How People Voted
 |
 |
58% For, 42% Against
Take Action
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
H.R. 7015, To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide police officers, criminal investigators, and game law enforcement officers of the Department of Defense with authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms (8 comments ↓)
- This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.
- This bill, or a similar bill, was reintroduced in the current Congress as H.R. 675, To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide police officers, criminal investigators, and game law enforcement officers of the Department of Defense with authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms.
H.R. 7015 would amend title 10, United States Code, to provide police officers, criminal investigators, and game law enforcement officers of the Department of Defense with authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms.
()
[17 views]
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
topcop357
October 4, 2008, 12:15pm (report abuse)It's a great bill, and long overdue!
Skeptical Cop
October 6, 2008, 10:02am (report abuse)Uh-oh, I smell a rat here. This bill as written has loopholes big enough to drive a truck through. To begin with, it says the Secretary of Defense "may" authorize any law enforcement officer of the Department of Defense...to serve and execute warrants, to make arrests, and to carry firearms.
The language is not compelling, and if the SECDEF decides not to authorize anyone, he'll have that authority. Further, it says it applies to law enforcement officers of the Department of Defense, but does not define that term. In other words, Pentagon Force protection officers could be covered, but Department of the Army, Navy, and Air Force officers could be intentionally left out by the SECDEF. Also, authority will not be conveyed by this law, but by policy TBD the SECDEF and Attorney General. Just like LEOSA, the Army's OPMG (proponent for all DOD police), will say "no way". It would be best to get this fixed NOW, instead of through an amendment like the LEOSA fiasco.
MCAS Civilian Cop
October 16, 2008, 8:05pm (report abuse)Thanks to Bob Filner for his Bill HR7015. I along with other DOD police officers would like to see this become law. Semper Fi.
Busca K9
December 4, 2008, 7:56am (report abuse)It is true that there is some wording issues with this bill. It would be nice to see those of us that put our lives on the line daily get the respeck we deserve. If we wear Police, we are trained Police, we drive Police cars, we arrest, we carry creds, we carry handguns in our daily duties, we must be Police. Lets take care of this problem, we deserve it! We have a 30% turnover rate at the facility I am at, this will go along way in helping with this problem.
FracDiesel
December 4, 2008, 7:34pm (report abuse)Hopefully this bill will pass, I believe this will do a lot of good for DoD Law Enforcment.
Great Lakes Police Officer
December 18, 2008, 11:45pm (report abuse)I believe this is an excellent bill. The state of Illinois has past a bill for DOD police, stating that DOD police are excepted as law enforcement professionals but the C.O. and X.O. currently has the authority to prevent us from carrying out our duties. At one time we had the authority to hand out state tickets but a police officer gave a chief a ticket and when the other E7's got together and address their Chain-of-Command they decided in the best interest of their sailors that they would strip us of those duties. There have been so many DUI's on base with sailors that are drinking and driving but since we're only allowed to give them over to their command these felonies are not documented along with Domestic Violence Incidents, Felony Thefts, Vehicular Hijackings, etc. However, when we catch a civilian on the same offenses than we are required to process them and take them downtown. This is truly double standards.
Another Great Lakes, IL Police Officer
December 30, 2008, 8:16pm (report abuse)I would like to add that the wording in the bill states that the Sec. Of Defense MAY grant us permission. This needs to be change with the quickness. We are entitled. The other day we arrested an individual for a Domestic Voilence Charge and he will not be known to the stated because WE ARE required to turn him over to his Chain-of-Commad. The same thing is required for SEX OFFENDERS and every other felony on the book and depending on the standing that sailor has with his command and chain-of-command, depends on what they do to him, this is so outragious and it is jumping across all boundaries of the law in the state of Illinois. We arrest felonies every week and we see them out in town and when I am with my girlfriend they may approach me and recognize me as the one who arrested them. If I cannot carry off duty, what am I suppose to do? According to the Navy.....DIE!!!!!................A Concern Police Officer...
Fed Cop
January 5, 2009, 4:06pm (report abuse)It is about time. The "may" clause needs to be removed. I am a DOD Officer that works for an agency with very few military people. I have lost count of individuals I was ordered to rlease because "you have no authority to arrest." Some of these individuals have felonly warrants. Some are DUI. I am waiting for the day when I let a suspect loose because of this out dated policy and the suspect kills or causes a serious injury. What are we going to tell the victim or victims family? It is a long needed step.