th lations say “all laws and ordinances,” they truly mean all laws and ordinances—would mean that a Chicago police officer serves the City’s goals when he nabs a suspected wrongdoer anywhere—not just elsewhere in Illinois but also, presumably, while vacationing in Hawaii. An interpretation of the CPD Regulations that compels officers to enforce a littering ban in Honolulu cannot be correct. The fact that Moussa identified himself as a police officer, gave police-like orders, and showed his badge after the altercation—in other words, the fact that Moussa held himself out as a police officer to some degree—also does not mean that his actions in DuPage County were undertaken in service to the City. See Wolf v. Liberis, 153 Ill.App.3d 488, 106 Ill.Dec. 411, 505 N.E.2d 1202, 1206 (1987) (<HOLDING>); Rivera, 2005 WL 2739180, at *1-2, 6 (holding
holding that an offduty officers assertion to bystanders that he was on the job  at the scene of a car accident did not place him within the scope of employment holding scene of accident was suspicious place holding that the words at the scene   imply a specific place    and limit rather than expand the officers power to arrest and the scene is the place where the accident occurred holding as a matter of law that an offduty government agent was not acting within the scope of his employment when he was driving home intoxicated after completing his tour of duty because on no basis would the court conclude that drinking and driving after work hours fell within the scope of the dea agents employment   holding that the defendant was guilty of leaving the scene because the injured party and a police officer were present at the scene within a reasonable time after the accident