US Law Enforcement Officers

[Bluffcityguy]

@chowder

What about those campus police you guys have?

Is their power/authority limited to the campus?

Interesting question. I happen to work for the University of Tennessee. The arrangement may be different for other universities/colleges in Tennessee, and other colleges/universities in other states.

In Tennessee, the University of Tennessee Campus Police is a duly constituted law enforcement agency, though its stated jurisdiction is the five constituent campuses of the University system (Knoxville, Martin, Chattanooga, Tullahoma (UT Space Institute) and Memphis (the UT Health Science Center)). UT Campus Police have complete authority on any campus of the system; if necessary, officers could be transferred from, say UTHSC in Memphis to UT Knoxville, and they would be authorized to assume their duties from the very second they set foot on the Knoxville campus.

Here in Memphis (I work for UTHSC) we really don’t have a discrete campus; where we are located is really a number of separate buildings and hospitals in downtown Memphis, so a number of public roads run through our “campus”. The UT Campus Police and the Memphis Police Department have worked out a jurisdictional agreement whereby MPD has ceded its authority over the public streets within the UT “campus” area to UT Campus Police, and MPD generally won’t enforce laws on those streets or take any other non-emergency actions unless specifically requested to by UT Campus Police.

On campuses (like Knoxville) where there is a discrete campus, the arrangement may be different. And, as I said, the arrangement may be different in other universities/cities/states.

Cheers,

bcg

[Bluffcityguy]

@mlees

Hmm. The way that the Federal Gov “influences” the states, through Federal financial contributions to local programs (like education) gives the Fed Gov a lot more power than that solely implied by what’s in the Constitution, it seems to me.

Undoubtedly.

Cheers,

bcg

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@Bluffcityguy

…And, as I said, the arrangement may be different in other universities/cities/states…

It’s similar in Ohio. Ohio State University and many other colleges and universities have their own police forces, with the same peace officer training given to city police but with limited jurisdiction. Nonprofit institutions such as large hospitals, museums, urban school districts and community-development organizations may also have small and similar jurisdictionally-limited police forces, although some of them are “mere” security guards rather than actual peace officers. Depending on the personalities involved, they usually work closely with the police of the city in which they’re situated and compliment each others’ efforts. I’ve never heard of any turf battles as such.

[Loach]

@chowder

What about those campus police you guys have?

Is their power/authority limited to the campus?

Even within a state there is a lot of difference. In New Jersey some state colleges have their own police. Some just have security guards. The largest state school, Rutgers Univesity has complete jurisdiction within the campuses. However, their general jurisdiction is statewide. For instance if they are traveling between Rutgers College and Livingston College (two schools within the University in neighboring towns) it is perfectly legal for them to pull over a car for a violation they see off campus.

[BlinkingDuck]

@chowder

In this link Cecil says that cops from Illinois can’t pursue a perp acrossa state line.

What about the feds, can they?

Love that word…feds:p:p

I didn’t read the link, but this is most likely bogus.

‘Hot pursuit’ is allowed IIRC. If you race across the MN/WI border with MN highway patrol chasing you, they will not stop at the border.

[Loach]

@BlinkingDuck

I didn’t read the link, but this is most likely bogus.

‘Hot pursuit’ is allowed IIRC. If you race across the MN/WI border with MN highway patrol chasing you, they will not stop at the border.

I was going to say this earlier but I couldn’t find a good cite to back me up. I don’t work near a border so this doesn’t come up. But from what I remember learning you are correct. The only difference would be is that if there was an arrest made the local officials would have to do it and there would be an extradition hearing.

[BlinkingDuck]

@Bluffcityguy

That is correct… Hey, I did say “that I recall”.

Actually, it doesn’t suprise me that I forgot DEA. The few DEA agents that I’ve had dealings were truly slimy, repulsive, barely human creatures that left me wanting to take a long shower or a strong acid bath in order to purge the slimy feeling they left behind. They all struck me that, if they hadn’t become DEA agents, they’d have been the same kind of criminals they were trying to apprehend.

Jeez… out of hundreds of criminals I represented, maybe one or two left me feeling as creeped out as every DEA agent I met did.

Cheers,

bcg

LOL!

I had a friend growing up. HIS name was Shannon…but no-one gave him shit over it. He was short when he grew up (like 5’5") but he literally was/looked as broad as he was tall. This man was a tank and strong as hell.

After High School, we lost contact. I met him 10 years later.

He was a very happy person with a job he loved.

He was a DEA agent!

He said he loved it. He was able to bash down doors! He carried a gun…and could USE IT! (he seemed so happy saying that - and I avoided the 'how many have you shot question)

That man loved his job.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@BlinkingDuck

I didn’t read the link, but this is most likely bogus.

‘Hot pursuit’ is allowed IIRC. If you race across the MN/WI border with MN highway patrol chasing you, they will not stop at the border.

The hot pursuit doctrine refers to warrantless searches based on the suspect remaining in sight during pursuit, not to following a perp across state lines. Police can follow suspects into other jurisdictions within their own states, but not into other states.

[chowder]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

The hot pursuit doctrine refers to warrantless searches based on the suspect remaining in sight during pursuit, not to following a perp across state lines. Police can follow suspects into other jurisdictions within their own states, but not into other states.

So unless the cops from state A radio cops in state B the perp gets away?

[Bluffcityguy]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

The hot pursuit doctrine refers to warrantless searches based on the suspect remaining in sight during pursuit, not to following a perp across state lines. Police can follow suspects into other jurisdictions within their own states, but not into other states.

I’m not sure that’s entirely correct. During my prior life as a lawyer, I was a public defender in St. Louis. One of the clients I represented in an extradition hearing had gone on a crime spree in Brooklyn, Illinois, and headed over the bridge into St. Louis (garnering the attention of the Illinois State Police and the police of several other Illinois municipalities while on his way to the bridge). When he was finally caught, there were more Illinois cops on the scene than St. Louis cops. The Illinois cops didn’t stop at the state line, and I’m pretty sure they didn’t have to. Certainly nobody objected to the presence of the Illinois constabulary on the Missouri side of the river.

Had the Illinois cops caught the guy before the STLMPD got to the scene, I’m sure they would have had to turn him over to the STL cops and request extradition (I don’t have time to research the law right now), but they weren’t required to stop at the state line, and could have arrested him and held him for the Missouri cops.

Cheers,

bcg

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@chowder

So unless the cops from state A radio cops in state B the perp gets away?

That is my understanding. Sometimes there are problems with contacting cops from state B because they use a different radio frequency and of course the cops in state A have to stay on their own frequency to talk to each other.

Bluffcityguy, many (most?) states which share borders have enacted “mutual cooperation” or “mutual assistance” statutes which allow LEOs from one to maintain pursuit into another if the second state’s LEOs can’t take up the chase for whatever reason.

I think the point of Uncle Cecil’s mention of Illinois is that it (specifically) has no such agreements in place.

[Bluffcityguy]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Bluffcityguy, many (most?) states which share borders have enacted “mutual cooperation” or “mutual assistance” statutes which allow LEOs from one to maintain pursuit into another if the second state’s LEOs can’t take up the chase for whatever reason.

I think the point of Uncle Cecil’s mention of Illinois is that it (specifically) has no such agreements in place.

Could well be. However, the case I talked about originated in Illinois, there was a “hot pursuit” by Illinois cops (ISP and several IL municipal PDs) over one of the Mississippi River bridges into the City of St. Louis where the ultimate arrest was made by STL officers (according to the police reports and testimony). And, as I said, when the collar was made more IL police were present at the scene than St. Louis MPD officers. From what I remember of the police reports and testimony in that case, everyone was acting like such a statute was in place.

Cheers,

bcg

[chowder]

[quote=“Really_Not_All_That_Bright, post:51, topic:488256”]

That is my understanding. Sometimes there are problems with contacting cops from state B because they use a different radio frequency and of course the cops in state A have to stay on their own frequency to talk to each other.

Well if you ask me, and no-one did, that’s a pretty piss poor way of enforcing the law.

Allowing a crook to get away just because he crosses a state line

[Northern_Piper]

@md2000

Not surprising, when the eggheads in London decided to put together a country that avoided the biggest messes they saw in 100 years of US history…

Confederation wasn’t put together by the eggheads in London. It was designed entirely by the local politicians of the colonies in British North America, starting with the Charlottetown Conference in 1864. It had to be approved by the British government and Parliament, but the structure of the country is entirely home-grown.

[QUOTE=md2000]
The police are designated as “peace officers” in the criminal code, whether RCMP, provincial police or municipal (or Band constables on reserves, etc.). This means their power is legal all across Canada; although the local council might wonder if they pay a salary for a cop who does stuff that doesn’t seem to benefit their community. That’s a discipline issue, not a legal one.
[/QUOTE]
The Criminal Code gives the powers to peace officers, but most peace officers are appointed under provincial law and therefore can only exercise those powers within their own province. Provinces cannot legislate extra-territorially, and therefore cannot give a person a status as peace officer outside their own boundaries. Only a person appointed as a peace office under federal law, such as an RCMP officer, has a status as peace officer throughout Canada.

[QUOTE=md2000]
The courts are all instruments of Her Majesty QEII, but generally courts are under the provinces’ Attorneys General and paid for by them.
[/QUOTE]

The courts are not under the Attorney General. The superior courts have constitutionally entrenched status, and all courts are protected by the constitutional doctrine of the independence of the judiciary.

[QUOTE=md2000]
The provinces tell the police what to enforce, and tell crown attorneys what to prosecute; which can result for example in gun resgistration being the (federal) law, but some provinces declining to prosecute certain aspects of the crime.
[/QUOTE]
The Attorney General cannot decline to enforce the criminal law as a matter of policy. That principle was established by the Bill of Rights in 1688 - the Crown cannot dispense anyone from the requirement to follow the law, and the Attorney General therefore must enforce the law. There is prosecutorial discretion, but it does not amount to saying that the Attorney General or his/her agents can refuse to prosecute certain offences as a matter of policy.

[QUOTE=md2000]
the Toronto courts may not want to pay his way back, so he’s let go.
[/QUOTE]
The courts are not responsible for the administration and costs of prisoner transport. That is a function of the provincial governments, not the courts.

[QUOTE=md2000]
Just like mentioned in the USA, the chain of command just goes up to the local chief of police and then the Attorney General.
[/QUOTE]
Police do not report to the Attorney General. Most provinces have established municipal and provincial police commissions which have oversight functions over police forces. Political accountability for police forces normally is with a different Cabinet minister, previously called the Solicitor-General and now usually called something along the lines of Minister of Public Safety. It’s functionally important to keep the responsibility for policing separate from the prosecutorial branch.

[QUOTE=md2000]
provinces have much more jurisdiction
[/QUOTE]
all police forces in a province, whether provincial or municipal, or the RCMP acting on behalf of the province, are governed by the provincial policing statutes.

[QUOTE=md2000]
several otehrs deliberately obstructed a DUI-causing-death case against a neighboring policeman.
[/QUOTE]
Canada does not have an offence of DUI. There are two main alcohol & driving offences: driving with a blood alcohol greater than .08, and driving while impaired.