MPs covered under LEOSA now?

[Hornetsnest]

The law reads...



That just isn't what the statute says. You are adding words to it that are not there. Let's break down what the requirements actually are, as per the statute:

1. The identification must be photographic. Check.
2. The identification must be issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer. Check.
3. There is no 3. That's it.

The law used to read that, which made it too broad. That issue was also addressed with the recent change to LEOSA. The law now reads...

"(d)The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed that identifies the employee as a police officer or law enforcement officer of the agency"
-Title 18 USC 926B (including amedment from sec 1089 of NDAA 2013)

Funny how so many are reading the new part about apprehension authority and the UCMJ and are completely ignoring the other parts of Sec 1089 of NDAA 2013.

[mej16489]

The law reads

That just isn't what the statute says. You are adding words to it that are not there. Let's break down what the requirements actually are, as per the statute:

1. The identification must be photographic. Check.
2. The identification must be issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer. Check.
3. There is no 3. That's it.

The id requirements changed with the 2013 update - Covered by Hornetsnest already.

Show me the regulation that would be violated by using your CAC to identify yourself to a law enforcement officer as required by federal law.

I actually don't have anything particular in mind - I was putting the question out there for the sake of discussion.

[Tincon]

Ah yeah you are correct. I was focused on the UCMJ part, and when I looked up the actual law for the ID portion, westlaw was not updated. Well that's stupid, they included MPs but made the law so that MPs can't carry??

[IXIVI]

Ah yeah you are correct. I was focused on the UCMJ part, and when I looked up the actual law for the ID portion, westlaw was not updated. Well that's stupid, they included MPs but made the law so that MPs can't carry??

MPs can carry, absolutely. As long as they have proper ID!

As far as we all know, the Army, Air Force, and Navy, do not issue photo ID on a service level (why would they). But there are PLENTY of Units that issue their Military MPs and civilian 0083 DoD Police some type of photo ID to accompany their badge. PLENTY of them. I know firsthand....


The whole idea of Senator Leahy including MPs in the newest amendment, could not have been born with the knowledge (or LACK thereof) that DoD has no policy in place dealing with MP photo ID. It seems more likely that all the lawmakers that voted for the amendment (UNANIMOUS I might ad) just agreed to afford MPs the same protection under LEOSA, assuming that whatever stipulations they included, would be met and every intended person would have the right to carry.

It will be interesting to see how the individual services choose to deal with the issue, because it is after all, FEDERAL LAW.

[Matt1984]

MPs can carry, absolutely. As long as they have proper ID!

As far as we all know, the Army, Air Force, and Navy, do not issue photo ID on a service level (why would they). But there are PLENTY of Units that issue their Military MPs and civilian 0083 DoD Police some type of photo ID to accompany their badge. PLENTY of them. I know firsthand....


The whole idea of Senator Leahy including MPs in the newest amendment, could not have been born with the knowledge (or LACK thereof) that DoD has no policy in place dealing with MP photo ID. It seems more likely that all the lawmakers that voted for the amendment (UNANIMOUS I might ad) just agreed to afford MPs the same protection under LEOSA, assuming that whatever stipulations they included, would be met and every intended person would have the right to carry.

It will be interesting to see how the individual services choose to deal with the issue, because it is after all, FEDERAL LAW.

You have to be that MP who had to buy that fake Mickey Mouse MP badge , just dying for something to make you feel like the strong Richard of the law

[IXIVI]

You have to be that MP who had to buy that fake Mickey Mouse MP badge , just dying for something to make you feel like the strong Richard of the law

I dont follow.

Why would an MP need a fake badge?

Does the Army not issue MP badges?


Another good point you bring up though -

The required ID for the purpose of LEOSA DOES NOT include a badge. Just photo ID identifying the individual as a Police Officer of the Agency that they work for.

[Matt1984]

MPs covered under LEOSA now?

I dont follow.

Why would an MP need a fake badge?

Does the Army not issue MP badges?


Another good point you bring up though -

The required ID for the purpose of LEOSA DOES NOT include a badge. Just photo ID identifying the individual as a Police Officer of the Agency that they work for.

NO! The army does not issue out badges to its MPs! Unless you are MPI, CID, or AWOL Apps. Are you on active or a reservist/guard? Look in the MP FM show me where the MP badges is brought into light? It's not! Only special assignments and that requires a 03 or higher to issue out the "green" creds to accompany that.

[Hornetsnest]

MPs can carry, absolutely. As long as they have proper ID!

Not quite yet. I get the whole "Its federal law now" thing. However, until the policy is done being revised, it is still against DoD (and therefore local agency policy) to exercise leosa unless you are one of the named sub-agencies with statuatory arrest authority.

Wait a minute...what "policy"?
DODI 5525.12 w/ch2 (14Sep2011) which outlines DoD LEOSA implementation and applies to all DoD components including the military branches.

So what...Doesn't trump federal law!
True...however, local agencies can take action against 0083s for an official policy violation, which could result in anything up to termination. Military members could be charged with Art 92 Failure to obey order or regulation (DODI 5525.12) and get NJPed for it. Now 0083s can get the union and lawyers involved afterwards and take it to arbitration or federal court. Military members can request a court martial. Maybe they win and maybe they loose. Yes they have the new federal law on their side, but it doesn't make it a slam dunk for the defense.

Anyone willing to risk their career and be the test case? Maybe individual commanders and police chiefs will do nothing to anyone caught because of the new federal law or maybe they will nit pick and push administrative/punitive action. Who really knows, but again do you want to risk your career and future employment prospects or are you willing to wait until the dust settles and the revised policies are published?

[IXIVI]

NO! The army does not issue out badges to its MPs! Unless you are MPI, CID, or AWOL Apps. Are you on active or a reservist/guard? Look in the MP FM show me where the MP badges is brought into light? It's not! Only special assignments and that requires a 03 or higher to issue out the "green" creds to accompany that.

Wow. I had no Idea. Remember a few posts back when I mentioned there is no US Army on my chest?

I honestly thought the Army issued them, JUST LIKE THE REST OF THE MILITARY.

[Notorious]

You mean this ain't the real deal?

[Linh]

You should ask this guy that question. His answer may or may not change.

http://www.justanswer.com/military-law/1xtux-mp-s-carry-concealed-weapon-law-enforcement.html

[Matt1984]

You mean this ain't the real deal?

No lol not issued to every mp only mpi AWOL apps and obviously CID has their own lol that's funny everyone thinks every mp gets one

[Matt1984]

Wow. I had no Idea. Remember a few posts back when I mentioned there is no US Army on my chest?

I honestly thought the Army issued them, JUST LIKE THE REST OF THE MILITARY.

No they don't so why the big fuss about MPs I'm guessing you either a DACP/DOD?

[IXIVI]

Not quite yet. I get the whole "Its federal law now" thing. However, until the policy is done being revised, it is still against DoD (and therefore local agency policy) to exercise leosa unless you are one of the named sub-agencies with statuatory arrest authority.

Wait a minute...what "policy"?
DODI 5525.12 w/ch2 (14Sep2011) which outlines DoD LEOSA implementation and applies to all DoD components including the military branches.

So what...Doesn't trump federal law!
True...however, local agencies can take action against 0083s for an official policy violation, which could result in anything up to termination. Military members could be charged with Art 92 Failure to obey order or regulation (DODI 5525.12) and get NJPed for it. Now 0083s can get the union and lawyers involved afterwards and take it to arbitration or federal court. Military members can request a court martial. Maybe they win and maybe they loose. Yes they have the new federal law on their side, but it doesn't make it a slam dunk for the defense.

Anyone willing to risk their career and be the test case? Maybe individual commanders and police chiefs will do nothing to anyone caught because of the new federal law or maybe they will nit pick and push administrative/punitive action. Who really knows, but again do you want to risk your career and future employment prospects or are you willing to wait until the dust settles and the revised policies are published?

5525.12 sure doesn't clear up the issue with lack of DoD guidance, as it applies to the new amendment.

The original, and latest version of 5525.12 was written expressly to apply to "statutory powers of arrest", of which, an MP has none.

The newest amendment to HR 218 obviously goes a step further than the 2010 amendment (and a step further than statutory arrest) by spelling out UCMJ authority, with the intention of including MPs.

As I have previously mentioned, the latest info on expected updated ID guidance to reflect the inclusion of 7(b) apprehension authority is due no sooner than December. Looks like wait and see.


Edit: I read through your post too fast Hornetsnest, I pretty much said what you just said.

Wait till the dust settles!

[Doc Gunz]

Don't all military NCOs have authority to apprehend IAW the UCMJ?