Bates v. State, 172 So. 3d 805

Deputy James Cox, a Hinds County sheriff's deputy, worked off-duty as a uniformed security guard at a restaurant with his sheriff's approval.
On a weekend night Deputy Cox asked Bates, a patron, to leave after last call; Bates refused, threatened to beat Cox and to get him fired, and taunted that Cox’s uniform protected him.
Cox and two other guards escorted Bates out; concerned Bates might break the law, Cox followed him to the parking lot after the restaurant interaction ended.
Bates drove his truck toward Cox and the guards, fired a .38 revolver at Cox, and fled; deputies later arrested Bates and recovered the gun and a spent casing.
Bates was tried for aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer; the jury convicted him of the lesser-included offense of simple assault on a law enforcement officer and sentenced him to five years.
On appeal Bates argued (1) insufficient evidence that Cox was acting within the scope of his law-enforcement duties while off-duty/security-employed, and (2) improper admission of testimony by the jail nurse about Bates’s medical complaints.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officer was "acting within the scope of his duty, office, or employment" when assaulted	Bates: Cox was privately employed as a security guard, so he was not acting within the scope of his law-enforcement employment and statute’s enhancement does not apply	State: Off-duty/private security employment does not automatically strip an officer of official duty status; Cox was uniformed, approved by sheriff, and shifted into law-enforcement role when Bates became belligerent	Court: Cox retained authority; facts support that he was acting within scope of his duty when Bates shot at him — conviction affirmed
Admissibility of jail nurse’s testimony about absence of medical complaints	Bates: Nurse lacked personal knowledge of intake questioning and thus testimony violated M.R.E. 602; should have been an expert	State: Nurse was part of intake/medical team, had personal knowledge of procedures and records; testimony was lay, bearing on whether Bates reported burns/hearing loss	Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion; nurse had personal knowledge and testimony went to weight, not admissibility

S.D. v. State, 11 So.3d 401 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009) (off-duty officer can lawfully perform duties on an off-duty job)
State v. DeSanto, 410 A.2d 704 (N.J. Super. 1980) (uniformed off-duty officers remain subject to public expectations to act)
Salt Lake City v. Christensen, 167 P.3d 496 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (off-duty response to preserve order is within peace officer authority)
Davis v. Commonwealth, 605 S.E.2d 790 (Va. Ct. App. 2004) (coincidence of private and public duties does not negate officer authority)
State v. Graham, 927 P.2d 227 (Wash. 1996) (police have a 24-hour duty to respond as officers)
State v. Wilen, 539 N.W.2d 650 (Neb. Ct. App. 1995) (off-duty officer retains status unless acting exclusively in private capacity)
State v. Phillips, 520 S.E.2d 670 (W. Va. 1999) (off-duty security guard retained officer status for assault statute)
Cagle v. State, 536 So.2d 3 (Miss. 1988) (public-utility statutes can "clothe" public responders with authority outside ordinary bounds)