Constitutional Law

Worker's Compensation decision regarding officer

If I were the officer, I'd be hacked at the City of Tucson. Here's the court opinion, which rejected the City's position.

Basically, an off-duty officer is riding his mountain bike, with friends in a rural area, at night, when he hears gunshots and suggests they leave. As they are doing so, the shooters arrive and open fire on them. (Apparently they were unarmed: not at all recommended in the desert). He takes cover and makes plans, but notices one of his friends has frozen and not taken cover. In the course of pushing him down he is shot and seriously injured. They memorize the license plate of a vehicle they encounter and suspect, and report it.

He applies for Worker's Comp, and the City fights the claim, arguing he was off-duty, and at the moment he was hit was trying to protect his friend, rather than apprehend the shooters. The City wins in front of an Admin Law Judge (who had the nerve to find that his conduct in protecting his friend "fell below the standard of care" for an officer), but the court reverses him, pointing out that Departmental policy is that an off-duty officer still has LEO responsibilities, including protecting the public.

Full post as published by Of Arms and the Law on April 01, 2008 (boomark / email).