What in essence are PCSOs? (Organizationally and career trajectory wise) And where do they fit into the system of police? Are they aspiring police constables in training who will hopefully one day progress into full policedom? Do they report under the met?
What in essence are PCSOs? Police Community Support Officers (PCSO) are civilian employees (also known as police staff) of the relevant police force, a role created by section 38 Police Reform Act 2002. They may be designated with (i.e. authorised to use) any power or duty of a constable except those identified in Part 1 of Schedule 3B and any or all of the various powers and duties found in Schedule 3C (far too many to repoduce here). Where do they fit into the system of police? Each force area has its own requirements, priorities and demands, but for the Metropolitan Police Service (the Met) PCSO roles include: Safer Neighbourhood Teams – focussing on crime and antisocial behaviour within the community. Safer Transport Teams – focussing on over-ground transport, working with the public to ensure and reassure that our transport networks are safe. Roads Policing Teams – working alongside Traffic Officers, dealing with collision scenes, incidents and broken down vehicles. Reassurance Tasking Teams – visible presence on the roads, enforcing red routes and managing network disruption. Tunnel Team- focussing on keeping London’s Tunnel network operating at full capacity and dealing with associated issues. Are they aspiring police constables in training who will hopefully one day progress into full policedom? Some are, some are not. There is neither an expectation nor requirement to apply to be a constable. Do they report under the Met? Not all, as each police force has reporting responsibilities for its own employees.
The term "law enforcement officer" is defined in different jurisdictions in different ways and is defined in different ways for different purposes. For example, a criminal code might define law enforcement officer in reference to arrest power, while another statute might used the term for H.R. and licensing regulations, and a third might use a functional definition for eligibility for a certain kind of tax deduction under state law. Not every jurisdiction has every kind of law enforcement officer either. The term "law enforcement officer" would almost never include a judge or prosecuting attorneys, but would sometimes include a law clerk for a judge. This is because law clerks, especially in rural areas, often have a dual appointment as a law clerk (basically a lawyer acting as a research assistant for a judge) and as a bailiff who is an officer of the court charged with maintaining order and security in the courthouse, or at least in an individual judge's courtroom. A bailiff would often be classified as a "law enforcement officer." Law enforcement officers would ordinarily include Municipal police. Town Constables. County sheriffs and deputy sheriffs. Bailiffs. Marshals including U.S. Marshals. Some Park Rangers. State police. Mounties (i.e. Royal Mounted Police in Canada). Texas Rangers. College or university security officers. Transit system security officers. FBI agents. Secret Service agents. DEA agents (i.e. drug enforcement agency). ICE Agents (i.e. immigration and customs enforcement) General services administration officers (i.e. federal building security). There would be differences from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and based upon the context in which the term was used over whether some of the following persons would be law enforcement officers for particular purposes: Coroners and deputy coroners. Military police. Parking enforcement officers. Ordinance and building code enforcement officers. Crossing guards. Law enforcement forensic lab employees and CSI officers. Diplomatic protection corps employees of the State Department Justices of the peace (who historically had both judicial and law enforcement duties although now this is mostly the title of a non-law enforcement judge). Confidential informants under contract. A Florida statute cited as an answer to a previous question you asked about impersonating a law enforcement officer included the following list, from which I have marked in bold those that would often not be considered law enforcement officers: firefighter sheriff officer of the Florida Highway Patrol officer of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission fire or arson investigator of the Department of Financial Services officer of the Department of Financial Services officer of the Department of Corrections correctional probation officer deputy sheriff state attorney or assistant state attorney statewide prosecutor or assistant statewide prosecutor state attorney investigator coroner police officer lottery special agent or lottery investigator beverage enforcement agent watchman any member of the Florida Commission on Offender Review and any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission any personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement a federal law enforcement officer as defined in s. 901.1505 Some of bolded categories are marked that way because some people identified would count as law enforcement officers, but clerical and administrative personnel in those offices would ordinarily not be considered law enforcement officers. Correctional officers are frequently considered law enforcement officers for some purposes and not others.
Answering the question title, a Texas law enforcement officer can certainly make arrests in Louisiana these days under the right circumstances (I'm not about to look up the laws as of 1934). For starters, Louisiana law grants any person the authority to make an arrest when the person being arrested has committed a felony, whether or not that felony was committed in the presence of the person making the arrest. This is normally a legally risky thing to do (the arrest is illegal unless the person actually committed a felony, while a cop's felony arrest is legal as long as the cop had probable cause), but in this case the pair had been involved in a kidnapping and a robbery in Louisiana. Any person could have made a lawful arrest, and could have used necessary force to effect that arrest. But suppose the gang turned out to be innocent of the Louisiana crimes. In that case, a citizen's arrest would be illegal. But the Texas lawmen weren't at the ambush alone. They were there with the parish sheriff and a deputy, who were Louisiana peace officers with the authority to make an arrest on probable cause. And under Article 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, A peace officer making a lawful arrest may call upon as many persons as he considers necessary to aid him in making the arrest. A person thus called upon shall be considered a peace officer for such purposes. Neither of these things depends on the Texas officers' status as Texas officers. There are some arrests which are legal based on that (e.g. hot pursuit), and a Texas officer has some extra powers in Louisiana based on federal law that make an arrest easier (e.g. cops in the US can carry concealed firearms nationwide without needing a CCW permit), but under normal circumstances a Texas police officer has no special authority to make an arrest in Louisiana. However, it's not at all uncommon for police agencies in different states (or at the state and federal level) to cooperate on something, and there are ways to make it work out. With more planning, there are normally formal ways to do it instead of needing to rely on "we'll ask you for assistance" (for instance, officers could formally be appointed as deputies in the appropriate agency; this happens a lot on federal task forces, where a deputized state or local cop gets nationwide jurisdiction). If Bonnie and Clyde existed these days but the feds wanted to involve state cops, they'd just set up a federal task force, make Hamer a special deputy US marshal, and go from there.
I'll be referencing the "Minutes of proceedings of the Colonial Conference, 1907" throughout (600+ pg. PDF). The page numbers refer to the ones printed on the page instead of any software page number. It seems that @owjburnham's comment is essentially correct, it is mainly a shift in terminology. It came from a desire to further distinguish self-governing from non-self-governing colonies (or "Crown Colonies" as the official term seems to have been). As such, "Dominion" came to be (re)defined as "self-governing colony." During the 1907 Colonial Conference, Prime Minister Sir Joseph Ward of New Zealand opined the following [pg. 30-31]: I think the term "Colony," so far as our countries are concerned, ought to cease, and that that term ought to apply to the Crown Colonies purely, and that those of us who are not at present known as Dominions or Commonwealths, should be known as States of the Empire, or some other expressive word, so as to make a distinction as between the Crown Colonies and the self-governing Dependencies. He also stated the following [pg. 48]: I assume that in this resolution New Zealand, now known by the term "Colony," will be included in the expression "Dominion," which I think it ought to be. Awkwardly, this was right at the end of the day and no one reacted to this statement as the conference adjourned. As the participants were deciding upon the structure and participants of subsequent conferences, there is a lengthy discussion of the exact term to be used to refer to the self-governing colonies [pg. 78-90]. Near its conclusion, the chairman states the following [pg. 89]: We agreed [...] that instead of the word "Colonies" we should use the word "Dominions;" but is it sufficiently defined if we use the word "Dominions" alone throughout? [...] I would suggest that we might take what is really the official term "the Dominions beyond the seas" in the first place where it occurs [...] and any other reference to it in the course of the Resolution might very well be "Dominions." That would make it absolutely clear what we mean by the expression in the first place. Thus, the conference opted for an implicit rather than explicit definition of "Dominion". The designation of Newfoundland as a Dominion in 1907 is just a reconciliation of the fact it was a self-governing colony and the new understanding that the word "Dominion" was to mean roughly that. There was no effective change of status. An explicit definition of "Dominion" would not come until the Balfour Declaration of 1926. Ironically, Newfoundland played no role in deciding the term to be used for itself as its Prime Minister only arrived on Day 4 of the conference [pg. 87].
I feel that a person, not the subject of arrest, should be protected by the 4th amendment if they choose to remain in their vehicle, even if “ordered” to exit the vehicle by an officer. The intuition is fine, but is basically incorrect. I’m most interested to know: How would a driver (1) Politely (2) determine if a given instruction to exit the vehicle must be complied with, and (3) decline the instruction without giving the officer “cause” or otherwise damaging a potential case? From a practical perspective the only workable response is to comply. There are times when this is done without a reasonable suspicion (or in some cases probable cause) or other legal basis, but it is pretty much impossible for you to dispute this one the spot. Most of the time, the officer will have the legal authority to order you to leave the vehicle. If they order you to exit the vehicle despite not having the legal authority to do so, the right course of action is to comply and then to file a complaint with the agency employing the officer or to bring a civil lawsuit against the officer. There are good answers to a basically duplicate question at How can you tell if you have to follow a police officer&#39;s instructions?
While it is from a different jurisdiction, the following goes to the heart of the matter: Arrest, when used in its ordinary and natural sense, means the apprehension of a person or the deprivation of a person's liberty. The question whether the person is under arrest or not depends not on the legality of the arrest, but on whether the person has been deprived of personal liberty of movement. Directorate of Enforcement v Deepak Mahajan, (1994) 3 SCC 440 at ¶46 (SC of India) In your example, the police officer has been deprived of "personal liberty of movement"; if they can still speak there would be no legal impediment to them placing the person who arrested them also under arrest. It would then be incumbent on both parties to deliver each other into lawful custody. The citizen would need to seek out a law enforcement officer to do this; the police officer has already done so, being their own law enforcement officer. After this, comes the paperwork.
Here's what I had to do : After going through this harrowing phase, I thought I will post an update in case some one is in such a situation. The Northern Territory's Personal Violence Restraining Order act has a clause (section 21) which basically says if the applicant believes a third party knows the defendant's name then the applicant can request the court to order the third party(power, water, electoral roll, etc) to provide the name if the applicant has already made reasonable efforts in finding out the persons name and hasn't been able to. The third parties will only oblige to a court order. I am almost certain every state/territories' act (in Australia) will have such a clause. It was a challenge to get the court registry to accept the application as the front counter staff/supervisor/supervisor's supervisor were all unaware of this provision (to make an application for a PVRO but get the judge to first order the third party). I had to carry with me the act with the highlighted portion for them to read, analyse and consult with other court staff to even take my application in. At least in the NT there are community legal help services available for no fee and I highly recommend them.
The dichotomy between solicitors and barristers in the UK isn't one based on verbal definitions in the English language. In other words, the fact that barristers argue and solicitors don't isn't something that's inherent to the words, it's just how British law decided to divide it. Since those countries with solicitor generals don't have this dichotomy, they generally don't have anything actually called a barrister, and there's no reason why the solicitor general couldn't be called that, since solicitor doesn't require that he not argue in court.