The complaint was filed by Attorney Jill Mancini, a former Assistant County Solicitor, and also seeks $2,000 in attorney's fees.
Before retiring in December, Cubbage served as a Deputy Sheriff for nine years.
He comes from Philly, where he started as a cop in 1970. He worked his way up to become a County Detective with the District Attorney’s Office, Chief Inspector in the Sheriff’s Office and Bail Commissioner with the Philadelphia Municipal Court.
When terror struck on September 11, 2001, Cubbage handled the emergency deployment of military aircraft and personnel from Philly into New York’s ground zero. He also signed on to a Faith Based team, which organized relief efforts and spiritual guidance to the law enforcement officers traumatized by the disaster. He is part of the Evangelistic Rapid Response Team and was a Police Chaplin.
A retired officer with this kind of identification may carry a concealed weapon. But is a Deputy Sheriff, as a matter of law, a law.enforcement officer?
Sheriff Dalrymple declined comment.
Qualified Retired Law Enforcement Officers
ReplyDeleteTo be considered a qualified retired law enforcement officer people must meet the following criteria: They must have 1) “separated from service5 in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer; 2) before such separation6 was authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest; 3)(A) before such separation, served as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 10 years or more;...
I think that the Sheriff may be prohibited from issuing because of item three, wherein the plaintiff did not serve more than 10 years with the Northampton County Sheriff's Department. He may be qualified with Philadelphia.
"But is a Deputy Sheriff, as a matter of law, a law enforcement officer?"
ReplyDeleteAs a matter of this particular law, yes. The Courts have also found that Constables meet this definition, as well.
One other factor is that the law enforcement officer must qualify with his carry weapon.
ReplyDeleteHas he continued to do so with the sheriffs department
He could qualify with the agency he retired from; or with a law enforcement agency where he currently resides, if they allow it; or with an approved/qualified law enforcement firearms instructor.
ReplyDeleteWhat this amounts to is "get out of jail free card". It's nothing more than a courtesy card. If he gets stopped by police, he shows his card, he talks about the good ole days on the force and goes on his merry way. This is one big fraternity you are dealing with and they take care of each other all the way to the grave......unless you're some kind of rat. Then they give you a hard time.
ReplyDeleteIt is much more than that. A retired LE card means you can carry w/o obtaining a LTC. I don't think there would be a suit if it were just a courtesy card. This has real significance to the carrier.
ReplyDelete"I think that the Sheriff may be prohibited from issuing because of item three, wherein the plaintiff did not serve more than 10 years with the Northampton County Sheriff's Department. He may be qualified with Philadelphia."
ReplyDeleteIt states aggregate serving as a LE officer - but doesn't say where. If he had 9 years with NorCo, he would only need one more by my interpretation somewhere else.
Sheriff's in PA with the exception of Allegheny County do NOT have statutory powers of arrest..sheriff's for years have been fighting for proper arrest powers. Sadly Sheriff's do not qualify for LEOSA here. He would be better served from getting it from his retired police job. Wish him the best though.
ReplyDeleteConstable's after meeting qualifications of LEOSA do qualify under federal law. In fact the very first test case of LEOSA was a PA State Constable arrested in NYC (Rodriguez case), the court agreed with Rodriguez and granted immunity from NYC's very strict and mandatory gun laws. Bernie - this is MUCH more then a simple request for him to get a permit to carry his weapon. What a LEOSA card does and what it allows is an active or retired LEO the right to carry a firearm where most states would prohibit such.
ReplyDeleteWhat we need are Federal "uniform" gun laws that apply to every citizen regardless of the state you live in.It is impossible for a citizen to track every gun law of every state. If you've never been arrested for anything, why can't you carry a weapon? I have a gun with me, on me or in my car, almost everywhere I go. I am licensed to carry in my state with a very thorough background check.
ReplyDeleteTo "Fred" 3:47 - I don't know where you received your law degree, but I'd ask for a refund, because you don't know what you are talking about regarding PA Sheriff's. Read up on Commonwealth vs. Love - http://www.dsap.org/uploads/3/4/4/6/34460439/commonwealth_vs_love.pdf
ReplyDeleteBernie ,It is in the 'Public Interest' that people like this man be able to carry a concealed firearm. He has obviously been ;trusted' in the past and should be trusted now as an elder person to hold a 'Law Enforcement ' carry permit. I get pissed off when I see folks like this questioned in light of issues of terrorism or high jacking. This man should have a free pass. Any questions about this fell free to contact me BERNIE,
ReplyDeleteFor Christ sake- I hold both Metals from the U.S.ARMY'S ,Marksmanship Coordinator at Fort Benning Ga.' Excellence in Competition' both,Pistol and Rifle and an NRA High Power Rifle Expert Classification ,=and only dropped 3 points on B-27 cop targets with PCCD in 8 years or 2,397 points and I can not get a 'FREE PASS' - but this man should. Ref .Excellence in Competition ' on GOOGLE. means that a' Combat Shooter' in the U.S.Army was infantesamale and i can't get this weapon issue permit, as former Constable.
ReplyDeleteANON 601 ; Fred knows his shit ,he is right and Law Degrees are a matter of ;who you think you are. My grandmother's uncle Clarence Darrow never really graduated from law school.
ReplyDeleteSorry buddy I'm dead on. Sheriff's in PA possess NO STATUTORY POWERS OF ARREST. The big word meaning statutory which is different then case law.
ReplyDeleteIf you read the Love case it center's around COMMON LAW powers of arrest...where in statute do you get your arrest powers? I guess you failed to read the Kopko case..you know the one from the Supreme Court of PA? That's the court that his higher the the Superior court in this state.
ReplyDelete"Despite the long list of activities that the National Association cites and the fact that the Attorney General deploys Sheriffs on its task forces, we cannot ignore the fact, as correctly stated by the Commonwealth Court, that “[t]here are only two statutory provisions which specifically reference the modern sheriff's duty.” Kopko, 842 A.2d at 1038. The General Assembly has limited the powers and duties of sheriffs to those “authorized or imposed upon them by statute.” 13 P.S. § 40.6 Further, a sheriff is mandated to “serve process and execute orders directed to him pursuant to the law.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 2921. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-supreme-court/1201315.html#sthash.dO5B5Mh9.dpuf"
My personal opinion is that they should qualify 100% but unfortunately the law is against them.
Fred, I have no desire to interject myself into this question, but was told today that the statute does cover sheriffs. A person can be considered a retired LE officer even if he had no statutory power of arrest. http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/2014/01/does-the-leosa-carry-law-apply-to-you.aspx
ReplyDeleteThis old kook doesn't look fit to drive let alone handle a firearm. Time for the trip to gracedale...take peter with you
ReplyDeleteBernie - Thanks for your input I value you it and like a good discussion like the next person...in my opinion the federal law is pretty clear...you need statutory powers of arrest. In PA Sheriff's don't.
ReplyDeleteThey are defined as LEO while in performance of their duties for protection. An individual(s) who assaults or worse a Sheriff while in performance could be charged then for assaulting a LEO. It doesn't expand or define authority.
Lets look at the carry of a Firearm. They are exempt from needing a LTC on or off duty. No question there but then you have to look at the in-house issue and policy.
LEOSA or H.R. 218, that's a no brainer in my opinion they don't have statutory arrest authority and that's a primary definition needed. Funny because neither does a retired LEO but they get it.
Authority, Sheriffs have been given most of their authority by the Courts not Legislators.
That's fine except in regard to H.R.218. The Courts recognize that the Offices can make an arrest, charge and prosecute criminal acts viewed in their presence, like constables can. Via case law with proper training they can make traffic stops and enforce the motor vehicle code, (No DUI checkpoints). This is in regards to what they see not by probable cause, investigation or informants.
Authority/Motor Code enforcement falls now on Agency Policy and what the DA will except from a Deputy Sheriff. If they say go ahead by all means if they say no then you would be acting outside the scope of employment but not braking a law.
Common law and statutory are in fact two separate entities. Case law puts deputies under common law and not statutory. No one is arguing that they can make arrest. Show a state statute with their authority in it, because there is none. Just because constables maybe covered doesn't mean sheriffs are.
Constables arrest authority is state statute. Sheriffs are common law. That does not meet the requirement set forth by congress definition for LEOSA. Their authority must appear in state statute and as of today it does not.
Most opinion are based on court decisions that does not relate to 218. I would compel anyone to please re-read 218 and the requirements then show me where in PA statutes sheriffs have that authority, not a PA Court saying they can make arrest.
Joe who lives 3 doors down from me can make an arrest.
Thanks for reading and your input.
"Show a state statute with their authority in it, because there is none."
ReplyDelete"Fred", both you and Judge Simpson (who I respect) made the same mistake. In his opinion, he basically said the same thing as you said. Yet, both of you didn't research completely. Check the Sheriff Fee Act, Section 15, wherein the Pennsylvania Legislature defined Sheriffs as conservators of the peace or police officers, and specifically allows for fees to be collected under certain circumstances. You never see any of the Courts acknowledge this legislative statute, but I suspect for political reasons.
I will absolutely check it out thanks for that info!
ReplyDeleteanon 7;36 The beauty of competent firearms handing is - It is an equalizer. You sir or madam. may someday be held victim as close to an untimely death as possable and the 'old kook' just may save your ass because he knows what he's doing. Now, as far as myself -if you know Gary Asteck ,Esq., you ask him about what might happen if I was adversarial. Otherwise sign your name please.
ReplyDeletesheriffs in pa have the power to make traffic stops, DUI ARREST, felony arrest, breaches of the peace arrest which u can really say almost any crime is a form of a breach of peace. BUT THE TRUE REASON WHY SHERIFFS IN P.A. ARE UNDER LEOSA IS BECAUSE IT CLEARY STATES STATUTORY ARREST OR APPREHENSION SHERIFFS CAN APPREHEND OR DETAIN ANYONE AND CAN ACT AS FULL POLICE WHILE WORKING WITH A POLICE AGENCY OR IS GIVING JURISDICTION BY THE CHEIF OF POLICE TO HANDLE IT THEMSELVES AS A MUTUAL AID
ReplyDelete