There is a new revision to 900-3. It has some interesting weasel words added to the text which might allow some more missions in the future...
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R900_003_506DC1944BAC9.pdf
There's nothing "passive" about "security", either you provide it or you don't.
What caught my attention was this
New version
QuoteCAP assistance to law enforcement agencies which may lead to criminal prosecution is generally restricted to patrol, reconnaissance, communications relay, and reporting only. Detection and monitoring authority can be authorized on some Air Force Assigned Missions, normally at the request of Joint Task Force North. Requests for such assistance, unless of an emergency nature, must be approved in advance by the wing and region commanders and coordinated with NHQ/DO via the CAP National Operations Center. All CAP flights will be in accordance with CAPR 60-1, CAP Flight Management.
Old Version
QuoteCAP assistance to law enforcement agencies which may lead to criminal prosecution is restricted to patrol, surveillance, and reporting only. Requests for such assistance, unless of an emergency nature, must be approved in advance by the Wing and Region Com-manders and coordinated with National Head-quarters/DO. All CAP flights will be in accordance with CAPR 60-1.
The word "generally" opens up a whole crate of worms. I'm also curious what the NHQ definition difference is between patrol and recon.
The way it was explained to me.
Recon is looking at/for a specific person, place or thing. "go here and find the white van".
Patrol and surveillance is more....."go here and report any suspicious activity".
It is hair splitting I know...but that WAS they operated under Posse Comutatas.
I think the 900-1 will get us a lot more missions to local LE and national LE agencies.
It sounds like the phraseology is designed to further enlarge our "scope of practice" while skating the technicalities of the Posse Comitatus Act. ( Which I will remind many here again has never once been prosecuted, and for which Congress has carved out dozens of exemptions) A more cynical man might think that CAP is just so warm and fuzzy and benevolent, and estrogen poisoned, that we should never-ever help the police, who many of our members think are the bad guys. If we want an exemption from the PCA, all we need to do is ask Congress-the Federal Government has a long history of using the National Guard and others to do "law enforcement", so why shouldn't we?
Its important to distinguish between the Posse Comitatus Act from the Posse Comitatus. The Posse Comitatus Act was designed to prevent Federal Troops from being used to enforce ordinary "regular" civilian laws. Posse Comitatus is the Common Law power of the Sheriff ( Or Law enforcement) to summon the citizenry to assist Law enforcement in suppressing riots, insurrection, Aid in arrest, or Jump on your horse and go hunt outlaws.
900-3 would seem to exempt us from Posse Comitatus, under the inference that as part of the " Military Service", we cannot be lawfully deputized without an executive order or act of Congress. There is no exemption for members of CAP to refuse the lawful request of a Law Enforcement Officer for aid in Law ( just in 900-3, which has as much legal weight as the J.C. Penney's Catalog) and in fact in California and other States, to refuse to do so, is a criminal offense.
It is a well known fact that we fly airplanes at the direction of Law Enforcement, and nearly invariably in Counter-Drug efforts. To deny that we are "Police Agents" when acting in that capacity is just sophistry. This regulation has always had the stench of lies about it, and changing a few adverbs and making it even more ambiguous does not make it better. Make us Kosher; Congress and the President could do it in an afternoon. Let me also point out that CAP regulations do not strip us of our rights to make private person arrests, vote, or serve on Juries.
Major Lord
Quote from: Eclipse on June 21, 2011, 04:16:47 PM
There's nothing "passive" about "security", either you provide it or you don't.
Sure there is.
A fence is passive security.
In the case of crash site security....a yellow tape with someone in uniform is passive security. They see someone cross the tape...they yell "hey you cross the tape" and then call the LEO's if the individual does not comply.
Easy Pleasy.
Sounds to me that the expansion of possible missions wouldn't be all that great since it limits that to AF-assigned missions. They're not going to go too far outside the CD wheelhouse.
If anything, this modified language might actually cut out some law enforcement related work that has gone on at the request of local and state agencies as corporate missions.
I don't know....I think it was NORTHCOM that asked for the changes.......I know that DHS would like to use us for more LE type of missions.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 21, 2011, 09:06:59 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on June 21, 2011, 04:16:47 PM
There's nothing "passive" about "security", either you provide it or you don't.
Sure there is.
A fence is passive security.
In the case of crash site security....a yellow tape with someone in uniform is passive security. They see someone cross the tape...they yell "hey you cross the tape" and then call the LEO's if the individual does not comply.
Easy Pleasy.
That's my point, both the fence and the tape provide more security than we're allowed to.
We provide Observation (and report), and the reg should have stayed reflecting that.
Just as with the word "paintball", some members will see "security" and forget the rest of the regs.
But when there is not fence.....and we have the tape......then we could provide security.
I don't know why you are denigrating this GT function.
It's not like we do it a lot.....but it is still a useful fuction that we can easily do if called.
I've always been a little uncomfortable with the "crash site security" task. We all know that most of the time this isn't really a big deal and its not like hordes of armed looters are going to be rushing the plane. But, I would like to see some different terminology that might emphasize what we're there to do.
Crash site maintenance?
Crash site observation?
I don't know how else to say it.
Security is security....no different then many mall cops.
The get to wear nifty uniforms....but have no more authority to arrest or detain anyone then your average citizen.
For crash site security....we are simply a cheap visibility trick. People will cross a "do not cross/Police Line/Danger/Mine Field/Monsters From the Dungeon Dimension" line at the drop of a hat. But you stick a 12 year old in a uniform with a radio some where visible....and the line crossers drop like you would not believe.
Last year at the Nellis Air Show....Mrs Biden (yes the Vice President's wife) was in attendance....the base cops used us to help augment them in establishing the cordon.....Good easy work....high profile....and we got lots of Kudos.
QuoteThere is no exemption for members of CAP to refuse the lawful request of a Law Enforcement Officer for aid in Law ( just in 900-3, which has as much legal weight as the J.C. Penney's Catalog) and in fact in California and other States, to refuse to do so, is a criminal offense.
I think your statement needs clarification. At least in Florida, the request for assistance that cannot be refused without penalty has to be made by the Sheriff of the county. No other LE officer can command a citizen to assist. I believe you will find that is the same in most other states.
In common law, Posse Comitatus (or power of the county) is a power of the sheriff, who is a member of the judiciary not the executive branch. Most LEOs are members of the executive branch.
Florida Statutes 30.15
QuotePowers, duties, and obligations.—
(1) Sheriffs, in their respective counties, in person or by deputy, shall:
(h) Have authority to raise the power of the county and command any person to assist them, when necessary, in the execution of the duties of their office; and, whoever, not being physically incompetent, refuses or neglects to render such assistance, shall be punished by imprisonment in jail not exceeding 1 year, or by fine not exceeding $500.
I have no idea what the Florida Statutes say, but I am not aware of any jurisdiction that does not include police ( as opposed to "THE" Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff) to have the same common law right to summon aid under the doctrine of Posse Commitatus. California's statute clearly indicates that not only the Sheriff, but Police and Judges can invoke the law when required:
150. Every able-bodied person above 18 years of age who neglects or
refuses to join the posse comitatus or power of the county, by
neglecting or refusing to aid and assist in taking or arresting any
person against whom there may be issued any process, or by neglecting
to aid and assist in retaking any person who, after being arrested
or confined, may have escaped from arrest or imprisonment, or by
neglecting or refusing to aid and assist in preventing any breach of
the peace, or the commission of any criminal offense, being thereto
lawfully required by any uniformed peace officer, or by any peace
officer described in Section 830.1, subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d),
(e), or (f) of Section 830.2, or subdivision (a) of Section 830.33,
who identifies himself or herself with a badge or identification card
issued by the officer's employing agency, or by any judge, is
punishable by a fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50) nor more
than one thousand dollars ($1,000).
There are Federal Laws that mirror this statute as well.
Major Lord
Not sure what any of that has to do with CAP. The second that someone with the authority to "draft" CAP members into the posse does so, they're no longer on a CAP mission and no CAP regulations are going to apply. If that cop hands you a gun and says to start shooting bad guys, you're not doing it as a CAP member.
Of course, this is just as likely as the Governor of the state drafting CAP members into the state militia and ordering you to attack the next state over. Sure, it could happen but the likelihood is so low that to talk about it here is just silly. Are we going to start talking about when CAP is going to start getting surplus F-16s next?
Quote from: RiverAux on June 22, 2011, 02:40:10 AM
...
Of course, this is just as likely as the Governor of the state drafting CAP members into the state militia and ordering you to attack the next state over. Sure, it could happen but the likelihood is so low that to talk about it here is just silly. Are we going to start talking about when CAP is going to start getting surplus F-16s next?
That would be fine. Most of my adjoining states are lame.
Maryland lame? Ohio lame? :o
Quote from: RiverAux on June 22, 2011, 02:40:10 AM
Are we going to start talking about when CAP is going to start getting surplus F-16s next?
I'd have no problem with that! :D
When CAP gets those F-16's what would the authorized uniform be? Shorts authorized?
Quote from: BillB on June 22, 2011, 11:18:59 AM
When CAP gets those F-16's what would the authorized uniform be? Shorts authorized?
Red NOMEX >:D.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on June 22, 2011, 11:48:39 AM
Quote from: BillB on June 22, 2011, 11:18:59 AM
When CAP gets those F-16's what would the authorized uniform be? Shorts authorized?
Red NOMEX >:D .
So...Red Nomex Shorts?