Results 1 to 17 of 17
Like Tree2Likes
  • 2 Post By SgtCHP

Thread: LEOSA - California

  1. #1
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    39

    LEOSA - California

    Good legal analysis of LEOSA (see link below). Primarily geared towards reserves in California but thorough and comprehensive. What do you think?

    http://www.crpoa.org/pdfs/LEOSA_June_2012.pdf

  2. #2
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4
    Great post! I think any awareness for LEOSA is a good for all of us. I'm surprised by how little many officers know about LEOSA. Some have never even heard of it. Keep spreading the word!

  3. #3
    Retired Sergeant - CHP SgtCHP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Left Coast
    Posts
    6,252
    This is more important than the opinion that is written!


    LEGAL ADVISEMENT: THIS MEMORANDUM EXPRESSES THE VIEWS OF THE AUTHORS ONLY AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A LEGAL OPINION OR LEGAL ADVICE. ANY PERSON INTENDING TO CARRY A CONCEALED FIREARM PURSUANT TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SAFETY ACT OF 2004 IS NOT ENTITLED TO RELY ON THIS MEMORANDUM BUT SHALL OBTAIN SUCH PERSONAL LEGAL ADVICE AS HE OR SHE DEEMS NECESSARY.
    If you are an active reserve, choose to carry out of state and there is an issue, you a standing on thin ice. Other states have no obligation to interpret LEOSA any differently as it is written. Just remember, each states' AG may have a different interpretation. Be safe!
    Last edited by SgtCHP; 06-18-2012 at 03:08 PM.
    retired and Iowa #1603 like this.
    Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence!

    [George Washington (1732 - 1799)]


  4. #4
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    39
    SgtCHP: Good post, but I would beg to differ that a reserve is "standing on thin ice" just because he is a reserve or some AG would "interpret" the law differetly. The memo is very clear about the state of the law and the criteria. If they "intepret" the law differently they need to have a legal basis to do so, not just that they don't like the law. The court cases that have emerged are pretty persuasive and the risk of false arrest, malicious prosecution, etc., goes up as the law develops in the way that it is.

    I'm not trying to be contrary, just expressing my view that a reserve is no more on "thin ice" than anyone else if they meet the requirements of LEOSA.

  5. #5
    S*** just got real! NYCDep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,675
    What exactly is a reserve officer? Is it a volunteer position?

    From reading the first couple of pages of the memo and seeing that the attorneys who wrote it are reserve officers, it sounds like a political patronage thing to give guns and badges to politically connected people who do almost nothing to keep it.

  6. #6
    Forum Member 1911user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    678
    Quote Originally Posted by NYCDep View Post
    What exactly is a reserve officer? Is it a volunteer position?

    From reading the first couple of pages of the memo and seeing that the attorneys who wrote it are reserve officers, it sounds like a political patronage thing to give guns and badges to politically connected people who do almost nothing to keep it.
    You need to embrace the world of LE beyond NY. Many agencies, California comes to mind first, have Reserve programs. These are not auxilliarys with guns. They are Bonafide LEO's. They augment the regular patrol officers, like part timers. Each agency has different programs. They have the same training you and I have as PO's.

  7. #7
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    39

  8. #8
    An Obvious problem mdrdep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Ca
    Posts
    5,375
    The problem Nohocop is different states have different ideas of what a reserve officer is. They will base their decisions on their states definitions of reserve officers.

    Cali agencies would really do a benefit of not making a difference in their credentials for Level I and regular officers.
    Today's Quote:


    "Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves."


    Ronald Reagan

  9. #9
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by NYCDep View Post
    What exactly is a reserve officer? Is it a volunteer position?

    From reading the first couple of pages of the memo and seeing that the attorneys who wrote it are reserve officers, it sounds like a political patronage thing to give guns and badges to politically connected people who do almost nothing to keep it.
    Yes, politically connected people who attend the same academy as every peace officer, pass the same background, go through the same field training program, and donate many hours of their time while working full time at other jobs.

    From a former reserve, thanks so much for the recognition.

  10. #10
    God Bless Texas TexasAggieOfc's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Republic of Texas
    Posts
    1,643
    Quote Originally Posted by mdrdep View Post
    The problem Nohocop is different states have different ideas of what a reserve officer is. They will base their decisions on their states definitions of reserve officers.

    Cali agencies would really do a benefit of not making a difference in their credentials for Level I and regular officers.
    This is why I'm glad that my ID doesn't say reserve, it simply says FULL TIME PEACE OFFICER
    Let your watchword be duty, and know no other talisman of success than labor. Let honor be your guiding star in your dealing with your superiors, with your fellows, with all. Be as true to a trust reposed as the needle to the pole. Stand by the right even to the sacrifice of life itself, and learn that death is preferable to dishonor. ~ Gov. Richard Coke, October 4, 1876

  11. #11
    S*** just got real! NYCDep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,675
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911user View Post
    You need to embrace the world of LE beyond NY. Many agencies, California comes to mind first, have Reserve programs. These are not auxilliarys with guns. They are Bonafide LEO's. They augment the regular patrol officers, like part timers. Each agency has different programs. They have the same training you and I have as PO's.
    Silly rabbit! There is no world beyond NY.

  12. #12
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    39
    mdrdep, there is a footnote in the memo that addresses your exact point. Every state has a different statutory approach to reserve officers. In California, they are fully sworn cops. In other states, not. That is why all you need to do with LEOSA is walk through each separate requirement. A person (full time cop, reserve cop, whatever) has to meet each requirement. It's a simple as that.

  13. #13
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    488
    California has 3 different levels of reserve officers. They don't have police powers when they are not working and must be authorized by their Agency to carry off-duty. HR218 wouldn't apply to them.

  14. #14
    Retired Sergeant - CHP SgtCHP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Left Coast
    Posts
    6,252
    Quote Originally Posted by Nohocop View Post
    SgtCHP: Good post, but I would beg to differ that a reserve is "standing on thin ice" just because he is a reserve or some AG would "interpret" the law differetly. The memo is very clear about the state of the law and the criteria. If they "intepret" the law differently they need to have a legal basis to do so, not just that they don't like the law. The court cases that have emerged are pretty persuasive and the risk of false arrest, malicious prosecution, etc., goes up as the law develops in the way that it is.

    I'm not trying to be contrary, just expressing my view that a reserve is no more on "thin ice" than anyone else if they meet the requirements of LEOSA.
    As you will note from reading the other posts, not every state recognizes "Reserve Officers" as CA does. Ergo, my statement - which I reiterate:
    If you are an active reserve, choose to carry out of state and there is an issue, you a standing on thin ice. Other states have no obligation to interpret LEOSA any differently as it is written. Just remember, each states' AG may have a different interpretation. Be safe!
    Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence!

    [George Washington (1732 - 1799)]


  15. #15
    Forum Member 1911user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    678
    Quote Originally Posted by NYCDep View Post
    Silly rabbit! There is no world beyond NY.
    How True......

  16. #16
    Forum Member LIcoastie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Nassau
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by eagleI View Post
    California has 3 different levels of reserve officers. They don't have police powers when they are not working and must be authorized by their Agency to carry off-duty. HR218 wouldn't apply to them.
    Neither of those are requirements for LEOSA.
    CBPO
    TO - 05/08 JFK
    EOD - 12/05/2011

  17. #17
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    39
    LIcoastie is exactly right. LEOSA does not require police powers off duty. Think about it, that is the exact reason we have LEOSA - because cops who are out of state are not cops. They do not have police powers when they are out of state.

    Nor does LEOSA also does not require off-duty authorization. It's simply not in the words of the LEOSA statute, and the Booth case was exactly those facts. Per the memo:

    "The words of the statute are clear and do not specify off-duty carry. In fact, this would undermine the entire rationale for LEOSA (and, as noted in the legislative history, was specifically rejected as a requirement sought by House members opposing LEOSA on the basis that it prevented police chiefs from regulating off-duty carry by police officers). See H.R. Rep. No. 560, 108th Cong., 2nd Sess. 2004 at page 54 et seq. Case law upheld LEOSA status where off-duty carry was not authorized by the employing agency. In the Booth case, a reserve Coast Guard officer, who was not authorized by the Coast Guard to carry off duty, was found by the court to be immune from prosecution under LEOSA because he was authorized to carry on duty and met the other requirements of LEOSA: “His authority to carry a weapon did not extend beyond his role as a uniformed member of the Coast Guard and he was not permitted to carry a concealed weapon while out of uniform.... Although the proof at the hearing indicates that the defendant engaged in a violation of rules, regulations and policies of the United States Coast Guard by possessing a handgun for which he had no license, these violations do not act to lessen the scope of LEOSA as it is applied in this instance.” 862 N.Y.S.2d at 770.

    See what happens when you actually read the words of the statute and LEOSA case law?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •