Federal LEO charged with battery

[the_momma]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA
I am a Federal LEO and am being falsley accused of battery (p.c. 242) by my sister. She had me arrested via a citizens arrest. The incident was that we passed each other and bumped shoulders. She is making a mountain out of a mole hill. There has been an on-going family dispute between my sister versus me and my parents and she is out for revenge. We have each gotten a Domestic violence T.R.O. against one another as well. I have had my badge and gun confiscated by my supervisor until the battery charge is resolved next month. There were no witnesses except for my young nephew. I was taken to jail as well and also had her arrested via citizens arrest. I do not have a lot of cash to devote to this, but will find it if I need a lawyer as my career is on the line here (had just started my new job the next day!!) What are the chances the battery charges will stick? Should I hire an attorney for both the battery and the restraining order issue? How do I find a lawyer in my area that represents Law enforcement?

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by the_momma

The incident was that we passed each other and bumped shoulders.

If the impact was intentional, then it technically meets the definition opf battery.

I was taken to jail as well and also had her arrested via citizens arrest.

You and your sister need to avoid each other entirely. It sounds like this history between you two has been kinda childish.

What are the chances the battery charges will stick? Should I hire an attorney for both the battery and the restraining order issue? How do I find a lawyer in my area that represents Law enforcement?

You can check with any union representative at your office and see whether anyone there can recommend a local attorney. Lacking that, you might want to fish the PORAC website:

[url=http://www.porac.org/]Peace Officers Research Association of California[/url]

No one can say how this will turn out. A lot may depend on the nephew's testimony. Or, the DA may decide to drop the whole matter. Even if not prosecuted for battery, you still have to deal with the TRO. The TRO will end any law enforcement career.

Good luck.

- Carl

[Ronin]

Even if not prosecuted for battery, you still have to deal with the TRO. The TRO will end any law enforcement career.

A Temporary Restraining Order in and of itself is not sufficient to end a law enforcement career.

Should an evidentiary hearing following a TRO result in a permanent order that is a different matter.

However, the issuance of a TRO may subject a law enforcement officer who is the TRO recipient to an independent review of the facts by their law enforcement agency, who may then make their own determination on how to handle this.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by Ronin

A Temporary Restraining Order in and of itself is not sufficient to end a law enforcement career.

Huh?? How so? A TRO is going to preclude you from carrying a firearm under federal AND state laws! Now, I suppose an agency can create an unarmed Peace Officer position, but I have yet to have any first hand knowledge of any agency in CA willing to do that, and I doubt the feds could do that, either. He could be transferred to another classification, I suppose, but not as a peace officer who carries a firearm.

Should an evidentiary hearing following a TRO result in a permanent order that is a different matter.

In CA the temporary order also generally requires the restrained party to surrender all firearms.

However, the issuance of a TRO may subject a law enforcement officer who is the TRO recipient to an independent review of the facts by their law enforcement agency, who may then make their own determination on how to handle this.

Not so. The TRO in CA will exempt him from carrying a firearm under CA and federal law. If the order is upheld and he is unable to get it dismissed, he will effectively be forced out of the career as a sworn LEO. Even if this is merely a civil harassment order, the firearms will be required to be turned in or transferred even upon service of the pre-trial order.

- Carl

[Ronin]

The issuance of a TRO (or TPO) is not a presumption or adjudication of guilt.

A TPO is a very short term order (two weeks to a month) designed to protect the one filing the complaint until an evidentiary hearing can be held. During this period it does effectively prohibit one from carrying a firearm, which temporarily puts the screws to any peace officer whose job requires a firearm.

These days almost anyone can get one issued against anyone else if they swear to the right things at an ex-Parte hearing.

If the peace officer was falsely accused or the facts grossly exagerated and the evidentiary hearing determines the accusers evidence is insufficient, then the request for permanent order is denied, the temporary order ends, and the right to carry a firearm restored.

So while a TPO is not career ending in itself, if it is followed by a permanent order that is another matter entirely.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by Ronin

The issuance of a TRO (or TPO) is not a presumption or adjudication of guilt.

You are correct. However, since the OP is in California, CA law applies. As such, he will be ordered to surrender all firearms.

These days almost anyone can get one issued against anyone else if they swear to the right things at an ex-Parte hearing.

Sadly, correct.

However, the court can - and occasionally has - refused to issue the order, but has ordered a hearing on the matter specifically to avoid enacting the firearms provision.

If the peace officer was falsely accused or the facts grossly exagerated and the evidentiary hearing determines the accusers evidence is insufficient, then the request for permanent order is denied, the temporary order ends, and the right to carry a firearm restored.

Correct.

So while a TPO is not career ending in itself, if it is followed by a permanent order that is another matter entirely.

As I said, the TRO will effectively end his career. As it is typically the TRO that is made final in the order after hearing, and the TRO is mirrored in the OAH (Order After Hearing) issued by the court on the DV-130, the term "TRO" is typically used by law enforcement to refer to any current and active restraining order that has been applied for by a plaintiff. As such, the TRO/EPO/OAH/CPO - so long as it is active - will end the officer's career.

- Carl