Off Duty Power

[Tweeder]

When federal agents are considered off duty, do they still have full law enforcement powers? For example, say you are off duty and you see a robbery taking place, do you have the power to stop it legally? Can you legally fire your weapon and have full law enforcement authority anywhere in the U.S. while off duty? Just curious? Thanks for the info.

[SnowLeopard]

Can't say for the civilian Feds but way back in the dark ages (16 years ago) as a Navy "cop", the answer was yes................sort of.

I was a Security Officer, the Navy's equivalent to a provost marshall. As a Navy "cop", I had no juristiction off my base................but there was an extra to my particular job in that area. All police were sworn peace officers for that State so that gave us some juristiction and gave us some off duty power.

How far that power went, I'm not quite sure because, besides being rather a long time ago, it was something that was more useful in handling immediate area traffic accidents, containing the situation, with the force of law behind us than actually getting into another agency's affairs.

Ie, if in containing a traffic accident until the local agency responded a motorist decided that he didn't want to obey our directions, we could ticket him for disobeying a peace officer. That was about the maximum extent we exercised such powers.

For off base, off duty, we might have carried our badges, but we were an unarmed force day to day and did not carry the other devices of force other than hand to hand. It really would not be wise to respond to a felony in that aspect though we probably had (saying probably because I am without reference) the authority to conduct the situation until the local agency took over.

What does conduct mean? Essentially, secure the situation from further damage, probably apprehend if observed (but being unarmed, it really was not on our minds) but let's keep one thing in mind:

Any agency which has actual juristiction probably does not mind another agency containing a pure accident situation until their arrival. That's fair and it stops the accident from progressing into something worse. But start investigating an incident, be it a car crash or a break in, or apprehend someone, and then one is stepping over some serious bounds simply because each agency has a particular way to handle things.

One may have the power to do something................but that doesn't mean that one should actually do it.

But as I said initially, that was a special situation.
--------------------------------------------------
("On Earth, 200 years ago, I was a prince with power over millions."--Khan, (wtte), ST II:TWOK)

[Switchback]

It depends on your agency and the authority they extend to you. I can't say that there is a differentiation in my authority for off-duty v. on-duty. Getting LEAP, we are always "on-duty" and it doesn't make a difference. What your threshold to act off-duty depends on you.

[txinvestigator1]

My buddy in the FBI carries 24/7. He does not react to state crimes though.

[Switchback]

Carry authority and arrest authority are 2 different things. I know some fed agencies have carry authority with limited arrest authority, such as OIGs.

I wouldnever say that I do not react to state crimes. Each LE (having authority, aka Peace Officer Status) has to weigh out what crimes they are willing to risk reacting to when they are off duty. Do you have restraints? How about communication for backup? How well will bystanders and responding LE recognize you as LE? Is your family/friends with you & what will they do? The list goes on.

Each person has to determine their "threshold" to respond. Generally speaking, for me, that is when someone is facing seriously bodily harm. Yes, that's a state crime. Still, I refuse to sit and watch soemone get hurt. If you want to do most things short of that, I'll make a great witness. I don't feel like risking getting shot inthe back by a responding LE who thinks I am an armed bandit.... all over a stolen fubu sweatshirt at the mall!

[txinvestigator1]

Carry authority and arrest authority are 2 different things. I know some fed agencies have carry authority with limited arrest authority, such as OIGs.

I wouldnever say that I do not react to state crimes. Each LE (having authority, aka Peace Officer Status) has to weigh out what crimes they are willing to risk reacting to when they are off duty. Do you have restraints? How about communication for backup? How well will bystanders and responding LE recognize you as LE? Is your family/friends with you & what will they do? The list goes on.

Each person has to determine their "threshold" to respond. Generally speaking, for me, that is when someone is facing seriously bodily harm. Yes, that's a state crime. Still, I refuse to sit and watch soemone get hurt. If you want to do most things short of that, I'll make a great witness. I don't feel like risking getting shot inthe back by a responding LE who thinks I am an armed bandit.... all over a stolen fubu sweatshirt at the mall!

He pretty much has the same thinking as you. Thanks for saving me from typing all of that! :D

[Group9]

It depends on a few things. One, a fed can arrest for any federal crime commited in his presense, off duty or not.

As a public policy decision, many agencies, mine included, have a policy that we will be considered "scoped" or acting withing our agency's authority, if we intervene to stop a state crime that involves the risk of death or serious injury to a person, or of great loss of property.

Being "scoped" by our agency means we are deamed to be acting within the scope of our federal law enforcement duties and we are protected from personal liability for our actions.

That would not cover, for example, trying to do a traffic stop on someone for speeding or anything like that. It means if we see someone trying to kill or rape someone, for example, and we intervene, we are within our federal authority for federal protection from liability.

It does not mean we have state powers. We are acting as citizens, making a citizen's arrest (unless we are in a state that specifically grants state law enforcement powers to federal agents, and quite a few do).

That said as far as the legalities, Switch has pretty well outlined the practicalities of getting involved in state crimes, or federal crimes,off duty.

[intheaircop]

Most feds can but most probaly will not because of the same reasons Switchback stated above. I would try and be a good wittness unless it was a deadly force situation then I may, but maynot if my family was with me and most important, if I even have the "smokewagon" with me. I guess it all depends on the situation, but I would do everything to stay out of it.

[Group9]

I have actually intervened twice while off duty during my whole career and both times I regretted it after the fact. Once during a robbery of a conveinence store and once during a shoplifting.

[tunlrat]

Dealing with crap on duty is bad enough, but to get involved in "extracurricular" activities? That is purely a personal decision. I carried off duty to protect my family, friends, & myself. IF I couldn't be a good witness, or called 911, then I'd probably only jump in if the situation was deadly serious...

[Sleuth]

At the time I retired (1997), Customs Officers in, for example, California, were 'peace officers' by statute, but restricted by Customs from acting off duty to any but Federal Crimes (effectively they were only to act to defend life), although they could carry (for personal protection).

There is a legal situation of a 'citizen's arrest under color of law', in that I could display my badge and arrest, but it was a citizen's arrest. As a Special Agent I could, but did not, act, as I was never in a situation where life was endangered.
On two occasions I did 'detain', once a drunk driver who ran some folks off the road (no injuries), and once some kids rolling a joint and smoking it in the car next to me at a traffic light. I simply called the locals, and 'held' the perps until the officers arrived.

Since I retired, all of this may have changed.

[IA_13]

Aren't agents deputized marshals on behalf of the United States government? Would that authority allow you the ability to make an arrest, aide in an arrest, discharge your weapon? This is all relative to the severity of the situation based on your agency's Use of Force Guidelines. Some agency's would hang you out to dry (cough IGs cough)

[Switchback]

SOME agencies have their agents deputized to assist them in the execution of their OFFICIAL duties. Deputization does not apply all the time, there are strict guidelines. This deputization is normally used for agencies with limited arrest authority. Even with carry authority and Peace Officer status, as mentioned above, if the agency forbids it, you are restricted from off-duty carry and/or off-duty enforcement (in an official capacity)... meaning that you would set yourself up for a great deal of liability.

[Sleuth]

No, few agencies are cross-designated as Special U.S. Marshals. Since we (U.S. Customs) pre-date the Marshals (2nd act of Congress established the Customs Revenue Service), why would we look to a ""junior"" agency for authority?

Just kidding, always had a great relationship with the USMS.

As noted, being able to carry does not imply arrest authority for state crimes. And most crimes, including murder (unless on a Federal Reservation), are state crimes.