Should MPs have jurisdiction of Military Personnel off post?

SSG Robert Burns — Sun, 10 Aug 2014 19:09:06 -0400

Should an MP be able to come to my house off post and arrest me? Would this be good or bad for the military? What are your thoughts.
Side note: Anyone have bail money? I'll pay you back.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 10 at 2014 7:14 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 10 Aug 2014 19:14:48 -0400

There are UCMJ articles 2, 5, and 7 (person, place, and type of crime) that authorize such enforcement. They carry across all jurisdictions. You do crime out in town in Japan, the Japanese police come after you, but US still regains your custody eventually.

I don't see problem with off-post MP enforcement. Just make sure you act well and there shouldn't be a problem. I'm a security forces specialist by trade and appreciated importance of enforcement off post, especially overseas.

PS: I'll give you thumbs up for 50 points. Hopefully they help toward bail fund

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 10 at 2014 8:43 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 10 Aug 2014 20:43:07 -0400

MPs should have jurisdiction over every inch of soil in the world.

Response by PO3 John Jeter made Aug 10 at 2014 9:27 PM

PO3 John Jeter — Sun, 10 Aug 2014 21:27:49 -0400

First I need a definition. When you say "MP" I presume you are referring to a member of the armed forces who's MOS is that of a law enforcement officer. As opposed to an NCO who has been assigned temporarily to assist with raw manpower. Back in the mid 70's they were referred to as AFP's regardless of the branch of service.

Getting to your question though. I would tend to believe that they already do have jurisdiction over Military personnel off base as long as the charge against you is based on the UCMJ. Some states do not recognize AFP's as having "Police Powers" when civilian laws are involved. Depending on the offense that's alleged, it can be a real can of worms.....

Response by SPC Christopher Smith made Aug 10 at 2014 9:34 PM

SPC Christopher Smith — Sun, 10 Aug 2014 21:34:23 -0400

No, unless they can obtain a warrant from a state/local judge I would not accept their authority if they knocked on my door. Should they decide to enter with force afterward, I would assume my family is in harm's way, and I would defend my household. Seeing how they are not peace officers, I'd find it difficult to believe they would be able to obtain a warrant. Better catch me on post if you need to get me that bad.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 10 at 2014 9:42 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 10 Aug 2014 21:42:23 -0400

Depending on the location and agreements with local law enforcement, the MPs have a certain amount of jurisdiction on-and-around post regarding service members. They tend to write tickets for the jurisdiction they are local to.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 10 at 2014 10:07 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 10 Aug 2014 22:07:59 -0400

Yes they should have jurisdiction off post to make arrest for violations of the UCMJ committed on or off post. But if the a crime is committed off base and falls under the realm of the local agencies authority then I would say no.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Aug 10 at 2014 10:38 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Sun, 10 Aug 2014 22:38:43 -0400

Exactly

Response by SGT Marvin "Dave" Bigham made Aug 10 at 2014 11:13 PM

SGT Marvin "Dave" Bigham — Sun, 10 Aug 2014 23:13:12 -0400

No reason to cause more confusion with authorities near post.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2014 12:27 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 Aug 2014 00:27:02 -0400

When I was at Camp Pendleton, MP's had jurisidiction off base, but we were advised not to initiate anything unless there was a risk of life. While I was there I know of 2 instances were onduty MP's initiated contact off base. both were intiated with civilians. One reason for this, is that I-5 goes through Camp Pendleton for 20 miles, joint jurisdiction there.

So the next logical question to this one sided discussion is should local law enforcement be able to come on base to enforce laws?

California is considered a open jurisdiction state where there is no "territory", "turf" etc. I know that while I was on shift, a local high speed pursuit off base, involving 6 local law enforcement agencies, ended on base by the main gate.

I think this question should be discussed considering both angles, not only should we enforce off base, should local enforce on base?

Response by SSG Pete Fleming made Aug 11 at 2014 3:10 AM

SSG Pete Fleming — Mon, 11 Aug 2014 03:10:49 -0400

I know when I was in Germany and Panama we patrolled off post. There were off limit places that we would periodically check. I think it should be the Military's place to police our own. Civilian law should be observed and respected but the military punishment is far more severe (in the big picture).

Response by SPC Randy Torgerson made Aug 11 at 2014 4:01 AM

SPC Randy Torgerson — Mon, 11 Aug 2014 04:01:01 -0400

I think they should. But with a clear policy mandated by the pm.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2014 6:11 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 Aug 2014 06:11:32 -0400

SSG Burns, I don't know much about MPs now, but they used to have enormous jurisdiction throughout the host country under the status of forces agreement. Warmest Regards, Sandy

https://ia601505.us.archive.org/14/items/FM19-2/FM19-2.pdf

Response by LTC Barry Hull made Aug 11 at 2014 10:24 AM

LTC Barry Hull — Mon, 11 Aug 2014 10:24:45 -0400

Let me turn the question around, should a Fayetteville PD officer have jurisdiction on civilian personnel on Fort Bragg?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2014 1:16 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:16:44 -0400

MPs are not needed for that. Too many other things on post that they do not need to try to go off post for an arrest. Chain of command and go and talk to the Soldier and ask him to turn himself in. CID has jurisdiction and has been used before to affect the arrest of a Soldier off post.....even though it was not a felony. There are coordinations that have to be made etc etc etc. Trust the young MP Soldiers have enough on their plate on post less alone going off post.

Response by SGT Chris Birkinbine made Aug 11 at 2014 2:44 PM

SGT Chris Birkinbine — Mon, 11 Aug 2014 14:44:05 -0400

No Jurisdiction is traditionally geographical. It is no different than asking if a California cop should have jurisdiction over a California resident in Nevada. The primary reason for this is logistics.

Response by SPC Richard White made Aug 11 at 2014 3:35 PM

SPC Richard White — Mon, 11 Aug 2014 15:35:12 -0400

I would say yes,I rather have an MP come pick me up if I was arrested for drunk and disorderly than have some local yoco have me for breakfast.Also I think if a military member was off base and did something that was unlawful then the military should deal with it accordingly.

Response by COL Randall C. made Aug 11 at 2014 6:05 PM

COL Randall C. — Mon, 11 Aug 2014 18:05:58 -0400

SSG Robert Burns, does it really matter if the MPs come get your *** or if the civilian police do it and turn you over to the MPs? Are you afraid they would do a H&W while there? What exactly are you trying to hide at your house?

Response by COL Randall C. made Aug 11 at 2014 6:33 PM

COL Randall C. — Mon, 11 Aug 2014 18:33:57 -0400

Instead of a lot of typing, I would say one thing... many of those making comments about what you can and can't do -- Military Law Review has been a great read for me every since my JAG pointed me towards it. Most of the time it is to esoteric, but it does give a good read on these types of discussions.

SSG Pete Fleming, you are absolutely correct on the statement that most misinterpret the Posse Comitatus Act.

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member - Actually, Posse Comitatus doesn't apply to you (since you're Navy). DoD Directives which prohibit certain law enforcement activities do.

Response by 1SG David Niles made Aug 11 at 2014 7:05 PM

1SG David Niles — Mon, 11 Aug 2014 19:05:40 -0400

We use to have local PD come and get ya, then your commander would go and get you. Understand that all authority goes to your chain of command. MP's might detain you, might recommend charges but everything is through the chain of command and MP's have no prosecutorial authority in the military world. But that being said. MP's have the authority to write and issue DD FM 1805, us magistrate tickets. We can use these for all traffic violations up to including DUI/DWI's. If there was a strong command climate like at Ft. Myers, VA we would issue DA FM1408, those usually go to the First Sergeant to deal with. That could lead to extra detail or losing your driving privilege. Most of the time, that just led to and Ass Chewing and you never did it again. So, I don't think that MP's should be able to go to your house outside of post. Just like I don't believe that Civilian police should be able to come on post unless asked by the command element.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Aug 11 at 2014 7:13 PM

SGT Richard H. — Mon, 11 Aug 2014 19:13:16 -0400

If I were to screw up off post, I would hope the MP's came to get me. I'd rather take my chances with my CO, who will probably base some of his decisions on my performance, than a civil court.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2014 7:19 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 Aug 2014 19:19:50 -0400

The easy answer for me is, yes. But with many caveats.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2014 7:57 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 Aug 2014 19:57:20 -0400

The reason why I say that they should not is because of the fact that the jurisdiction would change from military post and govt quarters an extension of what it should not be.

Response by LTC Paul Heinlein made Aug 11 at 2014 8:27 PM

LTC Paul Heinlein — Mon, 11 Aug 2014 20:27:36 -0400

MP's (SPC and Below) while on duty have the authority to enforce the UCMJ anywhere (and associated regulations, customs, courtesies) on any US Service Member bound by the UCMJ.
All Officers and NCOs (regardless of Branch) have the authority (and are Duty duty bound) to enforce the UCMJ (and associated regulations, customs, courtesies) anywhere in the world on any US Service Member bound by the UCMJ.
Any US Service Member bound by the UCMJ is required to obey the orders of any On Duty MP, Officer, or NCO that is conducting their duties in a lawful manner. If they do not, they will be subject to numerous other UCMJ offenses...Article 92 and Article 134 (the catch all) at least.
Posse Comitatus only applies to using the Military to Police the civilian population off US Installations. Not the Military Policing its own personnel. We are not limited by civilian jurisdictions....if an installation chooses to limit their MPs authority, then it is on them.
Law Enforcement Safety Act of 2013, now authorizes all properly Credentialed and Qualified MPs (all branches version of such to include retirees) to carry a concealed weapon (off duty) anywhere in the US (to include territories) just like any other City, County, or Federal Police Officer. The US Army's implementing instructions on LEOSA are scheduled to be published this SEP-DEC time frame (refer to the Officer of the Provost Marshal General website for more info).

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2014 8:46 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 Aug 2014 20:46:40 -0400

I agree with LEOSA on all aspects provided they pass the proper screening and qualifications, however I dont think Military Police(I am one) should have any authority off post as a LEO. It will only cause issues with local PD and SO. Let the civilians control civilian property and the MPs control military property.....Its Logical that way.

Response by SCPO Joshua I made Aug 11 at 2014 9:24 PM

SCPO Joshua I — Mon, 11 Aug 2014 21:24:04 -0400

MPs do not have the authority to come to your house off post and arrest you, nor should they.

Response by SSG Laureano Pabon made Aug 11 at 2014 9:26 PM

SSG Laureano Pabon — Mon, 11 Aug 2014 21:26:23 -0400

If something happened to a SM off post, it is the responsibility of that city's Police Department to handle that. MP's are considered as Peace Officers, not Police officers. This has to do with the Jurisdictions of the Law in that city perhaps called Penal Law or Penal Code or what have you. However if a crime is committed off post then yes the MP's can arrest that SM if need to, too face charges according to the UCMJ.
I was hoping to hear what SFC Baber would say since he was an MP.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2014 10:14 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 Aug 2014 22:14:43 -0400

No. This would be a horrible idea for many reasons. First, I somewhat question the giving young soldiers authority off a military post. In NC, police officers must be 21. What would happen if a MP went off post to detain a soldier and a civilian attacks him. He just went into a gray area. Would the civilian be detained and brought back to post for federal charges?

Second, i was a deputy sheriff in a county bordering a base. We would find military police officers running traffic stops off post in the county. Any law enforcement agency has jurisdiction a mile beyond their boundaries. It is not meant to be patrolled but in it is meant to allow officers to act if they see a crime in the neighboring area. It got to the point where a DOD officer pulled over a Deputy Sheriff in his patrol car for speeding. The Deputy was on his way to a call but did not activate his lights. This is common for Deputies. The sheriff ended up calling the Provost Marshall and informed him if they interfere with any more police actions they will be detained and their car impounded. In a county the Sheriff as more authority than anyone else there, to include other law enforcement agencies. After that I never saw a DOD/MP car in the county again.

Response by SFC Randy Purham made Aug 11 at 2014 10:34 PM

SFC Randy Purham — Mon, 11 Aug 2014 22:34:41 -0400

It would depend on the situation: 1.) If they themselves are in uniform and working in a unified-effort with local law enforcement. Yes. 2.) But, to arbitrarily be patrolling the streets of local towns/cities. No. That opens up the door for so many issues and problems. 3.) Most of the time MPs have limited jurisdiction on-post with certain things. Let alone going off-post. 4.) If MPs could go around enforcing policies and regulations like they used to, then it may be useful during duty hours off-post to maintain good order and discipline when knuckleheads want to act crazy outside of the presence of leadership/being on-post.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2014 10:44 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 Aug 2014 22:44:14 -0400

If it pertains to a military matter, then I don't see why not. If it's a civilian matter, then no.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2014 4:33 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 04:33:59 -0400

Although I am not a military police, I do believe that MPs "should" be given jurisdiction of military personnel regardless if they live on or off post. The key point is being given jurisdiction from "whomever" to execute their duties on or off the installation when dealing with military personnel.

Response by SSG Pete Fleming made Aug 12 at 2014 8:42 AM

SSG Pete Fleming — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 08:42:25 -0400

In regards to this issue... should the military (regardless of branch) revamp the standards and training of the MPs? Should the age be upped to 21, like the civilians? Should the AIT be on par with the 900 hours of the civilian academies? Or should the DOD police have jurisdiction in garrison and the MPs be used strictly in the field environment?

Because as it is the MP mission is two fold, garrison and field, the training is not the same as the civilian counterpart (it will not get you a job even at a small department).

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Aug 12 at 2014 10:09 AM

Capt Jeff S. — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 10:09:54 -0400

MP's should have some kind of arrangement worked out with the local police to coordinate efforts. The MP's may be present at the time of the arrest but the local police still have jurisdiction over what goes on out in town. Likewise, I would not give the local police jurisdiction on the base. It is federal property and doesn't belong to them.

Response by MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P made Aug 12 at 2014 2:13 PM

MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 14:13:58 -0400

As I understand the laws, military police have (and should continue to have) jurisdiction over UCMJ matters against military personnel regardless of being on-post or off-post.

I had the opportunity to serve as a Security Forces member for a few years. We would sometimes have to conduct arrests and/or detentions off-post in the local communities. Usually we would have the cooperation and assistance of local LEO's who would accompany us to the location.

That being said, I don't think military police should be enforcing local traffic (ie speeding tix, failure to stop, no seatbelt, etc) on the general civilian populace off post. As long as it's a military issue dealing with military personnel; good to go. Otherwise, leave civilian law enforcement to the civilian agencies.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2014 4:53 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 16:53:12 -0400

I don't want the MP to have that authority, and realize that i served 11 years without incident, but no. They should have to coordinate the arrest with the Local LEO and then coordinate a transfer to base. Could you imagine the neighbors phone calls to 911 about someone Kidnapping that poor Army boy? There's a press release to consider.
Now to play Devil's Advocate, how can you not give them that authority, especially overseas. Think about what the SOFA would look like if every arrest for under age drinking went through the hands of a police force that disagree with our drinking age? How would that work?

For this, my truest belief is military police military law, civilians police the rest.

Response by SSG V. Michelle Woods made Aug 12 at 2014 5:00 PM

SSG V. Michelle Woods — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 17:00:20 -0400

They've both always been super nice to me so I wouldn't mind either/or :)

Response by SSG Kevin McCulley made Aug 12 at 2014 5:08 PM

SSG Kevin McCulley — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 17:08:57 -0400

It isn't a matter of should. They DO, as do all NCOs, Warrant Officers and Commissioned officers under the UCMJ. They can't enter your home off post but if they see you commit a crime they can arrest you.

Response by SSG Matthew Underhill made Aug 12 at 2014 6:31 PM

SSG Matthew Underhill — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 18:31:46 -0400

No MP's should not. There are exceptions to the rule of course i.e. if they are actively in a pursuit etc, however having active duty troops patrolling the town violates the posse comitatus act. The law was specifically written to guard against just that. Even if MP's were just out looking for military personnel you cannot always distinguish between the two. So whats next stopping every male in town who is not clean shaven to ask for thier ID just because they are violating a rule or regulation? Or how about speeding? Where is the line drawn? Its a dangerous slippery slope that could lead to other more serious constitutional issues. Just as a point of reference does anyone remember the Army Provost Marshal who was relieved a few years back for having his MP's secure an off post crime spree and direct traffic so the local cops could get some food and swap out after a major shooting spree in that town. These laws are written for a reason best to leave them as they are.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2014 6:39 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 18:39:11 -0400

SSG Burns,
Yes, Military Police should be allowed to “Police their own” ie Soldiers/Members of the Military Services. BUT, this should be done with the aid of local LEO’s in that area. Some of the installations carry out “Combined Patrols” with local LEO’s to assist them with the Military Community in the public area around larger installations.
I have been with partnered with a Police Officer in the Community and have been “walking the BAR Scene” on weekends and long holidays for an additional presence. And then the questions arise; “Jurisdiction, Arresting Policies/Procedures, and Martial Law”. As long as JAG, PMO and the local Police Departments ok it, (JAG NCOS/Officers please chime in here and correct me if I’m off the mark)MP’s working along side LEO’s can be justified.
BUT, if an arrest needs to be made, I’ve let the LEO make it or assisted with the arrest. On the other hand, while walking through the bars, I have come across Soldiers who do challenge me and the LEO assists me with that. Have I seen that done here in Manhattan, KS, Aggieville? Home of Kansas State? Oh Heck no. Times do change.

Now to answer PO3 John Jeter:
Military Police (MP's) are now covered under LEOSA. Obama has just signed and amendment to Hr 218. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 926B
Bottom line, MP’s are Federal LEO’s. I’ll leave that there.

Response by SSG Shawn Birkholz made Aug 12 at 2014 7:52 PM

SSG Shawn Birkholz — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 19:52:55 -0400

At many installations there already are joint jurisdiction agreements. I would think that an MP would be under the same status as a federal officer that can cross jurisdictional lines under some circumstances. Mainly I would think it appropriate that the local jurisdiction be informed of the action. If it is a military only crime than definitely I see no problems otherwise I think it best to do a joint arrest.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Aug 12 at 2014 9:39 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 21:39:02 -0400

This is a great discussion. Many contrasting and well argued/articulated opinions. Where else can you have this except Rally Point?

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2014 11:23 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 23:23:44 -0400

Depends on what's going on. Sometimes, the SM, if they've committed an offense, may prefer to be arrested by the MPs.

As a black man, at least I know if I comply with the orders of the arresting MP, I'm not going to get shot anyway. I don't know that with civilian police.

Response by CMSgt James Nolan made Aug 12 at 2014 11:31 PM

CMSgt James Nolan — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 23:31:08 -0400

Humor intended "You will respect my authority" (South Park)

It is locally dictated, whether by SOFA or jurisdictional agreements that were politically and legally worked out. Some places we work, there is concurrent jurisdiction, some there is not. But even where there is, it tends to be very specifically delineated and only goes a short distance (mostly) off post.

Do I think that MPs/SPs/MAs should be able to drive from an installation, go into a neighborhood and make entry on a house to make an arrest? No.

SSG Robert Burns this would be very bad for the military, and I don't think it will ever happen. Civilian police and Military police are two wildly different things. Many cops are in Guard/Reserves and a great many Military get out and become cops. But the two versions of law enforcement, while related, are vastly different. They need to stay that way.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 13 at 2014 7:09 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 07:09:38 -0400

Eff no, those jokers abuse the little power they have on pos.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 13 at 2014 7:14 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 07:14:10 -0400

We need to police ourselves. A lot of the new soldiers now a days think that once they leave post they are no longer under UCMJ. I cant count the times I have seen Soldiers doing things they know should not be doing (Sagging pants, Cursing out loud, SHARP violations, catcalls) just to name a few. Just last week I was out shopping with my family and my son overheard a man talking to his buddy about a sexual encounter he had with a female. my son came up to me and asked "What's a Blowjob daddy?" I confronted the man introduced myself as SFC Dorame to them. it turned out to be two NCOs I had to explain to them that just because they were not on post they should forget their common courtesy and SHARP training. Domestic Violence is another big issue that happens off post, and we as MP's know nothing about it because its out of our jurisdiction.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 13 at 2014 9:44 AM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 09:44:12 -0400

At one point they did, when some Army Post's were consider open, like Fort Meade and Belvoir, MP's patrol and issued tickets on the state roads that were outside the gates.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 13 at 2014 11:42 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 11:42:04 -0400

During my time at Bragg the ONLY time I've seen the MP's have jurisdiction outside the gate was along some of the roads immediatley surrounding post....and even then they were not the only ones..state police, local, and county. It's just not feeasble. Yes we are governed by the UCMJ but giving the MP's extra work will stretch them even further than they already are, its financially irresponsible due in part to added gas and maintenance costs to vehicles.....and.....wait for it...makes no sense at all

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 13 at 2014 1:20 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 13:20:17 -0400

Yes, if it has to do with military personnel. When they are off post, soldiers are still soldiers and are under the rules of the UCMJ, so I think MPs should have jurisdiction off post if it's of a military matter.

Response by SPC Nancy Detwiler made Aug 13 at 2014 2:18 PM

SPC Nancy Detwiler — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:18:42 -0400

MPs should have jurisdiction off post when it concerns one of the active duty personnel. I don't know how many times I've had to drag one our unruly boys back to post before the local PD was called. We dealt with our own. Family members are another story. Let the locals deal with them if they act up.

Response by SGT Kristin Wiley made Aug 13 at 2014 2:44 PM

SGT Kristin Wiley — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:44:38 -0400

I see no issues with local police calling in MPs to handle a matter, but giving them off-post jurisdiction will likely result in abuse of authority and overwork our force. Throughout my career I have seen countless military personnel with a complete disregard for military values, especially in Hawaii. I would not give them this authority because I honestly don't trust most individuals in the military to do what is right.

Response by SPC James Burke made Aug 13 at 2014 10:02 PM

SPC James Burke — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 22:02:36 -0400

Hell no they shouldn't, that's why their called Military Police, local law enforcement has jurisdiction outside of the base.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Aug 13 at 2014 10:46 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 22:46:43 -0400

Anyone here a civilian cop and an MP?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 13 at 2014 11:00 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 23:00:50 -0400

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 13 at 2014 11:16 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 23:16:06 -0400

Yes and no it depends on what you did.

Response by CPL Karina Franco-rey made Aug 14 at 2014 12:24 AM

CPL Karina Franco-rey — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 00:24:51 -0400

There should be segregation of duties that work hand in hand. An MP should have the authority to arrest off post but limited to military law violations. If an MP gets in an altercation with a civilian arresting a soldier off post, local law enforcement should get involved since are geared towards customer service and public record. Legal matters should also work hand in hand among its pertinent entities. On the other hand, third party entities may aid with limited access in the arrest and transporting of the subject without it being considered a kidnap to alleviate the calls or responsibilities. That is assuming responsibility of the risks that may result of their actions as well. This segregation of duties should not be limited to home arrests. In circumstances of vehicle pursuits across jurisdiction lines, where pursuit ended should take presence over the MP authority but allowing the MP jurisdiction to haul the soldier.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 14 at 2014 1:28 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 01:28:14 -0400

Nope. AR 190-22 Chapter 2 (paraphrased) says that Military authority starts and stops at the front gate. Case closed.

Posse Comitatus prevents US Military from taking part in civilian law enforcement. Then again, NDAA 2012 declared the entire US to be a "battlefield" and thus enabling the Military to conduct operations on US soil...

But either way it's a bad idea that needs to not be spoken about, lest the Good Idea Fairy start whispering in peoples' ears.

Response by COL Alfred Diaz made Aug 14 at 2014 8:15 AM

COL Alfred Diaz — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 08:15:26 -0400

Yes, MPs should have jurisdiction over military personnel off post. Military personnel are on duty and subject to the UCMJ 24 hours per day, on duty, off duty, on post, off post, in uniform, and out of uniform.

Response by SCPO Loyd Weber made Aug 14 at 2014 11:02 AM

SCPO Loyd Weber — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 11:02:21 -0400

If it is military related await until your return to post / base.

Civilian police will also turn them over to military police. The a Master at Arms . I have been called to pick up personnel from the police department. And return them to the command.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 14 at 2014 12:08 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 12:08:10 -0400

The only reason I voted other is because it is kind of a trick question. According to the UCMJ, soldiers are restrained by UCMJ law and consequences, on or off post, on or off duty. So technically, yes they should be able to. But then there's the other part of me that says no way. I would think maybe if it really came to that point of them wanting to arrest you off post, they could contact local LE and let them handle it.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 14 at 2014 3:19 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 15:19:07 -0400

MPs need to stay on base. Why would an MP have to enforce anything off post? That is why we have civilian police.

Response by SGT Craig Northacker made Aug 14 at 2014 4:42 PM

SGT Craig Northacker — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 16:42:12 -0400

If you have a federal indictment while your are in service I could see the use of MP's instead of marshals, but if there is resistance and need for weapons then there is a whole different level of engagement, civil liberties, and other issues that come into play.

Jurisdiction also brings into play the concept of sovereignty between federal and state powers. To that extent there might be Constitutional issues.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Aug 14 at 2014 5:10 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 17:10:03 -0400

Should civilian cops be able to enforce on post? Can they?

Response by MAJ Ronnie Reams made Aug 14 at 2014 5:16 PM

MAJ Ronnie Reams — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 17:16:19 -0400

Actually they would apprehend you. Arrest in the military is
different from arrest in the civilian world.

Response by PO1 Jimmie Hall made Aug 14 at 2014 7:45 PM

PO1 Jimmie Hall — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 19:45:09 -0400

Military personnel are subject to civilian law enforcement. An MP's jurisdiction should only be on the military installation. You are not trained in civilian law, you are trained for the UCMJ. We are talking two different worlds. You are getting into shaky ground and delving in the Posse Comitatus. And to put it bluntly, I don't want to see you yahoos out on civilian streets. The real cops are bad enough, throw you in the mix with your military style of handling a situation and there will be a lot of body bags used.

Response by SGT Greg Gold made Aug 14 at 2014 8:21 PM

SGT Greg Gold — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 20:21:34 -0400

Ok, I was an MP and we usually didn't concern ourselves with what went on in purely civilian areas. If you lived off post we have no authority to enter your quarters the same way it worked with the barracks. These days it's changed and you actually need a warrant on post to enter some on post housing.

As others have stated, there are plenty of joint patrols in places like Columbus Georgia, Killeen Texas, and of course Fayettnam NC. We also did them in Germany, although not usually with the Polezi. The purpose of these patrols was to quickly separate the military from the non military during minor disagreements, and unless something serious (i.e a felony) happened the local LEO's let us deal with the SM's. Separating the military from the civilian malcontents meant that the local DA's office and court system didn't waste time and money trying misdemeanor offenses. It also meant that Soldiers didn't end up with a record of misdemeanor offenses that could cause trouble down the road. It was up to the company CO as to if and when one of their troops would be standing tall before the man, and a lot of stuff was handled in company.

MP's don't, and probably never will run radar and perform all those other LEO tasks in civilian areas. Posse comitatus prevents this, and MP's have no authority over civilians off base.

Response by PV2 Louise De Simone made Aug 15 at 2014 5:21 AM

PV2 Louise De Simone — Fri, 15 Aug 2014 05:21:29 -0400

THEY ARE TOO VULNERABLE TO THE WHIMS OF OFFICERS WHO WANT TO "GET PRIVATES" AND OTHER ENLISTED.

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made Aug 17 at 2014 6:26 AM

Sgt Packy Flickinger — Sun, 17 Aug 2014 06:26:13 -0400

You are always subject to the UCMJ, even while on leave.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 17 at 2014 10:56 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 Aug 2014 10:56:51 -0400

According to this old training video, it used to be that way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgSETjR-Ndo

Big Picture: Military Police (MP) Town Patrol

Big Picture: Military Police (MP) Town Patrol - National Archives and Records Administration - ARC Identifier 2569595 / Local Identifier 111-TV-325 - DVD Cop...

Response by MAJ(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 17 at 2014 4:00 PM

MAJ(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 Aug 2014 16:00:18 -0400

I'm pretty sure this happens, or else NCIS has been lying to me for 12 seasons.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 17 at 2014 5:15 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 Aug 2014 17:15:48 -0400

Bad idea, I can think of all the "what if" scenarios but they need to be confined to post. I'll pose this one "what if" and I'll leave it at that. What happens when an MP is serving a warrant or whatever to a soldier days/weeks/months after their ETS date? We're good in the Army for losing paperwork, how would that fly?

Response by SGT Craig Northacker made Aug 18 at 2014 5:27 PM

SGT Craig Northacker — Mon, 18 Aug 2014 17:27:44 -0400

Here is a different twist. You are aware that an active duty soldier made off with a LAW and has it on display in their offpost home.

Whose authority is primary in this case?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 20 at 2014 11:53 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Aug 2014 11:53:16 -0400

So to answer this question you have to ask "Is there a need for MPs to have jurisdiction off post?".

Response by SSG Jacob Wiley made Sep 9 at 2014 2:34 PM

SSG Jacob Wiley — Tue, 09 Sep 2014 14:34:04 -0400

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

The civilian world has jurisdictions: city, county, and state. MPs have jurisdiction on post - that's it. Here at FTCKY, MPs get in trouble for putting blue lights on their POV and trying to perform traffic stops off post.

Response by SPC David S. made Oct 14 at 2014 1:45 PM

SPC David S. — Tue, 14 Oct 2014 13:45:55 -0400

Just like police should not be asked to guard a flight line.

Response by SGT Garret DuPont made Oct 14 at 2014 6:32 PM

SGT Garret DuPont — Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:32:41 -0400

I believe they should only if you are not subject to civilian court. If you are subjected to both then no, the MPs should not have authority off post.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2014 6:42 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:42:29 -0400

I didn't vote but MPs and all NCOs WOs and Officers already have all the jurisdiction to enforce the UCMJ anywhere anytime.