Simply, does TCA 39-17-1359 apply to off duty officers? From what I gather in 39-17-1350 it should not. Just trying to figure out if the official no carry signs applied or not. Thanks for any help with this
Off duty carry in TN
-
Glocktalk is a forum community dedicated to Glock enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about Glock pistols and rifles, optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, and more!
ancient_serpent
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Joined
·
3,155 Posts
Simply, does TCA 39-17-1359 apply to off duty officers? From what I gather in 39-17-1350 it should not. Just trying to figure out if the official no carry signs applied or not. Thanks for any help with this
Joined
·
197 Posts
I have heard LEOs in tv interviews/reports several times say that the LEO must be on duty. Off duty aren't supposed to carry at football games for an example. I know more rural counties are more flexible, don't ask don't tell. In bigger cities with dash cameras and video everywhere things are more strict. The line SEEMS to be written PD/agency policy. If Leo is off duty/subject to recall/required to take action is the written policy they carry. I know USMS friends carry all the time no matter where they are.
Cherokee Slim
Cherokee Slim
I've never had an issue, randy. I have yet to go I a game this year.
Joined
·
28,982 Posts
Joined
·
3,155 Posts
Talked to some other in-state officers, as best as we can tell the language of the 1350 portion of the code seems to indicate that on duty and off duty carry is treated much the same. There are very few locations, such as federal buildings or court houses that are restricted when we are not on duty. Very few other places that are limited or prohibited.
Which makes the most sense, since I would think people would want police officers armed.
Which makes the most sense, since I would think people would want police officers armed.
Joined
·
672 Posts
As a State of Tennessee County Deputy Sherriff I am NEVER OFF DUTY> I may not be in uniform, but I am always on duty 24 / 7.Some postings will go so far as to say "Official Duties" but we are required to carry at all times.
One of my guys was at a restaurant in Nashville at Opry Mills last week and was spotted carrying by a waitress who advised security. They came to his table and checked him and he advised them of his commission and that he understood their need to check for security reasons and they still gave him a bunch of crap. He told them to go piss up a rope, that he was a full time officer commissioned to carry and that they were only a security employee and to call Metro Police or his Sheriff if they needed further and to leave so his family could eat. He later called me and asked if he was in trouble, I told him to Stand His Ground or I would be the one he would be in trouble with. :steamed:
One of my guys was at a restaurant in Nashville at Opry Mills last week and was spotted carrying by a waitress who advised security. They came to his table and checked him and he advised them of his commission and that he understood their need to check for security reasons and they still gave him a bunch of crap. He told them to go piss up a rope, that he was a full time officer commissioned to carry and that they were only a security employee and to call Metro Police or his Sheriff if they needed further and to leave so his family could eat. He later called me and asked if he was in trouble, I told him to Stand His Ground or I would be the one he would be in trouble with. :steamed:
Joined
·
11,133 Posts
You know, I'd love to have a supervisor like you that stands up for his people.
Heck yeah. Want to come to my dept?
Joined
·
11,133 Posts
If I wasn't tied to this area due to family, I'd probably consider it.
Joined
·
82,342 Posts
No.TCA 39-17-1359 does not apply to off duty officers because it clearly says so.
The pretty obvious giveaway is the 1359 says: "The prohibition in subdivision (a)(1) shall apply to any person who is authorized to carry a firearm by authority of § 39-17-1351."
That is the carry permit statute. Police are authorized to carry by 39-17-1350 and they don't need a permit to do so.
Joined
·
3,155 Posts
Sorry I haven't responded, been busy. Saw that as well, thanks much Bren!
Joined
·
355 Posts
I would be careful with this statement. Although we are allowed to carry in areas where standard HCP holders are not allowed to, our off-duty carry, EVEN AS LEOs, does NOT trump property rights. If someone asks you to leave their property because you're armed (which is not likely), unless you're on official business, you can either leave and disarm or be subject to criminal penalties just like anyone else in this state. Honestly if Opry Mills wanted to push the issue and ask that officer to leave and if he refused he could be subject to arrest for criminal trespass. The 39-17-1359 signage makes it a crime to carry inside a building. If an off-duty LEO entered the building, he would not be subject to the crime of violating 39-17-1359 (because of 39-17-1350), but as I mentioned above, the property owner still has the right to boot him if he's not on official business. Does it happen? Almost never, but it can. It's never my intention to leave a poor taste in the mouths of property owners as an off-duty LEO. Most LE agencies have policies/GOs about off-duty conduct.
The courts (both state & federal) do NOT consider us on duty 24/7. If we engage in law enforcement duties while "off-duty" it can open you and your department up to liability depending on the circumstances. If I walk up to a car and search it right now in my sweat pants, I am acting as a private citizen regardless of my status as a LEO. The search would not be illegal because I'm not acting under color of law and 4th Amendment protections do not apply. With that said, I'm also not protected under qualified immunity (or GTLA) if I get sued.
If I'm working off-duty, in uniform, for a private security company and take LE action, then the circumstances may change, but the security company AND/OR my agency could be held liable. This was outlined in the TN Supreme Court case of White v. Revco 33 S.W.3d 713. This case also specifically states that officers are not on-duty 24/7.
I think LEOs should be armed 24/7, but I also think it's a better practice to conduct ourselves accordingly when approached about our firearm on private property. We are not entitled to jack crap regardless of who we are. Don't get me wrong 99% of property owners enjoy having us around, but when you encounter the 1% that doesn't want us there, state law does not trump their property rights to kick us out if we're off duty or not on official business.
Joined
·
7,516 Posts
The NFL has a policy of on-duty guns only at any game venue. Locally, you may find places that ignore this, but the league stance is clear.
Joined
·
672 Posts
SgtScott31 I see your point but I /we also are required to carry by policy of our commission. I also failed to mention that the building of Opry Mills is not posted and that firearms are sold on premise.
I understand "Official Duties" and I agree that it is a trespass to be on public or private property with specific prohibitive posted rules. If an off-duty LEO entered the building, he would not be subject to the crime of violating 39-17-1359 (because of 39-17-1350), A right of passage onto any property is by agreement to it's posted rules and this was not posted.
Without a call or pursuit of an on duty official reason I agree that I am not exempt from trespass, but only by right of the property owner's right of passage non-compliance and not of my commission to carry or TCA Code. First there would be need of a posting to specifically identify that officers could not carry off duty or a disturbance created by said person to warrant an intervention.
I also agree with the Official Duties ruling of STNSC, however we are required to carry and I will carry, concealed off duty, until I am asked to leave the premises weather specifically posted or not.
My Deputy was causing no disturbance or display of a weapon without Identification of LEO by ID or Badge. I see a waitress being concerned of her detection of a weapon even found only by brushing up against my officer and I see her calling security to check this out. My officer advised her that he was a state of TN commissioned deputy sheriff when asked by her "What is that ?"and confirmed that he was carrying. I see Security doing a confirmation, but I don't see a non-commissioned. unarmed Security Guard creating and issue with my officer without good reason. There was no posting prohibiting his carry and I don't see any reason for the harassment of him by a Mall Ninja, that was my issue.
I understand "Official Duties" and I agree that it is a trespass to be on public or private property with specific prohibitive posted rules. If an off-duty LEO entered the building, he would not be subject to the crime of violating 39-17-1359 (because of 39-17-1350), A right of passage onto any property is by agreement to it's posted rules and this was not posted.
Without a call or pursuit of an on duty official reason I agree that I am not exempt from trespass, but only by right of the property owner's right of passage non-compliance and not of my commission to carry or TCA Code. First there would be need of a posting to specifically identify that officers could not carry off duty or a disturbance created by said person to warrant an intervention.
I also agree with the Official Duties ruling of STNSC, however we are required to carry and I will carry, concealed off duty, until I am asked to leave the premises weather specifically posted or not.
My Deputy was causing no disturbance or display of a weapon without Identification of LEO by ID or Badge. I see a waitress being concerned of her detection of a weapon even found only by brushing up against my officer and I see her calling security to check this out. My officer advised her that he was a state of TN commissioned deputy sheriff when asked by her "What is that ?"and confirmed that he was carrying. I see Security doing a confirmation, but I don't see a non-commissioned. unarmed Security Guard creating and issue with my officer without good reason. There was no posting prohibiting his carry and I don't see any reason for the harassment of him by a Mall Ninja, that was my issue.
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
