For those who might find it interesting, here's a link to the church website: --- https://briarwood.org/
and a Google Maps view of the campus (which seems big but largely self-contained): --- https://goo.gl/maps/4wvtJuouXCJ2 By the way, I may be Presbyterian but I'm from a different branch; Briarwood is PCA, I'm PC(USA). -- Bill Wildhack Presbyterian Minister, Florida Lawyer, (recently) retired Navy Chaplain On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Mark Scarberry < mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu> wrote: > It could be helpful to learn just what powers the church police force > would have that private security guards would not. I don't know much about > what a private security guard might do (in general, or in particular under > Alabama law). May a private security guard detain a trespasser or vandal > (for example) for a short time before a city police officer or county > deputy sheriff arrives? Would the bill passed by the Alabama Senate give > the church police power to do more than that? Would it give the church > police power to use deadly force to apprehend a "suspect" under the same > circumstances that would justify a city police officer in doing it? > > More generally, perhaps the bills specifies the rights and powers of the > church police force. In some states I suppose a private security guard > might be prohibited from carrying a handgun. A generally applicable law > allowing organizations to form an internal private security guard unit that > could carry handguns would be constitutional, I think. > > Mark > > Prof. Mark S. Scarberry > Pepperdine Univ. School of Law > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Ira Lupu <icl...@law.gwu.edu> wrote: > >> I understand completely why a large institution or company, with persons >> and property to protect, would want a security force on the premises and >> under its control. But ordinarily that is done through employees or >> private contractors, and the force is private. It does not have the power >> to arrest, or to detain for extended periods of time. So I repeat the >> question -- why would a megachurch (or a major corporation, re: operating >> its headquarters, which may also be much like a campus) want its police to >> have governmental authority? (This is a question quite separate from >> religious favoritism or entanglement between religious and civil >> authority). >> >> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Volokh, Eugene <vol...@law.ucla.edu> >> wrote: >> >>> The statute seems unconstitutional to me, likely based on >>> *Kiryas >>> Joel*. But the answer to the “why?” -- not that such a purpose would >>> necessarily make it constitutional -- might well be for the same reason >>> that many public school districts have their own police forces, though of >>> course this one would be much smaller. >>> >>> >>> >>> Eugene >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: >>> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 12, 2017 8:19 AM >>> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics < >>> religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> >>> *Subject:* Re: State-sanctioned church "police force" >>> >>> >>> >>> Why would a large, predominantly white suburban congregation near >>> Birmingham need its own police force? >>> >>> >>> >>> For a related religion clause case, see State v. Celmer, >>> http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court >>> /1979/80-n-j-405-0.html (invalidating on First A grounds "a statutory >>> scheme which grants various municipal powers to the Ocean Grove Camp >>> Meeting Association of The United Methodist Church.") >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Paul Horwitz <phorw...@hotmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Here's a story from the AP. What do you (or, to use the proper and >>> incredibly useful grammar of my adopted state, "y'all") think? Is it a >>> quasi-Grendel's Den case or something of the sort? A direct Establishment >>> Clause problem insofar as it involves granting governmental or >>> quasi-governmental status to a church itself? A Kiryas Joel-type case >>> insofar as it grants a governmental privilege or status that might or might >>> not be granted to, say, a mosque or some other organization? (Not that I'm >>> crazy about that aspect of the Kiryas Joel ruling.) Or, insofar as state >>> law allows the state to empower various entities to have police forces, is >>> it constitutional because respectful of equal access to governmental >>> benefits or privileges? >>> >>> >>> >>> Paul Horwitz >>> >>> University of Alabama School of Law >>> >>> >>> >>> MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) – The Alabama Senate has voted to allow a church >>> to form its own police force. >>> >>> Lawmakers on Tuesday voted 24-4 to allow Briarwood Presbyterian Church >>> in Birmingham to establish a law enforcement department. >>> >>> The church says it needs its own police officers to keep its school as >>> well as its more than 4,000 person congregation safe. >>> >>> Critics of the bill argue that a police department that reports to >>> church officials could be used to cover up crimes. >>> >>> The state has given a few private universities the authority to have a >>> police force, but never a church or non-school entity. >>> >>> Police experts have said such a police department would be unprecedented >>> in the U.S. >>> >>> A similar bill is also scheduled to be debated in the House on Tuesday. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see >>> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw >>> >>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as >>> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are >>> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or >>> wrongly) forward the messages to others. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Ira C. Lupu >>> F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law, Emeritus >>> George Washington University Law School >>> 2000 H St., NW >>> Washington, DC 20052 >>> 301-928-9178 <(301)%20928-9178> (mobile, preferred) >>> >>> 202-994-7053 <(202)%20994-7053> (office) >>> >>> Co-author (with Professor Robert Tuttle) of "Secular Government, >>> Religious People" ( Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2014)) >>> My SSRN papers are here: >>> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=181272#reg >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see >>> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw >>> >>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as >>> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are >>> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or >>> wrongly) forward the messages to others. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Ira C. Lupu >> F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law, Emeritus >> George Washington University Law School >> 2000 H St., NW >> Washington, DC 20052 >> 301-928-9178 <(301)%20928-9178> (mobile, preferred) >> 202-994-7053 <(202)%20994-7053> (office) >> Co-author (with Professor Robert Tuttle) of "Secular Government, >> Religious People" ( Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2014)) >> My SSRN papers are here: >> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=181272#reg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see >> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw >> >> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as >> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are >> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or >> wrongly) forward the messages to others. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. >
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
