Probation and Parole Officers the Carrying of Firearms
Community Resources In Corrections - Fall, 2011
Date submitted

Probation and Parole Officers have a common goal to protect the public. They play a vital role in the criminal justice process. The criminal offenders and the areas in which they work may be dangerous. The question of whether parole and probation officers should carry firearms has fueled controversy. Some who favor treatment-based model of supervision have objected to officers carrying a firearm, while others have embraced it. Some agencies throughout the United States have made carrying a weapon an option, some others have gone the mandatory route, while others still do not allow their officers to carry at all. Probation and parole officers experience violent incidents including verbal threats, attacks by offenders' dogs, bomb threats, physical assaults, and resisting arrest. Some argue that probation and parole agencies should authorize their officers to carry firearms in response to these challenges. Parole officers are supervising a violent offender population and are being asked to participate in more aggressive activities. Probation, like most important parts of the CJ system has tons of different positions from administration to actual Officers that get to work one on one with the offenders. The issue of probation/parole officers and firearms relates to whether the officer's role is counseling or law enforcement. Although some researchers argue that probation/parole officers cannot perform both roles, little research has focused on the views of the professionals. Many officers want the right to carry firearms. There are a few important reasons why they feel they should be allowed to carry. Officers are asked to perform high-risk tasks in order to monitor their caseloads. Parole and probation officers are expected to conduct home visits at the offender’s residence, unexpectedly and at odd hours. Officers also must go to “crime-infested” neighborhoods to conduct necessary home visits. They face victimization in the form of assault, serious injury, or death at the hands of the clients they supervise. One of the most hotly contested issues concerns the discrepancy between actual and perceived levels of officer safety. In 1996, parole officers on a routine evening home inspection in Denver found that their client was not at home, but his sister permitted the officers to check the premises. Inside his closet, the officers found a pistol. As they were removing the weapon, the parolee arrived and was met by the officers in front of the house. Informed that he was being taken into custody, the parolee bolted and ran behind the house with officers in pursuit. Suddenly, he halted, drew a weapon, and aimed at the officers, who fatally shot the parolee. This illustrates the point that some offenders are armed and under the influence of controlled substances. Knowing that officers are routinely carrying firearms has a deterrent value. Many unarmed officers gain a degree of safety because they are perceived as police officers or otherwise believed to be armed. Some advocates have supported the carrying of firearms by community supervision officers because there is an increased perception of safety, which leads to a confident parole and probation officer in the field. Over the years there have been several contests over this. Probation officers who are designated as peace officers may only carry on duty if authorized to do so by their agency. However, they may carry off duty with or without permission. I had a friend who was a probation officer with an agency that prohibited their personnel from being armed while on duty. She jokingly told me at start of watch, everyone went to their lockers to disarm themselves for duty. At end of watch they went back to the locker rooms to arm themselves for the trip home. In this matter, the court ruled that an employing probation agency had the right to regulate its officers' on duty conduct (such as prohibiting their carrying weapons). However, the court also ruled that the agency had no right to prohibit off duty carry. The logic here was that the right to carry was granted by an act of the legislature and a government agency does not have the right to administratively deny its employees rights already granted them as a matter of law.
In New York, probation (city or county) and parole officers are considered peace officers who can carry firearms if their agency provides the proper training and authorizes it. New York parole officers are required to qualify with firearms as a condition of employment and they must carry their weapon 9mm Glock on duty. They may carry the department weapon or other weapon with which they have qualified while off-duty. No credential beyond those issued by the agency is required. For probation and parole officers, the carrying of firearms and performing law enforcement duties outside their state is governed by the Interstate Compact. Under federal statute, law enforcement officers entitled to carry a firearm in their home state are allowed to carry a firearm in another state. They are not, however, authorized to perform law enforcement beyond their state jurisdiction (Abadinsky 2003, 333). In NC Probation/Parole Officers now carry a Smith & Wesson Military & Police .40 caliber. Carrying a revolver is no longer an option and actually, returning all the old revolvers was a part of the contract for new purchase with S&W. Carrying a secondary weapon is prohibited. They have a choice of 3 holster styles: duty belt style, traditional 2 inch trouser belt and a paddle holster. There are two types of PPO's: Intermediate Officers and Community Officers. Only Intermediate Officers carry a firearm due to their high risk caseload. Community Officers carry what's considered "low risk" offenders and work the court system. There are some instances in NC where Community Officers are firearms certified, like in smaller rural counties, to add extra manpower to the Electronic House Arrest Response Team. Officers are encouraged to wear their firearm during duty hours, but not required. Wearing the weapon is required, however, for field work and making any arrest. NC PPO's have very broad authority by statute but the department (NC DOC) limits those powers to only supervised offenders. In California the Marin County Probation Department’s Chief Probation Officer their policy is that Probation Officers and Group Counselors do not have the authorization to carry firearms in the performance of their duties. The County of Marin and the Marin County Probation Department are not responsible for any employee who carries a firearm while off duty, nor will the County defend any action resulting from an off-duty employee who chooses to arm him/herself. The Department’s position is that probation officers are safe while unarmed regardless of caseload, and that officer safety is not compromised. Department leadership asserts that the risks field officers face in Marin County have not risen to a level warranting firearms. In Winnebago County, Illinois, where firearms are not allowed to be carried, the concern of officer safety resulted in the development of specific home visit procedural guidelines and availability of pepper spray and radio. In Maryland, parole officers have the option to carry pepper spray, but cannot carry firearms.
There are some important liability issues when carrying firearms. Administrators fear that there may be lawsuits because of officers carrying, also fear of liability in situations of injury or death in the line of duty that may have been prevented if the officer wasn’t carrying a firearm. In addition to liability for their own actions, probation and parole officers can be held criminally and civilly liable for actions that arise out of their relationships with their clients. While adult probation officers routinely carry guns on the job, juvenile probation officers aren't armed. I believe that being armed while executing your position is important. It’s not only for the safety of the personnel, but also for the members of the public. That is why they should be armed. Those who work for city or county agencies, and specialized departments as well, I look at it like this, school police officers carry and come in contact with an array of people that may or may not pose a threat and probation and parole officers come in contact with known and proven offenders every day. This should justify that the carrying of firearms. Obviously they should adhere to strict standards like any other agency, but in the short probation and parole personnel should carry on duty, not just off.
If probation officers were trained and equipped with firearms, the burden on local police departments would be lessened, freeing them to fully focus on their primary duty of protection of local constituents.
Probation and Parole officer and public attitudes are starting to shift; many probation/parole officers are either authorized to carry firearms or do so in violation of law or policy. Again, it really depends on the agency where you work that determines you ability to carry of firearms.

Bibliography NCJ 155088, Probation Officers: Cops or Counselors, Corrections Compendium Voulme : 20 Issue 2 Dated February 1995 D Byran, 1995 formhttp://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=155088 |
Kelly, NC DOC, Div. of Community Corrections
Howard Abadinsky, Ph.D. NYS Sr. Parole Officer (ret.) Professor, St. John's University