Off Duty Forums >> Cops in the War on Terror >> HR-218 (L.E.O. SAFETY ACT OF 2004) Check the update (PG 5)

Rate

HR-218 (L.E.O. SAFETY ACT OF 2004) Check the update (PG 5)

10,468 Views
162 Replies Flag as inappropriate
Me6_max50

37 posts

back to top

Posted over 6 years ago

 

ANY ONE KNOW IF HR-218 (L.E.O. SAFETY ACT OF 2004) APPLIES TO MILITARY POLICE, IT DOESNT SPECIFY.


 



`(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;



`(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;



`(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;



`(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.



SEEMS LIKE IT APPLIES TO ME, BUT IT STILL ISNT VERY SPECIFIC.


 


ANY HELP WOULD BE GREAT.


"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - Edmund Burke

"You cannot exaggerate about the Marines. They are convinced to the point of arrogance, that they are the most ferocious fighters on earth- and the amusing thing about it is that they are." -Father Kevin Keaney

-1019 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

It is rather broad and does seem to fit the military. However, I'd ask for a legal opinion from your Law Division before you take the chance.

White_shark_catching_a_cape_fur_seal_max50

1022 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

This question came up when I was working for Nevada Dept of Corrections. HR 218 is pretty broad in scope but not very specific if a Correctional Officer working in a prison could carry nationwide or not off duty.

0 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted over 6 years ago

 

We asked this question to a US District Attorney, and he advised us that it applies to Federal, state, and local full-time, sworn officers who have arrest powers in their respective states.  It does not include military and corrections according to him.

Me6_max50

37 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

Military Police are sworn officers who have arrest powers within specific limits. Also, I would believe C.O.'s are more likely to have a confrontation seeing as how its easier for an inmate to remember there name and face then it is for the CO to remember all of them.


 


I am required to qualify yearly on my pistol, take refresher courses on Deadly Force, Force Continum, and use of my duty pistol, I emailed the NYS Attorney General on this matter, I am waiting on a reply.


"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - Edmund Burke

"You cannot exaggerate about the Marines. They are convinced to the point of arrogance, that they are the most ferocious fighters on earth- and the amusing thing about it is that they are." -Father Kevin Keaney

0 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

Also Campus Police Officers and Railroad Police Officers are not allowed to carry under HR 218 either.

White_shark_catching_a_cape_fur_seal_max50

1022 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted over 6 years ago

 

police911 says ...



We asked this question to a US District Attorney, and he advised us that it applies to Federal, state, and local full-time, sworn officers who have arrest powers in their respective states.  It does not include military and corrections according to him.



I'll bet if you asked this question to 20 different DA's, you'd probably get several different answers to this issue.

0 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

The military operates under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is separate and sometimes very different than the laws Police Officers enforce across the US.  The US Attorney that spoke to us advised us that they received a memo from the Attorney General shortly after the law went into effect advising that the law did not apply to military for that reason, and that their arrest powers were confined to military installations.  That was what he advised us that the big man in DC said. 

0 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

I don't have a problem with MP's carrying, or campus or railroad officers.  Unfortunately HR 218 needs to be revised to allow them into it.

Me6_max50

37 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

They need to revise this then, because MP's are sworn officers, who are entrusted to enforce the UCMJ (which depending on who you ask, is more strict) and yes, altough we are confined to arresting to base, last time I check you now have "Citizen Arrest's" . . . so im not trying to b*tch, but if Howard Stern can get a CWP, and MP's cant . .. thats some f'in bullshit!


"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - Edmund Burke

"You cannot exaggerate about the Marines. They are convinced to the point of arrogance, that they are the most ferocious fighters on earth- and the amusing thing about it is that they are." -Father Kevin Keaney

0 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

I agree it needs to be revised.  Campus Police Officers and Railroad Officers go through the same academies we do and they are not allowed either.  Good luck getting it revised, it only took 10-15 years to get the law passed finally!!

Lobo_rip2_max50

511 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

DennyUSMC, I also am a military police officer.  I have asked my local JAG office to look into it.  Still no word back.  I have spoken to a few people who have had several different claims.  All in all, because the law is so vague, it is open for interpretation. 


I have heard of a case that was kept very quiet about a military cop who was arrested in Ohio for possession of his weapon not long after this law took effect.  The person in question was brought in, however, all charges were dropped by the DA because this law was brought into question.


I will let you know when I find out more information.

White_shark_catching_a_cape_fur_seal_max50

1022 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

Flipper_831 says ...



DennyUSMC, I also am a military police officer.  I have asked my local JAG office to look into it.  Still no word back.  I have spoken to a few people who have had several different claims.  All in all, because the law is so vague, it is open for interpretation. 


I have heard of a case that was kept very quiet about a military cop who was arrested in Ohio for possession of his weapon not long after this law took effect.  The person in question was brought in, however, all charges were dropped by the DA because this law was brought into question.


I will let you know when I find out more information.



Sounds to me like the DA didn't want take any chances of bringing down a possible lawsuit against his office if he was wrong or lost in court. 

Jpistol2a_max50

157 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

My agency doesn't want to touch HR 218.  The policy is not to have a policy and to defer to the legislation, but only because they would be in for a war if they tried to restrict us administratively.


In short, 218 is an awesome idea, but poorly written and full of holes.  I find it offensive that it is generally construed as being so limited as it is in practice.

Formal_dressed_tom_max50

335 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

Get a copy of the HR-218 and read it very slowly and carefully. No military active or retired qualify under the law. Many federal police do not qualify under the law,  GS-083 police are one group that does not qualify under the law.

Jpistol2a_max50

157 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

cop89110 says ...



Get a copy of the HR-218 and read it very slowly and carefully. No military active or retired qualify under the law. Many federal police do not qualify under the law,  GS-083 police are one group that does not qualify under the law.



Folks in that and some other fields are regarded as "security" and don't meet the qualifications.

Evil_shinanigans_max600_max50

127 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

cop89110 says ...



Get a copy of the HR-218 and read it very slowly and carefully. No military active or retired qualify under the law. Many federal police do not qualify under the law,  GS-083 police are one group that does not qualify under the law.



GS-0083 federal police most certainly do qualify under HR-218.  My agency (federal) immediately altered its firearm policy because of HR-218.  Now if your particular agency isn't being cooperative, that's another issue that you need to address.  There is often confusion between the HR-218 issue and the 6c LEO retirement.  Neither effects the other.  Most 0083's are not covered under 6cLEO retirement, but they are still covered HR-218.


As a former MP, I'm pretty sure that this doesn't apply to military personel, the possible exception being criminal investigators who maintain Criminal Investigator federal credentials.   For one thing, miltary police are not issued federal credentials identifying them as law enforcment personnel.  Only a few bases issue a similar card to MP, but it does not follow the US DOJ mandate for federal agencies.  All federal personnel with arrest authority are now required to have a two card credential with certain security features.  Military Police are not issued this type of appointment card.  Apparently some 0083 DOD police do not have statutory authority.  Their authority comes from the CG, not congress.

Formal_dressed_tom_max50

335 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

DennyUSMC says ...



They need to revise this then, because MP's are sworn officers, who are entrusted to enforce the UCMJ (which depending on who you ask, is more strict) and yes, altough we are confined to arresting to base, last time I check you now have "Citizen Arrest's" . . . so im not trying to b*tch, but if Howard Stern can get a CWP, and MP's cant . .. thats some f'in bullshit!



Don't confuse  the CCW laws with HR-218.  They are as different as apples and bananas, Tom

Me6_max50

37 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

cop89110 says ...



Don't confuse  the CCW laws with HR-218.  They are as different as apples and bananas, Tom



I am not confusing them, I understand it applies to LEO's but, the simple fact that a shithead like Stern can get a CWP and a Military Police officer cant is f'in B.S. They either need to revise it or something because its open to anyone to read it how they want to and someone who isnt like me is going to take it as there chance and get in trouble for it.


"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - Edmund Burke

"You cannot exaggerate about the Marines. They are convinced to the point of arrogance, that they are the most ferocious fighters on earth- and the amusing thing about it is that they are." -Father Kevin Keaney

Lobo_rip2_max50

511 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

They have already started revising this law.  It is being sent through the House now.  The new law adds... "or apprehension" to statutory powers of arrest which clarifies that military police ARE part of this law.  The new proposed law is H.R. 2726. 

Lobo_rip2_max50

511 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

The new law proposed is the "Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act of 2007/2008

White_shark_catching_a_cape_fur_seal_max50

1022 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

I hust got done looking at the proposed changes, and they look pretty good to me.

N1202178746_305955_5462_max50

7594 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

I'd say where you will get hung up is the part regarding statutory powers of arrest. You know the deal where as MP's it's an apprehension that we are making not an arrest. The other hang up is that off duty MP's do not have the same authority as sworn LEO's.


Pain is weakness leaving the body.

Obstacles are what we see when we take our eyes off the goal.

White_shark_catching_a_cape_fur_seal_max50

1022 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

KSP494 says ...



I'd say where you will get hung up is the part regarding statutory powers of arrest. You know the deal where as MP's it's an apprehension that we are making not an arrest. The other hang up is that off duty MP's do not have the same authority as sworn LEO's.



The same could be said even for CO's & Jail Detention Officers.

N1202178746_305955_5462_max50

7594 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

I agree but that would have to depend on the State. There are a lot of states like TN where the deputies start out as a deputy in the jail then when they get seniority they move to the road in some counties. The Sheriff runs the jail.


Pain is weakness leaving the body.

Obstacles are what we see when we take our eyes off the goal.

N1202178746_305955_5462_max50

7594 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878


The Army used to be heavily involved in law enforcement, particularly in the old west. In 1878, Congress enacted the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibited the Army3 from assisting law enforcement directly except when authorised by the Constitution or Congress. These restrictions don't apply to the Department of the Navy by law, however DoD regulations prohibit marines and sailors from engaging in civilian law enforcement.


Obviously, there are limits to this restriction. First off, the Army and Air Force can protect their facilities. They have the power to arrest people who are on military reservations. National Guard troops are state troops, and they can be used by the governors of the states to enforce law and order. Posse comitatus4 restrictions have been relaxed for some drug interdiction operations. These restrictions do not apply to civilian special agents employed by the Army or Air Force.


If I understand this then it will not apply to Military Law Enforcement. I don't know if it is a play on words or not but I still question the powers of arrest. We apprehended individuals and turned them over to there units instead of booking them into a jail.


Pain is weakness leaving the body.

Obstacles are what we see when we take our eyes off the goal.

White_shark_catching_a_cape_fur_seal_max50

1022 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

KSP494 says ...



I agree but that would have to depend on the State. There are a lot of states like TN where the deputies start out as a deputy in the jail then when they get seniority they move to the road in some counties. The Sheriff runs the jail.



In Nevada, CO's working for NDOC are sworn category III Peace Officers and are allowed to carry weapons off duty within the state. Some of the county SO's and City PD's CO's or Detention Officers / Deputies are also Category III trained and some are Category I trained it just depends on agency.  

N1202178746_305955_5462_max50

7594 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

(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;


          My argument there would be the same as the old threads about MP's not on duty as MP's having no authority to act as a law enforcement officer off duty. Civilian sworn LEO's do have the authority, as well as the Federal agencies such as FBI, DEA, etc...etc... But a Private in the Army is just a private when not on duty as an MP. There is no such thing as an "off duty MP" as they relate to law enforcement. The other issue is what Badge and ID do MP's get that would even signify them as LEO's. All they have is Military ID cards and weapons cards. Put this all together with Posse Comitatus and I still have to say no.


Pain is weakness leaving the body.

Obstacles are what we see when we take our eyes off the goal.

Lobo_rip2_max50

511 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

KSP494 says ...



I'd say where you will get hung up is the part regarding statutory powers of arrest. You know the deal where as MP's it's an apprehension that we are making not an arrest. The other hang up is that off duty MP's do not have the same authority as sworn LEO's.



Once again, LEOSA is not about having the authority in that specific area.  Does a civilian LEO have authority in another state?  The newly proposed law covers the "or apprehension" in the law.  As well as several other changes.

Lobo_rip2_max50

511 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

It's been asked MANY times in MANY discussion topics, "Is a military cop still concidered a LEO?"  The answer has always been YES.  So, are we law enforcement officers, or not?  Do we meet the criteria, or not?  In my lowly opinion, YES, we do.  However, that it because the law was left open for interpretation.  The interpretation is not for myself or anyone in particular to decide.  It's kinda like most other things in law enforcement, that little thing called 'officers discretion'.  Now, if I were trying to carry under this law and acted stupid and did something ridiculous.  Yes, I would fully expect to be cuffed and charged.  However, if I'm just carrying concealed, was pulled over for a minor traffic violation, and I informed the responding officer that I was armed, showed credentials, and could easily be verified, that's a different story.

Next Page >