| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
fed_ofc_bop
USA
69 Posts |
 Posted - 01/13/2007 : 05:53:34
|
So here's a simple question for all you LEO Guru's... I looking at leaving the federal government to go back to the county way of life. SO, here's my question, sorry my ADD is kicking in. Question is, The way HR 218 is worded does it cover the county LEO, such as county correctional officers? More specificly Pennsylvania County C.O.'s?
-------------------------
"Peasent: Who are you?
King of England: I'm the King of England, who are you?
Peasent: (screams) Help, help I'm being repressed!"
"We are the knights that say, Knee (knee) (knee) and I order you to bring me a SHRUBBERY!"
"Come back and fight like a man! It's only a flesh wound!!"
Excerpts from Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail |
Edited by - on
|
|
|
Woofdog
USA
732 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2007 : 06:04:24
|
It depends on the authority given to county (and state) CO's by each individual state.
In my state, Sheriff's "detention officers" don't have statutory powers of arrest. Unless they are also sworn as Deputy Sheriffs, they are not covered under LEOSA.
Neither are state "detention officers" working for NC DOC in our state prison system. They are not "law enforcement officers" under the law.
|
Edited by - on |
 |
|
|
fpd710
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2007 : 06:45:46
|
| In Ohio, most correctional officers are unsworn. In my previous job, the CO's were sworn with limited powers of arrest. As a deputy in the jail, all arrest powers are given but policy does not allow off-duty carry by anyone working in a correctional capacity. The way I understand it since policy does not allow off-duty carry, you are not covered under LEOSA. |
Edited by - on |
|
|
|
Steve Rothstein
USA
1141 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2007 : 07:54:20
|
In Texas, I am convinced the LEOSA covers the state correctional officers but not the county jailers, unless the jailer has a peace officer commission.
But the key point, as Woofdog said, is if the position has a statutory arrest authority for anything.
Steve Rothstein |
Edited by - on |
|
|
|
Sherlock Holmes
United Kingdom
298 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2007 : 08:21:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by fed_ofc_bop
... I looking at leaving the federal government..
PL 108-277 requires an aggregate of 15 years of LE position. There is an ammendment in the senate (senate Bill S 3835) which would change it to 10 years aggregate service. Although "supervision and detention" of offenders is covered, as have been mentioned here, you also need the statutory powers of arrest. |
Edited by - on |
|
|
|
KBCraig
636 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2007 : 08:34:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by fpd710
As a deputy in the jail, all arrest powers are given but policy does not allow off-duty carry by anyone working in a correctional capacity. The way I understand it since policy does not allow off-duty carry, you are not covered under LEOSA.
That would be incorrect. There is no requirement in LEOSA that the agency authorize off-duty carry. There are only three requirements:
1) Be employed by a government agency
2) Have statutory power of arrest
3) Be authorized by the agency to carry firearms
If you meet 1 & 2, and are authorized to carry at any time, you're covered under LEOSA.
Kevin
Work for liberty and freedom: http://www.freestateproject.org |
Edited by - on |
|
|
|
fpd710
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 04:50:54
|
Kevin,
Simply having authorization at any point would cover you under LEOSA? I would think that if the department forbid carry by any policy that you would be "on your own" in a situation that may occur with your firearm with no departmental backing for civil, or possibly criminal, action taken against you. If this is the case, I would want a clear cut answer from the dept. on LEOSA coverage (which seems to be a pain wherever and however you're employed). I'm not trying to start that thread again, just a little clarification on this particualr issue. |
Edited by - on |
|
|
|
exfed2002
USA
658 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 05:13:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by fpd710
Kevin,
Simply having authorization at any point would cover you under LEOSA? I would think that if the department forbid carry by any policy that you would be "on your own" in a situation that may occur with your firearm with no departmental backing for civil, or possibly criminal, action taken against you. If this is the case, I would want a clear cut answer from the dept. on LEOSA coverage (which seems to be a pain wherever and however you're employed). I'm not trying to start that thread again, just a little clarification on this particualr issue.
Nobody said the world was fair.
If it were, the vast majority of us would not have/have had these jobs.
Yes, you can be safe from prosecution under LEOSA, but you are not safe from adverse administrative action. Neither are you freed of the yoke of civil litigation.
A clear cut answer, dream on....................... You're more than likely going to have to argue your case yourself.
Go down the checklist of things that are required for LEOSA coverage, make sure you meet each and every requirement, and that is about the best you can do. |
Edited by - exfed2002 on 01/14/2007 05:15:32 |
|
|
|
Sherlock Holmes
United Kingdom
298 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2007 : 03:24:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by fpd710
..The way I understand it since policy does not allow off-duty carry, you are not covered under LEOSA.
Not true. If you meet the qualification, then you are covered as far as the law is concerned. Breaking departmental policies however, may result in an administrative disciplinary process. The way I see it, if it is departmental policy, someone (perhaps at the Union level) needs to fight it because clearly it is contrary to what the law intended. LEOSA is made so that LE personnel can protect themselves and their families. Not allowing to carry off duty is clearly against the spirit of this Federal Law. |
Edited by - on |
|
|
|
fpd710
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2007 : 11:57:41
|
| I'll have to pass on the advice to my former colleagues. When I approached the Union originally, they stated there was no fight since the dept. could implement basically any policy they want to. Hopefully, someone has the kahunas to step up now, since most of the Union reps are former/retired cops with experience from many different agencies and command level positions. |
Edited by - on |
|
|
|
Jdillinger
USA
43 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2007 : 17:35:15
|
| I...at one time cared about public law enforcement and all the rights that went along with it.. Then one day I woke and realized it was all for SH!T. HR 218 really only matters when it comes to the state your in... if you feel your not covered...In NY...better yet NYC..the only civilians it seems allowed to carry are thugs..I have left public law enforcement and went into the private sector and life is a whole lot better..So if you want to carry move to Vermont |
Edited by - Jdillinger on 03/03/2007 17:35:46 |
|
|
|
fedguy889
USA
45 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2007 : 08:36:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by fed_ofc_bop
Question is, The way HR 218 is worded does it cover the county LEO, such as county correctional officers? More specificly Pennsylvania County C.O.'s?
Nope not in PA. I am an ex CO from Lancaster County and they have no authority as needed under LEOSA.
"...And the right to own and carry guns is clear.
The Constitution says so. The right to keep
and bear arms shall not be abridged.
Keep means own and bear means carry
and there’s no other way to look at it,
and the courts that feel differently are
the same courts that once said
black people were property..." |
Edited by - on |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
HR 218 and county corrections
