- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
FRANKLIN v. UNITED STATES
- McKenzie v. United States, 158 A.2d 912 (D.C.Mun.Ct.App. 1960). See United States v. Dorsey, 146 U.S.App.D.C. 28, 30-31, 449 F.2d 1104, 1106-1107 (1971); Singleton v. United States, 225 A.2d 315 (D.C.C.A. 1966); Klopfer v. District of Columbia, 25 App.D.C. 41 (1905).
Sec. 9. Nothing in this chapter contained shall prevent a special policeman appointed under the provisions of Section 4-115, D.C. Code of 1940, from exercising his authority as a special policeman outside of the property or area he is appointed to protect when in fresh pursuit of a felon or misdemeanant from or immediately adjacent to the property or area to protect which he is commissioned. Except as herein provided, the exercise of authority as a special policeman, or the carrying or use of firearms, other dangerous weapons, or emblems of authority, shall be cause for immediate revocation of the commission of such special policeman, in addition to the penalties of such laws of the United States or the District of Columbia as may be violated by his actions.
- If wider authority for special policemen to carry guns is desired, it will have to be obtained by amendment to the police regulations or by congressional enactment.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was convicted of carrying a pistol contrary to D.C. Code § 22-3204. He was a special policeman at the time of his arrest. He now contends that in such capacity he was within the "policemen or other law enforcement officers" exception to said statute. We hold to the contrary.
D.C. Code § 22-3204 provides:
D.C. Code § 22-3205 provides:
His appointment as a special policeman is made under D.C. Code § 4-115 which restricts his authority and makes his activities subject to such general regulations as the Commissioners may prescribe. One of these regulations restricts his right to carry firearms as follows:
D.C. Code § 4-115 provides:
Sec. 8. Firearms or other dangerous weapons carried by a special policeman on the premises for which he holds a commission must be left on said premises when such special policeman is not actually on duty. Firearms or other dangerous weapons carried by special policemen whose commissions extend to more than one person's or corporation's property, may be carried only when such special policeman is on actual duty in the area thereof or while traveling, without deviation, immediately before and immediately after the period of actual duty, between such area and the residence of such special policeman.
Manual containing Rules and Regulations of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, approved by the Commissioners August 19, 1948, effective November 19, 1948, ch. XXXII § 8.
The next regulation also is pertinent to our inquiry:
Sec. 9. Nothing in this chapter contained shall prevent a special policeman appointed under the provisions of Section 4-115, D.C. Code of 1940, from exercising his authority as a special policeman outside of the property or area he is appointed to protect when in fresh pursuit of a felon or misdemeanant from or immediately adjacent to the property or area to protect which he is commissioned. Except as herein provided, the exercise of authority as a special policeman, or the carrying or use of firearms, other dangerous weapons, or emblems of authority, shall be cause for immediate revocation of the commission of such special policeman, in addition to the penalties of such laws of the United States or the District of Columbia as may be violated by his actions.
Metropolitan Police Rules and Regulations, supra, § 9. The provisions of these regulations clearly recognize that a special policeman is not empowered to exercise his authority outside the property or area he is appointed to protect, or to carry weapons away from such area with certain exceptions. The factual circumstances here are not even close to being within those limited exceptions. While appellant was in uniform, he was miles away from the area designated for his work, he was hours away from the time he was scheduled to report, and the place where he was arrested was miles away from a direct route between his home and his place of work. Hence we conclude that at the time and place he was arrested he was not considered as a policeman or other law enforcement officer.
McKenzie v. United States, 158 A.2d 912 (D.C.Mun.Ct.App. 1960). See United States v. Dorsey, 146 U.S.App.D.C. 28, 30-31, 449 F.2d 1104, 1106-1107 (1971); Singleton v. United States, 225 A.2d 315 (D.C.C.A. 1966); Klopfer v. District of Columbia, 25 App.D.C. 41 (1905).
If wider authority for special policemen to carry guns is desired, it will have to be obtained by amendment to the police regulations or by congressional enactment.
Affirmed.
Alert