Courts and Armed Officers . . .

[pdm]

Like I said in another thread, if you want to see real change in MA laws re: firearms, remove the LEO exemptions.

 

[dwarven1]

One cornerstone of freedom is that police are hired to provide a particular service to the public, not exist as a warrior class with special privileges beyond those actually required to do their job.

An excellent summation, Rob - you put it much better than I did. Thank you.

 

[Coyote33]

http://telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071212/NEWS/712120473

Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Gun keeps officer out of court

Environmental Police bring issue to a head

By Kim Ring TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF


PALMER— Morale is slipping among Environmental Police, who say they are issuing more warnings and arresting fewer people because they don’t want to hand over their guns when they show up at court.

For the second time in recent weeks, an Environmental Police officer’s refusal to lock his gun in a metal box near the door forced court officers to bar him from entering the building. Court officers told David A. Loos that he could not come into the Palmer District Court yesterday if he did not secure his gun in accordance with policy.

“I asked them for a copy of the policy and they did not provide it to me,” Officer Loos said. “They said it was an internal memo.”


The policy, though, does exist, Trial Court spokesman Joan Kenney said.

“It attempts to limit the number of firearms in the court,” she said. While some law enforcement personnel, such as state and local police, are allowed to bring guns into the building, Environmental Police, officers from the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and some other agencies are not. Lawyers who carry guns are also asked to check them at the door, Ms. Kenney said.

But Officer Loos said that Environmental Police are different from the other targeted agencies because “we have full police powers across the state, and territorial jurisdiction and powers of arrest in every courthouse in the commonwealth.”

He and fellow Officer Andrew P. Beaulieu said they are better trained to handle guns than many part-time officers, including one seen in the court yesterday with a holster they said might allow someone easy access to the officer’s weapon.

“Why is that allowed to happen?” Officer Loos asked.

After Officer Loos refused to lock up his gun, he stood outside waiting to sign a complaint against a local man, charging him with hunting illegally. About an hour later, District Court Clerk Magistrate Benjamin D. Barnes brought the complaint to the foyer for the officer to sign.

Now, though, Officer Loos wonders what will happen when it is time for him to testify against Michael A. Passey, 46, who allegedly is not licensed to carry a gun and allegedly hid a weapon in the woods while hunting on posted property over the weekend.

He fears the case will be dropped if he again refuses to give up his gun and is not allowed inside. He said he believes Mr. Passey, who also has a marijuana and drunken-driving case pending at the court, is dangerous and should be prosecuted, but whether he’ll have to surrender his weapon so he can testify remains to be seen.

While current regulations allow Environmental Police to turn over their weapons in certain facilities, they are not obligated to do so, Environmental Police Lt. John S. Pajak said.

Lt. Pajak said he is confident that the case against Mr. Palley will move forward.

Yesterday’s incident is the most recent in which an officer refused to lock up his gun. On Oct. 26, Environmental Police Officer Anthony Abdal-Khabir entered the Worcester Central District Court with his gun holster and was told he could not come inside. He entered and tried to go to a courtroom but was stopped by four court officers.

The officers said part of the reason for holding on to their guns is so they are not targeted by defendants, many of whom were armed when they were arrested.

“It makes us a target,” Office Beaulieu said. “We’re walking a round the court in a uniform with an empty holster.”

The empty holster might offer the impression that Environmental Police have fewer powers, the men said.

And they considered who would be responsible for the loaded gun while it is locked in a small safe, though court personnel explained that the key to the locker would be given to the officer. It was unclear whether there is more than one key for each locker.

Officer Loos wondered whether the court officers who sit near the lockers are licensed to carry firearms, and what training they’ve had in handling loaded guns. He said he was not comfortable leaving his weapon in a locker.

News of Officer Loos’ experience had state Sen. Stephen M. Brewer, D-Barre, frustrated last night. For some time, he has been trying to correct what he sees as a major problem with the court’s policy. He recently contacted Chief Justice Robert A. Mulligan.

“He’s going to meet with his chiefs and report back to me,” Mr. Brewer said. “But I’m running out of patience and we’re going to file legislation.”

That legislation would create a policy that would not preclude Environmental Police from bringing their guns to court.

“I think it’s a real affront to state officers,” he said, adding that Environmental Police likely deal with more weapons cases than other agencies, because they police waterways and woodlands where sportsmen are found.

State Rep. Todd M. Smola, R-Palmer, said he will support the senator’s efforts because he finds the current policy “ridiculous.”

“I’m hoping Chief Justice Mulligan will intervene and set a reasonable policy,” he said. “The Environmental Police Officers are just like local officers and state police.”

Mr. Smola questioned whether forbidding Environmental Police Officers from carrying guns in court would help achieve the goal of fewer guns in court.

“It sounds a little hypocritical, because there are only about 100 Environmental Police officers in the entire commonwealth,” he said. “They’re such a small group.”

Environmental Police say they are also concerned because the weapons policy does not seem to be equally enforced in all courts. They said only courts under the control of Regional Assistant Director of Security Robin R. Yancey are affected. Ms. Yancy oversees facilities in Worcester County, Hampshire County and the courthouses in Marlboro, Framingham, Natick and Palmer.

While the Environmental Police are grateful for the support of legislators, Officer Loos’ case against Mr. Palley is slated for a pretrial hearing on Jan. 16 and it’s not likely any legislation would find its way to the governor’s desk before then.

Next thing you know, regular people will want to protect themselves.

 

[clinotus]

Thats beyond BS. I'm not even an officer but that makes me angry.

 

[M1911]

Typical urinary Olympics.

 

[Jaxon]

One cornerstone of freedom is that police are hired to provide a particular service to the public, not exist as a warrior class with special privileges beyond those actually required to do their job.

But I DO so miss being part of the warrior class.

 

[Len-2A Training]

But I DO so miss being part of the warrior class.

You mean that you miss spending all that time in the mirror putting on that warrior face makeup each day?

 

[Scrivener]

The officers on the list will no doubt disagree, but the more situations in which an officer is treated the same as a civilian, the better for civilian rights.

Agreed. The militarization of the police is one of the results of this "special treatment" and the trend is getting worse.

When I lived in FL, the state police disarmed when entering the courthouse and only those responsible for security in the building remained armed. Although only symbolic, the private citizen, and the officer, had the same rights when appearing before a judge to resolve a dispute.

This is true in some other courts also, so as to make the PO appear less intimidating and less superior to the mere civilian defendant (and, maybe, attorneys who don't carry....).

One cornerstone of freedom is that police are hired to provide a particular service to the public, not exist as a warrior class with special privileges beyond those actually required to do their job.

Hence the eternal question, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes or Who will police the police?

That said, if you carry a badge and are authorized to make arrests, you should carry a gun. Whether you are a trooper, EPO, local, or SPCA/Animal Control, you are dealing with people who break laws, often with impunity and complete disregard for those who enforce them.

Dress accordingly.

 

[Jaxon]

You mean that you miss spending all that time in the mirror putting on that warrior face makeup each day?

Damn skippy. And I looked GOOD too.

 

[dwarven1]

Damn skippy. And I looked GOOD too.

Sort of like this, O Warrior?

 

[Jaxon]

Sort of like this, O Warrior?

Yeah... sorta like that..... but better

 

[FITH]

I was

thinking more like this

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Tell me that an Amtrack Cop, or a Northeastern University Cop is less a PO than a cop in some podunk in Western Mass.

Railroadcops *were* less under the 1994-2004 ban, as the exemption only applied to "governmentally employed cops or those guarding nuclear facilities". I know a RR cop who ran this up through his commander and legal department, and even got an official BATF "no soup for you" ruling.

 

[Jaxon]

I was

thinking more like this

That actually looks more like you than moi.

 

[FITH]

come on...

 

[Jaxon]

come on...

 

[Jaxon]

The elitist pigs on beacon hill have no right to set themselves above the people who pay their salaries.

Well, sure they do. Isn't that the elitist pigs motto?

 

[rscalzo]

We the people can carry when at the statehouse in New Hampshire

Apparently you haven't seen the recent bill attempting to ban just that.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

We the people can carry when at the statehouse in New Hampshire. I see no reason why people should not be able to do the same in Massachusetts. The elitist pigs on beacon hill have no right to set themselves above the people who pay their salaries.

It used to be that way in MA as well. I remember sitting in the Gardner auditorium wondering if that room or Lew Hortons gunshop (formerly in Framingham, since closed) had more handguns.

 

[Windwalker]

Don't get me started on carrying at the state house or McCormack Building. A couple of us went through trying to at least get them to allow checking weapons for employees. It went nowhere. There is no law against it. It's controlled by policy, set by the Bureau of State Office Buildings, Director of Security.

 

[Knob Creek]

I thought the Env Police had State police powers.

 

[pdm]

I thought the Env Police had State police powers.

That doesn't stop others from looking down at them.

 

[clinotus]

I thought the Env Police had State police powers.

Yeah, I had mentioned this earlier in the thread and took some time to look it up. They have statewide jurisdiction, with full police powers AND jurisdiction of over all waterways and then 3 miles out from the coastline.

They also utilize planes, boats, and helicopters....

They are also responsible for and do: Hazmat, Hunters ED, Wildlife Management, Boating Safety, Search and Rescue, Coastal and Inland law enforcement plus the ability to enforce any MGL on the books.

 

[KMaurer]

Don't get me started on carrying at the state house or McCormack Building. A couple of us went through trying to at least get them to allow checking weapons for employees. It went nowhere. There is no law against it. It's controlled by policy, set by the Bureau of State Office Buildings, Director of Security.

Thankfully the nine years that I worked in the McCormack Building there was no official restriction on firearms and no metal detectors either there or in the State House. The only time I didn't carry was when I knew I was going to be visiting one of the college campuses on business that day. A few times I got blindsided and had to lock my desk before I left for a visit.

Ken