Massachusetts Cop Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
MassCops Member
Joined
·
103 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Do any of the campus cops working in the Boston area have difficulty prosecuting domestic violence cases? The issue I am running into at the Roxbury District Court is the Judge feels that college roommates are not roommates by choice. Most students are assigned roommates at random and have very little say in who their roommate is. As a result they do not fall under MGL 209A? In my book they are roommates regardless of how they ended up living together. Obviously the arrest is made to cover my a$$ I was just curious if anyone is having similar problems?
 

·
Founder of MassCops
Joined
·
6,401 Posts
Interesting one..... I would think that you have a point but then again I'm not wearing the robe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
I think the intent of the law is such that it applies only to those indivduals involved in some sort of relationship. In that sense, I can see where the Judge is coming from. It would be an interesting case for the SJC to take up, however, so I guess we'll have to wait for one these wealthy college kids to get convicted and appeal all the way up.........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
mazz,
roomates are covered under 209A. I think it all depends on what court you go through and you did the right thing to CYA. Better to let the judge get sued than you.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
1,952 Posts
I agree with HUPD, roomates are part of an "intimate relationship" because they live in the same room. We dont have too many of roomates actually fighting to my knowledge so I am not sure for a track record at RDC but we have had boyfriend/girlfriend stuff.
 

·
Subscribing Member
Joined
·
2,201 Posts
Intamacy has NOTHING to do with it CHAPTER 209A. ABUSE PREVENTION.

Chapter 209A: Section 1. Definitions.

Section 1. As used in this chapter the following words shall have the following meanings:

""Abuse'', the occurrence of one or more of the following acts between family or household members:

(a) attempting to cause or causing physical harm;

(b) placing another in fear of imminent serious physical harm;

(c) causing another to engage involuntarily in sexual relations by force, threat or duress.

""Court'', the superior, probate and family, district or Boston municipal court departments of the trial court, except when the petitioner is in a dating relationship when ""Court'' shall mean district, probate, or Boston municipal courts.

""Family or household members'', persons who:

(a) are or were married to one another;

(b) are or were residing together in the same household;

(c) are or were related by blood or marriage;

(d) having a child in common regardless of whether they have ever married or lived together; or

(e) are or have been in a substantive dating or engagement relationship, which shall be adjudged by district, probate or Boston municipal courts consideration of the following factors:

(1) the length of time of the relationship; (2) the type of relationship; (3) the frequency of interaction between the parties; and (4) if the relationship has been terminated by either person, the length of time elapsed since the termination of the relationship.

""Law officer'', any officer authorized to serve criminal process.

""Protection order issued by another jurisdiction'', any injunction or other order issued by a court of another state, territory or possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia, or tribal court that is issued for the purpose of preventing violent or threatening acts or harassment against, or contact or communication with or physical proximity to another person, including temporary and final orders issued by civil and criminal courts filed by or on behalf of a person seeking protection.

""Vacate order'', court order to leave and remain away from a premises and surrendering forthwith any keys to said premises to the plaintiff. The defendant shall not damage any of the plaintiff's belongings or those of any other occupant and shall not shut off or cause to be shut off any utilities or mail delivery to the plaintiff. In the case where the premises designated in the vacate order is a residence, so long as the plaintiff is living at said residence, the defendant shall not interfere in any way with the plaintiff's right to possess such residence, except by order or judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to appropriate civil eviction proceedings, a petition to partition real estate, or a proceeding to divide marital property. A vacate order may include in its scope a household, a multiple family dwelling and the plaintiff's workplace. When issuing an order to vacate the plaintiff's workplace, the presiding justice must consider whether the plaintiff and defendant work in the same location or for the same employer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
665 Posts
Some of the judges in Roxbury Court think differently than most others statewide. Judge Redd used to routinely thrown out or dismiss charges of A&B P.O. (Public Employee) since he thinks that "....being assaulted comes with their job". Well I didn't read that in my job description and I don't think it's in his either. I am just waiting for some defendant to jump the docket and wring his neck. I don't think you'll see one cop come to his defense. The Court Officers might, depending on which one is there that day but then again, they have to work with this jerk every day. I don't. I know they see it all in Roxbury Court but the law is the law and it should be equally applied.
 

·
Subscribing Member
Joined
·
228 Posts
Like anything, different people read it different and judges are known to throw their personal opinions in on what they think. I wish we could do that.
 

·
MassCops Member
Joined
·
103 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Used2BeCop:

There is a judge (I think it was Redd) that tossed out the charge of ABPO several times on our officers. There have been a few in my dept. that have been injured as a result of the assault. According to him it is part of the job??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
665 Posts
There are judges who aren't full up on their laws and of course there are judges who have their prejudices. I've had dealings with RDC back in 1997-2000 and can honestly agree with Bart, that they play by their own rules. Oh well, sometimes you have to suck it up, and move on. Just keep doing what you think is right and you'll be fine!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
665 Posts
Hey Mazz,
Just keep doing what are you doing...I have a feeling that this may come back to bite the judge. We(NUPD)haven't had a problem with this issue but if you continue to you should talk to the DA. God knows, from working in this field the Admin in our Departments won't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
252 Posts
I'm not sure about all campuses but our department policy considers any students that are living in the same room regardless of whether or not that person chooses their roomate are covered under 209A.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
168 Posts
My domestic violence teacher is a Detective for the Domestic Violence Division in Worcester and he told us that 209A could be used for college roomates. Judges are screwy (mentally).
 

·
Subscribing Member
Joined
·
2,280 Posts
Hi Guys,
Mazz, you are right for arresting for 209A on roommates who share the same living and sleeping area. It is a good arrest. Who cares if it doesnt get prosecuted or convicted you got the court time hopefully (OT). Besides the great thing about the 209A law is that it is the only law that is liable free if the officer arrests on good faith. That means you are wont get sued on arresting someone you believed violated a Domestic A+B.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top