You mean the Dukes of Hazzard lied to me when I was a kid? I always thought that if you raced across the county line (esp. if you jumped across it over an abandoned bridge), that there was some invisible force that caused the police to powerslide to a stop and throw their hats in the dirt in disgust.
Seriously, re: this statement - do any municipalities or states have such rigid and distinct jurisdictional boundaries?
Briefed by whom and what is his statutory authority for making that claim? Sorry if that sounds brusque, I’m just curious as to the validity of that briefing.
This OP’s question is getting a lot more scrutiny in recent years. Apparently, a lot of off duty cops in civilian clothes who intervene in crimes end up dead, shot by other cops who mistake them as perps. I remember hearing about some study related to this not too long ago, and I’ll look for a cite. But the claim made was that many… departments? jurisdictions? were re-thinking the “always on duty” policy as potentially too dangerous for off duty cops.
Well, here’s a story that seems to refute what I just posted. According to it, only 9 off-duty police officers have been killed by other cops between 1982 and 2010 in “mistaken identity” shootings, out of a total of 26 cop-on-cop shootings in the same time period.
The story has a different spin than I ever would have thought of… It turns out every single one of the nine cops killed in these circumstances has been non-white. The suggestion being that perception of race influences the decision whether or not to shoot.
Not that I don’t believe you, but do you have a cite for that? There should be an AFI somewhere that deals with those issues. I don’t remember hearing.about that once, but it is very possible I wasn’t paying attention.
The only time I can recall it ever coming up, now that I think of it, was during SARC briefings, so it may have only applied in regards to reporting sexual assaults (i.e.: If your close personal friend tells you that they were sexually assaulted or raped, and you don’t happen to be a Chaplain, you’re required to report it to the appropriate authorities). That is probably something worth looking into though now that you mention it.
From the underlined part, it means that (in that jurisdiction, at least) an off-duty police officer’s duty is restricted. He couldnt arrest you for smoking weed at a concert if he was doing a side job as security there (btw, what an incredible notion, that cops have the right to do that. Seems to completely rape the principle of being a policeman in the first place). He’s not a cop-in-shadows that can unleash the power of The Badge at you while cashing in a few extra bucks.
Originally Posted by Little Nemo
From a legal standpoint, a police officer is always on duty and is supposed to take action if he observes a serious crime occurring.
How untrue this statement is, precedent shows that a LEO has no duty to protect an individual citizen even when on duty. You must protect yourself and your family.
Cite: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html
I look at “always on duty” as more a state of mind than an assignment from my department. My department doesn’t direct me to be on duty 24/7, but it certainly couldn’t change my mindset that I’m a cop around the clock.
The parolees that I work with know me. They spend 12 hours a day watching me, memorizing me, figuring out my movements, how I walk, the color of my hair, glasses. I hide my tattoos, wear no makeup, and wear my hair down outside of work, but they will still know me if I run into them on the street. If I ever pissed them off or if they think I have the power to send them back to jail or prison… My or my family’s life can be in danger. That danger doesn’t end just because I’ve taken my uniform off and am off the clock. I wish it did. Life would be simpler. But… I love my job. I wouldn’t trade it for any other job in the world.
Personally, I think some people are confusing the notions of on duty and have a duty.
Just a nitpick, in Texas, we, as off-duty LEOs, can NOT write or enforce traffic offenses. On duty, it varies, in Houston we can write something like a mile outside our city limits. This is our department policy and I think theoretically an on-duty LEO from San Antonio could write traffic in Dallas, but I can’t imagine that happens often.
As to the OP, I’m not sure how the samaritan laws mesh with our sworn oaths, but myself and a few of my co-workers would not stand idly by while someone was in danger and we were able to help [cue patriotic music]. Sorry I can’t add more than the nitpick.
Also, no. We most certainly can arrest you, as our off-duty powers include offenses against the “peace and dignity of the state” or something along those words, which covers more than you’d think it should. Now, I’m personally not going to arrest you for smoking at a concert because 1) I probably don’t think I’m getting paid enough for this side job to make the effort, and 2) I personally wish we would just legalize every “drug” out there (go ahead, harm yourself or enjoy yourself).
If you observed an individual selling dope to some numbers of people, would you arrest that individual?
Has anyone cited an actual law?
There is probably the easy case of a law stating that a designated police officer retains certain powers irrespective of his or her status of on or off duty.
But is there anything approaching a law that says, in essence “police officers of this state are ALWAYS on duty”? The same claim was made in one of the threads that followed the OP’s quote, and I asked for a cite there as well. None were forthcoming (that I saw).
My intuition was to call BS. That this thread made it to 33 posts without a cite reinforces that. If one is forthcoming, I’ll change, but right now this sentiment is pretty much the same as Mr. Karate Man insisting he has to register his hands with the local authorities.
It wouldn’t be a law. It would be the policy of the individual law enforcement agency - the state police can have a different policy than the county police and a city police department can have a policy that differs from both. If an officer’s agency requires him or her to take action off-duty the failure to do so will not result in arrest but may result in disciplinary action. The closest you will get to a cite is people describing their agency’s policy as most employers don’t post their employee manuals online and law enforcement agencies certainly won’t.
Right, I totally agree that departmental policy is whatever they set (within reason, obviously).
But the claim the OP was asking about is substantively different. The quote (not reusing tags to avoid making it personal) was:
“**From a legal standpoint, **a police officer is always on duty and is supposed to take action if he observes a serious crime occurring.”
The bolded bit and what follows takes the statement out of departmental policy and into BS-land. (Barring a cite to the contrary, that is.)
I quoted an Attorney General Opinion, which is binding upon state agencies as the valid interpretation of the law. Opinions are issued when a government agency submits a question to the AG for interpretation, and there are strict rules about who can submit a question and what the AG can answer; the question asked in the opinion I cited, if you’d bothered to read it, came from a member of the Texas House of Representatives asking for clarification on the law that requires law enforcement officers and others to respond to allegations of child sex abuse. Until the law is changed by case or legislative action, AG opinions are presumed to be the correct statement of the law.
The opinion I quoted cited two laws, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure articles 2.13 and 6.06, which define the duties of peace officers. Contrary to what our zombie friend guessed earlier, the case law cited in the opinion modifies and extends the duties of a peace officer, and they aren’t limited to what’s stated in the statutes. Quoting again, “A peace officer possesses the full powers of a peace officer in the presence of criminal activity and may take action despite being off-duty.” There are jurisdictional limits, but in Texas, this is the way it is. A peace officer is a peace officer, whether he has his hat on or not.
I think Rhythmdvl is asking if there is a statute or case law that says not
“A peace officer possesses the full powers of a peace officer in the presence of criminal activity and may take action despite being off-duty.”
but instead
“A peace officer possesses the full powers of a peace officer in the presence of criminal activity and must take action despite being off-duty.”
Woodhaven. Such a lovely cemetery there. Also that killer German restaurant ! 
Retired NYS EMT here. At the time, as a card-carrying person with a NYS Dept of Health ID #, I was a Mandated Reporter. If I witness a variety of actions, I was required by law to report them. Abuse of a spouse or minor, etc. The list was fairly detailed, but it’s been a while.
When taking my EMT Certification class, this came up. The Paramedic teaching us said he carried a variety of stuff in the car. We all did once we got our cards. Jump bag with basic first aid stuff, O2, Cervical Collars, etc. Ambu-Bag, etc. I said, what if you’re bombing down I-95 going to Virginia Beach with your wife for vacation and you come upon a terrible accident. Totally OUT of your jurisdiction. Do you stop? I felt he was a real jerk because his answer was flippant. " Well, if I wanted to fuck up my vacation, I’d stop. " ( His wife was also a Paramedic ).
To me, if you take on the responsibility of cop/ firefighter/ EMT/ DR etc, you take on a moral responsibility. It doesn’t dominate your entire life, but in a crisis moment, one is honor bound if not technically duty bound to respond and do what one can.
To do any less, IMHO, is a crime. And- quite specifically to refer back to being a NYS Mandated Reporter- if you witness something you should report and do NOT report it, it is a Class 1 Felony.
My two cents.
Cartooniverse
Won’t argue with you about the morality, but on that page it specifically states that
BTW the restaurant and cemetery are in Glendale