PDA

View Full Version : Haas v. Meisner (Cal Appl. 2002), Reserve police officers not entitled to CCW


Crom
01-10-2011, 3:44 PM
I was doing some research and I came across an interesting case that would be of interest to anyone who may be serving as a reserve police officer.

(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14495348466106230327)Haas v. Meisner, 126 Cal. Rptr. 2d 843 - Cal: Court of Appeals, 1st Appellate Dist., 2nd Div. 2002 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14495348466106230327)

The case basically states that California reserve police officers (after retirement) are not entitled to CCW endorsements under PC 12027 (which exempts retired law enforcement from PC 12025).


We agree that the processes for issuing a license authorizing a person to carry a concealed weapon and for issuing a CCW endorsement differ significantly. However, as respondents point out, the fact that the Legislature has included reserve police officers in the statutes governing the issuance of the licenses to the general public indicates that reserve police officers are to be treated more like the public than fulltime or part-time regularly employed police officers. Thus, Haas may obtain permission to carry a concealed weapon under section 12050, but he is not eligible for the CCW endorsement under section 12027.[5]The legal issue was one of statutory construction and it hinged on the finer details of the retirement system for reserve oficers and the and particulars of the legislative intent as analyzed by the court.

Haas served as a reserve officer for the Berkeley Police Department (police department) from 1969 until 1996. During this period, Haas obtained the training set forth in section 832.6 and carried a firearm.

Haas had a CCW endorsement, and apparently in 1995 there was some support from the city attorney via a published legal opinion.

Relying upon a November 1995 Berkeley City Attorney legal opinion, the police department issued Haas an identification card containing an endorsement permitting him to carry a concealed weapon (CCW endorsement). The opinion concluded: "The Chief has the discretion to deny or revoke a CCW endorsement for an honorably retired [police department] reserve officer who has obtained the training set forth in Penal Code 832.6 and carried a firearm as a reserve, only if the Chief believes that there is good cause to deny the endorsement. Otherwise, the endorsement must be given to the retired officer. Retired reserves who have not met the training requirements of Section 832.6 or who did not carry a firearm as a reserve are not entitled to the CCW endorsement." But the City attorney did an about-face and issued another opinion in 1997.

In September 1997, the Berkeley City Attorney issued another legal opinion. This opinion stated that it was responding to the request of former Chief of Police D.E. Butler (Butler) that it reexamine its 1995 legal opinion. The 1997 opinion stated that it "overrules and supersedes the entire legal opinion dated November 8, 845*845 1995." Its new conclusion was as follows: "Under Penal Code section 12027(a), honorably retired [police department] reserve officers are not entitled to a CCW endorsement on their ID cards. Therefore, the Chief should not allow CCW endorsements on the ID card of any retired [police department] reserve officers. [] However, as with any other resident of Alameda County, under Penal Code section 12050, the Chief has the discretion to issue a retired reserve officer who resides within Alameda County a license to carry a concealed weapon, if the reserve officer meets the requirements for obtaining the license, such as showing good cause for needing one."You may read the whole case using the link above.

jamesob
01-10-2011, 4:19 PM
the risk of a reserve police officers are not as great as a paid police officer.:rolleyes: i was a reserve for a while and glad i have a ccw.

frankm
01-10-2011, 4:23 PM
the risk of a reserve police officers are not as great as a paid police officer.:rolleyes: i was a reserve for a while and glad i have a ccw.

Many depts. consider them "non sworn", i.e., not as good as the regulars. Spend your whole life volunteering, and you get no respect. Sad.

socalblue
01-10-2011, 4:57 PM
This looks to be a correct ruling under existing law. Reserve officers gain status under 830.6 (Except those who gain full status under Level 1a as 830.1 status) & thus do not meet the requirement for endorsement or LEOSA.

Will require legislation to fix the issue.

wildhawker
01-10-2011, 5:14 PM
There us no "fix" here. The reservists are either sworn, full members of the police force, or not.

yellowfin
01-10-2011, 5:43 PM
I'm sure they're swearing at this now.

CSDGuy
01-10-2011, 5:50 PM
This looks to be a correct ruling under existing law. Reserve officers gain status under 830.6 (Except those who gain full status under Level 1a as 830.1 status) & thus do not meet the requirement for endorsement or LEOSA.

Will require legislation to fix the issue.
Reserves that quit working as a LEO do not normally accrue retirement benefits... therefore they don't qualify, once they separate from service as a Reserve LEO. They may also not be considered to have been "regularly employed" either. It doesn't matter HOW they gain their LE status... it's whether they meet the qualifications as a "Retired LEO" under the LEOSA. If you do read the LEOSA as it exists today it doesn't refer to how someone got their LEO Status. In fact, as far as I can tell, nothing in the LEOSA references the actual scope of the Officer's powers... so the LEOSA can cover a LOT more than the traditional PC 830.xx LEO. While the LEOSA was revised late last year, language specifying the scope of duties (general vs specific enforcement of law) was not addressed.

Paladin
01-10-2011, 9:54 PM
In September 1997, the Berkeley City Attorney issued another legal opinion. . . . Its new conclusion was as follows: ". . . [] However, as with any other resident of Alameda County, under Penal Code section 12050, the Chief has the discretion to issue a retired reserve officer who resides within Alameda County a license to carry a concealed weapon, if the reserve officer meets the requirements for obtaining the license, such as showing good cause for needing one." :confused:

I thought CoPs could only issue CCWs to residents of their city, not people who reside in their county, but outside of their city.

12050(a)(1)(B)

The chief or other head of a municipal police
department of any city or city and county, upon proof
that the person applying is of good moral character, that good
cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying
is a resident of that city and has completed a course of
training as described in subparagraph (E), may issue . . . .

Is the Berkeley City Attorney wrong or am I?

I wonder if Haas was illegally issued a CCW?