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 Operating greater than reasonable
(Click here to view the original thread on the MassCops Message Board)

Posted by: MPD

Does anybody know how to cite for operating greater than reasonable when the speed is actually lower than the posted speed limit?? 90/17

For example my town road is posted 35mph and I was on patrol during this recent storm and a vehicle was driving too fast for the current conditions. To keep it simple what would the monetary value be of the citation under 90/17. I don't want to go as far as operating to endanger just citation.

Thanks

Posted by: j809

I'd gig them under 90/17, write it in in the 1st offense box, not the 90/17 90/18 boxes as Operating too fast for conditions and hit them with the minimum $100.

Posted by: topcop14

Your kidding right?
I had to get out of the car in that blizzard to check a nit wit snooping around a museum in my town and had to got through waist deep snow, A little pissed

The last thing I am going to do is stop a nit wit for speeding. Not to mention if he is going to fast then how fast would you have tp drive to overtake the speeding vehicle. Let him go a plow will hit him or you will get to respond to a car off the road call and there is no appeal for a tow charge.

Posted by: Gil

Radar unit was off! Laptop was off! It was a reactive night only.

I had about 10 ATV's doing donuts in front of me on Rt. 1 during the storm, they seemed a little upset that I did not hit the blues and go after them. Sometimes it's just not worth it. I waved hi to them and went back to nursing my cold, in a 17 hour shift I think I put on 20 miles.

It was a fairly quiet night, I just wished the city invested in some better wiper blades.

Posted by: frapmpd24

I only wish it was reactive. You think if people did not have to plow or work in emergency services they would stay home, NO, that makes too much sense. PC'd some bozo stumbling up the middle of the street that got booted from a bar. Shagged alarm calls all night and then tagged a few vehicles belonging no minds that do not get the hint that if they park in the middle of the road the plows cannot get by. And the worst part is all of them had huge driveways?

Had a lady pass me at 50; if it is too dangerous for me to catch and stop in the crown vic cruiser with chains (horrible handling by the way), its worth the ink.

For those of you who are curious, j809 is correct... cite for 90/17 and the minumum ammount.

Posted by: FrankS

First, snow covered roads and crownvics just don't work together. Blizzards and crownvics...forget about it. While working 4 - 12 the other night OIC ordered all vics and wagons off the road and reassigned patrol personnel to personnel SUV'S. A little wear and tear, but a free tank of gas at the pumps at the conclusion of shift.

Driving down the road windows slightly ajar, radio turned down low like a good proactive patrolman and here comes the two door honda. The honda (bottom of car about three inches off the ground) passes the proactive patrolman at approximately 40 in posted 30, splashing dirt entrenched mushy slushy snow through slightly ajar window of SUV. Although I cannot post what came out of my mouth in the 1/2 mile it took me to catch the honda in my SUV, with no lights and no siren. If I could use two words, it would be "NOT GOOD."

Arrest, no I think that would be the extreme. But I have a feeling I will feel much better when sitting in court for a couple of big clock appearances.

If people are that reckless with their own safety, they certainly don't care about anyone else's. To me, a V just wouldn't be enough.

Posted by: Clouseau

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankS";p=&quot

While working 4 - 12 the other night OIC ordered all vics and wagons off the road and reassigned patrol personnel to personnel SUV'S.

I can't believe a supervisor had the balls, or stupidity... to allow patrol in personal mv's.

God forbid you're involved in an accident responding to a call.
Would he standby you and say he gave the order?
Who would pay for the damage? Not your insurance. The city wouldn't pick up the tab.
Add some P.I. into the mix....you're sued, the supervisor is sued, the city is sued etc. You will feel a cold chill up your spine...when you realize you're all alone.

The thought sounds good. Maybe in the old days, not now. Not in this litigious society.

Use your issued cruiser...when you get there, you get there.

Like the old timers told me when I was a rook. "Take your time kid...you got 32 years."

Posted by: j809

Look at your department's rules and regulations. Most of the departments use the Mass Chiefs Rules and there is a section in there prohibiting the use of personal vehicles on patrol.

Posted by: FrankS

I took this job many years ago to serve my community and make some money....Cruiser or no cruiser, you get into an accident your getting sued no matter what. The veteran slangs, "Follow the Ambulance," "Fire Before Police." Unfortunately these don't fly in present day society. I didn't take this job to be cool and always say the cool or the right things that are accepted.

Getting Sued? I've seen officers getting sued for putting hand cuffs on to tight, for spraying people, for everthing.

Getting Sued? Thats the last thing you should worry about on this Job?

Posted by: USMCTrooper

Should I feel bad??

Not only would I never use my own gas, vehicle, etc (the State wouldn't ever go for that anyway) I also wrote people who crashed 90-17 citations. If hundreds of vehicles can pass along without incident and you can't, you must be going to fast.

The kid who passed me when everyone was creeping along during Saturday night's blizzard got stopped and locked up.

Then on the way home I nearly got broadsided by two ATV's coming Warp 1 off a side street (they got grabbed and turned around). I went only 1/4 mile further and came head to head with a snowmobile. That kid must've soiled himself just before he went into a snowbank. He was also reprimanded.

Posted by: Wolfman

Use your personal vehicle on patrol? Yeah right. So you lock up some drunken reprobate and he pukes all over your backseat. The badass punk kicks out your rear window. You transport a stranded motorist who turns out has HIV and Hepatitis, and ditches a needle between your seatcushions where your 5 year old finds it the next day..

Don't be a moron. Your family rides in that car.

Posted by: Clouseau

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankS";p=&quot

Cruiser or no cruiser, you get into an accident your getting sued no matter what.
Getting Sued? I've seen officers getting sued for putting hand cuffs on to tight, for spraying people, for everthing.
Getting Sued? Thats the last thing you should worry about on this Job?

Frank, I'm not worried about being sued while in a cruiser, spraying someone, or putting the cuffs on too tight. Barring total recklessness and disregard for public safety, I would be indemnified through the city.

What I am worried about is putting my self in a situation where I know I will be sued and I know I will lose. I will not put my job, my house, and my families well being in jeopardy for a crazy supervisor, an ungrateful public or anyone, anything else for that matter.

I feel this is what you're are doing when patrolling in a personal m/v.
One bad accident going to a call and they will hang you out to dry.
In addition to possibly losing your job, you will be out the $25k for your Explorer, and the $50k for the BMW you hit. Now throw in the three passengers that suddenly develop neck and back injuries etc. Here comes the million dollar suit.

Your supervisor won't be able to help you. He will have his own problems.
The administration won't back you, city hall won't back you, and the courts won't back you.
Do you really think your insurance would pay? Do you think the city will pick up the tab?

The public has to understand that response times are quite a bit slower during two foot blizzards. They should be happy that we respond period.

My department's maintenance division installs chains on at least half of the cruisers during heavy snow storms. They know this is the only way to get around under these conditions. If they don't, they know the consequences.

Transporting prisoners in your own m/v....see above post.

Posted by: Macop

If my supervisor ordered me to use my POV I would be on the hook for insubordination because I would flat out refuse. The mere though is absolutly nuts to use your POV on patrol.

Posted by: FrankS

VOR, slightly taking my particular post out of context...I was speaking of conducting routine patrol in a personal SUV during a blizzard, nothing about transporting prisoners; that would be a little extreme. I'm curious to how many departments conducted their patrols/calls for service during the storm. I know of 4 in the metro boston area that utilized officers personal SUV's. Many departments do not have an abundant amount of SUV's in their fleet. Mine has two.

Liability, I look at a department like the MBTA Police. Being friends with a few of its members, I asked about the station/parking lot patrols that many of them take on overtime. They can either report to HQ and pick up a cruiser or the department allows them to utilize their personal M/V. For those that are not familiar with the MBTA, they are one of the most liability conscious departments I have ever known.

Question: Why do the officers use their personal M/V's and is their any more or less liability on the officer or the department?

Details: Many, many departments allow their officers to utilize personal M/V's on details. These officers are in uniform representing their respective departments in an official capacity. There billing is usually billed through the department and payed either quickly (slush fund) or not so quickly (no slush fund.) So, for the first person that wants to respond and say, "well their working for the company and really not the police department and its not their regular shift ,so it really doesn't count," I would ask them the following question:

Your working a detail sitting in your personal M/V, partially obstructing a travel lane. Miss Smith while driving to work, can't see your M/V due to solar glare. After totaling your car and her car, and haphazardly killing Mr. Jones who was simply riding his bike on the sidewalk, who is liable? Are you any more or less liable because your personal M/V was obstructing a travel lane as opposed to a cruiser. If so, many departments need to change their SOP's and change them quickly!!

Posted by: j809

First of all, I don't use my personal vehicle to block a lane. On detail, my car is parked in the street legally or parked on a side street. Details are different then doing patrol. You are not responding to emergencies with your vehicle as you would if you used the vehicle for patrol. If you have blue lights on your vehicle, you have to notifiy the insurance company and you have to pay some extra insurance or sometimes none as long as you notified them. Like I said, all municipal police departments have rules and regulations stemmed from Mass Chiefs of Police and there is a very specific section in there prohibiting the use of the POV. What you are refering to in regards to the MBTA, remember it is an OT, or detail. They sit in their car like a detail. Always check your department's policies and procedures before doing something stupid.

Posted by: Wolfman

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankS";p=&quot

VOR, slightly taking my particular post out of context...I was speaking of conducting routine patrol in a personal SUV during a blizzard, nothing about transporting prisoners; that would be a little extreme. I'm curious to how many departments conducted their patrols/calls for service during the storm. I know of 4 in the metro boston area that utilized officers personal SUV's. Many departments do not have an abundant amount of SUV's in their fleet. Mine has two.

Well Frank, as we all know there's no such thing as a routine patrol. Think about this - it's snowing too hard to take a patrol vehicle out so you are driving your own vehicle on patrol.

What are you going to do when you're just dittybopping around town in your family truckster in the snowstorm and you see a car smashed into a tree with a 0.24 drunk behind the wheel? Make him stand outside in a blizzard with handcuffs on while you wait for a patrol car to come - which can't because as you said it's snowing too hard, that's why you have the Truckster on patrol. You are going to have to put him in your car,where he proceeds to vomit copiously all over your fine Corinthian leather. Ugh. The town will pay for the cleanup, right?

What are you going to do when you stop to assist a motorist and his car reeks of weed, and you see a .45 and a kilo poking out from under the seat? Ask him to turn himself in when the roads are cleared? Make him stand outside in a blizzard with handcuffs on while you wait for a patrol car to come - oops forgot, no patrol cars can go out, since it's snowing too hard? No, you are going to arrest the mope. That's when he will kick out the Eddie Bauer custom tinted window in the back of your car. That's OK, the town will pay for it, right?

You stop for another disabled car - that's why you're out there, right? Man, it's freezing and this poor girl is turning blue. While you wait for the tow you have her sit in the back of your car but you can't handcuff her, she's not under arrest. During the 40 minutes you are waiting, she ditches her needles and heroin bags behind your seat, manages to sneeze some virus laden phlegm into your upholstery, and 2 days later accuses you of fondling her while waiting for the tow. Now you have criminologists going over your car with a fine-tooth comb, carving sections out of your fine Corinthian leather and discovering narcotics paraphernalia behind your seat. That's OK, the town will go to bat for you, right?

Then you hear on your scanner that a neighboring PD is looking for a vehcicle involved in a shooting where the guy killed his exwife and also let some rounds fly at a cop. Lo and behold, there goes the car. What to do? Wait for a patrol to come and take the pursuit? No, you take off after the mope in your Truckster, which you have had NO EVOC training in, which is not equipped for pursuit, and which careens through an intersection and flattens the mother of the areas most prominent ambulance chasing defense attorney. The town will pay, right?

You want to bet your job and life savings on it? Please tell me you're not so naive as to think none of this could happen. If so, you're either (a) not a cop, (b) not an experienced cop, or (c) just plain dumb. Even if your department has 4WD vehicles, there's no guarantee they will be available when you need them.

Posted by: Clouseau

[quote="FrankS";p="54597"]
Liability, I look at a department like the MBTA Police. Being friends with a few of its members, I asked about the station/parking lot patrols that many of them take on overtime. They can either report to HQ and pick up a cruiser or the department allows them to utilize their personal M/V. For those that are not familiar with the MBTA, they are one of the most liability conscious departments I have ever known.Details:

Ask your friends about the T cop that was fired last year. He was responding back to his assigned station in Malden when he struck and killed a WW2 veteran with his personal m/v. By the end of the week, he was no longer a cop, faced criminal m/v charges, and is still involved in an ongoing civil suit.

As j809 stated, sitting in your car while assigned to a fixed post such as a parking lot, square, or detail etc. is different from patrolling in your m/v, being pro-active and responding to radio calls.

I also believe that there are certain situations where you may be liable when parking your m/v in the street during a detail. Situations involving blind curves, inclement weather, not properly coning of the site, no flashers/warning lights etc. may open you up to trouble. Insurance companies don't want to pay for damages incurred during regular accidents, never mind in a situation like those above.

I don't want to be the test case. Remember, the detail officer is there for site safety, not to add to the problem. When I did this, I made sure I was clearly visible and outside the car waiving traffic around the site. Now if Mr. Magoo had slammed into the back of my personal m/v, I at least had a leg to stand on.
Some departments will not allow a pursuit in an unmarked car, regardless of lights/sirens. Why? For liability reasons!

Posted by: ProtoCop1*

POV on Patrol = pank: and

Posted by: Clouseau

Man, it's freezing and this poor girl is turning blue. While you wait for the tow you have her sit in the back of your car but you can't handcuff her, she's not under arrest , and 2 days later accuses you of fondling her while waiting for the tow. Now you have criminologists going over your car with a fine-tooth comb..[/quote]

Exactly, I can see it now. She see's you in uniform and then see's dollar signs. Crying to I.A. about how you had your way with her in your personal m/v while listening to satellite radio. Sure, they will find some of her long blond hair on the seats, some DNA evidence etc. Sure, the job and the courts will believe you, your wife will believe you...yup. To serve and protect...Lol. I cringe just thinking about it.

I wasn't going to say anything but Vor made me do it.
You said you took this job many years ago. Is this true?
You can tell us. We're your friends...Lol.

Posted by: FrankS

Hold on a sec.....need to wipe my forehead....some people seem to be taking open dialog personally !!

Some officers of the MBTA Police patrol parking lots in their personnel vehicles. Not sitting, not parked....PATROLLING. These are overtime shifts to prevent auto crime/theft. Like VOR and some others, I will add specifics to my posts. Revere...Wonderland Station (Blue Line,) the officer covers the entire station....from Wonderland Ballroom side to Revere Beach side...for those that are not familiar with area, this task requires to good amount of driving...Officers can use their PC's to perform this task. Keep in mind the MBTA in a State Agency. My question was, are these officers incurring any extra liability by performing these functions in their PC's?

Someone spoke about blue light permits. Thanks for bringing this specific area up. When officers install blue lights in their PERSONNEL vehicles what are they being used for? No one is going to install blue lights in their personnel vehicle if they do not intend to use them. Could they be for patrol, details, overtime...there is certainly multiples of reasons why people install blue lights in their personal vehicles. Me, the last thing I would do is drill holes and put strobe tubes and all these other crazy things some people do to their personnel vehicles. I can use all the lights and sirens I want during my regular tour of duty...no need to take my job home with me.

So now you have your personnel vehicle with blue lights installed....okay..are you now less liable when working a detail or on patrol or responding to some sort of emergency. Maybe some others are, but I will never profess to be some fairytale patrolman. Upon arrival to my detail, I meet who evers in charge,allow THEM to set up the cones or what ever traffic safety devices they may have, and then I conveniently attempt to sneak back to my cruiser or PC, until I get a heads up on my nextel that supervisors are lurking in the area. Upon notification, I exit my vehicle, check my gig line and ensure that my cover is square on my head.

So that was it all I needed was blue lights....."I understand your honor, but maybe you didn't hear me earlier....I had blue lights."

VOR, I understand your question and respect your responses. No, I'm not naive or dumb or any of the other things people have labeled me for participating in some nice open dialog.

The gist of the story: Patrolling in cruiser, supervisor DIRECTS/ORDERS all cruisers off street and DIRECTS/ORDERS all officers with SUVS to begin utilizing them for ROUTINE Patrol (I checked my academy Training manuals / report writing section, it says routine) and calls for service. I followed this directive. In an earlier post, some stated to the sort, I would be insubordinate....my response to that would be GOOD LUCK. That person response would be something like this: They suspended me, but I filed a grievance, and called civil service....and the IBPO attorney is going to meet with me next week...and I don't know...I'm sure I'll find a way to pay my bills...maybe!!

VOR, In response to the DK question. My answer is yes. They would be handcuffed and sat on the nearest snow bank until a marked cruiser arrived on scene. If no snow banks were available, I would probably sit them on some front porch until the cruiser arrived. It would be my job to overcome and adapt to any situation that was thrown my way. No, I would never sit a prisoner or anyone else in my personnel vehicle. To take that that a step further, I will never again put a DK in my cruiser....that what I believe wagons are for, hence I've already learned the hard way..and no we don't have those plastic one piece back seats. For the mother and child sitting in the car, they will remain in the car till some other form of transportation arrived on scene and the operator of the vehicle would have been cited accordingly subsequent to the STATE OF EMERGENCY rules.

Posted by: FrankS

AND NOW THE REST OF THE STORY:

CLOESEAU QUOTE, Ask your friends about the T cop that was fired last year. He was responding back to his assigned station in Malden when he struck and killed a WW2 veteran with his personal m/v. By the end of the week, he was no longer a cop, faced criminal m/v charges, and is still involved in an ongoing civil suit.

Writing this and only this is liking writing an arrest narrative and leaving out five of the six elements of the crime. However, there is hope, CJIS: Under news, print the seminars section....I'm almost positive there's an upcoming report writing class.

The officer that actually ended up resigning from the MBTA (probably would been fired, but actually resigned,) was assigned to the Oak Grove Station in Malden. He was within Dept. SOP in using his PERSONAL vehicle. Unfortunately for this officer he decided that he did not want to be in Malden and decided to go to the square One mall in Saugus to do some shopping. Supervisors attempted to radio same, with negative results. After getting a heads up that supervisors were looking for him, he departed the mall and rushed back to Malden when he struck and killed someone.

This entire incident had nothing to do with the fact he was in his personal vehicle. Now Clouseau, you may or may not know this, but the media, their not very truthful!!

MEDIA =

Posted by: FrankS

I hate to break the topic, I now know how to use the little yellow circle faces, but I'm really not sure what the points represent....

Posted by: Clouseau

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankS";p=&quot

Some officers of the MBTA Police patrol parking lots in their personnel vehicles. Not sitting, not parked....PATROLLING. These are overtime shifts to prevent auto crime/theft. Like VOR and some others, I will add specifics to my posts. Revere...Wonderland Station (Blue Line,) the officer covers the entire station....from Wonderland Ballroom side to Revere Beach side...for those that are not familiar with area, this task requires to good amount of driving...Officers can use their PC's to perform this task.
.

If this practice is sanctioned at the T, part of the job description, or OK'd in the depts. rules and regulations...your all set. If not, you might be picking up the tab. I know they do it. Is it officially OK'd? Ask a T cop.

As far as the blue light, if you have a blue light from your job and/or a blue light permit and you are on call or OK'd in writing by your dept. to respond with the blue light flashing...your all set. They will have to pick up the tab {barring total recklessness}. Most jobs requiring this will issue you a marked/ unmarked car to avoid this scenario {Liability}

If you're acting on your own and pop a blue light on your dash like "Streets of San Francesco." I wouldn't want to be you in the likely event of an accident.

I believe you when you said the supervisor ordered cruisers and wagons off the street. That's why I said he was nuts. You can quote me on that as well. What if all the cops took the train into work that night? What would he do?

The job description state's that you must have a valid Mass. drivers license. NOT that you must have a personal m/v available for patrol, preferably 4X4.

I know I would win an appeal at civil service if reprimanded for not using my personal m/v.

All in good humor, Do you really check your gig line at the detail site?
C'mon how many years?

Posted by: FrankS

VOR, I going to assume that your like a MASSCOPS Boss because of the ADIM thing above your name. Now, to be honest with you, I'm usually big into the kiss up to the boss/supervisor thing, but, I do need to address one issue.

VOR QUOTE, "While you wait for the tow you have her sit in the back of your car but you can't handcuff her, she's not under arrest."

This is an incorrect statement. Handcuffs do not represent arrest. You can Handcuff someone with out them being under arrest, but you probably know that. Just like when I put down routine patrol. Yes its true, day 1 up until graduation, a coming saying, "There is nothing routine about police work...and I will find out the genisus behind why its in my OLD academy books.

I not going to call you a moron, or insult you for making a typing error and I going to assume (even though your NEVER suppose to assume things in this line of work) that all the insults directed towards good old FrankS are all in good humor as Clouseau says they are.

The other thing is, why is this site such a secret society. Nobody wants anyone else to know who they are or where their from. Its sorta strange!!

Posted by: Clouseau

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankS";p=&quot

Writing this and only this is liking writing an arrest narrative and leaving out five of the six elements of the crime. However, there is hope, CJIS: Under news, print the seminars section....I'm almost positive there's an upcoming report writing class.
MEDIA =

Are you kidding? I've killed more trees and used more paper for reports than you used for toilet paper in your entire life.

You telling me that you would handcuff a stranded woman who's guilty of being frozen?

How long Frank? I say less than 2.

Posted by: stm4710

The Beverly Police call us down at BEMA to bring some of our Diesel 4WD Blazers and Pickup trucks down to the station for them to use on patrols. After a lesson on starting and operating diesel engines they are off on thier 4WD merry way.

Posted by: ROBOCOP1982

Quote:

The Beverly Police call us down at BEMA to bring some of our Diesel 4WD Blazers and Pickup trucks down to the station for them to use on patrols. After a lesson on starting and operating diesel engines they are off on thier 4WD merry way.

That's hilarious! Are they marked units?

Posted by: Wolfman

Frank, not for nothing but where exactly do you work that a supervisor would ORDER you to do some absurd thing like use your own car for patrol?

You would have a stranded motorist or a handcuffed drunk sit in a disabled vehicle or on a snowbank during a blizzard while you sat in a nice warm car. That's just ignorant. They get frostbite or hypothermia, they sue you, you're on the stand answering "Well, Officer Frank, could you explain to the jury why you ordered this person to stay exposed to arctic conditions while you sat in your nice warm car..."

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankS

This is an incorrect statement. Handcuffs do not represent arrest...

Arrest: Would a reasonable person feel that he or she was free to go? You put handcuffs on someone, they can reasonaby believe that they are NOT free to leave. Thus they are the subject of a custodial arrest, you have prevented their freedom of movement, and if they have done nothing more than get stuck in the snow and with no articulable fear for your safety you have now violated their civil rights, you are wrong, you will be sued and you will lose.

The BS detector is doing just a little bit more than twitching right now. The flag's about to go up.

I'm just a Masscops admin, Gil's the boss. I get to go a little deeper into the workings of the board than most and doing so- - - I see that 9 out of 10 of your posts have come from Massport computers...something you're not telling us?

Posted by: FrankS

CLOUSEAU QUOTE: "Are you kidding? I've killed more trees and used more paper for reports than you used for toilet paper in your entire life. You telling me that you would handcuff a stranded woman who's guilty of being frozen? How long Frank? I say less than 2."

There you go again, getting all personal....what I'm telling you is that in your little MBTA story, you left out 90% of the story. You told what you thought was the story, but what you actually did was misinform everyone that read that post. The media engages in similiar practices. They tell the public what the public wants to hear and leave out half the truth. "Tonight, on news center 5...police beat helpless man to the brink of Death." Yet, what they left out was the fact that two cops were injured and three cruisers go totalled in the five mile chase that led up to the amount of force needed to take the man into custody. CLOUSEAU when you tell a story or attempt to state a fact, just make sure you no what you are talking about....Whats the big deal in that?

I said nothing about handcuffing a freezing woman. I responding to a post that handcuffs represent arrest and that is a FALSE STATEMENT and more than likely nothing more than a typing error.

Posted by: Wolfman

The more I review the worse it gets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankS

The honda (bottom of car about three inches off the ground) passes the proactive patrolman at approximately 40 in posted 30, splashing dirt entrenched mushy slushy snow through slightly ajar window of SUV. Although I cannot post what came out of my mouth in the 1/2 mile it took me to catch the honda in my SUV, with no lights and no siren.

I normally don't second guess officer's decisions but something about this is just plain wrong. We're getting the storm of the century and you're chasing some nitwit in a ricer in a civilian vehicle for speeding? The reasoning that he is likely to cause a crash doesn't warrant your exacerbating the situation by chasing him in a car with NO emergency equipment. How are you going to stop the guy, blink your headlights and yell "WOOP WOOP!" out the window? This guy driving the Honda may be a moron but what's he going to think when he sees this car chasing after him. You think he'll automatically put 2+2 together and figure it must be a cop in a civilian vehicle?

I agree with Clouseau, its less than 2 or not at all. Otherwise you'd know where the switch is and when to turn it off. The police are not a panacea for all of society's woes.

Posted by: masscops26778

Hey FrankS,,,,

Yes you can hand cuff someone that is not yet under arrest. But Sorry buddy you can not hand cuff a disabled motorist in the back of your personal vehicle while on "routine patrol". Thats an even better lawsuit. So Suzzie Smith now says that you hand cuffed her in the back of your personal vehicle and then assaulted her. WOW imagine that in court. You might actually have to spend some time in the blinky for that one. Kidnapping, Sexual assault, Excessive force, etc... I want to know where in the country you can hand cuff someone for staying with their broken down vehicle.

Bottom line--Don't use a your on vehicle, go really slow in theirs!

Posted by: FrankS

masscops26778, before you reply to a post, you should read all the ones that lead up to it. Then and only then will your response make any sense.

Posted by: FrankS

I'm going to have to check with our IT Staff, it should have clearly been 10 of 10.

Posted by: j809

Quote:

Now, to be honest with you, I'm usually big into the kiss up to the boss/supervisor thing, but, I do need to address one issue.

FrankS, you cannot be for real.

Posted by: FrankS

VOR, you stated that hand cuffs represent arrest. That is an incorrect statement. We can create a thousand different scenarios in regards to custody and non custody and reasonably fear for safety and when its right and when its wrong to handcuff someone outside of an arrest. If you were more direct, it would not have been an issue. But, by posting such a broad statement, you left it open to self interpretation.

Posted by: Wolfman

TO quote myself with some added emphasis and illustration:

Would a reasonable person in the same circumstances feel that he or she was free to go? You put handcuffs on someone, they can reasonaby believe that they are NOT free to leave. (were you to ask them any questions and they provided incriminating answers, said answers would be inadmissible in court if not preceded by Miranda rights as you would have both custody and interrogation. In the scenario described here, you have no articulable suspicion of any criminal activity whatsoever, just a person who got stuck in the snow during a blizzard.) YOU HAVE SEIZED THEM, you have prevented their freedom of movement, and if they have done nothing more than get stuck in the snow and with no articulable fear for your safety you have now violated their civil rights, you are wrong, you will be sued and you will lose.

If a Trooper stops by the side of the road to assist a motorist with a tire change and placed the operator in handcuffs while waiting for a tow, would you consider this to be an appropriate response to the situation at hand? Just the possibility of an altercation is not enough, you have to have an articulable reason why you feel your safety or the safety of others is jeopardized by this person remaining unrestrained.

Do you draw down on every vehicle you stop? Why not? It's always possible that the subject could be armed. Wouldn't it be safer to just take everyone out at gunpoint, search them all, handcuff and fingerprint them just to be sure?

Show me the grey area.

Quote:

A seizure based on less than probable cause, made with the aim of preventing flight in case evidence is found that generates probable cause for an arrest, exceeds the scope of a Terry stop. Commonwealth v. Borges, 395 Mass. 788, 790-791 (1985) (where police had reasonable suspicion for Terry stop, but not probable cause for an arrest, ordering that the defendant remove his shoes to prevent flight was an illegal seizure)

Posted by: MPD

Thank you for the reply. A little off the topic but I thank you just the same. 90/17 1st offense box for the min $100

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

About MassCops, the home for Massachusetts law enforcement.

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

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

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

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

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

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