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.