Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LEOSA Question in KY

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

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

  • LEOSA Question in KY

    Im a state corrections officer in Kentucky and have an interesting dilemma.

    According to KRS 196.037 Department personnel to have powers of peace officers.
    (1) All personnel of the department, while acting for the department in any capacity entailing the maintenance of custody over any prisoners, shall have all the authority and powers of peace officers.
    (2) All department personnel who are officially requested by a law enforcement agency in a county of Kentucky or by the Department of Kentucky State Police to assist in the apprehension of a prisoner who has escaped from the legal or physical custody of the Department of Corrections or a detention facility of the Department of Corrections shall possess, while responding to and for the duration of the matter for which the request was made, the same powers of arrest as peace officers.
    (3) Probation and parole officers, while acting for the department in any capacity entailing the maintenance of custody or supervision of any confined prisoner, paroled prisoner, escaped prisoner, probationer, or other person otherwise placed under their supervision shall have all the authority and powers of peace officers.


    My question is this: it has been said that as long as you have some form of peace officer powers, even if its only on duty and in a specific geographical area, Departmental ID, and a firearms qualifications card up to date, you SHOULD be covered under LEOSA. While on duty we have peace officer powers, even outside the institution (hospital/Court trips) and we have apprehension and arrest authority though only for certain laws (IE escape contraband). We are issued weapons for certain posts.

    The issue is that the higher ups go out of their way to tell us we ARENT peace officers, even though state law says we are even if its limited, and that we ARENT covered by LEOSA, even though on paper we SHOULD be. Now Kentucky has no restrictions about concealed and open carry, as long as you qualify to legally buy a gun, you can have it on you. However, if im visiting Chicago, where i grew up, or NYC where I have friends and family, or any other state, this would be a problem. we even had an officer get a warning cause he tried to conceal carry somewhere that law enforcement should be able to (i believe it was a hospital but i could be mistaken) and they wouldnt let him in with his weapon and called the prison on him. he still has a job so im thinking they are blowing hot air and hoping we dont realize that we SHOULD BE COVERED unless they are going against their own laws.

    Is there a legal route to get a definitive answer? Even if its not the one I would like to hear, at least it would bring closure to the issue. Im not "That Guy" trying to be a cop off duty or something, it would just be nice to be able to be armed and secure to protect myself and my family anywhere we go, ESPECIALLY with the rise of active shooter events.
    I have as many names as there are winds, as many titles as there are ways to die. -Odin

  • #2
    Your AGENCY is the one whose rules you follow. You are a limited status, on duty only Officer. You don’t have full arrest authority, nor LE authority. That does meet LEOSA.
    Now go home and get your shine box!

    Comment


    • #3
      We had a similar situation of California many years ago where agencies employed people who under law, were peace officers "only when engaged in the performance of their duties." The agencies used that as a basis to prohibit these personnel from carrying firearms when off duty, stating they had no peace officer status when not working.

      The matter was resolved when a POA representing officers from one of the agencies wrote a letter to the State Attorney General, formally requesting an AG opinion as to whether these personnel could carry weapons while off duty. The AG opined that while they may only exercise the powers of a peace officer when engaged on the performance of their duties, they were nonetheless still employed as peace officers and as such, were entitled to be armed while off duty. The AG specifically stated that an employer may not administratively deny an employee a lawful right granted them by an act of the Legislature.

      The same thing may work here for you. This is not a not a question of what your agency recognizes (because they may have an agenda). Instead, it is what the law recognizes. Probably the best way to address this is to have your POA, union (or whatever you have) write a letter to your State's Attorney General asking for an Opinion as to whether persons in your legal classification are "Peace Officers" within the meaning of HR-218. Theis needs to come from your POA or union for two reasons. First, Individual requests tend to get blown off as they appear to only represent the interests of one person. Second, if the letter is acted upon, the AG will share your letter with your employing agency and ask them for comment. You do not want them to see your name and identify you as that sh*t disturber. Let your union or POA do it, rather than put your in the crosshairs.
      Going too far is half the pleasure of not getting anywhere

      Comment


      • #4
        ^^ That's the first thing that popped in to my head. You need a ruling or opinion from your state AG and, as noted, the request should come from an organization since it is more than a one person issue.

        Comment


        • #5
          So THIS is interesting.
          KRS 196.037 Department personnel to have powers of peace officers.
          (1) All personnel of the department, while acting for the department in any capacity entailing the maintenance of custody over any prisoners, shall have all the authority and powers of peace officers.

          Now found this

          KRS 431.005 Arrest by peace officers -- By private persons. (1) A peace officer may make an arrest: (a) In obedience to a warrant; or (b) Without a warrant when a felony is committed in his or her presence; or (c) Without a warrant when he or she has probable cause to believe that the person being arrested has committed a felony; or (d) Without a warrant when a misdemeanor, as defined in KRS 431.060, has been committed in his or her presence; or (e) Without a warrant when a violation of KRS 189.290, 189.393, 189.520, 189.580, 511.080, or 525.070 has been committed in his or her presence, except that a violation of KRS 189A.010 or KRS 281A.210 need not be committed in his or her presence in order to make an arrest without a warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person being arrested has violated KRS 189A.010 or KRS 281A.210; or (f) Without a warrant when a violation of KRS 508.030 has occurred in a hospital without the officer's presence if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person being arrested has violated KRS 508.030. As used in this paragraph, "hospital" includes any property owned or used by a hospital as a parking lot or parking garage. (2) (a) Any peace officer may arrest a person without warrant when the peace officer has probable cause to believe that the person has intentionally or wantonly caused physical injury to a family member, member of an unmarried couple, or another person with whom the person was or is in a dating relationship. (b) As used in this subsection, "dating relationship," "family member," and "member of an unmarried couple" have the same meanings as defined in KRS 403.720 and 456.010. (c) For the purpose of this subsection, the term "member of an unmarried couple" has the same meaning as set out in KRS 403.720. (3) A peace officer may arrest a person without a warrant when the peace officer has probable cause to believe that the person is a sexual offender who has failed to comply with the Kentucky Sex Offender Registry requirements based upon information received from the Law Information Network of Kentucky. (4) For purposes of subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a "peace officer" is an officer certified pursuant to KRS 15.380. (5) If a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a person has violated a condition of release imposed in accordance with KRS 431.064 and verifies that the alleged violator has notice of the conditions, the officer shall, without a warrant, arrest the alleged violator whether the violation was committed in or outside the presence of the officer. (6) A private person may make an arrest when a felony has been committed in fact and he or she has probable cause to believe that the person being arrested has committed it. (7) If a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a person has violated a restraining order issued under KRS 508.155, then the officer shall, without a warrant, arrest the alleged violator whether the violation was committed in or outside the presence of the officer.

          So it would seem on paper that while on duty we have the arresting authority of any peace officer since 196 says ALL THE AUTHORITY AND POWERS OF A PEACE OFFICER.
          I have as many names as there are winds, as many titles as there are ways to die. -Odin

          Comment


          • #6
            This case is for a former officer, but it shows the court provides the LE department the decision maker for LEOSA.



            Federal courts affirm LE agencies as decision-makers in LEOSA applications

            "Court rules there is no private cause of action under LEOSA that would entitle a former officer to relief after her application for an identification card was denied"


            https://www.policeone.com/leosa/arti...QhgpiSa75nXng/
            Last edited by Kraut0783; 01-20-2020, 12:00 PM.

            Comment


            • Knightwolf
              Knightwolf commented
              Editing a comment
              The problem is agencies keep trying to make an end run around federal Law. Hell, the Bureau of Prisons, the FEDS mind you, tried keeping their officers unarmed off duty until legal action was taken. I only get ****ed at this because of you write a law and make someone swear before God and witnesses to defend the constitution, don’t try to take away the rights that come with it.

          • #7
            Originally posted by Knightwolf View Post
            So THIS is interesting.
            KRS 196.037 Department personnel to have powers of peace officers.
            (1) All personnel of the department, while acting for the department in any capacity entailing the maintenance of custody over any prisoners, shall have all the authority and powers of peace officers.

            Now found this

            KRS 431.005 Arrest by peace officers -- By private persons. (1) A peace officer may make an arrest: (a) In obedience to a warrant; or (b) Without a warrant when a felony is committed in his or her presence; or (c) Without a warrant when he or she has probable cause to believe that the person being arrested has committed a felony; or (d) Without a warrant when a misdemeanor, as defined in KRS 431.060, has been committed in his or her presence; or (e) Without a warrant when a violation of KRS 189.290, 189.393, 189.520, 189.580, 511.080, or 525.070 has been committed in his or her presence, except that a violation of KRS 189A.010 or KRS 281A.210 need not be committed in his or her presence in order to make an arrest without a warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person being arrested has violated KRS 189A.010 or KRS 281A.210; or (f) Without a warrant when a violation of KRS 508.030 has occurred in a hospital without the officer's presence if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person being arrested has violated KRS 508.030. As used in this paragraph, "hospital" includes any property owned or used by a hospital as a parking lot or parking garage. (2) (a) Any peace officer may arrest a person without warrant when the peace officer has probable cause to believe that the person has intentionally or wantonly caused physical injury to a family member, member of an unmarried couple, or another person with whom the person was or is in a dating relationship. (b) As used in this subsection, "dating relationship," "family member," and "member of an unmarried couple" have the same meanings as defined in KRS 403.720 and 456.010. (c) For the purpose of this subsection, the term "member of an unmarried couple" has the same meaning as set out in KRS 403.720. (3) A peace officer may arrest a person without a warrant when the peace officer has probable cause to believe that the person is a sexual offender who has failed to comply with the Kentucky Sex Offender Registry requirements based upon information received from the Law Information Network of Kentucky. (4) For purposes of subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a "peace officer" is an officer certified pursuant to KRS 15.380. (5) If a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a person has violated a condition of release imposed in accordance with KRS 431.064 and verifies that the alleged violator has notice of the conditions, the officer shall, without a warrant, arrest the alleged violator whether the violation was committed in or outside the presence of the officer. (6) A private person may make an arrest when a felony has been committed in fact and he or she has probable cause to believe that the person being arrested has committed it. (7) If a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a person has violated a restraining order issued under KRS 508.155, then the officer shall, without a warrant, arrest the alleged violator whether the violation was committed in or outside the presence of the officer.

            So it would seem on paper that while on duty we have the arresting authority of any peace officer since 196 says ALL THE AUTHORITY AND POWERS OF A PEACE OFFICER.

            Plus

            The problem is agencies keep trying to make an end run around federal Law. Hell, the Bureau of Prisons, the FEDS mind you, tried keeping their officers unarmed off duty until legal action was taken. I only get ****ed at this because of you write a law and make someone swear before God and witnesses to defend the constitution, don’t try to take away the rights that come with it.
            I'm still waiting to hear what your state's Attorney General said when asked for an opinion/ruling on the matter. Did anyone even bother to ask yet? His issuing an official AG opinion will settle things quickly.

            Going too far is half the pleasure of not getting anywhere

            Comment


            • Knightwolf
              Knightwolf commented
              Editing a comment
              Waiting to hear back, not holding my breath for good news though...

          • #8
            Just get a CCL and be done with it.

            Comment


            • Knightwolf
              Knightwolf commented
              Editing a comment
              Which would mean diddly squat in NY or IL, where i visit frequently.

            • Saluki89
              Saluki89 commented
              Editing a comment
              Then get one for those states as well. You're not a cop.

            • Knightwolf
              Knightwolf commented
              Editing a comment
              never claimed to be. just pointed out that on paper our department should be covered.

          • #9
            Talked to FOP legal, turns out we ARE covered.
            I have as many names as there are winds, as many titles as there are ways to die. -Odin

            Comment


            • #10
              NY and IL are not very gun friendly states! Even under LEOSA you'll still have to follow their restrictions on what you can carry and where.

              I would carry a card with important phone numbers on it just in case.

              Comment


              • Knightwolf
                Knightwolf commented
                Editing a comment
                lol lived in both. However, I believe this years changes were supposed to lift the ammo restrictions or something to make it easier for everyone to carry the same thing. Most officers I know carry Glocks which usually mean a higher capacity than, say, a 1911.

            • #11
              Knightwolf,

              This case might help your FOP.

              https://casetext.com/case/duberry-v-dist-of-columbia-2

              In DuBerry v. District of Columbia (924 F.3d 570 (D.C. Cir. 2019)), a federal appeals court reached the opposite conclusion. The court held LEOSA does create a cognizable property interest and local entities do not have the discretion to more narrowly define “qualified officer” than defined by the federal statute. The court found an expansive definition of “powers of arrest” in LEOSA, thereby including otherwise qualified corrections officers as eligible for LEOSA privileges: “In the LEOSA, Congress defined ‘qualified law enforcement officers’ broadly, to include individuals who engage in or supervise incarceration. Given the breadth of Congress’s definition, the reference to ‘statutory powers of arrest’ necessarily means some statutory power of arrest, such as a power to arrest parole violators, and not, as the District of Columbia suggests, only the police power to arrest upon probable cause.”

              Comment


              • #12
                If KY state corrections is telling you no I would go with no. I don’t think that state corrections officers have arrest powers statewide or even in the county you are employed unless the offense occurs on prison grounds. The only corrections officers that I know of which have any arrest powers are in Jefferson county. State corrections guys probably couldn’t even fill out a citation correctly let alone have arrest powers, it is what it is. I’m 99% that LEOSA wouldn’t cover you, I know my agency has arrested State Corrections guys in the past for impersonating a police officer. Honestly just My opinion , if you have to dig up and analyze KRS to find a loop hole then you are setting yourself up for problems.
                "Its not what you know, its what you can prove."-Training Day

                "Game on, bitches. Whoop whoop, flash the lights, pull it over."

                Comment


                • #13
                  Originally posted by lpstopper View Post
                  State corrections guys probably couldn’t even fill out a citation correctly let alone have arrest powers,.
                  That is not a definition of powers of arrest.

                  I understand what you are saying but according to what Kraut0783 wrote if you read DuBerry ............ just having the power to arrest on prison grounds MIGHT be enough for LEOSA under the new revisions
                  Since some people need to be told by notes in crayon .......Don't PM me with without prior permission. If you can't discuss the situation in the open forum ----it must not be that important

                  My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

                  Comment


                  • #14
                    Originally posted by Iowa #1603 View Post

                    That is not a definition of powers of arrest.

                    I understand what you are saying but according to what Kraut0783 wrote if you read DuBerry ............ just having the power to arrest on prison grounds MIGHT be enough for LEOSA under the new revisions
                    I'm sure those prison guards who became case law by stating that correctional officers are covered by LEOSA. I don't remember the case, but I think they were state COs from New Jersey. Not to mention COs from BOP are covered by LEOSA.

                    I'm sure that if Knightwolf is a state CO he'd be covered under LEOSA. He could also get a KY CCW, which is very easy to get. But he would not be able to carry based on CCW in IL, whereas he should be ok if he carried on his creds here.

                    Comment


                    • #15
                      Originally posted by scotty_appleton814 View Post

                      I'm sure those prison guards who became case law by stating that correctional officers are covered by LEOSA. I don't remember the case, but I think they were state COs from New Jersey. Not to mention COs from BOP are covered by LEOSA.

                      I'm sure that if Knightwolf is a state CO he'd be covered under LEOSA. He could also get a KY CCW, which is very easy to get. But he would not be able to carry based on CCW in IL, whereas he should be ok if he carried on his creds here.
                      I might add that Iowa State CO's are NOT covered under LEOSA.

                      Yes NJ CO's were in trouble in NY............

                      BOP became covered after one was arrested and the Attorney General FINALLY wrote a decision that they were covered when that one went to court.
                      Since some people need to be told by notes in crayon .......Don't PM me with without prior permission. If you can't discuss the situation in the open forum ----it must not be that important

                      My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

                      Comment

                    MR300x250 Tablet

                    Collapse

                    What's Going On

                    Collapse

                    There are currently 5407 users online. 302 members and 5105 guests.

                    Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                    Welcome Ad

                    Collapse
                    Working...
                    X