The Legislature’s Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security voted forward a bill Wednesday to give probation officers and top security officials at the Legislature peace officer status, allowing them to join the ranks of officials with arrest powers and the authority to carry a gun.
Police Commissioner Novelle Francis testified to the hearing in Frederiksted the department opposed the expansion of peace officer status unless those officers undergo extensive training and the moribund Peace Officer’s Council is revamped to oversee their certification. By statute, the council is composed of top police brass in both districts, top Fire Services brass, the director of the Bureau of Corrections, the director of enforcement at the Department of Planning and Natural Resources, university and union officials. But the makeup of the council and its members extensive other responsibilities make it very difficult to convene meetings, Francis said.
"In the absence of a Peace Officer’s Council, I am opposed to creating any new police officers," he said. "And otherwise, any new peace officers should go through the entire police training before being approved."
Human Services Commissioner Chris Finch said his department does not need or want peace officer status for its two probation officers.
"Under our current structure we do not feel that the Department of Human Services can provide adequate supervision for armed probation staff with arrest powers," Finch said. "Moreover, this would not fit with our move towards more therapeutic services within juvenile justice. …Generally, peace officers should be employees that deal often or on a regular basis with the same individuals as police officers and the precedent is that peace officers should be afforded the opportunity to defend themselves properly should the occasion arise. However juvenile probation officers do not deal often or on a regular basis with the same individuals as police officers."
Most of the senators disagreed. Sen. Alvin Williams pointed out police relinquish their firearms when they come to the Legislature and argued the Legislature’s security needed to be armed in case someone with an axe to grind should come and cause an incident.
"I am not opposed to that," Francis said. "I am simply saying they should not have 10 hours of training and then receive the status and right to carry a weapon."
Other senators painted the need as one for enforcement as well as security.
"We have the power to subpoena," Sen. Michael Thurland said. "If we send a subpoena and they do not respond, who are we sending for them? What if it is the police commissioner? Do we call the police?"
Thurland went further than that, saying it would give the Legislature greater authority.
"I am looking for arrest powers," Thurland said.
Sen. Sammuel Sanes, the committee chairman and the bill’s sponsor, agreed, citing a recent subpoena that was successful.
"What would have happened if they had not responded?" Sanes said. "We need the power of arrest."
Sen. Celestino White said while he supported giving some security at the Legislature such powers, he opposed giving it to probation officers.
"Unless this bill is limited to the Sergeant of Arms of the Legislature, who is legally obligated to execute our subpoenas and all of that, I cannot support this bill," he said.
Sanes said the bill would likely be amended further along in the legislative process, when it is considered by the Rules and Judiciary Committee, holding open the door for the possibility of limiting its scope to the Legislature’s security before final passage.
Voting yea on forwarding the bill out of committee for consideration by the Rules Committee were" Sanes, Williams, Sens. Terrence "Positive" Nelson and Patrick Sprauve. White voted nay. Sens. Shawn-Michael Malone and Wayne James were absent. Thurland was present but is not a member of the committee and did not vote.