PDA

View Full Version : Federal Law Enforcement Question


devildog999
07-08-2011, 1:35 AM
Quick question for you that know more about the law than I do. I am a federal cop on Edwards AFB. Now, as opposed to POST certified cops like CHP, LAPD, LASD, etc, we do not have law enforcement rights while we are not on duty (which we would had the dumb *** government put "arresting capabilities" as opposed to "apprehension abilities" while not on duty). So my question is, does that matter when it comes to getting a department letter head to avoid having to make the fun stuff legal with bullet buttons etc. I would rather ask you people that know the law a lot better before I were to ask my Chief. Thanks in advance, greatly appreciated.

hoffmang
07-08-2011, 1:45 AM
Some reading for you:

http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/pdfs/97-505.pdf

http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/pdfs/01-1005.pdf

I haven't looked closely enough recently enough to have an opinion about your status at this time...

-Gene

devildog999
07-08-2011, 2:07 AM
Thank you for that, though it is informative, it does not mention anything about Edwards AFB (which if it matters is slightly in LA County and mostly in Kern County)

Anchors
07-08-2011, 3:25 AM
Are you a civilian officer at the base or still enlisted?
Do your duties involve the general public or only military personnel?
Basically I'm asking what your title and job are.

Just curious.

devildog999
07-08-2011, 4:37 AM
I am civilian. I do deal with civilians due to the fact that most of Edwards is civilians. My title is "guard" though we are cops. Specifically while on duty we are LE


Are you a civilian officer at the base or still enlisted?
Do your duties involve the general public or only military personnel?
Basically I'm asking what your title and job are.

Just curious.

kw91364
07-08-2011, 7:06 AM
deleted

dustoff31
07-08-2011, 9:30 AM
FWIW, a security company that I do firearms instruction for has some federal contracts for different federal agencies. Their armed guards working those contracts are in the same position. For all practical purposes, they have Fed LEO powers on duty. Off duty, nada.

If one has been issued fed LEO creditials then they are LEOs. If not, then not.

BigDogatPlay
07-08-2011, 12:02 PM
I worked on a federal contract (DoD) as a LEO for a few years. Full federal authority on duty, no authority off. Patrol, traffic, investigations the whole gamut. Much of the authority that contract employees can exercise comes from the type of federal jurisdiction present where they are contracted / assigned to work. I am guessing the most if not all of Edwards is still exclusive federal jurisdiction so they can empower a contractor to do pretty much anything on post. Where I worked it was concurrent jurisdiction with the state, so we shared a lot with local and state authorities.

But because they are contract employees, even though they work and act as LEOs, they are wholly different from actual government employees that are LEO. The government employee LEOs get their authority in California under PC 830.8 and they are not California peace officers although they do have certain rights and privileges (PC 836 and WIC 5150 specifically noted in the statute), so my gut / opinion tells me that they would not be able to purchase / register an AW under the peace officer exemption. There is no grant of peace officer power in 830.8 for contractors that I am aware of.

The contractors, typically, are required to issue weapons to their employees. It's usually built into the specifications of the contract, along with what weapons and ammo are permissible for issue. If the contract is written with rifles allowed, they should be getting issued. I doubt seriously that the empowering authority, be it the base commander or the provost marshal, would write letters for private purchase of a RAW.

And, IMO, contractor employees would not be eligible anyway just as I think DoD employee LEOs would not either.

dustoff31
07-08-2011, 12:28 PM
And, IMO, contractor employees would not be eligible anyway just as I think DoD employee LEOs would not either.

I tend to agree. I can say with certainty that at least in the case of the Dept. of the Interior, and their various Bureaus, contractors, and even their own Civil Service security guards are not issued LEO credentials. Whereas, BLM Rangers, BOR Police, etc, are.

BigDogatPlay
07-08-2011, 12:41 PM
I tend to agree. I can say with certainty that at least in the case of the Dept. of the Interior, and their various Bureaus, contractors, and even their own Civil Service security guards are not issued LEO credentials. Whereas, BLM Rangers, BOR Police, etc, are.

As are DoD police that are government employees. And those government employees are LEOSA eligible, AFAIK. Just not peace officers in the eyes of California law and not exempt WRT personally owned RAW.

And one small caveat... BLM and USFS LEO personnel are specifically excluded under 830.8 from even exercising the powers of a peace officer without written consent of the CLEO of the local jurisdiction in which they work.

kw91364
07-08-2011, 1:00 PM
deleted

Tacobandit
07-08-2011, 1:25 PM
Are you an 0083 or 0085?

BigDogatPlay
07-08-2011, 2:59 PM
Even with that said, getting the letterhead signed by the chief LEO of the base might be impossible if they don't see you as a LEO and in turn will not sign a letterhead (which must have specific wording under the penalty of perjury) that you meet certain criteria (including that it will be for duty use).

Whether they view the person as a LEO or not is moot IMO; government employee or civilian contractor acting with the authority of a LEO. Neither classification is a California peace officer. The sale to / possession of exemption in PC12280 is for peace officers with agency approval. Farther down in PC 12287 it says that CADoJ may issue permits to "Federal Law Enforcement and military agencies". That would not include individuals, IMO, and is largely worthless as the federal government can possess and issue it's agency owned weapons pretty much however it feels like.

The government could issue those contract employees NFA weapons for use on the job, if the job called for it.

I don't think any guard fits under LEOSA even with the new changes in law. Again i'm speaking of guards vs those with the title of "police officer".

When I was working on a contract, albeit three decades ago I was employed by a security company, however my title on the job was "police officer". The title, really, doesn't have anything to do with LEOSA eligibility and I was most certainly not, then, a peace officer under California law. LEOSA has specific requirements concerning employment status to trigger it's authority.

There are many security guards who are contracted or actually employed by the federal government that hold some type of LE authority on-duty, but that does not include off duty carry or get them federal LE creds. The chance of one of them getting a legitimate signed letterhead for RAW is nil.

Agreed in part, and back to my earlier post, it's not nil. It is just plain not possible.

My opinion. YMMV.

kw91364
07-08-2011, 5:35 PM
deleted

Tacobandit
07-09-2011, 12:29 AM
Its what your classification is if you are an 0083 you are a federal police officer and covered under hr218 if you are an 0085 you are a security guard

socalblue
07-09-2011, 3:05 AM
USAF contract security police are all 0085 status. At work they have essentially the same powers as regular Military Police (Not AFIS/CID). If a contractor handles any areas that are off a federal reserve they are also required to have a CA BSIS card w/firearm authority.

DOD could fix this easily but don't as it would cost them quite a bit more $$ if the these folks were certified as federal LEO status.

Tacobandit
07-09-2011, 10:15 AM
USAF contract security police are all 0085 status. At work they have essentially the same powers as regular Military Police (Not AFIS/CID). If a contractor handles any areas that are off a federal reserve they are also required to have a CA BSIS card w/firearm authority.

DOD could fix this easily but don't as it would cost them quite a bit more $$ if the these folks were certified as federal LEO status.

Thats the answer then, if the op is an 0085 then he is not a federal LEO and does not fall under HR218.

BigDogatPlay
07-09-2011, 10:21 AM
Actually individual Federal LE officers and agents can legitimately get a RAW if they meet the criteria. I know people who have them but they are Federal Agents (1811 series Special Agents) with 24 hour carry (regardless of HR218) and the legal right (*and* agency backing) to take action off duty as an agent (vs those carrying under HR218 who basically must act as a private citizen).

Criminal investigators in the 1811 series are a different animal in the federal system than uniformed law enforcement. They get way more latitude and authority through their employment, although California treats both classes pretty much the same as relates to authority.

And I'd wager, for the most part, that their weapons are issued to them. Given the tumble of the bureacracy, could a local SAC sign a RAW letter to CaDoJ? Or would that have to come from the agency head in D.C.? Given the politics of it all, I can imagine not too many agency heads would, but I don't really know.

lrdchivalry
07-09-2011, 10:48 AM
Actually individual Federal LE officers and agents can legitimately get a RAW if they meet the criteria. I know people who have them but they are Federal Agents (1811 series Special Agents)

More than likely those weapons are issued. As a federal officer I know quite a few agents and none that I know have personal AW's, all are issued. Federal agencies are not required to write a letter to authorize an individual agent/officer to purchase a personal AW.


with 24 hour carry (regardless of HR218) and the legal right (*and* agency backing) to take action off duty as an agent.

First they wouldn't have a "right" to take action but possibly the authority to take action. I know when I was at FLETC, we were taught that federal agents and officers are not recognized as peace officers in the state of California, however, they could make arrest for state offenses if they had 832 type of training.

So what your agency sees you as (federal leo or just a security guard) can make a difference from the standpoint of part of what an agency head must affirm on a signed letterhead.

If your a security guard forget it happening and if your a federal leo, it depends on your agency, there is no requirement for an agency to write a letter and I know mine wouldn't.

kw91364
07-09-2011, 8:23 PM
More than likely those weapons are issued. As a federal officer I know quite a few agents and none that I know have personal AW's, all are issued. Federal agencies are not required to write a letter to authorize an individual agent/officer to purchase a personal AW.


deleted

lrdchivalry
07-10-2011, 10:10 AM
I'm 100% positive there are some 1811's with personally owned AR's purchased via a letterhead signed by their SAC (who do have the authority per CA DoJ).

I am sure there are, however, I do not know any.

Federal agents in California do need a letter to purchase a named assault weapon and can't purchase on their creds alone (which I think the previous poster agrees upon).

Huh? I never said that they didn't need a letter and can purchase with just their creds.

Will a SAC sign the letter? Many SAC's will sign the letter.

I never said they wouldn't, only that they are not required to provide a letter.

The other stuff was more geared toward HR218. The 'being able to act' was again geared around the agency blessing them to do it,

As I pointed out in my last post, federal agents and officers are not recognized as peace officers in the State of California and can only arrest for state crimes if they have PC 832 training. HR218 doesn't grant any authority other than carrying a concealed firearm

There are some uniformed folks who had 24 hour carry pre HR218, but I know at least one agency that REALLY restricts when they may act (with the agency's blessing) to be considered scoped.

And that agency is? I want to see if it's the one I am thinking about. If it's the same one, alot has changed.

But for those federal LEO's whose sole basis to be able to carry off duty is only HR218, they do so at their own risk in terms of any action they choose to take is on their own as a private citizen (i.e. agency is under no obligation to back you).

It can be debated whether an agency has to back an agent/officer who is carrying under HR218, however, generally I think carrying under HR218 is the same as carrying under a CCW, the agency is not obligated to back you under either law. An example would be an agency who only authorizes the carrying of their duty weapon off duty. The agent/officer still has 24 hour carry outside of HR218, however, if the federal agent/officer decides to carry another weapon under HR218 then they are on their own if sued, just as they would be if they had a CCW (as I have said, this is debatable).

jimx
07-10-2011, 11:45 AM
My title is "guard" though we are cops.

So you are a guard....

jeep7081
07-10-2011, 11:49 AM
So you are a guard....

:rofl2:

jeep7081
07-10-2011, 12:02 PM
Some reading for you:

http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/pdfs/97-505.pdf

http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/pdfs/01-1005.pdf

I haven't looked closely enough recently enough to have an opinion about your status at this time...

-Gene

This topic was brought up recently by my older daughter. Her husband is a LEO for the air force base. She stated he could carry a CCW while in California. Your links shows this to be true.

Thanks!

kmrtnsn
07-10-2011, 10:19 PM
The OP is also not covered, as described below,

http://law.justia.com/codes/california/2010/pen/830-832.17.html