Say my schooling for Industrial Robotics goes as planned and the path I take is bomb squad work and I become a full fledged police officer and not a cilivian working for the department…
Would I be required to apprehend someone if say I was at a party on my night off and I witnessed someone selling drugs or a minor drinking?
You wouldn’t be required to arrest them even if you were on duty.
Cite? Or at least some kind of explanation? I mean, that’s their job fer cryin’ out loud.
Not an authoritative cite but an episode of Hill Street Blues once was about one of the officers who was off-duty and out of uniform at a party, and someone was about to do drugs. He said “Please don’t do that in front of me!” but they didn’t heed his advice, and he immediately made an arrest. Wasn’t the most popular guy at the party, and the rest of the show dealt with the dilemma of an officer in that situation.
I acknowledge that TV is rarely, if ever, a reflection of reality. However, it at least testifies to the fact that this is a common notion. I suspect the issue is one more of ethics than actual binding law.
My brother is a Louisiana police officer. He has arrest powers for the whole state at all times, not just when he is on duty. He could arrest someone at any time.
However, I am not sure how that translates into forced action when he isn’t on duty. People break minor laws all the time. You can’t expect someone to react to everything.
The line must fall somewhere else like helping and protecting people in danger or maybe certain kinds of felonies. I am sure there are variations by state as well.
I can’t give a cite, since stuff that isn’t documented cannot be quantified.
But as an explanation:
You think cops arrest everyone they catch with a dime-bag? They’d spend more time filling out paperwork than actually patrolling. Granted, they aren’t going to let something like armed robbery slide with a warning, but some things just aren’t worth the trouble. Granted, this is highly dependent on the jurisdiction, local political climate, and the mood of the cop.
Renko had won backstage passes to meet his country-music singing idol. He was backstage before the concert to meet the man and hang with him for a while. He was totally in awe meeting his hero. Then, the singer revelaed how he got warmed up for the concert. Realizing what was about to happen, Renko pleaded with him not to do it. He told him to please, please not get that stuff out in front of him. Ignoring the warnings, the singer proceded to use an illegal drug. Renko wrestled with his oath to enforce the law and decided to arrest his longtime musical hero. This, of course, ended up cancelling the concert, causing quite a lot of people to be upset. I believe the bulk of the episode had to do with Renko busting a celebrity.
Okay. I know. It’s sorta sad that my mind is cluttered with a twenty year-old TV episode, but can’t remember what I had for lunch.
To the OP, my town’s police chief told me that he can arrest someone in another town (in Texas) he’s visiting if the person is endangering the public’s peace or safety. However, once detaining the individual, he would turn him/her over to the local police officers responding to the disturbance.
Upon further reflection, I think most of the episode dealt with Renko’s looking forward to the concert. The bust happened at or near the end of the episode, as sort of an ironic twist that Renko himself was going to cancel the very show he had been annoying everyone about. The next episode dealt with his busting a celebrity.
not everyone they catch with a dimebag, but certainly I’d imagine alot more people get busted selling a dimebag
I’m not looking for hard stats, but a statement from someone who’s a cop would go a long way. Obviously that cop who was behind me when I was 10 MPH over the limit didn’t pull me over, but the one behind me when I made a U-turn did.
Clearly an officer that doesn’t want to make an arrest isn’t going to do it, and the perpetrator sure isn’t going to complain, so who else would know? But that doesn’t necessarily mean the officer is acting in the spirit or the letter of his duty.
Don’t they take an oath to uphold the law? Wouldn’t it be unethical to be in a situation where there was flagrant violation of the law and take no action? I’m not talking about day-to-day judgement calls but being around blatant illegal activity while off-duty, like Renko (thanks 1M Drum God, for coming up with that).
This could branch off into GD, but when does it become unethical for a cop to look the other way?
I have the straight dope on this one. I had to brief a problem related to this issue in law school. The answer is that it is a jurisdicational question. Every city has its own guidelines. But, from my reading its far more common for police officers to lose their authority to make arrests when they are off duty.
Police officers are subject to ethical guidelines as well… I think the gold standard is conduct becoming an upholder of the law. So basically if you are caught doing anything that would embarrass the city or its police force they can suspend or fire you. Like any other job how much leeway you get from your superiors is pretty subjective.
When I was working at a homeless shelter in Colorado, we caught a resident with some pot on his person, which we confiscated. (I forget what he did to draw our attention. It’s not like we searched people regularly or even cared much what they did on their own time as long as they appeared sober when we saw them.) I called the cops, since I didn’t know what else to do. (And since I really didn’t like the guy much anyway. I caught flack from the staff for this later.) The cops told me to flush it down the toilet. They said they would arrest him if we insisted, but it really wasn’t worth it, especially for a small amount. As I recall, they said it wouldn’t even be a misdemeanor, just a civil violation like a traffic ticket, and that it probably wouldn’t even affect his parole. (We didn’t insist he be arrested.)
It’s funny to read posts from people not in law enforcement. Lots of guessing.
The key is the departments written policies. If an officer follows his departments written policies, even if they are bad (or in some cases, even illegal) he, individually, is going to be all right and not go to jail or lose his job (house, wife/kids, etc… I’ve heard all the threats.:rolleyes: ) THAT probably rubs some of you the wrong way but 20+ years on the job I can tell you it’s the truth. Written policy is what saves an officers ass, or cooks his goose. Depending on his/her actions, of course.
Quite a few departments written policies dictate to NOT take any action off duty unless there is a threat of death or great bodily harm. My department won’t even let us carry the issued sidearm off duty except to-from work. (which is why most of us carry our own gun on/off duty). Our joke is: What do you call an off duty cop at a crime scene?
A witness!
YMMV (depending on department)
A number of Departments of Public Safety mandate that their police be ready all the time, to the extent of being armed, even off-duty (unless inebriated). A recent NYPD case involves an inebriated, off-duty, out-of-uniform police officer being shot by other NYPD officers in an incident invovling use of the officer’s weapon after an off-duty bar fight.
As a matter of courtesy and tradition, however, police generally don’t do much outside of their proper jurisdiction, unless they inform or otherwise involve the local police. Thought with state-wide certification, they could act as needed.
To clarify, the off-duty cop was shot and killed. When the on-duty cops arrived on the scene and told the out-of-uniform cop to freeze, he swung around to face them with his badge AND GUN in hand.
Moral of the story, even if you’re an off-duty cop, do what the cops tell you. And if you’re drunk, perhaps you shouldn’t be brandishing your weapon.
To further clarify and correct with facts, the fight wasn’t at a bar, it followed a 5-on-1 beatdown of the shot officer (who was not killed) in a White Castle. Additionally, Officer Hernandez, the shot officer, did not show a badge. I’m unaware of another recent cop-on-cop shooting in NYC, so I assume you are talking about this case.
NY Times article (free registration required
Our departments written policy explicitly says an officer shall have no testable amount of alcohol in their blood while armed. Going armed while drunk is really asking for it, cop or not.
The problem with making a pinch off duty, even if the department allows or requires it, is that responding on-duty units may not know you’re a cop.
And if you work for a large department, there is a good chance someone may not know you or recognize you.
I’m only on the job part-time now days, having left full time some years back to go into consulting. That, on top of my department having several districts stations, I occassionally run into someone who has been there as long as me and we never met. Now imagine that officer who never met me rolling up on a call and there I am, wearing blue jeans & a t-shirt holding a pistol on someone, or holding someone on the ground. What’s going to happen? Any guesses? Anyone? Bueller?
Also, many officers only carry an I.D. card with them, not a badge (including me). There are tactical reasons for that.
Or, perhaps, as pkbites implies, if you are carrying a weapon, don’t drink.
Sorry to be the one to do this, but it’s piqued my interest. What are “tactical reasons”?
Before Hernandez, the last friendly-fire incident in NYC was 1994.