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

  • #46
    Originally posted by ops View Post
    ERRRM,
    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!
    I will wade into the pool a bit, but I am not going head first, nor am I going too deep.

    1. This is part semantics and part lack of knowledge of the authorities conveyed to a Commander in regards to the protection of their respective facilities. Every services regulations provide a commander the authority (and ability to delegate such) to detain persons found within their jurisdiction under incriminating circumstances. Detention is NOT an arrest.

    Just as the Internal Security Act allows for searching of persons and property entering covered installations is not a law enforcement “search and seizure”.

    A “false arrest” is generally identified as an arrest where there exists no probable cause to affect such action and when such was done intentionally and knowingly.

    2. In accordance with answer #1, under the authorities conveyed by UCMJ and the RCM for persons subject and under the current framework of how civilian violators are processed. All legal processes.

    Given a person is in custody and the potential for in-custody statements being used in later prosecution, the appropriate rights advisement is given. As you know, reading a person their rights does not delineate an arrest; nor does an arrest “require” a rights advisement.

    In the custody, detained for investigative purposes or otherwise not immediately free to leave is not an arrest.

    3. See answer #1 and your respective SJA/JAG please.

    4. Matters not what I believe.

    From the section of US Code itself:

    POSITIVE LAW; CITATION
    This title has been enacted into positive law by section 1 of act
    Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 1, which provided in part that:
    "Title 10 of the United States Code, entitled 'Armed Forces', is
    revised, codified, and enacted into law, and may be cited as 'Title
    10, United States Code, Sec. - .' "


    5. Again, matters not what Sgt. Jon thinks. In reality though, the true and proper reference is: “Title 10”.

    6. Part semantics again and also the current interpretation. Like it or not, the current framework works, is legally defensible and has stood the test of time and litigation. Is there sound argument to change things; sure. The current interpretation of 18 USC 926B and 926C is one of cautious precept. I honestly do not see it as a denial but a position based on the cognizant policy owners legal review.

    It has already been made clear that should LEOSA be amended to include the term “apprehend” then it will without question cover those currently deemed excluded.

    References:
    US Code, Title 10: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/Title_10.txt

    Army Regulations: http://www.apd.army.mil/AdminPubs/Br...blications.asp

    Navy Regulations: http://doni.daps.dla.mil/navyregs.aspx (See Chapter 8)
    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


    • #47
      Sgt. Jon,

      Thank you for your candor and response. A few things:

      1. You stated that the respective services regulations give the base commander his authority? The base commander's authority is derived from Title 10, the POTUS/SECDEF and the US Constitution, not policy or regulation.

      2. An apprehension is NOT a detention. An apprehension, just like an arrest requires probable cause in order to initiate. A detention does not. BIG difference. A detention requires reasonable suspicion and is short in duration.

      If you're talking about civilians vs military members then I can see your point. Regardless, the "detentions" initiated upon civilians on military bases do constitute the very definition of "arrest" by the Supreme Court. So my question stands, how can MLEO's affect "arrests" on persons on military installations without violating civil rights? Title 50 does not override the US Constitution, and the 4th and 5th amendments are still just as viable on post as off. I don't think SJA properly reads law, and I defer to the SCOTUS and their definitions.
      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


      • #48
        Originally posted by ops View Post
        Sgt. Jon,
        Thank you for your candor and response. A few things:

        1. You stated that the respective services regulations give the base commander his authority? The base commander's authority is derived from Title 10, the POTUS/SECDEF and the US Constitution, not policy or regulation.

        2. An apprehension is NOT a detention. An apprehension, just like an arrest requires probable cause in order to initiate. A detention does not. BIG difference. A detention requires reasonable suspicion and is short in duration.

        If you're talking about civilians vs military members then I can see your point. Regardless, the "detentions" initiated upon civilians on military bases do constitute the very definition of "arrest" by the Supreme Court. So my question stands, how can MLEO's affect "arrests" on persons on military installations without violating civil rights? Title 50 does not override the US Constitution, and the 4th and 5th amendments are still just as viable on post as off. I don't think SJA properly reads law, and I defer to the SCOTUS and their definitions.
        Glad to offer insight that I hope is not fanning the proverbial flames of this issue.

        You are correct; each services regulations are codified under the auspices of Title 10. It is through the respective commander’s authority that military law enforcement work. Just as a states constitution provides for authorities of its political subdivisions, an officer performing the act of enforcement need not cite their states constitutional provisions as the driver of their powers, as they are “generally” conferred by virtue of position or appointment.

        In regards to apprehension versus arrest versus detention; these words are frequently used interchangeably. Does this syntax application cause confusion; sure does. Does actual application or the law change, not really.

        In the context of military enforcement of the law, rules and regulations, there is also great interchange of terms, which adds further to the “confusion”. As with the interpretation of any law and its ultimate application, this is one subject area that is frequently contentious. In the end, the current interpretation by the powers that be is what it is. I don’t say this as an affront to anyone who may hold a different view, but to make clear this: the authorities to perform the duties at hand are well established; those authorities are codified in title, chapter and regulation.
        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


        • #49
          Originally posted by SBean06 View Post
          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.
          During my AF days, I saw this implemented to an extent. Mostly NCOs would get selected to go through civilian academies off base and once they were certified they could put in part-time/reserve hours at the various local PDs around the base. (Not sure if it was paid time though). Most just did it to get certified and would punch out at the end of their enlistments and get on full-time with the locals, given their advantage of already being certified and having worked with the PD they were applying with, most were shoe-ins to get hired.

          Don't know if the AF still does it.......or what the AF was attempting to gain by allowing us to get certified. As I stated, a lot of folks used it as a means to an end, versus getting certified and staying in.

          I would venture to say, if the Army started sending its DACPs to local academies, their turnover rate would blow sky high, I could easily see PDs and SOs, wanting to save money by recruiting locally certified DACP officers in droves and leaving the Army to foot the bill for the certifications.

          At least with an active military member you could schedule him/her to go through a local academy at the beginning of a re-enlistment contract and would be guarantied a few years out of them before they jumped ship.....

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by statebear View Post
            I would venture to say, if the Army started sending its DACPs to local academies, their turnover rate would blow sky high, I could easily see PDs and SOs, wanting to save money by recruiting locally certified DACP officers in droves and leaving the Army to foot the bill for the certifications.
            I honestly think that a lot of people are in military law enforcement because they want to be. They recognize the inherent nature of the job, which they largely accept, and they find that it is the highest honor to serve a community of heros. I personally fall into that category. The best way to alleviate any high turnover is to bring relative parity between DOD LEO's and their federal and local counterparts. 6c retirement benefits and relative command-free autonomy would go along way to minimize ship jumpers. Denying MLEO's the best possible training for fear of them jumping ship only serves to hasten their exodus.
            Last edited by Re-Birth; 06-09-2011, 02:58 PM.
            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


            • #51
              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.
              ^^What he said.

              I didn’t feel safe around some of knuckleheads I had to work along side with being armed “on-duty”, let alone having them armed off-duty. The mixture of young immature service members consuming alcohol and having access to guns in the dorms/barracks is a recipe in itself for disaster.

              Off duty carry for active MPs/SPs/MAs will never happen.........hell from what I have read on here CID and OSI have all sorts of regulations on when and if they can carry off duty and what involvement their respective agencies would support with them intervening in off base/post criminal activity. Being a good witness is what most have expressed their agencies would want them to be......

              So to what end would it benefit the military, the public or an active military police service member to be armed off-duty?

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Re-Birth View Post
                I honestly think that a lot of people are in military law enforcement because they want to be. They recognize the inherent nature of the job, which they largely accept, and they find that it is the highest honor to serve a community of heros. I personally fall into that category. The best way to alleviate any high turnover is to bring relative parity between DOD LEO's and their federal and local counterparts. 6c retirement benefits and relative command-free autonomy would go along way to minimize ship jumpers. Denying MLEO's the best possible training for fear of them jumping ship only serves to hasten their exodus.
                Much respect to you if those are the reasons you are where you are, you'll get no arguments from me on that. That's why I only "ventured" to say the turnover rate would be high. Whether your a city, county, state or DOD officer, I personally see no dishonor in being either one, as long as like you stated, “They recognize the inherent nature of the job”, which can vary greatly. I mean no disrespect by saying that working as a DOD officer on a military installation wouldn’t be for me, just as maybe you doing what I do, wouldn’t be for you. The only thing I was pointing out is that, being what it is now to work for DOD, I could easily see locally certified officers being wooed by PDs/SOs to come work for them by offering better pay, freedoms and in some cases better career progression.


                Having parity and command free autonomy would definitely help stave off any exodus, but do you honestly ever see that happening?

                Parity, maybe.

                Command free stuff......good luck.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Re-Birth View Post
                  Denying MLEO's the best possible training for fear of them jumping ship only serves to hasten their exodus.
                  If the Military would run academies at each base instead of regionally......and run them on par with what that particular State is doing (hour wise/law wise/DT-PT wise/etc...) toss in State law.....and then toss in Fed law.....and make it so the officers were certified in that State.....it would go a hell of a lot farther with folks.......

                  As for mass exodus.....not sure about where you are at.....but due to the economy.....most instillations aren't losing folks right now..... This would be a great time for the military to make changes to keep folks around.....

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Bearcat, your post got thinking about something....

                    Back when I worked for a PD in Oklahoma, I had two Oklahoma Military Department Police Officers in my CLEET (what POST is in OK) class. They did LE on all State Guard facilities/installations. Here some info on them:

                    The Oklahoma State Legislature authorizes the Adjutant General to commission a state police force under OS title 44, section 230. To protect the Oklahoma Military Department's assets and personnel, the Adjutant General may commission State Police Officers to the Oklahoma Military Department Police to serve in that function. The Oklahoma Military Department Police, with the sole exception of the serving or execution of civil process, shall retain all the powers vested by law as state peace officers. The Oklahoma Military Department Police is a State law-enforcement agency that satisfies the criteria for Posse Comitatus. The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 18, 1878, with the intention of substantially limiting the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. The Act prohibits members of the Marine Corps, Army, Navy, Air Force, and State National Guard forces when such are called into federal service from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers. Including those that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) within the United States.

                    The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act. The Oklahoma Military Department Police satisfies this stringent criterion. Officers sworn to this office are non-military, civilian state law enforcement personnel.
                    Why couldn't a State certify civilian MLEOs in this manner?

                    It is my understanding that BNSF/UP..etc..railroad police officers are certified somewhat in this manner also.....

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by statebear View Post
                      Back when I worked for a PD in Oklahoma, I had two Oklahoma Military Department
                      Police Officers in my CLEET (what POST is in OK) class. They did LE on all State Guard facilities/installations.

                      We've got them at the Air Guard base in St. Joe. I don't know much about them other than they are employed through the State Guard Bureau and have to be POST Certified.......

                      Originally posted by statebear View Post
                      Why couldn't a State certify civilian MLEOs in this manner?
                      They could....but I don't think the military wants to go that route for some reason. I know out here (and down in Ft. Stewart, GA back in the day when I was there) we had to go through 3 weeks or so of training before we could work the road. It was to get us State qualified on breath test machine, RADAR, etc..... You could easily do that and other stuff to get them up to a States Standards....... Hell, make them take the 100 question POST Test in MO..... I could have passed that damn thing without going to an academy..........

                      Only issue now is the Army is only going to do one academy at Leonard-Wood.....instead of regional/state to state stuff. Perhaps if the local posts got with their respective State POST and see what it would take to get them POST for the State....that would work some issues out. Like out here, our DOA Police Officers aren't recognized as LEOs so when someone files a TRO (Temp Restraining Order) and lives on post.....Hono PD has to come on post to serve it.....


                      Originally posted by statebear View Post

                      It is my understanding that BNSF/UP..etc..railroad police officers are certified somewhat in this manner also.....
                      Railroad Cops are completely different animals in my book. Most States have specific statutes on them dating back from the 1800s/early 1900s due to the growth of Railroads and there not being any State Officers back then. WI doesn't even recognize them as LEOs from what I understand.....

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Ft. Dix used to send folks through the NJ PTC academy. They stopped around 2002 when they were required to send through the APG police academy. In Pa, we have the Department Of Military and Veterans Affairs Police who patrol Ft. Indiantown gap and the state home in Greensburg (by Pittsburgh). They are act 120 certified.
                        I don't answer recruitment messages....

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Yeah, DoD at Ft. Dix was a whole different animal then what I have read it is on here at other posts. Them guys would stop folks off post and had mutual aid agreements to assist the locals on calls, at least back when I was at McGuire. Don't know what the situation is now over there, with joint basing and all that j***.....

                          I had also heard back when they would send them to NJ PTC, they (DoD guys) were recognized as state peace officers by NJ.....

                          Cat,

                          The WI thing doesn’t surprise me......back when I was in C we had a deal involving a stolen vehicle, in which we requested the WI State Patrol’s help, they basically told us to call the S.O., they don’t handle anything criminal..........

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by statebear View Post
                            joint basing
                            Joint Basing sucks balls.... Just saying.....


                            Originally posted by statebear View Post
                            Cat,

                            The WI thing doesn’t surprise me......back when I was in C we had a deal involving a stolen vehicle, in which we requested the WI State Patrol’s help, they basically told us to call the S.O., they don’t handle anything criminal..........
                            Didn't know that about their Patrol. I had just read stuff on here (and elsewhere) about their stance on RR Cops..... I know in MO.....they are recognized as LEOs and I've been to a few conferences with them there..... Sounds like a great job if you can ever get on......

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Bearcat357 View Post
                              Police Officers in my CLEET (what POST is in OK) class. They did LE on all State Guard facilities/installations.

                              We've got them at the Air Guard base in St. Joe. I don't know much about them other than they are employed through the State Guard Bureau and have to be POST Certified........
                              Same at Camp Dodge in Iowa.........................(also home to the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy)

                              All LEO's going to ILEA know better than to speed on base....................the NG Police officers have orders to bang the heck out of student at the academy-----------either pre-service or in service!!!!!!!!
                              Since some people need to be told by notes in crayon .......Don't PM me with without prior permission. If you can't discuss the situation in the open forum ----it must not be that important

                              My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Bearcat357 View Post
                                Sounds like a great job if you can ever get on......
                                I ran into a UP cop at a Quick-Trip a few years ago and shared a cup with him. He claimed they start out at 60K+ a year.......didn't know if he was pulling my leg or not. Gave me his card and said they were hiring......I never followed up.......its one of those gigs that you have to "recognize the inherent nature of the job".

                                I'm still having too much fun chasing cars and making arrests to go that route....

                                But the money does sound good....
                                Last edited by statebear; 06-11-2011, 07:12 PM. Reason: typo

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 3782 users online. 196 members and 3586 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X