Today 7/15/2012 between the hours of 11:15 and 11:45.  I witness
Officer Roach pull 2 cars over off of Route 29.  Pittsylvania County
sheriff office believes that the Chatham Police Department has
jurisdictions including off duty cops to write traffic tickets and
pull cars over that is breaking the law.  I would like to know the
jurisdiction that Chatham, Va Police Department officers have in this
area and when it can be used.  However, a discrepancy with another
Pittsylvania County dispatch woman stated that Chatham, Va Police
Departments Officers can assist with arrests and stops in the area,
but being the primary officers for the jurisdiction is questionable.
If officers are writing up tickets that can not be enforce because
officers are out of jurisdiction than a stop is a waste of time if
there cant be any enforcement.  It was also mention that a federal
grant was given to the police department that cover this type of
situation, but than the Pitts Co. sheriff officer backed away from the
specifics that he just mentioned.  However, Lafayette Hodnett was
arrested no more than a mile or so outside of town for allegedly
stealing tire rods and the charges had to be dropped because 1 the
railroad backed his story and 2. the officer was acting out of
jurisdicition.  So have there been any new resolutions or do any
resolutions exists extending jurisdiction and police power for the
Town of Chatham, Va police department officers in the area.  This is a
freedom of information act request and I have pics to follow up with
as well.  The Pitts Co Sheriff also stated that Judge Jones would have
the tickets or whatever thrown out if it goes to Court and it is found
to be outside of jurisdiction.  I do not know who Judge Jones is, but
it also brings into question whether officers legitimately feel that
jurisdiction exists for Town of chatham, Va police officers to make
stops, tickets, or arrest all over U.S 29 because that deals with
quite a stretch and whether Officer Roach was on or off duty at the
time of these incidents.

Exculpatory evidence is the evidence favorable to the defendant in a
criminal trial, which clears or tends to clear the defendant of
guilt.[1] It is the opposite of inculpatory evidence, which tends to
prove guilt.
In many countries such as the United States, police or prosecutor are
not required to disclose to the defendant any exculpatory evidence
they possess before the defendant makes a plea (guilty or not guilty).
[2] Per the Brady v. Maryland decision, prosecutors have a duty to
disclose exculpatory evidence even if not requested. Though it is true
that the prosecution is not required to search for exculpatory
evidence and must only disclose the evidence it has in its possession,
custody or control, the prosecution's duty to disclose includes all
information known to any member of its team, e.g., police,
investigators, crime lab, etc.
In Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court held that such a
requirement follows from constitutional due process and is consistent
with the prosecutor's duty to seek justice.[3]  The Sheriff office,
Virginia State Police and
the Town of Chatham, VA are required to hand over evidence that may be
favorable to the defendants in matters such as this, because
jurisdiction raises a considerable  issue until resolved.

I was than told by Officer Marvin Wright, which is the Chief of the
Chatham Police Department, that they have a grant allowing off duty
police officers additional jurisdiction of one mile outside of Town
limits, and also the ability to write tickets.  The problem with this
grant is that due process rights are being violated.  It should be
mandatory that they publish a article in the paper of the grant and
what additional police powers have come with the DMV grant.  Clearly
this is acting off of personal motivation and not in the interest of
police work as they are paid by the grant to continue acting as
officers while off duty which increases their income.  When off-duty
officers act for purely personal motivations, courts have held
that they are not acting as law enforcement. In one such case, off-duty transit
police officers were found to have acted completely in their own
personal interests
in pulling over a motorist after he allegedly damaged their personal
car, so that
their employer could not be held liable for their alleged false arrest
and assault of
the motorist, despite the fact that they displayed badges during the
incident. They
acted in order to make sure that the plaintiff paid for the damage to
their car, not to
enforce laws against erratic driving. Schilt v. New York City Transit
Authority,
2003 NY Slip Op 13202, 759 N.Y.S.2d 10 (A.D. 1st Dept. 2003).

Also, police department officials have agreed that a newspaper article
should have been published before police was allowed to proceed on
this grant.  Also the Town of Chatham and Pittsylvania County should
have had a resolution or amendment that was voted upon to allow
extension into their jurisdiction as well as having police power thta
goes outside the scope of their employment.

Lastly, The reason that it is important that an officer arrests within
his jurisdiction is that an arrest outside his jurisdiction is
considered unlawful. The state generally will not be successful in
prosecuting a defendant where the underlying arrest was unlawful.

-----MERLE RUTLEDGE a href="https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/h/m4npka214ko3/?&v=b&cs=wh&to=merletrutledge@gmail.com" target="_blank">merletrutledge@gmail.com> wrote: -----