I believe CAP members ARE covered by the Public Safety Officers Benefit Act

[RiverAux]

Also, Rescue Squad, to me at least, plainly refers to ambulance units or heavy rescue (car accident) units.

How do you square this with the law's definition (previously cited) of rescue activity as searching for lost and missing people?  Isn't that what we do?

Ambulance squads don't generally go out looking for lost people and have no training in that area to speak of except for limited situations regarding structural fire or collapse situations.  Take your average city ambulance driver and ask him to look for a lost hiker and see what he can do. 

CAP on the other hand is trained to look for lost people from the air and on the ground. 

I think you're failing to understand how the clauses of this law are put together so that providing emergency medical care and providing rescue services are separate ways to get covered and that you don't have to provide both.

Now, I will say that it is an open question whether Congress meant to cover rural search and rescue teams such as a county sheriff might sponsor or CAP under this law.  They may or may not have meant to, but the wording of the law would seem to cover these folks and us (in certain situations). 

If they wanted to exclude most rural SAR teams (and CAP) all it would take is changing one "or" to "and".  However, even then some SAR teams do provide significant emergency medical care that could qualify them even in those situations.   

[RRLE]

Howevever, I don't know how to research the legislative history to see if that could be a problem. 

You don't really need to investigate the legistlative history - you already have the answer. A court would take notice that Congress considered an amendment to the act to add CAP. That provides evidence that CAP was not covered nor intended to be covered by the original act. Then by rejecting the amendment the court could and probably would infer that Congress did not intend CAP to be covered.

Also be careful trying to justify a position with dictionary definitions. The Supreme Court has ruled on word meaning going back to the late 1800s. The doctrine came out of customs cases since what a thing 'is' determines its tariff and duty. For example, in Nix v. Hedden 149 U.S. 304 (1893) the Supremes had to decide if a tomatoe was a fruit or a vegetable. The former position was taken by the Customs Bureau and cited both dictionaries and scientific evidence that tomatoes are fruits and therefore subject to a tariff. The latter position was taken by the importer since, at the time vegetables were not tariffed. The importer cited the common ordinary meaning and use of the term. The Supremes laid out a very common sense approach to the problem. If Congress defined a word, then that definition was controlling. In this case Congress had not defined either fruit or vegetable. The next 'authority' so  sayeth the court would be any definition used in the trade. There was evidence that the vegetable trade included tomatoes but the fruit trade did not. And the next controlling factor was the common ordinary use of the term and product. Dictionary definitions can be used as evidence to support any of the 3 situations but in and of themselves they are not controlling. In this case the court held (pretty much on its own opinion) that tomatoes were vegetables by both common understanding and use.

Similiar logic was applied in Sonn v. Magone, 159 U.S. 417 (1895),  which also cited Nix, to determine that beans were also vegetables and not fruits or seeds. There are at least a dozen more cases like this from the late 1800s to the early 1900s.

So what does this has to do with CAP and the issue at hand. The original attempt at proof via dictionary is almost useless in Court.

The Court would look for evidence that CAP is defined in the statute or included within the statute as falling within one of the occcupations covered. We know it is not. It would then look for evidence that the trade, occupation or profession, in this case, public safety, SAR and LE considers CAP as falling within the group. Given the evidence that other occupations that you would expect to be covered are not - CAP probably loses here as well. Then the Court might look for evidence that the general public thinks that CAP falls within the group - and as we know the general public knows very little about CAP. And that pales in comparision to the fact that as noted - Congress did not include CAP in the original legislation and rejected an amendment to add CAP.

I would chalk this one up to a good try that failed to hit the mark.

[RiverAux]

A court would take notice that Congress considered an amendment to the act to add CAP. That provides evidence that CAP was not covered nor intended to be covered by the original act. Then by rejecting the amendment the court could and probably would infer that Congress did not intend CAP to be covered.

I don't think you can say that having a bill introduced that was never voted on by anyone in Congress can be said to be a precedent.  You could view it either as a clarification of existing law or as adding an entirely new category of people (CAP) to the coverage.  If Congress as a whole had explicitly voted down this proposal, I would agree with you, but they didn't. 

Also be careful trying to justify a position with dictionary definitions.

Who referred to a dictionary?  I didn't.  Every single definition I cited is from the Public Safety Officers Benefit Act itself and are the definitions that Congress chose to use for the interpretation of this act. 

[RRLE]

I don't think you can say that having a bill introduced that was never voted on by anyone in Congress can be said to be a precedent.

The Surpemes regularly look at bill introductions and their history as part of the overall legislative history and legistlative intent. And this issue has a bigger and losing history then you may be aware of. The Court would definitely consider the following as evidence that CAP was not included in the original bill and that Congress has no intention of adding them.

107th CONGRESS 2d Session (2002)

H. R. 3681 To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to make volunteer members of the Civil Air Patrol eligible for Public Safety Officer death benefits. 27 co-sponsors. Dies in sub-committee.

108th CONGRESS 1st Session (2003)

S. 693 To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to make volunteer members of the Civil Air Patrol eligible for Public Safety Officer death benefits. 3 co-sponsors and dies in committee.

108th CONGRESS 1st Session

H. R. 732 To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to make volunteer members of the Civil Air Patrol eligible for Public Safety Officer death benefits. Companion bill to the Senate bill. 36 co-sponsors. Dies in committee.

109th CONGRESS (2005) 1st Session

S. 649 To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to make volunteer members of the Civil Air Patrol eligible for Public Safety Officer death benefits. 2 co-sponsors. Dies in committee.

109th CONGRESS 1st Session

H. R. 1393 To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to make volunteer members of the Civil Air Patrol eligible for Public Safety Officer death benefits. Companion to the Senate bill. 26 co-sponsors. Dies in committee.

[JayT]

Also, Rescue Squad, to me at least, plainly refers to ambulance units or heavy rescue (car accident) units.

How do you square this with the law's definition (previously cited) of rescue activity as searching for lost and missing people?  Isn't that what we do?

Ambulance squads don't generally go out looking for lost people and have no training in that area to speak of except for limited situations regarding structural fire or collapse situations.  Take your average city ambulance driver and ask him to look for a lost hiker and see what he can do. 

CAP on the other hand is trained to look for lost people from the air and on the ground. 

I think you're failing to understand how the clauses of this law are put together so that providing emergency medical care and providing rescue services are separate ways to get covered and that you don't have to provide both.

Now, I will say that it is an open question whether Congress meant to cover rural search and rescue teams such as a county sheriff might sponsor or CAP under this law.  They may or may not have meant to, but the wording of the law would seem to cover these folks and us (in certain situations). 

If they wanted to exclude most rural SAR teams (and CAP) all it would take is changing one "or" to "and".  However, even then some SAR teams do provide significant emergency medical care that could qualify them even in those situations.   

Well, speaking as your average "City ambulance driver" (really love that term by the way, I'm gonna change the patch on my shoulder to say it.)

Yes, some SAR Teams do provide significant medial care. Teams who are formally trained in wilderness medical care, who has insurance to cover the use of said training, and are equiped to provide a level of care. Does that sound like CAP?

I think what you're failing to do is seperate what CAP does by defination of its regulations (searching and providing limisted assistance for recovery and supervision of lost personnal and aircraft) with the world "rescue." In this context, rescue means the FF/EMS defination.

If you want some examples of FF\EMS involvment with "rescue," look up the 1986 plane crash on Northern Long Island, and tell me who was primary for both search and rescue.

[N Harmon]

The Court would definitely consider the following as evidence that CAP was not included in the original bill and that Congress has no intention of adding them.

That doesn't make sense. The reasoning for CAP not being included in the original bill could be because the congress felt the language already clearly included the CAP. Or perhaps they felt that including any specific agency would serve to exclude others so none were named specifically.

I have a hard time believing the court would seriously consider the reasoning for the congress NOT to do something as defining the reason for something they did do. Granted, stranger things have happened, but this seems like a stretch.

This would be relevant to this discussion:

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=2202.msg38680#msg38680

[RiverAux]

with the world "rescue." In this context, rescue means the FF/EMS defination.

Actually, as I've cited their definition of rescue activity several times already it goes beyond the meaning of SAR typically used in the FF/EMS community and also specifically talks about search being separate from providing medical care.

Teams who are formally trained in wilderness medical care, who has insurance to cover the use of said training, and are equiped to provide a level of care. Does that sound like CAP?

And yet again I'll say that the act separates SAR from medical care and we clearly fit the SAR side of the equation. 

The reasoning for CAP not being included in the original bill could be because the congress felt the language already clearly included the CAP. Or perhaps they felt that including any specific agency would serve to exclude others so none were named specifically.

Exactly.  Unless there is some additional legislative history available for any of those previous attempts, you can't tell exactly what the issue was or why it never went further. 

I've some experience in writing regulations and have seen numerous occasions where a new proposal never went anywhere because it was felt it was redundant with an existing regulation.

[RRLE]

Going back to the first post:

So, we're serving the feds in an official capacity without compensation, so would we fall under the rescue squad definition?

Here is the definition of the squad and I believe we fall under "officially recognized"
....

Does CAP do what a rescue squad does?  Well, we are trained in rescue activity and the AF gives us the authority to carry this out in accordance with the MOUs they have with the various state.

...

I know some people will say we rarely actually rescue anyone, but that is irrelevant.  Here is the definition of rescue activity they use:
...
So, we very clearly provide services that fall in that definition.  Please note that there are a lot of "or"'s in this code so don't try to say that because we don't provide medical services we wouldn't be covered.  So, I know we have a lawyer or two here.  Where am I wrong?

Did you go to the DOJ Bureau of Justice Affairs Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) Program ? They administer the PSOB.

Your claim since the first post rests on CAP being some sort of rescue squad by your interpretation of that phrase. Should a CAP member try and collect under that defintion they would need to get Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program Documentation Instructions for Emergency Rescue Squads/Ambulance Departments signed.

This is the text of that document (bolding in original).

The Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) Act requires that a volunteer rescue squad/ ambulance department be organized, formed or chartered by a unit of government to act on its behalf in providing rescue squad and/or ambulance services to the general public. To establish the eligibility of your department under the PSOB Act, please provide the following documentation:
A. If the Volunteer Rescue Squad/Ambulance Department is a nonprofit/chartered corporation:
1. A statement, signed by an elected official such as a mayor, county commissioner, etc. and also notarized, which states:
"The (insert name of the department) is legally organized and is authorized by the (insert name of government agency) to act on its behalf by providing emergency rescue squad/ambulance services, as its primary function, to the community of (insert name of jurisdiction)."
2. A certified copy of the charter or minutes of the government agency's meeting establishing the rescue squad/ambulance department as that government agency's rescue squad/ambulance department.
B. If the rescue squad/ambulance department is a unit of government which utilizes volunteers:
1. A statement, signed by an elected official and also notarized, which states:
[/b]"The (insert name of department) is a unit of (insert level of government), government."[/b]

CAP is not the designated agency for rescue for any locality. No mayor, county commissioner, etc. is going to sign that document for a CAP member or their heirs. Also "providing emergency rescue squad/ambulance services, as its primary function" is not the prime mission of CAP. CAP has several missions. ES is one of them but ES is not "providing emergency rescue squad/ambulance services, as its primary function" as is clearly meant by the instructions.

Trying to collect under this act could subject a CAPer or their familty to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 287 False, fictitious or fraudulent claims.

[aveighter]

Of course, this could just be because our last president started a war in a foreign country which caused us to squander trillions which could be spent on providing insurance to CAPers.

Now, here from young Joseph (our freshly minted ambulance driver) is a sterling emanation of intellectual acumen.

I'm sure a posting to the Department of Neurosurgery as Chief Resident is just around the corner!

[Gunner C]

Of course, this could just be because our last president started a war in a foreign country which caused us to squander trillions which could be spent on providing insurance to CAPers.

Now, here from young Joseph (our freshly minted ambulance driver) is a sterling emanation of intellectual acumen.

I'm sure a posting to the Department of Neurosurgery as Chief Resident is just around the corner!

So much for my study of international affairs and military doctrine.  I yield to the EMT-B.

[RiverAux]

RRLE, under the scenario I propose, CAP would be covered as an instrumentality of the federal government, which it is when serving on Air Force Assigned Missions and would not be acting as an corporation.  Therefore, the second statement is what would apply

B. If the rescue squad/ambulance department is a unit of government which utilizes volunteers:
1. A statement, signed by an elected official and also notarized, which states:
"The (insert name of department) is a unit of (insert level of government), government."

In this case, it is the Air Force which would be certified as a unit of government and for which CAP volunteers are being utilized and it matters not that SAR isn't our primary purpose. 

I'm a little disappointed that the only person seriously attempting their own research on this issue isn't a CAP member, though I'm not surprised knowing him that he is doing so. 

I suppose what might be helpful to my case is if there is a volunteer wilderness SAR team associated with a local government out there that is also making the claim that their members would be covered by PSOB Act or one that has actually successfully made such a claim in the past.  That would at least settle whether or not they mean SAR as they have defined it or the more limited type of SAR done by ambulance teams. 

[JayT]

Of course, this could just be because our last president started a war in a foreign country which caused us to squander trillions which could be spent on providing insurance to CAPers.

Now, here from young Joseph (our freshly minted ambulance driver) is a sterling emanation of intellectual acumen.

I'm sure a posting to the Department of Neurosurgery as Chief Resident is just around the corner!

First off, don't do that. You want to mock me, feel free to email me and we can discuss it on more personnal terms.

Second off, I was poking fun at another post concerning President Obama in a seemly non sequitur manner.

See, I can use big fancy latin terms to try to impress people I think are less intelligent then me also.

[RiverAux]

It seems I'm not the only one that thinks that this Act applies to wilderness SAR teams.  A 2001 newsletter put out by the same folks who have produced a lot of wilderness SAR manuals also makes that claim:  http://www.dbs-sar.com/Newsletter/1025.htm#Public%20Safety%20Officers%20Death%20Benefit

Apparently it was successfully used for a SAR team member. 

[wingnut55]

The Federal guidelines the wing Commander, NHQ and USAF all certify in writing should a CAP member be killed in the line of duty.

I really think the issue concerning state programs is up to the state.


I get paid by the County on CAP missions, it was approved by HR years ago (15 days per year). You know a few days ago one of our 72 year old members said: I am going to report you to the IRS for fraud???

What a complete IDIOT, the biggest problem with CAP is the FOG of misinformation being spread by members who have never been Chased by an F-16, flown Security for the Air Force during a Space Shuttle Landing, Flown the Border with Home Land Security, Worked with the DEA and US Customs, 1st Air Force, NORAD. and the MEN IN BLACK. I have over 300 hours of missions in 3 years!!

having a negative opinion about CAP is OK, But I have decided that unless you are not willing to help solve the problem; Than just bite it, because CAP has a big mission, many people depend on us. More importantly it sucks the blood out of the members moral.  As for me I will try to tone down the rhetoric and focus on the positive.

I have had enough of CAP members doing nothing but B%&*#*@!

[Spike]

I get paid by the County on CAP missions, it was approved by HR years ago (15 days per year). You know a few days ago one of our 72 year old members said: I am going to report you to the IRS for fraud???

If I understand what you wrote correctly, you actually get paid for your time in CAP performing Volunteer Missions??

If so, you are not a volunteer anymore.  You are basically a paid employee.  You are taking tax dollars where tax dollars should not be taken.  In my opinion that is almost like stealing.   

[RRLE]

Apparently it was successfully used for a SAR team member.

Once again you attempt to use a case that is NOT analogous to CAP. This is from the document you cite. I added the bolding.

First, make sure your team is chartered or recognized by a local government.  When a fellow team member was killed on a search our team had a memorandum of understanding with the State but not the local government.  We were fortunate in that the local government passed a retroactive resolution.

So the SAR unit you look for as proof of your assertion has documnetation that they are the local rescue squad. CAP doesn't have that and could not provide that.

[N Harmon]

having a negative opinion about CAP is OK, But I have decided that unless you are not willing to help solve the problem; Than just bite it, because CAP has a big mission, many people depend on us. More importantly it sucks the blood out of the members moral.  As for me I will try to tone down the rhetoric and focus on the positive.

I have had enough of CAP members doing nothing but B%&*#*@!

+1  :clap:  :clap:  :clap:

I too am sick of the destructive criticism. If you want to criticise CAP's short comings, then be my guest. Just be prepared to get the heck out of the way when we go to fix them.

[RiverAux]

Apparently it was successfully used for a SAR team member.

Once again you attempt to use a case that is NOT analogous to CAP. This is from the document you cite. I added the bolding.

First, make sure your team is chartered or recognized by a local government.  When a fellow team member was killed on a search our team had a memorandum of understanding with the State but not the local government.  We were fortunate in that the local government passed a retroactive resolution.

So the SAR unit you look for as proof of your assertion has documnetation that they are the local rescue squad. CAP doesn't have that and could not provide that.

My point was that a wilderness SAR team was being covered by the act rather than some sort of ambulance crew.   That is the part relevant to CAP not the specific relationship of that team to a public agency.   

[JohnKachenmeister]

The Federal guidelines the wing Commander, NHQ and USAF all certify in writing should a CAP member be killed in the line of duty.

I really think the issue concerning state programs is up to the state.


I get paid by the County on CAP missions, it was approved by HR years ago (15 days per year). You know a few days ago one of our 72 year old members said: I am going to report you to the IRS for fraud???

What a complete IDIOT, the biggest problem with CAP is the FOG of misinformation being spread by members who have never been Chased by an F-16, flown Security for the Air Force during a Space Shuttle Landing, Flown the Border with Home Land Security, Worked with the DEA and US Customs, 1st Air Force, NORAD. and the MEN IN BLACK. I have over 300 hours of missions in 3 years!!

having a negative opinion about CAP is OK, But I have decided that unless you are not willing to help solve the problem; Than just bite it, because CAP has a big mission, many people depend on us. More importantly it sucks the blood out of the members moral.  As for me I will try to tone down the rhetoric and focus on the positive.

I have had enough of CAP members doing nothing but B%&*#*@!

Dang it, Wingnut... I take back some of the things I said about you!!!!   :clap:

CAP is an aviation legend.  We do things that regular flight instructors tell their students NOT to do... engage in maneuvering flight at low airspeed and low altitude... and yes, we do it "That others might live."  We save way more lives through our cadet program than through our ES program, and the Air Force loves having us as its auxiliary.

I personally believe that River Aux is spot on in his legal analysis.  We DO conduct search missions, and search missions are defined as "Rescue Squad activity" in the PSOB.  The fact that some Adidas-wearing bearded camping freaks do it different from us is not material to the issue.

Our biggest problem is the self-defeating attitude of some of the members (and some of the members at NHQ).  We are a serious force muliplier and can be a bigger and better force multiplier if some of our members would quit whining about what THEY cannot do and by extension implying that none of us can do these things.

[RRLE]

That is the part relevant to CAP not the specific relationship of that team to a public agency.   

Of course you want to ignore the relationship test - it is one of the two key factors to getting under the PSOB. Without the signature of a publicly elected officer any application is a non-starter. CAP and CAP members cannot get that signature.

The other key factor is that SAR, Rescue - call it what you will - must be the primary activity of the organization. Rescue or SAR is only a part of what CAP does and not the primary activity.

CAP does not satisfy eithr of the two key factors to be covered.