U.S. federal law, under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA), requires a retired or qualified officer possess both a photographic identification issued by his or her agency and an annual firearms qualification certification in order to carry a firearm in all U.S. jurisdictions.1 LEOSA also specifies who is eligible or qualified for these credentials. Though there is flexibility in meeting the firearms qualification requirement, how a former officer meets the photographic identification requirement is quite restrictive. Further, LEOSA does not provide policy or mandate issuance of photo identifications, and where no policy exists, problems can arise. Though many agencies have policies in place, discretionary issuance ultimately lies with the chief of police or agency executive.
LEOSA Definition of “Qualified, Retired”
Those who meet LEOSA criteria are considered qualified retired officers:
(1) separated from service in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer
(2) before such separation 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 had statutory powers of arrest or apprehension
(3)(A) before such separation served as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 10 years or more; or
(B) separated from service with such agency, after completing any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined by such agency;
(4) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the standards for qualification in firearms training for active law enforcement officers, as determined by the former agency of the individual, the State in which the individual resides or, if the State has not established such standards, either a law enforcement agency within the State in which the individual resides or the standards used by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State;
(5)(A) has not been officially found by a qualified medical professional employed by the agency to be unqualified for reasons relating to mental health and as a result of this finding will not be issued the photographic identification as described in subsection (d)(1); or
(B) has not entered into an agreement with the agency from which the individual is separating from service in which that individual acknowledges he or she is not qualified under this section for reasons relating to mental health and for those reasons will not receive or accept the photographic identification as described in subsection (d)(1);
(6) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and
(7) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.2
Providing they meet the above LEOSA criteria, former officers are eligible to receive photographic identification from their former agency. This does NOT include officers who resigned from their agencies in lieu of being terminated for cause or facing criminal charges.
Some officers retire earlier than expected due to work-related medical issues or service-connected disabilities. Many “medically” retired officers are granted credentials regardless of the number of years they served solely because of their medical disability status. Granted, no one anticipates separating from the profession due to a medical disability. This point, however, is raised not to be callous but to point out the unjustness of denying a “qualified” officer, one with “10 or more years of service, in good standing,” photographic credentials because he or she voluntarily separated before meeting the eligibility requirements of a service retirement.
Regrettably, the concept of “voluntarily separated” commonly connotes “left in lieu of termination.” Unfortunately, the officer who honorably served over 20 years but voluntarily separated before qualifying for a service retirement is often misperceived as fitting into this category. However, many officers who separate voluntarily do so for personal reasons—family dependence or emergencies, unexpected personal circumstances, need for change, etc. However, this means that those who, due to unforeseen circumstance, make the decision to leave before they qualify for a service retirement are ultimately being penalized. Both authors have known fellow officers who, after working over 10 years with their agencies, decided to serve the law enforcement profession in a different capacity.3 Some examples involve former officers who pursued an advanced education and licensure to legally, medically, or otherwise assist law enforcement personnel in need. Officers who served their community honorably for a good portion of their lives (but possibly less than 10 years) and continue to do so in a different capacity should be given the opportunity to be granted LEOSA credentials.
Agency Policy Considerations
Findings from a recent survey distributed to the members of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) indicated that most agency respondents had a policy in place regarding the issuance of identification cards to their former officers. However, one-third of the respondents reported that their agencies did not have a policy and identification cards were issued at the discretion of the chief or agency head.4
When an agency has a clearly delineated policy for issuing identification cards to its former officers, it establishes defined guidelines for who, when, and if an officer is entitled to receive one post-separation. Additionally, clearly defined policies may impart certain controls like providing time limits of credentials, conducting periodic background checks, or rescreening officers for eligibility.5
To Issue or Not to Issue LEOSA Credentials?
Not all agencies issue credentials to their former officers. In the aforementioned survey, more than half of the agencies surveyed issued credentials solely to their retired officers while only a minority of the respondents indicated that their agency issued credentials to both retired and qualified officers.6
Reasons for Refusing to Issue LEOSA Photographic ID Cards.
A significant portion of responding agencies reported there were concerns over liability. LEOSA states clearly that retired and separated officers act in the capacity of private citizens. Chiefs or agency heads can further decrease their concerns of vicarious liability by requiring former officers to sign a waiver of liability for all acts related to carrying a concealed firearm.
Beyond agency liability, additional reasons for refusal were identified; e.g., a former officer engaged in criminal behavior or alcohol or drug abuse or his or her mental health was called into question.7 Though these issues are specified as disqualifying per LEOSA text, there is still concern over the inability or difficulty in assessing a former officer’s behavior once he or she has left the agency.
Reasons for Granting LEOSA Photographic ID Cards
It is reasonable and valid that chiefs or agency heads maintain discretionary powers over the issuance of LEOSA credentials to “qualified” former officers.
One must be reminded, however, that some “voluntarily separated” officers choose to leave before their service retirement for unexpected personal circumstance or change, as previously discussed. They are still well respected and hard working, and they gave a good portion of their lives to their chosen profession of law enforcement. Unfortunately, in policies, these officers are often grouped with those officers who left in lieu of termination. Policy makers may fear discriminatory accusations if some “qualified” officers are issued LEOSA credentials while others are not. How can this be remedied?
It is suggested that agencies consider implementing a process in which the “qualified” officer must submit an application to receive LEOSA photographic identification. The officer must justify why he or she qualifies for LEOSA credentials. A review committee could submit their review to the chief or agency head for ultimate approval or denial.
Many deserving “qualified” officers are merely in need of a photographic identification card indicating that they worked for the agency for an aggregate of 10 years. It is recommended that agencies design an identification card solely for this purpose. A disclaimer and or the limitations of the identification could be indicated on the card.
It is suggested that agencies create a similar document that is applicable to “qualified” officers who voluntarily separated from service. Via this document, separated officers acknowledge that they no longer exercise any authority as a law enforcement officer and any action they take is solely that of private citizens.8
In the instance where credentials are issued for a specific time period, perhaps five years, then a follow-up background check to cover the time gap should be required.
To Provide LEOSA Firearms Qualification or Not?
The firearms requirement is defined by 18 U.S.C 946(C):
(4) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the State’s standards for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry firearms.9
Not all agencies provide LEOSA firearms qualification for “qualified” retired officers or their “service” retired officers.10
Reasons for Refusing LEOSA-Required Firearms Qualification
Many agencies have difficulty finding the time or enough certified rangemasters to qualify service retired officers on a regular (e.g., annual) basis. Since there is no legal requirement to provide LEOSA qualification, many agencies do not due to this lack of resources.
Reasons for Providing LEOSA-Required Firearms Qualification
Any agency, organization, or firearms instructor identified by the state training commission may conduct firearms certification for retired or qualified officers.
Thus, the burden of validating an officer rests with the firearms instructor or qualifying agency. Certified firearms instructors are required at a minimum to visually verify an officer’s credentials per federal law; however, individual states may require more thorough checks. An agency’s firearms instructor is the expert in determining if an officer is capable and able to qualify with his or her firearm.
Oftentimes, former officers move out of town or the state and seek firearms certification from their local agencies or organizations, which presents a challenge for validation. Qualifying firearms instructors or agencies can check an officer’s status with his or her state’s law enforcement training commission or the National Decertification Index (NDI). The NDI is a database that contains names of officers decertified by their states POST commissions in at least 43 U.S. states. The NDI is expanding to include officers from federal agencies as well.11
In Conclusion
LEOSA specifies—not mandates—who is eligible for the carrying of concealed firearms in terms of qualified, retired law enforcement officers. Though there is flexibility in meeting the firearms qualification requirement, how a former officer meets the photographic identification requirement is quite restrictive.
The intent of LEOSA is to enhance the safety of current or former officers by allowing them to carry a concealed firearm in multiple jurisdictions.
Not all former officers should be granted LEOSA credentials. A chief or agency head should always have discretion in deciding to grant or refuse issuance of identification cards for “qualified” retired officers, and that authority should be stipulated in an agency policy. But, by refusing ALL otherwise “qualified” officers, a LEOSA-required identification credential, the agency is denying well-deserved former officers the privileges to carry a concealed firearm in many places. The argument might be made that the officer could obtain a concealed weapons permit like any other citizen. However, no ordinary citizen lives with the personal experiences and history of a former police officer. Criminals and parolees have been known to target officers who have arrested or help incarcerate them, regardless of the officer’s employment status. The intent of LEOSA is to enhance the safety of current or former officers by allowing them to carry a concealed firearm in multiple jurisdictions. By denying an officer a photographic identification card, an agency head is effectively denying the officer the right to qualify for the purpose of carrying a concealed firearm. In doing so, is the agency doing a disservice to the officer and his or her family, as well as the safety of the public?
It is inarguable that providing law enforcement services today is challenging. Personnel shortages, liability concerns, unrealistic expectations, enforcement limitations, and negative media perceptions only make the law enforcement professional’s job more difficult. Having additionally trained law enforcement–supporting individuals in the community may actually serve as a force multiplier. Qualified and retired officers can act with discretion when necessary. Former police officers bring a distinct level of experience, knowledge, and skill with them in their new capacity as civilian community members.
It makes good sense to have a policy in place governing the process of issuance, as well as refusal, of LEOSA-required photo identification cards to “qualified” officers. It not only complements the applicable state’s laws but falls in line with the intent of federal law. After all, a photo identification card is a legal document issued by one’s agency, not just a farewell gift.
By issuing photographic identification cards to those officers who spent a good portion of their lives serving and protecting the public at the expense of their own safety, agencies would be not only thanking the officer for his or her service but better protecting the public as well. Isn’t it wiser to enhance public safety by having more firearms-trained members in the community than to not provide such credentials?
Notes:
1 Carrying of Concealed Firearms by Qualified Retired Law Enforcement, 18 U.S.C. § 926C.
3Dan Phillips (chair, LEOSA, Washington State Fraternal Order of Police) interview by Sandra Terhune-Bickler, October 4, 2019.
4Dan Phillips, LEOSA Retired-Qualified Officer Credentials Questionnaire, October 21, 2019.
5Phillips, LEOSA Retired-Qualified Officer Credentials Questionnaire.
6Phillips, LEOSA Retired-Qualified Officer Credentials Questionnaire.
7Phillips, LEOSA Retired-Qualified Officer Credentials Questionnaire.
8See, for example, Elk Grove, California, Police Department, ”Retiree Concealed Firearms,” Policy 220, Elk Grove PD Policy Manual, January 2020.
10Phillips, interview, October 4, 2019.
11Roger Goldman, “NDI: Tracking Interstate Movement of Decertified Police Officers,” Police Chief Online, September 12, 2018; International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training, “National Decertification Index (NDI).”
Please cite as
Dan Phillips and Sandra Terhune-Bickler, “Qualified Retired Officer Firearm Credentials: Issues to Consider Before Granting or Denying a LEOSA Qualification,” Police Chief Online, October 14, 2020.
