Pulled over last night - carrying

[Fallguy]

Heck with that citizen’s arrest stuff. Citizens don’t have qualified immunity; cops do. Do Tennessee Police Officers have no duty to act outside their local jurisdiction?

I just find this very interesting; I come from a whole different set of rules.

If a gas meter reader is employed by City A, he doesn't read gas meters in City B.

Why would be different for police officers? They are employed by certain city to enforce the laws and city ordnances within that city...not to cover the state. The POST commission may come from the state, but they are still employed by a certain city.

...and I guess it is different from state to state. My sister-in-law went through the academy in Michigan, although she wasn't employed by or sponsored by any agency. (In TN you must be employed or sponsored by some agency to go through, one difference) When she graduated she has met all the qualifications for the state of Michigan, but until she was employed by an agency, she had no Police Powers.

[Fallguy]

Here is a case you may want to read http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/coxpaulleonopn.pdf

A TVA officer stopped someone about 8 miles from TVA property (he was on his way home). The case was dismissed because he did not have authority and the appellate court affirmed the trial courts decision on appeal by the state.

The reason that even a citizens arrest wasn't allowed in the case is because the appeal didn't contain the reason for the stop, so the appellate court couldn't determine if it was justified.

[DaveTN]

If a gas meter reader is employed by City A, he doesn't read gas meters in City B.

Really? Did you really just type that?

Why would be different for police officers? They are employed by certain city to enforce the laws and city ordnances within that city...not to cover the state. The POST commission may come from the state, but they are still employed by a certain city.

...and I guess it is different from state to state. My sister-in-law went through the academy in Michigan, although she wasn't employed by or sponsored by any agency. (In TN you must be employed or sponsored by some agency to go through, one difference) When she graduated she has met all the qualifications for the state of Michigan, but until she was employed by an agency, she had no Police Powers.

That’s a valid argument; one that the state legislators obviously agree with.

My job in a medium sized city required me to go to local small towns to make arrests for crimes committed in our city. We would notify the locals we were coming; sometimes they would meet us, sometimes not. We had full Police powers 24 hours a day anywhere in our state. We didn’t go patrol or enforce traffic in other cities, but we did need to go there on investigations or to make arrests.

Why should it be? If I’m a cop out of my jurisdiction and I see a serious crime I need to act on; I want full authority and everything that comes with it. If I’m killed stopping an attack on an innocent citizen I want my family to have the survivor benefits and pension the same as what they would get if I were killed in the line of duty (We had that). I would want the same access to legal representation I would have if I were acting in my city (We had that). If acting in good faith I would want the same qualified immunity I would have while acting in my city (We had that).

We had those things because we took an oath and had a duty to act. Our state recognized that we could not stand by and watch while a serious crime was being committed and gave us the tools so we didn’t have to.

Yes, you had to be employed as a full time Police Officer and certified by the state. No, we didn’t go getting involved in minor incidents in other jurisdictions. But when we had to act; the state had our back.

[DaveTN]

Here is a case you may want to read http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/coxpaulleonopn.pdf

A TVA officer stopped someone about 8 miles from TVA property (he was on his way home). The case was dismissed because he did not have authority and the appellate court affirmed the trial courts decision on appeal by the state.

The reason that even a citizens arrest wasn't allowed in the case is because the appeal didn't contain the reason for the stop, so the appellate court couldn't determine if it was justified.

The state made the argument the Officer was justified and had authority. The case was dismissed on a technicality because the PC for the stop was not listed. Because of that oversight a drunk driver walked. I bet if you ask that Officer if he would stop another drunk weaving in the roadway he will tell you yes.

I commend him for what he did; he may well have saved lives. It’s too bad that being a Federal agent and not a Police Officer of the state was needed to justify what he did. Short sightedness on the part of the state don’t you think?

[Fallguy]

Really? Did you really just type that?

Yeah I did...

That’s a valid argument; one that the state legislators obviously agree with.

My job in a medium sized city required me to go to local small towns to make arrests for crimes committed in our city. We would notify the locals we were coming; sometimes they would meet us, sometimes not. We had full Police powers 24 hours a day anywhere in our state. We didn’t go patrol or enforce traffic in other cities, but we did need to go there on investigations or to make arrests.

Why should it be? If I’m a cop out of my jurisdiction and I see a serious crime I need to act on; I want full authority and everything that comes with it. If I’m killed stopping an attack on an innocent citizen I want my family to have the survivor benefits and pension the same as what they would get if I were killed in the line of duty (We had that). I would want the same access to legal representation I would have if I were acting in my city (We had that). If acting in good faith I would want the same qualified immunity I would have while acting in my city (We had that).

We had those things because we took an oath and had a duty to act. Our state recognized that we could not stand by and watch while a serious crime was being committed and gave us the tools so we didn’t have to.

Yes, you had to be employed as a full time Police Officer and certified by the state. No, we didn’t go getting involved in minor incidents in other jurisdictions. But when we had to act; the state had our back.

The law allows a city officer to serve city warrants anywhere in the county that city is located and a few other things...it is the codes just before and after the one I cited above.

AFAIK you have no "legal" duty to act when you are outside your jurisdiction. If you choose to...then you are doing so on your own and not with the backing of the agency you are employed with.

[Fallguy]

The state made the argument the Officer was justified and had authority. The case was dismissed on a technicality because the PC for the stop was not listed. Because of that oversight a drunk driver walked. I bet if you ask that Officer if he would stop another drunk weaving in the roadway he will tell you yes.

I commend him for what he did; he may well have saved lives. It’s too bad that being a Federal agent and not a Police Officer of the state was needed to justify what he did. Short sightedness on the part of the state don’t you think?

The state appealed for two reasons...that the officer had authority...but that even if he didn't, he could use a citizens arrest.

The trial court dismissed the case because it said the officer did not have authority and the appellate court affirmed that ruling.

The "appeal" did not address the authority of using a citizens arrest because the PC was not listed, so the appellate court didn't rule on that.

But to me it was fairly clear that that both the trial court and appellate court felt that he was outside of his jurisdiction and therefore did not have police powers.

I don't think it is short sided at all....just because you are a LEO for City A doesn't mean you should be running around all over the state enforcing laws.

[DaveTN]

The state appealed for two reasons...that the officer had authority...but that even if he didn't, he could use a citizens arrest.

The trial court dismissed the case because it said the officer did not have authority and the appellate court affirmed that ruling.

The "appeal" did not address the authority of using a citizens arrest because the PC was not listed, so the appellate court didn't rule on that.

But to me it was fairly clear that that both the trial court and appellate court felt that he was outside of his jurisdiction and therefore did not have police powers.

I don't think it is short sided at all....just because you are a LEO for City A doesn't mean you should be running around all over the state enforcing laws.

So when you are in a marked Police vehicle, as the TVA Officer was, you think he should just stand by and watch while a drunk weaves all over the roadway? Maybe he can call for a local cop and they will get there before the drunk kills a family in a head-on accident…. maybe not.

If one of your kids was getting the crap beat out of them by some gang bangers and you found out that a Metro cop had called 911, was standing by willing and ready to act, but did not act because he had no authority… you would be good with that?

I guess the good news is that most cops would act, even though their legislators have needlessly tied their hands.

[Fallguy]

So when you are in a marked Police vehicle, as the TVA Officer was, you think he should just stand by and watch while a drunk weaves all over the roadway? Maybe he can call for a local cop and they will get there before the drunk kills a family in a head-on accident…. maybe not.

I didn't say that...he probably should call a local cop too though. Also I'd be willing to wager had the appeal contained the PC for the stop, the appellate court would have let it stand as a citizens arrest.

If one of your kids was getting the crap beat out of them by some gang bangers and you found out that a Metro cop had called 911, was standing by willing and ready to act, but did not act because he had no authority… you would be good with that?

Nothing is keeping him from acting if he wants to, just like any other citizen can act if they want to. He has all the authority as a private citizen he needs. He just doesn't have any special immunity...which as long as he doesn't do anything unlawful, he shouldn't need.

I guess the good news is that most cops would act, even though their legislators have needlessly tied their hands.

I agree most probably would...I still don't see how their hands are tied....

[DaveTN]

I didn't say that...he probably should call a local cop too though. Also I'd be willing to wager had the appeal contained the PC for the stop, the appellate court would have let it stand as a citizens arrest.

Nothing is keeping him from acting if he wants to, just like any other citizen can act if they want to. He has all the authority as a private citizen he needs. He just doesn't have any special immunity...which as long as he doesn't do anything unlawful, he shouldn't need.

I agree most probably would...I still don't see how their hands are tied....

If he gets killed helping someone does his family get the benefits of a cop killed in the line of duty? If he gets sued does his department’s legal take his case?

Qualified immunity is not for someone that does something unlawful. Sure he shouldn’t need it; neither should a citizen acting in good faith, but since I don’t have it as a citizen it is one powerful factor in making a decision on whether I call 911 and be a good witness, or get involved. Cops aren’t perfect, they make mistakes. And sometimes they don’t make mistakes; that’s just how the courts rule. That’s why qualified immunity exists.

No Police Officer within his own state should ever have to worry about getting involved in saving lives or stopping a crime simply because of a city or county line. It’s ridiculous, I laughed when I first saw it because I thought it was a joke.

[Fallguy]

If he gets killed helping someone does his family get the benefits of a cop killed in the line of duty? If he gets sued does his department’s legal take his case?

My guess would be no on both counts. Although I don't know exactly who pays the benefits for killed in the line of duty, so it may depend. You point something else out though...why should Metro's legal department cover the actions of one their officers while he's in Memphis?

Qualified immunity is not for someone that does something unlawful. Sure he shouldn’t need it; neither should a citizen acting in good faith, but since I don’t have it as a citizen it is one powerful factor in making a decision on whether I call 911 and be a good witness, or get involved. Cops aren’t perfect, they make mistakes. And sometimes they don’t make mistakes; that’s just how the courts rule. That’s why qualified immunity exists.

Yeah...I didn't say exactly what I meant there. I understand what you are saying...

No Police Officer within his own state should ever have to worry about getting involved in saving lives or stopping a crime simply because of a city or county line. It’s ridiculous, I laughed when I first saw it because I thought it was a joke.

I still don't understand why you think a a Police Officer working for a specific agency should have the police powers that are granted him by the fact he is employed by that agency all over the state? They are not state officers (except THP and TBI of course) they are officer of a certain city.

No disrespect to any small town officers...but if you would have some I've seen, know and used to work with...I'm not sure you'd want them running around Nashville thinking they were just like Metro. I'd also be willing to say that Metro doesn't want them to and even more so that their mayor, city attorney etc... doesn't want them to.

[DaveTN]

You point something else out though...why should Metro's legal department cover the actions of one their officers while he's in Memphis?

They shouldn’t, Memphis or the state should. But I really couldn’t care less that pays if they were acting in a role that one of those cities Officers would have covered. Our cities attorneys were only involved in the preliminary stages of any incident involving an Officer. Private attorneys that specialize in their field were hired if the city attorneys determined if there was a case. I really don’t know if the city or the state paid for that.

I still don't understand why you think a a Police Officer working for a specific agency should have the police powers that are granted him by the fact he is employed by that agency all over the state? They are not state officers (except THP and TBI of course) they are officer of a certain city.

I’m not suggesting that anyone run around anywhere outside their city and act like anything. I’m saying that if fate has put an off duty cop in the middle of a serious crime, it shouldn’t matter what department he works for and no one should have to die because of it….. It’s ridiculous.

The fact that a drunk driver is 2 miles outside a city limit and an Officer from that city happens to be returning to the city and sees him and can’t legally (because of course most will act) do anything is also ridiculous.

No disrespect to any small town officers...but if you would have some I've seen, know and used to work with...I'm not sure you'd want them running around Nashville thinking they were just like Metro. I'd also be willing to say that Metro doesn't want them to and even more so that their mayor, city attorney etc... doesn't want them to.

I don’t care what the Mayor of Metro or the Chief of Police wants, and neither should our legislators when it comes to protecting citizens. I bet if your son or daughter was being attacked in East Nashville they wouldn’t care if the badge said “Metro†or “Murfreesboroâ€, if it caused the attack to stop. And it would change your opinion entirely.

I know several “big city†street cops that have retired to a small town cop job that I would rather have with me when SHTF over a TBI agent.

We have turned into a candy azz society that is more worried about getting sued or who is paying the bill than standing up for what’s right.

[Guest akforty7]

in tenn if you're auto tags are in the same name on you're ccw permit,the police will know you have a ccw when they run you're tag number!

[TMF]

in tenn if you're auto tags are in the same name on you're ccw permit,the police will know you have a ccw when they run you're tag number!

Nope.

[Fallguy]

They shouldn’t, Memphis or the state should. But I really couldn’t care less that pays if they were acting in a role that one of those cities Officers would have covered. Our cities attorneys were only involved in the preliminary stages of any incident involving an Officer. Private attorneys that specialize in their field were hired if the city attorneys determined if there was a case. I really don’t know if the city or the state paid for that.

Memphis or the state didn't hire the officer and isn't responsible for their actions, why should they possibly be held liable for them?

Even if it was done through private attorneys as you suggest...some smaller cities may not have that in their budget because there officer was in Memphis and decided to act on his own.

I’m not suggesting that anyone run around anywhere outside their city and act like anything. I’m saying that if fate has put an off duty cop in the middle of a serious crime, it shouldn’t matter what department he works for and no one should have to die because of it….. It’s ridiculous.

The fact that a drunk driver is 2 miles outside a city limit and an Officer from that city happens to be returning to the city and sees him and can’t legally (because of course most will act) do anything is also ridiculous.

He can legally act as I've said, he just has no duty to. You yourself have said that they would go around enforcing everything everywhere...so if they can pick and choose...then they for sure have no duty, right? If the have no duty then they basically don't have the privileges or immunity that come with a duty to act.

I don’t care what the Mayor of Metro or the Chief of Police wants, and neither should our legislators when it comes to protecting citizens. I bet if your son or daughter was being attacked in East Nashville they wouldn’t care if the badge said “Metro” or “Murfreesboro”, if it caused the attack to stop. And it would change your opinion entirely.

I know several “big city” street cops that have retired to a small town cop job that I would rather have with me when SHTF over a TBI agent.

We have turned into a candy azz society that is more worried about getting sued or who is paying the bill than standing up for what’s right.

The reason I mention the Chief of Police and Mayor is they are the ones responsible for the officer and the city. If they had to pay a large some to defend the actions of one their officers or pay out a judgment when he acted outside of jurisdiction....there would be a lot of questions to answer..

If something was happening to my son/daughter in east Nashville I wouldn't care if someone had LEO badge, HCP badge, no badge was the King of England or a homeless guy on the street if they could stop it great...if they thought they could stop the attack and didn't...I'd be upset.

I agree on former big city cop to TBI agent.

I also agree the threats of lawsuits is a big problem in this country period. Also I'm all for doing the right thing, but I'm not sure that means I want every officer in the state acting as an officer all over the state.

[Fallguy]

in tenn if you're auto tags are in the same name on you're ccw permit,the police will know you have a ccw when they run you're tag number!

That is incorrect.

Your DL number and HCP number are the same.

When an officer checks your tags your DL/HCP info doesn't automatically come up.

[strickj]

T.C.A. 6-54-301

I also still have a copy of the email from the instructor at the Law Enforcement Academy if you want me to repost it.

Then explain to me how Chattanooga PD works in surrounding cities then. Sometimes they even work in GA.

[Fallguy]

Then explain to me how Chattanooga PD works in surrounding cities then. Sometimes they even work in GA.

AFAIK nothing prevents an officer from being employed by more than one agency.

Or they may have a mutal aid agreement per 6-54-307

Also there is such a thing as "Special Deputies" as in 8-8-212