GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-07-2012, 20:27   #51
lndshark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NOT the PNW (yet)
Posts: 657
About the only difference between reserves and citizens is that reserves, when not "on duty" (for lack of a better term) is that we are exempt from Pistol Free Zones while carrying concealed. This should not be construed as an "off duty" police officer. More than one reserve in Michigan has been caught flashing tin while boozing it up, being stopped for a traffic violation or otherwise wound-up in some weenie-pinching situation where they thought that their credentials would get them out of a jam (and most recently, one of them was carrying a department weapon which according to their department's policy, is a big no-no).
__________________
Small town Popo
lndshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 20:31   #52
CJStudent
Fenced In
 
CJStudent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: KY
Posts: 17,461
Send a message via AIM to CJStudent Send a message via Yahoo to CJStudent
Quote:
Originally Posted by lndshark View Post
About the only difference between reserves and citizens is that reserves, when not "on duty" (for lack of a better term) is that we are exempt from Pistol Free Zones while carrying concealed. This should not be construed as an "off duty" police officer. More than one reserve in Michigan has been caught flashing tin while boozing it up, being stopped for a traffic violation or otherwise wound-up in some weenie-pinching situation where they thought that their credentials would get them out of a jam (and most recently, one of them was carrying a department weapon which according to their department's policy, is a big no-no).
I'm sorry, I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around that. Here, only Sheriff's Offices have reserves as far as I know, but they are considered 24/7 peace officers, with full authority and arrest powers. The only "only peace officers on duty" that I'm aware of are state corrections officers, and Special Law Enforcement Officers/Special Local Peace Officers, where it's also limited to property (sworn security, basically; SLEOs on public property, SLPOs on private property, some minor differences in powers but nothing major).
__________________
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it comes dressed in overalls and looks like work." -- Thomas Edison

Quote:
Originally Posted by series1811 View Post
The first round is a moral decision. All of the following rounds are tactical decisions.
CJStudent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 22:25   #53
DaBigBR
No Infidels!
 
DaBigBR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Circling the wagons.
Posts: 15,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJStudent View Post
I'm sorry, I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around that. Here, only Sheriff's Offices have reserves as far as I know, but they are considered 24/7 peace officers, with full authority and arrest powers. The only "only peace officers on duty" that I'm aware of are state corrections officers, and Special Law Enforcement Officers/Special Local Peace Officers, where it's also limited to property (sworn security, basically; SLEOs on public property, SLPOs on private property, some minor differences in powers but nothing major).
My state is like that:

Quote:
80D.6 STATUS OF RESERVE PEACE OFFICERS.
Reserve peace officers shall serve as peace officers on the orders and at the discretion of the chief of police, sheriff, commissioner of public safety or the commissioner's designee, or director of the judicial district department of correctional services or the director's designee, as the case may be.

While in the actual performance of official duties, reserve peace officers shall be vested with the same rights, privileges, obligations, and duties as any other peace officers.
I have heard it suggested that once a reserve decides to take action, they are "in the actual performance of official duties", but I think the legislative intent is clear when the statute dealing with "regular" officers explicitly confers peace officer authority at any time throughout the state.
__________________
"Logic is rarely the engine that propels a police department forward."

-David Simon in "Homicide"
DaBigBR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 23:41   #54
NMPOPS
Senior Member
 
NMPOPS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Arizona / New Mexico
Posts: 794
Send a message via ICQ to NMPOPS
Quote:
Originally Posted by nohocop View Post
merlynusn, go ahead now. PM should work.

NMPOPS, I respect your opinion. Truly I do. But LEOSA is abundantly clear that full time paid has nothing to do with whether someone is a "qualified law enforcement officer" or "qualified retired law enforcement officer." Just work your way through each element of the definitions.

On the issue of "employee" vs. "volunteer", the courts have looked to state law definitions (since LEOSA is silent on the definition). Whether someone is an employee is part fact-based and part legal [statutory and case law]. The Rodriguez case is pretty good evidence of what the courts are doing. There hasn't been one case yet where the court has looked to the federal law definition.
Leosa is very clear on what the requirments of a "qualified LEO" are and the power and authority of reserves varies from state to state. They must have the power of arrest and they must be authorized by their agency to carry a firearm. Since no one is arguing about a reserves ability to carry while on-duty, I must assume that Leosa means they must be authorized to carry while off-duty and to enforce laws while off duty. In NM they are not. So Leosa does not cover them. I assume a lot of states are similar.

Sent from my Ally
__________________
"AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY"
NRA Endowment Life Member, Glock Armorer
NMPOPS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 23:44   #55
DaBigBR
No Infidels!
 
DaBigBR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Circling the wagons.
Posts: 15,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by NMPOPS View Post
Leosa is very clear on what the requirments of a "qualified LEO" are and the power and authority of reserves varies from state to state. They must have the power of arrest and they must be authorized by their agency to carry a firearm. Since no one is arguing about a reserves ability to carry while on-duty, I must assume that Leosa means they must be authorized to carry while off-duty and to enforce laws while off duty. In NM they are not. So Leosa does not cover them. I assume a lot of states are similar.

Sent from my Ally
Why do you assume this when there is absolutely no language in the statute to suggest it?
__________________
"Logic is rarely the engine that propels a police department forward."

-David Simon in "Homicide"
DaBigBR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 00:19   #56
blueberry1177
Senior Member
 
blueberry1177's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southeast Michigan
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by lndshark View Post
About the only difference between reserves and citizens is that reserves, when not "on duty" (for lack of a better term) is that we are exempt from Pistol Free Zones while carrying concealed. This should not be construed as an "off duty" police officer. More than one reserve in Michigan has been caught flashing tin while boozing it up, being stopped for a traffic violation or otherwise wound-up in some weenie-pinching situation where they thought that their credentials would get them out of a jam (and most recently, one of them was carrying a department weapon which according to their department's policy, is a big no-no).
ya I've heard more than a few of those horror stories myself...
blueberry1177 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 06:51   #57
CJStudent
Fenced In
 
CJStudent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: KY
Posts: 17,461
Send a message via AIM to CJStudent Send a message via Yahoo to CJStudent
Quote:
Originally Posted by NMPOPS View Post
Leosa is very clear on what the requirments of a "qualified LEO" are and the power and authority of reserves varies from state to state. They must have the power of arrest and they must be authorized by their agency to carry a firearm. Since no one is arguing about a reserves ability to carry while on-duty, I must assume that Leosa means they must be authorized to carry while off-duty and to enforce laws while off duty. In NM they are not. So Leosa does not cover them. I assume a lot of states are similar.

Sent from my Ally
I disagree, and have paperwork to back it up. My agency, BOP, until LEOSA, did not allow off-duty carry on our credentials, and we had extremely limited (only if someone assaulted us BECAUSE of work) arrest authority off-duty. According to the US Attorney General, we meet the definitions of "qualified law enforcement officer" under LEOSA, and thus are authorized to carry off-duty on our credentials now. I have a 22 page memo on that; a mix of the memo to all of DOJ from the AG, and our agency's guidance.
__________________
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it comes dressed in overalls and looks like work." -- Thomas Edison

Quote:
Originally Posted by series1811 View Post
The first round is a moral decision. All of the following rounds are tactical decisions.
CJStudent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 08:00   #58
lndshark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NOT the PNW (yet)
Posts: 657
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJStudent View Post
I'm sorry, I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around that. Here, only Sheriff's Offices have reserves as far as I know, but they are considered 24/7 peace officers, with full authority and arrest powers. The only "only peace officers on duty" that I'm aware of are state corrections officers, and Special Law Enforcement Officers/Special Local Peace Officers, where it's also limited to property (sworn security, basically; SLEOs on public property, SLPOs on private property, some minor differences in powers but nothing major).
Welcome to the wacky world of reserves in Michigan...


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
__________________
Small town Popo
lndshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 08:06   #59
Ducowti
Senior Member
 
Ducowti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by NMPOPS View Post
Leosa is very clear on what the requirments of a "qualified LEO" are and the power and authority of reserves varies from state to state. They must have the power of arrest and they must be authorized by their agency to carry a firearm. Since no one is arguing about a reserves ability to carry while on-duty, I must assume that Leosa means they must be authorized to carry while off-duty and to enforce laws while off duty. In NM they are not. So Leosa does not cover them. I assume a lot of states are similar.

Sent from my Ally
+1 on DaBiggr. LEOSA makes no distinction between on/off duty carry. Its quite clear and simple: if a reserve meets the qualifications set forth in the LEOSA, he can carry under its protection.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor
Ducowti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 08:17   #60
lawman800
Juris Glocktor
 
lawman800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Out the frying pan & into the fire!
Posts: 37,312
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducowti View Post
+1 on DaBiggr. LEOSA makes no distinction between on/off duty carry. Its quite clear and simple: if a reserve meets the qualifications set forth in the LEOSA, he can carry under its protection.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor
Which was the whole purpose of it anyway.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueiron:
I've said it before and I'll say it here: they'd look better with lividity.
lawman800 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 08:18   #61
CJStudent
Fenced In
 
CJStudent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: KY
Posts: 17,461
Send a message via AIM to CJStudent Send a message via Yahoo to CJStudent
8 years later, the ignorance about this law still astounds me.
__________________
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it comes dressed in overalls and looks like work." -- Thomas Edison

Quote:
Originally Posted by series1811 View Post
The first round is a moral decision. All of the following rounds are tactical decisions.
CJStudent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 08:25   #62
nohocop
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 332
CJStudent, I couldn't have said it better myself. My sense is that it's not so much ignorance, but what people "want it to be." The IACP (International Assoc. of Chiefs of Police) were affirmatively against this law at the time of its passage, and they have taken positions since its passage which remain against it. The "full-time paid" vs. "reserves" line of debate also shows some bias - no where is the full-time paid langauge in the statute, but you will see folks keep making that argument. The "on duty" vs "off duty" comment - does the statute say that?

Let me renew my request: any written policies on reserves anyone can share with us?
nohocop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 08:39   #63
lawman800
Juris Glocktor
 
lawman800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Out the frying pan & into the fire!
Posts: 37,312
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJStudent View Post
8 years later, the ignorance about this law still astounds me.
It's not so much ignorance as trying to make the law say what you want it to say because you don't agree with it.

There are a few departments here still trying to deny reserves the right to carry in their policy while off-duty and while it is in the department's prerogative to state whatever they want in the policy, there have been a few fights where an agency has lost the battle in taking away statutory rights of their employees.

Heck, there is a current fight with public employers asking for passwords to social media sites of their employees. The fight is based on first amendment grounds. There is another fight about medical marijuana in the workplace in CA and what you can do as an employer.

We are holding the line but even our own legal counsel is saying they would expect a not-so-easy fight when push comes to shove.

LEOSA says if you meet those quals as set out, you are allowed fifty state carry. No on/off duty difference, no full/part time difference, no compensation mentioned, retirement has specifically been struck out to make that point, and nowhere does it say it's 50 states besides your state or 50 states as each state allows... it's just as simple as the first sentence.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueiron:
I've said it before and I'll say it here: they'd look better with lividity.
lawman800 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 08:41   #64
CJStudent
Fenced In
 
CJStudent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: KY
Posts: 17,461
Send a message via AIM to CJStudent Send a message via Yahoo to CJStudent
Quote:
Originally Posted by nohocop View Post
CJStudent, I couldn't have said it better myself. My sense is that it's not so much ignorance, but what people "want it to be." The IACP (International Assoc. of Chiefs of Police) were affirmatively against this law at the time of its passage, and they have taken positions since its passage which remain against it. The "full-time paid" vs. "reserves" line of debate also shows some bias - no where is the full-time paid langauge in the statute, but you will see folks keep making that argument. The "on duty" vs "off duty" comment - does the statute say that?

Let me renew my request: any written policies on reserves anyone can share with us?
Try contacting Jefferson County, KY Sheriff's Office. They've pretty much led the way with reserves in KY; I know at least 3-4 other SOs send their reserves to JCSO for their reserve academy.
__________________
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it comes dressed in overalls and looks like work." -- Thomas Edison

Quote:
Originally Posted by series1811 View Post
The first round is a moral decision. All of the following rounds are tactical decisions.
CJStudent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 10:35   #65
DaBigBR
No Infidels!
 
DaBigBR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Circling the wagons.
Posts: 15,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJStudent View Post
8 years later, the ignorance about this law still astounds me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nohocop View Post
CJStudent, I couldn't have said it better myself. My sense is that it's not so much ignorance, but what people "want it to be."
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawman800 View Post
It's not so much ignorance as trying to make the law say what you want it to say because you don't agree with it.
Agreed wholeheartedly. I do not generally consider the requirements to be a "qualified law enforcement officer" to be vague, so long as they are taken literally and not subjected to unnecessary interpretation.
__________________
"Logic is rarely the engine that propels a police department forward."

-David Simon in "Homicide"
DaBigBR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 12:13   #66
Ship A'Hoy
Trigger Control
 
Ship A'Hoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Pa
Posts: 776
I'm a sworn uniformed armed unpaid reserve deputy (and proud of it). We only do special details, no real police work. We have been told we can NOT use our credentials in any manner to carry a firearm when out of uniform and off-duty. If I do I'll loose my badge and maybe my CCW too under the character clause option. Doesn't matter what the law says, here in this county I can't fight it.
__________________
"You won't rise to the occasion - you'll default to your level of training." Barrett Tillman
NRA LE Certified Handgun/Shotgun Instructor
Certified Glock Armorer
Speed is fine, accuracy is final.
Ship A'Hoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 13:34   #67
nohocop
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 332
Ship, why do you have a CCW if you can't carry off duty? What State are you in? Do other departments in your State have the same view?
nohocop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 14:14   #68
merlynusn
Senior Member
 
merlynusn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 3,265
Apparently my agency is one of those who say in policy that reserves can't carry under LEOSA - but they will let them drive around in a marked car in uniform by themselves... go figure that one out.

I do know that they won't let our range staff qualify anyone else who is not a retiree from our agency, even though the law says they can.
merlynusn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 14:35   #69
CJStudent
Fenced In
 
CJStudent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: KY
Posts: 17,461
Send a message via AIM to CJStudent Send a message via Yahoo to CJStudent
Quote:
Originally Posted by merlynusn View Post
Apparently my agency is one of those who say in policy that reserves can't carry under LEOSA - but they will let them drive around in a marked car in uniform by themselves... go figure that one out.

I do know that they won't let our range staff qualify anyone else who is not a retiree from our agency, even though the law says they can.
See, that makes me glad to live in Kentucky. In Kentucky, any CCDW instructor may qualify retired law enforcement as needed for LEOSA purposes; the proof of qual is in a slightly different form of the state CCDW license (different colors, says "retired law enforcement officer", and it's free).
__________________
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it comes dressed in overalls and looks like work." -- Thomas Edison

Quote:
Originally Posted by series1811 View Post
The first round is a moral decision. All of the following rounds are tactical decisions.
CJStudent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 14:45   #70
Ship A'Hoy
Trigger Control
 
Ship A'Hoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Pa
Posts: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by nohocop View Post
Ship, why do you have a CCW if you can't carry off duty? What State are you in? Do other departments in your State have the same view?
I live in a "Shall Issue" state. I have to have the CCW to carry concealed.
__________________
"You won't rise to the occasion - you'll default to your level of training." Barrett Tillman
NRA LE Certified Handgun/Shotgun Instructor
Certified Glock Armorer
Speed is fine, accuracy is final.

Last edited by Ship A'Hoy; 04-02-2013 at 04:50..
Ship A'Hoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 15:08   #71
nohocop
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 332
I understand the difference between a policy which prohibits reserves from carrying out of state (frankly, they could have that same policy for their full-time guys) vs. a policy which states that LEGALLY reserves are prohibited. It's the latter that I wholeheartedly disagree with.

Most reserves meet the LEOSA definitiion, so by law he or she is legally entitled to carry out of state.
nohocop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 17:18   #72
isp2605
Senior Member
 
isp2605's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 4,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ship A'Hoy View Post
I'm a sworn uniformed armed unpaid reserve deputy (and proud of it). We only do special details, no real police work. We have been told we can NOT use our credentials in any manner to carry a firearm when out of uniform and off-duty. If I do I'll loose my badge and maybe my CCW too under the character clause option. Doesn't matter what the law says, here in this county I can't fight it.
Does your state have a statute granting you (unpaid reserves) arrest powers? Just wearing a uniform, carrying a gun, and driving a squad by yourself isn't enough for LEOSA. There has to be a statute on the books of your state which says you have power of arrest. Simple enough to find. Just read the state statutes. If there's no statute then LEOSA wouldn't apply. That's one of the requirements.
__________________
183rd FBINA
isp2605 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 20:12   #73
nohocop
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 332
Here's the statutory scheme in California:

Penal Code Section 830.6 provides that if a person is appointed as a reserve police officer, the person is a "peace officer." This is the same definition of peace officer as full-time guys. Penal Code Section 834 allows a “peace officer” to make an arrest, i.e., it provides a “statutory” power of arrest.
nohocop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 21:27   #74
lawman800
Juris Glocktor
 
lawman800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Out the frying pan & into the fire!
Posts: 37,312
Blog Entries: 1
CA Penal Law defines reserves who are duly appointed under whatever appointing authority are "PEACE OFFICERS" and have all the powers thereof, including arrest and firearms carry, if the authorizing agency allows if it is not a municipality.

The only difference is the duration of the power and non-designated level 1 reserves, level 2, and level 3 reserves are only peace officers for the duration of the assignment. However, LEOSA does not talk about it being limited to 24 hour peace officers, just that you are a peace officer with certain qualifications.

So that would be the only kink in the definitions where conceivably an agency can say LEOSA does apply but only while you are on duty because that's when you are the peace officer under CA law... which then makes no sense when you go out of state, because nobody is a peace officer while out of state unless you are on official duty, which then pretty much negates LEOSA anyway since states have interstate compacts which recognize out of state peace officers as being peace officers while on official business inside their state.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueiron:
I've said it before and I'll say it here: they'd look better with lividity.
lawman800 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 21:35   #75
nohocop
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 332
Lawman, there is no kink in the definition. An agency saying LEOSA only applies when you are on duty is not even worth discussing.
nohocop is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:53.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 707
200 Members
507 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42