Alabama state senate authorizes church to form its own police force

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Oggthrok**

A friend traveling through Alabama just made me aware of what is, apparently, quite big news there today:

http://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/alabama-senate-votes-to-allow-church-to-form-police-dept

In a 24-4 vote, the Senate has approved the request, with the House to debate the matter yesterday.

Ignoring the implications, good or bad, the strangest thing to me is that I'd heard nothing about this. Even now, if you Google for it, all of the news links are things like Newshub or Russia Today, not CNN or Fox or the New York Times. I found that Fox link, but you'll notice its Fox Baltimore...

Anyway, church run police, how about that?

**AlmightyWalrus**

Isn't that blatantly unconstitutional?

**whembly**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Isn't that blatantly unconstitutional?

No.

**CptJake**

The duties, as reported in that article, make it sound like glorified security guards, and I can see why an organization with a school would want that.

Would like to know more about it. I suspect the county Sheriff still will have jurisdiction to investigate crimes if needed.

**Herzlos**

I can't get my head around that at all. Why would a single church (albeit with 4000 congregation) need a private police department to keep them safe? Couldn't they just get private security?

**whembly**

Herzlos wrote:
I can't get my head around that at all. Why would a single church (albeit with 4000 congregation) need a private police department to keep them safe? Couldn't they just get private security?

Because there's not enough po-po's to hire...

Here's a less inflammatory ariticle:
http://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2017/02/briarwood_presbyterian_church_2.html

Briarwood Presbyterian Church and Briarwood Christian School want their own police department and a bill proposing it passed 9-2 in the House Public Safety Committee on Thursday, Briarwood's attorney said.

The same bill passed last year but got to the governor late and never received a signature, said attorney Eric Johnston, who drafted the bill for the church.

Johnston said he expects the bill to again pass both the House and Senate and believes Gov. Robert Bentley will sign it into law.

Some critics of the bill have questioned why the church and school need a police department, but it's essentially a way of hiring a police officer full-time, as opposed to relying on off-duty police officers to assist the church, Johnston said.

"We've got over 30,000 events a year that take place at Briarwood - going on all day, all night, at the school, at the church, at the seminary," Johnston said. "We have to hire policemen all the time. It would be so much easier to have someone on staff."

Johnston said he doesn't know of any other churches in Alabama that have their own police departments, but he said it's more similar to a small college having its own police department. "Briarwood is larger than most of the colleges that have police," he said.

The language of the bill echoes the language of the law allowing colleges to have their own police departments, he said.

Briarwood has two large campuses, with the church and Birmingham Theological Seminary off Acton Road at Interstate 459, and at the affiliated Briarwood Christian School on Cahaba Valley Road.

"It would only be for patrolling the campuses, north and south," Johnston said. "There wouldn't be any patrolling of neighborhoods."

The church currently hires off-duty officers from area police departments, but there aren't always enough officers available, Johnston said. "They get short-handed," he said. "We have one guy that we have to have almost full-time supervising security," he said.

The police department would essentially be that officer in a full-time position working for the church, he said.

It would not involve a jail or other facilities - basically an officer and an official car, he said. "I couldn't imagine it would be something more than that," Johnston said. "If there is an arrest on campus, the local jurisdiction would be called and they would come pick the person up."

"There are no public officials. But there are elected officers in the church, trustees who answer to the congregation."

Questions were raised in committee about a drug investigation at the Briarwood Christian School in 2015 and whether a private, internal police department would cover up a drug problem.

"No, it didn't have anything to do with that," Johnston said.

The sheriff's office deferred to the school and the school to the sheriff's office.

"There was a drug investigation at the high school," Johnston said. "Like most schools, you've got students doing things you shouldn't do. The school cooperated with law enforcement. They didn't cover up anything."

Briarwood Presbyterian Church Administrator Matt Moore released a statement on behalf of the church saying that Code 16-22-1 of Alabama law provides for the employment of one or more persons to act as police officers at colleges and other private educational institutions. "The church seeks to mirror that provision," it says.

After obtaining legislative permission, the personnel employed by the church will meet all requirements and be certified by the Alabama Peace Officer Training Commission, the statement said.

"The sole purpose of this proposed legislation is to provide a safe environment for the church, its members, students and guests."

**Kanluwen**

Herzlos wrote:
I can't get my head around that at all. Why would a single church (albeit with 4000 congregation) need a private police department to keep them safe? Couldn't they just get private security?

They wouldn't need a private police department to keep them safe.
It's a red herring that "they have a school", as though that somehow makes them special.

Maybe public schools should get private police departments too, instead of being assigned a small number of school resource officers.

**Orlanth**

Herzlos wrote:
I can't get my head around that at all. Why would a single church (albeit with 4000 congregation) need a private police department to keep them safe? Couldn't they just get private security?

Because misreporting the story makes bigger news. CptJake has it right.

Police aren't privatised, it is just that communities under a certain size have to request independent coverage if they want their police to be local, and thus accessible. The church said that because they have a sizable community and infrastructure they want their own police coverage. Like any other community policing group they are under the edict of the state police authorities. It would require a separate legislature to bring in different laws, and the church doesn't have this so despite the hype it doesn't look like it is going to turn into a variant of Saudi or Iranian religious police.

**sirlynchmob**

so is the church going to be paying for all these officers, or is this really just trying to get the tax payers to pay for it.

**whembly**

sirlynchmob wrote:
so is the church going to be paying for all these officers, or is this really just trying to get the tax payers to pay for it.

Church paying for it.

**sirlynchmob**

whembly wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
so is the church going to be paying for all these officers, or is this really just trying to get the tax payers to pay for it.

Church paying for it.

cool, I have no problem with that.

You'd think god would be enough to protect them though.

**whembly**

sirlynchmob wrote:
whembly wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
so is the church going to be paying for all these officers, or is this really just trying to get the tax payers to pay for it.

Church paying for it.

cool, I have no problem with that.

Basically they just want to be able to hire a permanent po-po position w/o relying on neighboring precinct 'off-duty' availability.

You'd think god would be enough to protect them though.

You really don't understand Christians... do you?

**Orlanth**

sirlynchmob wrote:
whembly wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
so is the church going to be paying for all these officers, or is this really just trying to get the tax payers to pay for it.

Church paying for it.

cool, I have no problem with that.

You'd think god would be enough to protect them though.

Like any other community police, local taxation. The church might not pay extra per se, the dollars taxed that go towards policing from the local community go towards the local police, rather than police from the more distant policing hub that previously covered the area. However the local tax fro the church community might go up to account for administration and servicing, and for new facilities, but the chruch community would have had to account for that.

It's not a big issue, this sort of thing happens all the time, and I doubt its the first time it has happened for a religious community as Amish and Mormons and other insular religious communities have long had their own police coverage. Just like with elsewhere all these cases are just local departments under the State police, unless they are part of a metropolitan police force.

**Tactical_Spam**

sirlynchmob wrote:
You'd think God would be enough to protect them though.

Or maybe they are trying to prevent things like that one white supremacist who shot up a black church a couple years ago.

**Kanluwen**

whembly wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
whembly wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
so is the church going to be paying for all these officers, or is this really just trying to get the tax payers to pay for it.

Church paying for it.

cool, I have no problem with that.

Basically they just want to be able to hire a permanent po-po position w/o relying on neighboring precinct 'off-duty' availability.

That's not how school resource officers work.

You'd think god would be enough to protect them though.

You really don't understand Christians... do you?

You really don't understand the objections to the state of Alabama allowing a church to have its own police force, yet if a mosque or synagogue wanted to do the same thing how likely do you think they would have gotten an okay for it?

**SagesStone**

At first it seems stupid, then the less inflammatory article makes it actually sound a bit reasonable. I don't really understand why they need police departments over there to have proper security though. Is it because security would essentially be relying on citizen's arrests if they needed to detain someone whilst the police officer would certainly hold more weight?

**Kanluwen**

Tactical_Spam wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
You'd think God would be enough to protect them though.

Or maybe they are trying to prevent things like that one white supremacist who shot up a black church a couple years ago.

Do you see the problem with this logic?

Roof went to a historically black church, Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, with the intent of killing black people.

Briarwood, as far as I can find out, isn't anything special beyond being classified as a "megachurch".

**whembly**

Kanluwen wrote:
whembly wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
whembly wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
so is the church going to be paying for all these officers, or is this really just trying to get the tax payers to pay for it.

Church paying for it.

cool, I have no problem with that.

Basically they just want to be able to hire a permanent po-po position w/o relying on neighboring precinct 'off-duty' availability.

That's not how school resource officers work.

They're not hiring school resource officers.

There were hiring off-duty officers.

Sometimes, none are available.

Hence, the school wanted the law tweak to allow them to *hire* a full-time position.

You'd think god would be enough to protect them though.

You really don't understand Christians... do you?

You really don't understand the objections to the state of Alabama allowing a church to have its own police force, yet if a mosque or synagogue wanted to do the same thing how likely do you think they would have gotten an okay for it?

Weak strawman... do better.

**Kanluwen**

n0t_u wrote:
At first it seems stupid, then the less inflammatory article makes it actually sound a bit reasonable. I don't really understand why they need police departments over there to have proper security though. Is it because security would essentially be relying on citizen's arrests if they needed to detain someone whilst the police officer would certainly hold more weight?

It doesn't matter about it being "less inflammatory", they want to get around the fact that they are a private organization wanting official support.

There are public schools that have just as hard of a time getting/keeping school resource officers, and public schools are just as likely to have the kinds of problems that you would need a dedicated police officer for.

They want to be a private institution, parents want their kids to go to a private school, etc--then they can shell out the cash for a private security force.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
whembly wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
whembly wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
so is the church going to be paying for all these officers, or is this really just trying to get the tax payers to pay for it.

Church paying for it.

cool, I have no problem with that.

Basically they just want to be able to hire a permanent po-po position w/o relying on neighboring precinct 'off-duty' availability.

That's not how school resource officers work.

They're not hiring school resource officers.

There were hiring off-duty officers.

Sometimes, none are available.

Hence, the school wanted the law tweak to allow them to *hire* a full-time position.

THEY LITERALLY WANT WHAT A SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER IS!

They want a single officer and a patrol car, dedicated to patrolling their two campuses. They want an OFFICIAL presence despite being a PRIVATE organization.

They want that, they can give up their church status and private school restrictions for it. You don't get to mooch off of the local police departments by taking their off duty officers.

Or they can, y'know, hire a private security firm to patrol the campus.

You'd think god would be enough to protect them though.

You really don't understand Christians... do you?

You really don't understand the objections to the state of Alabama allowing a church to have its own police force, yet if a mosque or synagogue wanted to do the same thing how likely do you think they would have gotten an okay for it?

Weak strawman... do better.

Can't debate the truth, so claim "strawman" as always.

**Prestor Jon**

Kanluwen wrote:
n0t_u wrote:
At first it seems stupid, then the less inflammatory article makes it actually sound a bit reasonable. I don't really understand why they need police departments over there to have proper security though. Is it because security would essentially be relying on citizen's arrests if they needed to detain someone whilst the police officer would certainly hold more weight?

It doesn't matter about it being "less inflammatory", they want to get around the fact that they are a private organization wanting official support.

There are public schools that have just as hard of a time getting/keeping school resource officers, and public schools are just as likely to have the kinds of problems that you would need a dedicated police officer for.

They want to be a private institution, parents want their kids to go to a private school, etc--then they can shell out the cash for a private security force.

That's what this is. The church pays for the school that's part of the church and the church will pay for the security officer position at the private school run by the church. It's cheaper than having to hire 3rd party security.

There are numerous office buildings, commercial campuses, shopping centers, etc. that have their own in house security department that polices the grounds. Most colleges, public or private have their own security force.

The security officer at the church's private school is enforcing the same laws that govern the rest of Alabama and the US, there's nothing to get alarmed about here. Private institutions, secular or religious having their own private security officers keeping the peace on their private property by enforcing the laws that govern everyone is perfectly fine.

**d-usa**

There are schools and school districts that have their own actual Police Departments in Oklahoma, so this doesn't seem that unusual.

**Kanluwen**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
n0t_u wrote:
At first it seems stupid, then the less inflammatory article makes it actually sound a bit reasonable. I don't really understand why they need police departments over there to have proper security though. Is it because security would essentially be relying on citizen's arrests if they needed to detain someone whilst the police officer would certainly hold more weight?

It doesn't matter about it being "less inflammatory", they want to get around the fact that they are a private organization wanting official support.

There are public schools that have just as hard of a time getting/keeping school resource officers, and public schools are just as likely to have the kinds of problems that you would need a dedicated police officer for.

They want to be a private institution, parents want their kids to go to a private school, etc--then they can shell out the cash for a private security force.

That's what this is. The church pays for the school that's part of the church and the church will pay for the security officer position at the private school run by the church. It's cheaper than having to hire 3rd party security.
There are numerous office buildings, commercial campuses, shopping centers, etc. that have their own in house security department that polices the grounds. Most colleges, public or private have their own security force.
The security officer at the church's private school is enforcing the same laws that govern the rest of Alabama and the US, there's nothing to get alarmed about here. Private institutions, secular or religious having their own private security officers keeping the peace on their private property by enforcing the laws that govern everyone is perfectly fine.

Whembly's Article wrote:Some critics of the bill have questioned why the church and school need a police department, but it's essentially a way of hiring a police officer full-time, as opposed to relying on off-duty police officers to assist the church, Johnston said.

It's exactly what I have said it is. It's not a "security officer", it's not anything you attempted to paint it as.

It's them wanting an actual police officer, from the on-duty officer pool, to be made available to them.

It's not Joe Dirt in an old Crown Vic repainted to say "Church Cops" or anything like that. It's a police officer from their local district, in an officially marked vehicle.

**whembly**

Kanluwen wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
whembly wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
whembly wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
so is the church going to be paying for all these officers, or is this really just trying to get the tax payers to pay for it.

Church paying for it.

cool, I have no problem with that.

Basically they just want to be able to hire a permanent po-po position w/o relying on neighboring precinct 'off-duty' availability.

That's not how school resource officers work.

They're not hiring school resource officers.

There were hiring off-duty officers.

Sometimes, none are available.

Hence, the school wanted the law tweak to allow them to *hire* a full-time position.

THEY LITERALLY WANT WHAT A SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER IS!

They want a single officer and a patrol car, dedicated to patrolling their two campuses. They want an OFFICIAL presence despite being a PRIVATE organization.

They want that, they can give up their church status and private school restrictions for it. You don't get to mooch off of the local police departments by taking their off duty officers.

Or they can, y'know, hire a private security firm to patrol the campus.

?? You may have the situation backwards dude.

They were ALREADY mooching the local police departments by taking their off duty officers (paying for them too).

They were handcuffed at times because off duty officers weren't available.

Seems to me you're just hung up over the fact that this is a religious institution.

**CptJake**

Kanluwen wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
n0t_u wrote:
At first it seems stupid, then the less inflammatory article makes it actually sound a bit reasonable. I don't really understand why they need police departments over there to have proper security though. Is it because security would essentially be relying on citizen's arrests if they needed to detain someone whilst the police officer would certainly hold more weight?

It doesn't matter about it being "less inflammatory", they want to get around the fact that they are a private organization wanting official support.

There are public schools that have just as hard of a time getting/keeping school resource officers, and public schools are just as likely to have the kinds of problems that you would need a dedicated police officer for.

They want to be a private institution, parents want their kids to go to a private school, etc--then they can shell out the cash for a private security force.

That's what this is. The church pays for the school that's part of the church and the church will pay for the security officer position at the private school run by the church. It's cheaper than having to hire 3rd party security.
There are numerous office buildings, commercial campuses, shopping centers, etc. that have their own in house security department that polices the grounds. Most colleges, public or private have their own security force.
The security officer at the church's private school is enforcing the same laws that govern the rest of Alabama and the US, there's nothing to get alarmed about here. Private institutions, secular or religious having their own private security officers keeping the peace on their private property by enforcing the laws that govern everyone is perfectly fine.

Whembly's Article wrote:Some critics of the bill have questioned why the church and school need a police department, but it's essentially a way of hiring a police officer full-time, as opposed to relying on off-duty police officers to assist the church, Johnston said.

It's exactly what I have said it is. It's not a "security officer", it's not anything you attempted to paint it as.

It's them wanting an actual police officer, from the on-duty officer pool, to be made available to them.

It's not Joe Dirt in an old Crown Vic repainted to say "Church Cops" or anything like that. It's a police officer from their local district, in an officially marked vehicle.

You might want to read the second article. It would be a person employed BY they church but certified by the Alabama Peace Officer Training Commission.

So it seems the legislation give the church the ability to hire and pay for a certified LEO. Why is that bad?

**WrentheFaceless**

How does a state sanctioned relgious police force not unconstitutional?

Isnt this basically government endorsement of religion?

**whembly**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
How does a state sanctioned relgious police force not unconstitutional?

It's not a 'religious police force'.

Isnt this basically government endorsement of religion?

No.

The only place that it'd be sticky, is if that position is funded (or partially) by state/federal grants. Even then, that's not an endorsement of religion.

**WrentheFaceless**

How is it not an endorsement of that specific church?

Or are they allowing every type of religious institution form their own police force?

**Kanluwen**

CptJake wrote:

You might want to read the second article. It would be a person employed BY they church but certified by the Alabama Peace Officer Training Commission.

So it seems the legislation give the church the ability to hire and pay for a certified LEO. Why is that bad?

Why is it necessary for there to be legislation to hire and pay for a certified LEO?

This is, no matter how you spin it, a police department as part of a church.

You don't call private security "a police department". Police departments are specific things.

**whembly**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
How is it not an endorsement of that specific church?

How is it an endorsement?

Church interacts with the public in many, many different ways. They're not their own island, floating amonst the secular law.

Or are they allowing every type of religious institution form their own police force?

Seems so.

**Cothonian**

Read the far less inflammatory article that whembly posted up.

This is actually a fairly common thing. There is literally nothing wrong with this.