Policing and Public Transportation (2022)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

48 TCRP LRD 58 clauses.689 The parties agree to submit any dispute “to mediation prior to any Party commencing litigation.”690 B. Memorandum of Understanding for Police Services The City of Seattle Police Department and the King County Sheriff ’s Office have entered into a MOU regarding Metro Transit Police and Sound Transit Police. The MOU “[c]larifies the responsibilities of each agency regarding the provision of law enforcement services to the portions of the transit systems operated and funded by King County Metro Transit and Sound Transit within the City of Seattle.”691 Pursuant to the MOU: • The Seattle Police Department (SPD) is responsible for general law enforcement and traffic enforcement/collision investigation within the City of Seattle.692 • The Metro Transit Police (MTP) and Sound Transit Police (STP) are “partnership” contract law enforcement agencies funded by King County Metro Transit and Sound Transit to provide “enhanced” tran- sit policing and security services for passengers, customers and prop- erty of Metro, Sound Transit and routes operated by King County Metro Transit and Sound Transit.693 • [The] “enhanced” service of MTP and STP is not meant as a replace- ment for local law enforcement with transit security issues, meaning [that] the service that the Metro Transit Police and Sound Transit Po- lice provide[] is above and beyond a normal service level offered by a respective original jurisdiction agency.694 In addition to the MOU, King County Metro has a Model Policy, discussed below. C. Model Policy for Enhanced Transit Policing King County Metro has a Model Policy under which the MTP and STP, identified above, “are contract law enforcement agencies funded by King County Metro Transit and Sound Transit to provide ‘enhanced’ transit policing and security ser- vices for passengers, customers and property of Metro, Sound Transit and routes operated by King County Metro Transit and Sound Transit.”695 The “‘enhanced’ service . . . is not meant as a replacement for local law enforcement with transit security is- 689 Id. at ¶¶ 13(b), (c), and (d). Under the IGA, the MCSO also “does not assume liability or responsibility for, or in any way release TriMet from any liability or responsibility which arises in whole, or in part, from the validity or enforcement of TriMet’s ordinances, policies, cus- toms, rules or regulations.” Id. at ¶ 13(e). 690 Id. at ¶ 16. 691 King County Metro, City of Seattle Police Department and King County Sheriff’s Office, Metro Transit Police and Sound Transit Police, Memorandum of Understanding (Feb. 24, 2015), [hereinafter King County Transit MOU], Appendix A, Item 12, at 1. 692 Id. 693 Id. 694 Id. 695 King County Police Chiefs Association and King County Sheriff’s Office – Metro Transit Police & Sound Transit Police, King County Metro, Transit Policing Model Policy (Feb. 2016), Appendix A, Item 13, at 1. sues,” meaning that the service that the MTP and STP provides is above and beyond a normal service level offered by a respec- tive original jurisdiction agency.”696 For example: • “MTP and STP deputies who come across non-transit related crimi- nal activity on transit property or in a transit vehicle, are expected to take initial action….;” • “MTP and STP deputies will be responsible for their own arrests, as- sociated paperwork and follow-up investigations for on-view activity that occurs on transit property;” and • “Incidents of a significant nature within the city limits, such as armed robberies and homicides, will be worked by the local law en- forcement agency. MTP and STP will provide assistance with staffing resources and follow-up.”697 As noted, public transportation authorities also may have SOPs that apply to specific aspects of their policing.698 PART IX – Best Practices for Policing by Public Transportation Authorities XXI. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITIES’ BEST PRACTICES FOR POLICING A. Best Practices for Policing Stations, Vehicles, and Other Property This section of the digest discusses some of the best practices for policing identified by public transportation authorities that provided relevant information and documents relating to their practices. One caveat, however, is that not every public trans- portation authority may necessarily agree that one or more of the practices discussed herein is, indeed, a best practice for its transportation authority because of its size, location, resources, or other reasons. MetroLink’s Best Practices Report “considers the practices that are being used in the industry to enhance the security of tran- sit systems and the people who interface with those systems.”699 The digest explains the need for a security risk assessment, re- ferred to as a “Threat and Vulnerability Assessment” (TVA), to evaluate a transit system’s “susceptibility to security threats” and the “vulnerabilities and potential consequence[s]” to a system’s security.700 The TVA becomes the basis for the security design measures, plans, and procedures that should be implemented “to reduce or mitigate security risk.”701 696 Id. 697 Id. at ¶ C. 698 See Appendix A, Items 14, 15. 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, and 25. 699 MetroLink, System-Wide Security Assessment, Best Practices Report (Nov. 29, 2018), [hereinafter MetroLink, Best Prac- tices Report], Appendix A, Item 2, at 1. 700 Id. at 5. 701 Id.

TCRP LRD 58 47 tection and presence on MetroLink trains and property, which applies to MetroLink’s operation of its light rail system within the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County, Missouri, and St. Clair County, Illinois.668 Article IV of the Agreement specifies the ser- vices that the City’s Police Division will provide to MetroLink.669 TriMet in Oregon has entered into an IGA with Multnomah County through the Multnomah County Sheriff ’s Office (MCSO), i.e., the “Prime Agreement.”670 Pursuant to the IGA, the County provides police services to TriMet and administers the Transit Police Division. TriMet has separate IGAs, i.e., “Subsid- iary Agreements,” with other jurisdictions to provide law enforce- ment officers to the Transit Police Division.671 A similar IGA for transit police services is in effect between TriMet and the City of Beaverton.672 Although a copy of the TriMet- Multnomah County IGA is included in Appendix A, this subsection of the digest sum- marizes some of the key provisions of the IGA. Under TriMet’s IGA with the MCSO, which is an indepen- dent contractor, the MCSO retains “all authority” regarding the rendering of services, standards of performance, and the con- trol of its personnel and other matters that are incident to the MCSO’s performance of services under the agreement.673 The parties agree annually on the level of police service, including personnel, equipment, and related support, that MCSO will provide for TriMet.674 Officers, deputies, and other personnel of any Subsidiary Agency assigned to the Transit Police are em- ployees of their respective agencies and are not considered to be employees or agents of TriMet or the MCSO.675 The IGA obligates TriMet and MCSO to “work together to insure that the deployment and priorities of police person- nel assigned to TriMet [are] effective and efficient . . . in accor- dance with TriMet’s Public Transit Agency Safety Plan (PTASP), TriMet’s Security Management Plan (SMP), TriMet’s Emer gency Operations Plan (EOP), [and] Federal Transit Administration (FTA) regulations concerning safety and security of transit sys- tems….”676 The parties to the IGA and to any Subsidiary Agree- ment agree to use Transit Police precincts to “expand and enhance 668 MetroLink, Police Assistance Services Agreement, supra note 658, Appendix A, Item 7, at 1, 3. 669 Id. at 3. 670 TriMet, Intergovernmental Agreement between Multnomah County and the Tri-County Metropolitan Dis- trict of Oregon (April 7, 2021), [hereinafter TriMet/Multnomah IGA], Appendix A, Item 20. See also, exhibits and attachments to the IGA. 671 Id. at ¶ 2(a)(ii). It may be noted that “Multnomah County [is] named as a Third Party Beneficiary of the subsidiary agreements for purposes of the indemnity obligations imposed upon Subsidiary Agen- cies.” Id. 672 MetroLink, Law Enforcement Service Agreement between Bi-State Development Agency of the Missouri-Illinois Metropolitan District and St. Clair County, Illinois (commencing July 1, 2021), Appendix A, Item 9. 673 TriMet/Multnomah IGA, supra note 670, Appendix A, Item 20, at ¶ 2(a)(iii). 674 Id. at ¶ 2(b). 675 Id. 676 Id. at ¶ 3(a). community policing, safety and security on the transit system.”677 The Division’s command personnel super vise “ police personnel for the daily operations of the Transit Police.”678 The command of the officer’s or deputy’s jurisdiction and the command of Transit Police personnel jointly determine the “[s]election and assign- ment of officers and deputies to the Transit Police….”679 The MCSO agrees to provide one TriMet Chief of Police and one Lieutenant to “develop overall goals, objectives, and strate- gies for the Transit Police . . . consistent with the requirements and obligations” of the Agreement.680 Officers and deputies who are assigned to the Transit Police Division serve a minimum of three years.681 As for the use of non-sworn personnel, “TriMet authorizes the Transit Police to hire any necessary and appro- priate non-sworn personnel to support the duties of the Transit Police Chief in the administration of transit police services.”682 The MCSO is “responsible for paying the salaries, overtime, insurance, retirement, cell phone monthly bases, and other bene- fits” in respect to its deputies and other personnel who are serving in the Transit Police Division.683 Deputies and other personnel who are “assigned to the Division from MCSO are subject to and protected by their respective collective bargaining agreements.”684 As for vehicles for the Transit Police Division, TriMet agrees to purchase them for the exclusive use of TriMet and the Transit Police Division.685 TriMet is responsible for any risk of loss, damage, or destruction of the vehicles while they are “in the custody of MCSO personnel acting in the course and scope of employment.”686 The MCSO agrees to provide TriMet with “[c]rime statis- tics, based on the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) or other similar reporting system . . ., including but not limited to: (i) [g]eneral crime statistics on the system, including on TriMet vehicles, on TriMet property, and [on] crimes against employees and passengers.”687 Either TriMet or the MCSO may terminate the Agreement for either party’s “convenience and without penalty by giving the other Party thirty (30) days written notice of its intention to terminate.”688 The IGA includes mutual indemnification 677 Id. at ¶ 3(b). 678 Id. at ¶  3(d). The term “[c]ommand personnel” includes an MCSO Deputy Sheriff with the rank of Captain to serve as the TriMet Transit Police Chief, and lieutenants, and sergeants assigned under the Agreement. Id. 679 Id. at ¶ 3(f). 680 Id. at ¶ 3(g). 681 Id. at ¶ 3(i). 682 Id. at ¶ 3(g)(iv). 683 Id. at ¶  4(a). MCSO invoices “TriMet monthly for all actual incurred Personnel Costs for Division personnel services provided by MCSO.” Id. 684 Id. at ¶ 5. 685 Id. at ¶ 6. The vehicles are to be “marked with appropriate dis- tinctive insignia to indicate they are Transit Police vehicles.” Id. 686 Id. at ¶ 6(c). 687 Id. at ¶ 7(a)(i). 688 Id. at ¶ 11(a).