|
2/7/2008 6:38 PM
|
#1
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 379
|
RE: HR 218 and Military
Ted,
This has been debated quite a bit on this forum (well in the old version) and there is no clear answer. Some of us said that you do fall under LEOSA if your primary duties were law enforcement. Some say you do not. The sticking point is whether o rnot you have statutory powers of arrest.
The military uses arrest to mean something different than the civilian use of the word, and uses the term apprehension for what civilians consider arrest. This is why you cannot get a straight and firm answer as to whether or not you are covered.
The second debatable point in your coverage is if you have the picture ID required. Is your military ID good enough, or does it require a separate ID showing your law enforcement status? This is also not clear yet.
The good news was that a bill was introduced to modify the definition to include apprehend. The bad news is that I think that bill stalled and is going no where in Congress. I could be wrong on the last.
|
|
2/9/2008 6:49 AM
|
#2
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 16
|
HR 218 and Military
Check with your JAG. An early DOD JAG opinion was out that said military is not covered by LEOSA. I haven't seen anything saying the JAG changed its opinion. Their ruling was you are military, not LEO. Your duties in SF/MP are assigned and not a LEO position.
Don't get yourself jammed up. The military will not support you if caught carrying and trying to use LEOSA as a justification. You'll not only get a criminal conviction out of it but your military career will also be over and you'll be out with bad paper.
|
|
4/3/2008 12:07 AM
|
#3
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2
|
RE: HR 218 and Military
Sticking point? Where does it say anything about "Statutory powers of arrest" in HR 218? Where does is say anything being "Sworn"? Where does it say the requirements of the "photographic identification issued by the government agency"? If your agency superglues a passport photo to a business card and calls it there credentials...it's legit to HR 218...
Unless I read it all wrong and there are invisible words...military police fall under HR 218! HR 218 is very vague and it's like that for a reason.
|
|
4/3/2008 7:13 AM
|
#4
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2
|
hr 218
Disregard the "statutory powers of arrest" comment...2 hours of sleep...UCMJ is part of title 10 of the US code and if you look up arrest and apprehension in a law dictionary they are the same thing
|
|
4/5/2008 2:53 AM
|
#5
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 19
|
HR 218 and Military
Ted, check with your JAG, and the answer may change from base to base as you get transfered, don't get yourself into trouble remember your military not a civilian, after dealing with a federal lawsuit with my old department I do believe that LEOSA covers civilian LEO's. Believe me the wording of LEOSA can be twisted 5 different ways by 5 different people. Remember it doesn't matter what I think or anyone else thinks, for you and all military police what matters is what the military thinks. Last edited @ 4/5/2008 3:36 AM
|
|
4/5/2008 11:56 AM
|
#6
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 379
|
RE: HR 218 and Military
Not event hen. Really, what matters is what the local prosecutor thinks and can convince a jury of. You also have to worry about what the local base commander/PMO think because of the potential for an article 15 from them even if you don't get into trouble with the local authorities.
For my money, you are covered, but I have very little say in the matter.
|
|
4/13/2008 5:01 AM
|
#7
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 16
|
HR 218 and Military
Contact your JAG and you'll see that military is not covered under LEOSA. The JAG position hasn't changed. Just checked.
If you do the research on LEOSA you can go back several years before it actually passed and see where military members were once considered for inclusion. You'll find that after discussion on the bill that it was decided NOT to include military and the military was intentionally excluded.
If you are military, carrying thinking you are covered by LEOSA, get stopped and a phone call is made to check out your status you're going to find the JAG position that military isn't covered. Result could very likely end up with a felony arrest. Regardless of what the civilian authorities do with the charge it's not going to be near as severe as what the military is going to do to you. The military has already said not covered. With a felony arrest you're going to find your military career shortened, facing UCMJ charges, and leaving with bad paper. Don't try it. Who do you think the authorities are going to side with - someone who "thinks" military is covered (when they didn't know "Statutory powers of arrest" and "photographic identification issued by the government agency" are clearly spelled out in LEOSA) or the DOD JAG opinion?
|
|
4/13/2008 10:28 AM
|
#8
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7
|
18 USC 926 (B) (C)
HR 218 is not the correct citation for this law anymore. The HR 218 was the bill number for the House of Representatives.
LEOSA is now titled in the US Code under 18 USC 926B for current law enforcement officers and 18 USC 926C for retired officers.
As far a military members under this law, personally I would say yes but you are under the restrictions and control of your commanders be it at the local or national level. Until there is a directive from some one in the Pentagon saying yes I do not see local commanders or JAGs going out on a limb and saying yes. Since the military is one of the strongest bastions of gun control for its members I would be willing to bet that won't happen.
Arrest / Apprehension authority for military and civilain police counterparts are codified by statute as was pointed out earlier but the argument of civilian arrest V military apprehension rages on.
Play it safe get a CCW if you really need to carry. Even those maybe restricted by your commanders.
|
|
5/1/2008 8:50 AM
|
#9
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1
|
RE: HR 218 and Military
There was a situation involving a USAF member at Wright Patterson AFB in which the individual was arrested for having personal weapons off base on his person without a CCW. The matter went to court and a judge ruled that the individual fell under the regulations of HR 218. The case was dismissed and the individual was released without punishment.
Sorry, I don't have the exact information on the individual or case. I am trying to recieve it at this time. I will get back with an update when I get it.
Thus, there is documented legal proof that HR 218 applies to military although it has been kept very concealed from military knowledge as well as civilians. The case was ......?.... v. Ohio.
|
|
5/1/2008 7:35 PM
|
#10
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 379
|
RE: HR 218 and Military
I would really appreciate if you could post the information if you can find it. Of course, trial courts can be cited as a reference but do not count as establishing precedence like appellate courts. But judges love to be able to cite another judge's logic to do the right thing that might be controversial.
|