The Crescent and Sunday blue laws

[PVD]

Just think of a place like NYP with APD, MTAPD, and NYPD in the same station.......

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Im pretty sure MTAPD is part of NYPD.

 

[PVD]

Definitely not - MTAPD is the merger of LIRR and MNRR PD, and the later absorption of SIR PD. You might be thinking of the NYC Transit Police, they were merged with NYPD (My ex transit cop friends prefer to call it a hostile takeover, not a merger) NYC Housing Authority PD was also merged into NYPD

 

[Devil's Advocate]

My view of LEO's has really plummeted in the wake of all these videos of casual muder. Not just the events themselves, but the blindly protective reactions of the police unions to any call of investigation or suggestion of accountability. I'm not saying they're all bad people, nor do I believe them to be, but it would appear that the vast majority would prefer to pretend there is no evidence of a systemic race based bias rather than risk doing anything meaningful to address it. I'm not entirely certain where Amtrak Police fit into this adversarial power imbalance, but from here on out I intend to keep my distance from groups who have proven they can casually murder others with impunity. Which is bad for me and probably bad for them as well.

If I don't trust the police to handle a tense situation in a mature and responsible fashion then I'm far less likely to enlist their help. Maybe that means I'll risk being harmed or killed after failing to seek their help. Or maybe it means I'll be hesitant to report something or someone they would want to know about. Either way somebody is likely to suffer from this loss of trust and respect. I was hoping my local police department would use these incidents as an opportunity to seek out and remove bad apples, along with the formal rules and unwritten guidelines that help defend and protect them from serious corrective action. Instead they've simply mocked and attacked anyone who claimed there was an actual problem. Hopefully other cities and police departments are taking these complaints and evidence more seriously and are working to earn and restore the trust they've squandered.

 

[Chatter163]

Not to mention that everything goes smoother when ones relationship with the local LEOs is positive (that goes as much for other LEO organizations as it does private citizens and businesses)

Oh, I completely agree. But such professional courtesy is quite different from claiming that federal LEOs are required to seek permission from local entities to perform their function

 

[PVD]

They can certainly perform certain functions without local permission. Local permission allows them to function in a much more sensible and logical fashion and do things they could not otherwise do that we expect them to do.

 

[BCL]

Kind of a hybrid in California. Amtrak PD is chartered as federal law enforcement, which in my state is required to seek local permission to enforce state/local laws but technically aren't peace officers. However - they are also railroad police, which has a special status in California as private, certified peace officers. Railroad police aren't the only private, certified peace officer status in California though. There's at least one private university that has their privately employed security officers classified as reserve officers with a government law enforcement agency.

Can you direct us to a source that states that federal LE officers are required to seek permission from local entities to perform their function?

California Penal Code 830.8:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=830.8.

830.8.

(a) Federal criminal investigators and law enforcement officers are not California peace officers, but may exercise the powers of arrest of a peace officer in any of the following circumstances:

(1) Any circumstances specified in Section 836 of this code or Section 5150 of the Welfare and Institutions Code for violations of state or local laws.

(2) When these investigators and law enforcement officers are engaged in the enforcement of federal criminal laws and exercise the arrest powers only incidental to the performance of these duties.

(3) When requested by a California law enforcement agency to be involved in a joint task force or criminal investigation.

(4) When probable cause exists to believe that a public offense that involves immediate danger to persons or property has just occurred or is being committed.

In all of these instances, the provisions of Section 847 shall apply. These investigators and law enforcement officers, prior to the exercise of these arrest powers, shall have been certified by their agency heads as having satisfied the training requirements of Section 832, or the equivalent thereof.

This subdivision does not apply to federal officers of the Bureau of Land Management or the United States Forest Service. These officers have no authority to enforce California statutes without the written consent of the sheriff or the chief of police in whose jurisdiction they are assigned.

(b) Duly authorized federal employees who comply with the training requirements set forth in Section 832 are peace officers when they are engaged in enforcing applicable state or local laws on property owned or possessed by the United States government, or on any street, sidewalk, or property adjacent thereto, and with the written consent of the sheriff or the chief of police, respectively, in whose jurisdiction the property is situated.

© National park rangers are not California peace officers but may exercise the powers of arrest of a peace officer as specified in Section 836 and the powers of a peace officer specified in Section 5150 of the Welfare and Institutions Code for violations of state or local laws provided these rangers are exercising the arrest powers incidental to the performance of their federal duties or providing or attempting to provide law enforcement services in response to a request initiated by California state park rangers to assist in preserving the peace and protecting state parks and other property for which California state park rangers are responsible. National park rangers, prior to the exercise of these arrest powers, shall have been certified by their agency heads as having satisfactorily completed the training requirements of Section 832.3, or the equivalent thereof.

(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during a state of war emergency or a state of emergency, as defined in Section 8558 of the Government Code, federal criminal investigators and law enforcement officers who are assisting California law enforcement officers in carrying out emergency operations are not deemed California peace officers, but may exercise the powers of arrest of a peace officer as specified in Section 836 and the powers of a peace officer specified in Section 5150 of the Welfare and Institutions Code for violations of state or local laws. In these instances, the provisions of Section 847 of this code and of Section 8655 of the Government Code shall apply.

(e) (1) Any qualified person who is appointed as a Washoe tribal law enforcement officer is not a California peace officer, but may exercise the powers of a Washoe tribal peace officer when engaged in the enforcement of Washoe tribal criminal laws against any person who is an Indian, as defined in subsection (d) of Section 450b of Title 25 of the United States Code, on Washoe tribal land. The respective prosecuting authorities, in consultation with law enforcement agencies, may agree on who shall have initial responsibility for prosecution of specified infractions. This subdivision is not meant to confer cross-deputized status as California peace officers, nor to confer California peace officer status upon Washoe tribal law enforcement officers when enforcing state or local laws in the State of California. Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose liability upon or to require indemnification by the County of Alpine or the State of California for any act performed by an officer of the Washoe Tribe. Washoe tribal law enforcement officers shall have the right to travel to and from Washoe tribal lands within California in order to carry out tribal duties.

(2) Washoe tribal law enforcement officers are exempted from the provisions of subdivision (a) of Section 25400 and subdivision (a) and subdivisions © to (h), inclusive, of Section 25850 while performing their official duties on their tribal lands or while proceeding by a direct route to or from the tribal lands. Tribal law enforcement vehicles are deemed to be emergency vehicles within the meaning of Section 30 of the Vehicle Code while performing official police services.

(3) As used in this subdivision, the term “Washoe tribal lands” includes the following:

(A) All lands located in the County of Alpine within the limits of the reservation created for the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent and including rights-of-way running through the reservation and all tribal trust lands.

(B) All Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.

(4) As used in this subdivision, the term “Washoe tribal law” refers to the laws codified in the Law and Order Code of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, as adopted by the Tribal Council of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California.

 

[BCL]

They can certainly perform certain functions without local permission. Local permission allows them to function in a much more sensible and logical fashion and do things they could not otherwise do that we expect them to do.

It varies. In California theoretically they can make an arrest if they directly witness a crime, but there are specifics about whether or not the state considers them peace officers. It gets complicated, especially since the Forest Service, BLM, and NPS rangers (but not US Park Police) are classified as never being considered California peace officers but with arrest powers that may or may not be contingent on local permission. Getting consent is almost always pro forma.

The only case I've ever heard that made the news was when the Sheriff of El Dorado County rescinded the permission for US Forest Service officers to enforce state/local laws in his county.

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/06/21/el-dorado-county-sheriff-strips-forest-service-of-state-law-enforcement-power/

The El Dorado County Sheriff says he’s not happy with the U.S. Forest Service, so he’s stripping them of their authority by keeping them from enforcing state law within the county.

Sheriff John D’Agostini is taking the unusual step of pulling the police powers from the federal agency because he says he has received “numerous, numerous complaints.”

In a letter obtained by CBS13, the sheriff informs the federal agency that its officers will no longer be able to enforce California state law anywhere in his county.

“I take the service that we provide to the citizens of El Dorado County and the visitors to El Dorado County very seriously, and the style and manner of service we provide,” D’Agostini said. “The U.S. Forest Service, after many attempts and given many opportunities, has failed to meet that standard.”

The sheriff won’t give specifics, but he says he’s concerned about the number of complaints his department’s received against the federal officers.

We asked law professor John Myers if the sheriff’s actions can supercede the feds.

“Looks to me as though the sheriff can do this,” he said. “They don’t have state powers in the first place, but essentially the sheriff can deputize individuals to have authority in his or her jurisdiction.”

 

[Chatter163]

So there you go. Sections (a)1 and 2 recognize the authority of the vast majority of federal LEOs to enforce federal laws, and state laws, as needed.

Sent from my iPad using Amtrak Forum

 

[PVD]

Unless there is a specific problem or concern these things usually get handled in sensible fashion. We have National Park Police at Gateway National Park. If they drive out of the park to get lunch, and they see someone robbing the store across the street, do we want impediments placed in their path to make it harder for them to act? There have been cases where someone goes out of their way to get involved in things they shouldn't, that causes issues like the one mentioned above. Federal LEO of all types have specific jobs to do, most states grant certain privileges for practical reasons, and every once in awhile someone does something stupid. If an APD car was watching a RR crossing no one would think twice, if he was running a speed trap on a street not near Amtrak property, it would be on the 5 O clock news, and his job might be in jeopardy.

 

[BCL]

So there you go. Sections (a)1 and 2 recognize the authority of the vast majority of federal LEOs to enforce federal laws, and state laws, as needed.

Most federal law enforcement have specialized functions, so very few would be routinely enforcing state or local laws anyways. There are a few who basically substitute for local law enforcement. They would be like NPS law enforcement rangers, BLM rangers, Forest Service officers, FWS refuge officers, Bureau of Indian Affairs Police (who would probably be operating with permission of a tribe), or US Park Police. And since DC is primarily operating under federal laws, the USPP essentially have that permission under federal law.

And they routinely get deputized anyways regardless of whether or absolutely have to.

 

[PVD]

Every state is different. In NY, APD officers are not included in the list of FLEO listed in the sections of the CPL detailing Peace Officers and their powers. However, the CPL defines as Police Officers Railroad Police appointed under Section 88 of NYS Railroad Law. Peace Officer and police Officer are not interchangeable terms in NYS. I'm not sure if APD officers are commissioned in NY under that provision or not. But APD requires its officers to be commissioned either in their state of residence or employment. NY Railroad law has some quirks in the way it defines geographical areas of employment as relates to police powers and could stand updating, I'm not sure this would have much bearing on APD ops in NY.

 

[BCL]

Every state is different. In NY, APD officers are not included in the list of FLEO listed in the sections of the CPL detailing Peace Officers and their powers. However, the CPL defines as Police Officers Railroad Police appointed under Section 88 of NYS Railroad Law. Peace Officer and police Officer are not interchangeable terms in NYS. I'm not sure if APD officers are commissioned in NY under that provision or not. But APD requires its officers to be commissioned either in their state of residence or employment. NY Railroad law has some quirks in the way it defines geographical areas of employment as relates to police powers and could stand updating, I'm not sure this would have much bearing on APD ops in NY.

Different in California, but they need to be "commissioned by the Governor" meaning there's a procedure for certifying each officer as a California state peace officer.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=830.33.

(e) (1) Any railroad police officer commissioned by the Governor pursuant to Section 8226 of the Public Utilities Code, if the primary duty of the peace officer is the enforcement of the law in or about properties owned, operated, or administered by the employing agency or when performing necessary duties with respect to patrons, employees, and properties of the employing agency.

This may be the only case where a private organization can expressly employe peace officers. There's one outlier in our state where a major university has deputized reserve officers as part of their public safety department.

 

[BCL]

Unless there is a specific problem or concern these things usually get handled in sensible fashion. We have National Park Police at Gateway National Park. If they drive out of the park to get lunch, and they see someone robbing the store across the street, do we want impediments placed in their path to make it harder for them to act? There have been cases where someone goes out of their way to get involved in things they shouldn't, that causes issues like the one mentioned above. Federal LEO of all types have specific jobs to do, most states grant certain privileges for practical reasons, and every once in awhile someone does something stupid. If an APD car was watching a RR crossing no one would think twice, if he was running a speed trap on a street not near Amtrak property, it would be on the 5 O clock news, and his job might be in jeopardy.

That's similar to Golden Gate NRA, which has a similar US Park Police presence as in Gateway NRA and all the NPS properties in DC. Still - there are often going to be things where state laws are the only ones broken and they will need to enforce them. There really aren't any federal traffic laws.

I live near Berkeley, and we have this relationship between the City of Berkeley and University of California Police Dept. The latter has statutory primary jurisdiction up to a mile from University property, but they rarely attempt to serve as a primary police agency away from campus. Berkeley PD theoretically has legal jurisdiction on campus property within the city limits (but not in Oakland) but they don't usually do that. They have an operating agreement to not step on each others' toes except for emergencies where there's an imminent risk to safety. They also have a joint patrol area.

I did hear of a specialized police agency that went way off the rails so to speak. It was a school district's police department. However, they became infamous for pulling over people for traffic violations and towing cars well off school property. They also had a habit of call jumping for things like residential burglaries. I heard that they also wanted to give the impression that they were a broad-powered police agency and their chief (without the authority to do so) took out "School District" from the department's name.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Let's just go back to the days when the the conductor could deputize the passengers...particularly in the quiet car! ^_^

 

[BCL]

Let's just go back to the days when the the conductor could deputize the passengers...particularly in the quiet car! ^_^

Were they allowed to be armed?

 

[MARC Rider]

There were some counties in Texas that used to do a "club card' routine also. It's been a while, I don't remember the details, training class was in Richardson, not sure where county lines were.

Oh yeah, Uvalde County. We used to eat at a place called Lunkers. They sold wine and beer in the regular restaurant, but if you wanted anything with distilled spirits in it, you had to join the "club," which was in a sperate room and was a more or less proper bar.

On the other hand, beer and wine were freely available in grocery stores, unlike in Baltimore, where you have to go to a liquor store for such beverages, and liquor stores are **** tightly closed on Sundays (with a few odd exceptions.) But beer and wine are sold in grocery stores in other counties in Maryland. We do have some odd liquor laws.