Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Town keeps details as court tosses State Police union lawsuit
By Frank Mortimer
Foxboro police have gained traction in a tug-of-war with state police over the power to require and assign police details in Foxboro.
"The town has the authority to control and police its roads, including Route 1," town manager Andrew Gala said Tuesday, commenting on Suffolk Superior Court's dismissal of a suit filed by the state police union.
The court's decision, filed Dec. 24, also orders the troopers' union to pay the town's legal costs in the dispute.
The State Police Association of Massachusetts had asked the court to overturn a police detail bylaw adopted by Foxboro's Special Town Meeting on Dec. 17, 2007.
That bylaw authorizes Foxboro's police chief to require police details anywhere in town, including at local businesses and events, to prevent traffic and pedestrian problems.
The state police union filed its suit in August, challenging Attorney General Martha Coakley's approved of the bylaw, and naming the town as a co-defendant. The union's suit claimed that Foxboro's police details bylaw intrudes on state police jursdiction.
(Please turn to page 2)
Town counsel Paul DeRensis's successful 12-page argument for dismissal of the suit says state laws governing police jurisdiction were established "to protect the public's health, safety and welfare," and not to "create or protect private claims by employees of entitlement to wage-earning opportunities."
As such, DeRensis wrote, the state police union lacks the standing required to challenge the bylaw.
DeResnis argued that the town's bylaw does not interfere with state police jurisdiction to patrol and respond to incidents on Route 1 and other state roads.
If, for example, state police are first on the scene of an accident on a state road, they remain in control of the scene.
He wrote that the bylaw aids the Foxboro Police Department in its obligation to provide public safety throughout the town, and allows the chief or his designee to require police details based on their reasonable judgment of need.
The state police union claimed that the bylaw gave Foxboro police the "exclusive" right to assign police details on Route 1 and at events.
DeRensis in his filing noted that the word "exclusive" appears nowhere in the town bylaw. DeRensis charged that the state police union misrepresented the content of the bylaw as a device to have the court overturn the bylaw.
The bylaw says the details the chief assigns are to be provided by the Foxboro Police Department. Gala said, however, that the department plans to keep State Police "in the loop."
A large number of state police officers manager traffic on Route 1 during Patriots football games and other major events at Gillette Stadium.
Foxboro police Sgt. Michael Grace, president of the local police union, said he could not comment until he's had a chance to read the court decision.
"The town has the authority to control and police its roads, including Route 1," town manager Andrew Gala said Tuesday, commenting on Suffolk Superior Court's dismissal of a suit filed by the state police union.
The court's decision, filed Dec. 24, also orders the troopers' union to pay the town's legal costs in the dispute.
The State Police Association of Massachusetts had asked the court to overturn a police detail bylaw adopted by Foxboro's Special Town Meeting on Dec. 17, 2007.
That bylaw authorizes Foxboro's police chief to require police details anywhere in town, including at local businesses and events, to prevent traffic and pedestrian problems.
The state police union filed its suit in August, challenging Attorney General Martha Coakley's approved of the bylaw, and naming the town as a co-defendant. The union's suit claimed that Foxboro's police details bylaw intrudes on state police jursdiction.
(Please turn to page 2)
Town counsel Paul DeRensis's successful 12-page argument for dismissal of the suit says state laws governing police jurisdiction were established "to protect the public's health, safety and welfare," and not to "create or protect private claims by employees of entitlement to wage-earning opportunities."
As such, DeRensis wrote, the state police union lacks the standing required to challenge the bylaw.
DeResnis argued that the town's bylaw does not interfere with state police jurisdiction to patrol and respond to incidents on Route 1 and other state roads.
If, for example, state police are first on the scene of an accident on a state road, they remain in control of the scene.
He wrote that the bylaw aids the Foxboro Police Department in its obligation to provide public safety throughout the town, and allows the chief or his designee to require police details based on their reasonable judgment of need.
The state police union claimed that the bylaw gave Foxboro police the "exclusive" right to assign police details on Route 1 and at events.
DeRensis in his filing noted that the word "exclusive" appears nowhere in the town bylaw. DeRensis charged that the state police union misrepresented the content of the bylaw as a device to have the court overturn the bylaw.
The bylaw says the details the chief assigns are to be provided by the Foxboro Police Department. Gala said, however, that the department plans to keep State Police "in the loop."
A large number of state police officers manager traffic on Route 1 during Patriots football games and other major events at Gillette Stadium.
Foxboro police Sgt. Michael Grace, president of the local police union, said he could not comment until he's had a chance to read the court decision.
 |
 |
|
| Reflections on 40 years | New fire chief won't come from department |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of foxbororeporter.com.
Submit a Comment
We encourage your feedback and dialog, all comments will be reviewed by our Web staff before appearing on the Web site.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
Ned Merrick wrote on Feb 1, 2009 7:21 PM: