Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Statutory Powers of Arrest for MP's?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

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

  • #31
    PCA is only a policy for DoN employees (because it was placed there by each of the respective secretaries). So technically if the Secretary of DoD and Secretary of DoN were to lift the policy, legally speaking, DoN police officers (including MA's) and USMC police officers (including MP's) would be allowed to arrest.

    Will it happen, doubtful.
    I don't answer recruitment messages....

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by orlandofed5-0 View Post
      PCA is only a policy for DoN employees (because it was placed there by each of the respective secretaries). So technically if the Secretary of DoD and Secretary of DoN were to lift the policy, legally speaking, DoN police officers (including MA's) and USMC police officers (including MP's) would be allowed to arrest.

      Will it happen, doubtful.
      I find it hilarious, the obfuscation and the level of professional bull****ters we have in the military.

      RE: HR 324

      "You already have arrest authority and have enough authority to do your jobs already."

      RE: S1132

      "You do not have arrest authority, therefore you do not qualify".

      Well which one is it?

      One thing you gotta give to em' is that they are Vatican Assassin Ninja's, when it comes to obfuscation and bull****!
      Last edited by ops; 05-19-2011, 02:40 AM.
      The post above does not constitute legal advice, nor should be construed as such. These are the private opinions of a private citizen and do not represent the opinion nor official capacity of any law enforcement agency.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by ops View Post
        I find it hilarious, the obfuscation and the level of professional bull****ters we have in the military.

        RE: HR 324

        "You already have arrest authority and have enough authority to do your jobs already."

        RE: S1132

        "You do not have arrest authority, therefore you do not qualify".

        Well which one is it?

        One thing you gotta give to em' is that they are Vatican Assassin Ninja's, when it comes to obfuscation and bull****!
        Thats the military. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.
        I don't answer recruitment messages....

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by orlandofed5-0 View Post
          Thats the military. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.
          They have to, as both hands are jerking someone off.
          It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others.

          Comment


          • #35
            In addition to the previously noted Bill, there is a proposed section to 10 USC, it being 10 USC 2672, which among other things would give the Secretary of Defense the ability to designate certain law enforcement officers to have arrest authority under 18 USC. In short, the delegated authority via 40 USC that DOD used to enforce certain provisions under the Assimilative Crimes Act (18 USC 13) has since gone away. 10 USC 2672 would, if passed, allow DOD to write enforceable regulations as they did under the 40 USC delegated authority.

            As already noted, the concern over a perceived “national police force” is one that has raised its head and one that they are working to clarify as not being the case. If such authority is made available, it would be strictly limited to the military jurisdiction and not extend outside the gate in most cases. Further, it would not be a blanket arrest authority across DOD, but one that is applied after analysis and a determination that lacking such authority imperils a bases ability to maintain good order and discipline. If such a determination is made, then the SECDEF may designate certain civilians as having arrest authority beyond what already arguably exists.

            In regards to coverage under LEOSA, if 18 USC 926B and 926C is modified to include the phrase “apprehend” then it would, without question, cover military law enforcement. Would this cover MPs, MAAs and Security Forces?. YES. Will the respective services bend over backwards to implement it? Who knows. Fact of the matter is that DOD has said that if the law is changed, they would comply. Given the language and what I have heard, it would cover any law enforcement officer with DOD, which would include military and civilians. Any argument about level of training is moot as the provision of USC only speaks to trained with firearms (for active) and annual qualification (for separated/retired). Perceptions aside, the law is the law. How this would be implemented will likely be decided if and when the amendment is made and would likely be aligned with other agencies; in that if you can demonstrate that you meet the requirements, they may issue some form of certification to that effect, though they would not be required to do so as evidenced by several recent court decisions that said that while they may, 18 926C does not require an agency issue identification to a separated/retired member.

            As for debates about 20 years (6c) or other law enforcement retirement coverage, this is one that has come and gone several times in my life and I personally don’t see it being implemented, despite my personal feelings. I did see a proposal by the Pentagon to cover the Pentagon Police under a separate provision, but I understand that initiative died out.

            As for BOP and as already noted; all Bureau of Prisons staff are corrections security first and their “other” job second. As such, they are covered by the special retirement provisions. Thus the maximum entry age and mandatory retirement (with waivers granted on an as needed basis). Of note, all BOP staff aside from Clergy are required to qualify with a firearm as I understand it and thus are eligible under LEOSA. Their LEOSA policy is publically available and a Google search will show you the basis for my take on the matter.
            Last edited by sgt jon; 05-19-2011, 08:30 AM. Reason: typoooo
            Originally posted by SSD
            It has long been the tradition on this forum and as well as professionally not to second guess or Monday morning QB the officer's who were actually on-scene and had to make the decision. That being said, I don't think that your discussion will go very far on this board.
            Originally posted by Iowa #1603
            And now you are arguing about not arguing..................

            Comment


            • #36
              Just a quick update:

              Another source just got back from a meeting at Quantico and said the plan is to institute a DoD-wide POST standard loosely based off of CA post. All MPs and CLEOs meet this standard or find employment elsewhere. The SPA will follow this.

              Who knows? It sounds like there will be several changes in the next few years, most of them good.

              I hope I can take it that long....

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Marine0083 View Post
                Just a quick update:

                Another source just got back from a meeting at Quantico and said the plan is to institute a DoD-wide POST standard loosely based off of CA post. All MPs and CLEOs meet this standard or find employment elsewhere. The SPA will follow this.

                Who knows? It sounds like there will be several changes in the next few years, most of them good.

                I hope I can take it that long....
                There is a conceptual DOD Police Officers and Standards Commission (POST) in the works that will implement baseline standards across the entire law enforcement program. This is not the Army 190-56 by any stretch of the imagination, but an adaptation of a civilian POST model.

                What this conceptual program is intended to do is meet with the Fort Hood findings, establish a degree of commonality and interoperability among the services. Each service will be tasked to ensure the POST standards are applied to the military and civilian police training program. How each service implements and facilitates compliance will be left to their respective program managers.

                As I last saw, each service has made considerable strides in retooling their respective LE program and are working towards a new dawn if you will. The major hurdles continue to be resourcing and implementation. All this takes money and time.
                Originally posted by SSD
                It has long been the tradition on this forum and as well as professionally not to second guess or Monday morning QB the officer's who were actually on-scene and had to make the decision. That being said, I don't think that your discussion will go very far on this board.
                Originally posted by Iowa #1603
                And now you are arguing about not arguing..................

                Comment


                • #38
                  They will not ammed or modify 18 USC 926B and 926C for the LEOSA just so MP's, SF, etc can carry off duty. I am sorry, to me that will be a huge liability. If they did that, then the whole military should carry off duty.
                  "An excuse is worse and more terrible than a lie, for an excuse is a lie guarded."

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by M-11 View Post
                    And How!

                    I live 9 miles from Camden.

                    M-11
                    Hey do you take complaints about the 87th SFS or the civilian personnel....... They lost my paperwork!
                    I don't answer recruitment messages....

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by irishlad2nv View Post
                      They will not ammed or modify 18 USC 926B and 926C for the LEOSA just so MP's, SF, etc can carry off duty. I am sorry, to me that will be a huge liability. If they did that, then the whole military should carry off duty.
                      Not sure how you mean “They will not ammed or modify 18 USC 926B and 926C for the LEOSA just so MP's, SF, etc can carry off duty. I am sorry, to me that will be a huge liability. If they did that, then the whole military should carry off duty”

                      By way of who “they” are or where there is a perception of liability. If you mean “they” being the Legislature, then yes, they are likely going to further amend the section to include the word APPREHEND. As has been discussed, the intent was to cover civilian police officers working for the services; however the last amendment was interpreted to yet still exclude them. DoD has already made it clear that if such amendment is applied, then it would cover everyone. The law of unintended consequences raises it head: since military members would be covered by way of power to apprehend and being law enforcement/police officers, they would thus be covered. There has already been discussion about a long since retired MP, MAA or SP asking for proof that they qualified through 10 years of service, a disability retirement or statutory retirement and how to address such cases.

                      The LEOSA improvement act was made to ensure that the remaining GS Series-0083 police officers (DoD Cops), Amtrak (a quasi government agency), the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (also a quasi government agency/corporation) would be covered. The technical amendment is not being made “just so MP's, SF, etc can carry off duty”; it is being made because of perceived ambiguity in the present verbiage. The official position is that despite the Legislatures intent the effected parties must follow the letter of the law.

                      As far as liability, while you can litigate for darn near anything, the actual liability; any that the government could potentially face is mitigated by virtue of the Federal Tort Reform Act.

                      LEOSA allows qualified individuals to carry without a permit. It does not convey, extend or otherwise provide for powers that are tied to an agency, it simply exempts individuals from needing a permit to carry a concealed firearm. Just as you can use evidence of your departmental firearm qualification to satisfy a states firearm training requirement to obtain a concealed weapons permit (or a DD 214 for that matter) and as such does not create a true liability, carrying under LEOSA does not either.

                      As for the whole military carrying off duty, that is a personal choice and if allowed by virtue of a state issued permit, in states that allow permit-less carry or otherwise; as is the decision to exercise ones rights under LEOSA. Just because you can does not mean you must. While there are likely well founded arguments on all sides of this, my personal inflection is that law enforcement officers bear the burden of having to contend with off duty engagements due to their on-duty enforcement be it just after they book off duty or years later. This, as I have come to know it was the genesis for LEOSA.

                      It was not created to increase the armed off-duty (or retired officer) presence on the streets for some abatement of terrorism, crime or other danger facing the public, it was implemented to afford officers the means to protect themselves without having to contend with a hodge-podge of reciprocity. If there was a different intent, the Legislature would have provided for extraterritorial arrest powers and inserted a qualified immunity for such acts, which it does not.
                      Originally posted by SSD
                      It has long been the tradition on this forum and as well as professionally not to second guess or Monday morning QB the officer's who were actually on-scene and had to make the decision. That being said, I don't think that your discussion will go very far on this board.
                      Originally posted by Iowa #1603
                      And now you are arguing about not arguing..................

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        ERRRM,

                        Apparently the Ft. Lee Provost Martial didn't get the memo on our arrest authority. On their FAQ page they list their Officers as being sworn and having full arrest authority. I believe that they are indeed correct, that Military Civilian Police do in fact have statutory arrest authority (however limited it might be), as the authority is derived from Title 10 USC, the U.S Congress, the Constitution, and the POTUS. The Supreme Court has ruled that "DOD" Civilian Police do have this authority already. If "DOD" Police do not have this authority then every person that has been "arrested or apprehended" was deprived of their civil rights and were falsely arrested by people impersonating police officers. The Supreme Court has ruled that an arrest is not simply the ability to take someone to jail, it is the "taking of a person into custody", and this is met when anyone whom has contact with police "no longer feels that they are free to go." Also, is the fact that "DOD" Officers Mirandize subjects (both civilian and military). Regardless, if they are released own recog., or taken to the county jail (turned over to the locals) they have been taken into custody, processed (booked) and even interviewed/interrogated. To do these things requires statutory authority. We can argue and obfuscate all day, but at the end of the day, if the Military Branches Civilian Police do not have arrest authority then they have been committing felonious civil rights violations for years. Since I have yet to see case law that a Police Officer has been sued for false arrest, the evidence says that indeed this authority is already in place. see U.S vs. Eugene Banks.

                        http://www.lee.army.mil/pmo/flp.faq.aspx

                        "Provost Marshal's Office
                        Fort Lee Police Frequently Asked Questions
                        1. How do I get a vehicle decal?

                        Visit the Vehicle Registration Office at Building 3400 (Soldier Support Center). Make sure to bring a valid and current drivers license, registration, proof of insurance, and vehicle safety inspection.

                        2. Who do I call for MP assistance?

                        Call the MP Desk at (804) 734-7400 this office is located at the MP Station in Building 8526. If you have an emergency, call 911!

                        3. Do the civilian police have arrest powers?

                        Yes, they are sworn officers with complete enforcement authority. Please ensure that you follow their directions.

                        4. Who can visit the post?

                        Anyone may enter the post who has a valid and current photo identification. Youth under 16 years of age do not need to have photo identification but it is strongly encouraged. Access is subject to change based upon force protection conditions.

                        5. What identification do I need to enter post?

                        A valid and current photo ID. If you are a driver you must have a valid and current drivers license, registration, insurance, and vehicle safety inspection.

                        6. Where is the traffic court?

                        Traffic Court is held every other Monday in the Federal Court at 701 E Broad Street, Richmond, VA.

                        7. How do I get a copy of a police report?

                        Proof of identification is needed in order to receive a copy of a police report. Completed requests must be presented to the Administrative Section by the requestor, with proper identification and authorization.

                        8. What if I lose my ticket?

                        Call the Central Violations Bureau at (800) 827-2982. The CVB can assist with court dates, lost tickets, and payment inquiries.

                        9. How do I reschedule a court date?

                        Call the U.S. District Court Clerk at (804) 916-2234

                        10. Who do I call to make a complaint?

                        Call the Police Desk at 734-7400. This office is located at the MP Station, Building 8526 OR use ICE on our Home Page.

                        11. How do you pick a vehicle to inspect?

                        We assign a random number each day. The Gate Personnel count the number of vehicles that pass the gate and if your vehicle is inspected. We record each vehicle inspected to ensure that this procedure is followed.

                        12. Can I bring a concealed weapon on post?

                        No,concealed weapons are unauthorized on Fort Lee unless the individual is a law enforcement officer in the performance of his/her official duties.

                        13. Where do I register my weapons?

                        At the Vehicle & Weapon Registration Office. Complete the Weapon Registration form "Fort Lee Form 694", (one for each weapon) and have it signed by the company commander, then take the completed and signed form to the vehicle registration office. (DO NOT BRING THE WEAPONS)

                        14. Do my weapons have to be registered?

                        Yes, if you or a family member reside on post, in family housing, then the weapon may be kept at their house or the service member's unit arms room after being properly registered. "




                        I would be very interested in hearing from folks whom believe that the US Military's Civilian Officers do not have this authority. My questions to you are:

                        1. If Civilian Police Officers do not have arrest authority, then how do they get away with taking people into custody without violating their civil rights and performing false arrests?

                        2. How can Military Civilian Police Officers, take subject's into custody, read them their rights, process them, and charge them without having placed them into custody ie. arrest?

                        3. What then is the legal authority for Military Civilian Police? And how is it not statutory?

                        4. Do you believe that Title 10 USC 809 (e) is a Federal Statute?

                        5. Do you believe that the UCMJ (Title 10 USC) is a Federal Statute? If not Why?

                        6. And finally, if 10 USC 809 (e) is a Federal Statute, and "apprehension" is the same as an arrest (as described by the Supreme Court, and the Manual for Courts Martial), then on what legal grounds can DOD deny it's Officers to carry under LEOSA? Please do not say "because they say so", as that simply isn't good enough!

                        Thanks!
                        Last edited by ops; 06-04-2011, 11:38 PM.
                        The post above does not constitute legal advice, nor should be construed as such. These are the private opinions of a private citizen and do not represent the opinion nor official capacity of any law enforcement agency.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          One idea that I have heard before and would support this as well for military and civilian military LEO's on base is that you go to FLW for a 5-8 week academy on military laws and then what ever state you are in you go through that states Basic Police Officer Academy, this in my opinion will give you great training for the military side and the civilian side and give you some actual good training on your jurisdictions laws.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by SBean06 View Post
                            and then what ever state you are in you go through that states Basic Police Officer Academy
                            In MO....State Academy is 12 weeks or more....depending on where you go. There is no way the Army could afford to send people there......money wise/body wise.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Well I know some post that have tried to send a few through the states academy if there is a decent sized dept that is near then the army post allows that academy use of some of its facilities and then its a trade off we give you training you give us facilities.. Some of your bigger post already have officers that are certified state instructors and could create there own academies or finance away for that to happen or all the post in one state send their DACPS to the biggest post in the state for state related training. It is do able but would have to be given to the hire ups in a way they would understand.

                              or another way is you give all MP's and DACP a good long well taught academy at FLW that is a worth while one and then when they get to their post they get a well taught two-three week mini academy on local state law

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by SBean06 View Post
                                two-three week mini academy on local state law
                                Army is already working on that....a lot of places already have that in place for both DAP/MPs and they have to pass it before they are certified to work the road.

                                Hawaii DES does it.....

                                As for sending someone to a full-state academy...... Why...? It would cost a ton of money to send everyone. If you did it on an order of merit list, there would be more in-fighting than there already is at most places......

                                Army's not going to be spending tons of money on folks when they are in the process of cutting back spending.....

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 5381 users online. 331 members and 5050 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 26,947 at 08:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X