Are police officers ALWAYS on duty in some sense?

[Cartooniverse]

Oh, I thought that was still Woodhaven. My bad

Your quote strikes to the aorta of this thread. My assertion is that there is a moral imperative inherent in being an EMT that means I am always on duty. Therefore, I am mandated to report if I witness.

Period.

If you are a police officer and you witness the commission of a felony and do nothing to stop it, I don’t care if you are free and clear in the eyes of the jurisdiction where you witness the crime.

You’re not much of a cop if that’s what you do. IMHO of course.

[dinoboy]

@doreen

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.

Seconded. At least for Chicago.
My [step]-dad was a Chicago officer and made more than one arrest “off duty”. One memorable one was on the Blue line coming back from holiday; he was wearing a Hawaiian shirt, shorts, and sandals (even his weapon was packed away in his suitcase so he only had his badge at hand - rare for him - I remember he often wore an ankle holster* even “off duty”).

[Rhythmdvl]

@doreen

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.”**

Thanks, much more succinct than I put it.

The OP quote (and other times it’s been brought up) had to do with a peace officer going on vacation or in some other far-from-official-duty situation. Further, there is a strong distinction between powers and duties. Whether certain powers can be exercised irrespective of whether a policeman is on or off duty is fairly trivial. I assume that there are cases in which a defendant tried to exclude an arrest or evidence based on an officer’s status at the time, and assume that those cases (barring extreme exceptions) generally went against the defendant. Not having access to legal research anymore (I kicked the Westlaw habit years ago), this is only intuition.

But the OP claim is more than that. Is there a codified piece of law to the effect that certain restrictions and expectations of conduct and action (outside of trivial 'comport themselves within the dignity of the Ms. America pagent type things) apply to police officers irrespective of their duty status?

[dustinsquarepants]

@Rhythmdvl

But the OP claim is more than that. Is there a codified piece of law to the effect that certain restrictions and expectations of conduct and action (outside of trivial 'comport themselves within the dignity of the Ms. America pagent type things) apply to police officers irrespective of their duty status?

I couldn’t find it in Texas’ lawbooks, but if you are looking for something written down you’d have to have access to different department’s policies, or as we call them ‘General Orders’. I don’t think I can put these out in the public domain, but one of ours does indeed state that if we witness certain types of crimes while off-duty, we must take action. This “action” can be simply reporting the crime. If we are out with our families they do not expect us to jump into the thick of anything that would place them in danger; they didn’t swear oaths.

[Capitaine_Zombie]

@Max_Torque

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.

It seems very very strange to request of a police officer that he be on duty at all times, enable him with on duty authority when he is off duty AND to allow him at the same time to work a second job. I’m not debating whether you’re righ or not, you seem much more qualfied than me to state what’s the actual law. But it is a totally incoherent system, that sounds prone to abuse.

[Max_Torque]

In some ways, I suppose it works to their benefit; a peace officer who is permitted to carry a firearm in places others can’t, and who is empowered to arrest people, is likely more attractive to someone looking to employ a security guard or night watchman, and they can probably get paid more as a result. Win-win, really.