Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cook County Adult Probation & H.R. 218 O/D Carry

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cook County Adult Probation & H.R. 218 O/D Carry

    *****Deleted
    13
    Yes
    92.31%
    12
    No
    7.69%
    1
    Not on Duty (implementation of storage lockers), but authorized off duty
    0%
    0
    Off Duty, Yes. On-Duty - limited to fieldwork for unarmed units with training and qualification
    0%
    0

    The poll is expired.

    Last edited by VidaG; 10-17-2017, 09:27 AM.

  • #2
    Section 926B(c)(2) of LEOSA says "is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm."

    Are you authorized by your agency to carry a firearm? If not, then LEOSA does not apply to you. If you are authorized, then you qualify for LEOSA if you meet ALL of the other requirements.

    I don't see where there is a question, as your agency does not authorize officers who are in unarmed positions to carry firearms.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Sierra259 View Post
      Section 926B(c)(2) of LEOSA says "is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm."

      Are you authorized by your agency to carry a firearm? If not, then LEOSA does not apply to you. If you are authorized, then you qualify for LEOSA if you meet ALL of the other requirements.

      I don't see where there is a question, as your agency does not authorize officers who are in unarmed positions to carry firearms.
      They are authorized to carry firearms, however, what about officers that were sworn in and have the same powers as us but because we have different types of cases, some units carry and some units do not. That's the concern, particularly as Illinois Probation Departments expects unarmed personnel to go conduct fieldwork without firearms, but with the new IL CCW law and the expectation for some Officers to use their own vehicles instead of the dept vehicles available to us, the concern is the actual authority the department really has as it relates to off duty carry as it relates to LEOSA (particularly if this sworn personnel have a FOID)?
      Last edited by VidaG; 10-17-2017, 09:29 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        If County Prob. Officers are Peace Officers in the State of Illinois, then they could not be arrested for carrying a gun. If the employers rules say that you cannot carry a gun, you can be fired for violating the rule.

        Comment


        • #5
          *****Deleted
          Last edited by VidaG; 10-17-2017, 09:29 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by VidaG View Post
            how does that apply to Officers who are in the unarmed units but aren't any different than those who received their authorization to carry on duty? Particularly those who already may have prior certifications such as an Illinois CCW License, or a Florida/Utah/AZ CCW license, or prior 20 hour or 40 hour armed firearms certificate issued by the state? In your humble opinion, supported by case law, they should be covered under LEOSA, correct?
            IL's CCW, any other state's CCW, or whatever other firearms training you've had has no bearing whatsoever on LEOSA authority so why are you even mentioning it? I'll post the requirements for LEOSA. Do you read anything in LEOSA that mentions CCW?
            From your own description if they are not authorized to carry a firearm by the dept then LEOSA does not apply. Whatever CCW you may have has absolutely no bearing.

            Originally posted by VidaG View Post
            And we are authorized to carry firearms, however, what about officers that were sworn in and have the same powers as us but because we have different types of cases, some units carry and some units do not. That's the concern, particularly as the department expects unarmed personnel to go into the field without firearms, but with the new IL CCW law and the expectation for some Officers to use their own vehicles instead of the squad cars available to us, the concern is the actual authority the department really has as it relates to off duty carry as it relates to LEOSA (particularly if these sworn personnel have a FOID)?
            From your own description if the dept does not authorize them to carry a firearm then they do not qualify under LEOSA because they do not meet (2) above.
            It does not matter that others in the office are allowed to carry firearms. It doesn't matter if the others get to drive a govt vehicle and they have to drive their personal vehicles. Totally irrelevant.

            The only questions involved is does the individual meet the provisions of LEOSA. Do they meet these:
            (c) As used in this section, the term “qualified law enforcement officer” means an employee of a governmental agency who—
            (1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest or apprehension under section 807 (b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice);
            (2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
            (3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency which could result in suspension or loss of police powers;
            (4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;
            (5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and
            (6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.
            (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.

            The question has been regarding probation/parole officers is do they have statutory power of arrest. When LEOSA was first signed the IL AG and the USA looked at IL's statutes and the determination was they do not. They only have authority over those who are under the sentence of the court. If one of the probationers/parolees violate the terms of their probation/parole the agent is not actually arresting them but returning them back to the control of the court. They're not being arrested but still under court control.
            It's the same argument that some prison guards tried to use to claim they were covered by LEOSA. Some claimed that if they catch an inmate holding contraband they are arresting the person by citing them for the contraband. Or if the prisoner escapes and they catch them going over the wall. They are not arresting the inmate but simply returning them to custody.

            I've read many posts, particularly California forums regarding probation officer carry and some of the departments actually acknowledge LEOSA in their policy and procedures. Would like an Illinois point of view from fellow LEOs and/or LEO attorneys on here.
            My suggestion then would be move to California and get hired.
            What one state allows is totally irrelevant. CA POs meet all the requirements under LEOSA. Since by your own admission the ones in your office don't meet (2) then they do not qualify.
            Last edited by ISPCAPT; 03-20-2015, 08:52 AM.
            183 FBINA

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by ISPCAPT View Post
              IL's CCW, any other state's CCW, or whatever other firearms training you've had has no bearing whatsoever on LEOSA authority so why are you even mentioning it? I'll post the requirements for LEOSA. Do you read anything in LEOSA that mentions CCW?
              From your own description if they are not authorized to carry a firearm by the dept then LEOSA does not apply. Whatever CCW you may have has absolutely no bearing.



              From your own description if the dept does not authorize them to carry a firearm then they do not qualify under LEOSA because they do not meet (2) above.
              It does not matter that others in the office are allowed to carry firearms. It doesn't matter if the others get to drive a govt vehicle and they have to drive their personal vehicles. Totally irrelevant.

              The only questions involved is does the individual meet the provisions of LEOSA. Do they meet these:
              (c) As used in this section, the term “qualified law enforcement officer” means an employee of a governmental agency who—
              (1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest or apprehension under section 807 (b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice);
              (2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
              (3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency which could result in suspension or loss of police powers;
              (4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;
              (5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and
              (6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.
              (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.

              The question has been regarding probation/parole officers is do they have statutory power of arrest. When LEOSA was first signed the IL AG and the USA looked at IL's statutes and the determination was they do not. They only have authority over those who are under the sentence of the court. If one of the probationers/parolees violate the terms of their probation/parole the agent is not actually arresting them but returning them back to the control of the court. They're not being arrested but still under court control.
              It's the same argument that some prison guards tried to use to claim they were covered by LEOSA. Some claimed that if they catch an inmate holding contraband they are arresting the person by citing them for the contraband. Or if the prisoner escapes and they catch them going over the wall. They are not arresting the inmate but simply returning them to custody.


              My suggestion then would be move to California and get hired.
              What one state allows is totally irrelevant. CA POs meet all the requirements under LEOSA. Since by your own admission the ones in your office don't meet (2) then they do not qualify.
              Understood and thank you for your copious response.

              However, our department sworn personnel do meet the following requirements:

              (1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest or apprehension under section 807 (b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice); - We arrest people ALL THE TIME, we have more active warrants out of many of our districts than some small suburdan departments, some of our units regularly roll on task force missions with CPD. It reflects as such on LEADS and I-Clear. Many in fact work O/D for many companies and in fact have arrested individuals with no problem, both those assigned to the armed units and unarmed (who may have training and/or certifications from elsewhere), not restricted to just courts.. IL state statue is very clear regarding our peace officer status, particularly if someone is committing a serious felony in our presence, however, like any officer, it's not like anyone is looking for trouble or looking to write ANOVs or be super police when not working.

              (2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
              (3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency which could result in suspension or loss of police powers;
              (4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;

              (6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.
              (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

              Regarding this " (4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;"

              Our Officers are within this category, however, my understanding and the understanding of many others... I'm just concerned because our officers meet all of the requirements except the personnel that aren't assigned to specific units that aren't authorized to carry. Our powers do not change, one officer just receives their 40 hour state certification from ILSTB and others do not. You mention "to move to California" which I take as your sarcasm, however, in California and other states, sworn personnel are sworn personnel and LEOSA applies to ALL sworn members, not some. Some probation dept's are not sworn peace officers in Illinois or abroad, completely different argument.

              Just interested on some people's take on this in Illinois, many people in my experience have been stopped while carrying O/D both in unarmed and armed units while having legit LE credentials on hand w/foid and etc and it's never a problem with Police, at least from my experience, but with all the newbs coming in, I was just wondering about other people's perspectives... There would be no policy violation but the concern is liability or lack thereof on the department end due to not deciding to arm the entire department (it was a long time ago) like many others across the country or developing a legit policy for sworn personnel in both armed/unarmed capacities like in other states across the country because of the conflict with federal law which supersedes state law or department policy when employees are off the clock.

              Thanks for your response!
              Last edited by VidaG; 03-20-2015, 09:15 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                I would suggest you don't push it if you would like to keep your job. If you were allowed to carry, it would have been made abundantly clear when you were hired or trained. Otherwise you are just opening yourself up to being fired and potential lawsuits.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by T.F.C. View Post
                  I would suggest you don't push it if you would like to keep your job. If you were allowed to carry, it would have been made abundantly clear when you were hired or trained. Otherwise you are just opening yourself up to being fired and potential lawsuits.
                  I agree... However, the argument is new for Illinois, particularly due to the IL CCW, but LEOSA supersedes it... Because the Dept authorizes personnel to carry, but is regulated by the CPO as far as which unit carries and which do not. So what happens if you go from one unit to the next after receiving training and authorization and you go from carrying to non-carrying? It's not like you're de-deputized or lose any powers... The court would throw out the case, despite it never have happened and hopefully never will, I'm concerned about an officer involved shooting when off the clock once it is determine that the shooter (self defense) was a sworn law enforcement officer, because technically the law would protect him but what about the agency? No policy on it... What if she/he has a CCW and/or already has state certified firearms certificate and is working in another capacity or working an o/d security gig, does the liability fall on the individual or could the dept be sued in a civil suit? Thoughts?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by VidaG View Post
                    I'm just concerned because our officers meet all of the requirements except the personnel that aren't assigned to specific units that aren't authorized to carry.
                    I fail to see why you are confused. You answer your own questions. If they are not authorized to carry then LEOSA doesn't cover them. This is not difficult.

                    I agree... However, the argument is new for Illinois, particularly due to the IL CCW, but LEOSA supersedes it...
                    No it's not new to IL. Why do you keep talking about IL's CCW law? CCW has nothing to do with it. Whatever CCW you have has nothing to do with LEOSA. It doesn't matter if you have an IL CCW. Completely irrelevant.

                    So what happens if you go from one unit to the next after receiving training and authorization and you go from carrying to non-carrying? It's not like you're de-deputized or lose any powers...
                    If you transfer from one job to another then it's a change of job titles. If you are no longer permitted to carry firearms by your agency then it doesn't matter what you were doing before, it doesn't matter what certifications you had before, none of that matters. It's a different job title and duty. No different than any other LEO who changes job titles.

                    The court would throw out the case, despite it never have happened and hopefully never will, I'm concerned about an officer involved shooting when off the clock once it is determine that the shooter (self defense) was a sworn law enforcement officer, because technically the law would protect him but what about the agency?
                    If you're not authorized by your agency to carry a firearm then LEOSA does not cover. Why would the court throw out the case? If you aren't covered then LEOSA doesn't apply. You'd be held criminally and civilly liable.
                    Just being 'sworn' does not denote LEO status. If you are carrying on your CCW and involved in an off duty shooting then you're acting on your CCW and your agency is out of it. You're not acting under color of law.


                    No policy on it... What if she/he has a CCW and/or already has state certified firearms certificate and is working in another capacity or working an o/d security gig, does the liability fall on the individual or could the dept be sued in a civil suit? Thoughts?
                    You answered your own question. I'll point it out to you. "another capacity or working an o/d security gig" You're not working for your agency. You're working off duty for another employer. Your LE agency is out of it. You're either on your own or the off duty employer is liable. If you're working some type of off duty job then you're not acting in capacity as a LEO. You're working off duty. You're agency is out of the picture.
                    This is simple liability questions which you should have had answered for you when you got your LE training. It's not difficult. If you're acting in the capacity as a LE then most likely you're covered by your agency. If you're carrying on a CCW and you're involved in a deadly force situation unrelated to LE action then you're on your own. The CCW liability should have been covered in your CCW training.
                    This is basic stuff. And you're not helping your case. Are you really a probation officer? Or do you want to be?
                    183 FBINA

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      *****Deleted
                      Last edited by VidaG; 10-17-2017, 09:31 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Ok, the answer you want is "yes". So yes, a person assigned to an unarmed unit is allowed to carry off duty. (Sarcasm)

                        If a person was hired and put into a unit where they were not authorized to carry a firearm they wouldn't be able to carry... Right? So what's the difference if someone enters an unarmed unit from an armed unit? You are then not authorized to carry.

                        When a probation officer is hired are they automatically trained in firearms? (40 hr). Or are they only trained when the need to train arises? To me that may help dictate as to if you are authorized or not. If you are not trained in firearms from the start then I would assume that you are only authorized to carry in armed assignments when training is provided.

                        My 2 cents
                        Formerly "TheAxolotl"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Vida,

                          If the Parol Officers in un armed units NEVER received the 40 hour firearms course for Law Enforcement then they are NOT authorized by law or department to carry fire arms....period. Doesnt matter if they have "Peace Officer" status or not, No 40 hour, no firearms.

                          SOOO..... Those who are in units who are not allowed to carry, CAN NOT CARRY by state statute either. Hence they would not be covered under LEOSA. THe department who authorize is, and they arent authorized by state law to carry either.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by BoyWithStick View Post
                            Ok, the answer you want is "yes". So yes, a person assigned to an unarmed unit is allowed to carry off duty. (Sarcasm)

                            If a person was hired and put into a unit where they were not authorized to carry a firearm they wouldn't be able to carry... Right? So what's the difference if someone enters an unarmed unit from an armed unit? You are then not authorized to carry.

                            When a probation officer is hired are they automatically trained in firearms? (40 hr). Or are they only trained when the need to train arises? To me that may help dictate as to if you are authorized or not. If you are not trained in firearms from the start then I would assume that you are only authorized to carry in armed assignments when training is provided.

                            My 2 cents
                            That right there is the difference............ Chicago Aviation Police are fully sworn police officers who go through Chicago Metro police academy and receive fire arms training. NOW, they are NOT allowed to carry firearms while at work......BUT what covers them under LEOSA (ANd has been started as much by the department) is that their department and IL law REQUIRES THEM to train and qualify annually with firearms.......thus "authorizing" them.....Its convoluted, but its already been through the ringer..... Aviation police can carry off duty, just not on while working at the air port. (Makes no damn sense to have a FULL time , FULLY TRAINED PD unarmed)....The AVIATION POLICE DEPARTMENT however COULD carry firearms on duty because by state law they are a full service police department.

                            This does NOT seem to be the case with Cook County Parol though.

                            Comment

                            MR300x250 Tablet

                            Collapse

                            What's Going On

                            Collapse

                            There are currently 9460 users online. 376 members and 9084 guests.

                            Most users ever online was 19,482 at 11:44 AM on 09-29-2011.

                            Welcome Ad

                            Collapse
                            Working...
                            X