OFF DUTY

[ap3572001]

I You get involved in a shootout while OFF DUTY, would Your department stand behind You ? Or are You in the same boat as a legally armed civilian who got involved?

[Patrick Aherne]

As long as an officer acts within policy, without malice, and within the scope of their employment, they should be covered by their Department when making 4th Amendment seizures off duty.

[yzErnie]

Unless the actions are criminal in nature, yes mine would.

[eltee]

Depends on the circumstances. Under ideal conditions, you are covered, indemnified and even eligible for worker's compensation if injured. Under worst case conditions, you could arrested, fired, sued and left out in the cold.

With the advent of the LEOSA (aka HR218) I have not heard of an off-duty, out of state shootout yet. With some chiefs/sheriffs opposed to the LEOSA, it would be interesting to see how one of them reacts when an off-duty / retired employee gets into a shoot out somewhere across the country...especially if it is one of those marginal shoots.

[longarmshortlegs]

I think it would depend on the context of the shooting, i.e. are you engaging as an officer, or are you defending as a civilian? I thought that as long as you are a sworn officer you are always an officer regardless of the "off-duty" designation. You have to ask yourself, "is an active-duty officer ever a 'civilian'?"

For example, an "off-duty" officer could be walking to his vehicle in a mall parking lot and a group of thugs could approach and attempt to rob him (by force, of course). He would then be defending himself, personally. Is he a civilian?

Or, an "off-duty" officer (is he/she ever a civilian?) is sitting in a coffee shop when he witnesses an armed robbery in progress at a business across the street. He decides to intervene and there is an exchange of gunfire. At that point is he an "officer" or a "civilian"?

I was under the impression that an officers' duty did not expire once he/she clocked-out from work, and therefore an "officer" is always "on duty". It's part of the occupation.

[Steveo8]

Depends on the circumstances. Under ideal conditions, you are covered, indemnified and even eligible for worker's compensation if injured. Under worst case conditions, you could arrested, fired, sued and left out in the cold.

With the advent of the LEOSA (aka HR218) I have not heard of an off-duty, out of state shootout yet. With some chiefs/sheriffs opposed to the LEOSA, it would be interesting to see how one of them reacts when an off-duty / retired employee gets into a shoot out somewhere across the country...especially if it is one of those marginal shoots.

Look up Sturgis N. DAk 2008

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008104766_sturgis11m.html

[Steveo8]

I think it would depend on the context of the shooting, i.e. are you engaging as an officer, or are you defending as a civilian? I thought that as long as you are a sworn officer you are always an officer regardless of the "off-duty" designation. You have to ask yourself, "is an active-duty officer ever a 'civilian'?"

For example, an "off-duty" officer could be walking to his vehicle in a mall parking lot and a group of thugs could approach and attempt to rob him (by force, of course). He would then be defending himself, personally. Is he a civilian?

Or, an "off-duty" officer (is he/she ever a civilian?) is sitting in a coffee shop when he witnesses an armed robbery in progress at a business across the street. He decides to intervene and there is an exchange of gunfire. At that point is he an "officer" or a "civilian"?

I was under the impression that an officers' duty did not expire once he/she clocked-out from work, and therefore an "officer" is always "on duty". It's part of the occupation.

Yes, police officers are civilians with a career in law enforcement.

[HisOwnHero]

A lot will depend on your departments policy and the circumstances of the shooting. If it is a good shoot and you acted within the law and within the scope of your departments policy, you are fine.

[CaptMike]

it is also dependent on the departments policy with off duty carry. Some LE agencies do not authorize off duty carry. The state gives all duly appointed Peace Officers the legal right to carry, but the department may not approve it. In those cases, ALL liability rests on the officer. We are on our own if we have to use our off duty weapon.

[fullrearview]

As long as I followed policy of course.

[tyrist]

Depends on the circumstances. Under ideal conditions, you are covered, indemnified and even eligible for worker's compensation if injured. Under worst case conditions, you could arrested, fired, sued and left out in the cold.

With the advent of the LEOSA (aka HR218) I have not heard of an off-duty, out of state shootout yet. With some chiefs/sheriffs opposed to the LEOSA, it would be interesting to see how one of them reacts when an off-duty / retired employee gets into a shoot out somewhere across the country...especially if it is one of those marginal shoots.

We had one in Arizona. Shootout at a gas station with an armed robbery suspect. Everything turned out alright for the Officer. The dept flew out detective and union reps to the scene.

[Notorious]

Yes, police officers are civilians with a career in law enforcement.

Mariam-Websters define civilian as someone not in LE or fire, in addition to the military. Look it up yourself.

As for off-duty carry... if you are in the right, you are in the right. Your department will get sued no matter what anyway, so they have to find a reason to not back you and that takes a finding by them that you violated policy somehow or did something illegal. That speaks more to the politics of the department rather than the legalities and reality.

[Notorious]

it is also dependent on the departments policy with off duty carry. Some LE agencies do not authorize off duty carry. The state gives all duly appointed Peace Officers the legal right to carry, but the department may not approve it. In those cases, ALL liability rests on the officer. We are on our own if we have to use our off duty weapon.

I am hoping you don't work for LAGSPD. That is one of the stupidest penal codes I have ever read.

Same if you work for FPS or VA. I can't comprehend that some places don't want their officers armed 24/7.

[TrailerparkTrash]

it is also dependent on the departments policy with off duty carry. Some LE agencies do not authorize off duty carry. The state gives all duly appointed Peace Officers the legal right to carry, but the department may not approve it.

What agency in the state does NOT allow their officers under Penal Code 830.1 to carry a gun off duty??? Never heard of that one.

[Notorious]

What agency in the state does NOT allow their officers under Penal Code 830.1 to carry a gun off duty??? Never heard of that one.

You sure you want to know? Here goes! This is not a policy issue. This particular agency is PROHIBITED by law to carry off-duty. I know because I went to the academy with a few of these guys.

Penal Code 830.31. The following persons are peace officers whose authority extends to any place in the state for the purpose of performing their primary duty or when making an arrest pursuant to Section 836 as to any public offense with respect to which there is immediate danger to person or property, or of the escape of the perpetrator of that offense, or pursuant to Section 8597 or 8598 of the Government Code. These peace officers may carry firearms only if authorized, and under the terms and conditions specified, by their employing agency.
(a) A police officer of the County of Los Angeles, if the primary duty of the officer is the enforcement of the law in or about properties owned, operated, or administered by his or her employing agency or when performing necessary duties with respect to patrons, employees, and properties of his or her employing agency.
(b) A person designated by a local agency as a park ranger and regularly employed and paid in that capacity, if the primary duty of the officer is the protection of park and other property of the agency and the preservation of the peace therein.
(c) (1) A peace officer of the Department of General Services of the City of Los Angeles designated by the general manager of the department, if the primary duty of the officer is the enforcement of the law in or about properties owned, operated, or administered by his or her employing agency or when performing necessary duties with respect to patrons, employees, and properties of his or her employing agency.
(2) A peace officer designated pursuant to this subdivision, and authorized to carry firearms by his or her employing agency, shall satisfactorily complete the introductory course of firearm training required by Section 832 and shall requalify in the use of firearms every six months.
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a peace officer designated pursuant to this subdivision who is authorized to carry a firearm by his or her employing agency while on duty shall not be authorized to carry a firearm when he or she is not on duty.
(d) A housing authority patrol officer employed by the housing authority of a city, district, county, or city and county or employed by the police department of a city and county, if the primary duty of the officer is the enforcement of the law in or about properties owned, operated, or administered by his or her employing agency or when performing necessary duties with respect to patrons, employees, and properties of his or her employing agency.