PDA

View Full Version : Is It Time for a National Police Force?



gare442
03-13-2008, 09:34 AM
Some fellow officers and I were discussing the pros and cons of having a national police force. I thought I'd throw it out to everyone for comments.

I'd like to see some of the pros and cons you guys come up with that we may have neglected to see.

mp1161
03-13-2008, 09:47 AM
Nope. Too much power, which could equal to some serious corruption that would be hard to ignore. I can already imagine the equivelant of a Coup d'état on a law enforcement level.

Each state has their own laws. It would defeat the purpose of State Police/Highway Patrol, and make it very difficult for officers to know every state's laws since they would have unlimited geographical and legal jurisdiction.

eman2k5
03-13-2008, 09:50 AM
Didnt we already talk about this ?

Mannix
03-13-2008, 09:55 AM
Some fellow officers and I were discussing the pros and cons of having a national police force. I thought I'd throw it out to everyone for comments.

I'd like to see some of the pros and cons you guys come up with that we may have neglected to see.

It's already been tried. Can you say KGB?:rolleyes:

LeanG
03-13-2008, 10:28 AM
Pros? You can transfer anywhere in the country

cons? EVERYTHING ELSE. I don't even know how they would be able to allocate man power without getting a community, or a city, or a state upset...

t150vsuptpr
03-13-2008, 11:59 AM
Is It Time for a National Police Force?

In a word, no.

Besides, the Constitution would stand squarely in the way. It's not a power vested with the federal government.

Sabre
03-13-2008, 12:02 PM
I think the FBI qualifies.

As far as a national police force enforcing State laws? Doesn't make sense.

Fuzz
03-13-2008, 12:02 PM
already been talked about months back. Not going to happen and not very many pros even if law was changed to make it possible

LA DEP
03-13-2008, 12:03 PM
Not only no, but **** NO. As someone already posted, can you say KGB?....or worse, SD?

DH21187
03-13-2008, 12:27 PM
The FBI is not a police force. They do not police. They, and other federal agents wear raid jackets that say "police" on them. That's only so people understand that they have the authority to do whatever they are doing during enforcement operations. It doesn't insinuate that they conduct policing.

Actually, if you read most state codes, they empower Federal LEOs as police officers in most states, but not all. In New York, Federal LEOs are give police status and can do anything a police officer can do. Some states specifically prohibit this as well.

I would prefer a national police force just for the ability to move around and more promotional opportunities. The bad part would be the low pay that would result.

Trempel
03-13-2008, 01:01 PM
Not only no, but **** NO. As someone already posted, can you say KGB?
KGB didn't deal with law enforcement. The "Militsiya", i.e. the Interior Ministry did. And they sucked at police work. Besides, we have laws that vary from state to state, from municipality to municipality. The locals handle local and state business. The feds in all their forms deal with enforcing federal laws. So I agree, there's no need for a huge bureaucracy of stupidity and inefficiency that would be created by some national police force.

Dingbat
03-13-2008, 01:23 PM
I cant think of a reason to need a national police force, every time the need arose the national guard would suit the purpose just fine.

LA DEP
03-13-2008, 01:35 PM
Didnt say the KGB dealt with LE....that is what a national police force COULD become though.....

I dont trust ANY govenment with that much power.....even one like ours....

Chit2001
03-13-2008, 02:02 PM
No, we don't and WON'T EVER "need" a national police force.

God help us the day they try to set that up...

As a few have stated above.... can you say "KGB"??

"YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE"

Ex Army MP
03-13-2008, 02:08 PM
Cons: Unconstitutional

Nuff said.

AvalancheZ71
03-13-2008, 02:08 PM
Oh yeah great idea. The congerssman with the most pull and pork would move around the officers the way he wants. Not to mention the other myriad of problems that this would create. This country was set up for the states to govern themselves with the central goverment to defend us and ensure commerce. Why would you want to strengthen the central government? This has been dicussed and debunked throughly. So you want to erase history?

ChrisF202
03-13-2008, 02:17 PM
National Police force - no.

Heavily armed paramilitary federal constabulary force under the Department of Defense with dual military and paramilitary police functions as the 6th branch of service well its LONG PAST TIME for that.

KapsFB
03-13-2008, 02:20 PM
That's all we need. Another huge Federal bureaucracy. Hasn't one recently been formed dubbed the Department of Homeland Security? And THAT's working out real well. Nipped that illegal immigration problem we had beforehand right in the bud didn't it?

pulicords
03-13-2008, 04:22 PM
Let's see......The only way a single, federal police agency is going to properly run things is if there's a single, federal legal system. We abolish all state, county and municipal laws, abolish all state, county and municipal legislative bodies (no need for those people anymore!) and do away with all local judicial authority too (only need federal judges).

Next we need to figure out is what agency this "super police department" is going to be modeled after. Gillette, Wyoming PD? Na. (Won't fly in San Francisco) Chicago, Illinois PD? No. (People in Los Angeles think they've got the world's finest PD system.) How about New Orleans PD! (People living in Beverly Hills, CA would probably expect a little more.)

If we ever did accomplish the above, does anyone really believe the agency would be responsive to the needs of it's local community? Would the "chief" even give a rat's *** about what the populace of Hobbs, NM thought of his appointee assigned to run that station?

This country has a proud history of diverse people, cultures, attitudes and law enforcement agencies that reflect them. We (cops) have a lot in common with our brothers and sisters across the nation, but a lot more in common with the citizens of the localities we live and police in. I can't see that changing, anymore than I can see the abolition of states. The U.S. constitution was created for a reason and seems to work pretty good from my perspective.

Yankee_1
03-13-2008, 04:41 PM
Hell no! I dont even want a metro police department let alone a federal one.

AvalancheZ71
03-13-2008, 04:45 PM
There is fear of creating state police agencies and now you want to create a national one now.

just joe
03-13-2008, 04:59 PM
Certainly not. That noise you hear is our Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves.

andy5746
03-13-2008, 08:27 PM
NO!

One thing about not having all your eggs in one basket is that it provides a good system of checks and balances. If we had a National or even State police force that did it all, I think it would be too easy for corruption to take hold and/or for the State or National government to pursue their interests over those of local small town governments. By keeping policing in the hands of the locals you insulate yourself from the "Big Brother" phenomenon, in my humble opinion.

Nationalizing/Federalizing the police would be the first step toward a complete loss of Liberty.

Fuzz
03-13-2008, 10:43 PM
Actually, if you read most state codes, they empower Federal LEOs as police officers in most states, but not all. In New York, Federal LEOs are give police status and can do anything a police officer can do. Some states specifically prohibit this as well.

I would prefer a national police force just for the ability to move around and more promotional opportunities. The bad part would be the low pay that would result.

Due to statute they may have police powers but they do not police. There is a big difference.

Limeade
03-13-2008, 11:46 PM
Absolutely horrible idea. I have to say, I'm incredibly pleased with how everyone "officers" are answering this question. Not many fields of employment would find it's members enthusiastically opposing the granting of more power to them. Kudos to the people with a brain.

metropd
03-14-2008, 02:08 AM
I actually had posted a thread along the lines a while ago. It makes perfect sense in a country with a unitary state as much of the world is. In some countries with a federal structure it would still be easier to create than in the USA because it is EXTREMLEY decentralized. From a logistical standpoint it would be very difficult to create. Not to mention the amount of training and education to know not only federal laws but every states law, plus how they would enforce non federal laws, manpower, the Interstate Commerce Clause.....many big obstacles.

For example in the Mexican federal system they have both National Police (Policia Federal Preventiva) the state police forces the municipal police and their equivalent to the FBI (Agencia Federal de Investigación)

The National Police are regarded as the most competent and by far the least corrupt of the Mexican law enforcement institutions.

By the way the KGB is not a national police force the national police force of Russia and the former U.S.S.R. is called the Militsiya. The KGB is now called FSB.

The FBI is not a National Police Force. Not only is that not their purpose but if you ask an FBI agent he will tell you they are not. The FBI is equivalent to Mexico’s Agencia Federal de Investigación or Russians FSB not the Policia Federal Preventiva or the Militsiya.

ford123
03-14-2008, 03:02 AM
What is wrong with the system we have now?

Why would we want to change it?

pulicords
03-14-2008, 02:53 PM
in the Mexican federal system they have both National Police (Policia Federal Preventiva) the state police forces the municipal police and their equivalent to the FBI (Agencia Federal de Investigación)

The National Police are regarded as the most competent and by far the least corrupt of the Mexican law enforcement institutions.


I guess with the influx of Mexican immigrants, it was bound to happen! We're talking about changing our organization of law enforcement to to something they're used to. What's next? :confused:

Gene L
03-14-2008, 03:01 PM
No no, but hell no.

ChrisF202
03-14-2008, 09:18 PM
That worked great in Germany 70 years ago - those dudes were competent, efficient, and looked dapper in those Hugo Boss duds. :rolleyes:

It would also be an even more egregious violation of the Constitution than a federal police force, and the founding fathers tossed in the Second Ammendment specifically so that such individuals could be shot, if need be....
READ CAREFULLY: The SS, Gestapo, KGB, Stasi, SAVAK, Kempetai, NKVD, <fill in name of dictatorial secret police> WERE NOT police forces in the traditional sense. They DID NOT handle routine police functions but were really more like expanded versions of the NSA without the limited power and authority.

Just because a country has a paramilitary police force DOES NOT mean they are a fascist right wing dictatorship. Are France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, Austria, etc dictatorships? The Swiss, the worlds only true democracy have a paramilitary Federal Police force ... but I guess they are a Nazi style dictatorship with black dressed men going "May I zee your vapers vleeze"

LA DEP
03-14-2008, 09:29 PM
I get your point....stop beating the very dead horse.....

and btw,,,,read a bit more on the Gestapo....they WERE a police force.....they were part of the SD, which was more of an itel agency as in your example.....

and we dont need or want EITHER in this country.....a national police force, or a paramilitary force......this country is divided enough....do we REALLY need/want 1861 all over again?......

Trempel
03-15-2008, 01:40 AM
National Police force - no.

Heavily armed paramilitary federal constabulary force under the Department of Defense with dual military and paramilitary police functions as the 6th branch of service well its LONG PAST TIME for that.
Like French gendarmes? Those guys are pretty impressive and I worked with a decent guy who was a former gendarme. Not a terrible organization, but I'm not sure if it would fit legally and otherwise within our country.

ArmouredSainT
03-15-2008, 02:18 PM
So what happens in 2010 when we all become the North American Union and create a new government with no constitution? :confused:
A national police force would probably be created then. A reorganization of three federal governments and local agencies amalgamated into something.:rolleyes:
Here in MT we're regulary fighting national ID and other rules with nulification clauses of the 10th amendement. Do away with the constitution and there no longer exists nulification rules.:mad:
I do not support a national police force but we're all ready on our way to it. It's a big ***** sandwich and we've all gotta take a bite. ;)

Fella
03-15-2008, 05:34 PM
After seeing the RCMPf@*^k up as much as they do and all of the crappy case law we get because of them I can say without hesitation, NO!!

PeteBroccolo
03-17-2008, 06:51 PM
After seeing the RCMPf@*^k up as much as they do and all of the crappy case law we get because of them I can say without hesitation, NO!!
Whoa back there, buddy! I was about to quote ArmouredSaint or Marky Mark until I saw THIS crap! I am not about to say that my outfit is perfect, but it is not quite THAT bad! OPP has been known for its own problems, or need I ask how are things going with the blockades lately?

Canada IS an example of one set of criminal laws that apply from coast to coast to coast to border where there IS a National AS WELL AS Provincial (kind-of-like a State, but NOT quite) and Municipal Police Service WITHOUT being totalitarian.

"Fella" is NOT someone to be looking to for the be-all-and-end-all information on Canada, NOR are Canadians about to throw all-in with the USA and Mexico to form a United Americas North as ArmouredSaint suggests.

ArkansasFan24
03-17-2008, 10:09 PM
What would they enforce?

ArkansasFan24
03-17-2008, 10:11 PM
Hmmm.. What if we had a roving band of officers that could enforce immigration, transportation, and environmental laws? They often go unenforced in many areas. :( I realize state and highway police enforce the transportation laws, but they're not always available and many locals don't want to. Immigration could be better enforced more inland, and no one is really out enforcing environmental laws. Just a thought.

FF Expl. Lt.
03-17-2008, 11:31 PM
http://planetsmilies.net/angry-smiley-17026.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)


THINK FIRST, BAD IDEA.

IMHO.

ateamer
03-17-2008, 11:43 PM
The only way a national police force would work is for local units to be absolutely flexible and change their operations and policies to meet local requirements - no national policy manual, but vary policy and procedures for each town, county or state. Basically, the federal government would provide the money and equipment, but the local communities and states would control the individual districts.

In other words, there is no way that a federal police force would work. That plus the fact that too many FBI types think that local officers are not as trustworthy as feds and are too close to the people they police. (Remember Waco - the ATF guys thought that when the sheriff offered to serve the warrant because he knew Koresh and could safely and low-key detain him when he went into town, he must be corrupt and part of the cult. Federal agencies such as ATF and FBI have no clue about local policing, and a national force would be the same way.) On top of that, as much of government as possible should be done at the lowest levels. Too many times the federal government has proven themselves to be bloated, slow, worshipful of mediocrity and incompetent.

equinox137
03-18-2008, 12:08 AM
The only way a national police force would work is for local units to be absolutely flexible and change their operations and policies to meet local requirements - no national policy manual, but vary policy and procedures for each town, county or state. Basically, the federal government would provide the money and equipment, but the local communities and states would control the individual districts.


The only way for a national police force to work in the US is to eliminate the states as political entities altogether, or make them into skeleton governments like the German states of Bavaria, Hesse, etc. There's no way a single agency could wade through the hodgepodge of the laws, codes, and statutes of 50 separate political entities. Since local and state governments would not be willing to cede their police powers to the federal government, it will never happen.

ateamer
03-18-2008, 12:11 AM
It would take a major rework of the Constitution for states to cede their powers to the federal government. I hope we never reach that day. Centralized federal government will be the bane of liberty, as if we weren't headed down that road already.

zeplin
03-18-2008, 12:41 AM
I thought we already had 2 National Police Forces.

The FBI and the BATFE.:eek::D:D:rolleyes:

ateamer
03-18-2008, 01:15 AM
Forever
Bothering
Italians

Always
Taking
Freedom

equinox137
03-18-2008, 04:26 AM
It would take a major rework of the Constitution for states to cede their powers to the federal government. I hope we never reach that day. Centralized federal government will be the bane of liberty, as if we weren't headed down that road already.

Actually, on that point, I might disagree. The states, with the largest criminal caseloads, also tend to be the biggest violators of civil rights/liberty in modern times, not the federal government.

equinox137
03-18-2008, 04:27 AM
I thought we already had 2 National Police Forces.

The FBI and the BATFE.

Read the rest of the thread. Those two agencies are not police forces.

Prussian
03-18-2008, 11:43 AM
[...] or make them into skeleton governments like the German states of Bavaria, Hesse, etc. [...]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.

I guess that you refer to the fact that the 'penal code' and the 'code of criminal procedure' are federal laws, not state laws. But you have to understand that the German system is different from the US system: the federal government is dominant in the legislative branch, the state governments are dominant in the executive (with the exception of foreign relations) and jurisdictional branch.

US states and German states have different sets of powers, but to say that German states are overall less powerful or even just "skeleton governments" is simply wrong.

Law Enforcement in Germany is a nearly exclusive state right, the three German federal LEOs would give an arm and a leg to have such far raging jurisdictions as the FBI, DEA, and the rest of the "alphabet soup."

There is no German "national police."

nogginbuster24
03-18-2008, 04:50 PM
it's about time. Seriously we should have a national police and also retain our own municipal forces.

ArkansasFan24
03-18-2008, 04:56 PM
Well, I thought my idea about immigration, transportation, and environmental law was good. Someone sure needs to.

zeplin
03-19-2008, 12:09 AM
Read the rest of the thread. Those two agencies are not police forces.

Yes I know they are not police forces.

I reckon a smiley face would have lent the necessary humor required.

Fella
03-19-2008, 01:43 AM
Whoa back there, buddy! I was about to quote ArmouredSaint or Marky Mark until I saw THIS crap! I am not about to say that my outfit is perfect, but it is not quite THAT bad! OPP has been known for its own problems, or need I ask how are things going with the blockades lately?

Canada IS an example of one set of criminal laws that apply from coast to coast to coast to border where there IS a National AS WELL AS Provincial (kind-of-like a State, but NOT quite) and Municipal Police Service WITHOUT being totalitarian.

"Fella" is NOT someone to be looking to for the be-all-and-end-all information on Canada, NOR are Canadians about to throw all-in with the USA and Mexico to form a United Americas North as ArmouredSaint suggests.

Yeah, you're right. I'm sorry. By the way, how's commissioner Zaccardelli. Oh right, he was uncerimoniously run out on a rail. And let me see........ where did R vs Feeney come from??? Oh right, ****ty RCMP work. What was the result of the Arar investigation???? Yep, nice work there. That was a bang up job on the Schrieber affair too. Ok, on second thought....I'm not sorry! I could write a book on this. And don't look to me to be the be-all-and-end-all information on Canada. Just google the things I mentioned and make your own mind up.

CUFFS137
03-19-2008, 02:00 AM
A ferderal highway patrol would work. They could work Federally funded interstate highways (U.S. Route ***). They could enforce moving violations which are fairly uniform throughout most states. Like the US Park Police, or other Federal 'special interest' PD's they could be cross designated to enforce state traffic and criminal statutes (on the federal highways) by simply attending a course in those laws in whatever states the officer is assigned to. This is a highway patrol force on federal highways, and not a police force that is conducting local policing, so the arguement against federalism is a mute point.
A department such as this would free up untold numbers of state, county, and local officers to work more on local roads, and in local areas.
It's feasable, but unlikely to ever happen.

ateamer
03-19-2008, 02:22 AM
It won't free up state officers to work on other problems. I can guarantee that the funds that would have gone to pay for state highway patrol officers would be rerouted to the federal highway patrol, so the state highway patrols will be cut far back in size.

11b101abn
03-19-2008, 04:50 PM
Perhaps we should nationalize Corrections, instead? It would make more sense than natinal police.

OPP2
03-19-2008, 08:59 PM
Yeah, you're right. I'm sorry. By the way, how's commissioner Zaccardelli. Oh right, he was uncerimoniously run out on a rail. And let me see........ where did R vs Feeney come from??? Oh right, ****ty RCMP work. What was the result of the Arar investigation???? Yep, nice work there. That was a bang up job on the Schrieber affair too. Ok, on second thought....I'm not sorry! I could write a book on this. And don't look to me to be the be-all-and-end-all information on Canada. Just google the things I mentioned and make your own mind up.

Pretty strong words. We in the OPP have made our share of mistakes as well. Don't forget that Caledonia rages on, does Ipperwash bring up any memories for you?

Careful which houses you throw stones at.

Fella
03-19-2008, 11:35 PM
Pretty strong words. We in the OPP have made our share of mistakes as well. Don't forget that Caledonia rages on, does Ipperwash bring up any memories for you?

Careful which houses you throw stones at.

I agree, you're correct. I shouldn't have gone at him as stronly as I did. However my initial post was correct. The RCMP is an example as to why a national police force wouldn't work. For starters the commissioner of the RCMP is a deputy minister. That puts the force into a conflict right off the bat. Policing is supposed to be free of political interference and police officers are supposed to be independant agents of the crown. We have seen numerous case's where RCMP investigations were either compromised or shut down prior to completion due to political interference.

RCMP officer's are prohibited by law from having an association to represent them. Setting the lower than average wages aside, how many young officer's have died or been injured because of poor management, policy or manpower?

There are more problem's than I could write about on a forum. The purpose of my post wasn't to criticize individual officer's of the RCMP but the systemic rot within the organisation. Further, the problem with having a national force like the RCMP taking on the responsibility of all policing is that their cookie cutter training wouldn't prepare their officer's to properly police all region's of Canada.

As for Ipperwash and Caledonia, Ipperwash was an example of government interference with policing and the need for a scapegoat. Caledonia is the knee jerk reaction of the judiciary and government. We know that if the law were to be enforced and someone got hurt that the government would be looking for a police scapegoat to crucify. Does that mean that we're in the same league as the RCMP? To a small degree perhaps, however our action's to date haven't cause any detrimental case law.

You may also have noticed the absence of my promoting the OPP as the organisation of choice to take over national policing duties. The point of my original post was to illustrate that a national police force wouldn't be the right option.

PeteBroccolo
03-20-2008, 11:15 AM
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police IS the National Police Service for Canada, dealing with a WIDE range of responsibilities and jurisdictions, some concurrent with other Canadian Federal (Canadian Border Services Agency, Canadian Wildlife Services, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Parks Canada Agency), Provincial (Ontario Provincial Police, Surete du Quebec, and the various commercial transport, wildlife / conservation / parks, revenue, liquor / gaming) and Municipal (Police, by-law) Law Enforcement Agencies, as well as support services (Forensic Lab, Fingerprint / Criminal Records, CPIC, Canadian Police College).

While we do have National policy, and a central Training Academy for Basic Cadet Training, we also have Divisional (Provincial) policy and Field Training programs, geared to fit the Provincial laws and direction of the Provincial Justice Departments, handled by senior investigators that have been in a Division, or that particular Detachment / Unit, for sometime, who are experienced with the Division / Province and that Detachment's / Unit's area. While it is not always smoothly run, I dare to say, from the comments that I have read here and on other forums, our Basic and Field Training programs, as well as in-service courses, are run as well, if not better, than the majority.

Yes, the RCMP is NOT allowed to be unionized, and yes, things are run somewhat differently while seated in our saddles than some Canadian, USA and other country's Police Services. However, while we are NOT the highest paid LEO/PO in Canada, and certainly not in the world, neither are we the worst. And yes, thank you, we DO ride on the coat-tails of the unionized Police Services of Canada, in that our Constable wage is based on a comparison to the average of the top 3 of 9 other Canadian PS' Cst wages, and rises almost automatically when those PS wages do. Of what I have read, and heard, the RCMP has better health and insurance coverage, both for our members and our families, than many other PS, Canadian or otherwise.

I am not saying that the RCMP is perfect - some of you already know my position in that regard. However, no one better make derogatory remarks about MY Force until they have worn the same kind of spurs as me and rode the same sort of trails, otherwise they are full of horse apples.

Anybody wanting to make political comments, go for it. I just work for them, but I will otherwise keep my comments to myself in that regards.

My apologies to our non-Canuck sister / brother LEO / PO that a North-of-the-49th urinary dischage concours d'inexcellence was played out in front of you. Please feel free to return to your regularly scheduled programming already in progress!

cst.sb
03-20-2008, 12:16 PM
I am not saying that the RCMP is perfect - some of you already know my position in that regard. However, no one better make derogatory remarks about MY Force until they have worn the same kind of spurs as me and rode the same sort of trails, otherwise they are full of horse apples.


Pretty strong words. We in the OPP have made our share of mistakes as well. Don't forget that Caledonia rages on, does Ipperwash bring up any memories for you?

Careful which houses you throw stones at.

Gentlemen, thank you for being the voice of reason.

The RCMP is far from perfect, but day in and day out, we put on our boots and do the best job we can with the tools we've been given.

What public doesn't hear about are the millions of successful interactions and files each year.

TX Heat
03-20-2008, 05:07 PM
People want their policing local. They don't want a big Federal Govt. bureaucracy.

OPP2
03-20-2008, 06:54 PM
psst...I'm a girl

PeteBroccolo
03-20-2008, 07:45 PM
psst...I'm a girl
I knew that, but I didn't want to bust cst.sb's chops over it.:D

That, plus you are always good to go to duke it out!;)

OPP2
03-20-2008, 10:13 PM
:o Now you've gone and made me blush..

zeplin
03-20-2008, 11:39 PM
Everytime the feds come up with a new program it is politicized making it pretty much inefficient. What is their solution, pour more money into it. Still doesn't work, pour more money into it. The feds ought to go back to school and get educated on how the founding fathers wanted things to be so that the feds power would be kept to a minimum.

equinox137
03-21-2008, 03:08 AM
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.

I guess that you refer to the fact that the 'penal code' and the 'code of criminal procedure' are federal laws, not state laws. But you have to understand that the German system is different from the US system: the federal government is dominant in the legislative branch, the state governments are dominant in the executive (with the exception of foreign relations) and jurisdictional branch.

US states and German states have different sets of powers, but to say that German states are overall less powerful or even just "skeleton governments" is simply wrong.

Law Enforcement in Germany is a nearly exclusive state right, the three German federal LEOs would give an arm and a leg to have such far raging jurisdictions as the FBI, DEA, and the rest of the "alphabet soup."


Apparently what I thought I knew about the issue is incorrect. Can you detail the differences between US states and German states in ref: police powers?



There is no German "national police."


Isn't that the Polizei that wear the green uniforms? If not, I will consider myself to have been educated, as I always thought that was the case when I lived there from 1994-1997.

equinox137
03-21-2008, 03:09 AM
Yes I know they are not police forces.

I reckon a smiley face would have lent the necessary humor required.

10/4....understood

Prussian
03-21-2008, 07:24 AM
[...]Can you detail the differences between US states and German states in ref: police powers?[...]

The way I see it (correct me if I'm wrong) law enforcement in the US is roughly:
Local government (counties/cities): most of the law enforcement happens on this level, i.e. the "normal cops" that show up when you dial 911 and who investigate most crimes; enforces mostly state laws plus local bylaws
State government: limited law enforcement (e.g. highway patrols and state investigation bureaus)
Federal government: limited law enforcement, but more than the state level; enforces federal law that has jurisdiction (due to e.g. the interstate commerce clause)

In Germany:
Local Government (municipalies/districts/cities): no law enforcement with sworn officers
State Government: most of the law enforcement happens on this level, i.e. the "normal cops" that show up when you dial 110 and who investigate most crimes; enforces federal criminal law, police powers defined by state laws
Federal government: limited law enforcement (border control, custom control, airports and sky marshals, open waters, trains and stations, treason/espionage/terrorism, security for federal assets, support for state LEOs)


[...]Isn't that the Polizei that wear the green uniforms? If not, I will consider myself to have been educated, as I always thought that was the case when I lived there from 1994-1997.[...]

Until roughly a decade ago all German uniformed law enforcement services wore green uniforms. The 16 state police services wore a standardized uniform only distinguishable by the state coat of arms on the badge, the border patrol and custom service different, but also green, uniforms.

Since then some of the state police forces and the "federal police" (a merger between the border patrol and the railway police) have switched to blue.

As a rule of thumb: any law enforcement officer you'd encountered neither at the border or airport nor in a train or train station was a state officer.

cst.sb
03-21-2008, 12:27 PM
psst...I'm a girl

Doh!!!

Sorry, I've been away for a while... :p

equinox137
03-21-2008, 04:55 PM
The way I see it (correct me if I'm wrong) law enforcement in the US is roughly:
Local government (counties/cities): most of the law enforcement happens on this level, i.e. the "normal cops" that show up when you dial 911 and who investigate most crimes; enforces mostly state laws plus local bylaws


Pretty much, except for local law enforcement is pretty much regulated by the state. Their access to NCIC is granted and audited by the state. Their officers are certified (and can have their certifications revoked for cause) by the state. Yes, they enforce local ordinances,



State government: limited law enforcement (e.g. highway patrols and state investigation bureaus)


Negative. State law enforcement operates under the same legal regulations as local law enforcement (i.e. cities and counties). If a state government law enforcement agency is limited to particular actions it is typically due to agency charter or policy, not state law. The generally have the ability to enforce local (city) ordinances as well.

For example, the State Patrol in my state is a full service LE agency and in some areas, the only LE agency.



Federal government: limited law enforcement, but more than the state level; enforces federal law that has jurisdiction (due to e.g. the interstate commerce clause)


That's pretty much correct except for that I wouldn't say they were "more than the state level", except for geographically. The alphabet agencies each have an area of US Code they are responsible for enforcing and are limited to that only, however some states recognize federal LEOs and authorize them to make arrest for violations of state statute (I believe NY is one of them).



In Germany:
Local Government (municipalies/districts/cities): no law enforcement with sworn officers
State Government: most of the law enforcement happens on this level, i.e. the "normal cops" that show up when you dial 110 and who investigate most crimes; enforces federal criminal law, police powers defined by state laws
Federal government: limited law enforcement (border control, custom control, airports and sky marshals, open waters, trains and stations, treason/espionage/terrorism, security for federal assets, support for state LEOs)

Until roughly a decade ago all German uniformed law enforcement services wore green uniforms. The 16 state police services wore a standardized uniform only distinguishable by the state coat of arms on the badge, the border patrol and custom service different, but also green, uniforms.

Since then some of the state police forces and the "federal police" (a merger between the border patrol and the railway police) have switched to blue.

As a rule of thumb: any law enforcement officer you'd encountered neither at the border or airport nor in a train or train station was a state officer.

Thanks for the explanation.

Ok, so using the German states was a bad example. Still, to make a national police force work in the United States, you'd still have to eliminate the states as political entites or severely weaken their political power. Because of that, the federal courts' caseload would multiply dramatically. In the end, what difference would that make? Because today's state judge would become tomorrow's federal judge.

Monty Ealerman
07-04-2008, 11:41 PM
Perhaps we should nationalize Corrections, instead? It would make more sense than natinal police.Maybe we should outsource Corrections to China.

Sarkis
07-05-2008, 12:16 AM
Isn't that what the Canadian RCMP is?

That being said, I don't want people to think I think there should be. Canada has their RCMP, but they do not have Provincial police agencies (at least here in Alberta they don't). It seems like they do the job that our state agencies do.

I personally (with no experience in LE, so I may have no idea what I'm talking about) think it is unnecessary, inefficient and economically not... well, not economical :D.

Someone mentioned KGB, in Armenia (I've been there a couple times) the KGB is exactly that.

sob153
07-05-2008, 02:02 AM
Actually, if you read most state codes, they empower Federal LEOs as police officers in most states, but not all. In New York, Federal LEOs are give police status and can do anything a police officer can do. Some states specifically prohibit this as well.

NYS grants FEDS the powers of Peace Officers. They are NOT designated Peace Officers. The difference is the FEDs are not required to be registered and therefore do not get a NYS Peace Officer Certificate from NYS POST...unless the NYSCPL 2.15 changed this

yellowreef
07-05-2008, 02:21 PM
Why are all these old threads being resurrected all of a sudden???????? :confused:

This thing died almost 4 months ago...

miami1987
07-20-2008, 04:35 PM
It won't free up state officers to work on other problems. I can guarantee that the funds that would have gone to pay for state highway patrol officers would be rerouted to the federal highway patrol, so the state highway patrols will be cut far back in size.

thats the point, then the smaller sized state patrols could work in high crime areas to add extra units to city PD's

miami1987
07-20-2008, 04:38 PM
A ferderal highway patrol would work. They could work Federally funded interstate highways (U.S. Route ***). They could enforce moving violations which are fairly uniform throughout most states. Like the US Park Police, or other Federal 'special interest' PD's they could be cross designated to enforce state traffic and criminal statutes (on the federal highways) by simply attending a course in those laws in whatever states the officer is assigned to. This is a highway patrol force on federal highways, and not a police force that is conducting local policing, so the arguement against federalism is a mute point.
A department such as this would free up untold numbers of state, county, and local officers to work more on local roads, and in local areas.
It's feasable, but unlikely to ever happen.

this makes a lot more sense. and is feasable. Mexico has the same system, the federal highway police which was part of former PFP (i believe). and each state has their own state police, but they work alongside local police in the cities and maybe some outlying areas. good idea.

mac266
07-20-2008, 08:19 PM
No friggin' way. I'll fight that one tooth, claw, and nail if it ever comes up.

Monkeybomb
07-20-2008, 08:24 PM
this makes a lot more sense. and is feasable. Mexico has the same system, the federal highway police which was part of former PFP (i believe). and each state has their own state police, but they work alongside local police in the cities and maybe some outlying areas. good idea.

You really think we should model Law enforcement in the U.S. after Mexico? LOL that is priceless.

Mrs. Hoppes
07-20-2008, 08:30 PM
I don't see how this would work either.

Locally speaking, we are strange in how jurisdiction works.

Our local town is NG. But because we are rural and choose to have a mailbox instead of a PO Box, our mailing address to our home is WTH. But, the WTH police have no jurisdiction here and NG does not have a police force. (NG has a population of 47. We have more chickens than we do people.) Criminal activity (as if there is any) is handled by the Sheriff's Dep't which for us is not a big deal since Lt. Mike lives two houses down. That's only 1/2 mile or so. We bring him fresh eggs and goat milk on occasion.

Seeleyville is the same way. They are their own town and have their own sign stating that you have arrived in Seeleyville (they have considerably more people than NG) but because of some strange mailing thing if they do not have a PO Box, they are considered and counted with Terre Haute. Yet, the THPD has no jurisdiction. Everything is handled by the Sheriff's Dept.

equinox137
07-21-2008, 12:31 AM
Your local town is NG? :confused:

Mrs. Hoppes
07-21-2008, 08:14 AM
New Goshen is the name of the town. WTH is West Terre Haute.