SevenRoundMags
New member
What's different about the two besides their jurisdiction? What kind of stuff are they usually doing? State Troopers work for the DPS and metro cops work for the city, correct?
thanks.
thanks.
Difference between state trooper and metro police?
- Thread starter SevenRoundMags
- Start date
We call the state troopers blue traffic cones.
In general, state police or troopers do traffic enforcement and accident investigation on freeways and state highways. They also do things like investigate car theft that occurs on a statewide scale. Here in WA they are responsible for security aboard state ferries, which are an extension of the state highway system.
Metro (or city) police work for cities or towns and respond to calls for assistance from citizens.
Then there are county sheriffs who work for the county and generally do police work in the unincorporated areas of a county, or cities by contract.
In most states, police (whether city, county, or state) hold the same law enforcement commission and enforcement powers. This means that legally, there is no difference. And jurisdictions within a state usually have agreements with all other jurisdictions that allow for cross jurisdiction enforcement. This means that a blue traffic cone could legally make an arrest for a crime that occured in a city, and a city cop or sheriff could run traffic on the freeway. In the eyes of the courts, they are all the same: law enforcement officers.
In general, state police or troopers do traffic enforcement and accident investigation on freeways and state highways. They also do things like investigate car theft that occurs on a statewide scale. Here in WA they are responsible for security aboard state ferries, which are an extension of the state highway system.
Metro (or city) police work for cities or towns and respond to calls for assistance from citizens.
Then there are county sheriffs who work for the county and generally do police work in the unincorporated areas of a county, or cities by contract.
In most states, police (whether city, county, or state) hold the same law enforcement commission and enforcement powers. This means that legally, there is no difference. And jurisdictions within a state usually have agreements with all other jurisdictions that allow for cross jurisdiction enforcement. This means that a blue traffic cone could legally make an arrest for a crime that occured in a city, and a city cop or sheriff could run traffic on the freeway. In the eyes of the courts, they are all the same: law enforcement officers.
TheeBadOne
Moderator
Capt. Charlie
Moderator Emeritus
It actually gets a little more complicated than that. A true "metro" department usually results from a city / county gov. merger. These guys & gals have jurisdiction county-wide, where a city pd's jurisdiction ends at the city limits. A lot of times it results in the sheriff's dept's. duties being reduced to serving warrants & subpoenas.
A "state trooper" on the other hand includes both state highway patrols and state police agencies. There is a difference. A highway patrol is restricted to state property, be it highways or the state capital. A state police has jurisdiction state-wide, and they do a lot more criminal related work than a highway patrol.
All in all, the major difference in both cases is jurisdictional.
A "state trooper" on the other hand includes both state highway patrols and state police agencies. There is a difference. A highway patrol is restricted to state property, be it highways or the state capital. A state police has jurisdiction state-wide, and they do a lot more criminal related work than a highway patrol.
All in all, the major difference in both cases is jurisdictional.
Capt. Charlie
Moderator Emeritus
Don't count this as gospel, Tyme, but I believe city ordinances are only enforceable by city or metro. Interestingly, our city's ordinances relating to criminal and traffic laws are copied verbatim from the Ohio Revised Code. The state can write citations for traffic violations within the city, but they cite state code, where we use the city code. Why? I wish I knew, but I do know that the money from citations written under city code stays in the city, but if it's written under state code, either by us or the state guys, part of the money goes to the state. I strongly suspect that has a LOT to do with it. But city ordinances written exclusively for that city, such as a snow removal no parking ordinance for specific streets is enforced only by the city. Whether or not the state could write under city code, I don't know for sure, but I don't think so. Any OHP or other state agency guys on here that can enlighten us?
It really varies by state. Here it WA, it's pretty much as I explained. Any commissioned law enforcement officer (all are commissioned by the state) can enforce any state law and any county or city law (through mutual assistance agreements.) The courts make no distinction between them.
In addition, many federal agents are commissioned at the state level in WA.
In addition, many federal agents are commissioned at the state level in WA.
It makes sense that State Patrol cites state code where city/metro officers cite local codes/ordinances. It is a matter of training and what was memorized.
That might be a large part of where the differences are. Local ordinances may vary, but state laws/codes usually don't.
That might be a large part of where the differences are. Local ordinances may vary, but state laws/codes usually don't.
But if they're commissioned or deputized as state law enforcement officers, then that's what they are acting as in the rare event that they arrest or write a case under state law.
Since they have no authority as a federal officer to enforce state law, the authority would default to their state commission.
These state commissions of federal officers usually happen when local and federal police form regional task forces to concentrate on certain crimes that have both a state and federal component. State officers are also frequently commissioned as federal officers for such task forces.
There should not be any crimes that are covered by both federal and state law. If a crime is federal, all state jurisdiction should vanish.
I don't care what fed agencies cooperate with state LE (as long as those agencies aren't the BATFE, DEA or other silly agencies that shouldn't have LE power like HUD/DoEdu/FCC). Of course feds should be able to intercede when there's a serious state crime taking place. Any citizen should be able to intercede. Any state or federal LEO should be able to recruit help from other LE agencies, or from citizens, when trying to stop a crime.
However, there is a basic conflict of interest between federal and state interests, and no person should be simultaneously employed by the federal government and a state. It's bad enough that a lot of state employees are de-facto employees of the federal government due to federal funding of state agencies. Erasing that distinction entirely is a very bad idea, IMO.
I don't care what fed agencies cooperate with state LE (as long as those agencies aren't the BATFE, DEA or other silly agencies that shouldn't have LE power like HUD/DoEdu/FCC). Of course feds should be able to intercede when there's a serious state crime taking place. Any citizen should be able to intercede. Any state or federal LEO should be able to recruit help from other LE agencies, or from citizens, when trying to stop a crime.
However, there is a basic conflict of interest between federal and state interests, and no person should be simultaneously employed by the federal government and a state. It's bad enough that a lot of state employees are de-facto employees of the federal government due to federal funding of state agencies. Erasing that distinction entirely is a very bad idea, IMO.
Not trying to hijack this thread, but I have another interesting question. Was on Interstate 95 the other day in PA when I was passed by a Federal police car. I never knew we had Federal Police, just FBI, and kind of stared. The car had white gov't tags. So, I understand what state and metro police do, but what are Federal Police about and what is their purpose?
As far as a crime being against state and federal codes, I think most laws are written to clarify where the jurisdiction falls. I can't think of any crimes that are punishable by federal and state law, although I can think of incidents that are, such as committing a robbery (state) and kidnapping someone in the house (federal). From what I understand, the perp could be tried by both the state and the feds for separate offenses from the same incident. Still, my law degree never came, so maybe someone with more experience could comment!
As far as a crime being against state and federal codes, I think most laws are written to clarify where the jurisdiction falls. I can't think of any crimes that are punishable by federal and state law, although I can think of incidents that are, such as committing a robbery (state) and kidnapping someone in the house (federal). From what I understand, the perp could be tried by both the state and the feds for separate offenses from the same incident. Still, my law degree never came, so maybe someone with more experience could comment!
It should be a local crime. State penal codes are perfectly capable of dealing with people who steal money through violence or threats of violence. What possible reason is there for granting bank robbery federal status when robbery of large corporations is a state crime? Most bank robberies net no more than a few thousand dollars. That's barely grand theft.