Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > SPECIALTY FORUMS > Calguns LEOs
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Calguns LEOs LEOs; chat, kibitz and relax. Non-LEOs; have a questions for a cop? Ask it here, in a CIVIL manner.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-03-2012, 1:37 PM
CaptMike CaptMike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 1,021
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default question about new law to arm probation officers?

To My LEO brethren

Have any of you heard anything about a new bill that would remove any county supervisors ability to restrict Probation Officers ability to carry firearms on duty. One of our union reps gave me a brief on the bill that is working its way through the legislature. I dont know if he was blowing smoke or if he was for real. This is the first I heard of this and cant find anything on the net to support what he told me.

And before I get flamed, I know that the Chief has the ability to arm his deputies without the BOS approval, but our chief is appointed by the board and if he doesnt do what the board wants, he gets replaced. some members of our board do not like firearmes and believe we should not be armed while we are visiting all of these parolees that are being dumped on us due to the Public Safety Realignment (AB109). Its quite sad, we can carry off duty, but on duty we only have a very small number that are armed in the largest probation department in the world.

Thank you my brother and sister Law Enforcement Officers

stay safe everyone
__________________
A life is not important, except for the impact it has on other lives- Jackie Robinson

Last edited by CaptMike; 08-03-2012 at 3:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-03-2012, 3:31 PM
M&P40FAN M&P40FAN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,050
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Trust me, with the type of parolees you are going to be getting due to AB109 you will want to be packin!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-03-2012, 3:46 PM
CaptMike CaptMike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 1,021
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Just found it. It looks like things are getting interesting. here is the senate analysis.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/..._sen_comm.html

It passed the assembly and senate so far, so we will see where this goes.
__________________
A life is not important, except for the impact it has on other lives- Jackie Robinson
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-03-2012, 6:27 PM
BigDogatPlay's Avatar
BigDogatPlay BigDogatPlay is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beautiful progressive Sonoma County
Posts: 7,387
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

The unions and PORAC support it, the chiefs oppose it. I'd give it 50-50 of eventual passage. I would guess their opposition is that they want to retain complete control as well as control training and equipment costs. My wife worked a staff job in a probation department for a number of years and has plenty of stories of crap that happened right in the office so I can definitely see the point.

Given the idea that any probationer can act out inappropriately, regardless of whether they are a felony probationer or a misdemeanant, at any time it makes sense for all the POs to be able to go armed. I am sure some would choose not to and I suppose that's okay for them. If I am doing supervision visits with ne'er do wells and on ground of their choosing then I'd feel a lot better being armed regardless what class my case load happens to be.
__________________
-- Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun

Not a lawyer, just a former LEO proud to have served.

Quote:
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. -- James Madison
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-03-2012, 7:06 PM
BoulderTroll BoulderTroll is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Monterey County
Posts: 37
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

This is the first Iheard of that new law. But I can tell you that there are counties that have already been arming Probation Officers (and have for years).
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-03-2012, 8:52 PM
Invisible_Dave Invisible_Dave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 269
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

AB109 is Parole not probation. Parole is state, probation is county.
__________________
The Internet; where men are men, women are men, and kids are FBI agents.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-03-2012, 9:30 PM
CaptMike CaptMike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 1,021
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Invisible Dave, that is true but has also chaged. Due to AB 109, my probation department has been given supervision duties on 5,000 Parolees so far. That number will be over 7000 by September. The whole state parole and county probation separation is beginning to be indistguishable. Fun times ahead for our unarmed AB109 Deputies.

Last edited by CaptMike; 08-03-2012 at 3:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-03-2012, 9:57 PM
BoulderTroll BoulderTroll is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Monterey County
Posts: 37
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M&P40FAN View Post
Trust me, with the type of parolees you are going to be getting due to AB109 you will want to be packin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Invisible_Dave View Post
AB109 is Parole not probation. Parole is state, probation is county.
That's not accurate Invisible Dave. AB109 reduced state parole by 66% and as a result those guys who would be on parole are being released on PRCS (post release community supervision), which means the county sheriff's office in conjuction with county probation will now be supervising "parolees" (under a different name). That is what M&PFAN was referring to.

In simpler terms, AB109 is parolees being supervised by probation, not parole.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-03-2012, 11:31 PM
Invisible_Dave Invisible_Dave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 269
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I was unaware that probation was handling ab109 parolees now.
__________________
The Internet; where men are men, women are men, and kids are FBI agents.

Last edited by Invisible_Dave; 07-03-2012 at 11:36 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-04-2012, 8:35 AM
BigDogatPlay's Avatar
BigDogatPlay BigDogatPlay is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beautiful progressive Sonoma County
Posts: 7,387
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoulderTroll View Post
This is the first Iheard of that new law. But I can tell you that there are counties that have already been arming Probation Officers (and have for years).
All of the counties I have worked in as a LEO only arm the POs doing violent felony supervision and, usually, the POs who are attached to the local gang task force who are out with the street cops. That was exactly the case in the probation department my wife worked for, and still is.
__________________
-- Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun

Not a lawyer, just a former LEO proud to have served.

Quote:
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. -- James Madison
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-04-2012, 9:03 AM
retired retired is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Riverside County
Posts: 9,153
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Lt.Mike, I hope the bill passes. As you know, it doesn't matter whether the person is a felon or misdemeant, anyone of them can go off on you. The fact that your dept. only allows your officers to carry off duty is a shame and just another idiot move by those in power IMHO.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-04-2012, 10:03 AM
CaptMike CaptMike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 1,021
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thank you Sir

We have 36 armed deputies in a department of 4500 sworn. We have 65,000 adults on probation and another 30,000 juveniles. Now add to that the new 8,000 Parole/Probation/Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS) state inmates that are being dumped on us, we are in for a heck of a ride. Its sad that polititians decide how I am best to protect my self while doing this job. It's so bad for our department that one of our BOS has a standing order that when one of those 36 armed go into her district, they are to remove their sidearms and put them in the trunk of their cruiser. This is just sad.

I do hope this passes and takes the power out of polititians hands and puts it back in our Chiefs hands.

I still live in the inner city and have definitely seen an uptick in the amount of violence in my neighborhood. Since october 31 when AB109 went in to affect, we have had 2 people get murdered, and have had 5 additional Assault with a Deadly Weapon (ADW) incidents with one person wounded. all the other drive by's missed thier targets. The previous 2 years to AB109 we had no shootings or murders. Times are crazy and they are only going to get worse folks.

Its only a matter of time until one of our unarmed deputies is killed by one of these PRCS criminals. We really need this to pass.

Stay safe everyone.
__________________
A life is not important, except for the impact it has on other lives- Jackie Robinson

Last edited by CaptMike; 08-03-2012 at 3:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-04-2012, 11:54 AM
Watchur6 Watchur6 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 704
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

^
This is one of my biggest fears. Even though I'm not in the field yet I have many friends out there some armed mostly unarmed. I hope nobody gets hurt or killed but it doesn't look good. Be safe everyone.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-04-2012, 3:53 PM
BigKevLA BigKevLA is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 297
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

This is one of those occasions where the state legislators put the cart before the horse. Some of duties of Parole Officers have been assigned to County Probation Officer and they didn't think to look at the Penal Code that applies to that class of peace officer and ensure that they provide for adequate language to ensure that all probation officers throughout the state are on equal plane. I would hope that the language would go further so that there is no ambiguity.
__________________
NRA Instructor-Pistol
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-04-2012, 4:05 PM
Rider1k's Avatar
Rider1k Rider1k is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: wine country
Posts: 1,956
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

As a former CO I understand what its like to deal with some of the worst felons while being unarmed. let those law makers walk in our shoes for a day and see what happens......
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-03-2012, 1:44 PM
shortyforty's Avatar
shortyforty shortyforty is offline
NRA LIFE MEMBER
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: On My Way Out!
Posts: 576
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default UN-ARMED P.O.

This needs to change A.S.A.P. How can these officers be expected to contact criminals w/out the option of being armed? THIS IS STUPIDITY AT IT'S BEST!!
__________________

Never Forget...12/07/1941....09/11/2001
:willy_nilly: Shop Amazon and contribute to CGF! :willy_nilly:
http://www.shop42a.com

GAVIN'S BAD IDEA
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-03-2012, 3:46 PM
CaptMike CaptMike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 1,021
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I totally agree ShortyForty. We need to take politics out of it and let Deputy Probation Officers protect themselves and better protect the community. It has passed the State Assembly and now rests with the State Senate. It passed the first committee and it was now sent to the appropriations commitee. The meeting is coming up on Monday. Lets hope for the best because we really need this. here is the link to the new improved state legislature bill information website. (this is much better than the old website BTW).

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...arch_keywords=

Stay safe everyone and please lets get behind this bill to get it passed. thanks.
__________________
A life is not important, except for the impact it has on other lives- Jackie Robinson
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-03-2012, 11:45 PM
gallifrey gallifrey is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Question on off-duty carry for probation officer

To whom it may concern,
To my knowledge, the California Penal Code does not grant Probation Officers and/or Deputy Probation Officers the legal authority to carry an off-duty weapon. Yes, under 830.5, of the penal code, Correctional Officers (who are also Peace Officers) "may" carry an off-duty weapon; however, this same legal authority is not extended to Probation Officers. Can you please let me know where in the California Penal Code you found the text for granting Probation Officers an off-duty weapon. I do believe that Probation, who are listed in the California Penal Code as Peace Officers (P.C. 830.5), should have this important legal authority. Also, to my knowledge, there is no California pending legislation granting Probation Officers the legal authority to carry an off-duty weapon. Lastly, the current California Attorney General, Kamala D. Harris, has not provided any legal authority for Probation Officers to carry an off-duty weapon.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-04-2012, 12:02 PM
CaptMike CaptMike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 1,021
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Hey Gallifrey

Welcome to the board. It is an honor to reply to your first post here. The right to carry off duty is not listed in the penal code for deputy probation officers. it all falls under case law and LEOSA.

here is a little blurb i wrote a while back about how Deputy Probation Officers get the right to carry off duty without their departments permission.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...9&postcount=13

Because of LEOSA, their is no need to add anything to california law about off duty carry since LEOSA supersedes any state, county or city laws regarding off duty carry by sworn law enforcement officers. Here is a little blurb with a link to the Attorney Generals website that explains LEOSA and off duty carry for those that are not authorized to carry on duty.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...0&postcount=20

So ultimately, you are right, It is not in the penal code to require off duty carry for Deputy Probation Officers. This has become a moot point and is no longer needed because federal law supersedes any state laws on it. We dont need Kamala Harris to say anything about off duty carry because LEOSA has already taken care of it.

Hope this clears it up for you.

I hope AB 1968 passes so that we can have it in the penal code that we can also carry on duty.

stay safe.
__________________
A life is not important, except for the impact it has on other lives- Jackie Robinson
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-07-2012, 11:41 PM
gallifrey gallifrey is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default thanks for the follow-up

I randomly contacted a number of police departments and sheriff's offices throughout the state of California and asked the question, "Can Probation Officers and/or Deputy Probation Officers carry an off-duty weapon." Not one agency responded with an affirmative "Yes." On the contrary, their responses ranged from an absolute "no" because the authorization does not exist in the California Penal Code to "no" because to their knowledge, no probation department has authorized their officers to carry an off-duty weapon.

It appears that any Probation Officer, who carries an off-duty weapon, is taking a dangerous risk because law enforcement agencies are only basing their position in penal code authority. From the anecdotal evidence that I have seen and heard, it is my understanding that if a Probation Officer is pulled-over by law enforcement and is carrying an off-duty weapon, there is a strong likelihood of arrest, a likelihood of expensive legal fees, and the likelihood of being fired.

As my father would remind me, "sometimes doing the right thing is not the easiest way, but it is the best way." It would appear, at least to me, that doing the right thing would be to legitimize Probation Officers in the penal code, under 830.5(c), so that Probation Officers "may" carry a firearm while not on duty. No, it will not be easy, but it is truly the right thing to do in order to protect the safety of peace officers. When this is done, then and only then will this conversation truly be moot.

Thanks for the information
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-08-2012, 1:32 AM
tyrist tyrist is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,551
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LtMike70 View Post
Thank you Sir

We have 36 armed deputies in a department of 4500 sworn. We have 65,000 adults on probation and another 30,000 juveniles. Now add to that the new 8,000 Parole/Probation/Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS) state inmates that are being dumped on us, we are in for a heck of a ride. Its sad that polititians decide how I am best to protect my self while doing this job. It's so bad for our department that one of our BOS has a standing order that when one of those 36 armed go into her district, they are to remove their sidearms and put them in the trunk of their cruiser. This is just sad.

I do hope this passes and takes the power out of polititians hands and puts it back in our Chiefs hands.

I still live in the inner city and have definitely seen an uptick in the amount of violence in my neighborhood. Since october 31 when AB109 went in to affect, we have had 2 people get murdered, and have had 5 additional Assault with a Deadly Weapon (ADW) incidents with one person wounded. all the other drive by's missed thier targets. The previous 2 years to AB109 we had no shootings or murders. Times are crazy and they are only going to get worse folks.

Its only a matter of time until one of our unarmed deputies is killed by one of these PRCS criminals. We really need this to pass.

Stay safe everyone.
Shot in the dark (but not really)....District 1
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-08-2012, 1:59 PM
CaptMike CaptMike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 1,021
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tyrist View Post
Shot in the dark (but not really)....District 1
You Sir, are a smart man

It doesn't surprise anyone when I mention the district.
__________________
A life is not important, except for the impact it has on other lives- Jackie Robinson
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-08-2012, 2:32 PM
CaptMike CaptMike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 1,021
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gallifrey View Post
I randomly contacted a number of police departments and sheriff's offices throughout the state of California and asked the question, "Can Probation Officers and/or Deputy Probation Officers carry an off-duty weapon." Not one agency responded with an affirmative "Yes." On the contrary, their responses ranged from an absolute "no" because the authorization does not exist in the California Penal Code to "no" because to their knowledge, no probation department has authorized their officers to carry an off-duty weapon.

It appears that any Probation Officer, who carries an off-duty weapon, is taking a dangerous risk because law enforcement agencies are only basing their position in penal code authority. From the anecdotal evidence that I have seen and heard, it is my understanding that if a Probation Officer is pulled-over by law enforcement and is carrying an off-duty weapon, there is a strong likelihood of arrest, a likelihood of expensive legal fees, and the likelihood of being fired.

As my father would remind me, "sometimes doing the right thing is not the easiest way, but it is the best way." It would appear, at least to me, that doing the right thing would be to legitimize Probation Officers in the penal code, under 830.5(c), so that Probation Officers "may" carry a firearm while not on duty. No, it will not be easy, but it is truly the right thing to do in order to protect the safety of peace officers. When this is done, then and only then will this conversation truly be moot.

Thanks for the information

Hello Again

I tend to disagree with you. I have been doing this job for 13 years and have asked many officers about this subject and always come away with support and acknowledgment of our ability to carry.

When I first started in this career, I was worried about carrying off duty. I can understand your trepidation at the situation, but understand that case law already supports our right and the right of all peace officers in california to carry. I know of several other departments where the officers are forbidden to carry on duty or off duty, example Pasadena City College Police, but the officers I know in that department all carry off duty. I know many of the officers in the city of Pasadena Police department and they have told me that they know that all the PCC cops carry off duty.

My own departments policy on off duty carry is clear, Our Chief prohibits off duty carry, but our policy states "DPOs who successfully take and pass a State POST certified firearms safety class (PC832), and who subsequently decide to carry an off-duty firearm without haVing specific written authorization from the Chief Probation Officer, do so with the knowledge and understanding that they assume full responsibility for any liability resulting from their use of a firearm." Per our policy, the department does not authorize us to carry, but it acknowledges that we can carry based on case law. All legal liability rests on us and that is where your want of adding it to the penal code would be beneficial to us. In that regard, it would help, but it still does not prohibit us from carrying.

I have been pulled over twice in this state in the last 13 years. Both times the first words out of my mouth were an apology and admission of my guilt followed up with a notification that I was an off duty Deputy Probation Officer and I was carrying my off duty firearm. Thank you to my brothers in the CHP and LASD because Both times the officers simply asked me for my Peace Officer ID and that was it. I was not arrested and booked in to jail for carrying a concealed weapon. Two years ago I drove cross country and forgot that I was no longer in california where most officers wont pull you over for going over a few mph over the limit. Unfortunately in Ohio, that was not the case. I was stopped and the same thing happend, admitted guilt, apologized, notified I was off duty LEO with my off duty firearm. Once again, the firearm was not an issue. Once more in new york, I was going to fly home from that cross country trip and wanted to check in my firearm, but the airline policy is to call over NYPD transit police to inspect and record the firearm. The officers told me to not even check it and just carry it on board. They were going to escort me through security. I told them that I would be more comfortable checking it because I was on family business and not on duty business.

Needless to say, for me, it has been a moot point for a long time. If I ever meet an officer from another department, I always make a point to bring up the topic and the case law surrounding it. If they are not well versed in LEOSA then I will make a point of providing them some info.

I would bet that if you called back those police departments and asked them if a Law Enforcement Officer is covered by leosa to carry off duty in this state, they would all tell you yes. If they dont, then their training divisions are not doing their jobs educating their officers. Good Luck and stay safe.
__________________
A life is not important, except for the impact it has on other lives- Jackie Robinson
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-08-2012, 8:09 PM
Watchur6 Watchur6 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 704
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I've been doing this 5 years now. Not very long but have spoken to a lot of different officers from different departments about this issue and the response I got the majority of the time was "I can't believe your department won't back you guys up" and "your dumb if you don't carry off duty." I have also worked alongside our local sheriff department many times and they are all aware of 830.5 off duty carry and the case law that goes along with it. I don't know which departments you spoke to but I hope they are informed soon before they make a mistake. Also, I have been told a story of a DPO that was pulled over and arrested for carrying off duty. When it went before the judge it was immediately thrown out and the officer was given a lecture. That's just a story I heard, you know how that goes so take it for what its worth.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-08-2012, 8:49 PM
Pryde's Avatar
Pryde Pryde is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 2,494
iTrader: 72 / 100%
Default

Gallifrey, LtMike is spot on.
There is nothing in the penal code but there is existing case law (I forget it was someone v. County of Orange) where an off duty Probation Officer was carrying a weapon and arrested by OCSD, his department fired him and he sued, the case went to the Appeals court and he won his case and was reinstated. This happened over 10 years ago.

My experiences echo LtMike's regarding getting pulled over. Last time I got pulled over for a traffic violation, I informed the deputy that I had a loaded firearm in my glovebox and handed him my ID. I didn't get questioned about it at all.

I don't know what your department is telling you, but many will not tell you the truth regarding your rights to carry or are ill informed. The administration does not want you to carry due to liability fears so they may be spreading misinformation.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-08-2012, 8:51 PM
Watchur6 Watchur6 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 704
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

OCEA vs. County of Orange
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-08-2012, 9:10 PM
9mmrevolver's Avatar
9mmrevolver 9mmrevolver is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: neverland
Posts: 1,031
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Non Leo but hope it passes. In my opinion you guys should have been carrying on and off duty a long time ago. Talk about behind enemy lines. Good luck and be safe.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-10-2012, 10:08 AM
gallifrey gallifrey is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Your Mission... Should you choose to accept it.

Thank you again for your collective insight. Clearly, there appears to be some anecdotal evidence to support the belief that Probation Officers / Deputy Probation Officers are legally authorized to carry a concealed off-duty weapon. Even though I remain unchanged in my belief that the primary reason for the divisiveness on this issue could simply and without question be resolved by adding (12) words to the California Penal Code (850.5(c)):... not added for legal liability, but added for giving a Peace Officer the legal authorization, in the penal code, to make the decision for themselves, without punishment from their department and/or other law enforcement departments.

"Probation Officers and Deputy Probation Officers MAY carry an off-duty weapon."

To paraphrase a famous challenge: "Gentlemen and Ladies, your mission, should you choose to accept it, involves the recovery of documented proof (verbal evidence does not count). You may randomly contact ten (10) Police Departments and/or ten (10) Sheriff's Departments and obtain documented (e.g. faxed, emailed, and/or mailed) proof that their department is in agreement with your position that Probation and/or Deputy Probation Officers may legally carry a concealed off-duty weapon (even under a case law and/or the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (June 22, 2004). Should any member of your team not post the results on this web page (with a link to the scanned actual document), then the mission has failed. Please note that the documented official proof must be also in official capacity (e.g. department name, person's name and rank, policy source and number, etc...).

Have fun and stay happy, professional, and safe.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-14-2012, 12:00 PM
CaptMike CaptMike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 1,021
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Hey Galifrey

no disrespect, but I am not going to do your work for you. If you are to concerned about the situation, dont carry. The rest of us will follow the case law as it has been established. Good luck

In regards to the orignal post, it looks like this bill to carry on duty has been placed in the death file. The State Senate appropriations committee have put it in the appropriations committee suspense file. This is a way to place a bill in limbo and not force the senate members from having to take a vote on a controversial bill. It can still be pulled out of the suspense file, but is not likely. I guess the wonderful polititions continue to have their armed CHP officers to protect them and the rest of us keep trying to survive. Sadly, it is going to take an officer getting killed until something is done. Stay safe everyone.
__________________
A life is not important, except for the impact it has on other lives- Jackie Robinson
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-14-2012, 12:12 PM
deadcoyote's Avatar
deadcoyote deadcoyote is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Far North CA
Posts: 2,113
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I think the amended version of AB 1968 Wieskowski (spelling on that last?) is a good law. Prior to it being changed, it simply stated that departments had to arm officers who supervised high risk probationers. This left too much room for "stats juking" as far as re-defining what your department may or may not consider a high risk offender. the new text states that any offender who is classified as high risk by a static risk assessment tool must be supervised by an armed officer, and that will be a tough bullet to dodge for a lot of these administrations that do not want to arm their staff.

Be safe.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-14-2012, 12:23 PM
CaptMike CaptMike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 1,021
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

You hit it right on the nail, deadcoyote, "Administrators" have a problem with it. It is usually the people that are not forced to walk into the home of Parole or Probationer. they definitely dont need a firearm in their administrative role, but the line officer that walks out in to the street, and has to make sure there Parolees and Probationers are not violating the law, they enter these homes with nothing more than a can of pepper spray and a silent prayer for their safety. I hope things change. stay safe
__________________
A life is not important, except for the impact it has on other lives- Jackie Robinson
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-14-2012, 12:28 PM
deadcoyote's Avatar
deadcoyote deadcoyote is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Far North CA
Posts: 2,113
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I can't believe you guys in LA aren't armed? I'll mail you a rape whistle if you PM me your address.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-14-2012, 12:30 PM
CaptMike CaptMike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 1,021
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I already have one, LOL, thanks Dead coyote
__________________
A life is not important, except for the impact it has on other lives- Jackie Robinson
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-14-2012, 1:03 PM
deadcoyote's Avatar
deadcoyote deadcoyote is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Far North CA
Posts: 2,113
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gallifrey View Post
Thank you again for your collective insight. Clearly, there appears to be some anecdotal evidence to support the belief that Probation Officers / Deputy Probation Officers are legally authorized to carry a concealed off-duty weapon. Even though I remain unchanged in my belief that the primary reason for the divisiveness on this issue could simply and without question be resolved by adding (12) words to the California Penal Code (850.5(c)):... not added for legal liability, but added for giving a Peace Officer the legal authorization, in the penal code, to make the decision for themselves, without punishment from their department and/or other law enforcement departments.

"Probation Officers and Deputy Probation Officers MAY carry an off-duty weapon."

To paraphrase a famous challenge: "Gentlemen and Ladies, your mission, should you choose to accept it, involves the recovery of documented proof (verbal evidence does not count). You may randomly contact ten (10) Police Departments and/or ten (10) Sheriff's Departments and obtain documented (e.g. faxed, emailed, and/or mailed) proof that their department is in agreement with your position that Probation and/or Deputy Probation Officers may legally carry a concealed off-duty weapon (even under a case law and/or the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (June 22, 2004). Should any member of your team not post the results on this web page (with a link to the scanned actual document), then the mission has failed. Please note that the documented official proof must be also in official capacity (e.g. department name, person's name and rank, policy source and number, etc...).

Have fun and stay happy, professional, and safe.
I just waded into this thread but I believe the whole DPO's carrying off duty issue is a combined matter re: federal LEOSA issues and a written statement issued by the CA AG's office stating that CA DPO's are protected under LEOSA. That's what my chief says anyways, and that's gospel up here.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-14-2012, 4:31 PM
gallifrey gallifrey is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Sounds good.

Non taken my friend....As you mentioned in an earlier post, there is naturally an initial sense of "trepidation" on this issue of Probation Officers carrying an off-duty weapon. Just did not want to get it wrong or be the victim of being arrested on this issue because it is very hard to find another job in today's market place.

Perhaps one day in the future, all the random California Police Departments and Sheriff Departments that I previously contacted will change their documented response from "no" to "yes." Naturally and until then, I will remember to carry a copy of both the case law (Orange County Employees Assn., Inc. v. County of Orange (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 575 , 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 695)" http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/archive/index.php/t-198201.html" and the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA), enacted 2004) "http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R.218:" in my pocket...just in case. As far as I am concerned, sounds good to me. By the by, the mission was just to see if anyone had documented proof from any police or sheriff's department...no homework assigned.

Have fun and be safe!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-23-2012, 8:55 PM
CaptMike CaptMike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 1,021
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It looks like the bill was brought back from the dead, but it was severly gutted. The new version that will pass makes it optional for each chief to decide on their own if they want to arm their AB109 Deputy Probation Officers. The only positive is that it takes some of the power away from the respective counties and puts the decision on the chiefs. The only draw back is that in my county, our chief is appointed by the Board of Supervisors and is an at will employee. If he doesnt do what they want, they can get rid of him like the 9 others that have been removed in the last 13 years. It looks like it will definitely pass in its current form, but it isnt the same bill. I guess one bit at a time for us. here is the current status if you would like to read the current version:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...arch_keywords=

stay safe everyone
__________________
A life is not important, except for the impact it has on other lives- Jackie Robinson
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10-03-2012, 10:14 PM
CaptMike CaptMike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 1,021
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Well the governor vetoed the gutted bill. In its last form the bill only made it mandatory for Probation chiefs to establish a policy that stated if they were choosing to arm their deputies. The bill was worthless so its goold the gov vetoed. We will see if they try to do it right next time. For now, DPOs will will still do home checks with that can of pepper spray and a silent prayer. Stay safe everyone.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 10-04-2012, 3:16 PM
omgwtfbbq's Avatar
omgwtfbbq omgwtfbbq is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: North Sac Valley
Posts: 2,413
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I understand the bill is dead, but I just recently got hired on as a Probation Officer with Sutter County and it's our policy that DPOs choose whether or not to be armed based on the duty of the job and they degree of comfort with the possibility of the use of lethal force. I absolutely believe that probation officers should be allowed to be armed. Granted, even with AB109, the vast majority of hardened, violent offenders will still be the purview of the state system, there are still plenty of violent or potentially violent probationers in the custody of county probation departments.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 10-05-2012, 4:37 AM
BigKevLA BigKevLA is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 297
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by omgwtfbbq View Post
I understand the bill is dead, but I just recently got hired on as a Probation Officer with Sutter County and it's our policy that DPOs choose whether or not to be armed based on the duty of the job and they degree of comfort with the possibility of the use of lethal force. I absolutely believe that probation officers should be allowed to be armed. Granted, even with AB109, the vast majority of hardened, violent offenders will still be the purview of the state system, there are still plenty of violent or potentially violent probationers in the custody of county probation departments.

Probation will have more than their share of hardcore,violent offenders. Remember that it is based on the current offense and not the history in the individual. You will get folks who might have a current charge that is a Parole Violation but the charge that landed then on parole could be murder. They would be yours instead of Parole.
__________________
NRA Instructor-Pistol

Last edited by BigKevLA; 10-06-2012 at 1:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 10-06-2012, 8:23 AM
Faultline's Avatar
Faultline Faultline is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by omgwtfbbq View Post
I absolutely believe that probation officers should be allowed to be armed.
Amen to that. Sadly in this state, it will likely take a PO getting killed by a scumbag with nothing to lose and then the politicians will take up the cause.
What a situation.
__________________
NRA Life Member. Cogito, ergo armatum sum - I think, therefore I am armed.
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 -8. The time now is 12:33 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.