Railroad police: "A Force of One"

Many of us are aware that Pan Am's police department is a lot smaller than it once was, but even I was surprised to discover that they've only got one officer covering the entire state of Maine.

From today's Morning Sentinel:

Morning Sentinel wrote:FAIRFIELD -- There may be just one railroad police officer in Maine, but he and another officer surprised a number of drivers Tuesday morning with $165 tickets as part of an effort to prevent vehicles from crashing into trains.

Read more at: http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/the- ... 01-11.html

It really isn't a force of one. I was about to post that particularly in Maine, where there are likely to be long stretches of remote areas - particularly by the tracks, that employing another officer would make sense, until I read the article. The article clearly indicates that the Chief is not confined to administrative duties, such as would be the case with most police chiefs. This one is observer in a two-man car with his operator patrolman. Frankly, in a state such as Maine, this to me is not particularly jaw-dropping, as just how busy can it's RR police be, and secondly, a two man car is more officers in a cruiser than half of the cruisers on the Boston Police. I see this as an efficient operation without sacrificing safety. (As a side note, I have to say that I loved the paper's ending offer to make out an "accuracy" score for the story if one was interviewed. I wish the Boston Globe had that.)

I didn't find it particularly jaw-dropping either, but when you put it in the context of recent history -- less than 10 years ago, they had (I think) four or five officers assigned to Maine -- the reduction in staff does seem significant. What Maine lacks in population, it more than makes up for in geographical area. Let's say the officer is dealing with an incident on the mainline in Berwick and then gets a call about an incident on the mainline in Lincoln: that's a four-hour drive. Granted, Lincoln PD would be able to respond immediately. But what about the numerous rural areas where there are no town police departments, and the nearest county sheriff's deputy or state trooper is an hour away and is busy responding to another call?

Which brings us to a popular argument for reducing the number of railroad police officers (or in the cases of some railroads, completely eliminating the railroad police): the argument is that the railroad pays taxes just like every other business, is just as entitled to the services of the municipal law enforcement agencies, and therefore does not need to employ its own police force. People tend to have very passionate viewpoints either in favor of or against that concept.

My personal opinion is that railroads as big as Pan Am should not completely eliminate their police forces. Municipal law enforcement agencies can and should be relied upon for first response in the event of an emergency, but if (for example) a railroad is dealing with frequent theft and vandalism problems at a freight yard, they should employ a railroad police officer there, just as many other types of industries and businesses employ security officers at plants where heightened security is required.

WOW, people who comment on those articles just don't get it!

They all blame the railroad, saying the should fix the lights and track and blah blah blah. Do I wish that PAR would do all these thing? Yes! But at the same time I realize that PAR is a private company that maintains its infrastructure to meet its needs. I also realize that the crossings are paid for and maintained by PAR and that they are their to provide safe crossing for motorists.

Lastly, from the story, it seems they were not interested in giving tickets to people who came to a complete stop, just those that didn't. It really isn't that hard to stop, look, listen and proceed.

Yes I feel bad for the guy who got the ticket, but people who run red lights or stop sign are subject to the same type of ticket. He broke a law and got what was coming to him. I bet he'll stop from now on though, lesson learned!

KSmitty wrote:But at the same time I realize that PAR is a private company that maintains its infrastructure to meet its needs.

I think that Mr. Smitty nailed it with that one sentence. A company as big as Pan Am could obviously afford more of a police presence. However, it seems obvious that they have found a formula that has worked for them. I'm not going to be so presumptuous as to state what that formula is, but if you were to ask me to guess, I would say that they have worked out a system of mutual aid between State, County, and Local police departments to assist and patrol as needed. The very fact of the matter is that a large amount of their area is sparsely populated. North of Waterville is woodlands. The rest is sprawling low to medium density areas of which a department the size of NYPD would otherwise be needed to adequately patrol it. I'm sure after all this time that they have found where the balance lies. It really is location, location, location. You have MBTA Transit Police, a fairly large department, running around like a chicken with it's head chopped off, shagging radio calls within Boston, Revere, Chelsea, Quincy, and Braintree primarily (almost) meeting their demand. On the other hand, you have two officers covering Pan Am as primaries, (probably far less busy than Transit). Same but different job (first responders vs. pro-active, respectively), same balance. Quincy, Boston covers for Transit. State, Bucksport covers for Pan Am. They've found what works and they're running with it. Wouldn't mind having that Chief's job myself ! (Besides, they have attractive stewardesses.)

The railroad police lack the authority to issue motor vehicle citations in Massachusetts, I am surprised that they have it in Maine. What is the B&M down to now, a chief, a captain, and two patrolmen?

MEC407 wrote: My personal opinion is that railroads as big as Pan Am should not completely eliminate their police forces. Municipal law enforcement agencies can and should be relied upon for first response in the event of an emergency, but if (for example) a railroad is dealing with frequent theft and vandalism problems at a freight yard, they should employ a railroad police officer there, just as many other types of industries and businesses employ security officers at plants where heightened security is required.

EXactly. Besides the "Roadway Worker Protection" aspects around a RoW, I've found that municipal, county, and state officers are sometimes not real cognizant of the laws pertaining to railroads. I've had a deputy sheriff tell me he couldn't summons someone for walking on a track unless it was posted. I mentioned the civil violation, 23 MRSA sec. 7007, and to his credit, he wrote that down for future reference.
Even on a relatively small line, there could be somebody at the west end swiping track materials to sell for "scrap," while some other bozo is ripping up the ballast with his ATV, fifty miles away.
In between, there are all the motorists who think they can just make a brief stop for flashing lights at a crossing and then blast across. The elderly gentleman whose car got hit in Brunswick in May of '06 apparently just followed the two vehicles in front of him that also ran the lights.

3rdrail wrote:Wouldn't mind having that Chief's job myself ! (Besides, they have attractive stewardesses.)

You would trade a Yankee prefix to be chief of the B&M Police? Surely you jest. The Transit Police have more patrols and less calls than you might think, I would respectfully submit that you should contemplate their superintendency job if and when it may become available, as they could use your expertise and you would certainly enjoy open access to the MBTA from within. Plus you might be able to snag a few good pictures of forbidden places for the rest of us too......

Reading the comments on that article, with the perpetrator commenting, it seems that he didn't look or listen, and he should be glad he didn't make it to strike 3.

Federal regulations promulgated under 49 U.S.C. 28101 are contained starting at 49 CFR 207 and apply to all railroad police, including those of Amtrak. These regulations describe in more detail the scope of this broader-ranging interstate authority.

When railroad police officers are in a state different from the one where they received their railroad police commissions, their police authority is the same as that of railroad officers commissioned under the laws of the state in which they are present. Furthermore, this police authority shall apply only on railroad property, except in two instances:

•A railroad police officer may pursue someone off railroad property if that person is suspected of violating the law on railroad property.

•A railroad police officer may engage in off–railroad property law enforcement activities, including, without limitation, investigation and arrest, if permissible under state law.

A railroad corporation has the duty to notify all the states in which a commissioned railroad police officer will work. The notice of commission contains various identifying information, including name, badge number, photograph, date of commission, and pertinent training information.

unmotivated wrote:•A railroad police officer may pursue someone off railroad property if that person is suspected of violating the law on railroad property.

I apologize if I am misinterpreting your post but the fresh and continued pursuit doctrine is applied in various ways concerning jurisdictional limitations depending upon the circumstances, however the statutory authority to enforce motor vehicle laws is a completely separate issue. In addition to that a public grade crossing is not considered railroad property regardless of who maintains it.

If your point is that railroad police are not authorized to cite driver's who fail to stop at railroad grade crossings, contrary to signs or signals, you are incorrect. You are also incorrect regarding property rights at such a grade crossing. State and federal law authorizing railroad police does so for the sole purpose of allowing for a protective force who's jurisdictional area, scope, and function targets railroads, their passengers, property, equipment, and cargo. A vehicle which fails to stop at the crossing indicator, travelling through the crossing, has breached state law which similiarly protects the above list. A railroad police officer, special state police officer, municipal police officer, county sherriff, or state police officer all would theoretically have the authority to cite in this instance, within their various jurisdictions. The property is a shared abutment of property with the railroad owning the roadbed and area on both sides of the tracks with the municipality or state owning the roadway leading into and out of this area. Additionally, many specialized departments are doubly sworn as county deputy sherriffs, so as to give them police authority outside specialized properties. The purpose of this is primarily to aid them in the performance of their duties in transit between primary jurisdiction. As the offense is against the state and the railroad, courts interpret the action as an action enforceable by railroad police as well, much the same way as a person arrested for raping a victim who was abducted in Boston and raped in Cambridge may be arrested and tried in either jurisdiction. In Massachusetts (and I'm sure in Maine) citation books are conscientiously sent to police departments and audited prior to the issuance of new books. Criteria must be met in order to have authorization to write moving violation citations. Northeastern University had to petition the Mass Registry of Motor Vehicles that they owned public ways, utilized marked police vehicles, and that their state special police officers (now, they get their power as deputy sherriffs) were trained in a state regulated curriculum regarding motor vehicle law at the Mass State Police Academy before the RMV would give them citation books. Point being, an agency doesn't just "borrow" a book from another agency and use it. Severe penalties would arise if the borrowing agency was not authorized to use the book.

They did the sting in the proper manner. No matter if the RR policeman had authority or not, he did have a rider that day. A local officer who does have the authority to ticket offenders. The law is the law, subject to interpretation of course.

Mike

Mike, the article indicates that the RRPD issued them themselves. So does His Royal Crybaby in his comments after the article. Are you confusing the RRPD Ptlm. or Chief, both of whom were present, as a local officer ? Also, no sting. Just traffic enforcement.

miketrainnut wrote:They did the sting in the proper manner. No matter if the RR policeman had authority or not, he did have a rider that day. A local officer who does have the authority to ticket offenders. The law is the law, subject to interpretation of course.Mike

What local officer? It was two B&M officers, you can see their matching patches in the picture. 3rdrail my point was that railroad police officers, such as the B&M, do not have chapter 90 authority in Massachusetts and they are not authorized to be issued nor use citation books as their chief is not defined in Chapter 90c Section 1 as an authorized issuer.