officers to contact probationers at their residence, often unexpectedly and .
at odd hours. In urban areas the officer may be making field contacts in .
crime-infested neighborhoods while, in more rural districts, the officer may .
be making contacts hours away from the nearest law enforcement assistance. .
Although common sense and "street smarts" are probation officers' most .
powerful weapons, situations may arise in which officers have to defend their .
own lives. In such cases, an officer with a defensive weapon and adequate .
training may survive while an unarmed officer may not. .
In Colorado, as in many other states, the probation officer is defined by .
statute as a peace officer and has "the authority to enforce the laws of the .
state of Colorado while acting within the scope of his or her authority and .
in the performance of his or her duties" (C.R.S. 18-1-901[IV], 1997). .
Currently, many probation officers in Colorado perform peace officer .
functions such as personally arresting offenders, securing them with .
handcuffs, and searching both offenders and residences. These same officers .
are prohibited from carrying firearms when reserve peace officers, who .
according to Colorado Revised Statutes have lesser peace officer status than .
probation officers, are authorized to carry firearms (C.R.S. 18-1-901[IV5][A] .
& [B], 1997). Such discrepancies are sure to create role conflicts among .
officers. These conflicts can, in turn, negatively affect employee morale, .
creating a situation where officers will either neglect their duties or .
violate the law and their departments' policy by carrying weapons (Bryan, .
1995). .
Similar conflicts and safety concerns were the basis for a 1978 class action .
civil lawsuit in which California state parole agents sued their agency for .
the right to carry firearms (California State Employees Association and .
Charles Swim v. J.J. Enemoto et al., 1978). Following the agency's .
unsuccessful appeal in 1979, officers were legally armed for the first time .
