals that think they should get "rehabilitation"? Sorry, but for the idiots that have BOP's that kill a small rain forest when printed, should NOT be eligible for "rehab" programs. The so-called rehab programs should be for first or second time offenders. NOT offenders with more than 50 items on their BOP. UNBELEIVABLE!!! At what point do we say enough is enough?!?! The bleeding out liberals are looking at a scumbag's 2 guilty convictions but not the 25 CWOF's or the other 15 Dismissals. Rehab??!!?! WTF?!?! I want my tax dollars spent to take these scum off the streets, not put them back out there. DAMN IT! OK, rant off.

Posted by: SinePari

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPD931

Sounds like a problem.

Do your elected officials speak for you? How many issues do you agree or disagree with? The art of pursuasion escapes some elected people and they fail to have their members agree with them on some issues for a myriad of reasons. Should we have a coup 'de tat because their endorsement was incorrect in my opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by srt8shot52

I guess it's fortunate for the citizens of Worcester County that the legitimacy of public safety programs are decided by the results they achieve, and not the fragile egos of MSP who can't see beyond the paint of the truck. It always amazes me that the seemingly endless litany of complaints and whining from the State Police is focused not on public safety, but are directed towards other agencies and their efforts.

Efforts to do what? Provide care and custody of prisoners? Or meander their way in law enforcement functions? CT had the right idea, dissolve SDs and the DOC would lead the corrections functions. Appointed, not elected leaders who go away if they fuck up.

Posted by: Otto

Quote:

Originally Posted by resqjyw0

Please don't misconstrue the following as a belief that sheriff's should be patrolling. But, sheriffs have had the authority to patrol long before there were police, so there is no need for them to seek such authority.

Please cite how they, "tried getting the authority to patrol..." When the legislation was filed for campus police, etc... to get citation books directly from the registrar, the sheriffs did not even attempt to be included. I would think if they wanted to "expand their authority," they would have sought to be included in this.

The WCSO has always had marked cars with blue lights radios and cages. The whole fleet was not replaced within a year. I know of one cruiser with 170,000 miles on it. It has been over 2.5 years since Sheriff Glodis assumed office and there are still cruisers with the old design. They are used to transport prisoners.

Quote:

Originally Posted by j809

Instead of spending money on command centers,cruisers,K-9s and other patrol functions spending ,take that money and make your jail bigger, add more COs and improve your facilities. That is what their money is for,not to form a county police department.

I will correct you for the umpteenth time. The reason the sheriff sought the Mobile Command was because the central Ma chiefs requested he do so. It was not the sheriffs idea. The money was from a federal grant. If central Ma didn't get it, it would have been given to another area of the country.

Do you believe elected officials should be responsive to their constituency? If so, and you are principled, you should not have a problem with the sheriff or any other elected official responding to requests for assistance form local authorities.

Posted by: str8tshot52

Sheriff's vehicles have lights on them because they are required BY LAW to. The only reason new vehicles have been purchased is because more than 60% of the fleet had more than 150,000 miles. I'm sure if Troopers had their way, Sheriffs Deputies would be riding tricycles with inmates strapped to their backs.

The point remains.....the argument to remove all other public safety functions, despite their effectiveness, in order to improve prisoner overcrowding is a ridiculous one. MSP and SPAM will continue to criticize other agencies, ALL other agencies in fact, that do a good job....they oftentimes are more worried about headlines than successful arrests or drug seizures. And THAT is a shame. But the more they complain, and complain they will, the worse they look.

I think the only thing we truly agree on is building more prisons. At the end of the day, the inmates have to go somewhere...and if not in prison, then right back onto the street. No amount of mobile command centers or K-9 units will change that.

Posted by: bbelichick

Gee, I wonder if "Str8shot52" is a WC Deputy? He has been poking at the MSP thing with a stick in every post possible.

Please note that even though the garbage purchased by Guy was bought with "federal grants", that grant money could have been spent by a real police department, but instead it was snapped up by Guy the politician.

If you REALLY believe that the CMass Chiefs begged Guy to buy a Command Center, and Guy didn't steer them that way, you are a naive person.

Guy is a politician. He wants to be a Senator, or even Governor. He is building his resume. Unfortunately for him, he is now unelectable.

Posted by: Otto

[quote=bbelichick]...If you REALLY believe that the CMass Chiefs begged Guy to buy a Command Center, and Guy didn't steer them that way, you are a naive person.quote]

I am not a naive person. And I know he didn't steer them that way.

Posted by: str8tshot52

The fact of the matter is that the Mobile Command Center WAS pushed by the Central MA Chiefs of Police, it WAS pushed by CEMLEC....you may not like it, but that doesn't make it any less true. It's also a fact that the Mobile Command Center has been directly involved in over 30 emergency call situations, and twice as many homeland security training exercises. The ONLY reason the Sheriff's Office got it, upon the recommendation of the Executive Office of Public Safety, is because they are a regional agency, and can respond to any of the 60 cities and towns in Worcester County. Again, the Troopers may not like it, but local Police, local Fire, local EMS, local SWAT do, and that's really all that matters.

I really don't have anything against MSP, if only they would stop complaining, and just do their jobs. They are one of the best funded state police agencies in the country, they have a very powerful union, they maintained the Quinn Bill when everyone else was getting scaled back, they've got an unprecedented law requiring paid detail duties (making them some of the highest paid law enforcement officers in the country).....so when does the endless whining finally stop?

Posted by: mpd61

OTTO says;
Please don't misconstrue the following as a belief that sheriff's should be patrolling. But, sheriffs have had the authority to patrol long before there were police, so there is no need for them to seek such authority.
O.K. so I'll use your ploy; "Please cite how they" get the authority to patrol and be first responders in the county. Please use actual cites of MGL and not references to old english law or a CMVI case law like Commonwealth v. Baez

Please cite how they, "tried getting the authority to patrol..." When the legislation was filed for campus police, etc... to get citation books directly from the registrar, the sheriffs did not even attempt to be included. I would think if they wanted to "expand their authority," they would have sought to be included in this.
Nice try, however, your "campus police, etc" was only a clarification in the language of CH90C/s1 as to the definition of "police officer". The Police Group you referred to already had "authority" for over 40 years under Chapters 73/s.18 and 15A/s22 (statutory) It's silly case law like Comm v. Mullins and Comm v. Baez that added confusion to the mix.

BTW- I'm not a trooper, (although I used to play one at DMH) and I work very closely with an S.D. I have no axe to grind. You just have to be very careful what you preach as gospel here!

Even if you take the $$$ out of the eqation, Glodis could have spent the time, manpower, and administrative resources better by focusing on operations/infrastructure of the HOC, than in chasing grant money for things that are arguably "peripheral" at best to his primary function in the criminal justice system. It's not even about territory or purview at that point.

Posted by: Otto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpd61

OTTO says;
Please don't misconstrue the following as a belief that sheriff's should be patrolling. But, sheriffs have had the authority to patrol long before there were police, so there is no need for them to seek such authority.
O.K. so I'll use your ploy; "Please cite how they" get the authority to patrol and be first responders in the county. Please use actual cites of MGL and not references to old english law or a CMVI case law like Commonwealth v. Baez

Please cite how they, "tried getting the authority to patrol..." When the legislation was filed for campus police, etc... to get citation books directly from the registrar, the sheriffs did not even attempt to be included. I would think if they wanted to "expand their authority," they would have sought to be included in this.
Nice try, however, your "campus police, etc" was only a clarification in the language of CH90C/s1 as to the definition of "police officer". The Police Group you referred to already had "authority" for over 40 years under Chapters 73/s.18 and 15A/s22 (statutory) It's silly case law like Comm v. Mullins and Comm v. Baez that added confusion to the mix.

BTW- I'm not a trooper, (although I used to play one at DMH) and I work very closely with an S.D. I have no axe to grind. You just have to be very careful what you preach as gospel here!

There are hundreds of statutes authorizing sheriffs and their deputies to make arrests without a warrant and arrest for breaches of the peace. There is no requirement that they take no action until someone makes a complaint. If the observe it they can take action.

Any citizen can "patrol" an area and report suspicious or criminal behavior, but they can't take enforcement action. Can you point to anything which says the sheriff can't.

Comm. V. Baez did not grant sheriffs any authority, it just recognized that sheriffs are authorized to enforce Chapter 90. Are you unaware that common law still exists?
Can you cite where municipal police get their authority without referring to 41 - 98?

Chapter 90 section 1 defines police officer as any officer ... authorized to make arrests... Thereby authorizing sheriffs and campus police to enforce Chapter 90. The reason I brought it up was because some think Chapter 90 makes one a real cop, yet the sheriff's inaction on the legislation is evidence that they must not be that interested in it.

Posted by: BB-59

Just start arresting all Deputies when they make an arrest, or work a detail for impersonating a police officer.

If the people here are right, then they go to jail and that resolves the issue.

If they are wrong, another shit storm starts again.

THE LEGISLATURE HAS TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE! How long will this pissing contest go on until someone gets hurt?

Posted by: SinePari

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otto

I know of one cruiser with 170,000 miles on it. It has been over 2.5 years since Sheriff Glodis assumed office and there are still cruisers with the old design. They are used to transport prisoners.

My first cruiser got turned over to ANOTHER trooper last year with over 150,000 miles on it. It was used to POLICE the commonwealth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otto

Do you believe elected officials should be responsive to their constituency? If so, and you are principled, you should not have a problem with the sheriff or any other elected official responding to requests for assistance form local authorities.

I'm a resident of Worcester County, and don't remember GG asking his constituents what he should do about CEMLEC and equipment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by str8tshot52

MSP and SPAM will continue to criticize other agencies, ALL other agencies in fact, that do a good job....they oftentimes are more worried about headlines than successful arrests or drug seizures. And THAT is a shame. But the more they complain, and complain they will, the worse they look.

Are you kidding me? The last few months in the T&G were headlines about WCSO K-9 drug seizures and photo ops! Not bad to get drug seizures, but c'mon! Headlines are for ego maniacs like Glodis. I can't believe you think the MSP has ego problems. I've got a few nice grabs from cold stops that outweigh what the WCSO was in the newspaper for, and other guys around the state have ten times more seizures than I have, and we don't seek headlines or photo ops. You call your established narcotics unit or task force and try to go up the food chain, not the newspaper. You're reaching for BS justification now.

I actually happen to like every member of the WCSO I've met on the road, at the house, even at details. It's the political machine that grows when over zealous campaign contributors make BS statements like yours. Not once have I seen the Colonel cry poor in the newspaper. He quietly goes to the hill, plays his cards, and SPAM does their part. Sometimes you get what you want, other times you don't.

I also don't agree with someone in law enforcement on the payroll as a political advisor, or someone who got hooked up with GG in college and now is on the county titty with some ghost job. ZERO accountability means your a target for attacks.

Posted by: mpd61

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otto

There are hundreds of statutes authorizing sheriffs and their deputies to make arrests without a warrant and arrest for breaches of the peace. There is no requirement that they take no action until someone makes a complaint. If the observe it they can take action.

Any citizen can "patrol" an area and report suspicious or criminal behavior, but they can't take enforcement action. Can you point to anything which says the sheriff can't.

.

Okay...so again out of "hundreds of statutes", quote one relative to patrol and response to calls/incidents.

Okay...so deputies, having department training/policies/proceedures in effect and in marked vehicles for patrol are acting like "any citizen"? And ahh...what if they don't observe it? do they take calls

I notice you cite CH41/s.98, but lets not forget the other numerous statutes like CH22, 22C, 75, 73, 15A, etc, etc, etc...that spell out statutory authority for police agencies. I know it's not hundreds like sheriffs, but what the hell...

BB-59
I agree, my boots are turning yellow from all this urine!

Posted by: str8tshot52

Ah, once again the discussion sinks to a pissing contest between MSP and Sheriff's Deputies....who has authority, who doesn't....blah blah blah. You'd think people would just get sick of talking about it after a while. I know I am.

In all of this, not one person has been able to address the idea, put forth by a Trooper, that the Sheriff's Mobile Command Center and K-9 units have anything to do with inmate overcrowding (see original post). Not one. There has been one Trooper after another, on this thread, complain and complain and complain about services the Sheriff's Department provides, as a support to local law enforcement. And what answer do they provide as to how to address the overcrowding crisis? Get rid of the Mobile Command Center, get rid of the K-9 unit...devote manpower, "resources". The only conclusion that is so painfully obvious, is these guys have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

As for your remarks, SinePari, I have nothing I need to justify. The local Chiefs are happy with the Mobile Command Center and K-9 unit, local officers are thrilled with both, local Fire Chiefs are very happy.....again, THESE are the people we need to satisfy. In fact, a partnership between MSP and Sheriff's Office would be a good fit...but MSP chooses adversity over cooperation. I can't help but wonder when MSP stopped caring, even a little bit, about public safety. When Troopers are writing letters to the editor, calling radio stations, trying to pitch story ideas to local papers....all to BASH drug seizures, ridicule successful arrests, condemn mutual aid.....that is when I would be embarrassed to call myself a Trooper.

And I assure you, the MSP are as headline hungry as any I've ever met. Tell yourself what you need to, about political appointees in Sheriff's Offices, about being press-crazy, about anything at all.....none of its true, but I'm sure it helps keep you going.

Posted by: j809

Quote:

local officers are thrilled with both,

Really, have you gone around Worcester Cty and personally asked the officers?
Do you have any statistical data to support that claim?

Just about every PD including mine that called for a K-9 from your PD never got one, too far,too busy. I call for MSP K-9 and I get troopers from Springfield responding, not too far for them. As far as the command center goes, WHO CARES, MSP has them available too.

Posted by: SinePari

Quote:

Originally Posted by str8tshot52

As for your remarks, SinePari, I have nothing I need to justify.

Tell yourself what you need to, about political appointees in Sheriff's Offices, about being press-crazy, about anything at all.....none of its true, but I'm sure it helps keep you going.

I seriously believe you are hitting the pipe now. 7 posts and making comments out of your ass already. Go hold your sign, slap on the bumper stickers, write a check and your job is secure. Don't worry about the DOC taking your job.

Posted by: 94c

Quote:

Originally Posted by BB-59

Just start arresting all Deputies when they make an arrest, or work a detail for impersonating a police officer.

Why go to that extreme? We just shut down the detail and if the deputy wants to stand by himself in the middle of the street so be it.

He'll eventually look pretty foolish after a while.

Or better yet, we'll slap him with a court injunction and he can go straight to Superior Court and answer to the judge.

No need to make arrests.

Posted by: 5-0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otto

Chapter 90 section 1 defines police officer as any officer ... authorized to make arrests... Thereby authorizing sheriffs and campus police to enforce Chapter 90. The reason I brought it up was because some think Chapter 90 makes one a real cop, yet the sheriff's inaction on the legislation is evidence that they must not be that interested in it.

I just wanted to let you know that you are seriously wrong on this one. The only campus officers that can get Ch. 90 are from State Schools, and I believe it's because they actually derive their powers from something other than SSPO. I believe there was some case law that came down later on to make distinctions between Sheriffs and Campus PO's.

edit: Oops... MPD61 pointed that out already.

Posted by: Otto

Quote:

Originally Posted by SinePari

My first cruiser got turned over to ANOTHER trooper last year with over 150,000 miles on it. It was used to POLICE the commonwealth.

I'm a resident of Worcester County, and don't remember GG asking his constituents what he should do about CEMLEC and equipment.

I don't doubt your cruiser story. The only reason I brought it up was because someone else falsely claimed that the cruisers were replace in a year.

GG didn't ask his constituents what he should do about CEMLEC and equipment. The local chiefs went to the sheriff asking for assistance. I guess he should have told them to, "Pound sand, you will have to do without, because the state police will be mad."

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpd61

BB-59
I agree, my boots are turning yellow from all this urine!

Police derive their authority from that of the constable, who derives authority from the sheriff.

I mentioned 41 - 98 because I was talking about municipal police. Nowhere in 41 - 98 does it mention, "patrol and response to incidents / calls."

Chapter 41: Section 98. Powers and duties.
Section 98. The chief and other police officers of all cities and towns shall have all the powers and duties of constables except serving and executing civil process…

Chapter 41: Section 94. Powers and duties.
Section 94. Constables may serve the writs and processes described in section ninety-two and warrants and processes in criminal cases, although their town, parish, religious society or district is a party or interested. They shall have the powers of sheriffs to require aid in the execution of their duties…

I mentioned "citizen," because there is nothing prohibiting any citizen from driving / walking around looking for criminal activity (patrolling). They just can't take enforcement action.

Are you suggesting that if a citizen reported a crime to a deputy sheriff, he has no authority to respond or investigate it?

</IMG>

Posted by: str8tshot52

Congratulations SinePari, you've solved the mystery: Sheriffs are elected. And in elections, there are bumper stickers and signs. Well done.

The fact of the matter remains, however, that those who support the Sheriff get promoted AND demoted, those that don't support the Sheriff get promoted AND demoted. In a staff of 700, and with the Sheriff's campaign account into the hundreds of thousands, do you honestly think some guy's $100 donation makes any difference at all in deciding personnel issues? At the end of the day, the jail has to operate successfully...and no amount of donations will make a guy a successful CO on the line. There's simply no room for error. Again, tell yourself what you like, and you probably will, but that's the truth.

But I digress. Once again, instead of discussing the original post, all anyone can muster is random attacks on the Sheriff's Office. How do I know the officers and chiefs are very happy with the Mobile Command and K-9 units? Because they tell us...in letters, in person, by phone. You see, and here's the part you might be missing, they actually are HAPPY when arrests get made, when drugs are seized, when cases are closed. Instead of writing letters to the editor, pitching stories to local newspapers, they simply say thanks and move on.....what a crazy idea, huh?

Posted by: FAPD

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otto

Police derive their authority from that of the constable, who derives authority from the sheriff.
Chapter 41: Section 98. Powers and duties.
Section 98. The chief and other police officers of all cities and towns shall have all the powers and duties of constables except serving and executing civil process…
Chapter 41: Section 94. Powers and duties.
Section 94. Constables may serve the writs and processes described in section ninety-two and warrants and processes in criminal cases, although their town, parish, religious society or district is a party or interested. They shall have the powers of sheriffs to require aid in the execution of their duties…

I mentioned "citizen," because there is nothing prohibiting any citizen from driving / walking around looking for criminal activity (patrolling). They just can't take enforcement action.

Are you suggesting that if a citizen reported a crime to a deputy sheriff, he has no authority to respond or investigate it?

</IMG>

You are dodging the question. Police authority, by your own posting above is by STATUTE! (Chapter 41: Section 98 ) just because it's language refers to "constables" doesn't mean that's where municipal police "derive" their authority! You also keep stating deputies can "patrol" like citzens. Okay cool, so what part of the budget and operation at the jail is impacted by deputies on a "citizens arrest patrol"? Really Otto, let's have deputies out looking for citizens to flag them down to report crimes!? Get serious fool!

Posted by: j809

Otto you say you used to be a municipal cop that went Sheriff. What happened?

Posted by: Otto

Quote:

Originally Posted by FAPD

This is how my first post on the topic began:

Please don't misconstrue the following as a belief that sheriff's should be patrolling...

I am not dodging anything. If you are a police officer, you must have heard of common law. Authority is derived by both statute and common law. If police do not derive their authority from that of the constable, what do those words mean at the beginning of 41 - 98, and why are they there?

I never said that deputies can patrol like citizens. I said citizens can patrol, implying that if an ordinary, powerless citizen can do it, certainly a sheriff can.

However, sheriffs have statutory authority, also:

Chapter 37: Section 13 Powers and duties; requisition of aid
They may require suitable aid in the execution of their office in a criminal case, in the preservation of the peace, in the apprehending or securing of a person for a breach of the peace and in cases of escape or rescue of persons arrested upon civil process.

There is no mention of jail in this statute, so, to what does it apply?

</IMG>This statute was also cited in Comm. v. Morrissey ( I think), where a municipal police officer was found to be authorized to have made an extra-territorial motor vehicle stop based on a request by an officer from the town where the stop was conducted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by j809

Otto you say you used to be a municipal cop that went Sheriff. What happened?

So, that is your response to this...

I will correct you for the umpteenth time. The reason the sheriff sought the Mobile Command was because the central Ma chiefs requested he do so. It was not the sheriffs idea. The money was from a federal grant. If central Ma didn't get it, it would have been given to another area of the country.

Do you believe elected officials should be responsive to their constituency? If so, and you are principled, you should not have a problem with the sheriff or any other elected official responding to requests for assistance form local authorities.

Posted by: mpd61

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otto

However, sheriffs have statutory authority, also:

Chapter 37: Section 13 Powers and duties; requisition of aid
They may require suitable aid in the execution of their office in a criminal case, in the preservation of the peace, in the apprehending or securing of a person for a breach of the peace and in cases of escape or rescue of persons arrested upon civil process.

There is no mention of jail in this statute, so, to what does it apply?

.

Wow! you won't give up stretching. It applies to deputies in the narrow context of breach of peace, escapes, and civil process. Again what does ANY of the above have to do with patrol and dispatched emergency response?
This thread is about Jail operations vs. Patrol operations. You simply won't answer with any of your "hundreds of statutes" that relate to deputies performing police functions.

Peace!

Posted by: Otto

They may require suitable aid in the execution of their office in a criminal case,

That sounds pretty broad to me. Since there were no police officers at the time the statute was passed, who do you think enforced the laws?

Regarding the, "hundreds of statutes," I'm not going to list them. Look up almost any statute authorizing a police officer to arrest and immediately preceding it will be the words, "... may be arrested by a sheriff, a deputy sheriff or a ..."

Here is one specific one though...

Chapter 276: Section 2A. Form of warrant

Section 2A. The warrant shall be in substantially the following form:

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.

(COUNTY), ss. (NAME) COURT.

To the Sheriffs of our several counties, or their deputies, any State Police Officer, or any Constable or Police Officer of any city or town, within our said Commonwealth.

Proof by affidavit having been made this day before (name of person authorized to issue warrant) by (names of person or persons whose affidavits have been taken) that there is probable cause for believing that (certain property has been stolen, embezzled, or obtained by false pretenses; certain property is intended for use or has been used as the means of committing a crime; certain property has been concealed to prevent a crime from being discovered; certain property is unlawfully possessed or kept or concealed for an unlawful purpose).

We therefore command you in the daytime (or at any time of the day or night) to make an immediate search of (identify premises) (occupied by A.B.) and (of the person of A.B.) and of any person present who may be found to have such property in his possession or under his control or to whom such property may have been delivered, for the following property:

(description of property)

and if you find any such property or any part thereof to bring it and the persons in whose possession it is found before (court having jurisdiction) at (name of court and location).

Dated at (city or town) this __________ day of __________, (insert year).
Clerk.

Posted by: SinePari

Quote:

Originally Posted by str8tshot52

Congratulations SinePari, you've solved the mystery: Sheriffs are elected. And in elections, there are bumper stickers and signs. Well done.

The fact of the matter remains, however, that those who support the Sheriff get promoted AND demoted, those that don't support the Sheriff get promoted AND demoted. In a staff of 700, and with the Sheriff's campaign account into the hundreds of thousands, do you honestly think some guy's $100 donation makes any difference at all in deciding personnel issues? At the end of the day, the jail has to operate successfully...and no amount of donations will make a guy a successful CO on the line. There's simply no room for error. Again, tell yourself what you like, and you probably will, but that's the truth.

But I digress. Once again, instead of discussing the original post, all anyone can muster is random attacks on the Sheriff's Office. How do I know the officers and chiefs are very happy with the Mobile Command and K-9 units? Because they tell us...in letters, in person, by phone. You see, and here's the part you might be missing, they actually are HAPPY when arrests get made, when drugs are seized, when cases are closed. Instead of writing letters to the editor, pitching stories to local newspapers, they simply say thanks and move on.....what a crazy idea, huh?

The eternal spin. GG has the T&G in his pocket and flaunts every little story he can. But you can't cry poor in front of a judge on one day, and tout your new toys and how great the "cooperation" is between the WCSO and local departments on your website. It's paradoxical, from a Worcester County taxpayer's point of view.

So, call me Joe Citizen of Worcester County, and explain to me why (using the anti-details argument) don't you take that money from whatever source it comes from, and do what you're paid to do: care and custody of inmates?

Using the anti-MSP argument: are there too many deputies, and not enough jail to keep in order? Parades and town fair displays for the EM-50 Urban Assault Vehicle? Hey, good for you, you got out of the house and on the road.

I'm all for more officers on the streets. But this isn't Kentucky or West Virginia, where the Sheriff is "the man", hiring and firing who he wants, and some indiscretions with hiring and training. Your man will soon be seeking higher offices and another will fill the void.

Who am I? I'm the guy that shows up and does what he was hired to do. Not snake my way onto the streets without going through the standardized hiring and training process that 99% of the officers here waited years to get on.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otto

They may require suitable aid in the execution of their office in a criminal case,

That sounds pretty broad to me. Since there were no police officers at the time the statute was passed, who do you think enforced the laws?

Regarding the, "hundreds of statutes," I'm not going to list them. Look up almost any statute authorizing a police officer to arrest and immediately preceding it will be the words, "... may be arrested by a sheriff, a deputy sheriff or a ..."

Most of the Mass General Laws have been on the books for a looooong time, and include the words "constable" and "deputy sheriff" because it would be too time consuming to re-write all those laws.

Look at a law passed in our lifetime, my new favorite felony;

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/266-126a.htm

See the right of arrest? See the words "constable" or "deputy sheriff" anywhere?

Posted by: Otto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

But, until they are removed, the authority exists, correct?

As the court relies on precedent, here is an excerpt of an interesting SJC case. It involves an arrest by the MSP in 1933. At the time, there was evidently no statutory authority for the state police to arrest for OUI. However, the SJC relied on common law authority and upheld the conviction.

Commonwealth v. T. Francis Gorman

[NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL]

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

288 Mass. 294; 192 N.E. 618; 1934 Mass. LEXIS 1258; 96 A.L.R. 977

September 24, 1934, Argued
November 2, 1934, Decided

Worcester.

Complaint, received and sworn to in the Central District Court of Worcester on November 20, 1933.

On appeal to the Superior Court, the complaint was tried before Buttrick, J., a judge of a district court sitting in the Superior Court under statutory authority. Material facts and rulings made by the judge are described in the opinion. The defendant was found guilty. The judge reported the case for determination by this court.

DISPOSITION: Verdict to stand.

HEADNOTES: Arrest. Police. Jurisdiction. Motor Vehicle, Operation. Intoxicating Liquor. Pleading, Criminal, Complaint…

The defendant contended that the right of an officer to arrest without a warrant for an offence relating to the operation or control of motor vehicles is limited by G.L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 90, § 21, to the arrest of an operator who does not have in his possession a license to operate motor vehicles; and that only an investigator or examiner appointed by the registrar of motor vehicles may arrest without a warrant, for the offence of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating [***5] liquor, one who possesses such a license.

We think, however, that the statute relied on does not by implication cut down the common law authority of an officer. State police officers have throughout the Commonwealth "all the powers of constables, except the service of civil process, and of police officers and watchmen." G.L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 22, § 9A. Constables have common [*297] law power as peace officers to make arrests without warrants in cases in which such arrests are permitted by law. Hartley v. Granville, 216 Mass. 38, 102 N.E. 942. Commonwealth v. Hastings, 50 Mass. (9 Met.) 259. In Sharrock v. Hannemer, Cro. Eliz. 375, 376, Beaumond [Beaumont], J., said, "A constable and sheriff are conservators of the peace at the common law."

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otto

But, until they are removed, the authority exists, correct?

Correct, but you're grasping at straws.

When I was in the police academy, cohabitation (two people of the opposite gender not related by blood living in the same household) was a felony.

I could have arrested a whole bunch of people for violating that law before the Legislature repealed it, but I didn't.

Guess why?

A-N-T-I-Q-U-A-T-E-D.

Posted by: Otto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

Grasping at straws? For What?

When I got out of the police academy it was too. I never arrested anyone for it either. I did arrest a lot of people for other things, though. This example does nothing to disprove anything I have said.

Posted by: j809

Was that when you were a cop? How come all you sheriffs are trying to rationalize and justify your existence based on this old common law. Why not just go work for a police department and stop circumventing the law as it makes yiou guys look like whackos.

Posted by: 94c

Everyone against the wall. You're all under arrest.

Chapter 272: Section 18. Fornication

Section 18. Whoever commits fornication shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three months or by a fine of not more than thirty dollars.

We also just got a grant to go after these guys...

Chapter 272: Section 53. Penalty for certain offenses

Section 53. , common railers and brawlers,

Posted by: j809

Quote:

Originally Posted by 94c

Everyone against the wall. You're all under arrest.

Chapter 272: Section 18. Fornication

Section 18. Whoever commits fornication shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three months or by a fine of not more than thirty dollars.

Otto is well versed in the sodomy laws too.

Posted by: 94c

Last but not least. We can all form a task force to address this issue... (Sorry MSP, your not invited)
Chapter 272: Section 65. Arrest of tramps without warrant; making complaint

Section 65. A sheriff, deputy sheriff, constable or police officer, upon view or information of an offence described in the two preceding sections, may, without a warrant, arrest the offender, and make complaint against him therefor; and the state police shall make such arrests and complaints. Mayors and selectmen shall appoint special police officers, who shall also make such arrests and complaints in their respective towns.

Posted by: Otto

Quote:

Originally Posted by j809

Was that when you were a cop? How come all you sheriffs are trying to rationalize and justify your existence based on this old common law. Why not just go work for a police department and stop circumventing the law as it makes yiou guys look like whackos.

As a police officer and as a deputy sheriff.

Why don't you stop circumventing the actual arguments I've put forth and prove that anything I've stated is incorrect.

Posted by: j809

You still haven't answered the original question. Who issued you guys the CH90 books ,the RMV didn't and the series on your books were distributed to Worcester PD. Chief there said he never issued any books to you guys. Let us know, we are all eager and waiting.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otto

Why don't you stop circumventing the actual arguments I've put forth and prove that anything I've stated is incorrect.

Technically, you're correct.

However, if a constable or city marshal (they exist under MGL also) made an arrest for a criminal offense, they better bring their prisoner to their equally antiquated brothers-in-arms (sheriffs) to book, because I'd just laugh and drive away.

Then request a Section 12 hearing.

Posted by: j809

Quote:

Your elected official is a bafoon. He is spending money on things that are not needed. Stick to the jails and let the POLICE handle the POLICE. Last I checked we have no unincorporated areas in Massachusetts and there are no PDs in Worcester County without a PD. Those few PDs in WC that have no 24hr coverage are handled by the MSP. You want to ASSIST local authorities? Fine, open a regional lockup and take our prisoners like Plymouth County does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

Ohh Delta, watch out now, Otto will come back with his chapter and section that any officer requested by a sheriff to assist has to or gets a $5 fine.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by j809

Ohh Delta, watch out now, Otto will come back with his chapter and section that any officer requested by a sheriff to assist has to or gets a $5 fine.

I would assist them, because I don't want to see anyone wearing a badge to get hurt. Once their prisoner was in custody, I would bid them adieu and drive away.

Posted by: 94c

Quote:

Originally Posted by j809

You still haven't answered the original question. Who issued you guys the CH90 books ,the RMV didn't and the series on your books were distributed to Worcester PD. Chief there said he never issued any books to you guys. Let us know, we are all eager and waiting.

There has to be a way to see who is filling out the audit sheets for each citation that is handed out on the streets.

Posted by: Otto

Quote:

Originally Posted by j809

I believe you are bringing this up for the first time in this discussion.

I know you have made this charge a few times before, incorrectly stating that they were stolen. I then challenged you to provide evidence of it, or your source, but you never did, and still haven't, yet you still bring it up.

I have never encountered a police officer that I thought had less credibility than you.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otto

You didn't answer the question.

If the uniform citation books were issued to the Worcester PD and the Worcester PD Chief never issued them to the sheriff's department, then how did they end up in the possession of Worcester County Deputy Sheriffs?

Posted by: resqjyw0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otto

The only reason I brought it up was because someone else falsely claimed that the cruisers were replace in a year.

I never said that one year old cars were getting replaced. I said, in other words, Glodis replaced most of the fleet within one year OF BEING ELECTED pretty much making the statement "there's a new sheriff in town." I was there Friday and guess what, out of about 25 sheriffs vehicles that I saw (vans and cars) only 3 were not black or black and white that were no more than 5-7 years old. Two were in the old shitty scheme. One was redone to the new scheme except no black quarter panels, hood and trunk. Big deal. You act like most of your vehicles have over 150k miles doing something productive. There are PDs out there with cars older than that, with more miles than that, used for productive LE work and they're still in service. New Sheriff comes in and feels he's gotta make a statement and waste money on making his cars look good that spend most of their time at the prisons and the vast majority of the public never sees, instead of using it in more useful ways such as working on the expansion of the prison.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otto

I said citizens can patrol, implying that if an ordinary, powerless citizen can do it, certainly a sheriff can.

Next time I see a guy from DHL, UPS, or even a pizza delivery guy, I'll tell them while they're in the middle of carrying out their job responsibilities to go patrol for some bad guys.

I don't have a problem with Deputy Sheriffs backing up Police if they get into a pursuit or something or stop a car erratically where someone is going to get killed or they find a car that fits the description put out from a recent bank robbery that they happen to hear over the scanner while out to get a prisoner to transport, but you should be worrying more about what is going on in your prisons than what's going on out on the streets. Transport prisoners, serve summonses, w/e, don't pretend like your badge says POLICE when you're out of the prison/on the streets.

This is Massachusetts. If you want to be a Deputy Sheriff that patrols, answer calls and be the primary law enforcement agency in your area, leave the state. Here that stuff is left to the guys that have a patch and badge with the word POLICE on it.

I tried staying out of this because Mr. Glodis is giving me something to kill between October 13 and November 24 this year, but you just couldn't let it rest. If you want to get out of the hole your digging before it gets too deep, either backup what you say with satisfactory answers instead of beating around the bush or just shut up and get out while you still can. Otherwise you're just digging the hole deeper and deeper for yourself.

Posted by: j809

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

Exactly Delta. Otto you see, the Worcester Chief said he never has issued books to you guys,yet the series you guys WRITE and not just WROTE are from WPD. This is NOT what I say, this was looked into by a few police chiefs as you guys started showing up at Clinton District Court for Maj. Appeals

Posted by: 94c

but, but, but,...

Posted by: MM1799

Quote:

Originally Posted by resqjwy0

I don't have a problem with Deputy Sheriffs backing up Police if they get into a pursuit or something or stop a car erratically where someone is going to get killed or they find a car that fits the description put out from a recent bank

robbery that they happen to hear over the scanner while out to get a prisoner to transport.

I have a problem with that.
They can do what anyone who ISN'T a PO and recognizes a threat to public safety does: call 911, report the location(s) and follow at a safe distance.
After they stop this erratic operator what happens when he comes back with warrants, knows it and really doesn't want to wait around for the POLICE to show up? Or maybe the deputy approaches the vehicle and the guy pulls a gun out? I shudder to think of the serious consequences if a deputy sheriff decides to stop wanted bank robbers.
You aren't trained, aren't perpared and are going to get yourself killed. No matter how much shit-slinging there is, no PO wants to show up to find a deputy clinging to life next to his cruiser because he wanted to be a hero.

Posted by: BB-59

Otto makes some valid arguments why they (deputies) can enforce areas of the law, however the big contention really comes down to the lack of acceptance by local and state pds.

Otto you can keep citing common law, or even the various court decisions it will forever bounce off the wall that has been erected.

Hey it was not that long ago that the state pd worked the highway and pretty much stayed out of the towns and cities for the every day things that the locals did. When they started to make inroads into the towns and cities, some of the same arguments popped up. (They do not know the players, the streets, etc.)

The issue of training and qualification is always one of the first arguments thrown out. Fair enough, but what happens when they are retired police or even the ones that are not former police, still meet the minimum requirements that reserve officers need to work part time?

Politics? Again no argument there, but being compltetely honest can you honestly say there is no politics or favoritism in the local or state level agencies?

My point is this, and I have stated it in previous posts, instead of the blanket mud slinging and name calling have the unions start petitioning the legislature to amend the law and set the limits to what the majority of police in this state feel the powers (responsibly), of the sheriffs should be.

Posted by: SinePari

Quote:

Originally Posted by j809

If I was a deputy I would be asking around to see who keeps trying to fuck up my gig. If these guys on the board here are not part of the small group of wannabees trying to play cop, they should find out who it is and police (pun intended here) up their own.

Posted by: dcs2244

Quote:

Originally Posted by BB-59

Hey it was not that long ago that the state pd worked the highway and pretty much stayed out of the towns and cities for the every day things that the locals did. When they started to make inroads into the towns and cities, some of the same arguments popped up. (They do not know the players, the streets, etc.)

Negative, BB-59. The state has always worked in all venues, especially out "west". You reveal your self as a "back-easter". Guess what? the MSP are the investigators for the DA's. They are the investigators for the Fire Marshall. They ARE the police for many communities out west. The only reason they are in "your" town is because "your" town decided not to hire enough people to do the job. Thus the CAT and ZT teams...and still, they are not covering local calls: they are performing proactive duties that the locals (who are responding to calls for service) don't have time to do.

Please, not a critique of locals...just a clarification of what the state does. If your department can do it al by your "onesies", more power to you. For those that can't, MSP is available...at no charge.

Posted by: PBC FL Cop

Worcester T&G - Letter to the Editor

Sunday, November 4, 2007

Glodis has had many successes in office

As a career police officer and former police chief, I’m baffled and bewildered that certain special interest agencies are criticizing the sheriff for modernizing and professionalizing the jail (letter to the editor, Telegram & Gazette, Oct. 30). The fact that Sheriff Guy W. Glodis has increased training for officers, upgraded the K-9 unit, created a tactical operation group, helped outside agencies find missing people and along with the United States Postal Inspection Service, helped crack the biggest drug bust in the history of New England, is proof positive that his administration has succeeded in revamping and reinvigorating the jail.

In addition, the sheriff’s office has also been awarded federal money for a mobile command vehicle, provided TRIAD programs for senior citizens, expanded the community service program, saving local taxpayers millions of dollars, tackled the issue of overcrowding head on, and most recently, was awarded the New England Council on Crime and Delinquency Award for reform and innovation. I find it ironic that Mr. Glodis is being criticized by his professional adversaries for success and progress within the sheriff’s office. It’s obvious that change is never popular.

DAVID I. GALENA

West Boylston

Posted by: 94c

Quote:

Originally Posted by dcs2244

BB is not a cop.

Nobody mentions how the Deputies are their own worst enemies. It only took a few traffic stops and then calling the local pd because they didn't know what to do, to put them in their place.

Stop an OUI, YOU OWN THEM. Stop a suspended driver, YOU OWN THEM, Stop a car with a stolen plate, YOU OWN THEM. Come across a domestic, YOU OWN THEM.

Do not under any circumstances call us unless you are getting your ass kicked. They tried and it failed.

You want to be a Patrol Deputy? Move out of state or go out to the Berkshires where evidently you're accepted.

Stay out of the city. You are not welcome.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by 94c

You want to be a Patrol Deputy? Move out of state or go out to the Berkshires where evidently you're accepted.

Uhhh...what???

Posted by: 94c

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

Uhhh...what???

Maybe not by you guys but it seems they're welcomed by some of those towns and they're LEC's.

Posted by: j809

Quote:

Originally Posted by 94c

BB is not a cop.

Stop an OUI, YOU OWN THEM. Stop a suspended driver, YOU OWN THEM, Stop a car with a stolen plate, YOU OWN THEM. Come across a domestic, YOU OWN THEM.

Now 94C, you know that BAEZ stated deputies cannot arrest for MV offenses, strongest action was summons unless it amounted to a breach of the peace. How do they handle an OUI when they have no BATS machine?

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by 94c

Maybe not by you guys but it seems they're welcomed by some of those towns and they're LEC's.

There are no LEC's in Western Mass, and Sheriffs do not patrol out west.

Posted by: 94c

Worcester is pretty far west to me.

Anything further should be part of Canada.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by 94c

Worcester is pretty far west to me.

Anything further should be part of Canada.

If you think that Worcester is the Berkshires...

Yikes.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

If you think that Worcester is the Berkshires...

Anything West of the 128 belt to Worcester is the Berkshires. Anything West of Worcester is New York State.

Posted by: SinePari

Quote:

Originally Posted by PBC FL Cop

Worcester T&G - Letter to the Editor

Sunday, November 4, 2007

Glodis has had many successes in office

As a career police officer and former police chief, I’m baffled and bewildered that certain special interest agencies are criticizing the sheriff for modernizing and professionalizing the jail (letter to the editor, Telegram & Gazette, Oct. 30). The fact that Sheriff Guy W. Glodis has increased training for officers, upgraded the K-9 unit, created a tactical operation group, helped outside agencies find missing people and along with the United States Postal Inspection Service, helped crack the biggest drug bust in the history of New England, is proof positive that his administration has succeeded in revamping and reinvigorating the jail.

In addition, the sheriff’s office has also been awarded federal money for a mobile command vehicle, provided TRIAD programs for senior citizens, expanded the community service program, saving local taxpayers millions of dollars, tackled the issue of overcrowding head on, and most recently, was awarded the New England Council on Crime and Delinquency Award for reform and innovation. I find it ironic that Mr. Glodis is being criticized by his professional adversaries for success and progress within the sheriff’s office. It’s obvious that change is never popular.

DAVID I. GALENA

West Boylston

That was the biggest written blow job I've ever read. Sounds like somebody trying to keep their job. The whole letter addresses everything that the Sheriff is not paid to do, hence the reason for the first letter to the editor.

Posted by: Otto

Quote:

Originally Posted by resqjyw0

There are a ton of Ford CVPIs over at the HOC that are equipped just like a police patrol car. Within one year of being elected, he had essentially the entire fleet replaced ...

resqjyw0Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto
The only reason I brought it up was because someone else falsely claimed that the cruisers were replace in a year.

I never said that one year old cars were getting replaced. I said, in other words, Glodis replaced most of the fleet within one year OF BEING ELECTED pretty much making the statement "there's a new sheriff in town." I was there Friday and guess what, out of about 25 sheriffs vehicles that I saw (vans and cars) only 3 were not black or black and white that were no more than 5-7 years old.

Well, it is about three months shy of three years in office and there are still cars with the old schme. If this was the case after one year, I would say your original statement was accurate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by j809

If I made such a claim I'd be attacked and I would be asked (rightly so), which Worcester chief (they've had three of four) since WCSO has been writing tickets. I would also be asked what chiefs looked into it. If nothing is being done about this, why not?

Were you told these things directly from these individuals or are you getting them second, third or fourth hand.

The double standards here are amazing.

For the record. i am not aware of WCSO ever receiving citation books from Worcester PD.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MM1799

I agree. if you are not trained and lack experience, you should not be conducting motor vehicle stops or taking any enforcement action. Even if you are, you should not be stopping a bank robber without lots of help.

Posted by: cj3441

Quote:

Originally Posted by str8tshot52

Until Glodis statrts doing his primary function (holding prisoners) he shall get no respect from most. Anyone who has worked C-Troop can equate this to the famed "use of lockup" for local PD'S who do not have cells, the bigger locals and SP get stuck watching prisoners while the Sheriff is out spending money on extras.

Posted by: Otto

Quote:

Originally Posted by j809

... Last I checked we have no unincorporated areas in Massachusetts and there are no PDs in Worcester County without a PD. Those few PDs in WC that have no 24hr coverage are handled by the MSP. You want to ASSIST local authorities? Fine, open a regional lockup and take our prisoners like Plymouth County does.

Ohh Delta, watch out now, Otto will come back with his chapter and section that any officer requested by a sheriff to assist has to or gets a $5 fine.

I guess you missed my two posts in this topic and many more in others, where I have said essentially, there is no need for sheriffs to be patrolling local communities.

However, when you and others say things that are not accurate, I will challenge you.

I guess from this response, I will put you in the "unprincipled" category.

Posted by: 5-0

Quote:

Originally Posted by SinePari

I think that letter was to keep the steady diet of Glodis's guys flowing to the Boylston Reserve Intermittent Academy...

Posted by: SinePari

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otto

Or stopping off-duty troopers.

(I love this thread)

Posted by: resqjyw0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otto

If this was the case after one year, I would say your original statement was accurate.

Now you are either calling me blind or a liar. I know what I saw and when I saw it. You're a tunnel visioned idiot. I'll leave it at that.

Posted by: PBC FL Cop

Quote:

Originally Posted by SinePari

Or stopping off-duty troopers.

Special Services meets Special Services

Posted by: j809

Quote:

Originally Posted by SinePari

Or stopping off-duty troopers.

(I love this thread)

I still love the story of WCSO guy pulling over off-duty K-9 trooper on 190. Once he identified himself as SP, deputy dawg ran back to his cruiser and took off.

Posted by: SinePari

Quote:

Originally Posted by j809

I still love the story of WCSO guy pulling over off-duty K-9 trooper on 190. Once he identified himself as SP, deputy dawg ran back to his cruiser and took off.

Luckily our Major is a true professional, and handled the situation a lot more cordially than I ever could (why I'll never be a major).

Posted by: str8tshot52

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj3441

To think that anyone is law enforcement, and is asked to actually enforce law and carry a gun, could be this ignorant is truly discouraging. Do you honestly think the Sheriff is not "watching prisoners"? Because you simply do not know what you're talking about, or have a read a newspaper anytime in the last 6 months, I'll help you out: the jail is at 195% capacity. In case that you haven't quite got it, that's almost double. That means lockup is at capacity....everywhere in the facility is at capacity. We take as many safekeeps as humanly possible, and then some. But guess what, when the cells are full, the cells are full. And the only thing that will change that, and here's the real complicated part, is MORE SPACE. That means concrete, bars, steel, floors, etc. To say that if the Sheriff focused more on the jail than on assisting local police with their efforts, at their request, then that would have anything to do with overcrowding is a momunental exercise in stupidity.

So while it may be fun to criticize the Sheriff for dropping the ball, or not "watching prisoners", all I can deduce is you are not in law enforcement at all. Because everyone, from a patrolman to a Captain, desk clerk to Colonel, knows this one fundamental truth: inmate overcrowding has nothing, and I mean NOTHING, to do with mobile command centers, K-9 units, re-painting old transport vehicles, etc.. It has to do with mandatory minimum sentencing, unaffordable bails and not enough PR's, lack of mental health facilities, a huge backlog in the judiciary, and a lack of prison space. If you can't understand this most basic of differences, then you have much bigger problems than a mobile command center in someone else's back yard.

Posted by: dcs2244

On the one hand, bitch about overcrowding...OTOH, piss money away on stuff that will not address the organizations primary function: Turnkeys and cells to turn them in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by j809

DUDE, that signature rawks! Just sayin'...

</IMG></IMG>

Posted by: str8tshot52

On the one hand, Troopers could complain about public safety programs that work, that are the direct result of local law enforcement participation, that make successful drug seizures....OTOH Troopers could keep complaining, and complaining, and complaining.

Don't you ever take a step back and think how ridiculous it is to spend so much time and effort COMPLAINING about improving public safety? Do you even care about public safety....even a little bit? From the sounds of it, you wish the fugitive gets away, you wish the drugs got through, you hope agencies can't communicate at the scene of an incident, et al.

You would think support from the Sheriff's Office, at the request of local law enforcement (you guys still haven't grasped that), would make your job easier. I wouldn't worry, big guy, there's enough crime to go around.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by str8tshot52

I'll help you out: the jail is at 195% capacity. In case that you haven't quite got it, that's almost double. That means lockup is at capacity....everywhere in the facility is at capacity. We take as many safekeeps as humanly possible, and then some. But guess what, when the cells are full, the cells are full. And the only thing that will change that, and here's the real complicated part, is MORE SPACE. That means concrete, bars, steel, floors, etc.

It sounds to me like Glodis should be concentrating his money-raising efforts towards jail construction rather than mobile command centers, police cruisers, and painting his name on every department vehicle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by str8tshot52

On the one hand, Troopers could complain about public safety programs that work, that are the direct result of local law enforcement participation, that make successful drug seizures....OTOH Troopers could keep complaining, and complaining, and complaining.

Don't you ever take a step back and think how ridiculous it is to spend so much time and effort COMPLAINING about improving public safety? Do you even care about public safety....even a little bit? From the sounds of it, you wish the fugitive gets away, you wish the drugs got through, you hope agencies can't communicate at the scene of an incident, et al.

You would think support from the Sheriff's Office, at the request of local law enforcement (you guys still haven't grasped that), would make your job easier. I wouldn't worry, big guy, there's enough crime to go around.

You can't seem to grasp the concept that there is a finite amount of grant money available to police agencies. When sheriff's departments in Massachusetts scam money from the feds (because the feds obviously don't know the mission of sheriffs in MA), that means less money for legitimate POLICE agencies.

You should be asking yourself your own question;

Do YOU really care about public safety?

Posted by: dcs2244

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

You should be asking yourself your own question;

Do YOU really care about public safety?

Delta, the answer is no. Like Hillary Clinton, it's all about power! Grab as much money as you can, and let the cops go take a flying f%ck at a rolling donut, just so the sheriff and his minions can massage their egos. "To hell with the mission" is their call to duty.

The majority of those folks do not want to be cops; of those that do, a handful will make it (just like the handful from other jobs). Those that want it and can't make it will forever look for a way around the legitimate paths to police work.

It's all about denying the police the tools they need to do the job and empowering a bunch of political suck-holes who are incapable of getting on the job in due form.

Posted by: kwflatbed

str8tshot52 I don't know who you are and I don't care.
But reading your posts I would think that you are Glodis
number one sign waver and contributor.
It's time for Glodis to get off his butt and out of the limelight
and do the job he was elected to do maintain the jail and prisioners
not try to play the big cop of Worcester.
Mabe he should take a trip to AZ and visit Sheriff Joe and learn
how to do the job and run a real jail.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwflatbed

Mabe he should take a trip to AZ and visit Sheriff Joe and learn how to do the job and run a real jail.

No need to go that far, Harry. Just go out to Dedham and see how Sheriff Bellotti does things; no mobile command centers, K-9's for the jails only (unless requested otherwise) and always ready to lend transport vans & deputies to transport prisoners from sobriety checkpoints or other incidents that might generate lots of prisoners.

Posted by: dcs2244

That's what really helps, Delta. Unfortunately, true leaders are in very short supply. I can count the true leaders I've encountered over the last thirty years on one hand. Sad, very sad.

Posted by: cj3441

Quote:

Originally Posted by str8tshot52

I don't need to read a paper moron, I live what I am talking about on a daily basis. I have plenty of LE experience, yours seems to be limited to a stint as Middle school hall monitor, that was until you had enough cash to donate to Glodis.

Posted by: 94c

anyone know what the deputy entrance exam feels like?

Posted by: Otto