[johnh20]

Trying to get something cleared up. Maybe their is a reason why state campus PDs are sworn in under MGL Ch 22C section 63 is because of the of the language "upon lands or structures owned, used or occupied" and that is not in MGL 73-18.

Lets say Westfield State campus police, got rid of their SSPO appointment and just used 73-18. Say they make a car stop on Western Ave as it is used to reach property of their campus. They stopped a car for OUI which is allowed under the SSPO language. Would that same stop be allowed under 73-18 since there is no "used" language in that statue.

 

[mpd61]

This has all pretty much been asked and answered ad-nauseum for well over three decades now. There exists NO rational, logical, or practical "reason why state campus PDs are sworn in under MGL Ch22C section 63". SSPO powers at the State Schools are an unnecessary and confusing issue. No state School should have EVER sought out SSPO warrants. In your scenario above, there are already TWO statutes granting Police authority AND inferring CH. 90 powers. (See MGL CH90C/s.1 definitions) Carefully research COMMONWEALTH V. RALPH BAEZ (1994) and COMMONWEALTH V. MULLEN (1996). Understand you may become confused at the contradictions in these two cases.

MGL CH 15A/s.22 Said rules and regulations shall be enforced by persons in the employ of the institution who throughout the property of the institution shall have the powers of police officers, except as to the service of civil process.

MGL CH 73/s.18 The trustees may appoint as police officers persons in the employ of such university who in the enforcement of said rules and regulations and throughout the property of such university shall have the powers of police officers, except as to service of civil process.

You already have two (2) clear and distinct statutes granting full police powers to STATE SCHOOLS. Why in the name of all that is holy and factual would you EVER seek SSPO redundancy? Check out the language of all three statutes. There really is no difference in jurisdiction. NONE! In a few case Deputy Sheriff powers utilized at some schools raised the extraneous jurisdictional issue. I was told years ago, that AFSCME actually had a hand in introducing "Derr Colonel" and SSPO into the mix. In any event it was and is a serious mistake. take a look below and explain to the world how the SSPO statute gives you ANYTHING beyond what the legislature granted in the other two (2) statutes. Good luck!
BTW, Title makes no sense as SSPO is a statutory authority as well.

MGL CH22C/s.63 and they shall have the same power to make arrests as regular police officers for any criminal offense committed in or upon lands or structures owned, used or occupied by such college, university, or other institution or hospital.

FUCK SSPO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Macop2020]

Trying to get something cleared up. Maybe their is a reason why state campus PDs are sworn in under MGL Ch 22C section 63 is because of the of the language "upon lands or structures owned, used or occupied" and that is not in MGL 73-18.

Lets say Westfield State campus police, got rid of their SSPO appointment and just used 73-18. Say they make a car stop on Western Ave as it is used to reach property of their campus. They stopped a car for OUI which is allowed under the SSPO language. Would that same stop be allowed under 73-18 since there is no "used" language in that statue.

Your scenario about Westfield State or ANY college PD for that matter can stop cars for criminal M/V violations on public ways that adjoin or connect campus facilities. That is via Commonwealth v. Smeaton, 465 Mass. 752 (2013). I remember that case being announced at roll call when it was decided so we all knew to expect campus cops doing M/V stops on the streets around their campus and to back them up.

 

[johnh20]

This has all pretty much been asked and answered ad-nauseum for well over three decades now. There exists NO rational, logical, or practical "reason why state campus PDs are sworn in under MGL Ch22C section 63". SSPO powers at the State Schools are an unnecessary and confusing issue. No state School should have EVER sought out SSPO warrants. In your scenario above, there are already TWO statutes granting Police authority AND inferring CH. 90 powers. (See MGL CH90C/s.1 definitions) Carefully research COMMONWEALTH V. RALPH BAEZ (1994) and COMMONWEALTH V. MULLEN (1996). Understand you may become confused at the contradictions in these two cases.

MGL CH 15A/s.22 Said rules and regulations shall be enforced by persons in the employ of the institution who throughout the property of the institution shall have the powers of police officers, except as to the service of civil process.

MGL CH 73/s.18 The trustees may appoint as police officers persons in the employ of such university who in the enforcement of said rules and regulations and throughout the property of such university shall have the powers of police officers, except as to service of civil process.

You already have two (2) clear and distinct statutes granting full police powers to STATE SCHOOLS. Why in the name of all that is holy and factual would you EVER seek SSPO redundancy? Check out the language of all three statutes. There really is no difference in jurisdiction. NONE! In a few case Deputy Sheriff powers utilized at some schools raised the extraneous jurisdictional issue. I was told years ago, that AFSCME actually had a hand in introducing "Derr Colonel" and SSPO into the mix. In any event it was and is a serious mistake. take a look below and explain to the world how the SSPO statute gives you ANYTHING beyond what the legislature granted in the other two (2) statutes. Good luck!
BTW, Title makes no sense as SSPO is a statutory authority as well.

MGL CH22C/s.63 and they shall have the same power to make arrests as regular police officers for any criminal offense committed in or upon lands or structures owned, used or occupied by such college, university, or other institution or hospital.

FUCK SSPO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So what you are basically saying is that "throughout the property of such university" has the same jurisdiction as 22C section 63.

 

[WMA7787]

I wouldn’t say any college pd. UMass is an exception

 

[FAPD]

Trying to get something cleared up. Maybe their is a reason why state campus PDs are sworn in under MGL Ch 22C section 63 is because of the of the language "upon lands or structures owned, used or occupied" and that is not in MGL 73-18.

Lets say Westfield State campus police, got rid of their SSPO appointment and just used 73-18. Say they make a car stop on Western Ave as it is used to reach property of their campus. They stopped a car for OUI which is allowed under the SSPO language. Would that same stop be allowed under 73-18 since there is no "used" language in that statue.

What are you trying to reach for? Western Ave by Highland Elementary, or maybe up at the Bates Road split? Ask your supervisor dude. This is an annoying "what if" question that has ten answers and most of them guesses. As pointed out there are probably a dozen case laws covering this. SSPO don't get you nothing special. OUI is OUI under Chapter 90. It's always up to the courts have fun.

 

[jimmyfloyd]

Attempting to get something cleared up. Perhaps their is a justification for why state grounds PDs are confirmed under MGL Ch 22C segment 63 is a direct result of the of the language "upon terrains or designs claimed, utilized or involved" and that isn't in MGL 73-18.

 

[WMA7787]

Here is an excerpt from the annual security report published by Bridgewater State University Police:

“Pursuant to the General Laws of Massachusetts, Chapter 15A, § 22, and Chapter 73, § 18, the Board of Trustees at Bridgewater State University has established the Bridgewater State University Police Department; and the Board has invested the department all the same powers, authority, immunities, and privileges of state and municipal police officers, including but not limited to the power to make arrests, to handle prisoners, and to enforce all traffic laws on streets and highways, throughout the property owned, leased, used, or controlled by the university or of the property owned by the Bridgewater State University Foundation.”

SSPO at state university is more than likely a “ this is what we’ve always done so we’re just going to continue to do it” type deal or just a case of ignorance in regards to the matter. Clearly Bridgewater State isn’t having any problems….

You could REALLY clear things up if you just swore law enforcement under one chapter and section and supplement it with a “ excercise full police authority within the territorial limits of [insert agency] “ or something along those lines but that will never happend in this state.

It’s crazy how all over the place it is when solutions seem so simple.

just my thoughts.

 

[mpd61]

“Pursuant to the General Laws of Massachusetts, Chapter 15A, § 22, and Chapter 73, § 18, the Board of Trustees at Bridgewater State University has established the Bridgewater State University Police Department; and the Board has invested the department all the same powers, authority, immunities, and privileges of state and municipal police officers, including but not limited to the power to make arrests, to handle prisoners, and to enforce all traffic laws on streets and highways, throughout the property owned, leased, used, or controlled by the university or of the property owned by the Bridgewater State University Foundation.”
SSPO at state university is more than likely a “ this is what we’ve always done so we’re just going to continue to do it” type deal or just a case of ignorance in regards to the matter. Clearly Bridgewater State isn’t having any problems….

This 110% as I and MANY others have been saying for DECADES here. Chief Tillinghast at BSU threw off the SSPO yoke years and years ago, as well as a couple of the Community Colleges. SSPO at a state school is an unnecessary and confusing issue. It gives you NOTHING better, extra, magical, or superior to the authority granted by Chapters 15A/s.22 or 73/s.18 for God's sake!

 

[CCCSD]

This 110% as I and MANY others have been saying for DECADES here. Chief Tillinghast at BSU threw off the SSPO yoke years and years ago, as well as a couple of the Community Colleges. SSPO at a state school is an unnecessary and confusing issue. It gives you NOTHING better, extra, magical, or superior to the authority granted by Chapters 15A/s.22 or 73/s.18 for God's sake!

But…but…but…it’s SSPO!

 

[j809]

But you get an ID stamped by the Colonel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CCCSD]

But you get an ID stamped by the Colonel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I got one of those at KFC as a frequent buyer.