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

Council wants deputies again

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

Posted by: kwflatbed

Council wants deputies again

By AARON NICODEMUS, Standard-Times staff writer



NEW BEDFORD -- The City Council has requested that Mayor Frederick M. Kalisz Jr. consider allowing sheriff's deputies to patrol the city's streets.

This same idea caused considerable controversy when it was tried two years ago, when Bristol County Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson sent deputies out into the streets and Mayor Kalisz asked him to take them back.

Councilor-at-large Denis Lawrence Jr. and Ward 6 Councilor Leo R. Pimental made the recommendation at last night's City Council meeting. The idea, according to Councilor Lawrence, is to provide some relief to a police department that is overwhelmed with calls dealing with petty crime.

"Our Police Department is being overwhelmed with the amount of activities in the neighborhoods. It's deterring them from fighting real crime," he said. He said the sheriff's deputies would not act as an arresting force, but as "a presence, as a deterrent."

The deputies could watch trouble spots and report suspicious activity to police, he said. Their white cars and their uniforms could provide some extra sense of security to residents who complain that petty crime is making them fearful in their own neighborhoods.

Councilor Lawrence said he had discussed the plan with Sheriff Hodgson, who agreed to give it a try. "We have to look beyond politics, beyond egos," Councilor Lawrence said. "The bottom line should be the safety of our people."

"It's like the security blanket that everyone is looking for," Councilor Pimental said.

The council voted 8-0 to send the recommendation to Mayor Kalisz for consideration. Two councilors, Naomi Carney and Paul Koczera, did not vote because they are employees of the Sheriff's Department. Ward 5 Councilor Jane Gonsalves was not in the room when the vote took place. The motion included a provision that the sheriff's office and the New Bedford police coordinate their efforts and work together.

That was not the case when sheriff's deputies patrolled the city streets two years ago.

In September 2003, Sheriff Hodgson, angered by an assault on his wife and a separate brazen shootout in the South End, sent several of his department's K-9 units to patrol New Bedford's streets. Although Sheriff Hodgson admitted at the time he was uninvited, he said he felt compelled to act.

Mayor Kalisz said that putting the deputies on the street without coordinating with local police could be dangerous to all involved. At the time, he called the move "a political act." District Attorney Paul F. Walsh Jr. said the city did not need two police departments, and called the move "a publicity stunt."

The city's police union strongly opposed the move, and Mayor Kalisz sued Sheriff Hodgson to prevent him from dispatching deputies to the streets. Sheriff Hodgson took his deputies off the streets soon after he proposed the patrols.



This story appeared on Page A4 of The Standard-Times on September 23, 2005.


Posted by: kwflatbed

Sheriff's deputies make drug arrest
By RAY HENRY, Standard-Times staff writer

NEW BEDFORD --Investigators from the Bristol County Sheriff's office arrested a man for trafficking cocaine Friday morning, two years after the district attorney questioned whether sheriff's deputies even have the power of arrest.
Emmett Royster, 33, of 188 Shawmut Ave. was arrested when a team of deputy sheriffs executed a search warrant at his second-floor apartment.
Inside, the investigators discovered 53 grams of crack cocaine and more than 100 rounds of .357-caliber ammunition, Major Nelson De Gouveia said.
Mr. Royster was charged with trafficking cocaine and unlawful possession of ammunition, among other charges, officials said.
The case was investigated by Capt. Curt Espinola and Deputy Sheriff Matthew Santos, Major De Gouveia said.
Two years ago, Mayor Frederick M. Kalisz Jr. sued Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson to prevent his deputies from patrolling city streets uninvited.
The city government dropped the lawsuit after both sides agreed to cooperate on future law enforcement efforts.
Major De Gouveia would not comment on whether New Bedford authorities were involved in the case.
Lt. Richard M. Spirlet, a spokesman for the New Bedford Police Department, said on Friday that he was unaware of the raid.

This story appeared on Page A4 of The Standard-Times on September 27, 2005.


Posted by: Delta784

Bad idea. Very bad idea.


Posted by: nirtallica

Quote:
Originally Posted by kwflatbed
Sheriff's deputies make drug arrest
By RAY HENRY, Standard-Times staff writer

NEW BEDFORD --Investigators from the Bristol County Sheriff's office arrested a man for trafficking cocaine Friday morning, two years after the district attorney questioned whether sheriff's deputies even have the power of arrest.
Emmett Royster, 33, of 188 Shawmut Ave. was arrested when a team of deputy sheriffs executed a search warrant at his second-floor apartment.
Inside, the investigators discovered 53 grams of crack cocaine and more than 100 rounds of .357-caliber ammunition, Major Nelson De Gouveia said.
Mr. Royster was charged with trafficking cocaine and unlawful possession of ammunition, among other charges, officials said.
The case was investigated by Capt. Curt Espinola and Deputy Sheriff Matthew Santos, Major De Gouveia said.
Two years ago, Mayor Frederick M. Kalisz Jr. sued Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson to prevent his deputies from patrolling city streets uninvited.
The city government dropped the lawsuit after both sides agreed to cooperate on future law enforcement efforts.
Major De Gouveia would not comment on whether New Bedford authorities were involved in the case.
Lt. Richard M. Spirlet, a spokesman for the New Bedford Police Department, said on Friday that he was unaware of the raid.

This story appeared on Page A4 of The Standard-Times on September 27, 2005.
What a joke! The case will probably get thrown out by some smart lawyer who understands the role of the Sherriffs in Mass. Good job BCSD stepping on everyone's toes. I think New Bedford PD should have a real problem with this. I can tell that if the MSP were going in for a raid, we would have the common courtesy to notify NBPD detectives, who may be already on the case. That way, there are no f---ups. Does Hodgson even send his deputies to some sort of municipal academy?=D>


Posted by: PBC FL Cop

Sounds like a good case to me. You gotta give credit where credit is due.


Posted by: SinePari

Quote:
Originally Posted by nirtallica
What a joke! The case will probably get thrown out by some smart lawyer who understands the role of the Sherriffs in Mass. Good job BCSD stepping on everyone's toes. I think New Bedford PD should have a real problem with this. I can tell that if the MSP were going in for a raid, we would have the common courtesy to notify NBPD detectives, who may be already on the case. That way, there are no f---ups. Does Hodgson even send his deputies to some sort of municipal academy?=D>
At least the drug task forces from the county DAs offices are comprised of multi-agency teams. DEA, MSP and local depts all work together during a raid. The sheriffs deputies should be involved only to take custody and transport to court and jail.


Posted by: mpd61

1. City council with two (2) sheriffs dept employees? No bias there!

2. city council putting political pressure on mayor to influence police operations?



Posted by: USMCTrooper

Quote:
Originally Posted by PBC FL Cop
Sounds like a good case to me. You gotta give credit where credit is due.

Perhaps if they actually had the right to do so. A search warrant is not an arrest warrant. The most recent case addressing deputy authority (the infamous BAEZ case) good, bad or indifferent ruled they can only arrest for breaches of peace and arrest warrants.Other criminal matters are by summons. The court ruled they have no arrest power under 90-21 which includes OUI. If they cannot arrest for OUI (alcohol OR narcotics), what is their rational arresting for possession of narcotics? Violations of Ch 94C can be summoned. I will be interested to see how the DA argues against the BAEZ decision. Remember, Massachusetts is a liberal state. Most judges need less than zero to rule against the state. This case has some major doubt with it. Search incident to an arrest is out-search came before not after. Inevitable discovery is out. That was addressed in BAEZ > stopped for CMVI and "uncovered" subject was 90-23. "plain view" is out since had the operator been OUI that arrest would've been unlawful too.
Result: arrest made. Court decision: unlawful arrest Case dismissed.


I dont want to see drugs on the street but I want to see drug dealers on the street even less. I just can't understand WHY they insist on this type of nonsense......


Posted by: popo

Perhaps they should read the Labor Relations Case from Lawrence. Sheriffs used for duties(gang unit,drug unit) that were supposed to be filled by Lawrence PD. The city lost and had to pay backpay to officers, lots of it.

Quote:
If they cannot arrest for OUI (alcohol OR narcotics), what is their rational arresting for possession of narcotics?
Their rationale was that possession of narcotics amounted to a breach of the peace and an arrest could be made based on some retarted law that is misinterpreted by all the star badge wearing wannabes that cannot get on a PD, because they have lengthy BOPs, KQs and bad employment histories. I hope that answers your question USMCTrooper.


Posted by: Delta784

Quote:
Originally Posted by popo
Their rationale was that possession of narcotics amounted to a breach of the peace and an arrest could be made based on some retarted law that is misinterpreted by all the star badge wearing wannabes that cannot get on a PD, because they have lengthy BOPs, KQs and bad employment histories. I hope that answers your question USMCTrooper.
In Baez, the court ruled that an OUI-Liquor amounted to a breach of the peace, which is totally reasonable. The defense counsel's backup plan was to argue that deputy sheriffs shouldn't possess citation books, a point the court passed on deciding.

BTW popo....."star badge wearing wannabes"?

You have the balls to lecture me about professional courtesy in another thread??


Posted by: newman

popo, are you saying that you know every sheriff's department employee.Your starting to sound like Mumbles with your confused writing.For all anyone knows your probably some suck up who couldn't pass a civil service test so instead went the route of non civil service.Do you know how many officers in my department right now are on the reserve list for police departments and going through the MSP procedure to become a recruit?.Alot!Do you know how many police there are with OUI convictions and other past charges for certain offences on the job?Alot!I know a department where the officer is still on the job after being convivted of OUI when he was supposed to be at work.It took the Jaws of life to remove the person he hit.He still is a police officer.As for Lawrence, it definitely was wrong on the part of the sheriff's department, but also remember that the Lawrence Chief asked them for the help.You act as if every police officer is the Virgin Mary and the sheriff's all suck.Take a poll some time and see how many police officers started out as sheriff's department employee's.


Posted by: PBC FL Cop

The sheriff in this case obtained a search warrant, which had to be signed by a judge, therefore they must have had probable cause and the authority to do so. Search warrants as well as arrest warrants have the Sheriff's listed first.

Trafficking in cocaine is a felony, therefore it does not have to be a breach of the peace for the deputy to make an arrest.

Sounds like a good arrest.

FYI - Commonwealth v. Howe has outlined that a sheriff can arrest for an OUI.


Posted by: MCLEA

Quote:
The court ruled they have no arrest power under 90-21 which includes OUI.
This is not true.

"In Commonwealth v. Howe 405 Mass. 332, 334, 540 N.E.2d 677 (1989), the court held that pursuant to G.L. c. 90, § 21, a deputy sheriff has authority, within the boundaries of his or her county, to stop and arrest a person, without a warrant, who operates a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The court recognized that this authority derives from both common law and statutes granting sheriffs authority to make warrantless stops and arrests in situations involving a breach of the peace. 405 Mass. at 334-335, 540 N.E.2d 677." Comm. v. Baez, 42 Mass.App.Ct. 565, 566 (1997).

"In the present case, the plaintiff, while not a member of a municipal or state police force, was a law enforcement officer with police powers that exceed those of municipal police officers." See Commonwealth v. Howe, 405 Mass. 332 (1989); Polonsky v. Cousins, 2001 WL 95703 (Essex County Superior Court, Feb. 4, 2001, Judge Peter Agnes).


Posted by: popo

Quote:
You have the balls to lecture me about professional courtesy in another thread??
Sorry Delta, I do not extend professional courtesy to deputy sheriffs.


Posted by: mpd61

Hey!

Looks like the "hit back hard" kid is coming out swinging!


Posted by: msw

Quote:
Originally Posted by popo
Sorry Delta, I do not extend professional courtesy to deputy sheriffs.
Hey, popo, care to share what Dept you are with, so I know what town, when I'm there, that I'll have to drive real carefully through?


Posted by: Delta784

Quote:
Originally Posted by popo
Sorry Delta, I do not extend professional courtesy to deputy sheriffs.
Why not?


Posted by: popo

Quote:
Why not?
They are not police.


Posted by: Wolfman

This horse is now declared dead.




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

About MassCops, the home for Massachusetts law enforcement.

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

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

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

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

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



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

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