Massachusetts Cop Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 52 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Throwing shots at each other is one thing among the thin blue line. But a sworn PO actually interfering with another police agency's operations is WRONG! No matter what gripes police have with each other over funding and LEC stuff, working against other police by helping Mr. Public the Knucklehead is wrong. What do I mean? Maybe a Nahant police officer could explain. They complain when SP isn't around and now SP is around and they fight our enforcement activities literally right in front of us.
:sb: :NO:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
601 Posts
Stay out of NAHANT!!!!! JK....what the hell are you talking about..fill us all in this message is too cryptic riddler
 

·
Subscribing Member
Joined
·
1,167 Posts
Talking about enforcement on the Causeway and the "MDC" Beach I would imagine. I drive that every night, and I can't tell you how rare it is to see a MSP Unit with a car stop there. Nahant has a car stopped on the Causeway every 10 seconds, it seems. The MSP Mounted Unit present on the Lynn/Swampscott side of the beach is nice though.
 

·
Subscribing Member
Joined
·
459 Posts
PearlOnyx";p="65672 said:
Talking about enforcement on the Causeway and the "MDC" Beach I would imagine. I drive that every night, and I can't tell you how rare it is to see a MSP Unit with a car stop there. Nahant has a car stopped on the Causeway every 10 seconds, it seems. The MSP Mounted Unit present on the Lynn/Swampscott side of the beach is nice though.
I don't see what the problem is. Local agencies have had concurrent jurisdition on MDC property within their borders since 1996.

What am I missing?
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Staties, town cops clash on patrol tactics
By Debra Glidden
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
NAHANT - Nahant Police and State Police have drawn battle lines along the causeway.
The town and the state police have joint jurisdiction on the causeway and Nahant Rotary, but apparently a sharp difference on traffic enforcement strategy.
Town Police Lt. Thomas Hutton said after the department received at least 20 complaints from town residents who were ticketed by state police for speeding on the causeway, Nahant officers moved to warn its residents to slow down.
The department stationed marked cruisers with lights flashing at two spots along the causeway during rush hour Friday evening, as state police were clocking vehicles, and officers were waving at vehicles to warn motorists to slow down.
That move did not sit well with state police.
According to one civilian eyewitness, State Police Sgt. Paul Barbieri "ordered" Nahant cruisers off the causeway twice Friday evening.
"Nahant police politely declined to be moved," the witness said.
Hutton said the department was being "proactive" and ensuring that motorists were driving safely.
State Police Sgt. Richard Donovan called the situation "ridiculous."
"If Nahant officers were warning vehicles to slow down when state police were using radar for traffic enforcement they were interfering with state police operations," Donovan said.
Donovan said the state and local police have joint jurisdiction on the causeway, but State Police Public Information Officer Sharon Costine said state police are the primary authority.
"The bottom line is it is part of our patrol area. It is our roadway and is not in the town of Nahant," Costine said."Apparently Nahant has an issue with us being there."
According to several town residents, including a 90-year-old great-grandmother, the state police have been aggressively targeting Nahant residents. (duh! who else drives in and out of that peninsula)
The speed limit at each end of the causeway is 35 mph and the posted speed limit is 45 mph on the rest of the road that connects the peninsula town with Lynn.
According to police, some residents have been ticketed for going 40 mph in the 35 mph zone.
"According to the people who called us, the tickets were issued by state police where the speed limit drops from 45-miles to 35-miles," Hutton said.
Hutton said the two departments have historically have had a "good working relationship."
"This problem started a couple of weeks ago when town officials said they intend to bill the state for services the town provides to the causeway and the Nahant Beach Reservation. The state turned it into a p- - - - - -contest," Hutton said.
Donovan said allegations the state police are targeting Nahant residents is "nonsense."
"We use radar and when someone is speeding they are stopped and they are given a ticket or warning as appropriate. We are looking at the radar gun, not at Nahant (parking) stickers," Donovan said.
Donovan said the state police have dedicated patrols on the causeway, Lynn Shore Drive and on the Lynnway on weekends, and has stepped up traffic enforcement.
"We had a lot of complaints from Nahant police about speeding on the causeway and in the (Nahant Beach Reservation) parking lot," Donovan said.
Police Chief William F. Waters said that is "an absolute lie."
"The Nahant police has never complained to the state about speeding cars on the causeway," Waters said.
+++++++++++++++
As for Nahant billing for services and answering all the calls. Their dispatch sometimes never notifies the barrack or delays it. I've heard the responses on the scanner (well I use to). The last couple of years they have been Nextel dispatched to avoid the radio (esp. during the SP dedicated patrols).
 

·
Subscribing Member
Joined
·
4,324 Posts
That is the most retarted thing I have ever heard. Shame on Nahant PD administration. I think the AG should step in and come down with a decision. I think that is definitely interfering. :DP:
 

·
Subscribing Member
Joined
·
459 Posts
So apparently Nahant residents can drive anyway they damn well please, and the 'rest of us' need to be controlled.

They should open a barracks right there at the rotary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
I would laugh at my OIC if I was told to park on the side of the road with my lights on and wave at people to slow down, especially if the MSP was set up doing enforcement. Thats rediculous...
A lot of the cities and towns in the Boston area share jurisdiction on parkways. If the MSP wants to set up enforcement on these roads, what is the problem? I say go for it. They probabally need it. A vast majority of the vehicles that are stopped on these roads are residents of that particular town, so to say that Nahant residents are getting picked on is crazy.
As for the guy who got a ticket for 40 in a 35 most likely talked his way into a ticket. Who here hasn't stopped a car with the intention of giving a verbal warning only to be convinced to issue a written citation. People crack me up...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
I'm not that familiar with the area, but the SP Lt. said the causeway is not in Nahant. If that's the case, why is NPD there? Where is the causeway located then...Purgatory? rhl
 

·
Czar of Cyncism and Satire
Joined
·
2,070 Posts
Having been stopped several times on the causeway / rotary in the early 90's, I can tell you this. Unless you are LE or a resident of Nahant, you will be ticketed, plain & simple.
SP steps in and levels the playing field and viola', the NPD is flapping their arms warning "their people", i.e. "residents of said peninsula" to slow down, lest they be ticketed for speeding by another agency.
It's very simple really. There is hardly any industrial base for taxation on Nahant. Residential property taxes are high enough there so to supplement the budget, non-residents get whacked with speeding fines. Half to the state, half to the town. Been that way for eons as far as I know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
As someone that is unfamiliar with the cross-jurisdictional issues that may arise in Massachusetts LE, is this a common problem?
That is to say, is the MSP welcomed for enforcement in municipalities throughout MA? I read that MSP was involved in a joint enforcement task force recently in Springfield MA. How did Springfield PD see this? Not trying to stir a shit pot...Its more that I work in a city in which I have never seen a State Police unit working (other than investigative units and they even those guys are rarely seen) and I am curious how State PD is viewed in the cities and towns. My question is, whether this usually turns into a pissing match between local and state or is the shared jusrisdiction amicable?
 

·
Subscribing Member
Joined
·
569 Posts
This situation is just another example of how stupid we can get. If Nahant is legitimately flagging people down to reduce speeds and increase traffic safety, I don't have a problem with that. It should not be done while another agency with appropriate enforcement jurisdiction is conducting a radar operation.
On the other hand, SP needs to look at the big picture. Why are they writing tickets? Presumably, it is to slow people down. If Nahant is out there slowing the traffic, there is no need to carry out a radar assignment. Move where you are needed! You have two different agencies trying to accomplish the same goal using different methods. The brass from both should put their heads together and say on "x" days Nahant will slow traffic, on "Y" days SP will handle traffic control. Who cares who is doing it or how, as long as it is getting done.
Shame on both agencies that simultaneously hold their posts, wasting each other's time, while making fools of themselves to the general public!
Nahant guys should see the SP out there and say, "Great, I can go do something else now". SP should do the same. Adapt to the situation and lose the tunnel vision! We are SUPPOSED to be on the same side! But then again, what do I know...:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
370 Posts
Unfortunately this made the papers, how embarrassing.

There is not many things I enjoy more than stopping a resident of the city for speeding. They tell me that they are one of the residents who have been calling and complaining about speed but it's ok because they live there....

If this is actually happening in Nahant, it's obvious who is running the town, and who the chief really works for.

Warning drivers of an upcoming radar enforcement zone is equal to the public flashing their headlights at on coming traffic when they see a cruiser on the side of the road.

Nahant must not have too much to do and plenty of men to do it if they can afford to station two guys with cruisers at the scene.

Bottom line.....who ever has primary jurisdiction, in this case the state, should have their say.

{Quality617, I believe it was the merge that started concurrent jurisdiction on these roads}
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
8,417 Posts
(If this question has drifted too far off topic; let me know and I'll re-post it on another forum)

As someone not in LE, clear this question up for me.
I thought the MSP could go anywhere (a sort of carte blanche so to speak) in the state to enforce any and all laws and traffic regs, invited or not.
Is this an incorrect presumption on my part?
And if so, (generally) what are the conventional MSP \ Muni jurisdictional rules in Mass?

Also, along the same vein; what is the Massachusetts State line rule?
For example, I assume you could pursue over the NH border for a full out felony, but not for a motor vehicle infraction? Are you required to get authorization from the state you are entering, or are there any types of "implied" permissions shared between the border states for LE functions?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
1. MSP has primary jurisdiction on this roadway. It's like MSP going to the roadways that enter a City (ie Springfield) and warning the residents to slow down because SPD Traffic Units are running radar.

2. As far as the previous poster claiming that NPD is "just trying to enforce the laws differently", wake up and smell the coffee. Has your superior officer EVER asked to to conduct speed enforcement by sitting somewhere with your lights on and warning them to slow down? THis is interference, plain and simple. They are a podunk PD that is angry that their residents are being ticketed and are "helping out". It is no different than flashing your lights at another motorist to warn of radar, except it is being done by supposed "police'. I say supposed because no real cop would warn people breaking the law to "watch out". That is dirty, low down backstabbing. Good work, Chief!
 

·
Subscribing Member
Joined
·
569 Posts
First of all bbelichick, I don't have a superior officer!:) Your view on this topic is too narrow...of course you don't conduct ENFORCEMENT by sitting with your lights on! That is called traffic CALMING, the same function radar signs provide. The goal for ENFORCEMENT and CALMING are one in the same, to slow traffic. ENFORCEMENT isn't done solely for the purpose of writing tickets.
If you read and understood my post, you would realize that I agree with you. The way it is being done now is interference. I was critical of both departments for not being mature enough to work this out without making fools of themselves. Nothing good can come out of two agencies trying to usurp the authority of one another.
Don't get so caught up in the "laying in wait to catch the bad guy" mentality. Prevention is also a legitimate police function. Employment of multiple strategies to attack a problem is always more effective than relying on one. Crime and safety issues all have three issues in common: victims, offenders, and environment. The number of victims can be reduced by reducing offenders (enforcement), and changing environment (traffic calming).
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
"calming " doesn't prevent speeding. The speeder just slows down, goes down the road, and speeds up again.

We all know this is true. All the college classes and Professors in their ivory towers spouting statistics and studies can't convince me otherwise.

We all have driven cars in our civilian years. What motivated you into slowing down? A warning? not likely. A Cruiser with their lights on? Temporarily. A ticket? Hell, yes.

Nahant was conducting this "mission" to bust the MSP's balls and show their residents that they were looking out for them. It's absolutely ridiculous. That is the MSP's road. Nahant has no business telling them who they can and can't write. Furthermore, "don't write the residents" is such a corrupt, misguided policy that I can't even begin to fathom it, other than I imagine that the Chief is not Civil Service and has to kiss a** to keep his job. As flawed as Civil Service is, this is one good reason to keep it.

P.S. The reaction of most of the guys I know to those STUPID, WASTE OF MONEY "Radar signs" is to speed up and see how fast they can get the damn thing to register. Those things are a joke.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
1100 hrs this morning Nahant.org had a statement to its readers. To contact the gov's office if you are unhappy about MSP's selective enforcement.

:shock:




The statement was gone as of :
© 2005 Town of Nahant, Massachusetts
Last Website Update: May 27, 2005 3:56 PM
I wonder if the Gov said something.

Maybe a trooper should be present as a friend of the defense every time a NPD officer is at a CMVI judges appeal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
370 Posts
MSP75";p="65754 said:
1100 hrs this morning Nahant.org had a statement to its readers. To contact the gov's office if you are unhappy about MSP's selective enforcement.
MSP75";p="65754 said:
This is more unbelievable than the first article I still haven't gotten over.
Is this a town, or another planet?
I could never work for a dept. that kisses ass and caters to the public like this.....it's just plain sickening.

If I was a district commander or what ever they are calling them these days, I would saturate the area with patrols and take no prisoners....you know, bring them back toward reality.
 
1 - 20 of 52 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top