Massachusetts Cop Forum banner
1 - 2 of 2 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
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.
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
Top