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
  #41  
Old 01-02-2013, 2:22 PM
omgwtfbbq's Avatar
omgwtfbbq omgwtfbbq is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: North Sac Valley
Posts: 2,512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TripleThreat View Post
What Laws says Cal. Reserves can't carry CCW (off-duty).

Triple
There is a similarly interesting debate regarding the ability of Probation Officers to carry off-duty without a CCW.

POs are defined under 830.5 which states they have Peace Officers powers anywhere in the state while in the performance of their duties. However, they are considered by many to be Day Time LEOs as they generally do not work past 5pm.

The question became whether or not probation officers had the ability to carry after hours without a permit. There is a compelling AG Opinion from 1989 that concluded that PO's are not required to obtain CCWs in order to carry off-duty. However, I know this is still a point of contention in LE community.


The reasoning behind the conclusion stemmed from the opinion that the "while" clause modified the POs authority, not their Peace Officer Status. It's a rather interesting read.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-02-2013, 3:10 PM
Sacmedic Sacmedic is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: No. California
Posts: 198
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Omgwtfbbq-

The reasoning used in that AG opinion is part of the basis the appeals court used in the case I posted earlier. Basically, your authority may cease when off the clock, but for purposes of the law regarding this topic, the peace officers status doesn't change. The only peace officers specifically required to get agency authorization to carry off duty are state correctional officers. They haven't always had to, the legislature changed their section to address the issue for some specific reason. They didn't do that for the other peace officer classifications. This was also part of the reasoning used by the appellate court in my previous post. Convoluted, but true.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-02-2013, 3:21 PM
omgwtfbbq's Avatar
omgwtfbbq omgwtfbbq is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: North Sac Valley
Posts: 2,512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacmedic View Post
Omgwtfbbq-

The reasoning used in that AG opinion is part of the basis the appeals court used in the case I posted earlier. Basically, your authority may cease when off the clock, but for purposes of the law regarding this topic, the peace officers status doesn't change. The only peace officers specifically required to get agency authorization to carry off duty are state correctional officers. They haven't always had to, the legislature changed their section to address the issue for some specific reason. They didn't do that for the other peace officer classifications. This was also part of the reasoning used by the appellate court in my previous post. Convoluted, but true.
Very interesting. I wasn't aware of a case referencing 72.Ops.Cal.AttyGen. (new to the job) although many accepted the opinion anyway given the following from the Opinion.

Quote:
Under the provisions of section 830.5 probation officers are " peace officers" at all times. In prior opinions we have pointed out the distinction between the "status" of peace officer and the "authority" of a peace officer and that both need not exist at the same point in time.
And:

Quote:
We conclude that probation officers are "peace officers" within the meaning of section 12027. Accordingly, since they are peace officers at all times, they are exempt from the proscriptions of section 12025 at all times.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-03-2013, 2:33 AM
suffo-CA-ting's Avatar
suffo-CA-ting suffo-CA-ting is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: East Bay
Posts: 10
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ap3572001 View Post
Here is the list:



5).Can buy ANY handgun that is not on a roster . (As long as it is not an AW). Even if it can't be used on or off duty.


will a standard PPT work between the leo w/the off roster and a non-leo?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-03-2013, 6:16 AM
scootergmc's Avatar
scootergmc scootergmc is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On the Sac Co. 99
Posts: 4,109
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by suffo-CA-ting View Post
will a standard PPT work between the leo w/the off roster and a non-leo?
Yes.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-04-2013, 8:17 AM
Armed24-7's Avatar
Armed24-7 Armed24-7 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 268
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LibertyDeath View Post
Can they carry off duty in more places than someone with a regular permit?
Are there other exemptions or perhaps restrictions?
Peace officers as described in 830.1 of the California Penal Code can carry a weapon ANYWHERE in the United States, per LEOSA 2004.

The only restriction would be on Commercial Airliners. You must have the permission of the Airplane captain to be armed on the plane.
__________________

"If you expect logic associated with California law, it will only make your head hurt.." - Ron-Solo, 2013
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-04-2013, 9:54 AM
hitman13's Avatar
hitman13 hitman13 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Pinal County, AZ
Posts: 3,805
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Armed24-7 View Post
Peace officers as described in 830.1 of the California Penal Code can carry a weapon ANYWHERE in the United States, per LEOSA 2004.

The only restriction would be on Commercial Airliners. You must have the permission of the Airplane captain to be armed on the plane.
There are plenty of places that LE are not allowed to carry, even under LEOSA.....
__________________
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-04-2013, 11:14 AM
Armed24-7's Avatar
Armed24-7 Armed24-7 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 268
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hitman13 View Post
There are plenty of places that LE are not allowed to carry, even under LEOSA.....
Don't read too much into it. Did you read the OP's question? It is about comparing regular citizens with CCW to an LEO.

But since you chimed, in, why don't you list some of those locations for the OP rather than just give a generic statement as if to correct someone?
__________________

"If you expect logic associated with California law, it will only make your head hurt.." - Ron-Solo, 2013
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-04-2013, 11:42 AM
hitman13's Avatar
hitman13 hitman13 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Pinal County, AZ
Posts: 3,805
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Who gave a generic statement? Me, or your blanket statement that was incorrect?

Lets start with private property laws which state private entities may prohibit firearms on their property, as well as many federal properties, buildings, and parks...

Maybe you should do your own research before spewing out generic statements that others may rely on....
__________________
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-04-2013, 11:43 AM
hitman13's Avatar
hitman13 hitman13 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Pinal County, AZ
Posts: 3,805
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Sorry if I sound like a dick, just clarifying that a LEO CANNOT just carry ANYWHERE...
__________________
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 01-04-2013, 4:36 PM
Armed24-7's Avatar
Armed24-7 Armed24-7 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 268
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hitman13 View Post
Sorry if I sound like a dick, just clarifying that a LEO CANNOT just carry ANYWHERE...
Don't be sorry. There are many d1cks in this world. I have developed thick skin. I have dealt with far worse than you, trust me. Nothing on this forum can possibly pisses me off

Also, I should have clarified I was speaking more in terms of traveling to other states. Peace officers should be smart enough to know where they can and cannot carry.

I have been to MANY state parks off duty and have never been forbidden to carry, even area that were designated no firearms. I always check in with the local authorities and/or rangers and it has never been a problem. There statement to me is usually something like, "That is meant for non-peace officers".

Private entities......let me start by saying, I do not tell "private entities" I am armed when off duty unless they are running metal detectors. If they forbid me to carry, they don't get my business; simple as that. 9 times out of 10, it has not been a problem for me.

But nothing in the OP's question made me believe he was talking about about something so speciific.

Are you a LEO? If so, have you ever been off duty and run into people you have arrested in the past? Have you ever received death threats or threats against your family? I have on more than one occassion. Hence my username, "Armed24-7".
__________________

"If you expect logic associated with California law, it will only make your head hurt.." - Ron-Solo, 2013

Last edited by Armed24-7; 01-04-2013 at 4:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-04-2013, 4:51 PM
Armed24-7's Avatar
Armed24-7 Armed24-7 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 268
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hitman13 View Post
Who gave a generic statement? Me, or your blanket statement that was incorrect?

Lets start with private property laws which state private entities may prohibit firearms on their property, as well as many federal properties, buildings, and parks...

Maybe you should do your own research before spewing out generic statements that others may rely on....
Shots fired!
__________________

"If you expect logic associated with California law, it will only make your head hurt.." - Ron-Solo, 2013
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-04-2013, 5:56 PM
Poohgyrr Poohgyrr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sutter's Fort - behind the cannons!
Posts: 279
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Armed24-7 View Post
::: have you ever been off duty and run into people you have arrested in the past? :::

I know I'm not the only one here who lives in my beat, in our version of the ghetto. 20+ years on the street makes for interesting trips to the grocery store..........
__________________
John
"Life brings us joys and sorrows alike. It is what a man does with them - not what they do to him - that is the test of his mettle.". T. Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-04-2013, 6:43 PM
Ron-Solo's Avatar
Ron-Solo Ron-Solo is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,866
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

I've been retired for two years, and live 60 miles from the nearest area that I worked. I have run into arrestees, or their relatives, on several occasions. Anytime I go into areas I worked, I am always armed.

Having worked the same station as "Armed24/7" over the years, I know exactly what he is talking about.
__________________
LASD Retired
1978-2011




If You Heard The Shot, You Weren't The Target
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-04-2013, 9:26 PM
Armed24-7's Avatar
Armed24-7 Armed24-7 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 268
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron-Solo View Post
I've been retired for two years, and live 60 miles from the nearest area that I worked. I have run into arrestees, or their relatives, on several occasions. Anytime I go into areas I worked, I am always armed.

Having worked the same station as "Armed24/7" over the years, I know exactly what he is talking about.
....and they still quake in their boots when they see you!
__________________

"If you expect logic associated with California law, it will only make your head hurt.." - Ron-Solo, 2013
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-05-2013, 7:26 AM
mej16489 mej16489 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,905
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron-Solo View Post
I've been retired for two years, and live 60 miles from the nearest area that I worked. I have run into arrestees, or their relatives, on several occasions. Anytime I go into areas I worked, I am always armed.

Having worked the same station as "Armed24/7" over the years, I know exactly what he is talking about.
It doesn't really ever change. I've been out of the LEO business for over 15 years. I live a bit over 100 miles from the nearest station I worked. I still spot 'old friends' at least once a year.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01-05-2013, 5:10 PM
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 956
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
But before concluding that a reserve peace office can carry irrespective of their agency's requirements - consider this. The reserve officer is bound to follow their agency's policies. If one of those is not to CCW off-duty, the agency may terminate employment for violation of agency policy. When no longer employed, the LEOSA authority goes away. LEOSA does provide a carry authority to some former and retired officers, but only if they are issued an ID card. Nothing in the law requires the agency to issue such a card.
I believe the reserve officer would have a good case of wrongful termination. LEOSA trumps agency policy. As long as the leo meets the definition of qualified leo under LEOSA they can carry.

September 2007: Federal corrections officer prosecuted on disciplinary charges by the Bureau of Prisons for carrying a handgun off-duty without permission and for misusing his agency identification. Administrative Judge dismissed both charges. Court found that the officer did not need agency approval to carry under LEOSA. It also found that the officer only used the identification and not to secure privileges unavailable to the general public. Davis v. Dept of Justice, 2007 Merit System Protection Board Lexis 5609 (2007). --From The Sheepdog Academy's HR218 seminar material

The reserve officer's agency can forbid the carrying of an agency issued weapon but cannot forbid the carrying of another weapon under LEOSA.
__________________
When it becomes necessary to seek protection from your protectors because they've substituted their judgment for clear, standing principles they've sworn to follow and have done so to the extent of attacking the protected, to characterize their actions as justified in furtherance of some nebulous greater good is to align yourself with and endorse criminal wrongdoing. - Author unknown
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 01-05-2013, 5:55 PM
Ron-Solo's Avatar
Ron-Solo Ron-Solo is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,866
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

While a reserve carrying in violation of Department policy may be exempt from criminal prosecution, he may certainly be discharged from the department.

With LASD, a reserve serves at the will of the Sheriff and can be discharged without cause at any time his/her services are no longer desired by the Sheriff. They have zero civil service protection.

Before carrying, a reserve needs to be fully aware of his/her department policy and their status.
__________________
LASD Retired
1978-2011




If You Heard The Shot, You Weren't The Target
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01-05-2013, 11:00 PM
SheepDogShepherd SheepDogShepherd is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 12
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacmedic View Post
The only peace officers specifically required to get agency authorization to carry off duty are state correctional officers.
Agency Authorization is not required. Penal code simply requires quarterly qualification under 830.5(d) That Quarterly qualification does not have to occur with CDCR. Those fine officers are also exempted under 25450 (b)from the concealed firearms laws. Also if you would like to get in to HR218 it could be an affirmative defense against the requirement to qualify at all because CDCR Officers are peace officers who can carry firearms on duty.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 01-06-2013, 12:46 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,918
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrdchivalry View Post
I believe the reserve officer would have a good case of wrongful termination. LEOSA trumps agency policy. As long as the leo meets the definition of qualified leo under LEOSA they can carry.

[F Sans Unicode][F Sans Unicode]
[F 2007: Federal corrections officer prosecuted on disciplinary charges by
[/FONT][F Bureau of Prisons for carrying a handgun off-duty without permission and for
[/FONT][F his agency identification. Administrative Judge dismissed both charges. [/SIZE][/FONT][F found that the officer did not need agency approval to carry under LEOSA. It [/SIZE][/FONT][F found that the officer only used the identification and not to secure privileges [/SIZE][/FONT][F to the general public. Davis v. Dept of Justice, 2007 Merit System [/SIZE][/FONT][F Board Lexis 5609 (2007). --From The Sheepdog Academy's HR218 seminar material[/SIZE][/FONT]
[F
[F reserve officer's agency can forbid the carrying of an agency issued weapon but cannot forbid the carrying of another weapon under LEOSA.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
I think that your post is confusing the requirements of law with those of policy. There's no dispute that qualified reserves may lawfully carry under LEOSA. It's also clear that LEOSA trumps conflicting provisions of state law. LEOSA does not necessarily trump agency policy where there is no conflict. If LEOSA permits carry, and agency policy prohibits carry, there is no conflict. There is a possible course of action that is permitted by both - don't carry. Now if LEOSA required carry, and the agency prohibited it, then we would have a conflict. Please check the text of the LEOSA. It limits its application to state law. It does not extend its application to agency policy.

The Davis v. Department of Justice case cited in your posting doesn't help any. That isn't a published decision. It only reflects the opinion of an administrative law judge interpreting federal personnel matter. The employment law governing reserve officers in California is quite different. Ron-Solo was right on point in post #58 above. An at-will employee really can't expect to win a lawsuit under these conditions. I've seen others throw down Davis as supporting the principle that agencies cannot regulate what officers do under LEOSA. It just doesn't count for anything in California.

An agency can maintain a policy that prohibits its employees from enjoying a federally provided right or privilege. The agency cannot deny that its reserves fall under LEOSA, but it can order them not to engage in activity that LEOSA allows, and it can discipline then if they fail to follow the agency policy.

The ability of agencies to discipline officers for engaging in activity that is permitted by a federal right or privilege, but that also violates a legitimate agency policy has been pretty well hashed out in court. Please refer to Nixon v. City of Houston (511 F.3d 494), Gardner v. Broderick (392 U.S. 273) and Dible v. City of Chandler (515 F.3d 918).

Last edited by RickD427; 01-06-2013 at 1:18 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 01-06-2013, 9:21 AM
Mike-4's Avatar
Mike-4 Mike-4 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: So Cal
Posts: 597
iTrader: 90 / 99%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron-Solo View Post
I've been retired for two years, and live 60 miles from the nearest area that I worked. I have run into arrestees, or their relatives, on several occasions. Anytime I go into areas I worked, I am always armed.

Having worked the same station as "Armed24/7" over the years, I know exactly what he is talking about.
Hell, living in San Jacinto, I'd be armed 24-7 too J/k, I know there are good folks there too
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 01-06-2013, 10:02 AM
LibertyDeath's Avatar
LibertyDeath LibertyDeath is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: High Desert Inland Empire
Posts: 128
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So where can LE covered under LEOSA carry that CCW holders cannot and vice versa, if applicable?

Also would reserve LEO's also fall under PC 25450 and be allowed to carry in CA regardless of what LEOSA says? Also what does (e) mean? Does that mean an off duty federal law enforcement officer can legally carry in CA but only if they a based out of CA, or does it mean they must be on duty? I know they are covered under LEOSA anyway but the wording on the section is kind of weird.

Quote:
25450. As provided in this article, Section 25400 does not apply
to, or affect, any of the following:
(a) Any peace officer, listed in Section 830.1 or 830.2, or
subdivision (a) of Section 830.33, whether active or honorably
retired.
(b) Any other duly appointed peace officer.
(c) Any honorably retired peace officer listed in subdivision (c)
of Section 830.5.
(d) Any other honorably retired peace officer who during the
course and scope of employment as a peace officer was authorized to,
and did, carry a firearm.
(e) Any full-time paid peace officer of another state or the
federal government who is carrying out official duties while in
California.

(f) Any person summoned by any of these officers to assist in
making arrests or preserving the peace while the person is actually
engaged in assisting that officer.

Last edited by LibertyDeath; 01-06-2013 at 10:20 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 01-06-2013, 11:47 AM
Sacmedic Sacmedic is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: No. California
Posts: 198
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

SheepDogShepard-

You are correct, the PC seems to intend that they can, but section 830.5(c) is rather contradictory. As with just about every issue surrounding peace officers and off duty carry, the agency can/may/will take admistrative action against someone who violates their internal policies. The PC and LEOSA give the officer criminal protections but not protection from internal discipline. That issue would be addressed in a labor dispute/grievance/lawsuit situation where the agency and officer's attorneys would end up debating the ability of the agency to regulate off duty conduct. RickD427 has some good cases listed in his above link. There has to be a finite point where a public employer ceases infringing on the employees off duty conduct, but each court finds that point separately. Think about this one...can the employer of a peace officer prohibit the otherwise lawful activity of hunting game by its' employees when they are off duty?
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 01-06-2013, 11:49 AM
Sacmedic Sacmedic is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: No. California
Posts: 198
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

LibertyDeath-

Regarding PC 25450(b), the only requirement is that they be a peace officer. As stated by many previous posters in this thread the officer may still be subject to internal agency discipline if they forbid the practice, but they are in compliance with the penal code if they choose to do so.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 01-06-2013, 1:47 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,918
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Sacmedic,

You've got good points in both posts above. There is a difference between law and policy. There was a case several years ago, unfortunately I did not keep a copy and cannot provide a citation. It involved a Los Angeles County Safety Police Officer (the agency is now defunct, its officers were peace officers) who was serving a period of suspension from his employment, during which he was carrying a concealed weapon. This occurred before LEOSA was enacted. The D.A. filed criminal charges on the theory the officer was only a private citizen during his suspension from duty. The court tossed the conviction noting that the state provided peace officer status, the county provided employment. The county suspended employment, but the state never removed the peace officer status that allowed him to carry. The court also noted the county could discipline the officer for violating policy, it just could not prosecute him for violating the law.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 01-06-2013, 6:03 PM
Ron-Solo's Avatar
Ron-Solo Ron-Solo is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,866
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

When LASD suspends someone, they are served with written notice that during the period of suspension, their peace officer status is also suspended. As a watch commander, I got to serve many such documents over the years.
__________________
LASD Retired
1978-2011




If You Heard The Shot, You Weren't The Target
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 01-06-2013, 6:55 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,918
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron-Solo View Post
When LASD suspends someone, they are served with written notice that during the period of suspension, their peace officer status is also suspended. As a watch commander, I got to serve many such documents over the years.
Ron,

I've served the same notices. The exact text of the form in current use states "action in the capacity (of a peace officer) is prohibited." The Sheriff can give that order to his personnel. The Sheriff cannot take away peace officer status. That status was given by the state and only the state can take it away. That was the focus of the Safety Police case.

Last edited by RickD427; 01-06-2013 at 6:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 01-06-2013, 8:39 PM
Ron-Solo's Avatar
Ron-Solo Ron-Solo is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,866
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Yeah, but I sure wouldn't want to be the test case.
__________________
LASD Retired
1978-2011




If You Heard The Shot, You Weren't The Target
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 01-06-2013, 9:41 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,918
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron-Solo View Post
Yeah, but I sure wouldn't want to be the test case.
Ron,

Remember this point only addresses the criminal conviction. The officer who violates the order given in the admonishment is probably going to get fired. In the long run that's a much greater sanction than a misdemeanor conviction (assuming the officer's weapon is registered).
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 01-06-2013, 11:50 PM
Notorious's Avatar
Notorious Notorious is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,470
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

So the peace officer status is given by the state but only valid upon employment with an authorized agency, so during the term of suspension, but still employed, the person is still a peace officer since the employment is still there?

Wait... this means if we are putting someone on leave pending termination, and it's going through the process... which can take up to a year or so... and we take the creds away, that person can still carry and only be subject to administrative action... which he is already under for termination anyway?
__________________
Guns! More guns! I need more guns!
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 01-07-2013, 7:34 AM
Sacmedic Sacmedic is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: No. California
Posts: 198
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I think you are correct Notorious. It's crazy, I know.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 01-07-2013, 7:52 AM
Armed24-7's Avatar
Armed24-7 Armed24-7 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 268
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Notorious View Post
So the peace officer status is given by the state but only valid upon employment with an authorized agency, so during the term of suspension, but still employed, the person is still a peace officer since the employment is still there?

Wait... this means if we are putting someone on leave pending termination, and it's going through the process... which can take up to a year or so... and we take the creds away, that person can still carry and only be subject to administrative action... which he is already under for termination anyway?
This might be the case, I am not 100% sure. But a peace officer would be stupid to do such a thing because normally, when a peace officer is suspended for something major and termination is pending, their badges, I.D. card, and duty weapon gets taken away. If they get stopped by law enforcement and unable to produce proof they are a "peace officer", they would cause big problems for themselves. Especially if this suspended officer planned on appealing his/her termination with the civil service commission, which happens quite often.

However, I understand your opinion and I agree. If a peace officer does something stupid enough to be terminated, I don't think he/she should be carrying.
__________________

"If you expect logic associated with California law, it will only make your head hurt.." - Ron-Solo, 2013
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 01-07-2013, 9:46 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,918
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Notorious View Post
So the peace officer status is given by the state but only valid upon employment with an authorized agency, so during the term of suspension, but still employed, the person is still a peace officer since the employment is still there?

Wait... this means if we are putting someone on leave pending termination, and it's going through the process... which can take up to a year or so... and we take the creds away, that person can still carry and only be subject to administrative action... which he is already under for termination anyway?
Notorious,

I think that Sacmedic and Armed 24-7 hit the nail on the proverbial head.

I know that can take a year or two to process a termination case in my agency, but when you look at the reasons why it takes so long, most of the reasons are "self-inflicted" by the agency. The termination process could move much faster if we chose to make it so. In my first department (12 officers) we processed a termination case in about three weeks (from decision to the Skelly hearing). Granted that was a long time ago and I'm not an expert on employment stuff, but there is no requirement for the process to take years.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 01-08-2013, 5:57 AM
Notorious's Avatar
Notorious Notorious is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,470
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

We had a few recently and the time it takes can add up from all the factors like the time it takes to complete a comprehensive IA with a lot of witnesses, going through the internal process with scheduling meetings and Skelly with the LDF lawyers, agreeing on and scheduling an arbitrator to hear the case after the Skelly, conducting the hearing, writing the brief post-arbitration, and then waiting for the final decision which then is acted upon by the final authority.
__________________
Guns! More guns! I need more guns!
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 01-09-2013, 6:35 AM
lavey29 lavey29 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 948
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron-Solo View Post
When LASD suspends someone, they are served with written notice that during the period of suspension, their peace officer status is also suspended. As a watch commander, I got to serve many such documents over the years.

Hence the reason for always having an extra xerox copy of your flat badge and ID.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 01-09-2013, 7:49 AM
RedFord150 RedFord150 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Eastern LA County
Posts: 5,533
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron-Solo View Post
I've been retired for two years, and live 60 miles from the nearest area that I worked. I have run into arrestees, or their relatives, on several occasions. Anytime I go into areas I worked, I am always armed....
Not LE here and I apologize in advance for the threadjack. I can only offer my compassion for you guys running into past losers while off the job.
Wife and I live in Glendora, one of the places you worked. Wife serves on Jury Duty in Pomona (many years ago) and helps put away a gang banger for life without Parole for multiple murder convictions.
During the trial, several 'associates' of the Defendant testify against him and several of his family members testify on his behalf. Apparently, they had to give their locations when they testified. Several associates and family members live in San Dimas. One of the streets given is less than 2 miles away. Wife still worries about running into these losers at local restaurants and stores.
The Court Sheriffs did escort the Jurors to their cars after the verdict and the Judge did tell all of the Jurors to contact the court if they are ever concerned they are in danger from this trial. My wife tells me she has never been so afraid in her life. She was very grateful for the group of Deputies that walked them out.
FWIW, I support you guys carrying anything you want anytime you want and anywhere you want.
Please stay safe and accept my thanks for the jobs you do.
Threadjack over.
__________________
God Did Not Create All Men Equal, Colonel Colt Did.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 01-09-2013, 3:13 PM
LibertyDeath's Avatar
LibertyDeath LibertyDeath is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: High Desert Inland Empire
Posts: 128
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thanks for the information. I just moved here from WA where I spent the last 10 years in Law Enforcement, 4 of those years I spent on a tactical team. I moved here and switched to a career in Federal Law Enforcement. I was very surprised at how draconian these CA laws are. I was also surprised that the Penal Code was so unorganized. I withheld that information until I was sure the people on this forum were not hostile to people like me.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 01-09-2013, 3:26 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,918
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LibertyDeath View Post
Thanks for the information. I just moved here from WA where I spent the last 10 years in Law Enforcement, 4 of those years I spent on a tactical team. I moved here and switched to a career in Federal Law Enforcement. I was very surprised at how draconian these CA laws are. I was also surprised that the Penal Code was so unorganized. I withheld that information until I was sure the people on this forum were not hostile to people like me.
Liberty,

Welcome to the forum, and to California.

I'm in the process of doing just the opposite. I came here 31 years ago from Alaska. I reached my absolute limit of tolerance for California and am relocating to Washington state (the wife wouldn't go for a return to Alaska).

You're actually right on point about our laws. They've become extremely complex over the years. My deputies once arrested a mother who had carelessly left her loaded shotgun in the family living room. Her young son began playing with it and blew a large hole in his hand. They arrested her for the criminal storage of the firearm. That isn't an often used section and so I read the section before approving the arrest. It turned out that section has a "waiting period" before an arrest could be made. We sent the mother home for a few days and then bought her back to jail. Knowing the full circumstances, this was a good arrest.

California just finished a legislative project to simplify and reorganize the weapons laws in the penal code. The report from the group doing the project was more than a thousand pages long.

How soon will they let you go back to Washington?
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 01-09-2013, 3:33 PM
LibertyDeath's Avatar
LibertyDeath LibertyDeath is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: High Desert Inland Empire
Posts: 128
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I plan a move back to my home state of CO. It will be after October.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 01-11-2013, 6:22 AM
Notorious's Avatar
Notorious Notorious is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,470
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedFord150 View Post
Not LE here and I apologize in advance for the threadjack. I can only offer my compassion for you guys running into past losers while off the job.
Wife and I live in Glendora, one of the places you worked. Wife serves on Jury Duty in Pomona (many years ago) and helps put away a gang banger for life without Parole for multiple murder convictions.
During the trial, several 'associates' of the Defendant testify against him and several of his family members testify on his behalf. Apparently, they had to give their locations when they testified. Several associates and family members live in San Dimas. One of the streets given is less than 2 miles away. Wife still worries about running into these losers at local restaurants and stores.
The Court Sheriffs did escort the Jurors to their cars after the verdict and the Judge did tell all of the Jurors to contact the court if they are ever concerned they are in danger from this trial. My wife tells me she has never been so afraid in her life. She was very grateful for the group of Deputies that walked them out.
FWIW, I support you guys carrying anything you want anytime you want and anywhere you want.
Please stay safe and accept my thanks for the jobs you do.
Threadjack over.
Forgot the details... Pomona court is where some gang bangers shot and killed a CHP officer on the front steps as he left the court after a case. Be safe out there.
__________________
Guns! More guns! I need more guns!
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 2:33 PM.




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.