Are district attorney investigators outside New York City subject to the police officer training requirements in General Municipal Law § 209-q?

Plain-English summary

The Deputy Commissioner of the Division of Criminal Justice Services asked whether all district attorney investigators across New York State had to meet the minimum police officer training requirements in General Municipal Law § 209-q.

The AG said no. Only investigators in the five New York City county DA offices were subject to those requirements.

Two statutes define "police officer" differently. The Criminal Procedure Law (§ 1.20(34)(g)) defines a police officer broadly to include "an investigator employed in the office of a district attorney," with no geographic limitation. The General Municipal Law (§ 209-q) defines "police officer" for purposes of mandatory training narrowly, picking up only "a detective or rackets investigator employed by the office of the district attorney in any county located in a city of one million or more persons." That language plainly meant New York City.

The opinion walked through the legislative history. Before 1982, the § 209-q definition did not mention DA investigators at all. The 1982 amendment (L 1982 Ch 594) added "detective investigator employed by the office of the district attorney in any county located in a city of one million or more persons." The bill jacket made clear the geographic limit was deliberate: the sponsors framed the bill as addressing the NYC district attorneys' need to retain qualified investigators. The Budget Report on Bills criticized the bill as under-inclusive and recommended adopting the broader Criminal Procedure Law definition. The Legislature went forward with the narrower text. The 1983 amendment (L 1983 Ch 956) added rackets investigators in the five NYC counties; the bill jacket showed no intent to expand beyond NYC.

The combination of plain statutory language and a legislative history that twice rejected broader coverage made the answer straightforward. DA investigators outside NYC were "police officers" for some purposes under the Criminal Procedure Law, but they were not "police officers" for purposes of the mandatory § 209-q training rules.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Why does it matter that two statutes define "police officer" differently?

Each statute uses its definition only for its own purposes. The Criminal Procedure Law definition controls what an "investigator employed in the office of a district attorney" can do (make warrantless arrests, execute warrants, carry firearms in connection with their duties). The General Municipal Law definition controls who is subject to the training-and-certification regime administered by DCJS. The narrower § 209-q definition meant investigators outside NYC could exercise CPL § 1.20 police-officer powers without going through DCJS-mandated police training.

Did the AG say investigators outside NYC were untrained?

No. The opinion addressed only the question of statutory mandate. Many county DA offices in 1997 still required their investigators to complete police academy or in-service training, either as a matter of office policy, collective-bargaining agreement, or as a condition imposed when investigators were drawn from former police officers. The opinion held only that the § 209-q minimum-training mandate did not reach them.

Did the Budget Office's criticism of the 1982 bill matter to the opinion?

It mattered as evidence of legislative intent. The Budget Report on Bills, included in the Governor's Bill Jacket, urged the Legislature to adopt the broader Criminal Procedure Law definition so that all DA investigators would receive the same training as NYC investigators. The Legislature was on notice of that argument and rejected it. That kind of contemporaneous record makes a "narrow text" reading more defensible.

Why did the 1982 amendment focus on New York City?

The sponsors' memorandum emphasized that as the NYC DA offices expanded over the prior 15 years, the duties of detective investigators in those offices had become "identical to those of other police officers and detectives in New York City": felony arrests, undercover work, surveillance, warrant execution, prisoner extradition. The pitch was that NYC DA investigators were already doing police work and needed formal police training. There was no parallel finding for upstate or suburban DA investigators.

Can the legislative history be revisited if the statute is amended?

Yes. The opinion's reading rests on the 1982 and 1983 statutory text and bill jackets. Any later amendment that broadens the § 209-q definition or that explicitly references all DA investigators would change the answer. Researchers should always check current Penal Law and Criminal Procedure Law amendments before relying on this opinion.

Background and statutory framework

General Municipal Law § 209-q is the training mandate for permanent and temporary police officers of counties, cities, towns, villages, and police districts. Subdivision 1 sets the minimum-training rule (a course approved by the Municipal Police Training Council) and subdivision 1-a addresses temporary or provisional appointees.

Subdivision 2(a) is the definition the opinion turned on. Reading the text, the definition pulls in five groups: members of the State Office of General Services capital police force; members of a police force or other organization of a municipality; detectives or rackets investigators employed by a district attorney "in any county located in a city of one million or more persons" (i.e., New York City); plus three express exclusions (a person serving solely by virtue of another office; sheriffs and undersheriffs except the NYC sheriff or deputy; police commissioners, deputy and assistant commissioners, chiefs of police, and deputy or assistant chiefs).

Criminal Procedure Law § 1.20(34) lists all police officers for purposes of CPL powers and procedures. Subdivision (g) covers DA investigators. The CPL definition is what gives every DA investigator authority to make arrests, execute warrants, and carry firearms in connection with duties. It does not impose any training mandate.

The 1982 (L 1982 Ch 594) and 1983 (L 1983 Ch 956) amendments are the source of the NYC-specific language in the General Municipal Law. The bill jackets are the legislative-history record the opinion relied on.

Citations

• Criminal Procedure Law § 1.20(34)(g) (broad "police officer" definition including all DA investigators).
• General Municipal Law § 209-q (police officer training requirements).
• General Municipal Law § 209-q(1) (minimum training mandate).
• General Municipal Law § 209-q(2)(a) (definition of "police officer" for training purposes).
• L 1982 Ch 594 (added NYC detective investigators to the § 209-q definition).
• L 1983 Ch 956 (added NYC rackets investigators to the § 209-q definition).

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/97-F5_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

Opn. No. 97-F5
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW § 1.20(34)(g); GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW § 209-q; L 1983 CH
956; L 1982 CH 594.
For purposes of General Municipal Law § 209-q, the only detective or rackets investigators included as
police officers are those employed in counties located in cities with a population greater than one
million.
March 13, 1997
Hon. Stephen M. Bernardi Formal Opinion
Deputy Commissioner No. 97-F5
Division of Criminal Justice Services
Executive Park Tower
Stuyvesant Plaza
Albany, New York 12203-3764
Dear Deputy Commissioner Bernardi:
You have asked whether district attorney investigators are required to meet the minimum training
requirements in General Municipal Law § 209-q(1) and 1-a.
General Municipal Law § 209-q sets forth the training requirements for permanent and temporary police
officers of any county, city, town, village or police district of the State. Subdivision 2(a) defines police
officer as used in the section:
The term "police officer", as used in this section, shall mean a member of the capital police force of the
state office of general services . . ., or a member of a police force or other organization of a municipality
or a detective or rackets investigator employed by the office of the district attorney in any county located
in a city of one million or more persons who is responsible for the prevention or detection of crime and
the enforcement of the general criminal laws of the state, but shall not include any person serving as
such solely by virtue of his occupying any other office or position, nor shall such term include a sheriff
or under-sheriff, the sheriff or deputy sheriff of the city of New York, commissioner of police, deputy or
assistant commissioner of police, chief of police, deputy or assistant chief of police or any person having
an equivalent title who is appointed or employed . . . to exercise equivalent supervisory authority.
(Emphasis supplied.)
The express language emphasized above states clearly that, for purposes of the General Municipal Law,
the only detective or rackets investigators included as police officers are those employed in counties
located in cities with a population greater than one million (i.e., New York City). As you point out,
however, the term "police officer" is defined more broadly in the Criminal Procedure Law. There, "[a]n
investigator employed in the office of a district attorney" is a police officer. Criminal Procedure Law §
1.20(34)(g). Thus, you seek our opinion as to whether all district attorney investigators are subject to the
training requirements of General Municipal Law § 209-q, that is, whether the Criminal Procedure Law
definition of police officer brings all district attorney investigators within the reach of General
Municipal Law training requirements.
It is our opinion that only those detective and rackets investigators employed by district attorneys'
offices in New York City are subject to the training requirements of the General Municipal Law. The
legislative history of General Municipal Law § 209-q indicates that the Legislature intended to include

only investigators employed by district attorneys in New York City within the purview of General
Municipal Law § 209-q, and purposely did not adopt the broader definition included in the Criminal
Procedure Law.
Prior to an amendment in 1982 (L 1982, Ch 594), the term police officer was defined in section 209-q
without reference to investigators employed by district attorneys' offices. The 1982 amendment added to
the definition of "police officer" a "detective investigator employed by the office of the district attorney
in any county located in a city of one million or more persons". Thus, the bill had a limited geographic
scope:
Prior to now, detective investigators acted as prosecutorial aides to the District Attorneys'
offices. As the District Attorneys' Offices expanded in the last 15 years, the functions and
duties of detective investigators became identical to those of other police officers and
detectives in New York City, which are often physically taxing and hazardous. These
investigators are required to make felony and misdemeanor arrests, participate in
undercover assignments, conduct electronic and visual surveillance, execute warrants and
extradite prisoners. Yet, for example, these investigators are not entitled to . . . participate in
a formal police training program under section 209q of the General Municipal Law. . . .
...
The passage of this legislation into law will enable the district attorneys of New York City
to retain qualified and professional investigators . . . Bill Jacket, L 1982 Ch 594, Legislative
Memorandum of Assembly Member Joseph Ferris and Louis Freda, sponsors of Assembly
Bill 040.
When passed by the Legislature, the bill was criticized as under inclusive. The Budget Report on Bills
included in the Governor's Bill Jacket pointed out
it may be argued that this bill does not go far enough to address the problems of
investigators' training and protection because it is limited to those detective investigators
employed by the New York City district attorney's office. Similarly employed investigators
throughout the State could continue to use deadly force and carry firearms without benefit
of police training.
Budget expressed the view that since all investigators employed by district attorneys are police officers,
they should receive the same training as those employed in New York City. Bill Jacket, L 1982 Ch 594,
Budget Report on Bills, at 2. Despite the criticism and recommendation that the Criminal Procedure
Law definition of "police officer" be adopted, however, the bill was signed into law as written,
extending the training requirement only to detective investigators employed by district attorneys' offices
in New York City.
Section 209-q was further amended in 1983 to include under the definition of "police officer," rackets
investigators employed by the district attorneys of the five counties of New York. L 1983 Ch 956. There
is no evidence in the legislative history of that amendment of an intent to include rackets or detective
investigators outside of the five counties of New York City. See, Bill Jacket, L 1983 Ch 956.
In sum, the express language of General Municipal Law § 209-q provides that only rackets and detective
investigators employed by the district attorneys located in the five counties of New York City are
subject to the mandatory training requirements of the section. The express language is supported by the

legislative history to the statute which reflects a conscious choice to include only a select group of
investigators, despite recommendations to adopt the broader definition of police officer set forth in the
Criminal Procedure Law.
We conclude that for purposes of General Municipal Law § 209-q, the only detective or rackets
investigators included as police officers are those employed in counties located in cities with a
population greater than one million.
Very truly yours,

DENNIS C. VACCO
Attorney General