Railroad Forums 

  • Town Officials Threatened With Arrest For Trespassing

  • Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New England
Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New England

Moderators: MEC407, NHN503

 #1265021  by TPR37777
 
NHV 669 wrote:to add to the mod note for making this a general RR laws thread: I have railfanned the SLR 1-2 times a week exluding a few weeks since early march, my very first time doing so along those tracks. I have been approached twice by the same PD, just sitting near the tracks, not touching RR property. RR cops aren't the only guys watching
FYI most police officers wouldn't even know what a railfan was if you asked them. People sitting in cars off to the side by themselves will always attract attention, he or she probably didn't even make a connection between you and the rail line. Many a good drug arrest (no offense) has been made by approaching parked cars in the back of Walmart lots or occupied cars late at night in interstate rest areas. The courts have ruled that such checks are part of a police officer's "community caretaking function" and do not require reasonable suspicion (COMMONWEALTH vs. JAMES J. MURDOUGH. 428 Mass. 760). The smaller the town, the newer the officer, the greater the chance of you being questioned about your activity.
 #1265143  by MEC407
 
MEC407 wrote:For further discussion of the Westford incident, please visit the thread in the Pan Am forum, which NHV 669 linked above. If you want to discuss railroad trespassing issues in general, please continue to do that here.
Friendly reminder: If you want to talk about the Westford incident, please do so in the existing thread in the Pan Am forum. I've taken some of the Westford-specific posts in this thread and moved them over there.
 #1265424  by NHV 669
 
TPR37777 wrote:
NHV 669 wrote:to add to the mod note for making this a general RR laws thread: I have railfanned the SLR 1-2 times a week exluding a few weeks since early march, my very first time doing so along those tracks. I have been approached twice by the same PD, just sitting near the tracks, not touching RR property. RR cops aren't the only guys watching
FYI most police officers wouldn't even know what a railfan was if you asked them. People sitting in cars off to the side by themselves will always attract attention, he or she probably didn't even make a connection between you and the rail line. Many a good drug arrest (no offense) has been made by approaching parked cars in the back of Walmart lots or occupied cars late at night in interstate rest areas. The courts have ruled that such checks are part of a police officer's "community caretaking function" and do not require reasonable suspicion (COMMONWEALTH vs. JAMES J. MURDOUGH. 428 Mass. 760). The smaller the town, the newer the officer, the greater the chance of you being questioned about your activity.
"making checks" and conducting a vehicle search are two different things. The 4th Amendment protects against the latter, so unless you're doing something dumb like sipping a beer or ripping a left-handed cigarette, 5-0 Joe has no legal ability to "take a look around"
 #1265439  by TPR37777
 
NHV 669 wrote:to add to the mod note for making this a general RR laws thread: I have railfanned the SLR 1-2 times a week exluding a few weeks since early march, my very first time doing so along those tracks. I have been approached twice by the same PD, just sitting near the tracks, not touching RR property. RR cops aren't the only guys watching
FYI most police officers wouldn't even know what a railfan was if you asked them. People sitting in cars off to the side by themselves will always attract attention, he or she probably didn't even make a connection between you and the rail line. Many a good drug arrest (no offense) has been made by approaching parked cars in the back of Walmart lots or occupied cars late at night in interstate rest areas. The courts have ruled that such checks are part of a police officer's "community caretaking function" and do not require reasonable suspicion (COMMONWEALTH vs. JAMES J. MURDOUGH. 428 Mass. 760). The smaller the town, the newer the officer, the greater the chance of you being questioned about your activity.
NHV 669 wrote:making checks" and conducting a vehicle search are two different things. The 4th Amendment protects against the latter, so unless you're doing something dumb like sipping a beer or ripping a left-handed cigarette, 5-0 Joe has no legal ability to "take a look around"
Where did I use the word search? Where did you use the word search in your first post? You said they approached you. Did they search your car? I would have thought that reading a single post of mine my would have assured you I could differentiate between checks and searches. Many speeding stops lead to great arrests, obviously it would be implied that during the course of the stop more indicators presented to the officer so as to raise the level of the intrusion since speeding alone certainly doesn't warrant a vehicle search. And so it goes with vehicle checks. What is this, the paranoia thread? I was just pointing out that you probably were not approached because of the railroad, you were approached because you were present in a place where there is usually no one around.
 #1265649  by NHV 669
 
paranoia? Not at all, sorry I gave you that impression. I've had run-ins before, and realize years later how much I could have avoided had I simply known my rights. No, of the two officers in question, one simply pulled up, asked and left, the other hung out for a minute and ran my info.

I'm just saying, many a cop will overstep their bounds when the person they have stopped fails to know their rights. The whole ask more questions than necessary bit
 #1265810  by MEC407
 
Trinnau wrote:A fireman or police officer acting in the course of duty to an imminent threat to public safety is different than a town manager in office attire walking down the tracks in heavy snow to find out "what's going on."
Noel Weaver wrote:Police Officers and Fire Fighters, YES; Public Officials NO. They were trespassing in this case. I am taking the side of the raillroad here. Some of these "two bit" officials think they are "GOD", they are NOT.
Then why was the fire chief also threatened with arrest?

Don't answer that. This isn't the Westford thread. The point I'm trying to make is that we'd all do well to read multiple accounts of this incident and not rely solely on one particular article.
 #1265865  by kilroy
 
The point I'm trying to make is that we'd all do well to read multiple accounts of this incident and not rely solely on one particular article.
Unless the second story is written by reporting first article. Some lazy reporters out there.
 #1266302  by MEC407
 
From the Lowell Sun:
Lowell Sun wrote:Ross said she and Fire Chief Joe Targ were threatened with arrest when they happened upon the scene in February and searched the tracks for a rail official for more answers.
 #1266464  by Trinnau
 
WCVB.COM wrote:"We were dismayed, especially when he called the police to get me off the tracks," Ross said.
A direct, recorded quote on the day of the incident (WCVB's video report) vs. a generalized statement in a story two months after the incident (Lowell Sun article). Writer's license to embellish? Or the Town manager embellishing after the fact to bring more attention to it? Which report is more accurate? Up to the reader to decide I suppose, but her own statements on the WCVB video from the day of the incident mention nothing about a threat of arrest. And note she only mentions "me" - not "me and the fire chief" or any variation thereof. If they were both threatened with arrest why didn't we hear about it in the moment?
 #1266490  by MEC407
 
Totally valid questions, which is why I've emailed both of them and asked if they could clarify.