Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jurisdiction question

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jurisdiction question

    Hello,

    I have a question for you guys. We have off base housing and the jurisdiction lines are very grey. Half of the housing is exclusive jurisdiction to us but the other half is legally the cities jurisdiction. Any calls that come out of that side the local police get notified and respond. Usually, they are the first ones responded and they call us and have us respond as mutual aid. They tell us the official term for it is proprietary jurisdiction.

    That is all fine and dandy but what happens if we respond to a call and we end up shooting someone while on scene or at least get physical with someone? We don't have authority unless we are on federal property so technically shouldn't we not respond to these calls? Keep in mind most of the residents are military but there are a few civilians living in there.

    I just want your opinions on this. What would be the legal ramifications if something serious went down and it isn't our jurisdiction? We are asked to respond (by the city police) and we are told to respond (by our command) so we really don't have a choice but I'm starting to question the legality of it.

  • #2
    Well the area that is your off post housing is under the control of the fed's but on city land. So getting into a shooting I am guessing you are protecting your or someone else's life. I do not think a simple gray line like that with the policies in place that are from what you said by your command, are going to get you in trouble.
    When I was a MP I would make traffic stops off post all the time if the violation occurred on post and I had several people that would attempt to run off post and after we went through the gate then would stop in the city, I never once though about if this gets bad and I shoot them will I need to justify jurisdiction.

    Comment


    • #3
      It is really frustrating not knowing where our jurisdiction ends and begins, too. We just recently had a traffic ticket thrown out in court because the judge said we don't have jurisdiction there even though our security department believes we do.

      It seems like the answer changes depending on who you talk to. I'm curious if other military installations have the same cluster*** of jurisdiction issues that we do.

      Comment


      • #4
        Ok, if it is proprietary jurisdiction the military acts as land owners only. You do still have the capacity to enforce the UCMJ on military personnel. For civilian personnel it is up which ever agency you have a memo of agreement with to take them. If you are unsure of the jurisdiction your legal office SHOULD be able to help you on that as well as your security dept. head. Here on my base we have exclusive and proprietary jurisdiction, we still respond to incidents in the proprietary area and act as containment if need be, and we have the authority to detain civilian violators. However the UCMJ is worldwide and may been enforced world wide. Any jurisdictional questions should be addressed to your S3 section and your local legal office.
        Professionalism always, courtesy until it's time not to be.

        Comment


        • #5
          You can still enforce FEDERAL law within propietery jurisdiction. You can not use 18 USC 13 within that jurisdiction. Also as stated, if the subject is military then you can UCMJ and apprehend them.

          If you have to use force, then by law, it would be up to whatever the governing jurisdiction (Most likely NCIS) to determine if they want the case or will hand it off. But as long as you act within your authority then you would probably be ok.
          I don't answer recruitment messages....

          Comment


          • #6
            Ok. Thanks for the helps guys!

            Comment


            • #7
              I'll chime in here as a non-military guy. If I as a state officer summon the assistance of anyone to help me detain, arrest, and so forth then they in fact are guilty of a class B misdemeanor if they do not respond per my command. That said, a person may use force and assist me or any other officer if delegated to do so. Just because you're a military official I don't see why it would matter. If the city is in fact calling for your assistance and you respond then you should be clear. Just some perspective from a civilian.

              Comment


              • #8
                At our Dept. we had case law that addressed a similar matter. At Ft. Meade, we have 4 State Hwy's that are concurrent, on one of them, the roadway is concurrent but all the storefront parking lots just off the roadway are not. In 2005, A MP initiated a stop on the hwy for a possible DUI and the driver naturally pulled off the roadway and into the Dunkin Donuts parking lot, outside of federal jurisdiction. The Case is United States V Atwell. The Federal Judge made some interesting statements in her opinion. Among other things, she opined that in the absence of Federal law to the contrary, State jurisprudence will take precedent. In our case, she didnt find any Federal law authorizing nor condoning the MP action, so she went to Maryland law to determine legality. But she also stated that the legality of the Enforcement action was only ONE factor in determining the reasonableness of his arrest. She stated that other factors include the state's interest in the enforcement action, in otherwords the risk to public safety, departmental protocol, the civilian agency's willingness to cede jurisdictional authority ect.

                She concluded that the MP did not have the authority to arrest the driver under Maryland law, however the stop and the subsequent arrest was not unreasonable, therefore no violation of the 4th amendment occurred.

                So in my view, based on my reading of the Atwell judicial opinion; is that you should revert to your State's Law because your actions are going to need to stand up to the scrutiny of that State's body of law. Unfortunately, until we are given expressed statuory arrest authority there is no definitive answer to your question.
                Never ask a man if he served in the Marine Corps! If he earned the title "Marine" he will tell you, if he didn't, there is no need to embarrass him.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Re-Birth View Post
                  At our Dept. we had case law that addressed a similar matter. At Ft. Meade, we have 4 State Hwy's that are concurrent, on one of them, the roadway is concurrent but all the storefront parking lots just off the roadway are not. In 2005, A MP initiated a stop on the hwy for a possible DUI and the driver naturally pulled off the roadway and into the Dunkin Donuts parking lot, outside of federal jurisdiction. The Case is United States V Atwell. The Federal Judge made some interesting statements in her opinion. Among other things, she opined that in the absence of Federal law to the contrary, State jurisprudence will take precedent. In our case, she didnt find any Federal law authorizing nor condoning the MP action, so she went to Maryland law to determine legality. But she also stated that the legality of the Enforcement action was only ONE factor in determining the reasonableness of his arrest. She stated that other factors include the state's interest in the enforcement action, in otherwords the risk to public safety, departmental protocol, the civilian agency's willingness to cede jurisdictional authority ect.

                  She concluded that the MP did not have the authority to arrest the driver under Maryland law, however the stop and the subsequent arrest was not unreasonable, therefore no violation of the 4th amendment occurred.

                  So in my view, based on my reading of the Atwell judicial opinion; is that you should revert to your State's Law because your actions are going to need to stand up to the scrutiny of that State's body of law. Unfortunately, until we are given expressed statuory arrest authority there is no definitive answer to your question.
                  Why wouldn't fresh pursuit apply there? Within the officer's jurisdiction he effected a seizure, however, his suspect went into another jurisdiction. There, for a civilian, anyway it shouldn't/wouldn't matter.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by ArkansasFan24 View Post
                    Why wouldn't fresh pursuit apply there? Within the officer's jurisdiction he effected a seizure, however, his suspect went into another jurisdiction. There, for a civilian, anyway it shouldn't/wouldn't matter.
                    That was the opinion of the government (that fresh pursuit applied here), and our SOP's reflected this opinion. But the Judge stated that the MP was not recognized as a LEO, statutorily, by either State or Federal law outside of his jurisdiction; so even though the seizure was initiated within the jurisdiction of the US, the stop and the arrest occurred outside of US concurrency. There is no federal law that stated the MP could pursue and the state of Maryland clearly delineated the agency which has powers of pursuit and made specific exception to agencies of other states along the borderland. The judge said that it was Maryland's legislative intent to severely limit the authority of pursuit. The Judge opined that the MP could only continue the seizure in the pursuit of a felony suspect, which was authorized by Maryland Common law not the state legislature.

                    I think that this may relate to your case in the sense that it is a DoD agency initiating law enforcement action at a location in which there was no recognized authority to do so.

                    I am a little confused, whose jurisdiction is proprietary, yours or the civilian agency. On our installation, we have 1 High School, 2 Middle Schools, and 5 Elementary level schools. The County has proprietary jurisdiction on all school property though it is clearly on federal land. There authority is not limited whatsoever on school grounds. So if it is the federal govt's proprietary than you should have no issues.
                    Never ask a man if he served in the Marine Corps! If he earned the title "Marine" he will tell you, if he didn't, there is no need to embarrass him.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      There will always be issues with off installation housing areas. Even back when it was all owned by the gov't, we could respond and lock up a military member and the sheriff's department would also respond and lock up the civilian. We couldnt touch the civilians and they couldnt touch the military. It was always touchy...

                      Now, with all these housing areas privatized, to include some barracks on some installations, it gets even more complicated. As the DoD agency, no matter if you're military or wearing a blue suit, you have authority over military members world wide for UCMJ violations. And since many of these areas are privately owned, warrants and consent come into play, which is something that we rarely dealt with in the past. Times change. Even health and welfare barracks inspections are out the window these days.
                      Last edited by Unit453; 09-04-2009, 06:20 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Yep the days of the unit commander being king of the castle is long gone, how many of you that have privatized housing or barracks know who you go to for a warrant?
                        It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Or better yet, how many company commanders and 1SG's dont know they cant just bust in their troops rooms anymore? How many of them dont realize that they can no longer do a health and welfare to a married troop's house?

                          You would think they would cover this in ROTC or OCS. Times are changin'. Its good for installation police though because its alot more like how it is outside the wire.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Unit453 View Post
                            There will always be issues with off installation housing areas. Even back when it was all owned by the gov't, we could respond and lock up a military member and the sheriff's department would also respond and lock up the civilian. We couldnt touch the civilians and they couldnt touch the military. It was always touchy...

                            Now, with all these housing areas privatized, to include some barracks on some installations, it gets even more complicated. As the DoD agency, no matter if you're military or wearing a blue suit, you have authority over military members world wide for UCMJ violations. And since many of these areas are privately owned, warrants and consent come into play, which is something that we rarely dealt with in the past. Times change. Even health and welfare barracks inspections are out the window these days.
                            Don't buy that agency bull that the property is "privatized." You may be shocked when you dig deep in to the paperwork of these deals. The way it works is that the building is leased by the company, but the property is still owned by the United States and there is no change in the jurisdiction. The only exception is if the housing was originally proprietary.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Re-Birth View Post
                              That was the opinion of the government (that fresh pursuit applied here), and our SOP's reflected this opinion. But the Judge stated that the MP was not recognized as a LEO, statutorily, by either State or Federal law outside of his jurisdiction; so even though the seizure was initiated within the jurisdiction of the US, the stop and the arrest occurred outside of US concurrency. There is no federal law that stated the MP could pursue and the state of Maryland clearly delineated the agency which has powers of pursuit and made specific exception to agencies of other states along the borderland. The judge said that it was Maryland's legislative intent to severely limit the authority of pursuit. The Judge opined that the MP could only continue the seizure in the pursuit of a felony suspect, which was authorized by Maryland Common law not the state legislature.

                              I think that this may relate to your case in the sense that it is a DoD agency initiating law enforcement action at a location in which there was no recognized authority to do so.

                              I am a little confused, whose jurisdiction is proprietary, yours or the civilian agency. On our installation, we have 1 High School, 2 Middle Schools, and 5 Elementary level schools. The County has proprietary jurisdiction on all school property though it is clearly on federal land. There authority is not limited whatsoever on school grounds. So if it is the federal govt's proprietary than you should have no issues.

                              Ah, well, I can see the problem now. Military police officers not being considered law enforcement officers... I had no idea this status was lacking. Yes, a LEO can utilize fresh pursuit, and perhaps in Maryland ordinary citizens, which is what an MP would be outside of his base apparently, has no right to arrest another person beyond the scope of a felony. That's the case in Arkansas. A citizen's arrest applies only to felonies here.

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 4328 users online. 215 members and 4113 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 158,966 at 05:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X