INSPECTORS AND POSTAL POLICE OFFICER AFTER 12/20/2006:

PART II--CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
 
                   CHAPTER 203--ARREST AND COMMITMENT
 
Sec. 3061. Investigative powers of Postal Service personnel

    (a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, Postal Inspectors and
other agents of the United States Postal Service designated by the Board
of Governors to investigate criminal matters related to the Postal
Service and the mails may--
        (1) serve warrants and subpoenas issued under the authority of
    the United States;
        (2) make arrests without warrant for offenses against the United
    States committed in their presence;
        (3) make arrests without warrant for felonies cognizable under
    the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to
    believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is
    committing such a felony;
        (4) carry firearms; and
        (5) make seizures of property as provided by law.

    (b) The powers granted by subsection (a) of this section shall be
exercised only--
        (1) in the enforcement of laws regarding property in the custody
    of the Postal Service, property of the Postal Service, the use of
    the mails, and other postal offenses; and
        (2) to the extent authorized by the Attorney General pursuant to
    agreement between the Attorney General and the Postal Service, in
    the enforcement of other laws of the United States, if the Attorney
    General determines that violations of such laws have a detrimental
    effect upon the operations of the Postal Service.

(Added Pub. L. 90-560, Sec. 5(a), Oct. 12, 1968, 82 Stat. 998; amended
Pub. L. 91-375, Sec. 6(j)(38)(A), Aug. 12, 1970, 84 Stat. 781; Pub. L.
100-690, title VI, Sec. 6251(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4362.)


                               Amendments

    1988--Pub. L. 100-690 substituted ``Investigative powers of Postal
Service personnel'' for ``Powers of postal personnel'' in section
catchline, and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as
follows:
    ``(a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, officers and
employees of the Postal Service performing duties related to the
inspection of postal matters may, to the extent authorized by the Board
of Governors--
        ``(1) serve warrants and subpenas issued under the authority of
    the United States;
        ``(2) make arrests without warrant for offenses against the
    United States committed in their presence; and
        ``(3) make arrests without warrant for felonies cognizable under
    the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to
    believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is
    committing such a felony.
    ``(b) The powers granted by subsection (a) of this section shall be
exercised only in the enforcement of laws regarding property of the
United States in the custody of the Postal Service, including property
of the Postal Service, the use of the mails, and other postal
offenses.''
    1970--Pub. L. 91-375, Sec. 6(j)(38)(A)(i), substituted ``postal
personnel'' for ``postal inspectors'' in section catchline.
    Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 91-375, Sec. 6(j)(38)(A)(ii), substituted
``officers and employees of the Postal Service performing duties related
to the inspection of postal matters may, to the extent authorized by the
Board of Governors--'' for ``postal inspectors may, to the extent
authorized by the Postmaster General--''.
    Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 91-375, Sec. 6(j)(38)(A)(iii), substituted
``Postal Service, including property of the Postal Service,'' for
``postal service''.


                    Effective Date of 1970 Amendment

    Amendment by Pub. L. 91-375 effective within 1 year after Aug. 12,
1970, on date established therefor by the Board of Governors of the
United States Postal Service and published by it in the Federal
Register, see section 15(a) of Pub. L. 91-375, set out as an Effective
Date note preceding section 101 of Title 39, Postal Service.
H.R.6407
Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)
________________________________________
SEC. 1001. EMPLOYMENT OF POSTAL POLICE OFFICERS.
Section 3061 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(c)(1) The Postal Service may employ police officers for duty in connection with the protection of property owned or occupied by the Postal Service or under the charge and control of the Postal Service, and persons on that property, including duty in areas outside the property to the extent necessary to protect the property and persons on the property.
`(2) With respect to such property, such officers shall have the power to--
`(A) enforce Federal laws and regulations for the protection of persons and property;
`(B) carry firearms; and
`(C) make arrests without a warrant for any offense against the Unites States committed in the presence of the officer or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing a felony.
`(3) With respect to such property, such officers may have, to such extent as the Postal Service may by regulations prescribe, the power to--
`(A) serve warrants and subpoenas issued under the authority of the United States; and
`(B) conduct investigations, on and off the property in question, of offenses that may have been committed against property owned or occupied by the Postal Service or persons on the property.
`(4)(A) As to such property, the Postmaster General may prescribe regulations necessary for the protection and administration of property owned or occupied by the Postal Service and persons on the property. The regulations may include reasonable penalties, within the limits prescribed in subparagraph (B), for violations of the regulations. The regulations shall be posted and remain posted in a conspicuous place on the property.
`(B) A person violating a regulation prescribed under this subsection shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 30 days, or both.'.



THE DIFFERENCE, MOST PPOS WERE TRAINED AS FEDERAL POLICE OFFICERS AT FLETC.

THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MOMENT

Now that SS 3061 Title 18 U.S.C. has been signed into law, what does it mean? Will the union now write a letter to Heaths' replacement and ask for:

PPOs to be authorized to now carry their assigned shield home;
PPOs be allowed to carry their assigned weapons home, after all the law does say PPOs "carry firearms"
PPOs to retire under FLEO Equality Act as a group;
PPOs to make an off duty arrest relating to apprehending a known Postal Robber, vandal or assaulting a postal worker in his/her presence and get paid for it as we are now able to perform investigations incidental to our official duties as Police Officers;

Or will we now be able to advise the CPI that a recognized law enforcement officers (no longer "special policemen") that we will buy our off duty weapon without a "permission slip" and advise the CPI of the weapon we purchased and now be allowed to carry our off duty weapon into our worksites.

Or will we still have to go with hat in hand and get a letter that still refers to PPOs as "members of the Security Force" becuase they are afraid to call us Police Officers, which we now are and always have been?

How about the next time we see a "Postal Inspector" with the words "Police Officer" plastered on their raid jacket, they are not Police Officers, but Postal Inspectors, PPOs are "Police Officers" Will that be a grievance?

And how about retirement. Will Bonelli now have to change his letter and say that so and so is a Police Officer member in good standing of the Postal Service and as of 01/01/07 has retired from service.

Now how about the koney part;

Pension reform to include us into Federal Law Enforcement Retirement category;

Locational pay scale adjustment;

Overtime pensionable,

Separate Holiday Pay check and double time and a half for working a holiday, plus the regular holiday pay;

Now that they recognize PPOs as Police Officers, lets act and get paid like Police Officers.

And what about doing away with "hiting" a time clock before and after tour of duty, roll calls shoud be eveidence enough and how about "PAID LUNCH PERIODS."

Does anyone second this motion to the union to present to management?

Happy New Year to Everyone!

I have installed new forums at PEN for everyone to utilize. I respectfully request that you at least try them out. You may find our new forums here:

http://www.postalemployeenetwork.com/phpforum/index.php

Why new forums? simply because PEN does not own our current forums - they are owned by Quick Topic. This limits our ability to manage the forums - not only that, but we must pay Quick Topic for use of these forums. We own our new forums. Please give them a try. In the near future we may cease using Quick Topic forums altogether.

THANKS!
Rick Owens
Postal Employee Network

look at this everyone:

I say bargain with management for the 20 year NOW, pay raises that are realistic or shove it up their ( ) where the sun don't shine and take the Baltimore Case Nationwide.

Look out New York, we may finally get all that PAST DUE OT.

READ ON:

Jan 4, 2007 3:00 AM (9 hrs ago)
Current rank: # 7 of 16,733 articles
BALTIMORE - With the deadly anthrax attacks of 2001 still fresh in
many minds, the U.S. post office in Baltimore City made a cost-cutting
decision that has proven costly.

Officials replaced about 20 postal police officers on shifts with
cheaper, less-trained security guards who don't carry weapons.

Now, the U.S. Postal Service could pay up to $2.6 million in missed
pay to its Baltimore postal police officers after an arbitrator ruled
the move violated the officers' union contract, according to documents
obtained by The Examiner.

The security guards' "only function was to observe things and call in
and have a postal police officer respond. If someone has bad
intentions, you won't be able to get there to stop them in time," said
Daniel Dunlap, Eastern Area National Representative for the postal
police officers' union.

On Dec. 20, 2004, the city began using contract security employees for
perimeter and building security at certain posts in violation of union
contract — which caused arbitrator Sue Olinger Shaw to rule Sept. 18
that Baltimore postal police officers are owed overtime with interest
for their missed work.

Postal security came into sharp focus when mail containing anthrax
killed five people in 2001, including two postal workers at
Washington's Brentwood mail processing facility. But the U.S. Postal
Service has reduced its number of officers since the anthrax and Sept.
11 terrorist attacks, a move that has drawn criticism from several
Congressional leaders, including Sen. Joseph Lieberman.

"We are concerned that the Postal Service seems to be eliminating law
enforcement measures at a time of greatest need to protect our
citizens from possible terrorism," Lieberman and five elected
officials wrote in a 2003 letter to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.

Baltimore U.S. Postal Inspector spokesman Frank Schissler said he
believed the Baltimore case has national implications, since other
cities have been using security guards.

"Clearly, management is abiding by the ruling," he said. "We haven't
used those security guards since last month. They are still being used
at other locations."

lbroadwater@ baltimoreexamine r.com

BALTIMORE - A federal arbitrator’s decision to award postal police in Baltimore City millions of dollars in missed overtime pay due to a cost-cutting security reduction will have far-reaching national implications from Washington to San Francisco, U.S. postal inspectors and police said Thursday.


The Fraternal Order of Police union that represents postal police officers has filed grievances in 11 cities across the country, including San Francisco, Washington, Los Angeles and New York.

After being ordered to pay out about $2.6 million to Baltimore’s postal police, the federal government may have to dole out close to $100 million across the nation, said Daniel Dunlap, eastern area national representative for the postal police officers’ union.

“They’re cutting back all over, and they’re doing things in violation of the contract that ends up costing millions of dollars,” Dunlap said. “It’s an exorbitant amount of money.”

The arbitrator’s Sept. 18 decision in Baltimore awarded about 20 postal officers missed pay because they lost shifts to lesser-trained security guards who do not carry weapons and must call an officer to intervene if they observe suspicious behavior, according to records obtained by The Examiner.

“We have less than 700 officers left,” Dunlap said. “We were 1,500 prior to 9/11. We are the only federal uniform agency that has been diminished since 9/11. They want to get rid of us for the wrong reasons.”

Rich Sheehan, national spokesman for U.S Postal Inspection Service, declined comment on the 11 active union grievance cases across the country because they were pending arbitration.

Baltimore U.S. Postal Inspection Service spokesman Frank Schissler said his agency has stopped using lesser-trained security guards since the ruling, though other cities continue the practice.

Arbitrator Sue Olinger Shaw determined that Baltimore’s two-year-long security reduction was in violation of a union contract and ordered the federal government to pay the officers overtime with interest for their missed work. The union and U.S. Postal Service are haggling over the exact figure owed the officers, but the union puts the amount at $2.6 million.

Postal security came into sharp focus when mail containing anthrax killed five people in 2001, including two postal workers at Washington’s Brentwood mail processing facility.

In order to save money, the U.S. Postal Service has reduced its number of officers since 2001, a move that has drawn criticism from several congressional leaders.

lbroadwater@baltimoreexaminer.com

With this going for us, I find it rather odd that Ed Barry would abandon us at this time. Is he that stressed that he couldn't delegate some responsibility to others???????

Hmmm... Seems to me that the naysayers have been quiet lately... Could it be because of what the new CPI has to say?

PPO's being underutilized in the past...exploring new roles for the PPO...treating our (PIS) employees better...

Security being brought back as a major focus of the PIS... Homeland Security and Emergency preparedness being another major focus.

Everyone can find something negative to say about the new paths that we may be taking, but why not jump on board and make a go of it? Wouldn't you rather have a larger role in the protection of the USPS and it's customers?

Working together with the OIG - who saw that coming?

Possibly increasing the ranks of PPO's - just for him to say that alone shows that he sees the need for us to be around.

It's no longer the needs of the PIS - it's the needs of the USPS. The new CPI sees this - why do you think the PMG put him there - to refocus the PIS on the business.

People are going to be very resistant to these changes, but why not try to make it work - it's our future.

To all that see the job of being a PPO going from sitting around waiting for the next thing to happen (or not) to where we actually have serious responsibilities - maybe you'd rather carry 20 plus feet of mail or dump buttloads of sacks.

We're very fortunate to be in the position that we are - let's make the best of it.

Like I've said before, it's a great time to be a PPO. Good luck to us all.

Well said Spankey.

Hey Spankey, good point, but maybe, just maybe it's this:

Postal police nationally hope to gain from Baltimore’s $2.6 million decision
Printer Friendly | PDF | Email | digg
Luke Broadwater, The Examiner
Read more by Luke Broadwater
Jan 5, 2007 3:00 AM (11 days ago)
Current rank: Not ranked

BALTIMORE - A federal arbitrator’s decision to award postal police in Baltimore City millions of dollars in missed overtime pay due to a cost-cutting security reduction will have far-reaching national implications from Washington to San Francisco, U.S. postal inspectors and police said Thursday.


The Fraternal Order of Police union that represents postal police officers has filed grievances in 11 cities across the country, including San Francisco, Washington, Los Angeles and New York.

After being ordered to pay out about $2.6 million to Baltimore’s postal police, the federal government may have to dole out close to $100 million across the nation, said Daniel Dunlap, eastern area national representative for the postal police officers’ union.

“They’re cutting back all over, and they’re doing things in violation of the contract that ends up costing millions of dollars,” Dunlap said. “It’s an exorbitant amount of money.”

The arbitrator’s Sept. 18 decision in Baltimore awarded about 20 postal officers missed pay because they lost shifts to lesser-trained security guards who do not carry weapons and must call an officer to intervene if they observe suspicious behavior, according to records obtained by The Examiner.

“We have less than 700 officers left,” Dunlap said. “We were 1,500 prior to 9/11. We are the only federal uniform agency that has been diminished since 9/11. They want to get rid of us for the wrong reasons.”

Rich Sheehan, national spokesman for U.S Postal Inspection Service, declined comment on the 11 active union grievance cases across the country because they were pending arbitration.

Baltimore U.S. Postal Inspection Service spokesman Frank Schissler said his agency has stopped using lesser-trained security guards since the ruling, though other cities continue the practice.

Arbitrator Sue Olinger Shaw determined that Baltimore’s two-year-long security reduction was in violation of a union contract and ordered the federal government to pay the officers overtime with interest for their missed work. The union and U.S. Postal Service are haggling over the exact figure owed the officers, but the union puts the amount at $2.6 million.

Postal security came into sharp focus when mail containing anthrax killed five people in 2001, including two postal workers at Washington’s Brentwood mail processing facility.

In order to save money, the U.S. Postal Service has reduced its number of officers since 2001, a move that has drawn criticism from several congressional leaders.

NOW HERE IS A GOOD STORY AS IT DOES HAVE A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP TO US:

READ ON (Hmmm wonder if Title 18 changes all of it?) How about some feed back.

I was employed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons as a law enforcement officer. I retired in 1996. At the time of my retirement, Bureau of Prisons officers were not authorized to carry a concealed firearm. After HR 218 was passed in 2004 by congress, BOP officers are now authorized to carry a concealed firearm. Earlier this year (2006) I requested a LEOSA I.D card(law enforcement officer safety act)from my agency. It is only with the LEOSA I.D card retired members will be authorize to carry concealed. Initally the Federal Bureau tried to give me a difficult time getting this special I.D card. I gave them a copy of my SF-50 and a copy of NY State 8 hours annual firearm qualification cerificate. I had to threatened them with legal action before I was issued a LEOSA I.D card.

I live in NYC and I am trying to get a handgun permit. Before HR 218 was passed NYPD did not issue handgun permits to Federal Bureau of Prisons retirees or active officers. The good news is that NYPD now issue handgun permits to retired BOP officers. But it there is still some red tape to go through.

NYPD request a "good guy" retirement letter from the agency that you retired from. The retirement letter must include the following:



To whom it may concern:

Be advised that "Name" SSN was employed with the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons as a Law Enforcement Officer at the Metropolitan Detention, Brooklyn, NY. He had been employed from "Dates employed"90 when he retired.

As a Federal Law Enforcement Officer, Mr. "Name"was authorized to possess a Federal Bureau of Prisons issued firearm when required on official Federal Bureau of Prisons duty.

"Name" has no documented history of mental illness while employed with the Federal of Prisons. He retired in good standing with five () years and six () months of satisfactory service with no outstanding departmental charges and was not the subject of an investigation prior to his retirement.----------------End of letter.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons is now giving me a very difficult time once again to get this requested letter. I have threated them once again with legal action. My case is now being reviewed by their legal staff. I am eagerly awaiting the outcome. Federal law enforcement agencies who were not authorize to "carry conceal" before HR 218 are give their retirees a very very difficult time with LEOSA I.D cards and retirement letters.

My recommendation is don't take no for an answer, keep on trying. "Keep bugging" relentlessly.

I hope message is of some help to retired law enforcement officers out there.

Good luck

AND YET SOME MORE INFORMATION REGARDING H.R. 218. hEY YOU GUYS AT THE RANGE, ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION, ESPECIALLY YOU GARY!@!!!!

Intro. Res. No. 1140-2006 Laid on Table 1/17/2006

Introduced by Presiding Officer, on request of the County Executive

 

RESOLUTION NO. 125 –2006, ESTABLISHING A FIREARMS QUALIFICATION PROGRAM FOR QUALIFIED RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

 

                        WHEREAS, the federal “Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004,” 18 U.S.C. section 926C, has granted an exemption to qualified retired law enforcement officers from state laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms; and,

 

                        WHEREAS, the federal law requires as a condition of the federal exemption that the eligible retiree possess a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; and

 

                        WHEREAS, the federal law provides that the cost for said training and qualification shall be at the expense of the individual retired law enforcement officer; and

 

                        WHEREAS, many of the police agencies within Suffolk County receive their initial and annual training from the Suffolk County Police Department; and

 

                        WHEREAS, the Suffolk County Police Commissioner has indicated his willingness to provide the training to qualified retired law enforcement officers, subject to each retiree supplying his/her own ammunition of a quality approved for use by the Suffolk County Police Department Fire Arms Training Section, signing a release of liability for any actions or incidents occurring during training, said release to be prepared and approved by the Suffolk County Attorney, entering into a memorandum of understanding with the County of Suffolk and paying a non-refundable fee for participation in the training at the Suffolk County Range; and

 

                        WHEREAS, the administrative, material and personnel costs associated with conducting the training and related functions have been established; and

 

                        WHEREAS, the Suffolk County Police Commissioner has recommended that an initial fee of $37.00 be charged for training, qualifying and issuance of a letter of successful completion of training and qualification for each firearm so requested by a qualified retired law enforcement officer; and an additional $7.00 fee be charged for issuance of a photographic identification card to a qualified law enforcement officer retiree from the Suffolk County Police Department; and

 

                        WHEREAS, the Suffolk County Police Department does not have the authority to issue photographic identification cards to qualified retired law enforcement officers who are not retirees of the Suffolk County Police Department, but other law enforcement agencies within Suffolk County may accept and adopt Suffolk County training standards as their own and issue their own photographic identification cards to their retirees; and

 

                        WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the County of Suffolk, retired law enforcement officers and national security to have qualified retired law enforcement officers properly trained on their concealed firearms and therefore able to offer assistance in emergency and other situations and to adequately defend themselves; now therefore, be it

 

                        1st RESOLVED, that the Suffolk County Legislature accepts the recommendation of the Suffolk County Police Commissioner and authorizes the establishment of a program for retired law enforcement officer training; and be it further

 

                        2nd RESOLVED, that the Suffolk County Police Commissioner is authorized and directed to implement a firearms qualification training program open to qualified retired law enforcement officers, as that term is defined under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, who formerly were employed by a law enforcement agency within Suffolk County; to set terms and conditions of the training, one of which conditions shall be that the retired officer supply his or her own ammunition of a quality approved for use by the Suffolk County Police Department; to issue to his or her former law enforcement officers the photographic identification card identifying the date of training and the type(s) of weapon(s) covered by the certification; to collect an initial fee of $37.00 from the qualified retired law enforcement officer for each firearm used in qualifying; and to collect an additional fee of $7.00 for each photographic identification card issued, said fees to be reevaluated annually and with the approval of this Legislature, increased as necessary on an annual basis; and be it further

 

                        3rd RESOLVED, that any retired law enforcement officer participating in the program must sign a release prepared by the Suffolk County Attorney prior to and as a condition to participation, said release to be prepared in suitable form for use by the Suffolk County Police Department, protecting the County from liability for any incidents occurring on the Suffolk County Range during the course of the training; and be it further

 

                        4th RESOLVED, that each retired law enforcement officer who completes the training and is issued an identification card shall enter into a memorandum of understanding with the County expressing the officer’s understanding of and acceptance of his or her liabilities and responsibilities.

 

DATED: February 7, 2006

 

                        APPROVED BY:

 

 

                        /s/ Steve Levy

                        County Executive of Suffolk County

 

                        Date: February 14, 2006

FortWayne.com, Fort Wayne, Indiana
A former city police officer was sentenced to two years probation for his role in the theft of money from a Fraternal Order of Police lodge. As part of the plea agreement, a Madison County judge reduced the felonies to misdemeanors, allowing Sollars to keep his mortgage broker's license.

Edited by author 01-20-2007 11:44 AM
To all PPO's who are not union members - get the form, fill it out and join. That 16 bucks every two weeks could get you a lot more in return.

Once you're in - contact the EB and tell them to fight the right fight. I think the EB is headed in the right direction and has good leadership. All we need to do is fight for 20 year, locality pay, 24 hr. carry, etc.etc.

No fighting for Ballcaps - they don't count to our pension.

There's less than 600 of us left.

Any word on the outcome of the NJ Captain that was arrested? Let's get back to the PPO's in New York. Why are they harassed and scutinized? Why is Lt NP always butting into everybodies business and telling all the PPO's what to do. Lt. NP has his favorites. like the Sgt that returned from Florida. When the Sgt was on his tour, he came in late and left early and the LT would let him get away with it.And poor Sgt MP had to do all the running around. Thre are a lot of Sgt's in the NY Division that made Sgt because they must have kissed a lot of behind and don't know hoe to supervise. When the PPO's need them, they hide and say the are in transit. I guess the remedy would be to get rid of all the dead wood on top FB, PM, KM, MC just to mention a few. Just needed to get this off my chest. Be safe out there.

The PPO Union is a big joke. Check what your past President and senior union officials are doing in the Washington Division. Sergeants …..hmmmmmmm. Where is the union fight now? Don’t get me wrong upward mobility is good for everyone, but why did two PPO union officials become the supervisors? That a low down form of union busting.

Retired PPO,

Since messages on this site are subject to be deleted for using proper names, what are the initials of the two union officials that got promoted to sergeant positions in the Washington Division???