Federal Police Employments

[FLEO Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close FLEO]

FBI Police:
http://www.fbijobs.gov/126.asp

CIA Police:
https://www.cia.gov/careers/jobs/tex...ctive_off.html

Federal Reserve Police
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/jobs/WA/Sea...BFtzUAxQGxQ6IX

All have similar duties....Great benefits + pensions.

[davis002 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close davis002]

Don't forget...

US Marshals Service
http://www.usmarshals.gov/careers/index.html

Transportation Security Administration (Federal Air Marshals)
http://www.tsa.gov/lawenforcement/programs/fams.shtm

Veterans Health Administration
http://jobsearch.usajobs.opm.gov/get...=0&SUBMIT1.y=0

US Capitol Police
http://jobsearch.usajobs.opm.gov/get...&ss=0&FedPub=Y

And many, many more...

[Lawson Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Lawson]

WTH is up with the "Voluntary PT Test" for the FBI Police?

[HotelSecurity Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close HotelSecurity]

Don't forget...

US Marshals Service
http://www.usmarshals.gov/careers/index.html

Transportation Security Administration (Federal Air Marshals)
http://www.tsa.gov/lawenforcement/programs/fams.shtm

Veterans Health Administration
http://jobsearch.usajobs.opm.gov/get...=0&SUBMIT1.y=0

US Capitol Police
http://jobsearch.usajobs.opm.gov/get...&ss=0&FedPub=Y

And many, many more...

I think it's much simpler here in Canada. All federal policing is done by the RCMP!

[N. A. Corbier Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close N. A. Corbier]

Amazing isn't it, that these are all traditional security roles that the average street cop would not associate with the term "police."

I wonder how many of these agencies are given federal law enforcement retirement benefits, and how many are considered "non-law enforcement officers" like DHS/CBP and other "non-police" police are.

[Bill Warnock Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Bill Warnock]

Amazing isn't it, that these are all traditional security roles that the average street cop would not associate with the term "police."

I wonder how many of these agencies are given federal law enforcement retirement benefits, and how many are considered "non-law enforcement officers" like DHS/CBP and other "non-police" police are.

Nathan, from the information I've gathered, if personnel from these agencies go to either FLTEC in Georgia or its Western counterpart in New Mexico, upon graduation they are sworn police officers from their particular agency. The cadets who were selected for the USMS have to undergo 6-8 weeks more training before they are sworn as Deputy US Marshals. Some DUSMs go to Camp Beauregard, Pineville, LA for additional training. Some DUSMs go to specialized training at Ft Benning, GA.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[FLEO Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close FLEO]

The cadets who were selected for the USMS have to undergo 6-8 weeks more training before they are sworn as Deputy US Marshals.


They are lucky, ours were 13 weeks long. It's pretty much the same s**t if you ever been to a police academy. It's funny in MN how the state requires you to go through an 9 months Police academy (they call it SKILLS) after college and then take the POST test. Then if you are fortunate enough get hired on a PD, they require you to go through THEIR academy. Which is the same s**t you were taught in SKILLS. So it's pretty much doing it all over again.

[N. A. Corbier Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close N. A. Corbier]

Nathan, from the information I've gathered, if personnel from these agencies go to either FLTEC in Georgia or its Western counterpart in New Mexico, upon graduation they are sworn police officers from their particular agency. The cadets who were selected for the USMS have to undergo 6-8 weeks more training before they are sworn as Deputy US Marshals. Some DUSMs go to Camp Beauregard, Pineville, LA for additional training. Some DUSMs go to specialized training at Ft Benning, GA.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

I do believe you are correct. I was referring to the OMB definition, which is why some agencies don't get vested in the "Federal Law Enforcement Retirement Plan" or whatever its called. Such as CBP and ICE "Inspectors," who have law enforcement powers vested in them by customs statutes. I.e. The government doesn't want to pay their pension as a national public safety officer on top of all the other national public safety officers.

[SecTrainer Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close SecTrainer]

I'm not sure who "the government" is that "doesn't want to pay...pensions". To think of "the government" as some monolithic entity that "wants" or "doesn't want" anything is erroneous. "The government" is an enormous collection of entities and sub-entities within entities, each one having its own agenda, and often fighting among themselves to achieve them. There is no such thing as "the government", but only a "governmental patchwork".

This LE-pension thing is an enormously complex issue that has been batted around for years and years. It's complicated primarily by the fact that it has been the individual agencies (FBI, IRS, etc., etc.) - and not any central executive agency - that have been responsible for defining for themselves which positions in their agencies should be classified as "law enforcement officers". Things got worse when the courts threw out the 7-factor test developed by the Merit System Protection Board and that each agency used in making the "LE determination". Note that these factors were never about where or how anyone was trained, what they were called, etc., but about their job functions: (1) has frequent direct contact with criminal suspects; (2) is authorized to carry a firearm; (3) interrogates witnesses and suspects, giving Miranda warnings when appropriate; (4) works for long periods without a break; (5) is on call 24-hours a day; (6) is required to maintain a level of physical fitness; and (7) is exposed to hazard. Now, it seems that the definition is "an employee, the duties of whose position are primarily the nvestigation, apprehension, or detention of individuals suspected or convicted of offenses against the criminal laws of the United States, including an employee engaged in this activity who is transferred to a supervisory or administrative position" according to the OPM. (5 CFR 831.902).

Obviously, there are quite a few positions that have been created or modified over the years and that would seem to meet the OPM definition, but what is missing here is the authority for OPM to require individual agencies to accept and apply this definition.

Adding fuel to this fire is that there are unions involved that, while they claim to want the problem of "LE determination" solved, cannot agree about whether this decision should be vested in the OPM or just where it should reside. The quibble, it seems, is that the head of OPM is a political appointment and so...

The OPM was ordered by Congress in 2003 to study this issue, and in 2004 produced a report which is worth reading as it examines the whole history of the long-standing problem, enumerates the inequities, and concludes that a central authority is needed to create and apply a uniform standard for what constitutes a federal LE officer across all agencies. The report closes by proposing that this central authority should reside with (guess who?) the OPM. Here is the OPM report to Congress on Federal Law Enforcement Pay and Benefits

Well, this report really started the ball rolling like greased lightning, which in Congressional terms means that a couple of years later nothing more had been done on the recommendations in the OPM report other than the production of a "Concept Paper", proposing a possible bill to tackle the problem. So let's see....that's 2003, 2004, 2005 so far, and I don't see that anything happened in 2006. Unless I missed something, the issue is still hanging.

Here's an article from 2005 when the the "concept paper" came out, and the union reaction to it: LE Proposal Vexes Unions

Clearly, we can see that there is interest in this problem, and that among all of the various elements that comprise "the governmental patchwork" I mentioned above there are those that obviously DO want to correct this inequity. The real problem has not been whether, but rather how, to accomplish this and what executive agency should take the lead, etc.

Years ago, LE versus non-LE missions were much more clearly distinguishable so that the definition of an "LE officer" was an easy thing to do. However, the distinction has become murkier over the years, not only as agency missions, but as agencies themselves have been created, merged, eliminated, shifted around, etc., etc. - and with the creation of DHS this only became worse. The good news by my reading on the subject is that there IS a very significant interest in addressing the issue, if we can just get past the "how"...and the unions. So, we'll see now whether the Democrats in control of Congress have the gumption to move the ball down the field.

[Mr. Security Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Mr. Security]

Post to bury SPAM.