Does LEOSA apply to reserves/volunteer LEOs?

[toreskha]

I've been reading some about LEOSA recently, and I'm curious as to whether, in general, it would apply to "reserve" or "volunteer" officers who otherwise qualify under the directives - ie, they're authorized to carry a weapon, make arrests, etc by their department. Further, would it apply to "retired" reserve officers? Is it even possible to technically be retired from a volunteer force?

[tattedupboy]

Here is what LEOSA says about who is covered under the law:

In order to be covered as a "qualified law enforcement officer," a person must meet each and every one of the following criteria: He or she must be (1) "an employee of a governmental agency"; (2) "is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law"; (3) has "statutory powers of arrest"; (4) "is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm"; (5) "is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency"; (6) "meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm"; and (7) "is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm." In addition, the privilege conferred by the law applies only when the individual "is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance.

Based on what it says here, the law seems to make no distinction between volunteer and full time paid officers, which would make it seem as if volunteers are indeed covered by it. However, IANAL, and this is not legal advice, so proceed with caution.

[toreskha]

Originally Posted by tattedupboy

Here is what LEOSA says about who is covered under the law:

In order to be covered as a "qualified law enforcement officer," a person must meet each and every one of the following criteria: He or she must be (1) "an employee of a governmental agency"; (2) "is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law"; (3) has "statutory powers of arrest"; (4) "is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm"; (5) "is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency"; (6) "meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm"; and (7) "is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm." In addition, the privilege conferred by the law applies only when the individual "is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance.

Based on what it says here, the law seems to make no distinction between volunteer and full time paid officers, which would make it seem as if volunteers are indeed covered by it. However, IANAL, and this is not legal advice, so proceed with caution.

That's more or less what I thought, but it still sounds like somewhat uncharted legal territory. This is mostly just an academic discussion as far as I'm concerned, because I'm not a reserve officer anywhere.

[ToneGrail]

In short, the only way a Reserve/Auxiliary qualifies is if they have 24/7 arrest powers, and their department allows them to carry off duty. In order to meet these two criteria, most states require reserves to have the equivalent training in hours to that of the full-timers. The one exception to this is the state of Indiana, where a Reserve Officer can be fully empowered after a 40 hour prebasic course. Most Indiana agencies exceed this minimum requirement though. TX and CA are states which have fully empowered reserves with the equivalent training of paid officers required by state law. In other states such as Ohio, it varies by department. The Columbus Reserves are fully empowered and HR218 qualified. However, the various Aux departments in the Cleveland Metro area are not.