how often does Amtrak call the cops to remove people?

[KWBud]

The conductor is like the manager of a bar or club who has the authority to order people out and might call on a bouncer to do so without having anyone charged with a crime. Sounds like Wilmington PD just didn't want to be the bouncer.

A private bar or club can refuse service to anyone (with a few exceptions) because they are privately owned.

Hopefully, Amtrak would need to follow some sort of policy guidelines before refusing service since it is not really a private enterprise.

--

Bud

 

[VentureForth]

The conductor is like the manager of a bar or club who has the authority to order people out and might call on a bouncer to do so without having anyone charged with a crime. Sounds like Wilmington PD just didn't want to be the bouncer.

A private bar or club can refuse service to anyone (with a few exceptions) because they are privately owned.

Hopefully, Amtrak would need to follow some sort of policy guidelines before refusing service since it is not really a private enterprise.

--

Bud

And they do. In the case of the old situation referred to in the original post, the passenger wasn't removed for talking on the phone, but rather arguing with the conductor. You just don't mess with the guy/gal who has the shiny nickel plate on the hat that says CONDUCTOR.

 

[BCL]

The conductor is like the manager of a bar or club who has the authority to order people out and might call on a bouncer to do so without having anyone charged with a crime. Sounds like Wilmington PD just didn't want to be the bouncer.

A private bar or club can refuse service to anyone (with a few exceptions) because they are privately owned.

Hopefully, Amtrak would need to follow some sort of policy guidelines before refusing service since it is not really a private enterprise.

--

Bud

It may say that on a sign, but there are such things as state and federal anti-discrimination laws, although the penalties are typically civil and may include damages from civil lawsuits. So yeah a private business can "refuse service to anyone", but there can be hell to pay for doing so for the wrong reasons.

And yes I would agree that a conductor would have to be accountable to management for sending off a passenger. However, until such time almost dictatorial authority has been granted to the conductor to "run the ship". The conductor is in charge and can give orders to the engineer and any other staff much like the captain of a ship or the pilot on an airliner. That doesn't mean there won't be a report and that there might not eventually be some sort of discipline if sending off a passenger was considered capricious or simply to feed the ego of the conductor. And in the case mentioned by the OP, I suspect the conductor was giving the passenger a long, long leash despite lots of documentable behavior that would warrant being sent off the train. I've hinted that amount of leeway was given to her because she might claim racial discrimination, but the final straw was when she threatened other passengers followed by arguing with the conductor. I'm pretty sure this woman had performed many of the conditions that would have justified removal from the train (read Amtrak's conditions of carriage and maybe the service standards manual if you can find it).

There's the "conduct that is objectionable", "refuse to comply.....with instructions of Amtrak personnel", and from the retelling of what happened probably "obscene language".

Here are the conditions for removal from the 2011 services standards manual

f) Removal of a Passenger from the Train• A passenger should be removed and/or

restrained only when other methods, including

a firm request to the passenger, have failed.

• A passenger may be physically restrained, but

ONLY if personal injury or damage to equipment

is threatened or reasonably anticipated.

• If it becomes necessary to use force, ONLY

reasonable force must be used.

• Make sure you avoid any personal injury.

• The removal of a passenger must be facilitated

by calling for the Amtrak Police or local law

enforcement authorities to meet the train

enroute to remove the passenger.

• It is essential that CNOC (302) 683-2299 be

notified of the situation and to determine if

the passenger being removed has any firearms

or ammunition contained within their checked

baggage. (Refer to “Firearms in Checked

Baggage – Unusual Circumstances” in

Chapter 4 “Baggage Handling” for additional

information.)

• In those cases where law enforcement is

unable to meet the train enroute, and the

circumstances warrant, the passenger(s)

must only be removed from the train at any

open, staffed station, unless their safety might

be endangered.

• When necessary for the safety or other

passengers or employees, a passenger may be

removed at a point other than a staffed station.

In this case, employees should contact the

police if it appears to be necessary to protect

property or to assure the safety of passengers

(including the passenger to be removed from

the train) or employees.

g) Involuntary Removal

• Involuntary removal of a passenger or passengers

from an Amtrak train is an extremely serious

action that should only be taken when the

passenger(s) refuses to refrain from conduct that

might endanger their own lives or jeopardize

the safety and comfort of others.

• If an involuntary removal of a passenger or

passengers from an Amtrak train is required, the

Amtrak Police Department should be contacted

as soon as possible so that arrangements can

be made to have police assistance meet the

train at the quickest point to investigate,

document and process the incident.

• In the NEC this will generally be Amtrak Police,

in other locations it will be the local police.

 

[VentureForth]

• Involuntary removal of a passenger or passengers from an Amtrak train is an extremely serious action that should only be taken when thepassenger(s) refuses to refrain from conduct that might endanger their own lives or jeopardize the safety and comfort of others.

Quite a range there from endangering lives vs jeopardizing the comfort of others.

 

[BCL]

Involuntary removal of a passenger or passengers from an Amtrak train is an extremely serious action that should only be taken when thepassenger(s) refuses to refrain from conduct that might endanger their own lives or jeopardize the safety and comfort of others.

Quite a range there from endangering lives vs jeopardizing the comfort of others.

Like I said - almost dictatorial powers.

 

[railiner]

Back in the eighties, when Amtrak started running the Zephyr over the Rio Grande, there was one particular conductor, that ran between Denver and Grand Junction, (whose name I won't mention), that used to eject passenger(s), almost on a weekly basis. He had a terrible reputation of intolerance as a result...

 

[chakk]

Seems to vary by route. Never seen it happen on the Empire Builder, but it seems about every third trip I take on the Starlight they put someone off into the hands of the cops. Frequently not at station stops, like at a grade crossing in Richmond, at the toolshed at Oakridge, OR, etc.

Now THAT's what I like to see. Someone being taken to the toolshed by Amtrak, and not by my father (may he rest in peace).

 

[KWBud]

The conductor is like the manager of a bar or club who has the authority to order people out and might call on a bouncer to do so without having anyone charged with a crime. Sounds like Wilmington PD just didn't want to be the bouncer.

A private bar or club can refuse service to anyone (with a few exceptions) because they are privately owned.

Hopefully, Amtrak would need to follow some sort of policy guidelines before refusing service since it is not really a private enterprise.

--

Bud

And they do. In the case of the old situation referred to in the original post, the passenger wasn't removed for talking on the phone, but rather arguing with the conductor. You just don't mess with the guy/gal who has the shiny nickel plate on the hat that says CONDUCTOR.

Considerable thread drift has occurred since the original post and the discussion had migrated to a comparison of Amtrak's rights as compared to those of a private property owner and involved another incident that happened in Wilmington.

Private property owners (and their agents) can ask the police to remove someone from their property without articulating a reason. As noted there are some exceptions, but not many.

Do you believe that an Amtrak conductor has the right to ask local law enforcement to remove a fare paying passenger without the need to articulate why?

Do you think that an Amtrak conductor should have that right?

Why?

--

Bud

 

[BCL]

The conductor is like the manager of a bar or club who has the authority to order people out and might call on a bouncer to do so without having anyone charged with a crime. Sounds like Wilmington PD just didn't want to be the bouncer.

A private bar or club can refuse service to anyone (with a few exceptions) because they are privately owned.

Hopefully, Amtrak would need to follow some sort of policy guidelines before refusing service since it is not really a private enterprise.

--

Bud

And they do. In the case of the old situation referred to in the original post, the passenger wasn't removed for talking on the phone, but rather arguing with the conductor. You just don't mess with the guy/gal who has the shiny nickel plate on the hat that says CONDUCTOR.

Considerable thread drift has occurred since the original post and the discussion had migrated to a comparison of Amtrak's rights as compared to those of a private property owner and involved another incident that happened in Wilmington.

Private property owners (and their agents) can ask the police to remove someone from their property without articulating a reason. As noted there are some exceptions, but not many.

Do you believe that an Amtrak conductor has the right to ask local law enforcement to remove a fare paying passenger without the need to articulate why?

Do you think that an Amtrak conductor should have that right?

Why?

--

Bud

I'm pretty sure that Amtrak has cooperative agreements with local law enforcement along their entire route. I wouldn't be surprised if many of those MOUs state that a conductor sending off a passenger and requesting local police intervention doesn't require any justification, which would probably be the procedure they would have if Amtrak Police showed up. The Amtrak service standards manual states that law enforcement of some kind must meet the train when there is an ejection, although it also mentions the possibility that a passenger may be sent off at a staffed and open station if there is no law enforcement.

Now I don't think for an instant that they would always prefer that Amtrak Police show up in case a passenger is to be sent off. The docs state that in the NEC they'll always do that (which seems like they've violated that rule before) and that local police will be contacted otherwise. Now I've seen Amtrak Police patrol cars parked at Emeryville and have been sniffed by a couple of Amtrak Police dogs while riding Capitol Corridor. I'm pretty sure if a conductor is ready to send off a passenger while Amtrak Police is on board, they would be the ones to do so. Maybe the service manual says otherwise, but I doubt they get in trouble for such a technical violation with a rule that doesn't seem to make sense with absolutes.

Wilmington was mentioned. I found specific information that Amtrak has entered into multiple MOUs with the Wilmington PD.

 

[KWBud]

Wilmington was mentioned.

That was the case mentioned above in which the conductor probably overstepped his authority. The police refused to eject the passenger.

I found specific information that Amtrak has entered into multiple MOUs with the Wilmington PD.

Multiple MOUs? That would seem to be much worse that having none. Which MOU applies?

So, I am assume that you believe that the Wilmington police were wrong because they didn't blindly follow the conductor's whim and eject the passenger in the cast?

My opinion is that absolute authority should not be bestowed upon any bureaucrat. They are likely to be quite arbitrary in enforcement. If the conductor can not articulate a reason to remove a fare paying passenger, is he really doing his job?

Suppose, for a moment that the conductor in question believes that all children are brats and therefore deserve extra watchfulness. Further suppose our conductor believes that a child who keeps on eating those jam packets is making other passengers uncomfortable and therefore is already pushing the limits.

Of course no slack would be given if that child wore to go into "full on meltdown" on the train. Both the parent and the child may be ejected from the train without recourse. Perhaps the parent would be jailed of our conductor were to have his way.

These things do happen when bureaucrats are given ultimate authority. You read about in the paper all the time.

That is why Amtrak conductors should not have the same powers that private land owners have with regards to ejecting people from their property. As one wag said, "Amtrak is a government chartered corporation with a mission to serve the people of the United States as well as foreign visitors." When we entrust a conductor with stewardship of the public trust, they should be held to a higher standards, don't you think?

--

Bud

 

[BCL]

Wilmington was mentioned.

That was the case mentioned above in which the conductor probably overstepped his authority. The police refused to eject the passenger.

I found specific information that Amtrak has entered into multiple MOUs with the Wilmington PD.

Multiple MOUs? That would seem to be much worse that having none. Which MOU applies?

So, I am assume that you believe that the Wilmington police were wrong because they didn't blindly follow the conductor's whim and eject the passenger in the cast?

My opinion is that absolute authority should not be bestowed upon any bureaucrat. They are likely to be quite arbitrary in enforcement. If the conductor can not articulate a reason to remove a fare paying passenger, is he really doing his job?

Suppose, for a moment that the conductor in question believes that all children are brats and therefore deserve extra watchfulness. Further suppose our conductor believes that a child who keeps on eating those jam packets is making other passengers uncomfortable and therefore is already pushing the limits.

Of course no slack would be given if that child wore to go into "full on meltdown" on the train. Both the parent and the child may be ejected from the train without recourse. Perhaps the parent would be jailed of our conductor were to have his way.

These things do happen when bureaucrats are given ultimate authority. You read about in the paper all the time.

That is why Amtrak conductors should not have the same powers that private land owners have with regards to ejecting people from their property. As one wag said, "Amtrak is a government chartered corporation with a mission to serve the people of the United States as well as foreign visitors." When we entrust a conductor with stewardship of the public trust, they should be held to a higher standards, don't you think?

--

Bud

I saw references to different MOUs. Some of them were for one year terms, so I assume they keep on issuing new ones. The article titles I saw (behind some sort of pay wall) mentioned a lot of them were about agreements with Amtrak Police and some regarding patroling the area around the station. Doesn't Amtrak Police have an office in Wilmington? It wouldn't surprise me if they had different MOUs covering different subjects.

Amtrak of course has a service standards manual. I saw parts of it that required a conductor document the conditions and quickly file a report, while also stating the reasons why a conductor may order a passenger off the train. While they might have almost dictatorial powers at the time they can set off a passenger, that doesn't mean they don't eventually have to answer to their superiors for being petty or capricious in how they exercise that authority. If it were Amtrak Police who met a passenger, I don't believe it would be their prerogative to question why a conductor would set off a passenger but to do their job and let Amtrak management determine if it was justified. At the time a conductor orders someone off a train, it's not the time for anyone to second guess the decision. Do it, get it over with, and let the train move on. And in addition, if you read the service standards manual, the presence of law enforcement is not absolutely required when removing a passenger.

But until such time as they're reprimanded or removed from duty, they are pretty much the captain of the ship or the pilot of an airliner. Their authority is absolute, but yeah they could get in trouble for exercising poor judgement.

 

[LegalEagle]

My sister and I were traveling from CHI out to Harpers Ferry on the Capitol Limited one New Years Eve a few years back. We were traveling in a bedroom on the upper level with a man and a woman in the next bedroom. Things were fine until we heard a few loud thumps on the wall and some shouting from the next bedroom. I looked out the window when we stopped in Indiana and saw the cops at the station. They even had a drug dog with them. I initially thought maybe there was some drug related activity on the tran. I opened our bedroom door in time to hear our Attendant tell me to get back inside, shut and lock the door and close the curtains. Right after that the cops came up the stairs and filled the corridor. They had a heck of a time with the man...he had beaten up his female companion and she was protecting him from the cops. They were finally able to subdue him and drag him off the train...she trailed behind.