• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

In Mass. do swat teams have any immunity? Their answer to FOIA request says no

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...e-corporations-immune-from-open-records-laws/

Interesting argument that expands out beyond just records requests.

If they are not part of the gov't .. then they have no immunity either.

And the laws pertaining to a citizen not being able to use force to protect themselves (citizens are just supposed to suck-it-up when cops commit crimes against the citizen and handle the issues after the fact) also goes down the drain.

And even private companies can be subject to records laws ... under certain conditions that the MA swat teams likely meet.

So I think that the SWAT teams just screwed themselves. They will not win being exempt from records requests but just argued that they are a group outside of immunity and people can now take immediate action against them.

Kudos ... kudos again.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,671
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Would that mean that any machine guns owned by the SWAT teams must be manufactured before 1986? because the only private interests exempted from the NFA is contractors who provide Nuclear plant security....

are private organizations exempted from the commonwealths AWB?

is there any law permitting a search warrant of any kind issued to private interests?

does the local police chief have to meet the SWAT team and say "Yea Verrily, I Deputize these citizen to serveth this warrant" ?
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Very interesting. So are the special weapons attack team( SWAT) acting as a private non government entity? If yes, I would think all personal immunity is lost. Any and all civil law suits against any member of said SWAT team would apply.
The main issue would be that only a government can violate a citizens Constitutional rights. A private entity can only be accused of civil rights violations..

So now Massachusetts has their own team of private ASSASINS..

The big question, WHO YOU GONNA CALL WHEN THEY COME FOR YOU?

Primus, will you defend the citizens when the private entity police come a calling?

My .02

Regards

CCJ
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,671
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Very interesting. So are the special weapons attack team( SWAT) acting as a private non government entity? If yes, I would think all personal immunity is lost. Any and all civil law suits against any member of said SWAT team would apply.
The main issue would be that only a government can violate a citizens Constitutional rights. A private entity can only be accused of civil rights violations..

So now Massachusetts has their own team of private ASSASINS..

The big question, WHO YOU GONNA CALL WHEN THEY COME FOR YOU?

Primus, will you defend the citizens when the private entity police come a calling?

My .02

Regards

CCJ
maybe these private cops need a badge, since I'm in favor of recycling, maybe we can dust off a few dozen of these from museums and hand them out

Bethlehem_Badge.jpg
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
Would that mean that any machine guns owned by the SWAT teams must be manufactured before 1986? because the only private interests exempted from the NFA is contractors who provide Nuclear plant security....

are private organizations exempted from the commonwealths AWB?

is there any law permitting a search warrant of any kind issued to private interests?

does the local police chief have to meet the SWAT team and say "Yea Verrily, I Deputize these citizen to serveth this warrant" ?
Good point .. I guess when you see them you just arrest them for having new automatic weapons ...
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,376
Location
White Oak Plantation
Release the data and find the truth, then let the chips fall where they may. If the private SWAT corporation is on the up and up then release the data. The data will prove that you are on the up and up. Not releasing the data sends a different signal regarding their acts and the legality thereof.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
Release the data and find the truth, then let the chips fall where they may. If the private SWAT corporation is on the up and up then release the data. The data will prove that you are on the up and up. Not releasing the data sends a different signal regarding their acts and the legality thereof.
I would not expect a private company that is not subject to a records law to produce records just because someone asks for them...would you?

But in this case, I think that the company is a quasi-or functional equivalent of a state agency and they may be required to be subject to the records laws. But even if so, it would not negate their assertions that they are not part of any formal state agency so they'll lose immunity and other goodies that gov't agencies and their employees enjoy. Records laws are one their own for the most part. But their arguments can be used against them in a court of law.

The ACLU should get records pertaining to any contract with gov't agencies to show that they get $$$ from the state, and records showing that they are highly regulated by the state, and that the state oversees the company. If all are gotten then evidence that they are a functional equivalent to a state agency should be easy to prove.

Most states have the same records-law rules ... see p.13 of the linked decision:
http://www.ct.gov/foi/cwp/view.asp?a=4162&Q=509404 2011-440 case before a quasi-judicial admin hearing agency in my state.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,671
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
I would not expect a private company that is not subject to a records law to produce records just because someone asks for them...would you?

But in this case, I think that the company is a quasi-or functional equivalent of a state agency and they may be required to be subject to the records laws. But even if so, it would not negate their assertions that they are not part of any formal state agency so they'll lose immunity and other goodies that gov't agencies and their employees enjoy. Records laws are one their own for the most part. But their arguments can be used against them in a court of law.

The ACLU should get records pertaining to any contract with gov't agencies to show that they get $$$ from the state, and records showing that they are highly regulated by the state, and that the state oversees the company. If all are gotten then evidence that they are a functional equivalent to a state agency should be easy to prove.

Most states have the same records-law rules ... see p.13 of the linked decision:
http://www.ct.gov/foi/cwp/view.asp?a=4162&Q=509404 2011-440 case before a quasi-judicial admin hearing agency in my state.
They'll just make up the law as they go, they'll claim the council is a private corp, but because the members are sworn then each individual member has immunity....
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
This discussion would he comical if you guys weren't so serious. Some are so far off base and out of touch with reality it'd again be funny if they weren't serious.

Also, as usual, the biases and jadedness rears its ugly head.

This is based on 1 article that not many if any guys in here have read.

These are cops that are on the teams. Sworn officers that work together to make a regional team. The regional team is run by a "council".

This whole situation is just the council telling the ACLU to get screwed and coming up with a legal way to deny them records. THAT is what everyone should be pissed about.

Take any team.... Semlec nemlec metro etc. Etc. When they serve a warrant they are still cops. You don't become unsworn when you report to your team.

This is administrative issue only. To say "oh they are just civilians and have no immunity" shows the lack of knowledge of how it works. The worst part is none seem to actually care enough to research or ask. Just get the bad info and run with it.

A warrant is a warrant is a warrant...... To be served by a duly served law enforcement officer..... Look that up. It doesnt matter if a LT from.a different department calls and says "hey we are serving said warrant". Doesn't make you any less sworn of an officer.

Again... Administrative actions to block the ACLU. Be mad at that. At least you'll be accurate.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Very interesting. So are the special weapons attack team( SWAT) acting as a private non government entity? If yes, I would think all personal immunity is lost. Any and all civil law suits against any member of said SWAT team would apply.
The main issue would be that only a government can violate a citizens Constitutional rights. A private entity can only be accused of civil rights violations..

So now Massachusetts has their own team of private ASSASINS..

The big question, WHO YOU GONNA CALL WHEN THEY COME FOR YOU?

Primus, will you defend the citizens when the private entity police come a calling?

My .02

Regards

CCJ
No. If a SWORN OFFICER from another town comes rolling in with a warrant then there's nothing to defend.

I like the "private assassins" line... Good rhetoric and drama. Sure to get the troops riled up.

Completely inaccurate and baseless. But hey the point isnt to be accurate and honest right?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
No. If a SWORN OFFICER from another town comes rolling in with a warrant then there's nothing to defend.

I like the "private assassins" line... Good rhetoric and drama. Sure to get the troops riled up.

Completely inaccurate and baseless. But hey the point isnt to be accurate and honest right?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
But that's just it...they are not sworn officers .. they are just employees of a company.

I would think that warrant's execution must be performed by a governmental agency, not through any contracted one.
So they are not "rolling in with a warrant"...they are attackers, ie criminals.

I see where you would not want to defend citizens against such attacks, you just want to go home.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
But that's just it...they are not sworn officers .. they are just employees of a company.

I would think that warrant's execution must be performed by a governmental agency, not through any contracted one.
So they are not "rolling in with a warrant"...they are attackers, ie criminals.

I see where you would not want to defend citizens against such attacks, you just want to go home.
Can you cite where a police officer who serves a warrant is somehow unsworn? It DOESNT just go away...



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
Can you cite where a police officer who serves a warrant is somehow unsworn? It DOESNT just go away...



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Those that do with the MASS. private swat team company of course ! And they are not "police" during these operations. They are mercenaries....
 
Last edited:

wizzi01

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2012
Messages
127
Location
Detroit
This discussion would he comical if you guys weren't so serious. Some are so far off base and out of touch with reality it'd again be funny if they weren't serious.

Also, as usual, the biases and jadedness rears its ugly head.

This is based on 1 article that not many if any guys in here have read.

These are cops that are on the teams. Sworn officers that work together to make a regional team. The regional team is run by a "council".

This whole situation is just the council telling the ACLU to get screwed and coming up with a legal way to deny them records. THAT is what everyone should be pissed about.

Take any team.... Semlec nemlec metro etc. Etc. When they serve a warrant they are still cops. You don't become unsworn when you report to your team.

This is administrative issue only. To say "oh they are just civilians and have no immunity" shows the lack of knowledge of how it works. The worst part is none seem to actually care enough to research or ask. Just get the bad info and run with it.

A warrant is a warrant is a warrant...... To be served by a duly served law enforcement officer..... Look that up. It doesnt matter if a LT from.a different department calls and says "hey we are serving said warrant". Doesn't make you any less sworn of an officer.

Again... Administrative actions to block the ACLU. Be mad at that. At least you'll be accurate.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

So you are saying it is ok for them to not have to explain themselves to the public. The same public that funds them? You are always so fos and backtracking.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
That's the best you had?

What did I expect...

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
1980 witnessed about 3,000 midnight raids by SWAT teams upon residential homes

By 2001 we had about 45,000 annual SWAT raids

2013 witnessed about 80,000 SWAT raids
 
Top