swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,694
|
Post by swamp on Jan 23, 2014 14:49:13 GMT -5
So, if you were out on patrol and saw somebody from the FBI most wanted list you couldn't arrest them unless you also witnessed them breaking some county ordinance? That doesn't sound right. Yes, they can arrest them if they know there is a warrant for them.
They arrest, hold, and notify the arresting agency. If it's interstate, the DA has to extradite.
|
|
vandalshandle
Senior Member
Never give a sucker an even break, or smarten up a chump...
Joined: Oct 12, 2011 20:34:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,005
|
Post by vandalshandle on Jan 23, 2014 15:31:36 GMT -5
So, if you were out on patrol and saw somebody from the FBI most wanted list you couldn't arrest them unless you also witnessed them breaking some county ordinance? That doesn't sound right. I have over simplified law enforcement authority. I did some research, and discovered that each state is different in that respect. Here, for example, is the policies in place in the state of Washington: www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=6040In that state, the county sheriff can trump a municipal police chief, if he determines that such law enforcment authority in the municipality is not being enfoced. In Washington State, the sheriff also have authority to enforce state laws. These powers are much broader than they are here in AZ. We are told not to even take our vehicles into a municipality, on pain of censure. As for the federal laws, we are under instruction that these are absolutely outside of our jurisdiction, just as the FBI has no authority regarding state laws, except for special circumstances, like crimes involving the crossing of state lines, and kidnapping. The kidnapping authority given to the FBI was specificly legislated after the Lindburg kidnapping in 1932. When civil rights activists were murdered in Misissippi in the early 1960's, and the murderers were acquited in state court, the feds could only charge them with violating the activists civil rights, which is a Constitutional authority given to the feds. If Sheriff Joe sees a hispanic with a missing license plate, he can pull him over, and arrest him, and notify federal authorities that he is in custody for driving without a plate, and no citizenship documentation. If he sees a hispanic and says to himself, "I bet that guy is an illegal alien", and pulls him over for no other reason, he is racial profiling. Joe does a LOT of racial profiling. As for arresting someone who has a warrant out for him from another jurisdication, you are correct, they can arrest them. However, they can not prosecute them, and extradition proceedings must take place. I did not go into that, because it is far removed from what Sheriff Joe is in trouble for. |
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Jan 23, 2014 22:08:00 GMT -5
One of the things that Sheriff Joe does not want to do but has been ordered to do is.
Drum roll please
When one of his deputies pulls over some one, they now are suppose to state the reason that they pulled over for to the dispatcher.
Like they were speeding, crossed the double line etc.
Joe said that will take to long and cost $39 million.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448 
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 23, 2014 22:58:12 GMT -5
One of the things that Sheriff Joe does not want to do but has been ordered to do is. Drum roll please When one of his deputies pulls over some one, they now are suppose to state the reason that they pulled over for to the dispatcher. Like they were speeding, crossed the double line etc. Joe said that will take to long and cost $39 million. Even something as elementary as that could cause issues, though. Firstly, what do the deputies do now? Do they make a written record? Would an additional report to the dispatcher be superfluous? Is the dispatcher always available at a moment's notice? Is tying up the channel with frequent reports a hazard such that additional channels and dispatchers would need to be hired to handle the extra com traffic? When the reports are made, what kind of detail is needed? Is somebody required at the dispatch end to type up 20 words? 50 words? 100 words? Does the database software used by the police have to be amended to handle frequent incoming records of traffic stops--many of which would result in no arrests, police action, etc.? How many additional staffers would need to be hired on to facilitate the additional function of the dispatch as a reporting service? Finally, what is the purpose of the reporting? To ensure that deputies don't pull over vehicles spuriously? What's to stop the deputies from simply making something up? The car was speeding. The car swerved out of it's lane. The driver gave police the finger, which is stunting. The vehicle license plate was partially covered in mud. Or any one of a million other plausible excuses. If investigators sifted through the database during profiling claims, how on Earth would they determine if the reasons given were legitimate or not? I don't buy the $39 million figure, but I do buy that this protocol would be an expensive pain in the neck, and wouldn't accomplish anything but wasting officers' time. If you see it as accomplishing something useful, by all means share your theories on how. |
|
vandalshandle
Senior Member
Never give a sucker an even break, or smarten up a chump...
Joined: Oct 12, 2011 20:34:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,005
|
Post by vandalshandle on Jan 23, 2014 23:40:18 GMT -5
One of the things that Sheriff Joe does not want to do but has been ordered to do is. Drum roll please When one of his deputies pulls over some one, they now are suppose to state the reason that they pulled over for to the dispatcher. Like they were speeding, crossed the double line etc. Joe said that will take to long and cost $39 million. In the county I live in in AZ, all deputies radio in the reason that they are pulling people over. For one thing, it lets the 10-100 (supervisor) know what is going on, so that he can be sure to remain on top of the situation. For example, he is going to be especially diligent about following the process by radio of a deputy who is pulling over a suspected bank robber, rather than a dputy who is pulling someone over for a broken tail light. I am sure that they also do it to be in compliance with federal prohibitions against racial profiling. |
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Jan 24, 2014 9:59:53 GMT -5
When they make a stop, they are already calling in the plate # they now have to state a reason, Like "Speeding"
Is this going to make any difference to the deputy that just spotted the old car with 7 brown people in it, from stopping it?
It just means that now that car has a broken license plate bulb in the middle of the day.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 24, 2024 20:45:11 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2014 11:58:12 GMT -5
I think that federal judge needs to spend a couple of months on patrol in a Maricopa County sheriffs patrol car. Once that reality is firmly ensconced into his head, he should revisit his ruling.
|
|
