U.S. Congress - H.R.675 To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide police officers, criminal investigato...
H.R.675 - To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide police officers, criminal investigators, and game law enforcement officers of the Department of Defense with authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms.
view all titles (1)All Bill Titles
- Official: To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide police officers, criminal investigators, and game law enforcement officers of the Department of Defense with authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms. as introduced.
This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.
Vote on This Bill
-
Share This Bill
More Share via Email
Sort By
Comments Feed
Displaying 1-30 of 84 total comments.
The PROBLEM is that currently the US Military is switching over to a system of Civilian Police to provide law enforcement and protection for military basses and facilities do the the shortage of Military Police and the need to develop a more professional and stable police services. Currently the DOD Civilian Police is operated by each military branch under the authority of the Base Commander and not under any Federal Law. This does NOT provide for effective force protection, uniformity, stability, or direction to the Police services. This Bill is just one step in correcting what is wrong and moving to a professional police service.
Read it again….Nowhere in this does it differentiate who is being arrested, investigated, etc (military personnel or civilians with no connection to the military)…or where the lines of authority stop,(on Federal Government or Military Property, at the gate? NO, it’s everywhere). WAKE UP and listen to the boots. The US Government is precluded in the constitution from forming a national police force as a check and balance against their corruptible power. That’s why DOJ etc have severe limitations on their authority. How tough would it have been to put these limitations in this bill? Not tough at all, but it was NOT done. The only limitation is that the Sec of Defense controls them….a federal government official appointed by the President..Do you want him to have that authority? This is a ruse.
How about federal civilian police officers, on federal lands, enforcing federal laws?
Callagan,
This bill wouldn’t destroy Jurisdiction of the state and federal government. Say this bill is passed and a DOD police officer while off duty witnesses a crime and detains a suspect. The crime is committed off the base. The county or local department would still have jurisdiction unless the crime that was committed is a federal law. The DOD officer would still have to turn that person over to the local authority. The issue that is at hand is that DOD police officers currently have no authority off base, and they do not carry weapons off the base. This would give them that authority. For their protection.
Look at Fort Dix in New Jersey. The local department signed a memo of understanding with the DOD police giving them authority to patrol off the base and in their jurisdiction because crime was getting too high and the local departments didn’t have the funding that the DOD does. So they asked them for help, this bill would basically do that nationally.
We have a national police force it’s called the FBI.
This Bill is without a doubt Un-Constitutional. You better read the Constitution and understand what it says! Warrants are required in Our Constitution for a reason!
Each person in the US Military takes an oath to protect “We The People” against ANYONE who would try to violate our Constitutional Rights. If more US Military persons are needed then politicians should focus on increasing our US Military by not cutting their benefits, etc.
This would rather aid in th so called, Un-Constitutional, National Civilian Security Force.
Am I the only one here that knows how to read? Again, “warrants” are NOT required if the Violation occurs in the presence of the officer. ANY OFFICER WITH ARREST AUTHORITY CAN MAKE A WARRANTLESS ARREST. A perfect example is DUI, Shoplifting, Domestic violence etc. People are watching too much Law and Order/CSI type shows. I can not stress enough that this bill only effect’s CIVILIAN POLICE OFFICERS that work for agencies under the Dept of Defense. Please read the whole bill and also read 1585a. The sole purpose of the bill is to correct issues that were not around when Posse C was written.
BRRO: So the Obama (or some future) administration wants to beef up the CIVILIAN POLICE OFFICERS numbers……in effect forming it into a NATIONAL GOVERNMENT POLICE FORCE..with authority to make arrests, investigate, etc ANYWHERE. The framework is there and the authority is there….so AGAIN………..why not add simple limiting authority to these guys???.
Again, copied right from the bill. Please see item 4. THIS APPLIES ONLY TO DOD PROPERTY! This section(a) applies to any law enforcement officer of the Department of Defense whose duties include—
‘(1) enforcing laws enacted for the protection of persons and property;
‘(2) preventing breaches of the peace and suppressing affrays or unlawful assemblies;
‘(3) conducting, supervising, or coordinating investigations of criminal activity in programs and operations of the Department of Defense;
‘(4) enforcing any rules or regulations with respect to Department of Defense property prescribed by duly authorized officials.
And I point out to you section (2) “preventing breaches of the peace and suppressing affrays or unlawful assemblies;” this means simply any unlawful assembly, can you define what is an unlawful assembly on DOD land? Howcome this section does not limit the enforcement to only DOD land? What is meant by “Suppressing”? Does that include force of arms or deadly force? Since you support this bill I ask you have you ever thought of standing on the other side of the enforcement? What if someday (God forbid) Americans need to defend themselves from their own government? That is what the second amendment is for and about. Maybe you should reread your bill and think some more about it. If I can see holes in this bill then others that would want to take advantage of it can also.
Wow Mark. Having been a military member yourself, or so you say, I’m surprised to have read this. An unlawful assembly is any one which has not been authorized by the base commander. DoD police agencies currently get their authority from the base commander that they patrol for. The base commander has certain duties and responsibilities, one being to “maintain good order and discipline” on his installation. According to his direction, DoD police currently are tasked with maintaining good order and discipline on his installation. Preventing breaches of the peace – could be loud music, domestic abuse, fight, etc., the usual police work. Suppressing affrays – threats of unlawful violence towards another, i.e. criminal or terrorist threats. Unlawful assemblies – protesting of any kind is not allowed on base (as it detracts from good order and discipline), events must be authorized by the installation commander. There are no holes Mark. You just have to be able to understand the jargon.
We also already have “National Police”. FBI, Customs, Secret Service, Immigration, ATF, US Marshals, US Postal Police, DEA, I’m sure I left off some. This bill is designed to fix a statatory problem there is on base. I.E. Suppose a Civilian Police Officer pulls over a Higher ranking Army Officer or Senior Enlisted for DUI, All it takes is for the Base Commander to say “I don’t want ____ to be arrested, I will have a talk with him. Let him go.” And it is like it never happened! This Bill would correct potential situations like I mentioned.
From Callagan…..Here we are as promised now a little more than a month since you claimed that the administration and others should be trusted with the creation of yet another federal officer with authority to make arrests etc. I would be greatly surprised if you still feel that way.
Time to rethink trust in this administration.
I can tell you have never served in the military! The Military police system does not discriminate by rank. I, as a e2 sat in an MP cell with a full bird colonel! Me for fighting, he for speeding and driving drunk. We both ended up on report equally. And that was in the late 70’s. Your arguement holds no water and is a supposition to say the least. The only way a base commander would do something as you suggest is if he wanted to end his military career, favoratism while I don’t deny that it exists in the military, does not include protection from illegal situations.
It can and does happen. Believe it Mark. When you allow one man to be judge, jury and executioner, it happens.
Reenlist Mark!
Times are a lot different now than back in the late 70’s, or maybe you were one of the lucky ones that had a base CO that was actually fair. I am a DoD officer and just the other day a coworker got written up and reprimanded for stopping a rear admiral for talking on his cellphone while driving, which is not only against base regs, but state law as well. Another example, we brought in a Lt jg for disorderly conduct and conduct unbecoming, the base CO drops the charges because the Lt jg “was just having a bad day.” The police on the USAF base next to us arent allowed to write tickets to 06 and above, including dependants. Also, only civilians on the USAF base can be issued 1805 citations with monetary fines, military personnel are exempt and only issued 1408 citations which are only point based.
Thanks for letting people know the law. I do not understand people who do not read what they should so that they can understand what is going on.
All police, federal agents and sheriff’s make warrantless arrests everyday for crimes they witness
According to the 4th Amendment Police are not allowed to perform warrantless arrests only if there is probable cause.
So with that said, this bill is completely unconstitutional.
What police officers do or should I say their scope of duties are derived from the US Constitution, ie Laws of Arrest/ Search and Seizure. There are proper procedures needed to be followed in order for an arrest to take place. There is what is called Probable Cause which means that if an individual is believed to have, has, is or will commit a crime, he/she can be arrested and subject to search incident to lawful arrest. However, everyone is protected by the 4th ammendment(Protection from unresonable search and seizure)If this suspect tells the police they cannot search ie. his vehicle,bags and other personal possesion, then the officers will then have to secure a search warrant/or perhaps be subject to inventory search once booking procedure has started. I do not think this that this HR bill would take precedence over the US constitution. These DOD Police Officers will have to carry out their duties based on the Constitution just like any other law enforcement officers in the nation.
Diana,
I don’t think you understand. No police officer in the united states needs a warrant for crimes that are committed in view of the officer.
Currently, DOD police officer’s can detain civilians and military alike for state or federal crimes on military property. However, they have to turn that person over to another state or federal agency for the arrest. The only thing that would change is that the DOD can then own the case.
The only time the police need a warrant is through a police investigation where the crime wasn’t committed in view of the officer. For example, Ted murders someone and leaves DNA on the scene. The police find the DNA and make a match; because the police only have evidence and didn’t witness the crime they must get a warrant to arrest Ted.
Bravo but I bet she still won’t get it!
How is this bill unconstitutional? DOD 0083 police officers are no different then 0083 us park police, secret service police, pentagon police or any other federal 0083 police officer. These 0083 policer officers will still be bound to there jurisdictional boundaries on military installations. This bill just gives them the same authority as there federal 0083 counterparts…nothing more or nothing less. When this bill passes there will be no need to contact local police to make an arrest on military installations (exclusive jurisdiction) to which local police have no legal authority.
Don’t be so naive. This is just another attempt to control the most dangerous population in the world: Americans. Why are they dangerous? Because they are, or at least are supposed to be, jealous of their liberties. The last thing we need are more people walking around with guns and badges saving us from ourselves. This country is turning into a police state. We dont’ need more troops and more police in this country. These are dangerous in a free society.
This is a constitutional problem…if Military MPs can start arresting people for civil and criminal activities outside of the military umbrella, we have a national police force (beyond what we have with the FBI, Secret Services, etc) DOJ and Secret Service have very specific laws governing their activities (such as transport of xxx across state lines, etc). Obama and company would be pleased to have this authority.
We are not military. We are civilians. Unlike the military, if asked by a local department for assistants we can respond. The military cannot. The big part of this bill is taking the role of the base commander out. He has the authorty to say i only want you to issues tickets to enlisted and civilians. Officers will be exempt from getting tickets. They have the authorty to tell us not to enforce laws. By putting us under title 10 it takes that away.
Please, Please, Please go back and read the bill. I bet if CIVILIAN POLICE OFFICERS was in bold, highlighted and under lined you would still miss it!
whole deal sounds fishy to me, will keep an eye on discussions here for sure.
Any civilian law enforcement officer can make arrest without warrants, that should not be of concern. There still has to be probable cause for any arrest with or without warrant. The issue is that the officers he is talking about are CIVILIANS, but they are employed by the Department of Army/Navy/AF. Right now their authority comes from a military Officer and not U.S. Code. Because they do not have the authority this bill would allow, the civilian officers MUST now obey a military post commander. This Bill would actually REMOVE the military authority over its civilian officers. It does not effect Military police that are active/reserve/national guard members. They are still subjuct to POSSE C! It is actually a very good thing
callagan:
This bill (contrary to what some conspiracy theorists think) only applies to DoD civilian police, not MPs, MAs or SPs (who are now, and always will be, covered by the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the military’s authority on civilian jurisdiction to a support role).
I’m a DoD officer, and this bill would benefit you more than you think. Maybe then we could charge habitual offenders under federal and state statutes instead of the UCMJ slap on the wrist.
For God sake, we can’t even enforce state or federal laws. This is the point – you’re point, if I recall.