off-duty or on-duty

five o 1 post 6-Oct-2005 12:08 PM	As a Sergeant assigned to Internal Affairs, I was asked to investigate one of our officers for improper conduct. The officer was off-duty at a conveinence store, within the his jurisdiction, when a three car accident occurred in front of the store striking the officers personal vehicle. One subject attempted to leave when the officer followed the man and caught up to him at an intersection. The off-duty officer advised the subject that he was a police officer but did not have his department issued badge or identification with him to convince the person. The officer tried to convince to subject to turn around, however the subject was not complying and again attempted to leave. The off-duty officer pulled out his firearm and pointed it at the subject in an attempt to gain compliance, while calling the police department on his cell phone for back-up. Patrol units arrived and quickly de-escalated the situation. The subject subsequently filed a complaint with Internal Affairs. In reviewing Policy and Procedure, there are department policies that govern the carry of the firearms while off-duty, however non of these policies state that the badge and identification must be carried with it. The Chief of Police has argued that the officer was off-duty, however placed him self in an on-duty position when acting under the color of law. The Chief of Police is arguing that all ON-DUTY policy and procedure should apply as a disciplinary measure for the officer. I have disagreed with the Chief and seeking advice.
Chappy 50 post s 12-Nov-2005 9:44 AM	My opinion is that your police chief needs to be placed in that same position to see what he/she would do in that type of circumstance(s). It is my contention that ALL police officers are on duty AT ALL TIMES, whether "legally" on the clock or on their own "off duty" hours. More often than not, police administration applies the "politically correct" type of attitude towards any police officer who acts on his/her own, whether or not that officer should or should not have done whatever it is that he/she has done. What the hell is that Chief of Police doing in the position as the chief if he does not back up his officers. That chief needs to be hog-tied, whipped, and reduced in rank for failing to stand up for his/her officers. Last Edited Chappy on 12-Nov-2005 9:46 AM
Sledge 5 post s 17-Nov-2005 1:19 PM	For what it's worth, I have a couple thoughts on this. First, I agree with Chappy that we, as sworn officers, are on duty 24-7. I also think that the Chief should be looking at this from three sides. My first instinct is to put myself in the shoes of the officer so that I might be able to see things as he saw them and figure out how I would have reacted in the same situation. Having done that, I would put myself in the shoes of the offender and, thinking very liberal-minded, form my opinion of the worst case scenario of how he might have perceived the situation and what arguments he might give for filing a complaint. Finally, I would look at the situation from the perspective of a trained, veteran officer who has had the opportunity to process the two previous perceptions and look with hindsight on the events as they occurred. In the case of a felony, state statute says that you "shall arrest" a perpetrator. As far as the situation described, I can see arguments for both the officer and the criminal. There is no disputing that the criminal committed an offense and attempted to avoid capture. He should have stopped and complied with the officer's orders way before it escalated to a deadly force situation. However, whether there is a written policy or not, I think that it is a grave mistake for an officer to carry his firearm without some form of positive identification that he is a legitimate, sworn police officer. Think how you would approach someone who was carrying (much less brandishing) a handgun and he told you he was a cop but could not prove it. I apologize for not completeing my thought right now- I'm being called away from the computer- but ultimately, I feel that the civilian (crimal's) complaint is unfounded- he put himself in a position where even if the cop was not cop, he should have stopped and waited for readily identifiable officers to arrive. The Department and the Chief failed the officer and the criminal in this case. There are so many general orders and policies & procedures out there that it would stand to reason that there should be a written policy that if an officer is to carry his weapon off duty, he should also carry unquestionable identification. I also think that if the off duty weapon is his private weapon and not carried under his badge, he must not only carry his permit, but he should take into consideration the severity of the offense and prior to drawing his weapon, determine if any part of the offense would warrant deadly force. If not, be an expert witness and provide as much detail to the investigating officer so the crime may be handled accordingly. The Chief has an excellent opportunity to show that he supports the officers and accepts that even his policies are not perfect and should be evolving. Use this scenario as a valuable training aid and move the whole department forward. As a firearms instructor, this is something that I will take into consideration for training and check our department policies. Last Edited Sledge on 17-Nov-2005 1:23 PM
Vicky69 4 post s 11-Jan-2006 10:02 AM	To make this short and sweet, I will say that my husband always carries his weapon off duty, but ALWAYS has his badge and police i.d. with him. To not do so would place the officer at great risk if he is indeed needed off duty. However, I agree that the chief needs to "put the shoe on the other foot", so to speak. While an officer may be authorized to carry a weapon off duty, was it mentioned that they should also have their badge and i.d. with them? Also, did anyone say whether or not the chief was responding to political pressure? City council, the public, etc????
leebone 2 post s 7-Mar-2007 3:48 AM	It's the same in the UK. Even off duty and we end up locking some bad guys up, the first thing a defence lawyer asks "AT WHAT POINT DID YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF AS A POLICE OFFICER" depending what you answer, it could end up you answering as a defendant at a later date

«Back