Police Officer Preparation & Law Enforcement Resource - Archive

What powers of arrest does an off duty LEO have?

A couple years back I was working at a grocery store and saw a shoplifter get handcuffed by a loss prevention employee after trying to flee from him and another employee who was trying to help the loss prevention employee. The loss prevention employee is also a law enforcement officer and ended up putting the shoplifter in handcuffs after taking him down, although it seemed like he was acting in the employ of the grocer at the time.

Do you guys still retain full arrest powers when off-duty? If so, how does that work for the person being arrested if they try to flee from the off-duty LEO if they don't realize that the other person is an officer?

I don't know exactly what happened because I was too far away to catch any of the dialogue when I saw this go down.

Yes, we have full police authority 24 hours a day. We have to identify ourselves as police officers if we charge with resisting arrest though.

Also, a loss prevention employee who isn't a cop can do the same thing by making a citizen's arrest. They do it all the time.

As he said.

In jurisdiction: full powers at all times.

Out of jurisdiction: varies from state to state.

In California you have full authority anywhere in the state, on duty or off, in uniform or in your underwear.

The question is not so much one of police powers, but of who will indemnify the officer if he ends up getting sued. If I were working off-duty as a security guard for Macy's, and I ended up getting sued by a shoplifter whom I struggled with during his arrest, the City of New York would regard my actions to be performed not in the interest of the City, but of my private employer -- and therefore the City would not provide me with legal representation, nor would it assume the costs of any award for damages that a court might award in a civil suit brought because of my actions.

In California you have full authority anywhere in the state, on duty or off, in uniform or in your underwear.

Hear that Greg? You're in like Flynn! :biggrinjester:

The question is not so much one of police powers, but of who will indemnify the officer if he ends up getting sued. If I were working off-duty as a security guard for Macy's, and I ended up getting sued by a shoplifter whom I struggled with during his arrest, the City of New York would regard my actions to be performed not in the interest of the City, but of my private employer -- and therefore the City would not provide me with legal representation, nor would it assume the costs of any award for damages that a court might award in a civil suit brought because of my actions.

That's why we can't have off duty jobs like that. If we work in any LE capacity, we have to be hired through the city and therefore the city indemnifies us. But they have always been concerned about us using our police powers in the interest of someone other than them and/or private citizens.

In California you have full authority anywhere in the state, on duty or off, in uniform or in your underwear.

Same in Oregon since 1972. Before that, we only had police powers within our jurisdiction. 1972 was when they established state standards.

Actuall in FL we are covered under the good faith doctrine from
civil suits, wont prevent you from being sued but it "protects you as long as you were acting in good faith.

I have police powers on or off duty, but only in my City. I do not live in my jurisdiction, though, so it is not likely that I would make an arrest off duty. Not to mention the only time I am getting involved in anything off duty is if someone is going to get hurt or killed if I dont act.

Actuall in FL we are covered under the good faith doctrine from
civil suits, wont prevent you from being sued but it "protects you as long as you were acting in good faith.

Actually, if you are acting (or it can be construed that you are acting) in the capacity as a law enforcement officer, then you are NOT covered by the good faith doctrine in Florida. As an LEO that is. Corrections officers off duty ARE covered by good faith, because they are not considered LEO's off duty.

And I believe that would only cover things such as first aid or medically necessary life saving activities. Good faith would not cover us if we were taking Law Enforcement action while off duty, such as making an arrest or using force to stop someone from hurting someone else.

And I believe that would only cover things such as first aid or medically necessary life saving activities. Good faith would not cover us if we were taking Law Enforcement action while off duty, such as making an arrest or using force to stop someone from hurting someone else.

It's called the "Good Samaritan Act" here and was passed to cover doctors and nurses in medical emergencies they come across outside their work environment, e.g. traffic accidents. It also covered private citizens too, but the idea was to keep medical professionals from being afraid to help at a scene. I suspect lawyers hated that bill....

My department indemnified me the moment I began law enforcement action off duty. But as I said, I couldn't take private employment where there was any advantage to my off duty employer that I was a cop.

In D.C. I have full police powers 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Re: "good samaritan" and helping people - it's a lose-lose (YMMV!!!). Seems like you either get shot/killed by the person you're trying to help (off duty corrections officer Buddy Herron killed in Oregon) OR you're gonna get sued by the person you're trying to help (Torti vs Van Horn in California)... fucking modern day "people"/society (and boxes of rocks lawyers and judges)...

Re: "good samaritan" and helping people - it's a lose-lose (YMMV!!!). Seems like you either get shot/killed by the person you're trying to help (off duty corrections officer Buddy Herron killed in Oregon) OR you're gonna get sued by the person you're trying to help (Torti vs Van Horn in California)... fucking modern day "people"/society (and boxes of rocks lawyers and judges)...

Unlike many I guess, I've always been more or less a mercenary. I got paid to be a cop and didn't care to do it for free. That's not to say I wouldn't try to help someone, but I did it because I would have done if I were still a car salesman.

I hear you. I'm just saying that certain people (scumbags, ambulance chasers, idiots, aholes, etc) have made it tough for good people to go out and help others...

I hear you. I'm just saying that certain people (scumbags, ambulance chasers, idiots, aholes, etc) have made it tough for good people to go out and help others...

Civil lawyers make life miserable for everyone. The best tort reform would be to put a 25% maximum on contingency fees. That would stop a lot of silly lawsuits.

I have a lot of respect for prosecutors and even defense lawyers, they provide a needed service. Most civil lawyers are leeches that cost the rest of us who aren't even involved through higher insurance rates and taxes.

Here in Texas we have the Code of Criminal Procedure 18.16. Essentially it states that ANY person has the right to prevent the consequences of theft. I was taught (unsure if something just my particular instructor believes or if it is standard) that just a normal "citizens arrest" does not warrant the use of restraints except in the case of preventing the consequences of theft.

Citizens in Oregon have the same rights as police officers when they witness a crime being committed, including the use of restraints. Getting right down to it, the only real differences in power is that police officers can use blue lights to pull someone over and we can serve warrants. We even have a procedure for citizens to issue traffic citations. I'm not sure what it is, but I know it's been done.

The Good Samaritan laws are not designed to protect LEOs from exercising their arrest authority while off-duty. It may vary from state to state and it's important to read their laws and AG's opinion on the matter. In TN, citizens can effect arrests just as LEOs can for misdemeanors that occur in their presence or when PC for a felony exists. Obviously this doesn't happen too often (with the exception of loss prevention / store security) because citizens are not protected under immunity/government tort liability laws like LEOs are. With that said, I know in my state (TN) if you're working off duty you should be covered under the entity you're working for. We have a state supreme court case where an officer working off-duty wrote a guy for disorderly at a retail store. Another day he came into work off-duty and the store owner advised the officer that the guy failed to show up to court on the disorderly charge. The officer went to the guy's house at the request of the store owner to arrest the guy on the outstanding warrant. In the process the guy was shot and killed by police. The Supreme Court held that the city as well as the retail store were liable because the officer went from working for the store into full police authority when he decided to serve the warrant at the residence of the suspect.

The reason I tell this story is to know your laws, departmental policy, and case-law on the issue. Make sure if you're hired off-duty to get proof you're covered under the insurance terms of the entity hiring you and make sure it's approved by your agency. The last thing you want is to be hung out to dry if a civil action comes against you.

We have a state supreme court case where an officer working off-duty wrote a guy for disorderly at a retail store. Another day he came into work off-duty and the store owner advised the officer that the guy failed to show up to court on the disorderly charge. The officer went to the guy's house at the request of the store owner to arrest the guy on the outstanding warrant. In the process the guy was shot and killed by police. The Supreme Court held that the city as well as the retail store were liable because the officer went from working for the store into full police authority when he decided to serve the warrant at the residence of the suspect.

The reason I tell this story is to know your laws, departmental policy, and case-law on the issue. Make sure if you're hired off-duty to get proof you're covered under the insurance terms of the entity hiring you and make sure it's approved by your agency. The last thing you want is to be hung out to dry if a civil action comes against you.

That's exactly the reason my department doesn't allow off duty jobs where you are making arrests, etc. They have no interest in paying damages for an action you're taking on behalf of another employer. And I don't blame them, it makes perfect sense to me because with Oregon laws, they have to cover us anytime we begin a police action within the state. They don't want to pay out money for me protecting the property of Sears on a routine basis.

because with Oregon laws, they have to cover us anytime we begin a police action within the state.

The law requires you to be indemnified if you take off-duty action? That's great. Certainly not the case here, then again we don't have full powers out of our jurisdiction. The only difference between police and citizens when off-duty and out of jurisdiction is that the officer's standard of proof to make a citizens arrest is "probable cause" whereas a citizen's is "in fact committed".

The law requires you to be indemnified if you take off-duty action? That's great. Certainly not the case here, then again we don't have full powers out of our jurisdiction. The only difference between police and citizens when off-duty and out of jurisdiction is that the officer's standard of proof to make a citizens arrest is "probable cause" whereas a citizen's is "in fact committed".

When I first started, we didn't either and it was a pain to lose a traffic case because the person was driving on the county side of the street and not the city.....

And yeah, living in a liberal state does have a few advantages beyond pay. The only thing we aren't protected from is punitive awards. The state specifically says the government entity can't pay those even if they wanted to. But I've never known of punitive damages being awarded either.