Is this illegal?

[CalBoy]

The college having its own dedicated force is more so needs are met in a much more timely fashion.

If it lets say the city police doing it. The City police would not really have to listen to anything the college says because it isn't he city not the college signing their paychecks.

I don't buy that. Sorry, but it's a lame argument. Police forces don't care who signs their paychecks; they mostly care about doing there jobs. If campuses had a dedicated staff of officers, it would be just as effective as a seperate police force that is designated as "campus police." There could be stations located on campus in order to ensure rapid response time.

Most large universities have a dedicated police department with full legal authority as mentioned earlier in this thread. They are comparable to a municipal police department, but, as also mentioned, the area police have jurisdiction over campus as well.

We weren't really discussing whether the city's police had jurisdiction, we were discussin whether or not the officers of a campus are "real" officers compared to state or municipal officers. Whether or not they are "comparable" isn't really relevant, as US marshalls are "comparable" to police as well; the fact is, US marshalls and state troopers have very different duties.

CalBoy is sorta right... At least for us at SIU... SIU officers can't respond to off campus calls and local and state authorities don't come on to campus unless absolutely necessary.

No, I was wrong. What JohnNotBeatle was saying was that campus police forces are in fact "real" police. They are given the power to arrest, hold a firearm, etc. They are in fact equal to any municipal officer. The only difference is that their jurisdiction is restricted to a campus as opposed to a whole city/town.

 

[abijnk]

No, I was wrong. What JohnNotBeatle was saying was that campus police forces are in fact "real" police. They are given the power to arrest, hold a firearm, etc. They are in fact equal to any municipal officer. The only difference is that their jurisdiction is restricted to a campus as opposed to a whole city/town.

Hence the "sorta" part. My uncle was a campus cop here back in the day, and from what I understand (and this could just be Illinois) but they don't have as much "power" as a city cop would. But I could be wrong about that too

 

[CalBoy]

Hence the "sorta" part. My uncle was a campus cop here back in the day, and from what I understand (and this could just be Illinois) but they don't have as much "power" as a city cop would. But I could be wrong about that too

Well I'm sure they have all the normal powers (arrest, command traffic, etc). I'm also pretty sure that if you disobey one, you can be jailed for resisting police authority.

 

[abijnk]

Well I'm sure they have all the normal powers (arrest, command traffic, etc). I'm also pretty sure that if you disobey one, you can be jailed for resisting police authority.

oh, for sure...


So, back on the OT, does anyone know of a city/state/etc where this is in fact illegal? I would be curious to know...

 

[CalBoy]

So, back on the OT, does anyone know of a city/state/etc where this is in fact illegal? I would be curious to know...

Yes, let's get back on topic huh?

I'm sure that certain rules still apply, even if it is private property. For example, I doubt that you could speed beyond 25mph in a parking lot, as it's a road that's heavily populated with pedestrians. Other provisions must also apply (yielding to a fire engine/ambulance).

 

[Rodimus Prime]

I don't buy that. Sorry, but it's a lame argument. Police forces don't care who signs their paychecks; they mostly care about doing there jobs. If campuses had a dedicated staff of officers, it would be just as effective as a seperate police force that is designated as "campus police." There could be stations located on campus in order to ensure rapid response time.

You forget one thing. The city does care. To them the police on the campus would just be a drain on their resources. I also might like to point out that the one on the campus would pretty much be function the exact same way as the current campus police does. Means they really have nothing to with city matters and only campus matters. The other city police would not really go into campus it would let the dedicated campus police from the city handle it So it still come down to basically 2 separated police forces. Just if the city is paying the bill the city gets to make the calls on how many cops, who they hire and what equipment they get.

I can promise you the colleges would not like that. They want control over how many cops they want/need and they determine what is best. They do not want to be at the mercy of the city. Add in the city could pull alway the officers very easy if they need something off campus grounds. Colleges are not going to like that.

Last as I point out before hand a lot of times the city the college is in can not afford to supply the officers it needs. Cities already struggle to meet the 1:1000 ratio right now much less having to deal with the extra 30k at the college.

So putting it all under the city does not change the cost (might make it more expensive) still causes to separated police forces and the college loses almost all control over it.

I think the system in place now where the colleges have their own police force is better just because the one in need of the extra police are the same one paying the bills for it. No fighting over city funds and everything else.

Hence the "sorta" part. My uncle was a campus cop here back in the day, and from what I understand (and this could just be Illinois) but they don't have as much "power" as a city cop would. But I could be wrong about that too

Oh they have all the normal powers. Only difference is when they arrest some one they have to call the city police to come in and take them off to jail house and they are charged with a crime violating city law.

 

[CalBoy]

Last as I point out before hand a lot of times the city the college is in can not afford to supply the officers it needs. Cities already struggle to meet the 1:1000 ratio right now much less having to deal with the extra 30k at the college.

So putting it all under the city does not change the cost (might make it more expensive) still causes to separated police forces and the college loses almost all control over it.

I think the system in place now where the colleges have their own police force is better just because the one in need of the extra police are the same one paying the bills for it. No fighting over city funds and everything else.

Ok, I'll buy that. For certain cities it can be hard. Why can't all y'all have high property costs like the Bay Area?

Oh they have all the normal powers. Only difference is when they arrest some one they have to call the city police to come in and take them off to jail house and they are charged with a crime violating city law.

See, that's interesting. Why would they have to have the city police process them? It seems like the campus police are like "honorary" police, no?

 

[GoodWatch]

Without trying to be rude, how in the hell could this be illegal?

Hear, hear! Sometimes you Brits are very sensible But it is a non issue. So sue me

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Ok, I'll buy that. For certain cities it can be hard. Why can't all y'all have high property costs like the Bay Area?


See, that's interesting. Why would they have to have the city police process them? It seems like the campus police are like "honorary" police, no?

They reason they can not process them is because general college lack well the jail cells to handle them along with they are going to be charge with a city crime and ticket since they are still with in the city limits. It is a lot like when a state troop pulls over some one and arrested them. The ticket is normally always going to be to the city/ county they are in and if they arrested some one they are general going to call the local PD to take care of them.

 

[JNB]

On the OT: In most of the US, what happens on private property is not subject to civil enforcement (though infractions and civil suits may still arise). Criminal laws cross property boundaries, and peace officers may enforce and arrest without regard to property boundaries. Parking, most collisions, traffic laws, etc., are for the most part civil, and as such not normally within the authority of sworn officers to directly enforce.

On the campus police sidetrack: You have to see how the officers are sworn in your state. In California, the UC (University of California) Police are state police (just like the CHP and CA State Police), having jurisdictional authority within the entire state. Others, even within a single state, may have differing jurisdictional or arrest power. As per usual, YMMV.

It seems like the campus police are like "honorary" police, no?

Only Elvis was "honorary." All the others are as real as they come.

 

[joeshell383]

We weren't really discussing whether the city's police had jurisdiction, we were discussin whether or not the officers of a campus are "real" officers compared to state or municipal officers. Whether or not they are "comparable" isn't really relevant, as US marshalls are "comparable" to police as well; the fact is, US marshalls and state troopers have very different duties.

I realize that. That is the point I am making. They are "real" police officers and have the full powers that a municipal police department does.

 

[Leskitch]

Okay, I have a stupid question about driving. Say you're in a parking lot and you see a spot. You pull in, and the spot in front of it is also open. So, you pull through the open spot you first saw and park in the one in front. Is this illegal? I was in a debate with someone about it.

[doublepost=1525114813][/doublepost]Don’t know about all states, but I think the problem comes in with law enforcement not being able to see tags.

 

[C DM]

[doublepost=1525114813][/doublepost]Don’t know about all states, but I think the problem comes in with law enforcement not being able to see tags.

Well, that's an "interesting" thread resurrection over a decade later.

 

[Strider64]

This reminds of the time I was going to college and drove to school with a friend. As he went to park he parked his car on the grass. I said you're going to get a ticket doing that and he said "Yea I know, but I didn't buy a parking permit and the fine is $15.00 whereas parking on the grass is only $5.00". This was in the early 80s and I'm sure they have closed that loophole, but to this day I still get a chuckle out of my friend doing that.

 

[Mefisto]

This reminds of the time I was going to college and drove to school with a friend. As he went to park he parked his car on the grass. I said you're going to get a ticket doing that and he said "Yea I know, but I didn't buy a parking permit and the fine is $15.00 whereas parking on the grass is only $5.00". This was in the early 80s and I'm sure they have closed that loophole, but to this day I still get a chuckle out of my friend doing that.

I used to do something similar. The parking fees in central Helsinki can be quite high, so just by parking "illegally" (meaning without paying) and taking the parking fine I've managed to park for a whole weekend at roughly half the price. This, obviously, is contingent on the fact that once they put the ticket on the windshield there won't be another inspector putting a fresh one the day after. So foolproof it's not, but every once in a while the stars align and one can get a little less expensive parking.

Yes, I realize it's not exactly ethical, but it is what it is. Currently I don't even own a car, so all this delinquency is very much a thing of the past.

 

[hallux]

Since it was revived 10 years later, I guess I'll contribute.

While I understand SOME of the reasoning for doing it, the one big complaint I have about people doing it is that it makes it harder to load your stuff if you're at a mall or grocery store. Imagine rolling a cart between vehicles to unload your groceries into the trunk, I actually had someone hit my vehicle with a cart while rolling it between vehicles. Nobody these days cares about other people's stuff. That said, if someone is pulled through in front of a spot I normally WILL pull into (one I try to get normally, regardless of this), I make effort to be sure the back of my vehicle is out of the driving lane (meaning my front bumper may be VERY close to their trunk).

A local TV station even ran a piece on holiday shopping tips and included the "nose out" parking method suggestion. However, the mall they used for the video has predominantly one-way lanes with angled spots designed for moving in the proper direction.

 

[dannyyankou]

I do this all the time, but if I know I’ll need to load things in the trunk I’ll just park normally.