Obviously cops are not always on duty, strictly speaking. They can put on suspension, for example. They can have days off. I’m told they’re even allowed to drink when they’re off the clock.
But a police officer traveling through another jurisdiction–as a tourist or what have you–surely is not on duty there unless and until the supervisory authority over police there has authorized him to serve in such a capacity there.
Right?
Is there some level of default duty that one is always on, even way outside his jurisdiction? That has actual legal meaning?
Or am I taking an answer in General Questions too literally?
This is not true, at least in Texas. In Texas, a police officer is a police officer. Period. Of course, this just extends the notion of “jurisdiction” to encompass the entire state, rather than just a town.
A nominally ‘off’ duty officer from Dallas can write tickets and make arrests anywhere in the state. It’s a paperwork hassle, though, since there are local laws and local jurisdictions. It just means the off-duty cop has a bit more work to do than if he stayed in his own town.
It’s also gotten lots of people into more serious trouble than they originally planned. For example, state game marshals are police officers, so they can make arrests that are not hunting or gaming related. There have been cases of people trying to run away, hoping to get out of their jurisdiction. It doesn’t work that way. Or people arguing traffic citations written by game wardens or off-duty cops from other towns. No such luck for them.
I feel the same way about doctors. Even when they’re “off duty” I’m sure they’re compelled to help someone who’s in need of medical assistance at any given time. But what if the doctor has had a few cocktails, but he’s the only doctor around? “Is there a doctor in the house?” Can the doctor just not help? What are the legalities of his situation? Not to hijack the thread, but the situations seem similar to me.
Cross-posted from Pit thread re cops out of state:
With regard to in-state but out-of-jurisdiction, what Nemo meant is that an individual licensed to serve as a law enforcement officer in State X may make an arrest anywhere in State X if he witnesses the crime (and usually, if it’s a felony; there may be other requirements, depending on the state).
Regardless of where they are, cops have the same “citizen’s arrest” powers as laypeople, too.
A friend of mine is a policeman in London and he tells me he’s supposed to act if he sees something illegal. However I don’t think he’d bother doing anything about anything that just looked suspicious which an on duty officer obviously would (unless it looked REALLY suspicious and potentially serious of course) and he certainly wouldn’t do anything about traffic offenses.
A friend of mine who is a cop stated that he is a Licensed Peace Officer by the Minnesota Board of Peace Officers Standards & Training. So anywhere in the state of Minnesota he is expected to act to stop a crime. (He could stop a criminal, but the formal arrest would be done by a cop from the jurisdiction in question.)
Outside the state, he would not be required to take action – legally, he would be just another citizen. But he probably would – he (and most police officers) are just the type of person to do so.
There are lots of Doctors who know nothing about emergency medicine. I’d rather have someone with applicable training working on me in those situations. The fact that a person is a doctor doesn’t mean they are well suited for an emergency.
I ama peace officer in NYS. While i am required to take some action if I witness a crime on-duty, the nature of that action will depend on the situation and may consist of calling for assistance.
Off-duty I am not required to take action, but both law and agency policy permit me to. More importantly, if I legally arrest someone while I am off-duty I will be considered on-duty for worker’s comp an indemnification puposes.
An interesting aside that may or may not be relevant: I’m in the Air Force, working in an admin-type job. That said, we have been briefed that being uniformed members of the military makes us Federal Agents (not in the exact same sense as say, a member of the FBI though). So while we’re not law enforcement officers, we ARE required to at least report any unlawful activity we witness.
As far as directly intervening, there are a variety of specific rules for that (rule of thumb is to act to protect security of high-value Federal property, and to act to protect life-or-limb of self or bystanders). That said, there is also a bit of “Don’t do stuff you’re not qualified to do.” So if someone is holding a hostage or something, I am fully qualified to call the cops and let them deal with it as I’d likely just make a hash of things being entirely untrained for that sort of thing.
Do you get extra pay or comp time if you take action when off-duty? It would seem fair that if you are off duty and then happen to witness a crime and you make an arrest and fill out all the paperwork and it ends up taking you 2 hours, it’s reasonably to say that you could knock 2 hours off a later shift without penalty. Is this the case? I could, though, see this open to abuse if you start “coming on duty” at random hours of the day and investigating random things.
When I took EMT training, we were told that, when a doctor comes up to you at an accident scene and offers to help, you should give him some flares, and tell him to place one at 100 yards, one at 200 yards, one at 300 yards, and keep walking…
As a law enforcement officer in CA, I am not required to act off duty when I see a crime occurring, but I am a cop 24/7. I am only permitted, by my department, to get involved off duty in crimes that are classified as felonies. I can, if I wish, choose to get involved, or I can choose to observe and be a witness. I can also choose not to involve myself at all, if my conscience would allow me to do that. It would truly depend on the circumstances.
In most circumstances, if anything, I would choose to act solely as a witness, not even identifying myself as law enforcement to anyone but another LEO, because I value my privacy and work at keeping my career identity concealed.
In any kind of dangerous situation, many factors come into consideration before I would decide whether or not I would get involved. Am I alone or with my son? If I’m with my son, is my boyfriend also with me, and is he able to take my son somewhere safe while I handle business? Do I hear sirens? Is my badge visible? Do I have a good position of cover and concealment, since I don’t wear body armor off duty? Would I be more help if I just call in with what I know instead of going in, guns-a-blazing?
There was a brief period, when I was pregnant, that I stopped carrying off duty. My purse was just too heavy. I’ll never do that again. About a year ago, I finally ran into a parolee who recognized me while I was off duty for the first time. I had my two year old son with me. She followed me through the grocery store trying to talk to me and ask about my son, and made a couple of calls on her cell phone. I don’t know why I didn’t immediately leave when I saw her, since I had bad run ins with her in the past (on duty), but when I did leave, I drove a very long, winding way home and watched my rear view very closely for followers.
I don’t know any LEO that feels different than I about always being on duty. About the only time I feel like I’m not is in the safety of my own home, and occasionally not even then.
In Virginia certain classes of licensed, or government employed persons are considered to be “Mandatory Reporters” of certain classes of crime. (Mostly abuse of protected classes of citizens, elderly, young, or handicapped.) The fear of retribution does not eliminate that mandatory requirement. It does only require reporting to authorities, however, not taking direct action. The on topic aspect is that the location, or jurisdiction in which the behavior is observed is specifically not germane to the requirement that it be reported. If I see a person out of state abusing a child, I am specifically legally required to report it.
I am not sure how they handle the fact that I would have to report it in the jurisdiction in which it occured, but the training I got made the point that where I was, or where the protected person was were not factors.
One time an off-duty police officer should have stayed off-duty:
The policeman was apparently intoxicated–at home–but thought the kid might be thinking about vandalism.
I’m sure this is a very rare occurrence. And I’m sure any police officer, say, on vacation, would be sure to leave his gun in the hotel if he planned to have a drink or two.