Privatizing Police Powers

[Black Caesar]

Part of the problem is how screwed up Missouri law is. While I agree with many here that some of what Mr. Cross believes is at best a stretch, we also have to take into consideration where he is.

He's not the only one of the opinion that KCMO S?Os are Quasi Police. KAPI link

Private Security operations in Kansas City, Missouri are controlled by the Board of Police Commissioners under the legal theory that they are quasi-police officials.

While what Cross is saying doesn't make a lot of sense to us (and i still don't get the idea of a "criminologist" working as a S/O lol), we should keep in mind one thing we all know. Many places have laws about private security that are just down right stupid.

[N. A. Corbier]

I think KAPI's brief is referring to the Board, which seems to be some made up thing that the police just pulled out of their ass.

[davis002]

It would be nothing short of a miracle if Mr. Cross just shut the hell up. This $%^& is getting more and more annoying as each day passes. You made your point, some of us care and some of us don't. This debate can finally be laid to rest, because all you are going to do is pound your chest like a raging gorilla whenever someone disagrees with you. It's funny that with each post, your arrogance gets worse. It has reached the point that whether you are wrong or right, NOBODY CARES! You made your point, now move on.

I almost wish Marchetti and Boxerguard were back...

[SecTrainer]

Part of the problem is how screwed up Missouri law is. While I agree with many here that some of what Mr. Cross believes is at best a stretch, we also have to take into consideration where he is.

He's not the only one of the opinion that KCMO S?Os are Quasi Police. KAPI link



While what Cross is saying doesn't make a lot of sense to us (and i still don't get the idea of a "criminologist" working as a S/O lol), we should keep in mind one thing we all know. Many places have laws about private security that are just down right stupid.

Well, that's KAPI. Note that the "K" stands for "KANSAS", not Missouri. Their main thing seems to be quibbling with the Board of Police Commissioners every time they raise the fees for PIs. They've been a pain in the can for years, as even I remember from decades ago.

Here are some simple questions to ask that to my mind answer the question in very practical terms, as well as certain legal ones:

1. Can Mr. Cross legally wear or carry a badge that says "Kansas City POLICE"?

2. Does Mr. Cross have any form of official identification from the Board of Police Commissioners/State of Missouri that specifically identify him as a POLICE OFFICER?

3. Could Mr. Cross carry a firearm onto an airplane or into a federal courtroom as a POLICE OFFICER? In other words, would federal law recognize his "police" status?

4. Can Mr. Cross wear a uniform that says "POLICE" on a patch or other form of insignia?

5. Could Mr. Cross, if he owned a security company and held a Class A license, paint the word "POLICE" on his cars, or outfit his cars with red or blue lights and a siren?

6. Can Mr. Cross initiate stops, arrests or detentions in the public space (other than following a pursuit INTO the public space from private property?

7. Can Mr. Cross identify himself verbally to citizens as a police officer (as in "Stop! Police!") in the public space, or even on private property?

8. Can Mr. Cross enforce any and all violations of or crimes against the laws of Kansas City, the county, the state or the Federal laws that may be committed in the public space (other than as an ordinary citizen), or in any other private space than one to which he is contractually assigned?

9. Does Mr. Cross receive his paycheck from a recognized police agency or other public entity?

10. Is Mr. Cross employed by any recognized form of "special police" agency, such as an established and duly authorized railroad police department or campus police agency?

11. If Mr. Cross took a bribe or committed some other form of malfeasance in the performance of his duties, would the internal affairs division of the KCMO Police Department investigate the case?

Yup - "Quasi" is right.

[Investigation]

Chris, I commend you on your passion for your DIVE project. But, from what you’ve posted, it sounds like everything revolves around the K.C.M.O. class A license. This is very small considering that the license is issued by a single city in this big country. What would be more beneficial to the Security Industry (on a broader scope) is if you formed some sort of non-profit group that worked to expand the training, licensing requirements, and powers of Security Officers on a state by state basis.

[Black Caesar]

Well, that's KAPI. Note that the "K" stands for "KANSAS", not Missouri.

The link I provide is KAPI talking about Missouri. I know KAPI is based in Kansas, but obvioulsy they are involved in issues right across the border.

Here are some simple questions to ask:

1. Can Mr. Cross wear or carry a badge that says "Kansas City POLICE"? Does he have any form of official identification specifically identifying him as a POLICE OFFICER?

2. Can Mr. Cross wear a uniform that says "POLICE" on a patch or other form of insignia?

3. Could Mr. Cross, if he wished, paint the word "POLICE" on his car, or outfit a car with red or blue lights, or a siren?

4. Can Mr. Cross initiate stops, arrests or detentions in the public space (other than following pursuit INTO the public space from private property?

5. Can Mr. Cross identify himself verbally as a police officer (as in "Stop! Police!") in the public space, or even on private property?

6. Can Mr. Cross enforce any and all violations of or crimes against the laws of Kansas City, the county, the state or the Federal laws that may be committed in the public space (other than as an ordinary citizen), or in any other private space than one to which he is contractually assigned?

7. Does Mr. Cross receive his paycheck from a recognized police agency or other public entity?

8. Is Mr. Cross employed by any recognized form of "special police" agency, such as an established and duly authorized railroad police department or campus police agency?

"Quasi" is right.

And I agree. Heck, you know how I feel about people calling themselves police when they aren't.

What KAPI is saying doesn't make Cross right (in fact, I still think he is stretching...A LOT), I only offer it to say that we should consider the area we are talking about.

The more I look at MO, the more I start to think "hey, I can see how someone could become as crossed up as CrisCross (lol) is". Missouri itself is letting him think that way because of it's really really weird (and mostly non-existent) state regulation of private security.

I know you don't like him (I don't care for his tone either, and I'm STILL wondering why he isn't a cop...smells fishy to me), but lets consider all the angles.

[Black Caesar]

Chris, I commend you on your passion for your DIVE project. But, from what you’ve posted, it sounds like everything revolves around the K.C.M.O. class A license. This is very small considering that the license is issued by a single city in this big country. What would be more beneficial to the Security Industry (on a broader scope) is if you formed some sort of non-profit group that worked to expand the training, licensing requirements, and powers of Security Officers on a state by state basis.

That's right on the money. His ideas wouldn't work anywhere but Missouri, ie anyplace else on Earth that has any kind of nearly rational regulation of private security.

Looking at these topics, and reading his rambling paper, I'm also thinking "maybe the right message, but the wrong messenger".

[SecTrainer]

The link I provide is KAPI talking about Missouri. I know KAPI is based in Kansas, but obvioulsy they are involved in issues right across the border.

Yup - I realize that, having worked both sides of the border. I'm just commenting that they scream every time the fees go up 5 bucks.

And I agree. Heck, you know how I feel about people calling themselves police when they aren't.

And with good reason.

What KAPI is saying doesn't make Cross right (in fact, I still think he is stretching...A LOT).

A "bridge too far", to be sure.

The more I look at MO, the more I start to think "hey, I can see how someone could become as crossed up as CrisCross (lol) is".

Well, we've been trying to straighten out the kinks, to no avail.

Missouri itself is letting him think that way because of it's really really weird (and mostly non-existent) state regulation of private security.

I agree that it's unusual, but I don't think that the vast majority of either the police officers or the security officers and/or their agencies in KCMO are confused about who is a police officer and who is a security officer, nor about the difference between "granting" certain authority and creating a "mandate" or "duty".

Most people understand that there are many who might have certain limited police powers, but who we do not consider to be police. Parole officers, for instance, have certain powers of arrest and even search and seizure with respect to their parollees, but you don't see them claiming to "be police" by virtue of such authority. Certain kinds of health and agricultural inspectors have "knock-and-enter" authority, can order facilities shut down, and can seize evidence of violations of the laws they enforce. Park rangers also have certain limited "police" authority. None of these people are police and they are public employees - and Mr. Cross cannot even make that claim.

I don't really think 99.999999999% of the people in Kansas City are as confused about who is a policeman and who is a security officer, like you might think from reading the law on this subject. There's always that 0.000000001%, though. Yessir, there's always that 0.000000001%.

I mean, this is all ridiculously simple. If Missouri intended that the Class A security officer should be a policeman, all they would have to do is swear him in as a sworn police officer and enact an exception for Class A security officers regarding the requirement for 600 hours of training for police in a Class I county. Easy-peasy.

[davis002]

Cross v. North Kansas City Security Patrol Service Inc.

For those who are interested...

Cross v. North Kansas City Security Patrol Service Inc.

Case Summary

Complaint

Just for fun...

Cross vs. City of Chillicothe

Complaint

[SecTrainer]

For those who are interested...

Cross v. North Kansas City Security Patrol Service Inc.

Case Summary

Complaint

Just for fun...

Cross vs. City of Chillicothe

Complaint

Yes, I've been following along whenever my migraine clears.

[Black Caesar]

For those who are interested...

Cross v. North Kansas City Security Patrol Service Inc.

Case Summary

Complaint

Just for fun...

Cross vs. City of Chillicothe

Complaint

Jeez.......

Talk about Axes being ground lol.

[power102]

Davis...I think you just rid SIW of insects. (with those links...he just made a fool of himself.) IMO...He doesn't have a leg to stand on in the "Cross v. North Kansas City Security Patrol Service Inc."
One of the guys I used to work with in Houston tried to pursue the same kind of case....and the judge threw it out.


I googled "christopherstjo" just for laughs and I came across some funny stuff. I won't get into what I read...for the sake of preventing the guy from being totally humiliated. but...WOW! yeah...some funny (and creepy) stuff.

[davis002]

Davis...I think you just rid SIW of insects. (with those links...he just made a fool of himself.) IMO...He doesn't have a leg to stand on in the

I googled "christopherstjo" just for ****'s & giggles and I came across some funny stuff. I won't get into what I read...for the sake of preventing the guy from being totally humiliated. but...WOW! yeah...some funny (and creepy) stuff.

I don't think he is gone... we aren't that lucky. This is an ego thing to him or something. I did a quick google of his screen name too. He is posting his arrogance EVERYWHERE! What I find humorous is the fact that he is getting the same response everywhere he goes. He is well-educated and well-spoken, but as soon as anyone disagrees with him he pounds his chest and foams at the mouth. As I said before, he has some good ideas and I agree with some of the points he has made. He just needs to stop acting like a rabid animal whenever someone disagrees with his point of view. He is also very "sue happy" and reading some of his court complaints is nothing short of... well... entertaining.

[OccamsRazor]

Chris, once more. Are you a commissioned, fully empowered law enforcement officer by title (police, deputy sheriff, trooper, whatever), or a security guard/officer?

Don't quote obscure, meaningless arguments, answer the question.

I, on the other hand, am quite clear on my end. I am a security guard. I've been a real police officer, and a real deputy sheriff. Now, I am a real guard. I don't need or want "arrest or law enforcement" authority.

I am a commissioned security law enforcement officer pursuant to...(the courts ruling specifically removes the requirement that a law enforcement officer is required to be or is only a "public servant" and the court specifically incorporated security officers with a Class A license into the definition of a law enforcement officer.

I guess that means no.

Ignored.

[Christopherstjo]

I received the following private message from SecTrainer and believe it purduent to post my reply here, as well because of the importance of his objection and the importance of my answer.

Admittedly, my legal training is limited to two years of law school (no, before you ask, I didn't flunk out - I simply lost interest the further along I went), so I will not hold myself out as an attorney. However, in that time I did learn to read cases and it has served me very well.

Jackson County v. Missouri State Board of Mediation does not appear to support your position in any way, and I suggest that you read it again.

First, the scope of the case is the law pertaining to the right of the "Employees....of any public body" and its applicability of a certain class of such employees - i.e., correctional officers - to form or join a union. The scope itself puts the case somewhat off-point with respect to your claim right out of the gate.

Second, in the paragraph that comments on the common definition of "police", you seem to be ignoring the critical phrase "...any organized civil force..." - not "any force", and certainly not any private force.

Third, the court found that correctional officers, even though they have a historical association with sheriff's deputies, are not considered police, and among the reasons discussed were that they are not charged with enforcing state law on a countywide basis (as Class A officers are not, either), and are not required to complete a 600-hour police academy (as Class A officers are not, either).

In other words, the very reasons that correctional officers - even though "they may indeed perform limited police functions" - are not considered to be police would appear to apply to the Class A officer as well, down the line. For these and other reasons, the Supreme Court joined the Appellate Court in overturning the circuit court which had held that correctional officers should be considered to be "police" and that they therefore should not be prohibited from joining a union.

In all honesty, Mr. Cross, I cannot see how in the world this case supports your position. Quite the opposite, in fact.

SecTrainer

Since you claim to have two years of law school, then you should know that case laws are transferrable, in whole or in part, from one case to another.

In other words, while you point out that the case centered on correctional officers, the case is nevertheless applicable to other cases that have the same or similar components, arguements, claims and so forth.

Transferring case laws from one case to another is a legal practice of law that courts, attorney's and many - many others have used for eon's and [U][U]is actually required to be done[/B], by the Courts[/B] during times of filing motions and replies to motions. The only time case laws may not be cited is in the Plaintiffs' Complaint and the Defendant's Answer.

Accordingly:

1. In Jackson County v. State Board of Mediation 690 S.W.2d 400, 402-03 (Mo. banc 1985) the Missouri Supreme Court gave its ruling as to the legislative intent of Section 105.510 of the Missouri Revised Statutes. The Court held:

"The Legislature presumably excluded police and deputy sheriffs from the scope of the statute after concluding that the bargaining rights granted there in would inhibit the discipline and strict impartiality demanded of law enforcement personnel. The Leglisature may well have believed that "membership in [a union] might reasonably cause friction and dissention within the police force and create prejudice and favoritism in the enforcement of the laws." Citing King v. Priest, 357 Mo. 68 206 S.W.2d 547, 555 (banc 1947).

The Court went on to state:

"We think the legislative purpose can be best effectuated if the exclusion provision is interpreted to encompass those persons engaged in law enforcement, who, regardless of job title, perform duties and functions substantially comparable to those performed by police and deputy sheriffs." Id at 403.

2. The case of Jackson County v. State Board of Mediation, is cited in the case of Kansas City Firefighters, Local 691 v. City of Kansas City, Public Case No. R 2000-046.

3. The City of Kansas City, sought to block the efforts of private security officers with a Class A license to join a union pursuant to Section 105.510 of the Missouri Revised Statutes on the arguement that private security officers are essentially police officers because of their authority given under Title 17 of the Missouri Code of State Regulations, Sections 10-2.010(3) and 10-2.030(1)(A) (1999).

4. In the case of Jackson County v. State Board of Mediation, the Court knowingly and willingly incorporated [every] security officer with a Class A license, regardless whether or not the security officer is a government or private employee.

5. The Court also knowingly and willingly removed the requirement that a "law enforcement officer" is required to be a "public servant" as section 556.061(17) of the Missouri Revised Statutes, requires.

6. To understand how the federal courts decide whether or not security officers are law enforcement personnel we can plainly see such in the following three case laws; the last one is from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Payton v. Rush-Presbyterian, 184 F.3d 623, 627-30 (7th Cir. 1999) (holding that where private security guards are endowed by law with plenary police powers such that they are de facto police officers, they may qualify as state actors under the public function test).

Rodriguez v. Smithfield Packing Co., Inc., 338 F.3d 348, 355 (4th Cir. 2003) (observing that “the police function is ‘one of the most basic functions of government’” and “an arrest is ‘the function most commonly associated with the police’”) (quoting Foley v. Connelie, 435 U.S. 291, 297 (1978)).

Cf. Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 109-10 (1945) (holding “one has the power to arrest when one is “clothed with the authority of state law”).

And there are many - many more federal case laws that also demonstrate the validity of my claims; some of, which I cite in my thesis.

7. In the case of Kansas City Firefighters, Local 691 v. City of Kansas City, Public Case No. R 2000-046. The trial court rejected the City's arguement that school district security officers are police because they do not carry firearms and do not have arrest powers to enforce the laws.

8. As a result of this ruling, the State of Missouri clearly and categorically declares that security officers who do carry a firearms and do have arrest powers are members of the police force and police officers, even though they are [privately] employed and have a private security officer's license.

Now, matters of law are almost always complex and a large part of this comes because case laws are transferrable from one case to another. And as a rule of thumb, those in private security and those who are or were police officers, rarely, if every, studdy state and federal case laws so as to know what does and does not apply in their line of duty.

It is not surprising, therefore, that addressing this subject is like speaking a foregin language to others. It is a concept that others simply cannot grasp and many times it is because security officers do not bother to educate themselves in matters of law as it pertains to their jobs.

Hell, I am shocked at the number of security officers I have spoken with here in KCMO, who have never bothered read Title 17. They know they have police powers but only because both security and police officers speak of such in the field rather commonly, especially during times when a suspect has been legally arrested by a security law enforcement officer.

In any event, the case of Jackson County v. State Board of Mediation, not only has a great deal of relevance in my claims but it is also the controlling legal authority existing. And in your claiming to have two years of law school, you should know this to be true.

I hope this helps to answer your question.