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 05-08-2012, 23:07   #76
lawman800
Juris Glocktor
 
lawman800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Out the frying pan & into the fire!
Posts: 37,320
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by nohocop View Post
Lawman, there is no kink in the definition. An agency saying LEOSA only applies when you are on duty is not even worth discussing.
Do you put it past some of the poor excuses we have for chiefs and sheriffs in California, or liberal mayors and city council, or left leaning city attorneys or county legal counsel, to come up with that train of thought?
__________________
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 05-09-2012, 00:33   #77
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 DaBigBR View Post
Why do you assume this when there is absolutely no language in the statute to suggest it?
I started in law enforcement in 1978. Since that time, at least in the southwest, I have never been aware of any police officer being told he could not carry his duty weapon while on duty or while off duty in their own state. Even if that meant he had to cross state lines (to testify, extraditions etc) they are on-duty. So obviously LEOSA is meant for Off duty. The main purpose of the law was to allow active and retired officers to carry in the other 49 states, not just their own. Generally when in another state, most of us are on vacation or traveling for some non-police related reason. So you are off duty. The law doesn't need to spell this out word for word. It's just common sense.
There is also nothing in the language to suggest otherwise.
__________________
"AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY"
NRA Endowment Life Member, Glock Armorer

Last edited by NMPOPS; 05-09-2012 at 00:49.. Reason: add sentence
NMPOPS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 00:44   #78
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 CJStudent View Post
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.
Recent changes to Leosa specifically included some agencies like BOP and Amtrac in order to clarify things.

As far as reserves go. To clarify further, in NM reserves, while on duty, derive the powers of arrest from the Fulltime officer they are assisting. They cannot sign complaints, or write citations. When not actually on duty, they have no authority whatsoever. They do not have any authority to carry a concealed firearms while off duty. They are not concidered Commisioned Officers as is reqiered by NM code to make arrests. Based on this they do not meat the criteria set by Leosa. If another state wishes to handle this differently. They can do so. I'm just talking about my state.
__________________
"AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY"
NRA Endowment Life Member, Glock Armorer
NMPOPS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 00:48   #79
lawman800
Juris Glocktor
 
lawman800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Out the frying pan & into the fire!
Posts: 37,320
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by NMPOPS View Post
As far as reserves go. To clarify further, in NM reserves, while on duty, derive the powers of arrest from the Fulltime officer they are assisting. They cannot sign complaints, or write citations. When not actually on duty, they have no authority whatsoever. They do not have any authority to carry a concealed firearms while off duty.
Which is almost like how CA treats its non-Level 1D reserves... but the difference is, while level 2 and 3 reserves don't get to work alone without a full time or level 1D reserve with them, or at least be in close proximity, they have full powers of arrest while on duty and they can sign arrest forms, file reports, and write citations with their name on it.

Otherwise, it's the same as what you said. They don't have peace officer status while off duty and therefore cannot carry concealable firearms off duty without CCW (for civilians) since they are not peace officers.
__________________
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 05-09-2012, 04:11   #80
Ship A'Hoy
Trigger Control
 
Ship A'Hoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Pa
Posts: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by isp2605 View Post
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.
There is no state regulation of any kind for Reserve Deputies in my state that I am aware of.
__________________
"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 04:47..
Ship A'Hoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 06:09   #81
isp2605
Senior Member
 
isp2605's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 4,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ship A'Hoy View Post
There is no state regulation of any kind for Reserve Deputies in my state that I am aware of. Our firearms qualifications are certified same as any municipal police officer as are all our other certifications. I wish there were some state regulations pertaining to reserves though cause then it might eliminate some of the politics.

We are sworn in by the Sheriff and his office states we have arrest powers only while on duty. Of course I have never known a reserve in my unit to ever arrest anyone. It's all good though I'm not overly concerned about LEOSA applying to me.
Without statutory authority of arrest then LEOSA would not apply. A sheriff in IL can swear in anyone to help or assist with arrests but that does not make them a LEO nor covered. They're just Joe Citizen sworn by the sheriff to assist. Swearing in isn't mentioned by LEOSA. LEOSA is clear there has to be statutory authority as one of the criteria. That means the legislature passed *this* specific statute, with such and such cite, granting res/aux arrest authority. CA apparently has such a statute. Some states may not. If there is such a statute then it will be a simple matter to research and find.
__________________
183rd FBINA
isp2605 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 10:02   #82
DaBigBR
No Infidels!
 
DaBigBR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Circling the wagons.
Posts: 15,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by NMPOPS View Post
I started in law enforcement in 1978. Since that time, at least in the southwest, I have never been aware of any police officer being told he could not carry his duty weapon while on duty or while off duty in their own state. Even if that meant he had to cross state lines (to testify, extraditions etc) they are on-duty. So obviously LEOSA is meant for Off duty. The main purpose of the law was to allow active and retired officers to carry in the other 49 states, not just their own. Generally when in another state, most of us are on vacation or traveling for some non-police related reason. So you are off duty. The law doesn't need to spell this out word for word. It's just common sense.
There is also nothing in the language to suggest otherwise.
Again, I am lost on why one would assume that off duty powers of arrest and off duty carry privileges would be required when the statute does not mention those specific privileges in the list of what it takes to be a "qualified law enforcement officer" or "qualified retired law enforcement officer."

Quote:
Originally Posted by NMPOPS View Post
Recent changes to Leosa specifically included some agencies like BOP and Amtrac in order to clarify things.

As far as reserves go. To clarify further, in NM reserves, while on duty, derive the powers of arrest from the Fulltime officer they are assisting. They cannot sign complaints, or write citations. When not actually on duty, they have no authority whatsoever. They do not have any authority to carry a concealed firearms while off duty. They are not concidered Commisioned Officers as is reqiered by NM code to make arrests. Based on this they do not meat the criteria set by Leosa. If another state wishes to handle this differently. They can do so. I'm just talking about my state.
BOP was NOT included in the amendments - the Federal Resere Police and Amtrac Police were. BOP employees have been carrying under LEOSA as long as the original 2004 statute has been on the books.

Reference your state, if reserve officers do not have powers of arrest by statute, they are obviously not covered. If there is a statute that says that they have powers of arrest when working with a "regular" officer, than they do have statutory powers of arrest.

If one wanted to really split hairs with this, what about states that provide officers with limited authority, such as only in their jurisdiction or county when off duty? Are they any more or less covered than my state, where my authority is statewide at all times? What about officers whose off-duty authority only covers felonies? Are they different than my state, that would technically authorize me to write a parking ticket on the other end of the state while off duty?
__________________
"Logic is rarely the engine that propels a police department forward."

-David Simon in "Homicide"
DaBigBR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 11:02   #83
nohocop
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 332
lawman, I love you like a brother but 24-hour peace officer status has nothing to do with LEOSA. All reserve officers are "peace officers" in the State of California per PC 830.6 and 832.6. They all have the right to carry per LEOSA as all CCW laws are superseded by LEOSA. Go back and read each element of the definition of "qualified law enforcement officer." California reserve officers meet each and every one of those - all levels.
nohocop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 11:15   #84
CJStudent
Fenced In
 
CJStudent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: KY
Posts: 17,476
Send a message via AIM to CJStudent Send a message via Yahoo to CJStudent
Quote:
Originally Posted by NMPOPS View Post
Recent changes to Leosa specifically included some agencies like BOP and Amtrac in order to clarify things.

As far as reserves go. To clarify further, in NM reserves, while on duty, derive the powers of arrest from the Fulltime officer they are assisting. They cannot sign complaints, or write citations. When not actually on duty, they have no authority whatsoever. They do not have any authority to carry a concealed firearms while off duty. They are not concidered Commisioned Officers as is reqiered by NM code to make arrests. Based on this they do not meat the criteria set by Leosa. If another state wishes to handle this differently. They can do so. I'm just talking about my state.
Like DaBigBR said, BOP was covered under the original LEOSA--the updates were for Federal Reserve Police and Amtrak Police, as they're semi-independent "companies", albeit government-run, and they are not "employees of a governmental agency" per se.
__________________
"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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 13:57   #85
lawman800
Juris Glocktor
 
lawman800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Out the frying pan & into the fire!
Posts: 37,320
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by nohocop View Post
lawman, I love you like a brother but 24-hour peace officer status has nothing to do with LEOSA. All reserve officers are "peace officers" in the State of California per PC 830.6 and 832.6. They all have the right to carry per LEOSA as all CCW laws are superseded by LEOSA. Go back and read each element of the definition of "qualified law enforcement officer." California reserve officers meet each and every one of those - all levels.
I am on your side, you don't even know how much I am with you.

I am just saying what the agency can come up with...playing the devil's advocate and anticipating the opposition argument. Look at the SD case where the state tried to prosecute the off duty cops in the Harley bar shooting.
__________________
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 05-09-2012, 14:01   #86
nohocop
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 332
You're right lawman. It's taken some BS charges to clarify some of this. But remember the judge dismissed those charges and made clear LEOSA covered them. So, bad luck for them to have to go through it, but good for the rest of us as far as precedent goes.
nohocop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 15:33   #87
merlynusn
Senior Member
 
merlynusn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 3,265
noho, NCGS Ch 14, Article 54B
§ 14‑415.10. Definitions.
(5) Qualified sworn law enforcement officer. – A law enforcement officer employed by a local, State, campus police, or company police agency in North Carolina who satisfies all of the following:
a. The individual is authorized by the agency to carry a handgun in the course of duty.
b. The individual is not the subject of a disciplinary action by the agency that prevents the carrying of a handgun.
c. The individual meets the requirements established by the agency regarding handguns.

Our reserves meet those definitions. So it's just my agency being stupid why our reserves "can't carry" under LEOSA. It's policy, obviously not the law. They even have this in one of the policies "All sworn XXPD Employees (including Police Reserves) are required to participate in the Physical Ability Test." That just shows they are reserves. So again, the department is just being either stupid or they are uneducated about LEOSA.
merlynusn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 15:52   #88
nohocop
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 332
Thanks merlynusn. I think you said it well.

I especially like the part "All sworn XXPD Employees (including Police Reserves)." Just another example of how all these agencies treat us as employees in order to impose all the rigid requirements and expectations of being a cop, but if something good comes along like LEOSA that they don't lilke, all of a sudden we're not employees.

The rationale is "Reserves are employees for all purposes (except LEOSA, because we don't like it)"
nohocop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 16:37   #89
lawman800
Juris Glocktor
 
lawman800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Out the frying pan & into the fire!
Posts: 37,320
Blog Entries: 1
I am advising a few people on relevant policy in this matter and a few have never thought of LEOSA as far as how it affects every police employee, not just the full timers. They don't care either, as long as they think by banning everything under policy, they are protected from liability.
__________________
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 05-09-2012, 17:52   #90
DaBigBR
No Infidels!
 
DaBigBR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Circling the wagons.
Posts: 15,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by merlynusn View Post
noho, NCGS Ch 14, Article 54B
§ 14‑415.10. Definitions.
(5) Qualified sworn law enforcement officer. – A law enforcement officer employed by a local, State, campus police, or company police agency in North Carolina who satisfies all of the following:
a. The individual is authorized by the agency to carry a handgun in the course of duty.
b. The individual is not the subject of a disciplinary action by the agency that prevents the carrying of a handgun.
c. The individual meets the requirements established by the agency regarding handguns.

Our reserves meet those definitions. So it's just my agency being stupid why our reserves "can't carry" under LEOSA. It's policy, obviously not the law. They even have this in one of the policies "All sworn XXPD Employees (including Police Reserves) are required to participate in the Physical Ability Test." That just shows they are reserves. So again, the department is just being either stupid or they are uneducated about LEOSA.
I suspect that if one of your reserves was carrying and involved in a situation where they were charged, they would be able to use LEOSA as a defense, and win, but obviously the department could (and probably would) still toss them. This is actually addressed in one of the USCG cases.

The sheriff's office in my county is the same way with their reserves.
__________________
"Logic is rarely the engine that propels a police department forward."

-David Simon in "Homicide"
DaBigBR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 21:41   #91
Hack
Gold Membership
Crazy CO
 
Hack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Kansas, near the bison.
Posts: 22,958
Send a message via AIM to Hack Send a message via Yahoo to Hack
Just waiting for any other cases to pop up in my agency. Not reserves, but similar situations. My agency has this non involvement policy, where they consider us totally on our own. First incident where there is a deadly force off duty is going to look might interesting in some spots.
__________________
Arming with truth defeats ignorance. Jesus said, "I Am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by me." John 14:6
"Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author
and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons or the Department of Justice."
In God we trust, all others we monitor.
Hack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 04:06   #92
merlynusn
Senior Member
 
merlynusn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 3,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBigBR View Post
I suspect that if one of your reserves was carrying and involved in a situation where they were charged, they would be able to use LEOSA as a defense, and win, but obviously the department could (and probably would) still toss them. This is actually addressed in one of the USCG cases.

The sheriff's office in my county is the same way with their reserves.
I agree. They will be covered under LEOSA. I've had a reserve get on the radio tell me to pull a car. He gets out of his car and comes and writes them tickets for the reckless driving they were doing. The department is setting themselves up.
merlynusn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 10:58   #93
mtguy
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Msla, MT
Posts: 31
Copied directly from our county website for reserve deputies:

Quote:
County Sheriff Reserve Deputy Unit consists of approximately 50 individuals who volunteer their time and energy to serve as part time unpaid sheriff's deputies.

They supplement the force of full time paid deputies, by working with full time deputies performing routine patrol duties, as well as providing additional officers for special events and extraordinary incidents.

Candidates undergo a rigorous selection process and are required to complete state mandated training prior to being sworn in as reserve deputies. They wear the same uniform and have the same arrest power as full time deputy sheriffs while on duty.
In addition, we are covered under workmen's comp when on duty which should fulfill the employment portion of LEOSA

Quote:
WORKMAN'S COMP: Reserves are provided workman's compensation should they be injured on duty.
I don't know if it could be any more clear than that...what say you?
mtguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 11:19   #94
isp2605
Senior Member
 
isp2605's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 4,945
LEOSA doesn't say anything about being covered by Work Comp. A state can include who ever they decide under work comp.
Neither does it matter what uniform, if any, they wear.
However, what is of importance is this part from MT is "have the same arrest power as full time deputy sheriffs while on duty."
The requirements by LEOSA are:
"(c)As used in this section, the term “qualified law enforcement officer” means an employee of a governmental agency who—
(1)is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest;
(2)is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
(3)is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency which could result in suspension or loss of police powers;
(4)meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;
(5)is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and
(6)is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.
__________________
183rd FBINA

Last edited by isp2605; 05-10-2012 at 11:20..
isp2605 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 11:35   #95
mtguy
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Msla, MT
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by isp2605 View Post
LEOSA doesn't say anything about being covered by Work Comp.
I just meant to say that Work comp is a benefit of employment


Quote:
‘‘(c) As used in this section, the term ‘qualified law enforcement
officer’ means an employee of a governmental agency who—
Therefore a reservist would fulfill the requirement as an employee of a governmental agency...one of the main elements to qualify under H.R. 218
mtguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 12:35   #96
nohocop
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 332
Does your state have anything like California Labor Code Section 3362.5?:

"Whenever any qualified person is deputized or appointed by the proper authority as a reserve or auxiliary sheriff or city police officer, a deputy sheriff, or a reserve police officer of a regional park district or a transit district, and is assigned specific police functions by that authority, the person is an employee of the county, city, city and county, town, or district for the purposes of this division while performing duties as a peace officer if the person is not performing services as a disaster service worker for purposes of Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 4351)."
nohocop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 12:55   #97
mtguy
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Msla, MT
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by nohocop View Post
Does your state have anything like California Labor Code Section 3362.5?:
Not that I have seen...our code book is pretty thin, extra thin compared to CA code!
mtguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 13:36   #98
isp2605
Senior Member
 
isp2605's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 4,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtguy View Post
I just meant to say that Work comp is a benefit of employment
It might be a benefit but it doesn't have anything to do with any requirement cited in LEOSA. For example, since I retired I went back on contract with my agency doing investigations. I'm covered by work comp but I'm not an employee. I'm contractual. Therefore whether covered by work comp or not is immaterial.

Quote:
Therefore a reservist would fulfill the requirement as an employee of a governmental agency...one of the main elements to qualify under H.R. 218
Maybe or maybe not. Again, it depends on if the reserve has statutory power of arrest and the other requirements set out in LEOSA. The requirements for LEOSA coverage isn't a Chinese menu. It's not select one from column A and one from column B. It's not "I can carry a gun for the sheriff therefore I'm covered." Got to have all or it doesn't cover. All standards have to be met. As was explained earlier it depends on what the reserves/aux are permitted by statute. As I explained previously IL has 2 "classes" of reserves/aux. One class is really nothing more than Explorer Scouts type function. They help the sheriff/cop with directing traffic at fairs/carnivals or can be called on to assist in searches. They function under the sheriff/cop, some may wear some type of uniform, some if they complete the firearm cert course might be able to carry a firearm but they don't have authority to make arrests therefore they aren't covered. The other class has to have the full training cert like any full time LEO and therefore would be covered.
__________________
183rd FBINA

Last edited by isp2605; 05-10-2012 at 13:37..
isp2605 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 14:24   #99
CJStudent
Fenced In
 
CJStudent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: KY
Posts: 17,476
Send a message via AIM to CJStudent Send a message via Yahoo to CJStudent
Quote:
Originally Posted by isp2605 View Post
It might be a benefit but it doesn't have anything to do with any requirement cited in LEOSA. For example, since I retired I went back on contract with my agency doing investigations. I'm covered by work comp but I'm not an employee. I'm contractual. Therefore whether covered by work comp or not is immaterial.


Maybe or maybe not. Again, it depends on if the reserve has statutory power of arrest and the other requirements set out in LEOSA. The requirements for LEOSA coverage isn't a Chinese menu. It's not select one from column A and one from column B. It's not "I can carry a gun for the sheriff therefore I'm covered." Got to have all or it doesn't cover. All standards have to be met. As was explained earlier it depends on what the reserves/aux are permitted by statute. As I explained previously IL has 2 "classes" of reserves/aux. One class is really nothing more than Explorer Scouts type function. They help the sheriff/cop with directing traffic at fairs/carnivals or can be called on to assist in searches. They function under the sheriff/cop, some may wear some type of uniform, some if they complete the firearm cert course might be able to carry a firearm but they don't have authority to make arrests therefore they aren't covered. The other class has to have the full training cert like any full time LEO and therefore would be covered.
I don't think he's disputing that. My impression of his posts are that he's saying that, because he is covered under workmans comp, that would qualify him as an "employee" as far as LEOSA is concerned; meeting THAT part of the requirements. At least that's how I read it.
__________________
"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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 15:58   #100
DaBigBR
No Infidels!
 
DaBigBR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Circling the wagons.
Posts: 15,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by isp2605 View Post
It might be a benefit but it doesn't have anything to do with any requirement cited in LEOSA. For example, since I retired I went back on contract with my agency doing investigations. I'm covered by work comp but I'm not an employee. I'm contractual. Therefore whether covered by work comp or not is immaterial.


Maybe or maybe not. Again, it depends on if the reserve has statutory power of arrest and the other requirements set out in LEOSA. The requirements for LEOSA coverage isn't a Chinese menu. It's not select one from column A and one from column B. It's not "I can carry a gun for the sheriff therefore I'm covered." Got to have all or it doesn't cover. All standards have to be met. As was explained earlier it depends on what the reserves/aux are permitted by statute. As I explained previously IL has 2 "classes" of reserves/aux. One class is really nothing more than Explorer Scouts type function. They help the sheriff/cop with directing traffic at fairs/carnivals or can be called on to assist in searches. They function under the sheriff/cop, some may wear some type of uniform, some if they complete the firearm cert course might be able to carry a firearm but they don't have authority to make arrests therefore they aren't covered. The other class has to have the full training cert like any full time LEO and therefore would be covered.
The point he is making is that the statute says:

As used in this section, the term `qualified law enforcement officer' means an employee of a governmental agency...

...and he is making the case for their reserves being an employee, which I think is a fair consideration. If one isn't an employee, then the rest of the analysis need not apply. I think that the PA constable case is a good indication of how broadly the term employee will likely be interpreted.
__________________
"Logic is rarely the engine that propels a police department forward."

-David Simon in "Homicide"
DaBigBR 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 19:59.



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


Users Currently Online: 1,568
514 Members
1,054 Guests

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