Talk:Railroad police/Archives/2012

Railroad police/railway police

While railway police are often well trained and do have police authority, they serve the company FIRST and the public second. As a retired federal "Special Agent" and part-time local police officer, I, along with other public police officers, were keenly aware of this. They ARE NOT federal officers and are not granted "federal officer" status, unless employed by a government agency such as Amtrack.

Some states do allow for full peace officer authority while most limit that authority to the protection of railroad property. As "company police", they do not have the same interests as the public police who answer to the public and not a "for profit" board of directors.

Please note that while I am not anti RR police, having worked with them as a fed it was clear that they work for a private company.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.41.80 (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not accept that there are huge differences between "railroad police" in the United States and "railway police" in other countries - it is merely a different word for the same thing. Many of the forces listed under the Transit police article are in fact railway/railroad forces or are combined transit/railway forces, and the introduction to the transit police article actually describes railway/railroad police. Frankly, I don't really see the need for this article, which seems to be an unnecessary fork. -- Necrothesp 23:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You might not "accept" it, but being from the UK and assumably not having working in the American railroad system, how can you know? There are huge differences between railroad police and transit police in the U.S., as explained before. Maybe the title of the article could be changed to "Railroad police (U.S.)"? 69.58.224.12 07:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved the title to "Railroad police (U.S.)". To address your concerns Necro, railroad police and transit police are not synonymous in the U.S. because (1) railroad PDs are operated by private carriers such as Union Pacific or BNSF while transit/transport police are government agencies such as the New York/New Jersey Port Authority (2) the jurisdiction of railroad police is significantly different from transit/transport police at both the state and federal levels and (3) the histories of railroad police and transit/transport police are completely different. Hope this explanation addresses your concerns. Equinox137 08:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your article is quite inaccurate. Four states do not recognize railroad police officers: HI, MN, OK, and WY. Further, 49 USC 28101 does NOT give any federal authority to railroad police officers, it merely grants a railroad police officer certified/licensed in one state to enforce STATE laws in other states where the employing railroad has railroad lines without having to become certified/licensed in the other states.24.247.87.252 01:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)jrpullman@aol.com. Not able to speak for other states, but the State of Oklahoma does recognize railroad police and their authority, pursuant to Title 66 Chapter 7 Sec. 123, whereas it states "Railway companies organized under the laws of this state, or doing business within the state, are hereby authorized and empowered at their own expense to appoint and employ law enforcement officers at such stations or other places on the lines of their railroads within this state, as said companies may deem necessary for the protection of their property, and the preservation of order on their premises, and in and about their cars, depots, depot grounds, yards, buildings or other structures; and said law enforcement officers shall have power and authority to arrest, with or without warrant, any person or persons who shall commit any offense against the laws of this state, or the ordinances of any town, city, or other municipality when such offense shall have been committed upon the premises of said companies, or in and about their cars, depots, depot grounds, yards, buildings, or other structures. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as restricting the lawful rights, powers or privileges of any sheriff, constable, policeman, or peace officer within their respective jurisdiction, and for the official acts of railway law enforcement officers, the railroad company making such appointment shall be held responsible to the same extent as for the acts of any of its general agents or employees." Oklahoma has a long history of railroad policing. Oilcapitalcop (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)oilcapitalcop

It's not inaccurate. I work for a RR police agency and can assure you that (a) both we and CN have Special Agents in MN that can and do make arrests. You are correct about WY and OK (I don't know about HI), however we have agents there as well because (b) 49 USC 28101 DOES give federal authority to RR police. Local PDs will often consult with us on whether or not federal charges can be brought - in fact, this last happened in MN (in that case, the incident didn't meet the federal criteria). Another example: we recently prosecuted a local PD dispatcher in federal court for falsifying a blocked crossing report and forcing us to move a train in violation of FRA hours of service rules. They do have the authority to enforce the federal statutes under both Title 49 and Title 18 - . The History Channel has a documentary on railroad bulls that outlines how their federal authority works. Here's a couple of links that verify what I'm saying [1] [2] Please let me know if I can help any further. Equinox137 07:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree with the renaming of this article to be US only. Like almost any type of police, there are significant differences between the UK and the US, but these tend to form the ends of a continuum, and there's no reason to make this either/or. The British Transport Police are railroad police, even though they also police urban transit. Transit police and this article should work together to clarify significant differences rather than lock them into separate compartments. Private or public ownership isn't what makes them "railroad police"; that is a significant difference in the US and UK, but that's the defining characteristic for the Company police article. Coming from Canada, I notice the Canadian National Police Service is listed. Okay, so the Yanks bought it, but it still operates in both countries, and historically, private, company police in Canada were similar to the US railroad "bulls." Also, having this US specific begs the question: who polices railroads in other countries? No other country has specialized rail police? I'm assuming that "railway" is the preferred term in the UK, while it's normally "railroad" in the US (interchangeable in Canada), but like anything else with national variations in English, it's not an insurmountable problem to prevent an article from being global. Articles for the particular agencies is the place to get really specific. Bobanny 07:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No other countries that I know of, except Canada, allow private railroads to employ their own police forces. In fact, there are few nations that actually have private railroads. As I've pointed out before, in the case of the British Tranport Police, the terms "railroad police" and "transit police" are interchangable, however in the U.S. - they're not. There's a huge difference in the history and operations between the New York/New Jersey Port Authority Police and the Union Pacific Police Department. I really don't know how else I can explain it. Equinox137 07:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand the distinctions you're making, and agree that there should be 2 separate articles; my disagreement is in making this exclusively a US article. The reason that transit and rail police are interchangeable in Britain, SFAIK, it that one police force polices both urban public transit systems and railroads (so they would get a mention in both articles, with a wikilink to the BTP article for more info). I'm guessing that in other countries, national or territorial police forces police the railroads, but I wouldn't want to bet that there are no other specialized law enforcement agencies that do. If it's a primarily American phenomenon, or American policing model, then the article should reflect that in what's discussed, but there's no reason here why there can't be at least a section indicating who polices railroads outside the US. Not to be all nationalist or anything, the Canadian example is enough to make the (U.S.) qualifier in the title inappropriate. (Additionally, a bracketed location in the title like that typically indicates that there are "Railroad police (somewhere else too)," to avoid confusion. If something's exclusively American, the contents of the article would show that.)

Ok, how would you recommend giving this article a "worldwide" view? I agree that the Canadian example is enough to make the qualifier inappropriate. What would you recommend??? Equinox137 15:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

3 things come to mind as a result of this discussion. 1) Change the title back to just "railroad police," and make the intro as generic as the title. 2) Add a history section. This has been mentioned as important here, and I think that would help clarify differences in different countries. A bit of research would probably be needed for this. 3) Be specific in the article that it's a US-specific section. For readers looking for other places, probably just a mention is needed that railroads are mostly policed by territorial police. If someone's looking specifically for Britain, a mention that the BTP polices railways there (since it's the only agency that does there, no other article is needed, just a wikilink to British Transport Police). Even if the content is predominantly American, I think the important thing is to structure so that it can accomodate relevant non-American material that exists, or may exist in the future. I'll try to edit the intro, taking into account comments made here. bobanny 20:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This should be a general article about police agencies that police railroads, and wikilinks should point to where the details of those huge differences you speak of are laid out. Private ownership of big things sets the US apart in a lot of things, not just railroads, but it still looks to me like the main significance is area of specialization, or whether there's a specialization at all, rather than public/private ownership. Their authority still comes from the state if they are private, and I'll bet lots of private sector police have public sector experience, especially in the upper echelons. bobanny 23:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks excellent, Bobanny. I think it should hopefully solve the problem. Equinox137 06:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"No other countries that I know of, except Canada, allow private railroads to employ their own police forces". Not now maybe, but until nationalisation in the late 1940s, British railways, which were then private, did employ their own police forces. The BTP is descended from those forces. Wikipedia does not just cover the present. Also note that the terms "transit police" and "railroad police" are not used in Britain at all - we say "transport police" or railway police" - so the statement "in the case of the British Tranport Police, the terms "railroad police" and "transit police" are interchangable" is simply incorrect. The BTP primarily police the railways - their responsibilities on other forms of public transport are limited to London (since the railways which came together to form London Underground also had their own private police forces, which amalgamated into BTP) and the Midland Metro. Systems elsewhere are policed by the local territorial force. Most people would see the BTP as a railway police force, and that's what they originated as. -- Necrothesp 10:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I added "railway" back in. That seems to be the correct term historically for Canada as well, although "railroad" is acceptable in everyday lingo. I noticed that Manchester Metrolink is partially policed by the BTP - perhaps they're expanding their jurisdiction? (Though that wouldn't change how they are referred to). bobanny 00:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

History section/structuring

I decided to be bold and stick in a history section and move towards making it non-exclusively US. I've only done the US and Canada, and they don't get us up to the present yet, and something should be done for Britain, even if just lifting the bit from the BTP article on its early days. Feel free to make any corrections, improvements, additions, etc, as usual. bobanny 00:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Federal authority

Dear Equinox137:

I think you fail to understand what "authority" is granted to a railroad police officer under 49 USC 28101. Many (those that are misinformed) will claim that 49 USC 28101 provides "federal authority" to a railroad police officer. It does not. Instead, 49 USC 28101 provides "interstate authority" (i.e., the authority to enforce STATE laws in an adjoining state(s) which also recognize railroad police officers), PROVIDED the railroad police officer is licensed/certified in his state of residence.

I have (again) reviewed Minnesota state laws, and I can find no state law which allows for railroad police officers. If you know of a statute, perhaps you could share it with me. 49 USC 28101 does NOT provide a railroad police officer with any authority to act as a law enforcement officer in a state which does not recognize railroad police officers to begin with.

I seem to recall having a discussion with a Union Pacific Railroad police officer who told me that in those states where UP operated but the state did not recognize railroad police officers, UP called their officers "claims agents" and the only authority the "claims agent" has was the power of common law citizen's arrest. (As ridiculous as it may seem, the title change necessary to avert possible prosecution for impersonating a police officer.)

Returning to the "federal authority" issue, every STATE and LOCAL law enforcement officer can make an arrest for a federal crime. Since a railroad police officer is a police officer arising under state law, the same power delves upon a railroad police officer. 49 USC 28101 does not give this "federal authority" to a railroad police officer.

I would think that you, as a railroad police officer, would want to be on top of these legal issues, for the fact that should you take action to arrest someone when you did not have authority, you will be wide open for a Civil Rights lawsuit. If you do not think that can/will happen, there are a couple of your UP brothers in Chicago who found out how the courts are carefully scrutinizing the authority of railroad police officers. After what most anyone would have said was a good "bust", the courts dismissed the case on the basis that the arrest was unconsitutitonal because, in Illinois, railroad police officers cannot conduct investigations or make arrests OFF of railroad property except and unless there was a pursuit.

Sadly, many of the state laws which empower railroad police officers are poorly written and leave railroad police officers widely exposed. Many legal protections and permissions which exist under state laws for "regular" police officers do not exist for railroad police officers. 24.247.87.252 09:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in here. I'm confused about what your argument is. First, "interstate authority" is granted by a federal law, so it's not clear what the distinction is you're making in a practical sense. Secondly, if a rail cop is licensed in his state of residence, why wouldn't he have policing powers under interstate authority? I took a look at 49 USC 28101 and it doesn't draw a hard line between rail and regular police, i.e., to me it looks like a rail cop with full police powers authorized by one state can exercise them in another as long as it's something to with the company's interests there. Unless there's some state law in Minnesota explicitly neutralizing that power. It seems like what you're saying is that only Minnesota can license police in that state. If a NY city cop goes to Minnesota, he's not going to get in trouble for impersonating a police officer just because he's not explicitly authorized by MN. Things have been shifting regarding the growth of private security generally and their relationship to law enforcement, and my guess is that interpretations in these areas of the law can vary case to case. Anyway, I'm an outsider, and just asking for clarification. bobanny 12:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bobbanny. "Interstate authority" and "federal authority" imply two distinctly different authorities. Interstate authority means exercising STATE police powers in more than one state. Federal authority means across the entire USA. 49 USC 28101 begins "Under regulations adopted by the administrator...", so it must be read in conjunction with 49 CFR 207.5(c), wherein it provides: "(c) The authority exercised under this part by an officer for whom the railroad has provided notice in accordance with Sec. 207.4 shall be the same as that of a railroad police officer commissioned under the laws of that state." Thus, if a state does not recognize railroad police officers under their law, the out-of-state railroad police officer begets no authority in that state under 49 USC 28101 since railroad police officers have no authority in that state.

As far as a New York City police officer visiting Minnesota, he should not get in trouble for impersonating a police officer UNLESS he is out there flashing his badge and trying to arrest someone or uses his badge to get someone to do something that they would not do for a "non-badged" person. In other words, as long as the NYC police officer did not attempt to exercise the authority which is bestowed to him only under New York law and only within the soverign limits of the State of New York, the NYC police officer will not get into trouble in Minnesota. (Has it happened... YOU BETCHA!!!! And, when it happened was the out-of-state police officer ever charged with a crime... YES!!!!)

Now, as to a railroad police officer in Minnesota, there appears to be no state law which creates/recognizes a railroad police officer, in other words, globally speaking, railroad police officers do not exist in that state. And because of 49 CFR 207.5(c), an out-of-state railroad police officer who wants to act in Minnesota has the same authority as a railroad police officer is provided under Minnesota law, that being NONE!

Interestingly, the state of Minnesota gives arrest powers to conductors of trains. (MN ST 629.363). Many other states also grant arrest authority to train conductors to handle rowdy passengers.

The big reason why a railroad police officer should want to be very clear as to what his lawful authority is relates to Civil Rights lawsuits. One "illegal" arrest, no matter how legal it may have appeared, and the "arrestee" will be suing the "deep pocket" railroad AND the "arrestor" in a heartbeat. 24.247.87.252 02:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, anon. I'll start by saying that I was wrong. It appears that you are correct about the federal authority claim. 49 USC 28101 gives RR police multi-state jurisdiction only, as you've been saying. I do know of cases whether our agents have pressed criminal cases in federal court under Titles 18 and 49 as I previously stated, however that has been in conjunction with other federal agencies and I'm not up to speed on the specifics of each case. As far as Minnesota, I still stand by my statement that they do have arrest powers there. Minnesota may treat it the same as Nebraska, where there's no specific statute authorizing RR police either - the state considers them legitimate police officers as long as their certification is in good standing. How exactly they do this - I don't know - but we do have an officer in Minnesota that has/does make arrests. BTW, in speaking about Chicago, yes, I'm aware of cases like People v. Olson in the courts. I also agree with you about "legal" arrests and civil rights lawsuits.

An FYI...the railroads are currently trying to actually obtain the federal authority that you differentiated to Bobbany. It probably remains to be seen, but RR police are now allowed to attend the FBI National Academy, so I guess we'll see what happens.

Equinox137 08:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hobo songs

In depression-era hobo songs, they're usually depicted as bullying petty tyrants... AnonMoos (talk) 11:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The railroad had a lot of power and the money, that is power, they got away with lot of bullying and the local police turned a blind eye as money talked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.193.21.115 (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)