Does LEOSA apply to Irish Officers?

At about 5:40 a.m. on Tuesday, the 27th of January, a vacationing police officer from Limerick, Ireland, was shot during an armed robbery in New Orleans.  Ireland has a low crime rate, much like most areas in the United States outside of the urban cores.   New Orleans' crime rate is much higher than most of the rest of the United States, so Hanrahan may be forgiven his apparent naiveté in the situation.  

Hanrahan met a man who said he knew where they could get a drink at that time of the morning.  He went with a man he did not know, to an unknown destination, and stopped along the way to take $200 out of an ATM machine.  From nola.com:

Stopping first at an ATM, where Hanrahan withdrew $200, the pair walked to the 2200 block of New Orleans Street. There, according to police, a second man approached Hanrahan and demanded he hand over cash. When Hanrahan refused, police said the man produced a gun and shot Hanrahan twice. The two suspects rifled through Hanrahan's pockets and took the $200 before running from the area, police said.

A vacationing American police officer would have been able to be legally armed in that situation, under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA).  

Would the Irish police officer who was shot have been covered under LEOSA as well?   The law is not entirely clear, and has never been tested in court on the subject.  The law applies to a "qualified law enforcement officer".  In the original version of the law, the standards were these:

`(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified law enforcement officer' means an employee of a governmental agency who--

`(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest;

`(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;

`(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;

`(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;

`(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and

`(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

The above definition does not say that the agency has to be a U.S. governmental agency, and courts have ruled in favor of a broad interpretation of the definition.  In 2007, two different courts held that Coast Guard boarding officers were covered under the law.    One of them, Reserve Petty Officer Jose Diaz, won a settlement of $44,000 from the City of San Fernando, California for false arrest.   LEOSA has been amended twice, in 2010 and in 2013, both acts broadening the definitions of people who are explicitly covered by the law.  The amendment in 2013 changed (1) above to this:

(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest, or apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice);

It is clear that the last phrase was added to the list of possible qualifications, and does not require those previously qualified to also have powers of apprehension under section 807(b).  The legislative history shows that adding military personnel with apprehension powers was the purpose of the law, not restricting those previously qualified.

So, would a foreign police officer qualify?  They might, depending on the court.  

Clearly, they are an employee of a government agency.  The law does not specify that it must be a U.S. government agency, though of course, that could be argued as the intended purpose.

They would have to be authorized by their agency to carry a firearm.   Most Irish gardai are not so authorized, but a few are.  It is not known if Garda Hanrahan was one of the select few, but it seems unlikely.

Finally, the officer would have to meet requirement (6):

(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

This would be a little harder for a foreign officer, but can be overcome with a little preparation.  Legal visiting aliens who have a legitimate hunting license or are a member of a club that engages in shooting competitions, can legally receive and possess firearms in the United States. 

All of the above might be considered fanciful speculation, but consider that the Courts have held that if a person is convicted of a felony in a foreign court, they lose their second amendment rights in the United States.  The court ruled that the law did not specify that the felony had to occur under United States law, only that it was a felony.  

Such an interpretation would likely be cited in any court case in which a foreign police officer attempted to use LEOSA as a defense.

As an interesting aside, the composite picture of one of the suspects in the Hanrahan shooting looks very much like the one of a suspect in the self defense shooting case involving Billy Gregory.   Both cases occurred reasonably close to the French Quarter of New Orleans, separated by less than three days.

Composite pictures of the two suspects in the shooting of Brian Hanrahan, which occurred on January 27th.

Composite picture of the suspected confederate of Nicholas Temper, Temper was shot by Musician Billy Gregory in what the NOPD has called a self defense shooting, on January 30th.

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch