Cops think that we all wannabe cops.

[Mr. Security]

I need to blow off some steam. I'm tired of reading about cops who think that all s/o's want to be like them. First of all there are PLENTY of s/o's who have -0- desire to be a cop, including myself. Just because a few misguided souls in security play wannabes doesn't give LE the right to bash the rest of us in security. Plenty of s/o's AND cops have been arrested. If you are a LEO on this forum who respects security, do us a favor and tell your comrades to stop lumping us all together with the problem s/o's. Thanks. I feel better now. :)

[Huey County]

Mr. Security,

I am an LEO and no I don't go around saying that every S/O wants to be a cop. I see where you are coming from, but you have to think where we are coming from. The ones that I have came across personally were Mall Security Guards. I have seen them try to make stops on vehicles with there amber lights, I have seen them tell us how to do our job, and seen them on the other side of our cells.

I work in a small Village and we don't have any corporate S/O here, so hopefully these corporations are spending money that they have doing the proper background checks and training for you guys. Since I have only dealt with Mall Security Guards, that is my general picture of all S/O.

If you only go to the Burger King in your town and they always mess up your order, doesn't that give you a picture about Burger King's service everywhere? I try to look at the BIG picture, but you always have that image burned in the back of your mind.

You say that you don't ever want to be a LEO and don't pretend to be, but yet I have just read a post of yours that said something about the badge you wear. It's not security looking, you always have it showing, and that that is why people act better when they are around you. True or no? If you don't pretend that what are you trying to get people to think?

I don't want to get in a pissing match with you, I'm just giving my two cents.

Stay Safe,
"Huey"

[Bill Warnock]

There is a place for both disciplines. Yes, there are security officers who want to play LEO. And we have police recruiters who canvas many malls or other places looking at security officers and trying to lure the good ones away.
We must all remember the face of law enforcement is changing and becoming more like security every day. The military was the first to institute crime prevention, the first to institute military police security companies or in the case of the Air Force, Security Forces.
Crime prevention, business and residential security surveys are not within the province of local LEO, if they have the resources.
We should all know it is much easier to prevent crime than to react and catch the criminal after the fact.
As I was taught, Security and Law Enforcement are shared crafts, shared with the communities they serve. The public needs and wants law enforcement and public enforcement wants the public to be its extra eyes and ears.
Today, it should not longer be "us versus them;" it should be "we, all of us, versus the miscreant."
And for both public and private practitioners, "Remember the 21-foot rule."
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[N. A. Corbier]

Mr. Security,

I am an LEO and no I don't go around saying that every S/O wants to be a cop. I see where you are coming from, but you have to think where we are coming from. The ones that I have came across personally were Mall Security Guards. I have seen them try to make stops on vehicles with there amber lights, I have seen them tell us how to do our job, and seen them on the other side of our cells.

I work in a small Village and we don't have any corporate S/O here, so hopefully these corporations are spending money that they have doing the proper background checks and training for you guys. Since I have only dealt with Mall Security Guards, that is my general picture of all S/O.

If you only go to the Burger King in your town and they always mess up your order, doesn't that give you a picture about Burger King's service everywhere? I try to look at the BIG picture, but you always have that image burned in the back of your mind.

You say that you don't ever want to be a LEO and don't pretend to be, but yet I have just read a post of yours that said something about the badge you wear. It's not security looking, you always have it showing, and that that is why people act better when they are around you. True or no? If you don't pretend that what are you trying to get people to think?

I don't want to get in a pissing match with you, I'm just giving my two cents.

Stay Safe,
"Huey"

Keep a few things in mind, here. The employer Mr. Security works for does not provide "uniforms," as most LEOs think of them. Even "Security Guard" uniforms. He wears, basically, a two piece business suit of a perticular color with a patch on the front of the blazer coat.

As to "Security looking badges," I have never really seen a difference in badge types between LE and Security. Except for center seal / star restrictions in Florida, most states allow a private citizen to display a badge, star, or shield on their clothing to signify a position of office. This could be a security officer, or a mayor, or Marshal of the Parade. Some of these badges look alot like "police badges," however, their wording specifically says they are not.

Even the plain "Security Guard" badges that some companies use, with the lion and shield on it, are used by police departments, with the words <City> Police on it.

I do not believe that Mr. Security is trying to play police officer by displaying a badge in his blazer, I believe that he is trying to play security guard while working for a company that believes his attire is more fitting of a door man.

[Arff312]

I am mall security as a part time job. I agree we have some wanna bes on the Dept. But i will atest that not all are. Yes i would like to probably be a cop in the future. But right now i am a full time air force firefighter.
Just because i would like to be a cop does not mean i try to pull people over or play police officer. But there are those that do and those are usually the ones who dont get to be cops. But not all S/O's or even S/O's who want to be cops act like wanna bes.

[Will]

The security work I do is all corporate (cameras and access control). We used to have operational security to look after doors and whatnot.

One day, one of the operation security supervisors came in wearing a fake LEO badge on his belt. oooo he came so very close to getting fired that day.

[Mr. Security]

Mr. Security,

I am an LEO and no I don't go around saying that every S/O wants to be a cop. I see where you are coming from, but you have to think where we are coming from. The ones that I have came across personally were Mall Security Guards. I have seen them try to make stops on vehicles with there amber lights, I have seen them tell us how to do our job, and seen them on the other side of our cells.

I work in a small Village and we don't have any corporate S/O here, so hopefully these corporations are spending money that they have doing the proper background checks and training for you guys. Since I have only dealt with Mall Security Guards, that is my general picture of all S/O.

If you only go to the Burger King in your town and they always mess up your order, doesn't that give you a picture about Burger King's service everywhere? I try to look at the BIG picture, but you always have that image burned in the back of your mind.

You say that you don't ever want to be a LEO and don't pretend to be, but yet I have just read a post of yours that said something about the badge you wear. It's not security looking, you always have it showing, and that that is why people act better when they are around you. True or no? If you don't pretend that what are you trying to get people to think?

I don't want to get in a pissing match with you, I'm just giving my two cents.

Stay Safe,
"Huey"

Actually, I wanted the badge that I picked out to be unmistakably security. It is the one that has nightsticks on both sides of the badge with a big star in the middle. It has huge letters that say SECURITY. That's it. Not even the word "officer" appears on it. People in general will be more willing to comply with direction if they recognize that you are just doing your job. As N.A. pointed out, my uniform has a doorman look to it and we all know what people do when a doorman tells them to quiet down or leave.

If you have read my other posts, you know that I won't work for security companies that use weapons because it's not for me. I have no desire to take anyone into custody. I have the education and the ability to work in armed security, even LE. It's simply not what I want.

I appreciate your Burger King analogy and I understand what you mean. Can your department do anything to improve the situation at the Mall(s) in your area? Have you addressed your concerns and experiences with Mall management? Believe me, we don't like it either when security oversteps its authority, because it causes problems for the rest of us.

[EMTGuard]

I have no desire to be a Police officer.
That said, I have a job to do as a Security Officer for the client and that includes some tasks that many police officers may consider within their realm. Wearing a "hard" uniform and patroling in a marked vehicle is part of being a visible deterent which the client wanted when he contracted with us. The uniform and badge I wear in no way makes me a cop wannabe. I'm there for the 99.5% of the jerks that will see our patrols and look for an easier target elsewhere. For the other 0.5% I call 911 and let the cops earn those Homeland Security grants they've been applying for.
Enforcing the rules of the facility where I'm assigned may involve 'lighting up' a vehicle, pulling it over and writing up a incident ticket for violations such as speeding, damaging equiptment or other violations. These writeup tickets have resulted in certain contracters and visitors being banned from future admittance to our facility. Don't get mad at us for making traffic stops on private property. It's part of our job description.
We first respond to fire and security alarms and those of us working as dual role EMT/Security Officers respond to medical emergencies, transport patients and even conduct post-accident drug screens (piss tests). We are there, on private property, acting as the eyes and ears of our client by being a visible and proactive presence.
While there are certainly some SOs who want to become police officers, many of us have no such dream. We only ask that police officers recognise that we have a job to do and stop perpetuating sterotypes.

[talon]

What alot of Public Security Officers (thats Police Officers to the lay person) forget is that they owe their very existence to Private Security.

Long before there was an LAPD or an NYPD or a Secret Service (Pinkerton started them out and they still resent it) or any of the Federal, State and local alphabet soup agencies there were Private Security.

Private Armies, Bounty Hunters, Bodyguards, Rail Road Agents, take your pick...they all predate our system of Government Police that has only been around for less than 200 years.

So in all reality....who wants to be who??

What happened was that the Gov't decided one day that it could perform these functions better than the private sector...and we all see the end result and I for one am not impressed.

I know a guy that is dumb as a box of rocks...and worked at a local Sheriff's Office for 20 years he has all kinds of certificates that say he knows what he's doing and was even in charge of training for a large segment of the Agency...When he retired and tried to go private sector he couldn't because he's so stupid...and I don't say that to put the guy down but to illustrate my point.

Don't let these Govt Security Guards fool you, the only thing that gets the majority of them by is the power of the State behind them and thats it.

[plankeye]

Talon, Well said!

[Sampson]

I have worked in LE as well as a P.I. and also in proprietary security. Frankly, I?ve worked with some very professional people in private security and I?ve seen some real morons as well. What seems to differentiate the morons from the pros is the level of training and hiring processes. Many contract companies will just run the newly hired officer through 16 to 40 hours of basic training and send them out in the field. These are the folks that LE is complaining about.

The professionals that I?ve worked with have at least some college as well as certified law enforcement training. This comes in handy when the security officer is faced with criminal activity and is placed in a position where knowing the elements of a crime and defensive tactics can come in handy vs. urinating oneself.

So, I guess the answer to the problem would be to have the various regulatory agencies increase the amount of training that security officers receive and extensive background checks, but considering that many security firms are out to make a buck off of anyone with a pulse, this will probably never happen.

[Bill Warnock]

Talon hit the nail on the head. The first federal agency in the US was the Marshals Service, September 1789. George Washington appointed the first 13 Marshals.
Pinkerton was a private corporation used by many government and private agencies. The railroad police served not only the railroad but in many instances were used in towns along the railroad.
When feuding between various "groups of holders of the peace" got out of hand local, state or territory government leaders got together and established specialized bodies of enforment officials.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[hemi444]

I am very fortunate with my past employer as an armed agent, the LE department and the agency had a good working relationship. The LE deparment knew who the wannabees were and who knew were their limits. Infact New Years morning at one of our sites we had a fight with about 250 subjects involved. The LE department was very grateful for our assistance.
Within municapality the LE did not have time to make business checks and depended on us for their eyes and ears and it worked well.

It hurts the s/o's that actually know what they are doing, but when a LE agent see's one guard with a sloppy uniform and unable to give details, it makes an inpression that s/o's are not as professional.
and I blame some of this on the employer because they want to find a body to fill a position.

This is not meant to pi$$ anyone off

[N. A. Corbier]

The analogy of Public Security Guard is apt, and in most cases, quite true. Law Enforcement, over the past 50 years, has seen a marked improvement in training. It used to be, public or private, so long as you could shoot straight and fight well, you had a job as a public security agent.

I sincerely doubt that the states will ever attempt to pass massive training legislation in the way they have for law enforcement. Mainly because the training legislation provides protections for the LE agency's governmental body. Many security companies have stated, "We don't need this insane level of training in private security, because all you do is sit in a gate house and check people in, or guard an empty field on a construction site." (There are actual quotations in USA Today by several multi-national companies to this effect.)

What this is really saying, of course, is that the client does not want enforcement of law and protection of property/persons, but merely another method of reducing liability if they are the victim of crime or unsafe conditions. They want another tactic they can use against their insurance carrier who refuses to pay off, citing that they're not responsible because the guard failed to prevent it, so the insurance carrier should pay off.

Alot of warm body security is simply passing the buck onto a 5.50 an hour employee.

[hemi444]

Alot of warm body security is simply passing the buck onto a 5.50 an hour employee.

I will second that. It is shame that someone has to be put in a position to take an hourly rate like that kowing he is in need of a job. I think that a set standard should be in affect that a nationwide training level should be established.

I tried getting my past employer to get everyone cpr/aed & basic first aid certified but they did not want to here of it. It ticked me off because in case of a medical emergency the average person would seek the s/o for help. Also this would hopefully increase the chances by getting a better paying contract aswell.

[N. A. Corbier]

I will second that. It is shame that someone has to be put in a position to take an hourly rate like that kowing he is in need of a job. I think that a set standard should be in affect that a nationwide training level should be established.

I tried getting my past employer to get everyone cpr/aed & basic first aid certified but they did not want to here of it. It ticked me off because in case of a medical emergency the average person would seek the s/o for help. Also this would hopefully increase the chances by getting a better paying contract aswell.

Getting everyone certified creates a higher standard of care for their clients. That also creates a value-added-service that they must provide, as the company employees are trained and certified in doing so - they can be considered "professional rescuers," due to their training. The company cannot charge for this value-added-service, and in essence is giving it away for free while requiring to assume the liablity for the officer's actions.

Many companies fear providing first aid and/or cpr like the plague. The moment the company employee touches that patient, the company is liable for the officer's action/inaction, and reenforces the standard of care.

I was certified in Adult/Peds CPR and First Aid, though S2 Institute in Clearwater, Florida, as part of the State of Florida "D" Course. During my duties, I had a person drop into a grand mal seizure on my property, and I rendered first aid till EMS arrived.

The client went livid, attempting to pull me off the patient, and was rewarded with a baton jab after repeated warnings to back up. My employer's management was less than thrilled that I allowed a patient to be placed in my care, custody, and control - however, those persons who were not management but were supervision (at the time) understood why I would not "walk away" from my patient.

I really didn't like the client's general manager. His concept was that security was there to take towels to the guest, and gave free food to Tampa Police to get them to hang around and perform security functions. The police, in turn, tried to steal the contract - till they found out that the hotel chain does not allow police officers to perform security duties, as they are armed and have a conflicting duty to the public rather than the hotel chain.

[Mr. Security]

....
Many companies fear providing first aid and/or cpr like the plague. The moment the company employee touches that patient, the company is liable for the officer's action/inaction, and reenforces the standard of care.

I was certified in Adult/Peds CPR and First Aid, though S2 Institute in Clearwater, Florida, as part of the State of Florida "D" Course. During my duties, I had a person drop into a grand mal seizure on my property, and I rendered first aid till EMS arrived.

The client went livid....

You made the right decision. There are times when "I was just following orders." doesn't meet the higher standard of ones conscience and basic morality. My company states that we are not permitted to render first-aid unless we are certified. The company does not have a program for certification. Although I know basic first-aid and CPR, my certification has long since expired. Nevertheless, if I am presented with a person who is bleeding or has had a heart attack, I will attempt to render basic first aid until more qualified help arrives. To do otherwise is immoral in my viewpoint.

Either way, I will have to live with the consequences. But I bet that you can tell which set of consequences is easier for me to live with and sleep with at night.:)

[Echos13]

My present position advises (verbally) not to assist in medical matters at all. Weather certified or not. But if it came down to morals I would not hesitate to save a life. Can one live with not acting rather than being fired for acting? Granted one should not go beyond what one ether has or has no training or experience in. The only place that seems to appreciate -kind of- security having basic first aid or first responder training are the hospitals. I see positions open all the time for them in central Florida requiring significant experience and training. Some of these hospital security departments do seem to have an LEO like mentality to them basing thier SOP on LEO practices too. I had been offered a job at one of the other city general centers a couple of years ago but I turned it down.

[hemi444]

My present position advises (verbally) not to assist in medical matters at all. Weather certified or not.

I ran into this problem when a clients guest fell to the ground and had a seizure. Things went down quickly, he went into respitory arrest and I did mouth to mouth with a protected barrier. The employer wanted to fire me but after battling it out for about an hour I still had my job.

[Bill Warnock]

N.A.'s response is the perfect example of the application of the "reasonably prudent man theory." What should a reasonably prudent person do in that situation.
All of us in this profession need to follow N.A.'s example. Nicely done sir.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[N. A. Corbier]

N.A.'s response is the perfect example of the application of the "reasonably prudent man theory." What should a reasonably prudent person do in that situation.
All of us in this profession need to follow N.A.'s example. Nicely done sir.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

Oh, my employer wanted to kick my ass, THEN fire me. :) I had to show, exactly, where in the course curriclium we were trained in First Aid and CPR. Even more amusing, I didn't even have to do anything for the patient except basic assessment and monitor his condition. After talking with his friend (They were ravers handing out flyers, and his friend was afraid of his buddy going to jail), I had to patiently explain to him that whatever this kid is on, he best tell me, or my patient may well die and I will be very unhappy. Idiot patient had ingested a significant amount of MDMA, and was having a "reaction."

I've noticed that alot of the colleges up here have "public safety officer" positions that read like a police officer's job description. Several private colleges require WI-POST certified police officers, for a security officer's job. They also have positions for investigators, again, for a private security department of a private college.

[EMTGuard]

It ticked me off because in case of a medical emergency the average person would seek the s/o for help. Also this would hopefully increase the chances by getting a better paying contract aswell.This is something I've encountered first hand. Luckily I don't have much interaction with the public in my assignment in industry. That hasn't prevented the same confusion from happening.
As I've said in other posts, our company recruits EMTs from fire departments and other EMS agencies. These EMT/Security Officers, like me, are assigned to posts where the client requires a medical first responder. They will work alongside the regular SOs who have no medical training at the same assignment.
Things are all fine when when employees at the facility know the difference. Calls of "I need the EMT to come to Loading door 5," or ""I need an EMT to respond to the water treatment plant," get me rolling in the medical response van right away.
Problems happen when we get a call over the radio like "I need a Security Guard to the warehouse." The unarmed SO will respond assuming that the employee needs a door unlocked or an accident/incident report written up for a flat tire or someone backing into a fence. Upon arrival the SO, with no medical training or equiptment, is confronted with an employee who is injured.
Several weeks back this situation occured as I was on shift. The call over the radio was "I need a security guard at door 9". The SO responded nonurgent to the call, after he finished signing in a druck driver and making a couple of notes in the log book, and found an employee who was seriously injured. The SO called me and I responded right away in the medical van but the injuried employees' buddies, who were standing around waiting, were confused that they had to wait even longer. The injured employee suffered because the department supervisor had not radioed for a Medical Emergency. That supervisor assumed that all the contract 'guards' were EMT trained.
The fact is, The different subsets of Security Officer in our company, Unarmed, Armed, CPR/FR, EMT, Supervisor, are all trained and paid at different levels and have different responsibilities on a post. I can understand the confusion in a public access area such as a mall or shopping center but it's harder to deal with when you are at a chemical plant or manufacturing facility where the Union employees, particularly the department supervisors, should know who and how to call for help.

[hemi444]

If you only go to the Burger King in your town and they always mess up your order

Not to derail the thread, but check this site out.

http://www.amishdonkey.com/burger-king-guy.php

[Mr. Security]

Not to derail the thread, but check this site out.

http://www.amishdonkey.com/burger-king-guy.php

The network that I'm using won't access this site. As long as it's decent, can you give me the gist of it? Thanks. :)

[EMTGuard]

The network that I'm using won't access this site. As long as it's decent, can you give me the gist of it? Thanks. :) It's a video that's been making the rounds...Retarted Burger King Guy...has a BK guy standing at a counter behind the register and the photo is animated so his mouth moves as he sings "Ding fries are done." No nudity or gross stuff but depending on your sence of humor you will either laugh or wonder why you wasted 2 minutes of your life on it. What ever it is it's a ...
http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/8083/derail6zo.th.jpg (http://img28.imageshack.us/my.php?image=derail6zo.jpg)

Now back to all of us wanting to fulfill our fantasy of becoming cops.

[Mr. Security]

...
Now back to all of us wanting to fulfill our fantasy of becoming cops.

Stop; I can't take it anymore! :D :p

[Taser]

It's a video that's been making the rounds...Retarted Burger King Guy...has a BK guy standing at a counter behind the register and the photo is animated so his mouth moves as he sings "Ding fries are done." No nudity or gross stuff but depending on your sence of humor you will either laugh or wonder why you wasted 2 minutes of your life on it. What ever it is it's a ...
http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/8083/derail6zo.th.jpg (http://img28.imageshack.us/my.php?image=derail6zo.jpg)

Now back to all of us wanting to fulfill our fantasy of becoming cops.
Hahahaha...

Don't **** with fries in hot fat, it really hurts bad and so do skin grafts! Would you like an apple pie with that? Would you like an apple pie with thaaaat?

I love that one. :D

[Mr. Security]

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/8083/derail6zo.th.jpg (http://img28.imageshack.us/my.php?image=derail6zo.jpg)


I borrowed your picture for my RR thread. Hope you don't mind. :)

[Mr. Security]

.......
Enforcing the rules of the facility where I'm assigned may involve 'lighting up' a vehicle, pulling it over and writing up a incident ticket for violations such as speeding, damaging equiptment or other violations. These writeup tickets have resulted in certain contracters and visitors being banned from future admittance to our facility. Don't get mad at us for making traffic stops on PRIVATE PROPERTY. It's part of our job description......

EMTGuard has a point. :)

[Echos13]

I am curious for those with the duties of safety enforcement. Concerning speeding. How to you determine a person is violating the required speed limit on private property? Other than using the "visual dopler" effect what happens if the violator challenges your violation citation? I assume you have no speed measuring equipment other than your eyes it would seem to me that it would be an easy challenge unless your word is law there.

[talon]

I would (ASSume) that It would not be speed per say but speed under the conditions....in other words here in my home State of la la land you cannot charge with a speed limit violation on property but you can charge with either "C&R" or "to fast for conditions" without running radar, it's a visual call that you have to make and be able to articulate.

My two cents, correct me if I'm wrong.

[N. A. Corbier]

I would (ASSume) that It would not be speed per say but speed under the conditions....in other words here in my home State of la la land you cannot charge with a speed limit violation on property but you can charge with either "C&R" or "to fast for conditions" without running radar, it's a visual call that you have to make and be able to articulate.

My two cents, correct me if I'm wrong.

A residental property had us enforcing speed, unsafe conditions, and running stop signs. Without speed measuring equipment, everything stems from "unsafe conditions," or "careless driving."

In that the speed limit is 10 MPH, and a vehicle doing 40 MPH will look a hell of alot faster than 10 MPH.

So long as your citations indicate that it is a private matter between management and tenant, all is well. For those who were not tenants,
they would lose their privilage to remain on the private property and be ejected.

[Mr. Security]

I am curious for those with the duties of safety enforcement. Concerning speeding. How to you determine a person is violating the required speed limit on private property? Other than using the "visual dopler" effect what happens if the violator challenges your violation citation? I assume you have no speed measuring equipment other than your eyes it would seem to me that it would be an easy challenge unless your word is law there.

In my case, it's visual and based on my report. Since a client has the right to choose which contractor to use on private property, they can deny access to their facility by contractors who are accused of speeding. In this case, the client is not under any obligation to legally defend their decision because it's their property, not the public's.

Other security sites may be open to the public, and I am not qualified to address the specifics for those areas.

[Echos13]

That?s interesting. Your using visual ascertain using point to point locations to determine speed. The reason I asked this question is your discussions about safety enforcement had me recall a former job related to safety issues. Over a decade and a half ago when I had a part time guard job while with the PD, not to mention going to school in between making the term burning candles at both ends surreal. It was at a plant being built and the access road was about three miles long. People were making the pole positions at Indy look like soap box derby days. The road was marked 30 miles per hour and inside the plant was 10. Because of the side roads to various other areas where connected to the main access there were always close calls with front loaders and earth movers. Not to mention the company employees were just as guilty. Mostly all the young ones with sport cars. But they continued to speed. Most of them were contractors and most got suspended and or fired. Sometimes. After three months of citing after citing being thrown out because of no proof it was frustrating. Gives you an idea of how much we where really appreciate, respected or had any true authority. It was indeed an insurance baby sitter job in my opinion. I thought about bringing one of my spare speed guns from the PD and really socking it to them. When I mentioned it to my boss he liked it. But when it got to the BIG boss of the plant we where nothing short of threatened of being fired. A month later I quit and got another part time job running cameras for a business office complex. Upon which I ran into one of my former partners there who told me one the techs wrapped his GT3000 around a water tanker a few months after I had left. Poetic justice I guess. But they fired half the guard force there to save face! I am not sure if standards have changed where you guys all work but it was a terrible joke back then.

Also I have no idea what happend to the guy in the GT3000 and the circumstances of those who were fired. It was one of those kind of jobs I left and never looked back.

[Lawson]

I wish security was allowed to enforce traffic on private property in WA. As far as I know, the most you can do is hope to catch up with them and give them some sort of warning, or report it. I dont think you can light someone up to detain them for a traffic infraction. If I am wrong I sure would like to know of a Company that does this.

[talon]

one the techs wrapped his GT3000 around a water tanker a few months after I had left. Poetic justice I guess. But they fired half the guard force there to save face!

Everyone should heed this warning....WE ARE ALL EXPENDABLE....never fool yourself and especially don't let your boss(es) fool you. No one will stand behind you whether it be in the public sector or the private one. When "it" goes south you will be hung out to dry.....

Always cover your own SIX....

[Tennsix]

In my case, it's visual and based on my report. Since a client has the right to choose which contractor to use on private property, they can deny access to their facility by contractors who are accused of speeding. In this case, the client is not under any obligation to legally defend their decision because it's their property, not the public's.

Other security sites may be open to the public, and I am not qualified to address the specifics for those areas.
What happens if the motorist flees?

[talon]

What happens if the motorist flees?

I don't presume to speak for Mr. Security but I would say if you have no Police powers on the property you get the "28" and turn it over to management and then they make the decision as to whether or not the person will be civilly punished by denying access the next time or firing the person.

However, in the event that the Security Officers hold law enforcement authority then "hot Pursuit would come into play.

[Tennsix]

Are these security officers properly trained to conduct traffic stops? A whole lot can go wrong with a seemingly simple stop.

[N. A. Corbier]

Are these security officers properly trained to conduct traffic stops? A whole lot can go wrong with a seemingly simple stop.

No, they are not. Companies and clients believe that they do not require law enforcement training, as they are not issuing a criminal NTA/citation.

As far as "what happens when the motorist flees," the motorist flees off the property, no longer making them the security officer's problem. When they attempt to re-enter, they are denied entry and a trespass warning issued. If they make it onto the property, they're vehicle can be towed under private impound statute (Its not wanted on the property), and they can be removed and a trespass warning issued.

The primary purpose of a traffic stop on private property is to identify the operator and give instruction, not to issue a NTA/citation. 90% of the traffic stop procedure is thrown out, and not required.

Then again, when I did stops, I conducted a traffic stop, not a "walk up and talk to the driver." I'm not getting killed over "You need to leave." :)

[Taser]

Are these security officers properly trained to conduct traffic stops?
Doubtful..

[Tennsix]

Ok... From reading a few of the posts, I got that idea. It seems some SEO?s trivialize private property traffic stops. Anything that happens on the street can happen in the private setting. The risk of felonious and accidental assault is significant. I think some SEO?s loose sight of that because it is on private property. This whole concept is new to me as Indiana does not empower security to conduct traffic stops under any circumstances.

[Tennsix]

No, they are not. Companies and clients believe that they do not require law enforcement training, as they are not issuing a criminal NTA/citation.

As far as "what happens when the motorist flees," the motorist flees off the property, no longer making them the security officer's problem. When they attempt to re-enter, they are denied entry and a trespass warning issued. If they make it onto the property, they're vehicle can be towed under private impound statute (Its not wanted on the property), and they can be removed and a trespass warning issued.

The primary purpose of a traffic stop on private property is to identify the operator and give instruction, not to issue a NTA/citation. 90% of the traffic stop procedure is thrown out, and not required.

Then again, when I did stops, I conducted a traffic stop, not a "walk up and talk to the driver." I'm not getting killed over "You need to leave." :)

So, an SEO (in the states it is allowed) may stop a car for no legal reason? In comparison, I must have a legal reason (suspicion, traffic violation, criminal investigative, etc) to stop a car or a pedestrian whether it is public or private property. Is the standard different for an SEO?

[Huey County]

And now, a routine stop has just escalated into a possible confrontation between civilian and S/O, most likely along a well traveled route.

Ahhh, isn't a Security Officer a Civilian too?
Well traveled route; This wouldn't be on city, county, or state roads would it?



If you happen to pull over a Police Officer, or god-forbid a lawyer, your actions WILL be scrutinized in court, guaranteed.

Very true, but I would have to stop first. (Which will NOT happen!)

[jimmyhat]

Ahhh, isn't a Security Officer a Civilian too?

Yes Sir, I tend to agree that the S/O is a civilian as well. I suppose I meant that in a broader sense.

However, that is not Fact in all jurisdictions, I'd consult the criminal code case by case.

Another good point brought up by Huey County, and Mr. Corbier. What if the subject does flee? And in doing so, crashes, possibly killing themselves or innocent bystanders. From the moment you have activated your submission equipment until the time that driver stops on their own accord, or the will of an oak tree, you (the Security officer) are responsible.

As much as I hate to admit it, I guess my thinking on this subject is that private Security should not be in the business of making traffic stops. I may be acting very hypocritical in that thinking, especially since I'm very progressive/aggressive in my instruction and practice of Security procedure. It's just such a gray area, and I'll try to gain more knowledge on the subject before I speak on it again, as far as jurisdiction/authority for the private industry.

[N. A. Corbier]

So, an SEO (in the states it is allowed) may stop a car for no legal reason? In comparison, I must have a legal reason (suspicion, traffic violation, criminal investigative, etc) to stop a car or a pedestrian whether it is public or private property. Is the standard different for an SEO?

This is the incredibly fun part. Lets say you are driving around a residential neighborhood, that is guarded by my patrol officers. Lets say, for some reason, I'm patrolling. I observe, for whatever reason, that you fail to stop at a stop sign. You have not committed a criminal act - the stop sign is on private property and is not a traffic control device. I then pull in behind you, run your tag, and light you up with red/white/red or amber/white/amber. If I were a law enforcement officer, I would not have probable cause to make a detention stop - you committed no offense. But, as a private citizen in control of the property you are on, I have the authority to ask you to yield.

Upon putting myself out on the stop, I walk up to you, and inform you that I am a private security officer, that you are on private property, and that I require your ID (Not POI, Reg, just ID) to verify you are a resident of the property (Verifying legal right to be on property.) If you refuse, you are ordered to leave. Further refusal would warrant a LEO dispatched to issue a trespass warning, or in some states, arrest for trespass after warning.

If all goes well, one of two things would happen:

If you are a resident of the property, a citation would be issued, which is a formal complaint submitted to property management for your violation of the Covenant of Documents / Lease Agreement. You would sign the citation, or you can refuse. You are then sent a 7 day notice to cure, in which you are informed by the management company of your violation of your lease / Condo Covenant, and their intention to pursue eviction if you do not further comply. That's it. There is no referral to the public criminal justice system.

If you are not a resident, and you cooperate to the point of advising who the resident you are visiting is (and confirmed through the leasee book via telephone), a citation will be issued, and the management will contact the leasee / condo owner with a 7 day notice to cure. The condo owner / apartment leasee is responsible for the behavior of their guests regardless of their presence with the guest.

Even more amusingly, if you appear suspicious, or the company has posted signs that all persons may be subject to overt survellance and/or challenge, you may be stopped for NO reason. As it is private property, those without a reason to be there can be challenged by the owner or agent of the owner to produce a valid reason to be on "their" property. If they fail to provide such a reason, they can be ordered to leave. In most states, it is not probable cause to arrest until a law enforcement officer arrives and they still refuse to leave.

Just as a security guard can ask any person on their property, "Do you live here?" on foot, so may they "pull over" cars to find this out, as well.

Since there is no legal requirement for you to stop for a security officer, we don't have to worry about "illegal" or "improper" stops, except in the cases of racial profiling, etc. The entire stop is over "rules enforcement," not criminal law enforcement. However, 9/10 times, the security officer will continue to follow you throughout the property with their warning lights on.

This is about the same as a security guard stopping vehicles at a checkpoint or gate, except that in that case, the driver of the vehicle does not have the option of failing to yield - they'll hit the gate. The only difference, of course, is that most people equate "a vehicle stopping another vehicle" with law enforcement activity, whereas a gate stop is considered a private security activity.

As far as training, indeed, many companies give no direction on traffic stops, either at the gate or via vehicle stop. Both can be extremely dangerous for the officer, but nobody ever thinks about the unarmed security gate guard stopping cars.

Also, it is highly, very, important that the roads that you are patrolling are PRIVATE PROPERTY. That is the basis for your authority for the stop, you are verifying legal right to be on the private property, and stating that you must comply with the owner's rules.

[N. A. Corbier]

I just thought of more, to directly answer your question, Tennsix. As a public law enforcement officer, you have the authority to engage in investigative detentions. A private person has no such authority.

Equate it to this: Do you require a legal reason to ask someone what they're doing on your property? As an agent of the property owner, the security officer is confered all rights of the property owner, including private impound and the right to cause the removal of individuals they do not want on the property.

This is the one thing, the chief thing, that seperates a police officer from a security officer: A police officer can't say "Get off my lawn." A security officer can, and without any good reason. To refuse is trespass after warning.

[N. A. Corbier]

Ahhh, isn't a Security Officer a Civilian too?
Well traveled route; This wouldn't be on city, county, or state roads would it?



Very true, but I would have to stop first. (Which will NOT happen!)

That's the whole thing. Anyone attempting to make stops on public streets is going to have a cell at the county jail waiting for them. A traffic stop, just like a gate or other access point, can only be used on private roads or private property.

The issue with "I'd have to stop first" is addressed by simply leaving. Your tag is recorded, and you are barred entry upon your next visit. As the owner of the property, and his agents, have the right to bar entry to any person for any reason, his reason is not up for intrepretation. The only way that it would be would be a violation of federal civil rights, such as discrimination.

Lighting someone up to make them leave is a popular tactic. The perferred outcome is to remove the person from the property, or determine who to send the notice to cure to.

I've always looked at it like this. You have some kids trespassing on your property. You take a few steps towards them, they run off the property and taunt you that you can't "catch them." Who won? The security officer, who has removed the undesirable persons from his assigned property. :)

[N. A. Corbier]

Most security officers are not trained to make stops at a gate or on foot, let alone a vehicle stop. Confronting someone at the mall when you require to remove them is hazardous, as is checking IDs at a front gate of a residential community. In all cases, there is no or little training in such things, and most clients/security companies believe that the gate guard should be completely unarmed "so as not to scare the residents." If the gate guard is attacked over control of the gate arm, or by a pedestrian walking onto the property, its addressed by either adding an armed security officer, or firing the guard for being confrontational.

Traffic stops are inherantly dangerous. Some of the danger is mitigated by felons realizing that it is not a law enforcement officer stopping them, and that they are unable to run warrants. Others think that the guard can. Others still just don't care.

A video of a law enforcement officer who kidnapped a woman is on the internet. The officer stopped the offender for speeding, that's all. He subsequently was held hostage at gunpoint.

Traffic stops, pedestrian stops, and access gates are all useful tools on private property to control undesirable persons on the property, identify persons violating policy, rule, or law, and providing a highly visible deterrant to infractions.

Most police officers focus on their training. A stop is for a criminal or traffic infraction. To a security officer, a stop may be criminal investigative (Do you live here?), rules enforcement investigative (Do you have a parking permit / weigh slip? Do you know that there's enough organophosphine in the container your driving like a lunatic with to blow us all to hell!?), or informational (Are you lost?).

Of course, like everything else, training is at a premium, and effective traffic stop safety is an "open secret" in law enforcement. Most manuals and doctrines for effective safety in static and mobile stops are "restricted - law enforcement only," making it harder for companies to provide such training.

[hemi444]

Also, it is highly, very, important that the roads that you are patrolling are PRIVATE PROPERTY .

I highly agree with you. One of the sites we had was that the twp road came through the development and the parking lot just went to the side of the road. Once the Operator of the vehicle got into the parking stall we were able to make a stop or approach them. Even then it got hard because we had to make sure that we were on the clients property as well.

[talon]

If you are an unsworn S/O you had better have in writing from your employer and the client what they want and how they want it done. This way the burden falls on them if something goes wrong.

I never made a stop while I was an unsworn S/O because of the liability that I saw in it, but I knew some guys that did...and one of the guys happend to pull over a State Trooper one night

Also,

tensix said this
This whole concept is new to me as Indiana does not empower security to conduct traffic stops under any circumstances.

It has always been my contention that most locals don't really understand the laws in their own juristictions and I'm not picking on anyone or trying to start a pi$$ing match...and maybe Tensix does know about this and I'm wrong.

Special Deputies
The State of Indiana has authorized the Sheriff of each county, by statute, to appoint certain qualified individuals and grant them police powers. These persons are classified as "Special Deputy Sheriffs" in one of two different categories. This web page will give a brief description of these two categories.

II. NON-EMPLOYEE (BUSINESS) - Special Deputy Sheriff.

The second category is that of Non-Employee (Business) - Special Deputy Sheriff. These individuals have been granted limited police powers to adequately perform police duties for private employers. They are granted the authority to (1) keep the peace and (2) to make arrests and to detain - in custody - any person arrested until the cause of such arrest has been investigated.

A person wishing to become a business Special Deputy Sheriff must first be employed by a public agency or private company which has been specifically approved by the Sheriff of Marion County to hire and use Special Deputies. The employer must provide liability insurance and an "Employer's Indemnification Agreement" for each business Special Deputy it employs. A business Special Deputies may work for more than one employer but each employer must provide liability insurance an "Employer's Indemnification Agreement" for each Special Deputies.

[Mr. Security]

What happens if the motorist flees?

Why would they? What would it accomplish? I'm not attempting to make a traffic stop. I can monitor the whole sight via CCTV. Besides, even if they had a reason to flee, it's tough to run away when every exit is gated. ;)

[Mr. Security]

FOR TENNSIX:


.......

Equate it to this: Do you require a legal reason to ask someone what they're doing on your property? As an agent of the property owner, the security officer is confered all rights of the property owner, including private impound and the right to cause the removal of individuals they do not want on the property.....

As NA points out, private property sometimes gives a s/o more authority than LE. For example: LE requires probable cause to search. Not required on private property. The mere act of entering the propert site (if posted) means that you agree to any search as a condition of access to the facility. Of course, the visitor or employee may decline, which means that they MUST leave the premises immediately. Also, if it's an employee, they are subject to suspension or termination.

[Tennsix]

If you are an unsworn S/O you had better have in writing from your employer and the client what they want and how they want it done. This way the burden falls on them if something goes wrong.

I never made a stop while I was an unsworn S/O because of the liability that I saw in it, but I knew some guys that did...and one of the guys happend to pull over a State Trooper one night

Also,

tensix said this
This whole concept is new to me as Indiana does not empower security to conduct traffic stops under any circumstances.

It has always been my contention that most locals don't really understand the laws in their own juristictions and I'm not picking on anyone or trying to start a pi$$ing match...and maybe Tensix does know about this and I'm wrong.

Special Deputies
The State of Indiana has authorized the Sheriff of each county, by statute, to appoint certain qualified individuals and grant them police powers. These persons are classified as "Special Deputy Sheriffs" in one of two different categories. This web page will give a brief description of these two categories.

II. NON-EMPLOYEE (BUSINESS) - Special Deputy Sheriff.

The second category is that of Non-Employee (Business) - Special Deputy Sheriff. These individuals have been granted limited police powers to adequately perform police duties for private employers. They are granted the authority to (1) keep the peace and (2) to make arrests and to detain - in custody - any person arrested until the cause of such arrest has been investigated.

A person wishing to become a business Special Deputy Sheriff must first be employed by a public agency or private company which has been specifically approved by the Sheriff of Marion County to hire and use Special Deputies. The employer must provide liability insurance and an "Employer's Indemnification Agreement" for each business Special Deputy it employs. A business Special Deputies may work for more than one employer but each employer must provide liability insurance an "Employer's Indemnification Agreement" for each Special Deputies.
I am familiar with special deputies as I used to be a full-time deputy sheriff (police officer now).

1. I was not referring to security officers sworn as special deputies. I was speaking of security officers with no police powers. Most Sheriff?s will not allow an ?off-duty? special duty to exercise police powers while working private security-too much liability. Furthermore, there is a question as to whether a special deputy has powers ?off-duty?

2. The powers of special deputies are not as free flowing as you suggest. Special deputy powers are closely monitored and scrutinized. Any abuse, misuse, or questionable activity is swiftly addressed. Each county sheriff governs the powers special deputies. What is true for one county may not be for another. In many counties, a special deputy enjoys very little (if any) police power.

[Tennsix]

Why would they? What would it accomplish? I'm not attempting to make a traffic stop. I can monitor the whole sight via CCTV. Besides, even if they had a reason to flee, it's tough to run away when every exit is gated. ;)
YEah, I see your point. I was wondering what authority an S/O would have if the suspect fled.

[Tennsix]

tensix said this
This whole concept is new to me as Indiana does not empower security to conduct traffic stops under any circumstances.

It has always been my contention that most locals don't really understand the laws in their own juristictions and I'm not picking on anyone or trying to start a pi$$ing match...and maybe Tensix does know about this and I'm wrong.
I have a pretty good handle on statutes; I know enough to stay out of trouble. I realize you may challenge a person on your property but going much beyond that is treading on criminal detainment. We are all bound by the ?Reasonable Person? standard.

In Indiana, a traffic stop can only be conducted by a law enforcment officer in a police uniform or in a marked police vehicle. The uniform and the vehicle have to be plainly recognized as police.

[Tennsix]

Originally Posted by talon
If you are an unsworn S/O you had better have in writing from your employer and the client what they want and how they want it done. This way the burden falls on them if something goes wrong.
Any officer (SEO or LEO) that instigates activity that falls outside the scope of his/her authority is in trouble. In the event of a civil law suit, your company/agency will probably be named too. And only an autorized emergency vehicle may display white, red, blue lights.

[Mr. Security]

YEah, I see your point. I was wondering what authority an S/O would have if the suspect fled.

In my case, I have -0- authority to initiate a traffic stop, let alone pursue a vehicle that failed to yield. Those situations are best left to trained LE. An armed s/o who observed the commission of a serious felony could pursue a vehicle on private property, but the chase for the s/o ends at the property line as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure that someone will try to argue that they can still pursue outside private property, but I think their asking for BIG trouble.

[N. A. Corbier]

In my case, I have -0- authority to initiate a traffic stop, let alone pursue a vehicle that failed to yield. Those situations are best left to trained LE. An armed s/o who observed the commission of a serious felony could pursue a vehicle on private property, but the chase for the s/o ends at the property line as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure that someone will try to argue that they can still pursue outside private property, but I think their asking for BIG trouble.

Some states let you pursue off property. Technically, any state that allows for a citizen's arrest will. Your powers to arrest don't come from your position, but your responsibility to assist in keeping the peace as a member of your community.

However, you have just abandoned your post, and are in dereliction of duty. Explain that to the employer, the client, and the little old lady who was mugged while you were chasing someone else off property.

[Tennsix]

Some states let you pursue off property. Technically, any state that allows for a citizen's arrest will. Your powers to arrest don't come from your position, but your responsibility to assist in keeping the peace as a member of your community.

However, you have just abandoned your post, and are in dereliction of duty. Explain that to the employer, the client, and the little old lady who was mugged while you were chasing someone else off property.
Technically, you are right but some people would mistake that power as a green light act with reckless abandon. Anyone conducting a citizen arrest (including a vehicle pursuit) is required to act with due regard. Getting fired might be the least of your worries. I am sure such an incident would result in a legal firestorm.

[N. A. Corbier]

Technically, you are right but some people would mistake that power as a green light act with reckless abandon. Anyone conducting a citizen arrest (including a vehicle pursuit) is required to act with due regard. Getting fired might be the least of your worries. I am sure such an incident would result in a legal firestorm.

That's one of the reasons you don't let people exercize arrest powers without proper training. Look at California, where the arrest powers are codified into law. There is a "Powers of Arrest" class built directly into the state security education course. It teaches them exactly how, why, and when they may make arrests. It also teaches them the liability of their actions.

Here's the kicker: In California, if you make a private arrest and do not have a telephone to call the police, you are authorized to detain your prisoner till you are properly relieved. It is considered reasonable because your duty is to protect your property. The suspect's civil right to timely detention dosen't apply because they have been physically arrested, and are still under arrrest. The guard may then contact the police, or book the suspect into the jail himself.

I took a course, long ago, for Bondsmen. It was a whim with a brother in law and a few friends. 90% of the course revolved around the California Private Arrest and Bond Remanding Statutes. It was really weird to note in the course, they taught you: KNOW HOW TO FILL OUT LA COUNTY BOOKING FORMS. THEY WILL NOT HELP YOU. THEY WILL LAUGH.

[Tennsix]

Indiana has a broadminded private arrest statute as well. Indiana empowers a private citizen to effect an arrest for a witnessed breech-of-peace misdemeanor and any witnessed or probable cause felony arrest. The private citizen is empowered to take the suspect into custody and turn them over to the police as soon as possible. Even if the police transport to jail, the citizen is listed as the arresting officer. However, I have only seen that done twice in 19 years.

[Charger]

I tend to lean towards N.A.'s feelings on this one... When I worked at the mall down in Oregon, we performed vehicle stops occaisionally, but my trainer also instructed us on the specific conditions that we were allowed to do so. Because a traffic stop can be construed as a 'detainment', we were only allowed to make a stop if we personally witnessed (keeping in line with arrest by private citizens) a criminal traffic infraction... which narrowed it down to wreckless/careless, DUI, and a couple others... And even at that, we would have to articulate the reasons that we felt that crime had been committed. DUI was pretty easy to articulate, and the local PD had no problem coming out to give FSTs for us.. Wreckless was another matter, as we had to show that they were endangering lives... (driving at a high speed in very close proximety to a large number of pedestrians, for example).. So needless to say, the stops didn't happen very often. But they were successful when they did.

Working where I currently do, we're not nearly as open to the public, so we have a bit more leeway on reasons for stopping a person. As N.A. gave in his example, we find out who they are, their reason for being here, and if they refuse to obey, they have to leave. Plain & simple. However, I won't stop for no reason. We have a posted limit of 5mph here, so it's pretty easy to tell when someone's speeding, but I won't make a stop just for speed unless it's HIGHLY excessive (35+mph) or again, wreckless/dangerous conditions... In the (almost a) year I've been here, I've only made a few stops, and most of them were not for any real traffic issue, but for suspicious behavior.. (aka: circling the lot numerous times at a very low speed, casing parked vehicles, etc.)

Of course, unlike most SOs I HAVE had the so-called 'proper' training on making traffic stops... So on the rare occaision that I initiate one, I follow procedure and notify management what's going on, and then keep my finger on the '9' button of my cell as I approach to call 911 if something goes sour...

EDIT: Oh, and on the fleeing issue... I actually had a vehicle do exactly that a few months back. As soon as they left the parking lot, my lights went off, and I went back to my rounds. Suspicious vehicle gone, problem solved.

[talon]

"private property sometimes gives a s/o more authority than LE".

If I had a nickel for every young wide eyed S/O that I've heard say that I would be one rich SOB...these employers should be outlawed from using that one because it gives these young guys to many ideas...I had one young S/O tell me that if the FBI came to his property that they would have to check with him before entering...his employer had told him so...I guess to make him feel good about making $5.50.

Special Deputies:

Tennsix,

Thanks for clearing up the special deputy statute as far as each Sheriff of each county being in charge of the amount of arrest authority for lack of a better term. Thats one reason why I don't like it because you have to contribute to the Sheriff's campain in order to have any powers for your Officers.

Traffic Stops:

Here in my home State it was never spelled out if you could or if you could not stop on property so some did and some did not. Just recently the State added a few new paragraphs to their impersonating an Officer Statute and one of them is impersonating by performing a task of an Officer such as stopping vehicles, searching vehicles and buildings and so fourth. We will have to wait and see what develops here.

[Tennsix]

If I had a nickel for every young wide eyed S/O that I've heard say that I would be one rich SOB...these employers should be outlawed from using that one because it gives these young guys to many ideas...I had one young S/O tell me that if the FBI came to his property that they would have to check with him before entering...his employer had told him so...I guess to make him feel good about making $5.50.
I was on a fight call where a S/O ordered my SGT not to make an arrest. As the SGT was making the arrest the S/O stepped between the suspect and the the police officer and "ordered" the police officer to back off. You can guess what happened next...

[N. A. Corbier]

"private property sometimes gives a s/o more authority than LE".

If I had a nickel for every young wide eyed S/O that I've heard say that I would be one rich SOB...these employers should be outlawed from using that one because it gives these young guys to many ideas...I had one young S/O tell me that if the FBI came to his property that they would have to check with him before entering...his employer had told him so...I guess to make him feel good about making $5.50.

You'll have to go after the State of Florida, Department of Agroculture and Consumer Services, Division of Licensing on that term. The curriclium uses that specific term to teach security officer canidates about the powers of a security officer as agent of the owner vs. the powers of a sworn law enforcement officer. Many instructors use this specific term to illustrate both the power that the security officer has on property, and why they have no power off property.

A police officer cannot order someone to vacate a private property, unless they are quelling a riot or other unlawful assembly. They are not in control of the property, the property owner is.

This is why, in Florida, property owners give the police department "agent of owner" status which allows police officers to evict undesirables from the property, not as a law enforcement officer, but as a security officer. If they fail to comply, they are then arrested for trespass after warning, as the sworn LEO witnessed his own trespass warning which was failed to be obeyed.

Amusingly enough, I once worked contract security for Honeywell Military Avionics. We routinely interacted with FBI agents, DISA, and other armed DOD and federal investigators, as well as OSI, NCIS, and CID from Army MP. Everyone within the facility was required to wear a badge. If they attempted to go past the security area without a badge, our orders were to specificially stop them. Period. Many OSI agents would take their badges off and see how long it took for the facility to notice them. Usually, it took 2 minutes, in which case they would send 3 out of the 4 man shift to confront the unbadged individual, remove him from the interior, and process him.

Even more amusing was that there was a room in the facility that we had orders to deny EMS and Fire Department access to if the building caught on fire. Of course, we would not be doing the denying, the Security Manager and a DISA agent probally would.

There's always some exception to any general rule. Training is required to know what, when, and why they exist.

Again, any idiot with a badge can be mitigated with proper training.

[Huey County]

In Indiana, a traffic stop can only be conducted by a law enforcment officer in a police uniform or in a marked police vehicle. The uniform and the vehicle have to be plainly recognized as police.

You should see some of our squads. We have a few unmarked squads that are in beater condition. We rarely use them, only for certain situations. Actually my department has more unmarked than marked squads.
Uniforms; Ha, don't get me started.

Stay safe bro,
"Huey"

[talon]

"Amusingly enough, I once worked contract security for Honeywell Military Avionics. We routinely interacted with FBI agents, DISA, and other armed DOD and federal investigators, as well as OSI, NCIS, and CID from Army MP. Everyone within the facility was required to wear a badge."

Right, this is a whole different ballgame than some kid working security at the local roach motel and trying to tell a Police Officer that they can't do anything on the property without their permission.

[hemi444]

Actually my department has more unmarked than marked squads. "Huey"

At one point our gov was going to mandate that all undercover patrol squad cars have lettering on the vehicles....No light bar need but it was shot down.

[N. A. Corbier]

"Amusingly enough, I once worked contract security for Honeywell Military Avionics. We routinely interacted with FBI agents, DISA, and other armed DOD and federal investigators, as well as OSI, NCIS, and CID from Army MP. Everyone within the facility was required to wear a badge."

Right, this is a whole different ballgame than some kid working security at the local roach motel and trying to tell a Police Officer that they can't do anything on the property without their permission.

Right. That kid was improperly trained. Or an idiot. Or both. Training, Training, Training. :)

[Mr. Security]

"private property sometimes gives a s/o more authority than LE".

If I had a nickel for every young wide eyed S/O that I've heard say that I would be one rich SOB...these employers should be outlawed from using that one because it gives these young guys to many ideas...I had one young S/O tell me that if the FBI came to his property that they would have to check with him before entering...his employer had told him so...I guess to make him feel good about making $5.50.


I gave you an example of what I meant when I said that. I noticed that you left that out of your quote. Are you saying that the example that I used is incorrect? If so, support your position.

[Mr. Security]

Some states let you pursue off property. Technically, any state that allows for a citizen's arrest will. Your powers to arrest don't come from your position, but your responsibility to assist in keeping the peace as a member of your community.

However, you have just abandoned your post, and are in dereliction of duty. Explain that to the employer, the client, and the little old lady who was mugged while you were chasing someone else off property.

What happens when the guy you're chasing blows a red light? Does the state allow you to proceed safetly through the red light like it does for LE? If it doesn't, the chase is over anyhow if you know what I mean. :)

[Tennsix]

Case rulings and jurisdictional interpretations often influence the context and spirit of a given statute. Through the statute might read one way, the reality of the situation may be very different. I would guess most states (if not all) would take a dim view of over enthusiastic law enforcement efforts initiated by private citizens.

[Tennsix]

What happens when the guy you're chasing blows a red light? Does the state allow you to proceed safetly through the red light like it does for LE? If it doesn't, the chase is over anyhow if you know what I mean. :)
Excellent point. There is no law enforcement equivalent of the Good Samaritan Law

[talon]

Mr. Security said,

"As NA points out, private property sometimes gives a s/o more authority than LE. For example: LE requires probable cause to search. Not required on private property. The mere act of entering the propert site (if posted) means that you agree to any search as a condition of access to the facility. Of course, the visitor or employee may decline, which means that they MUST leave the premises immediately. Also, if it's an employee, they are subject to suspension or termination".

Your entire statement is correct...except for the part about more authority than LEO's, thats why I seperated the sentence from the paragraph. What you are saying is that you can consent search on property...ok...so can an LEO...with consent all things are possible whether S/O or LEO.

I'm not critiquing, just pointing things out because I've seen alot of newbies take statements like that either to literally or out of the context that they were meant for.

[Mr. Security]

Mr. Security said,

"As NA points out, private property sometimes gives a s/o more authority than LE. For example: LE requires probable cause to search. Not required on private property. The mere act of entering the propert site (if posted) means that you agree to any search as a condition of access to the facility. Of course, the visitor or employee may decline, which means that they MUST leave the premises immediately. Also, if it's an employee, they are subject to suspension or termination".

Your entire statement is correct...except for the part about more authority than LEO's, thats why I seperated the sentence from the paragraph. What you are saying is that you can consent search on property...ok...so can an LEO...with consent all things are possible whether S/O or LEO.

I'm not critiquing, just pointing things out because I've seen alot of newbies take statements like that either to literally or out of the context that they were meant for.

I understand and appreciate what you're trying to do. The difference is that an employee or visitor will feel pressured to consent to the search because of the consequences if they decline (termination/denied entry). LE is not allowed to pressure or penalize the same person if they decline the LEO's request to search w/o probable cause. Security has the "carrot," LE does not.

[Tennsix]

Could one make the argument that such a search was coerced? Couldn?t the expressed or implied threat of expulsion be construed as coercion?

[N. A. Corbier]

Could one make the argument that such a search was coerced? Couldn?t the expressed or implied threat of expulsion be construed as coercion?

The search is a requirement of entry, or continued employment. The person, at any time, may choose to refuse to submit themselves to search. They may then take their business elsewere, or find another job.

I'm not sure that coercsion is a factor in a private property owner's rules of behavior on their property. Look at sporting venues. Many times, no law or ordinance requires that you be searched. You will simply be denied entry and your ticket refunded (If your lucky) if you refuse to consent to search. Is this cohersion?

[Tennsix]

The search is a requirement of entry, or continued employment. The person, at any time, may choose to refuse to submit themselves to search. They may then take their business elsewere, or find another job.

I'm not sure that coercsion is a factor in a private property owner's rules of behavior on their property. Look at sporting venues. Many times, no law or ordinance requires that you be searched. You will simply be denied entry and your ticket refunded (If your lucky) if you refuse to consent to search. Is this cohersion?
I would not consider the sporting event example as coercion. Mainly because the patron has not officially entered the venue and there is no ?let me search you or I will kick you out? In that example you are saying, ?If you want in, you will have to submit to a search?. Moreover, such searches tend be cursory and are supported by the courts as they relate to the threat of terrorism.

A search subsequent to conditions of employment could be different as well. In that situation, the employee has been advised (in writing) and has granted advanced consent.

[Lawson]

In my warehouse, we have the authority to randomly search any bag, box or other concealable parcel at any time to make sure that there is no merchandise in it. If you refuse to show your lunchbox to me when I ask... you can pretty much kiss your job goodbye.

Law Enforcement can come and request to search, but without warrant someone could say "Go to hell" and theres not an entire lot they could do about it.

[Tennsix]

In that situation, the employee has been advised (in writing) and has granted advanced consent. In your case, I assume the policy has been reviewed and aproved by the company's legal counsel.

[N. A. Corbier]

In all cases, I'd say, of private employees conducting searches, its due to informed consent by entering onto the property by signage or verbal warning.

I've seen signs in residential housing that specifically states: Warning. This property is protected by _____________________. All persons and vehicles entering this property are subject to covert or overt survelience by protection officers. All persons are subject to search while entering, remaining, or leaving the property. No Trespassing. Beware the woodchucks.

[talon]

Wackenhut lawson said,

"In my warehouse, we have the authority to randomly search any bag, box or other concealable parcel at any time to make sure that there is no merchandise in it. If you refuse to show your lunchbox to me when I ask... you can pretty much kiss your job goodbye".

Again, I'm not critiquing but you don't have authority per say... again what you have is a consent. Authority is when the person can't say no...

[Bill Warnock]

To add very little to what N.A. Corbier wrote above, suggest the following protocol be followed.
"To ensure there are no glitches, have legal counsel sign off as to the wording and have it journalized with the state."
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[Tennsix]

In all cases, I'd say, of private employees conducting searches, its due to informed consent by entering onto the property by signage or verbal warning.

I've seen signs in residential housing that specifically states: Warning. This property is protected by _____________________. All persons and vehicles entering this property are subject to covert or overt survelience by protection officers. All persons are subject to search while entering, remaining, or leaving the property. No Trespassing. Beware the woodchucks.
In a lot of cases, those signs have very little or no legal standing; they are posted to deter undesirables. Just like the dump trucks that say ?Not Responsible For Broken Windshields?

[Mr. Security]

Wackenhut lawson said,

"In my warehouse, we have the authority to randomly search any bag, box or other concealable parcel at any time to make sure that there is no merchandise in it. If you refuse to show your lunchbox to me when I ask... you can pretty much kiss your job goodbye".

Again, I'm not critiquing but you don't have authority per say... again what you have is a consent. Authority is when the person can't say no...

Actually, what he has is compelled consent. Again, something that LE can't do with searches. It's similar to when a driver refuses to consent to a breathalyzer test. The consequences are usually an immediately suspended license. Some may argue that they are being coerced into taking the test because of the consequences. It won't hold up in court and neither will such a defense regarding a search on private property by security.

I guess we could split hairs on this all day, but sadly, it's only a matter of time before people start lining up at the door to give away their rights against search & seizure in exchange for protection against terrorism. :(

[Tennsix]

Actually, what he has is compelled consent. Again, something that LE can't do with searches. It's similar to when a driver refuses to consent to a breathalyzer test. The consequences are usually an immediately suspended license. Some may argue that they are being coerced into taking the test because of the consequences. It won't hold up in court and neither will such a defense regarding a search on private property by security.

I guess we could split hairs on this all day, but sadly, it's only a matter of time before people start lining up at the door to give away their rights against search & seizure in exchange for protection against terrorism. :(
The moment a person (licensed or unlicensed) assumes control of a motor vehicle, he has presented the state with his implied consent to submit to a chemical test. Should the driver refuse, the state revokes his/her privilege to utilize the publicly funded roadways, i.e. license suspension. In my state, a refusal is generally results in DUI arrest without the benefit of a chemical test.

Yes, some argue coercion but the state recognizes the inherent danger of drunk driving so that argument is out the window before it is started.

I don?t think anyone will question an employee search, if the employees are clearly advised (not an obscure sign) of the potential of a search and the employee gives consent in advance. The problem is with non consensual searches. The property owner is bound by the fourth amendment, no exceptions. Without a warrant, property owner may not disregard this constructional guarantee without the consent of those subjected to the searches. There are a few exceptions and those are so improbable it isn?t worth mentioning.


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

One point to remember is we are discussing constitutional legalities that are constantly in flux. What is true today might not be next week. Bigger minds than ours have difficulty explaining these issues.

[Mr. Security]

...... The problem is with non consensual searches.

I think we both agree on this point. What I'm saying is that it's easier for security to get consent than it is for LE. We have something they want, i.e., job, access, etc. What does LE have to offer if they give consent? I can't think of anything. Much easier to say "no" then. Am I making any sense to you on this matter?

[The_Mayor]

I was once told by a cop on this forum that the only reason I disliked certain lazy police officers is because I am a wannabe. Oh okay. I have never taken a criminal justice course, I have never attended a police academy, I have never even displayed an interest in working in law enforcement, hell I can't even stand cop shows on TV. :rolleyes:

They say things to flatter themeselves. Don't read too far in to it Mr. Security. ;)

[Tennsix]

I think we both agree on this point. What I'm saying is that it's easier for security to get consent than it is for LE. We have something they want, i.e., job, access, etc. What does LE have to offer if they give consent? I can't think of anything. Much easier to say "no" then. Am I making any sense to you on this matter?
Yes, you are right.

[talon]

Any LEO or Security Professional worth his or her salt finds no difficulty in getting consent from the average person.

I worked with a Security Professional many years ago and he thrived on searching cars and people...and he always got consent...it should be noted that we were working one of the most dangerous locations in the city with lots of guns, gangs, and drugs...It should also be noted that when drugs or weapons were found the local PD would rarely if ever prosocute or arrest these people because the crime occured in our presense and not theirs.

All of that being said...I have never heard of a case where an S/O was charged with 4th amendment violations...if anyone else has please let me know.

[Mr. Security]

Any LEO or Security Professional worth his or her salt finds no difficulty in getting consent from the average person.......

It's interesting that you say that because some LEO's push the envelope to get the consent. I complained about this on O.com with mixed results. Also, the average person may not know that the police are permitted by the justice system to lie during interrogation in an effort to obtain a confession. Anyone that doubts this merely needs to review the Reid method of interrogation used by LE today.

Police may turn to this method because they are frustrated and feel that the system is stacked in the suspect's favor, and it is. The trouble is that it undermines the public's trust in LE because most of us are taught by our parents to trust the police.

The relevance of all this to searching: Joe Schmoe is stopped for a traffic violation. The officer completes the citation first so that Joe can't later say that he felt compelled to grant consent to a search in hopes of getting off on the infraction.

As the officer starts to leave, he says: "By the way Joe, you don't have any drugs, weapons, or illegal contraband in the vehicle, do you?" Joe says "No."
The LEO says: "Then you won't mind if I take a quick look inside your vehicle?" Joe: "I'd rather that you didn't." LEO: "Why not? You just told me that you don't have anything to hide, right? So what are you worried about? Joe: "Nothing." LEO: "Joe, if you're upfront and cooperate with me, I'll work with you. But if I find out you're lying, then you're going to jail. So what's it going to be?" Joe ends up granting consent.

It is my belief that the "good guys" (LE) have to take the higher road even if it means that some of the "bad guys" get away. In the long run, the benefits outweigh the short term gains derived from playing mind games with the "bad guys."

[Tennsix]

The days of asking to search after the ticket is issued are coming to a close. Increasingly, the courts are insisting that a police officer must have clear suspicion of a crime before asking to search. Although it still happens, the police are discouraged from asking to search without cause.

I do not have a problem lying to a suspect if I know he is lying to me. One has to weight the gravity of the circumstances.

[Mr. Security]

The days of asking to search after the ticket is issued are coming to a close. Increasingly, the courts are insisting that a police officer must have clear suspicion of a crime before asking to search. Although it still happens, the police are discouraged from asking to search without cause.


I didn't know that. That's encouraging to hear. :)




I do not have a problem lying to a suspect if I know he is lying to me. One has to weight the gravity of the circumstances.

I see your point.

[talon]

I have heard that California has stopped its LEO's from asking consent without probable cause. If anyone has any info on that fill me in.

[Tennsix]

Indiana has stopped that practice.

[OccamsRazor]

I have heard that California has stopped its LEO's from asking consent without probable cause. If anyone has any info on that fill me in.

Dunno about the state, but when I worked down there it was written SOP in our dept.

No articulable PC, no searchie.

I know a dep that had a civilian complaint lodged...It didn't start out as a request for search without PC complaint, but the video was pulled anyhow to investigate the allegation.

The original complaint was unfounded, but the dep still got 5 days on the beach for the request and subsequent fishing expedition (which resulted in precisely dick).

The original complainant heard about this and subsequently lodged another complaint about racial profiling.

All in all, it was a really sh#$%y stop in the first place. Deputy X stops a guy who has a license plate light out, runs him, then asks to search. Search reveals squat, and the guy is let go without a cite. Guy files a complaint, alleging deputy X threatened him with his baton, swore at him, all the usual stuff. Video revealed a totally polite and professional deputy X, but he was still in the wrong.

What was the result? A new, stiffer SOP for consent searches requiring a Sgt or above to approve the request to search based on the deputy's PC, and to be present during said search, except in circumstances which would unduly delay a citizen (travel time, etc)...Which was completely bogus as most of the time, one Sgt would be on duty for the entire 3200 square mile county.

Sorry for the increasingly disjointed and rambling reply, I'm trying decaf for the first time this week :mad:

::Editted for speling misteaks::

[The_Mayor]

As the officer starts to leave, he says: "By the way Joe, you don't have any drugs, weapons, or illegal contraband in the vehicle, do you?" Joe says "No."The LEO says: "Then you won't mind if I take a quick look inside your vehicle?" Joe: "I'd rather that you didn't." LEO: "Why not? You just told me that you don't have anything to hide, right? So what are you worried about? Joe: "Nothing." LEO: "Joe, if you're upfront and cooperate with me, I'll work with you. But if I find out you're lying, then you're going to jail. So what's it going to be?" Joe ends up granting consent.


The above would never be done by a professional LEO.

This is one of the cheapest ways of getting consent and it probably works only on the stupidest of criminals (who have little knowledge of their rights) or on really bored people who have no where to go and do not mind waiting.

If "Joe" where to encounter this situation he should respond accordingly:

Officer By the way Joe, you don't have any drugs, weapons, or any illegal contraband in the vehicle do you?

Joe No, I do not. Now I am on my way to work Officer. I do not have time to chat with you at the moment. So kindly let me go so I can get to work and you can get back to yours'.

Officer So, if you don't have anything illegal, and you are not hiding anything, then you don't mind if I have a quick look? Right?

Joe No, that is not what I said. I do not feel heard by you. You have already cited me for speeding. If you are not going to arrest me or read me my rights then I would appreciate it if you would release me from your illegal detention.

Officer Well why not? You just told me that you have nothing to hide, right? So what are you worried about?

Joe I am not worried about anything. However, I am concerned by the fact that I am being illegally detained against my will. I want a lawyer.

As I said, only a stupid criminal who does not know his rights would fall victim to such tactics.

[Mr. Security]

Reply to the Mayor:

Based on what LE is saying, my scenario shouldn't be happening anymore. A LEO who asks for consent is admitting that he doesn't have probable cause or he wouldn't ask. He would simply do it.

If asked for consent, decline and say: "Am I free to go?" If the LEO says no then ask: "Why am I being detained?" If he says you're are not being detained then ask him again: "Am I free to go then?"

The purpose of this is to end your contact with LE as quickly as possible or force him to lay his cards on the table.

[corpsecurity]

Tennsix, you sir win the prize.

I am a new forum member. I have functioned as a security officer in a number of settings. Hospitals, Malls, and Corporations. 9 years as a electric utility corporate officer and presently with a major oil & gas corporation. At the various post our SOP allowed for "field interviews" on the company property. I may approach you on the property and conduct a field interview to include a ID check. However, the idea of detaining this person against his/her will for alleged infractions of company policy or for that matter criminal trespass is setting up the property owners for a big fat lawsuit. Also in my state the security officer "may not" conduct any sort of traffic stops. If you are that concerned about a subjects conduct on your property then call in law enforcement. I have never and I mean never had management condone this "hands on" approach. Most state agency's who regulate private security go to great lengths to separate the role of private security officer and that of the certified law enforcement officer. In my experience observe and report is what most property owners and management policy's dictate. Now in the event a life is in imminent danger on your property then I expect appropriate measures to stop this violent action would be acceptable. This would at best be a stop gap measure. Once the immediate threat has been reduced the incident should be turned over to trained law enforcement officials. As has been pointed out in this thread the traffic stop is a very dangerous under taking. The potential for these things to go south is very high. In my opinion private security should not ever initiate any sort of traffic stop. The cases where I have seen unarmed mall officers initiate a traffic stop for excessive speed or running stop signs makes me cringe. Do these officers have any earthly idea how much potential danger lurks with in the confines of a vehicle? I just don't get it.






I have a pretty good handle on statutes; I know enough to stay out of trouble. I realize you may challenge a person on your property but going much beyond that is treading on criminal detainment. We are all bound by the ?Reasonable Person? standard.

In Indiana, a traffic stop can only be conducted by a law enforcment officer in a police uniform or in a marked police vehicle. The uniform and the vehicle have to be plainly recognized as police.

[corpsecurity]

We had a security officer who refused a certified law enforcement officer access to the property for the purposes of serving a warrant. The Police Officer advised the guard that he would be arrested if he continued to interfere. The security officer calls a company manager who in turn told the Police Officer that any warrants are to be served on his employees at there homes and not at the place of employment. The police officer looks at the guard and says " looks like you are going to have some company" What followed was a complete revision of the company policy on handling such incidents.



"private property sometimes gives a s/o more authority than LE".

If I had a nickel for every young wide eyed S/O that I've heard say that I would be one rich SOB...these employers should be outlawed from using that one because it gives these young guys to many ideas...I had one young S/O tell me that if the FBI came to his property that they would have to check with him before entering...his employer had told him so...I guess to make him feel good about making $5.50.

Special Deputies:

Tennsix,

Thanks for clearing up the special deputy statute as far as each Sheriff of each county being in charge of the amount of arrest authority for lack of a better term. Thats one reason why I don't like it because you have to contribute to the Sheriff's campain in order to have any powers for your Officers.

Traffic Stops:

Here in my home State it was never spelled out if you could or if you could not stop on property so some did and some did not. Just recently the State added a few new paragraphs to their impersonating an Officer Statute and one of them is impersonating by performing a task of an Officer such as stopping vehicles, searching vehicles and buildings and so fourth. We will have to wait and see what develops here.

[corpsecurity]

Thank you!! I cannot belive that any agency who regulates private security would be so irresponsible as to allow private guards the authority to make traffic stops.


Ok... From reading a few of the posts, I got that idea. It seems some SEO?s trivialize private property traffic stops. Anything that happens on the street can happen in the private setting. The risk of felonious and accidental assault is significant. I think some SEO?s loose sight of that because it is on private property. This whole concept is new to me as Indiana does not empower security to conduct traffic stops under any circumstances.

[talon]

I have never heard of a state that allowed Stops without arrest powers...I think what happened in most states, and I know it happened in mine was that the state didn't say that you couldn't...so of course you are going to have the guys that push the envelope.

[N. A. Corbier]

We had a security officer who refused a certified law enforcement officer access to the property for the purposes of serving a warrant. The Police Officer advised the guard that he would be arrested if he continued to interfere. The security officer calls a company manager who in turn told the Police Officer that any warrants are to be served on his employees at there homes and not at the place of employment. The police officer looks at the guard and says " looks like you are going to have some company" What followed was a complete revision of the company policy on handling such incidents.

I'm missing something here. The police officer was there to execute an arrest warrant on the guard, and the guard said he couldn't? Then the manager said, "You can't execute process on my site, do it to my employees off duty?"

[N. A. Corbier]

Thank you!! I cannot belive that any agency who regulates private security would be so irresponsible as to allow private guards the authority to make traffic stops.

Most agencies that regulate private security are more interested in the licensing fees.

[corpsecurity]

No sir the warrant was to be served on a company employee. The company had a policy that the employee was to called to the security office by the guard on duty and served in a secure area where the employee wouldn't be embarrassed. The guard refused to allow the officer access. So instead of one going downtown they very nearly had three. We had a policy that if " non law enforcement process servers" requested entry then the employee was contacted an asked to come to a secure area and be served. If the employee said shove off, then the process server was asked to leave. However, If a certified police officer needed access to serve a warrant he/she was granted access with out question. The same process was followed reference calling the employee and having them come to the security office. If they refused then the officer was escorted by security to the employees work area. In this situation the guard allowed that he was confused about the LEO access versus Non LEO access. This guard had a issue with cops. No one bought his story of confusion. The rule of thumb for me was to cooperate with law enforcement. I may need them at some point.



I'm missing something here. The police officer was there to execute an arrest warrant on the guard, and the guard said he couldn't? Then the manager said, "You can't execute process on my site, do it to my employees off duty?"

[hemi444]

We had a security officer who refused a certified law enforcement officer access to the property for the purposes of serving a warrant. The Police Officer advised the guard that he would be arrested if he continued to interfere. The security officer calls a company manager who in turn told the Police Officer that any warrants are to be served on his employees at there homes and not at the place of employment. The police officer looks at the guard and says " looks like you are going to have some company" What followed was a complete revision of the company policy on handling such incidents.

One of my motor patrol post we had a police officer arrived and said that he is looking for an individual ( no pc), drove off on the gate guard into the facility. After I had caught up to him, he started saying you cant stop me and that I am the police. Things got really interesting when I told him that i did not care who he was and he needed to be escorted through the plant. His reply to me was go f--- off. I then advised him that he was bound by osha and that I was responsible for his safety. Lets just say he was being escorted out by the state police.... Its like the old saying, who's having the last laugh now?

[Tennsix]

Hmm... Ever hear of another old saying "You might have won the battle but not the war"? :D

I am not saying he was right but don't be too quick to celebrate.

[N. A. Corbier]

Hmm... Ever hear of another old saying "You might have won the battle but not the war"? :D

I am not saying he was right but don't be too quick to celebrate.

There's always going to be a situation where "one wins over the other." I had the displeasure of hunting down two Pinellas Deputy Sheriffs who decided to go joyriding on a USCG installation at 0200. When they wondered why they were being asked to leave, my backup arrived, in the form of a US Naval Reserve Master at Arms, who was debating having them detained and charges perferred till we could wake up the JG on duty. After I explained, rather nicely, to the deputies that Pinellas County ended about 300 feet back, they realized their mistake and went joyriding in the airport proper - now the problem of the Airport Police. :)

[hemi444]

Hmm... Ever hear of another old saying "You might have won the battle but not the war"? :D

I am not saying he was right but don't be too quick to celebrate.

We got to celebrate, the chief of police was down the next morning and asking to help with planning a mutual aid program between security and the police. It really did work out for the best, I got an appology plus some brownie points with the chief.

[Tennsix]

My only point is you probably have to go through those officers? jurisdiction to get to and from work. They can screw with you a lot more than you can screw with them. I have never been one to keep score in a turf war because it is very likely to come back and bite you on the a$$.

[N. A. Corbier]

My only point is you probably have to go through those officers? jurisdiction to get to and from work. They can screw with you a lot more than you can screw with them. I have never been one to keep score in a turf war because it is very likely to come back and bite you on the a$$.

Indeed. Its always good to have more friends then enemies in any jurisdiction you go through. Its also good to know where your enemies are. This would apply to both security and law enforcement. You never know, travelling, if someone's made an ass of your agency in the area your now in. And lo and behold, they see another ass (After all, same agency) before them.

[Mr. Security]

We got to celebrate, the chief of police was down the next morning and asking to help with planning a mutual aid program between security and the police. It really did work out for the best, I got an appology plus some brownie points with the chief.

Move and change your job location after the chief retires or moves on. :eek: :D

[Mr. Security]

My only point is you probably have to go through those officers? jurisdiction to get to and from work. They can screw with you a lot more than you can screw with them. I have never been one to keep score in a turf war because it is very likely to come back and bite you on the a$$.

Are you telling me that the police are so unprofessional that they will try to get even with someone who had a valid complaint as verified by the chief of police? Now there's a surprise. :rolleyes:

[Tennsix]

No, the police would not do that. Just as a police officer has never stopped an attractive woman to get a gander at her um... driver's license. :D

[Mr. Security]

No, the police would not do that. Just as a police officer has never stopped an attractive woman to get a gander at her um... driver's license. :D

I knew you could clear this matter up. :)

[N. A. Corbier]

Mr. Marchetti,

I read your written thought very carefully, and I do respect your opinion. That being said, would it have been better to say that "SOME" LEO's "have poor public relations skills." Guarding the integrity of my background and that of my family, and many friends, I'd have to say we're not "ALL" that bad.

I believe I understand what you were saying, but lets not make this a "hate-the-cops" forum. With respect to you, sir, I don't feel that's what you were trying to get across.

I think he's generalizing. Ie: The Law Enforcement Community Demographic.

Keep in mind that the Contract Security Community Demographic has horrible public relation skills as well, and we don't seem to have groups with the reach of the FOP. I think the only groups that are coming close to FOP are ASIS and IBPO.

[DMS 525]

I should get in here more often; lots of interesting posts.

I've been in the middle of more than one LE vs. Security forum battle. Seen a lot of good points, and have told a few to simply go to hell!

Point I should have made a long time ago is simply this; when I am employed by any client as a Security Officer:

1. You are not going to drive 50 or 60 MPH through my parking lot, especially when there are children playing and running around, elderly trying to get around, cars backing out of parking spots, and lots of pedestrian traffic. Those posted signs are there for a reason, and yes, they do mean you!

2. You are not going to steal from my client, nor damage or deface any of their property, costing them thousands of dollars in losses every year. The same goes for other customers or guests of my client.

3. You are not going to fight, or engage in other horseplay on my client's property, which could result in my client being held liable for your injuries resulting from your own stupidity, or from another customer getting hurt. Same goes for tampering with my client's equipment, or tresspassing around dangerous areas on my client's property.

4. We are not impressed with your noisy vehicle or loud music. Most of my client's tenants want peace and quiet, especially at 2 in the morning! Also, when you come in to pick someone up, try the phone, arrange to have your friend looking for you, or get out of the damned car, and go knock on the door! Don't sit in your car and blow the horn!

5. You are not coming into my clients factory/workplace/job site under the influence of alcohol or drugs, nor are you going to partake in the use of such while you are on my client's property, especially if you are going to operate dangerous machinery. My client is not going to held liable for your death or serious injuries resulting from your stupidity, and I won't have you causing anyone elses's death or injury.

6. You are not going to loiter on my client's property, nor partake in any other activity that will scare away customers from my client's business.

7. Above all: If I must approach you, and inform you of a violation, question your actions, ask you to stop your violations, etc., don't sneer at me and walk away, and do not ever tell me to "Go away!" I have a job to do, and you are not going to keep me from doing it. Same goes for if I am dealing with another violator, it is really none of your concern, and sticking your nose in where it does not belong will only get you in more trouble than you bargained for.

At the least, I will ask you to leave my client's property, in which you can leave kindly on your own accord, or I will take you by the collar of your shirt and the seat of your pants, where I will then escort you to the property line, and roughly send you across it! Further actions can include you going to jail for tresspassing, and your vehicle being impounded by the police department.
Worse action can result in me detaining you, and handing you over to the police, in which case you will go to jail and face crimminal charges, and be barred from ever returning to the property, or losing your job, or being evicted.
If you do not want to stop when I say so, and keep walking or driving over that property line, that's fine with me. Just don't come back. I'll have your name, plate number, or whatever, and all written down, for the police to see.

8. To the LE agencies I must call or work with: I will only call you to come to my account when your assistance is truly needed, and it is definitely a matter for LE to handle. I will not bother you for every trivial little thing that goes on, nor for something I can handle myself. When you respond to a situation at my account, you will have my full cooperation, and I will provide you with all the information you need from me. I will not interfere with your investigation of the situation, or you doing your duty. I will assist you when you ask me to, or when I can tell it is imperitive that I do.

In light of the above, I simply ask that you give me information I need, especially when it comes to someone we need tresspassed from the property, or where the situation could turn into a liabillity factor for my client or my employer. At the least, the case number from your report will do. Like you, we also have to document situations, should something go awry. And please never, ever demean me in front or my client, client's customers, or the subject(s) I have been dealing with and had to call you about. There is something to be said for professional courtesy. If you don't at the least create hard feelings and lack of trust, you'll create a complaint against yourself.
Finally, a rather touchy issue, but if you get called to my account by someone other than me, I'd like to know why, especially if it is something that involves me, or something I should be aware of. I won't go rushing in to ask you what is the deal, possibly making a situation worse for you, but at the least keep me posted, as I would for you.

These are based on actual situations resulting from 11 years in the business. I've told more than one LEO that I was not out to do their job; I had enough of my own work to do. For the most part, I work with the LE agencies here just great, but every now and then you get that one jackass or two who makes them all look bad.

Most of the public understands what it is you have to do, and are glad to see you. I've dealt with more than one joker who thought we couldn't do anything to him, and decided to press his luck. Long and short: he went to jail, and I went home that night.

Sadly, I've had to put more than one hotshot Security Officer in his place, either one of my charges, or some dodo who thought he was going to try some crap with me, or just be a pompous boob with me. One in particular, I told him if he didn't back off, at the least he'd end up unemployed(I knew his employer personally), or worse, he'd end up in jail if he didn't end up in the hospital first! Smart assed 19 y/o who thought he was 10 feet tall and bulletproof; tried to start some crap with a friend of mine for no good reason. I put him in his place real quick.

Basically my point is, Security is not out to enforce the law. Our mission is to look after the best interests of our clients, which fall under the scope of the law. That is not, and never was the mission of public law enforcement. Both sides knowing those differences can lead to better understanding, and better harmony in working together when it comes time to do so.

Be safe out there.

[Mr. Security]

....
Point I should have made a long time ago is simply this; when I am employed by any client as a Security Officer:

1. You are not going to drive 50 or 60 MPH through my parking lot, especially when there are children playing and running around, elderly trying to get around, cars backing out of parking spots, and lots of pedestrian traffic. Those posted signs are there for a reason, and yes, they do mean you!

4. We are not impressed with your noisy vehicle or loud music. Most of my client's tenants want peace and quiet, especially at 2 in the morning! Also, when you come in to pick someone up, try the phone, arrange to have your friend looking for you, or get out of the damned car, and go knock on the door! Don't sit in your car and blow the horn!



Can you please come and work security where I live? :D

[DMS 525]

Well, thank you Mr. Security! :)

[Warren]

I take the same stance as the previous poster. Excellent post!!

I was reading earlier about s/o's having badges, etc. In my opinion, security does not need badges.

Our uniforms do NOT have badges. Our shoulder flashs are big, and clearly indicate security in 1" yellow letters. Out black shirts have reflective 1.5" security on the left breast, and large reflective letters on the back.

Pants are black BDU's with 1" white reflective striping down leg. Jackets are bright safety green with a PILE of 2" reflective striping all around it, a flashj on the left breast and 2"x12" 'Security' on the back.

As far as attitude goes, when I train guards, they know their legal rights, and by the end of the training, they know that if they go beyond it, and I can prove it, they will be unemployed, and their records WILL follow them to their next job.

I try to screen the applicant extremely well, prior to hiring them. We analyze your interview using statement analysis, and reserve the right to use polygraph at any time in their employment with us.

Surprizingly, we get alot of applicants that are more than willing to do this process.

Our local PD doesn't think to highly of security officers, but like the previous poster said, we don't call them unless we absolutely must.

[Bill Warnock]

DMS 525.
You make all of us proud. There is always something very special about a person who likes his or her job and does the best they can. Those who see us at work and know we like what we are doing and do it well appreciate it. It is really special when we know what we are doing and are sensitive to the needs of others.
It gives you a good feeling when people, especially your peers, say he might be a hard bastard but he is a fair one.
Be firm, be fair and don't back off.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[Tennsix]

YOU Did NOT READ WELL ENOUGH " For the most part some are good and some stink " when it comes to LEO's, I did draw a line between good and bad Police Officers.
What is a good police officer? What is a bad police officer?

[AnGardaSiochana]

DMS,
A badge and uniform does not make us the manners police, honking a horn and playing music in my own property grants you no rights or powers to interfere with my self or my property. Walking away from you when your giving out does not give you the right to detain me with or without force and that includes LEO's in certain traffic stops.

Also, the definition of private property changes depending on the actions of teh person and the area. Even private property such as a warehouse can be deemed public.

Finally,
Try to understand that in some circumstances you are not entitled to the information you request. For example, here you are not entitled to know whats going on unless your involved as there are privacy issues at work and to tell you about a complaint we recieved that does not involve you would be unprofessional. Its also possible that by coming over and asking you are interfering with a case. I have had this happen more than once where eager security guards have ruined a case.

Apart from that I mostly agree with what you said and believe that there should be limited mutual assistance and PC. I say limited because ultimately you remain a civilian working for a private company and have not undergone the checks and training that I have nor signed the secrecy agreements and their punishments. Also, security in Ireland sucks big time and I mean that. About 30% have criminal records before getting employed and about 50% are blatant wannabees and 10% are just big idiots who equate size and muscles to power. Then theres always the 10% who I get along with fine and have no problems extending PC too.

[AnGardaSiochana]

Anyone that doesnt understand why LEO's are so suspicious needs to remember Aaron AKA Asa_201. A prime example of a wannabee.

As an LEO I have said it before, I have no problem with security but clearly some here have a problem with LEO's. For starters we are not the public version of security. You are employed by a private company to look after there interests and only there interests. Once a crime has been commited you guys back off. LEO's are there to deal with all people and apply the law. We are also the last defence so while you guys back off we charge in, thats a big difference. How many murders or rapes would security handle? How many security guards shoot it out with armed robbers?

Dont mean to piss on chips here but even in this thread I see a fair few wannabees or simple deluded people. To all that understand the difference dont let certain LEO's cloud your opinion like they have allowed wannabees to cloud theirs.

N.A,
No sign of Batman returning?

[Mr. Security]

DMS,.... honking a horn and playing music in my own property grants you no rights or powers to interfere with my self or my property..

In the USA, tenants must abide by the rules set forth by their condominium association. Many associations have noise ordinances. Your right to play loud music ends when it infringes on the right of other tenants to enjoy their premises in peace. As a s/o in such a complex, DMS may very well have the authority to warn and/or fine you for violating the ordinance.

[Mr. Security]

......
Once a crime has been commited you guys back off.

In the USA, that is not necessarily true. It often depends on the seriousness of the crime and the state's law regarding citizen arrest.

[DMS 525]

AnGarda, let me advise you of a couple of things:

First off, in this country, you think you have the right to walk away from a LEO at a traffic stop, that is the quickest way to find yourself in jail, if you don't end up kissing your own windshield first!

Second, disturbing the peace, no matter where the noise originates from, is a crime anywhere in the US, and you can be cited or jailed for it. You have no right to violate that, thinking it is your right to make all the noise you want.

Moving on, I take offense at your insinuation that so many security guards have such horrid backgrounds, and crimminal records. Maybe in other places, but not in my state. Here, as a minimum, you must have a license issued by the state, and one task to obtain it is to submit to a background check administered by the state Department of Public Safety, which includes a fingerprint check.

Re-read my original post. I said when PD shows up at my account, I WILL NOT go charging in, demanding to know why they are there, possibly ruining a case for them, or making matters worse for them. Only a damned fool would do something like that! However, it is nice to know if there is a situation brewing, so if something goes down, at least I will be ready for it. Otherwise, if I was politely and nicely told their reason for being there had nothing to do with the account or me, then I would be satisfied with that. Simple as that.

Something else I'd better inform you of; I was a police officer long before I ever got into working private security. In light of that, I have seen what happens on both sides of the fence. I know where security stops, and the law starts, and have stressed that on all of my charges in the past.

I see a crime comitted, I report it, as well as take action if the need arises. Although we do not have the arresting powers of a LEO, we still may make an arrest for a crime comitted in our presence, or for a felony we know good and well the suspect comitted. I'll be damned if I see something as henious as a murder, rape, etc. comitted in my presence, and let the jerk walk away, while I "back off" and wait for the PD to show up, which can be forever in a case like that. In one case, I pursued a drunk hit and run driver who fled the scene on foot, with the permission and blessing of the police, and even had to smack him with my baton when he got crazy with me. The PD really appreciated our assistance; they may not have caught the guy otherwise.

I could go on, but I think I may have made my point. You also need to realize that there are just as many idiotic police officers out there as there are fools in any other profession. How some of them even made it through the original screening process is anyone's guess.

If I didn't read your post thoroughly, I would be inclined to think that you believe all police are good and proper, and can do no wrong, while all security guards are fumbling, bumbling morons with crimminal records a mile long. Now, we know that isn't the case on either side, now is it? In fact, a very low percentage on both ends.

I'm really sorry you have to deal with such a caliber of security personnel where you are, but I hope you realize that isn't the classic example of what security is everywhere.

[N. A. Corbier]

DMS beat me to it. The powers of a public law enforcement officer are different in Ireland, as are the "powers" of a private citizen in America.

Garda, keep in mind what I said about "carrying M16s" in a PM. There are several security companies that routinely use M4A3 semi-automatic and even fully automatic rifles on their properties. Why? Because there's no real law against it, so long as your company is issued the proper tax stamps and paperwork for these fully automatic weapons. If working for the military itself, most security companies are exempt from the ATF tax.

Most people would think this is fiction, because a security guard would never be trusted with military hardware. This is the same thinking as, "Why do the police get M16s? They're not the military," that happened 20 years ago. Reality check: Most cruisers have an M4 replacing or next to the 870.

There are fundamental cultural differences between American Policing and Irish Policing. These include interaction with professional protective services organizations and public law enforcement agencies.

Take a look at Katrina. You have private officers roaming around with full auto weapons fufilling their missions, working along side public police. Neither of them have inherant power in that area, they are brought in by federal agencies and given federal powers to complete different mission objectives. The private security teams protect specialized resources, such as power and water trucks. The police were then free to conduct patrols and enforce laws, knowing that private forces were hired by the utilities to protect their workers.

The concept of a "private army" is very real in America. They go by the names KBR, Blackwater USA, and others. They are on contract with everyone from utility companies to the US Department of Defense. Some would say, 'They're specialists, and not security people." The truth is, regular security companies bid on those Private Military Contractor RFPs, and get them.

As far as private property being "public," in America, even if a facility is open to the public, the owner or his agent may remove those who they do not wish to be there. No reason is required, nor is an explination needed for the public authorities summoned to witness the order to leave. "This man is no longer welcome, he is ordered to leave. Under this statute, if you return, you are subject to arrest." And the police officer goes, "Do you understand?" and the man goes, "Yes," and he's told to leave or be arrested. Gone.

As far as knowing what's going on on your property, I have had officers say, "You'll get nothing but a report number," then other officers realize that when they leave - I'm still here. So they tell me what's up. They do it because they realize that they leave, but we don't. And that the guy they told to "find somewhere else to stay tonight" comes back tomorrow, they won't be there to protect the wife he had an argument with. But we will be there, and we're probally the only ones in the area who can watch that woman.

I've seen officers bitch and moan, "You have no authority to be here," then a Sergeant going, "Yes he does," and tell me everything that's going on. On a child abuse case. For the reason above. Police have to leave. We're there night after night after night, and 9 times out of 10, we know whats going on on the property.

[1stWatch]

Moving on, I take offense at your insinuation that so many security guards have such horrid backgrounds, and crimminal records. Maybe in other places, but not in my state. Here, as a minimum, you must have a license issued by the state, and one task to obtain it is to submit to a background check administered by the state Department of Public Safety, which includes a fingerprint check...
...I'm really sorry you have to deal with such a caliber of security personnel where you are, but I hope you realize that isn't the classic example of what security is everywhere.

It seems to me that the business of security in places like Ireland and that part of the world would benefit from public regulation like they do in most states here. Most places don't require a lot in the way of education, but the regulation from the government does ensure the person applying for a security position is not a convicted felon or has been convicted of certain relevant offenses like theft, assault, or family violence.
The varying factor here is that each state, or political subdivision, has a separate government and therefore a separate system, if any, for regulating positions such as these. All the systems of regulation that are successful, however, are pretty similar in what they require in the way of background checks, fingerprinting, and basic training.

The idea of "you are ultimately just a private citizen" is still true for the most part, but there are certain responsibilities we do have since we are there as a representative of a property owner, sometimes with power of attorney, in order to protect the property and the people on it. On some occasions this includes watching the welfare of police when they come onto the property, although they are certainly very capable and may have 200+ officers out there ready to come to their aid if necessary, but never to interfere, get in the way, or take the case over from the police officer. In some states, a security officer is considered to be a "public servant" because of the governmental regulatory status, although he is still a private citizen.

I do not agree with the idea that security is separate from the law. Security guards are not police officers and no not have the same authority or responsibility that goes with that. I do agree with that. The law, however, is something that is written for all people. It outlines what every person is responsible for, what rights they have, and what authority they have to protect themselves and their property, including the definition of what force is legal or not and when an arrest may (or must) be made. Some laws are written specifically for security, defining specific authority or the authorization to carry certain weapons with certification.

The authorization to intervene in cases such as, yes I said it, rapes and murders or other serious felonies is specifically outlined in the penal code or code of criminal procedures. Suppose I, as a security guard, respond to a burglar alarm at someone's home, find a suspect inside, and arrest him. I have effected a law enforcement duty that is allowed by law. I am not, however, pretending to be a police officer. I am conducting a duty that is already prescribed for my job that conforms to the law. In my state, as well as some others, an arrest is an arrest regardless of whether a police officer effected it or if a private person effected it. Some states even allow security officers to transport suspects to jail and book them in. None of these things make security into a bunch of "wannabes".

Problems do arise, however, when there are those of us who are not familiar with the laws we think we are and try to do things that are not allowed by law. For example, take a look at this recent case in California where a security officer was charged with impersonation because he pulled a car over on a street for speeding. He was also charged with unlawful possession of a weapon when he carried his duty weapon into the courtroom. This is an example of what is commonly referred to here as a "wannabe". This person exceeded his legal authority by doing a traffic stop on the road and was not familiar enough with his state's laws to know he was not authorized to be armed in the courtroom. This case was made because of his infractions of the law, not because he was fond of police or because he had a tan uniform that resembled that of his county's sheriff's office, although I have seen those things mentioned a lot.

Those of us who believe security is a professional thing and should continue to be a professional thing are the ones pushing for more training and resources to be available for those who do this job. Knowing what you are doing will reduce the likelihood of doing something improper or illegal.

[Mr. Security]

....
( b ) It was the Roman Empire that perfected the profession of the " Watch or Guard " with the creation of the " Praetorian Guard " not a military unit and used only once in battle, but a societal policing force to protect the Emperor, the Senate, and society at large.....

That is correct. :) Tiberius Caesar, known as the ?Despised One,? when compared to his predecessor, Augustus Caesar, perfected the Praetorian Guard.

[bigdog]

I should get in here more often; lots of interesting posts.

I've been in the middle of more than one LE vs. Security forum battle. Seen a lot of good points, and have told a few to simply go to hell!

Point I should have made a long time ago is simply this; when I am employed by any client as a Security Officer:

1. You are not going to drive 50 or 60 MPH through my parking lot, especially when there are children playing and running around, elderly trying to get around, cars backing out of parking spots, and lots of pedestrian traffic. Those posted signs are there for a reason, and yes, they do mean you!

2. You are not going to steal from my client, nor damage or deface any of their property, costing them thousands of dollars in losses every year. The same goes for other customers or guests of my client.

3. You are not going to fight, or engage in other horseplay on my client's property, which could result in my client being held liable for your injuries resulting from your own stupidity, or from another customer getting hurt. Same goes for tampering with my client's equipment, or tresspassing around dangerous areas on my client's property.

4. We are not impressed with your noisy vehicle or loud music. Most of my client's tenants want peace and quiet, especially at 2 in the morning! Also, when you come in to pick someone up, try the phone, arrange to have your friend looking for you, or get out of the damned car, and go knock on the door! Don't sit in your car and blow the horn!

5. You are not coming into my clients factory/workplace/job site under the influence of alcohol or drugs, nor are you going to partake in the use of such while you are on my client's property, especially if you are going to operate dangerous machinery. My client is not going to held liable for your death or serious injuries resulting from your stupidity, and I won't have you causing anyone elses's death or injury.

6. You are not going to loiter on my client's property, nor partake in any other activity that will scare away customers from my client's business.

7. Above all: If I must approach you, and inform you of a violation, question your actions, ask you to stop your violations, etc., don't sneer at me and walk away, and do not ever tell me to "Go away!" I have a job to do, and you are not going to keep me from doing it. Same goes for if I am dealing with another violator, it is really none of your concern, and sticking your nose in where it does not belong will only get you in more trouble than you bargained for.

At the least, I will ask you to leave my client's property, in which you can leave kindly on your own accord, or I will take you by the collar of your shirt and the seat of your pants, where I will then escort you to the property line, and roughly send you across it! Further actions can include you going to jail for tresspassing, and your vehicle being impounded by the police department.
Worse action can result in me detaining you, and handing you over to the police, in which case you will go to jail and face crimminal charges, and be barred from ever returning to the property, or losing your job, or being evicted.
If you do not want to stop when I say so, and keep walking or driving over that property line, that's fine with me. Just don't come back. I'll have your name, plate number, or whatever, and all written down, for the police to see.

8. To the LE agencies I must call or work with: I will only call you to come to my account when your assistance is truly needed, and it is definitely a matter for LE to handle. I will not bother you for every trivial little thing that goes on, nor for something I can handle myself. When you respond to a situation at my account, you will have my full cooperation, and I will provide you with all the information you need from me. I will not interfere with your investigation of the situation, or you doing your duty. I will assist you when you ask me to, or when I can tell it is imperitive that I do.

In light of the above, I simply ask that you give me information I need, especially when it comes to someone we need tresspassed from the property, or where the situation could turn into a liabillity factor for my client or my employer. At the least, the case number from your report will do. Like you, we also have to document situations, should something go awry. And please never, ever demean me in front or my client, client's customers, or the subject(s) I have been dealing with and had to call you about. There is something to be said for professional courtesy. If you don't at the least create hard feelings and lack of trust, you'll create a complaint against yourself.
Finally, a rather touchy issue, but if you get called to my account by someone other than me, I'd like to know why, especially if it is something that involves me, or something I should be aware of. I won't go rushing in to ask you what is the deal, possibly making a situation worse for you, but at the least keep me posted, as I would for you.

These are based on actual situations resulting from 11 years in the business. I've told more than one LEO that I was not out to do their job; I had enough of my own work to do. For the most part, I work with the LE agencies here just great, but every now and then you get that one jackass or two who makes them all look bad.

Most of the public understands what it is you have to do, and are glad to see you. I've dealt with more than one joker who thought we couldn't do anything to him, and decided to press his luck. Long and short: he went to jail, and I went home that night.

Sadly, I've had to put more than one hotshot Security Officer in his place, either one of my charges, or some dodo who thought he was going to try some crap with me, or just be a pompous boob with me. One in particular, I told him if he didn't back off, at the least he'd end up unemployed(I knew his employer personally), or worse, he'd end up in jail if he didn't end up in the hospital first! Smart assed 19 y/o who thought he was 10 feet tall and bulletproof; tried to start some crap with a friend of mine for no good reason. I put him in his place real quick.

Basically my point is, Security is not out to enforce the law. Our mission is to look after the best interests of our clients, which fall under the scope of the law. That is not, and never was the mission of public law enforcement. Both sides knowing those differences can lead to better understanding, and better harmony in working together when it comes time to do so.

Be safe out there.

SIR ARE YOU usually armed on your sites?

[Brent311]

Back to the original topic of police thinking we are "rent-a-cops" or "wannabes". I think it all depends on the LEO. One of my best friends is a MS State trooper, and he has no problem being seen with me in my security uniform. We eat lunch together almost every day, both in our uniforms, and he has never said a negative comment about my job. At the school where I work, the city police department is grateful that we are there. Sometimes officers will swing through to shoot the bull while I am patrolling the grounds. They also come through on a regular basis informing us about recent stolen vehicles, and to be on the lookout. Now, there are the exceptions. Some officers look at you like you are inferior to them, and want to be one of them. I just don't even pay attention to that kind of attitude. What is funny though, if you look at LEO pay in my state of Mississippi you will see that it is the lowest in the country. I know several police officers from school that work for security companies when they are off duty. They actually wear the private security uniforms. I guess it just all depends on where you are, and who the officers are.

[N. A. Corbier]

I agree 100% depends where you are and the individual LEO, some are good guys. I too use to eat with a state police sgt and locals from a near by town. Some of them are a riot in the things they pull, their department just got voice mail so the Chief of Police got messages consisting of rather loud farts, the funny part was the guy did it while the dispatcher was using the rest room and was still using the phone.

As for the look that your lower then pond scum the best you can do is ignore them as obvious they are ignorant in their perceptions. One night I had an officer look at me and state ? Your just a Security Guard ? snidely and I responded with ? Ya maybe but I made $87,000 last year for part time work what did you make ? he told me I was lying and that?s when I made him aware I owned the company as indicated by my badge number ? 1 " shut him right down, Score one for that lowly Security Officer :O)

Owners never work sites! You must be lying!

kekekeke... People who know me are like, "Why are you factoring in a uniform for yourself?" Because as we all know, anything I work is ALL PROFIT.

[Brent311]

Oh yeah, some of those guys are great. I often ride along with my trooper friend on the road, and we have some great jokes with some of the other troopers. He will sometimes introduce me as Brent aka "Security". We all get a good laugh about it, but he is not putting me down in the least bit. This is quite rare considering some state officers think that they are better than any other officer or agency. What's funny is that alot of times he will ask me if my security company is hiring because he would like some part time work! Now that would be something else...a local officer making fun of him being a security officer until he pulls out his state badge!

[Mr. Security]

That's the way it should be. :) You are fortunate. I had a great experience with one police officer here, but the rest avoid us if at all possible. :(

[DMS 525]

SIR ARE YOU usually armed on your sites?

Yes. For the most part, tho, I usually worked armed accounts, patrols & response, and was a Watch Commander. First sign of trouble at any account, I was en route before the Officer on the site could even think of calling for me. Their knowing I was on duty was a real reassurance for a lot of those Officers.

At the risk of sounding like a braggart, just about any security agency has these few people who are pretty good sized, have additional training and/or a background in LE work, and the ability to keep their heads in dangerous or stressful situations. People they can assign to work at an account that has a high probability of trouble. I was one of those people.

BUT: In the 11 years I worked in Security, I never hurt anyone to the point they had to go to the hospital, was never injured to the point I had to seek medical attention, and although I had to draw my firearm on more than one occasion, I only ever fired it once- at a skunk! And, in spite of threats, I never was a cause for liability for any employer I had.

[N. A. Corbier]

Yes. For the most part, tho, I usually worked armed accounts, patrols & response, and was a Watch Commander. First sign of trouble at any account, I was en route before the Officer on the site could even think of calling for me. Their knowing I was on duty was a real reassurance for a lot of those Officers.

At the risk of sounding like a braggart, just about any security agency has these few people who are pretty good sized, have additional training and/or a background in LE work, and the ability to keep their heads in dangerous or stressful situations. People they can assign to work at an account that has a high probability of trouble. I was one of those people.

BUT: In the 11 years I worked in Security, I never hurt anyone to the point they had to go to the hospital, was never injured to the point I had to seek medical attention, and although I had to draw my firearm on more than one occasion, I only ever fired it once- at a skunk! And, in spite of threats, I never was a cause for liability for any employer I had.

While the risk exists, those are the type of people that we need. While they may not need to be "good sized," they need training in both methods of conflict resolution: Empathy and Submission Tactics. They need a level head when the material hits the oscillator. They need additional training than what most WBCs give (Ie: ANY training).

People like that, you can send anywhere, and know that they'll not only survive, but dominate. People who know when to be nice, when to be stern, and when to out and out own someone.

Alot of security companies believe that when its time to physically intervene, that the security guard should run away and call 911. I don't believe that's what most clients hire companies for. They need protection, not someone to write up how their daughter was brutally raped in the parking lot after calling 911. They need a company that can prevent that rape from happening, and failing to do so, stop it. Some things we can't prevent. But by God, we need to intervene if we failed to prevent them, otherwise, we're robbing our clients blind.

[1stWatch]

While the risk exists, those are the type of people that we need. While they may not need to be "good sized," they need training in both methods of conflict resolution: Empathy and Submission Tactics. They need a level head when the material hits the oscillator. They need additional training than what most WBCs give (Ie: ANY training).

People like that, you can send anywhere, and know that they'll not only survive, but dominate. People who know when to be nice, when to be stern, and when to out and out own someone.

Alot of security companies believe that when its time to physically intervene, that the security guard should run away and call 911. I don't believe that's what most clients hire companies for. They need protection, not someone to write up how their daughter was brutally raped in the parking lot after calling 911. They need a company that can prevent that rape from happening, and failing to do so, stop it. Some things we can't prevent. But by God, we need to intervene if we failed to prevent them, otherwise, we're robbing our clients blind.

AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!!

[Bill Warnock]

While the risk exists, those are the type of people that we need. While they may not need to be "good sized," they need training in both methods of conflict resolution: Empathy and Submission Tactics. They need a level head when the material hits the oscillator. They need additional training than what most WBCs give (Ie: ANY training).

People like that, you can send anywhere, and know that they'll not only survive, but dominate. People who know when to be nice, when to be stern, and when to out and out own someone.

Alot of security companies believe that when its time to physically intervene, that the security guard should run away and call 911. I don't believe that's what most clients hire companies for. They need protection, not someone to write up how their daughter was brutally raped in the parking lot after calling 911. They need a company that can prevent that rape from happening, and failing to do so, stop it. Some things we can't prevent. But by God, we need to intervene if we failed to prevent them, otherwise, we're robbing our clients blind.

Nicely said!
I had an incident where two young men were trying to drag a young woman into woods adjacent to my post, her mother was hysterical. I drew my weapon and issued a command to stop. One of the young men reponded, man you ain't going to shoot us.
My response, "Don't tempt me."
They followed my instructions, were on the ground, hands and legs spread, city police arrived. I asked, "Do you accept the scene?" They said yes and assumed the scene. Arrests were made and my report that was appended to theirs. Police called for medical help, both mother and daughter were aided.
Company, hospital client and city were pleased.
Was not called to testify. Found out later they were released from prison three days prior for the very same offense for which they were arrested.
Violation of probation and a new charge for which they were convicted sent them back to prison.
N.A., we all must be engaged and carry that posture through our professional careers.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[DMS 525]

I do stand corrected on one point; size is not always the factor. "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog."

One man I worked shoulder to shoulder with in many an incident was about 5'8", and maybe weighed 150 soaking wet. But he was a spitfire, didn't take anyone's sh*t, and was always able to back up his words with actions.

But I have to admit, most of the guys I worked with were big goons like me (over 6 feet tall, and over 200 lbs.). Usually our mere presence was enough to put a stop to a lot of transpiring shenanigans. ;)

[AnGardaSiochana]

Ladies and gents,
Please do not circumvent my comments as this will not work.

A, If I play music loud or speed through a car park you have no powers to arrest me, detain me, touch my property or enter my home. My point is quite clear so do not wonder around thinking of ways to make yourself top dog. An LEO is not entering my property and turning off my stereo either.

B, NA, Im not attempting to confuse the 2 however you as well as I realise how many plain and simple bull**** artists are in the the various LEO/security sites. Hell thats one of the reasons why I stopped going to O.com. "Do you accept the scene?" Oh please!

C, Accepted, US security is more regulated compared to Irish however regulations have just been implemented so over time security here is going to become more above board and professional.

D, Taking offence because I stated most Irish security are criminals is stupid. I dont get annoyed by comments directed at American LEO's. Facts are facts.

Now story time, I deal with security at least 10 times per day. Out of all these there are the few that I chat with, trust and know wont take the piss. But they are rare, majority are criminals with criminal associates which includes the IRA and then theres wannabees that get in my way and attempt to be amateur lawyers. I have had security tell me "I will show you the CCTV when he leaves" or "You cant have the CCTV without a warrant", now, dealing with that what would your attitude be?

I have investigated dozens of security guards for assault, actually had other security guards hold a guy back while I arrested the shoplifter he was attacking. Hell, theres an American in custody here after it was discovered the red head security guard from Kildare was actually on the run for killing 3 people in America.

Now, its not all horror stories and assholes. I have had guys help me restrain suspects, tackle people Im chasing and had dozens as witnesses but still the minority.

As for filling you in on whats happening, well why not put a bullitin up in the area so everyone can watch teh women? If that woman wants you to know she can tell you, I wont betray her privacy rights by telling people her business. Thats why Im a professional.

[1stWatch]

A, If I play music loud or speed through a car park you have no powers to arrest me, detain me, touch my property or enter my home. My point is quite clear so do not wonder around thinking of ways to make yourself top dog. An LEO is not entering my property and turning off my stereo either.

B, NA, Im not attempting to confuse the 2 however you as well as I realise how many plain and simple bull**** artists are in the the various LEO/security sites. Hell thats one of the reasons why I stopped going to O.com. "Do you accept the scene?" Oh please!

C, Accepted, US security is more regulated compared to Irish however regulations have just been implemented so over time security here is going to become more above board and professional.

D, Taking offence because I stated most Irish security are criminals is stupid. I dont get annoyed by comments directed at American LEO's. Facts are facts.

A) In my case it depends on what the regulations for the privately owned property are. If there is no regulation against having loud music, suppose in the case of an apartment community, you are correct. I will not detain or otherwise harass you for playing loud music. In fact, I do not care about the loud music.
If there is a regulation against it you will not be detained or arrested for playing loud music, but you will receive an unpleasant little ticket that has "lease violation" printed at the top and an item checked at the bottom that states you now owe the complex $50. If you are not a resident, you will either continue to the apartment you are visiting, then that person will receive said ticket, or you will leave. Refusal to leave will result in me contacting the local law enforcement to report there is an unknown person driving through the complex, possibly to break into cars. Then it will become their problem.

B) "Do you accept the scene?" "Oh please" - Now, I would not personally use the phrase "do you accept the scene" since that is not the lingo I tend to use, but I do see the poster's original point in using that phrase as an example of something he did. This phrase implies to me "are you going to do anything with this".
Many of us have seen on numerous occasions where we call the local LE out for things, serious things at times, and they refuse to do what they are supposed to do. This is certainly not par for the course of what we usually expect since most of them actually do their duties quite well. However, this is a problem and it depends on the locality and whatever issues may be contested at the time.

C) Regulations have been implemented. That is great to hear. Hopefully that concept is not considered to be simply experimental. It requires constant enforcement and review of policies to make sure what you have is working. It will take time, but the more progress sooner the better. This will keep those with criminal backgrounds and undesirable psychological profiles from working in that business.

D) No offense taken, since I have seen many nightmarish incidents involving poor security. Stating that most security there sucks, however, is an opinion not a fact. It is certainly one you have a right to voice and it is there for a reason.

[N. A. Corbier]

I had a firearms instructor who would NOT release the grip of any weapon that you were trying to take unless you answered "I have the weapon" to "Do you have the weapon?"

The reason being, of course, because he hated accidental discharges.

There ARE people out there who use such terms.

As to the private property issue, no a LEO will not turn your stereo down. They will tell you to turn it down. You will refuse. They will issue you a citation. In some jurisdictions, the security officer will issue you a citation. In others, the security officer will issue you a violation of lease notification. You get a fine. You may even be evicted over the loud music.

[Mr. Security]

Ladies and gents,
Please do not circumvent my comments as this will not work.

B, ..... "Do you accept the scene?" Oh please!

Thats why Im a professional.

That phrase may very well protect the company from any civil action that is filed later on. It provides a clear demarcation line that LE is now responsible for whatever transpires. The USA is a very litigious society and many procedures have been implemented after security companies have been successfully sued over a inconsequential matter.

As to your need to tell us that you're a professional, we already know that. Why mention it unless you intend to assert a certain superior mentality about yourself and your abilities?

[jakeslife]

There are many facets to this argument.

In just asking for an incident number from an officer I was yelled at profanely about my job choice (yet he was a fat, bloated, old man who never even got out of his car).

I waited with a youth in the park after he had been assaulted by other youths for PD/EMS to arrive, and when PD did they were really respectful, and one said he was impressed with my situational control skills regarding the incident.

I was driving toward a roadblock (felony stop--it was over but traffic was still blocked), and PD waived me past all the other cars waiting and let me through.

We respond to burglar alarms, many of which are false. I've reminded cops that if we didn't, they would. When I am at work, I don't walk around hikin' up my duty belt, talking big, or sit down with a group of cops at Starbucks and chat it up with them. Just because I "want to be" doesn't mean I'm a "wanna be."

[exguard]

It's a video that's been making the rounds...Retarted Burger King Guy...has a BK guy standing at a counter behind the register and the photo is animated so his mouth moves as he sings "Ding fries are done." No nudity or gross stuff but depending on your sence of humor you will either laugh or wonder why you wasted 2 minutes of your life on it. What ever it is it's a ...
http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/8083/derail6zo.th.jpg (http://img28.imageshack.us/my.php?image=derail6zo.jpg)

Now back to all of us wanting to fulfill our fantasy of becoming cops.


Now that's funny right there....If you can't laugh at that than you need to log off now

[Mr. Security]

Now that's funny right there....If you can't laugh at that than you need to log off now

Roger that. You're cleared to logoff. :p

[ozsecuritychic]

im not too sure about other places but where im from the police appreciate what we do as most of the time we handle situations that the police would normally come out for.there is one licencing officer that takes his job a bit too seriously tho.

[Mr. Security]

im not too sure about other places but where im from the police appreciate what we do as most of the time we handle situations that the police would normally come out for....

That's the way it should be. You allow the police to focus on calls that have a higher priority. Too bad some cops just don't get it.

[Watchdog]

Let me say that I'm currently a security guard and I do want to be a cop.
Seriously. I don't "act like a cop" in my job as a security guard and only show as much authority and muscle and my clients wish me to have. So I don't go around trying to arrest people or give anyone a hard time just because I'm wearing a badge.

When you look at regular security guards, not big time government guards or anything like that, I'm talking like regular $9-$10/hr Mall Security or secuirty for small businesses, construction sites, etc.
Even though all these guards have to go through a background check and work history, half the guards I ever known are total lazy-ass losers who's job is to sit and pretty much do nothing all day, except look pretty in a uniform while looking over some property and they can't even make the effort to show uo to work on time or make a decent eligible daily report out.
Security at most times, is the easiest job in the world and if there are a few guards that show a little extra "authority" than at least they aren't the others who are sleeping.

[HotelSecurity]

I think I've already mentioned on this site that I believe modern security officers are professional first responders. We take care of the situation until the police, fire or ambulance arrive. On this & the 2 or 3 other sites I visit regularly most of the members focus on the police part of the job. Maybe it's because I work in hotels with people & not in a wharehouse or factory, but I believe the 2 other parts of our duties are as important as the "police" part. Therefore I am not a want-a-be. There is a place for me to control the situation as a first responder.

As for security getting involved in first aid. In Canada there is an article of the criminal code that says something like - if you are trained to provide first aid & someone is in need of first aid, you MUST help. It is a crime not to. (I'll try to find the article & post it).

Neil

[N. A. Corbier]

That sounds like you are a "professional rescuer," or that there is no good samaritan protection act in your provience.

Professional Rescuers are defined as those persons who, for compensation, provide rescue or first responder services to others. A professional rescuer, at least in WI, is regulated by the state, and must be certified to the national First Responder certification level. Which basically means they can do CPR, run an AED, and perform basic life support without killing a patient (theoretically).

Most states, as well as companies, do NOT consider a security person a "professional rescuer," as their primary job function is "observation and reporting," not providing medical assistance for compensation.

If a company were to start doing that, they'd need to implement a medical direction plan at the direction of a physician. I'm sure our resident EMTs have more information on that.

[EMTGuard]

I'm sure our resident EMTs have more information on that. That's my que. :D
It depends on your company, it's training and policies as well as your post orders. There's lots of questions that need answering before we can just jump up and claim the title of professional first responder.
Did your company hire you for your particular skills as a First Responder or does it just want a warm body on the post to observe and report? Did you get the training outside of your company and if so do they have your certifications on record, ie CPR/AED card from the Red Cross or AHA? Did your company offer training in house such as CPR, First aid or fire extinguisher use? If not they probably don't want you performing those skills unless it's clearly noted in your post orders. It's a case of "If we wanted you to act like a doctor we'd have hired a doctor".
If you get into more professional skills such as Medical First Responder, EMT or Fire Brigade, are these tasks part of your job description? Who is responsible for training, certification, and medical direction?
In my case, I was hired by my Security Company after the personel officer showed up at the Fire Station where I worked. He needed Security Officers with EMT training to work posts at area chemical plants. The EMTs would work alongside regular Security Officers, make rounds and answer phones, etc... Often the EMTs are ranked above the regular unarmed officers and are considered the Supervisor on that site. If a medical emergency at the plant occured the SO/EMT would be sent as a 'first responder' to treat the patient until the local ambulance service arrives. The Security Company is not responsiable for any EMT training or Certification. It is up to the EMT to maintain his skills and certifiaction and when on post the EMT and his medical tasks will be under the Medical Direction of the facility where he is posted. It sounds very mercenary. I'm an EMT who contracted to a Contract Security Company. Each post is different and has different requirements for it's officers and EMTs. Currently I'm posted at a Steel Mill near New Orleans and, under medical direction, have several responsibilities not covered by my EMT training such as Drug Screening and issuing of certain medications. These tasks as well as learning my policies for responding to various situations were taught to me during my first week of being on the new post.
I have included a photo clip from this weekends Classified Ads. It is an ad from a Security Company in the Baton Rouge area, not my company, looking for certified EMTs to work security positions. I'm told the position is at a Paper Mill North of Baton Rouge. In a case like this, Security Officers could be considered true Professional First Responders.
http://img481.imageshack.us/img481/8758/loftonemt4vl.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[histfan71]

I think I've already mentioned on this site that I believe modern security officers are professional first responders. We take care of the situation until the police, fire or ambulance arrive.

HotelSecurity hit the nail right on the head. This is exactly what security is supposed to do!

Unfortunately most security guards do not realize this and think they have the same authority and responsibility as the cops, with only a fraction of the qualifications, background screenings, and training.

[EMTGuard]

HotelSecurity hit the nail right on the head. This is exactly what security is supposed to do!

Unfortunately there are companies out there that say you handle the situation by calling 911 or dispatch and watching from a distance. Someone has a heart attack and you have CPR training? Better not touch the person while working. Just call 911 and hold the door or gate open for the paramedics when they arrive. A fight breaks out in the lobby? Don't get between them. Call 911 and log it in the log book. A trash can catches fire in the copy room? Don't touch that fire extinguisher unless you want to be standing in the unemployment line. Just report it to dispatch and hold the door open so everyone can get out. Don't let the log book burn with everything else. Take it with you.
Anything else just opens up the Security Company to too much liability. :eek:

[N. A. Corbier]

Unfortunately there are companies out there that say you handle the situation by calling 911 or dispatch and watching from a distance. Someone has a heart attack and you have CPR training? Better not touch the person while working. Just call 911 and hold the door or gate open for the paramedics when they arrive. A fight breaks out in the lobby? Don't get between them. Call 911 and log it in the log book. A trash can catches fire in the copy room? Don't touch that fire extinguisher unless you want to be standing in the unemployment line. Just report it to dispatch and hold the door open so everyone can get out. Don't let the log book burn with everything else. Take it with you.
Anything else just opens up the Security Company to too much liability. :eek:

Perfrom CPR? Your not a trained rescuer, nor is it in your post orders (Bill, get your ass down there and put this new page in, pronto) to do so.

[HotelSecurity]

In Quebec the Workmen's Compensation law requires businesses to have 1 first aider per 50 employees. The basic first aid course including CPR is provided free by the government. (I have personally trained as an EMT & have worked as a Medic on a First Responder Squad).

The Montreal Fire Department requires that buildings where more than 100 people gather, have an internal Fire Brigade. (I trained with Civil Defense as a fire fighter & back in the late '70 worked as an auxilary fire fighter).

In the hotel business there are often only the Night Auditor & Security Officer on duty overnight. The Night Auditor must stay at the switchboard so everything else becomes the responsibilty of Security.

Did I also mention that I work In-House?

[The_Mayor]

Once a crime has been commited you guys back off. LEO's are there to deal with all people and apply the law.

You have obviously missed the wealth of information posted here that justifies why we have to handle matters instead of you guys a lot of the time. If I would have just "backed off" that day I heard of the suspicious overnight package who would have caught that drug trafficker? The police didn't have any info.

If it happens on the street you guys can clean it up. But if it happens on my client's property you back off until we call you.

[Mr. Security]

You have obviously missed the wealth of information posted here that justifies why we have to handle matters instead of you guys a lot of the time. If I would have just "backed off" that day I heard of the suspicious overnight package who would have caught that drug trafficker? The police didn't have any info.

If it happens on the street you guys can clean it up. But if it happens on my client's property you back off until we call you.

Member got the 'message' already. :) I haven't seen a post from this member ever since.

[ozsecuritychic]

in australia security guards have to have first aid certificates.we also get paid first aid allowance.if someone slips over in the mall im normally first on the scene some people dont need ambulance called just a little patching up.

[IrishGuard]

in australia security guards have to have first aid certificates.we also get paid first aid allowance.if someone slips over in the mall im normally first on the scene some people dont need ambulance called just a little patching up.

I think that generally speaking the security industry in Australia has come a long way and this is particularly so in relation to members of the Australian Security Industry Association Limited (http://www.asial.com.au/default.asp?page=/home)

There is now more co-operation between private security companies and the police in relation to crime prevention matters and many security companies are now involved with the police in crime prevention strategies.

State Police are responsible for the licensing of security guards/private investigators/crowd controllers/security system installers.

The private security industry is a growth industry and many companies are tendering for major government contracts and in my opinion there will in future be only one or two major players left in the security industry. Those being Chubb Security (http://www.chubb.com.au) and Group4Securitas (http://www.group4.com.au/sc09-services.html) being the other.

[N. A. Corbier]

I think that generally speaking the security industry in Australia has come a long way and this is particularly so in relation to members of the Australian Security Industry Association Limited (http://www.asial.com.au/default.asp?page=/home)

There is now more co-operation between private security companies and the police in relation to crime prevention matters and many security companies are now involved with the police in crime prevention strategies.

State Police are responsible for the licensing of security guards/private investigators/crowd controllers/security system installers.

The private security industry is a growth industry and many companies are tendering for major government contracts and in my opinion there will in future be only one or two major players left in the security industry. Those being Chubb Security (http://www.chubb.com.au) and Group4Securitas (http://www.group4.com.au/sc09-services.html) being the other.

I'm hoping that's a mistype. Group4Securitas is a scary concept. That'd mean that just about everyone in America works for Group4Secuicorp. Hell, its not! Group4 owns Securitas down there.

I wonder if they own Securitas up here, and we just don't know it, as well.

[Tennsix]

You have obviously missed the wealth of information posted here that justifies why we have to handle matters instead of you guys a lot of the time. If I would have just "backed off" that day I heard of the suspicious overnight package who would have caught that drug trafficker? The police didn't have any info.

If it happens on the street you guys can clean it up. But if it happens on my client's property you back off until we call you.
Hey Mayor, wake up enough to put your shoes on before jumping into the next fight. ;) But better late than never :D

[Mr. Security]

I know a few guys who work for them here in Connecticut, let's just say it's a job and leave it at that.

In this area, Securitas does not compensate their employees well enough to attract and retain good officers. Guardsmark is better, but not by much. Unfortunately, this is not going to change for the better in the near future. :(

[N. A. Corbier]

The exact opposite in the area where I worked for Securitas. I had a very good job with Securitas, while Guardsmark was a joke.

I think that there is the branch manager factor. Some are glorified salesman who have no idea what they're doing. Others do, for whatever reason, and insist on running their branch in a way that will keep employees and clients.

[Mr. Security]

I think that there is the branch manager factor. Some are glorified salesman who have no idea what they're doing. Others do, for whatever reason, and insist on running their branch in a way that will keep employees and clients.

N.A. is EXACTLY right. In fact, when I worked for one of these companies, our area was reassigned to a different branch. It went downhill from there. The manager(s) make all the difference.

[N. A. Corbier]

No I am a working owner, nothing wrong with hard work and making a lot of money :O)
Rule one of owning a company, or even managing:

Expect to work the field. Who else is going to work the field when someone calls in sick, and you can't afford / don't want to afford a "rover" who rarely works?

[Mr. Security]

Any owner who has a small security company would be wise to work at the accounts with the guard(s) that is posted there. The goal is not to harp on their mistakes, but to have a one-on-one working relationship with the "troops on the front line."

Make time to accompany the officer as he does his/her rounds. Ask them to explain why the do it a certain way, what they are looking for, and any tips they have learned to spot trouble. Be humble and teachable by attempting to do some of the tasks at that particular site even if the guard will see you make mistakes.

The benefits far out way any time spent doing this. Not only will you have a pulse on what happens at your accounts, but also you will gain the respect of those under your command. You demonstrate that you care and that you do not think too much of yourself. Feedback from entry-level patrol officers is much better than from the "yes-men" typically found at the top.

This is one reason that Guardsmark excelled in the beginning. Ira Lipman would do the things noted above. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the company has lost this niche because of its tremendous growth over the decades, and the growing pains that come with it. :(

[N. A. Corbier]

Its even better if the person your working with does not realize that you are a supervisor, or worse, the owner. That way, you aren't intimidating the hell out of that employee.

I had originally planned to just take a car and drive. Stop by, see how folks are, etc. Only thing it costs the company is gas and mechanical of the vehicle. Only thing it costs me is money for food and hot chocolate while driving.

Maybe spend a few hours on one post, spend some on the other. Not just in and out, but sit down and see how stuff is going on. And, of course, respond to assistance calls as needed. I don't mean "ZOMG HALP!" just, "Can I get a second unit? This isn't a police problem yet, but I'd like some assistance."

Eventually if your good enough, you can replace yourself or supplement yourself with a patrol supervisor who can do these things, as well.

[GCMC Security]

I'm hoping that's a mistype. Group4Securitas is a scary concept. That'd mean that just about everyone in America works for Group4Secuicorp. Hell, its not! Group4 owns Securitas down there.

I wonder if they own Securitas up here, and we just don't know it, as well.

I know we have heard rumors running around TWC that it was in negatiations for Group4 to buy out Securitas, maybe it happened or maybe Australia is the begginning :eek:

[Mr. Security]

What's the difference between Securitas and Group4? I thought Group4 was a subsidiary of Securitas, like Pinkerton GS. :confused:

[GCMC Security]

What's the difference between Securitas and Group4? I thought Group4 was a subsidiary of Securitas, like Pinkerton GS. :confused:

It used to be Securitas was the largest Security Company in the world and Group4 was a very close number 2. If the buyout/merger happened well Group4 now employs a huge majority of contract security officers in the world.

[Mr. Security]

It used to be Securitas was the largest Security Company in the world and Group4 was a very close number 2. If the buyout/merger happened well Group4 now employs a huge majority of contract security officers in the world.

OK. I follow you now. That would make Group4 HUGE. I can't think of any other security company that could compete in terms of size and coverage. I wonder if that merger would be challenged on the basis of stopping monopolies?

[GCMC Security]

OK. I follow you now. That would make Group4 HUGE. I can't think of any other security company that could compete in terms of size and coverage. I wonder if that merger would be challenged on the basis of stopping monopolies?

2004

In July, Group 4 Falck’s security business merged with Securicor to create the world’s second largest security provider.

quoted from www.g4s.com

Now is Securicor the same as Securitas? From what I can tell no, but maybe the above merger is the rumor that was flying (you know how the can get twisted!)

[Mr. Security]

2004

In July, Group 4 Falck’s security business merged with Securicor to create the world’s second largest security provider.

quoted from www.g4s.com

Now is Securicor the same as Securitas? From what I can tell no, but maybe the above merger is the rumor that was flying (you know how the can get twisted!)

I agree. They are not part of Securitas. Securitas must be largest security company. If they merge, look out!

[N. A. Corbier]

It seems, in Australia, that the company name is Group4Secuitas.

I've seen G4S logos on several avatars. But only from the AU folks. And maybe a kiwi.

[OzPatrol]

Okay, read the entire thread and then read it again.

Essentially, what it boils down to is there is good and bad points to either side. This boils down to an -attitude- toward a specific set of persons in the -individual- and can certainly not be applied to the whole.

If you have one rotten apple in a barrel full of apples, do you throw away the entire barrel? Would seem to be a bit silly to do such a thing.

The fact is, everyone needs to realise LEO's and Security Officers provide a service. Although each service differs, many benefits can be had by working together to attain a higher level service, on both sides.

Now, I'm probably about to get slammed by some who may feel very passionate about this, but be that as it may, I do have something to say in regards to criminal history.

First, in the United States, if you are caught and convicted of a crime, you are given a sentence. This sentence can be anything from conviction with time on probation to a sentence of jail time or possible death, depending on the severity of the crime.

A small bit of background on me:

I was a voluntary member of the Civil Defense Search and Rescue Team
I was an auxillary deputy sheriff and member of the Jaws of Life
I took EMT-B training, CPR, etc and so on.

I was looking at a career in law enforcement.

I then allowed a person known to me to place articles in my vehicle. We were pulled over by LEO's and found the articles placed in vehicle were stolen. I was charged as was the person with me, but we were both charged for the same offense, which was a felony.

I was then sentence, listening to my lawyer, who did not inform me of all the consequences of pleading guilty. He merely informed me that pleading guilty would be alright.

I was issued with a sentence of 10 years, suspended as I had not even a speeding ticket on my record, with 5 years probation. I served 3 years of this and was let off after paying restitution and good behavior.

As you may have guessed, this ruined ANY chance of a LE career. Needless to say, I was not happy. I should have questioned this person more carefully, but since the person was known to me, and I trusted them, I paid for that wrongly placed trust. Essentially, it was my own fault and I want nor do I deserve any pity. Just a simple point in fact.

Now, I paid my dues to society (as per the justice system) and I even went out to the fellow where these items where stolen and offered my most sincere apologies.

However, in the United States, you do NOT just pay your -supposed- dues to society, you pay for the rest of your life.

That happened 17 years ago. I have been accused of a couple of things in the time since, mainly due to my -police- record, but both of them were found to be false accusations. Other than that, I have had 2 speeding tickets in 17 years.

Yet, as unblemished as my record is in this length of time, I could not hold a security position in the United States even with this clean slate for the last 17 years.

Yet, here in Australia, not even a land of my own birth, I am able to hold a security licence. No, I am not a wannabe police officer anymore. I wanted to be one, but that dream was taken away by my own carelessness. Now, I just want to provide the best peace of mind I can for those clients that I service and the general populace as well.

Yes, if I see something happening that is wrong, I will take note of it and I WILL react, should the situation call for it, and without fear of consequences if in my mind my actions save someone's life or keeps someone from a bad experience.

Yes, we are supposed to sit back and observe and report, but would any man or woman worth their salt sit back and watch, call 000 while some poor soul was about to be raped, brutally beaten, or worse? Its not really even about being security, or LE, its about doing what is right by not only your own little voice of reason, but by that other human being as well. We are all in this world together, brothers and sisters the whole of us. Not many people see it that way, and maybe sometimes I see things through rose colored glasses.

Its the way things SHOULD be though.

Slam me all you want, get passionate or what have you. I've heard it all or worse before, and a lot of times from LEO's due to what happened way back when.

Yet, there are the LEO's that KNEW me, knew it was an honest mistake, and still know the man I really am.

I just want to say that not ALL -criminals- are not responsible members of the public.

Again, there are good and bad across the board. I respect each LEO no matter what country they are in. They have a hard job to do, and get very little respect or courtesy for it. Same with S/O's.

Perhaps its time each side learned to work together instead of against each other. I find the LEO's here in Australia are all around fairly stand up and decent guys. You get the occasional one that has a go, but you just give them respect and courtesy. If they continue, just be nice, polite and civil, and you will walk away knowing you are the better man...that goes for a lot of encounters, not just with LEO's or S/O's, but life itself.

Some hard lessons learned...some harder than others.

Just a word to the wise. Always make sure of those persons you are with. They may seem like the nice guy from down the road, etc, but it will not hurt you to not misplace your trust. Get to know them very well, family, friends, relatives, etc...don't blindly trust anyone.


N.A.,
It is Group4Securitas. Unsure of its origins.

[Mr. Security]

Okay, read the entire thread and then read it again.


I started the thread and I don't even have the patience to do that! :eek:



Yet, as unblemished as my record is in this length of time, I could not hold a security position in the United States even with this clean slate for the last 17 years.....

It depends. If it was considered a misdemeanor here, you might be able to get a license.

[N. A. Corbier]

Here's my opinion on criminal records, recividity, and the rest of it.

First. If you are convicted of a criminal offense related to the security industry, my hands are tied. You can be one of the best out there, I cannot hire you, as the State says your unlicensable.

If you are a felon, I also cannot hire you. Not only can I not license you, I cannot give you a weapon. You lose many civil rights after a felony conviction.

For those who have misdemeanor convictions that are not related to the security industry, you are hirable in my state with conditions placed on your license. If, for example, you have a misdemeanor alcoholism-related conviction, you may be given a conditional license that prevents you consuming alcohol while given an armed person's permit.

The other thing is, in this industry, our clients expect us to hire people with perfect criminal records, i.e. none. If they find out, by whatever means, they freak.

There are good people who are excluded by the rules imposed. Wisconsin makes it a violation of a person's civil rights to discriminate against them based on criminal record. Except in law enforcement, emergency services, and security.

[Mr. Security]

...The other thing is, in this industry, our clients expect us to hire people with perfect criminal records, i.e. none. If they find out, by whatever means, they freak....

That is true, even if the application says that the misdemeanor is not an automatic disqualifier. The clients and their attorneys are always thinking about the liability angle.

[Tennsix]

I was issued with a sentence of 10 years, suspended as I had not even a speeding ticket on my record, with 5 years probation. I served 3 years of this and was let off after paying restitution and good behavior.
That is no misdemeanor. N. A. Corbier summed it up well. A felon may not possess a firearm. In my opinion, any felony conviction is enough to DQ anyone applying for a security position. There are a lot of misdemeanors on my list too. Security employment requires applicants and officers/agents be held to a higher standard.

[Mr. Security]

That is no misdemeanor.

Good catch. :o

[Tennsix]

I then allowed a person known to me to place articles in my vehicle. We were pulled over by LEO's and found the articles placed in vehicle were stolen. I was charged as was the person with me, but we were both charged for the same offense, which was a felony.

I was then sentence, listening to my lawyer, who did not inform me of all the consequences of pleading guilty. He merely informed me that pleading guilty would be alright.

I was issued with a sentence of 10 years, suspended as I had not even a speeding ticket on my record, with 5 years probation. I served 3 years of this and was let off after paying restitution and good behavior.

Though you did not say of what crime(s) you were convicted, abovementioned excerpt is serves to illustrate its severity. I have a hard time believing you were railroaded into a 10 year sentence. You portray your self as victim of circumstances but you were more involved that you let on.

The CJ system does not hand out 10 year prison terms for first time offenders and/or those with only peripheral involement.

[OzPatrol]

I then allowed a person known to me to place articles in my vehicle. We were pulled over by LEO's and found the articles placed in vehicle were stolen. I was charged as was the person with me, but we were both charged for the same offense, which was a felony.

I clearly stated it was a felony offense I was charged with. I've had 17 years to research what may or may not be done when charged with a felony offense within the United States. I'm well aware of the limitations.


Though you did not say of what crime(s) you were convicted, abovementioned excerpt is serves to illustrate its severity. I have a hard time believing you were railroaded into a 10 year sentence. You portray your self as victim of circumstances but you were more involved that you let on.

The CJ system does not hand out 10 year prison terms for first time offenders and/or those with only peripheral involement.

Only one (1) crime I was convicted of, which was burglary. I allowed the person to place stolen articles (I had no knowledge they were stolen when he placed them in my vehicle. He told me they belonged to him) in my vehicle. After arrest, I found out he was the nephew of the county sheriff, and he told his uncle it was all my idea. I was 20 at the time, he was 18. I immediately wore the same charge. It was his word against mine. I was sentenced (if I recall correctly...it has been 17 years now, but I don't think I misquoted it) to 10 years, suspended, with 5 years probation.

And what I said about my lawyer was what he said, or words to that effect. He did NOT inform me of the full consequences of pleading guilty, although, again, it has been 17 years, and to be honest with you, I can look back now and see I was in shock, literally, from the entire process. Believe it or not, I know the truth, and that's all I need to know.

And maybe, Tennsix, where you are from, they DON'T hand out sentences like that to first time offenders, but they damn well did in my case. Contact me privately and I'll be more than glad to give you my information so you can have a look for yourself if you are in LE.

Now, just to clarify, I did not intend to portray myself in any light whatsoever, and if I have done so, I'm sorry. That was definitely NOT my intent. I was attempting to get a point across in regards to good and bad on either side of the fence in regards to LEO's and S/O's. I knew I would open myself up to scrutiny, and have no fear of that. Want to check my background, feel free to do so.

Whatever you do or do not believe is left up to you. I am not here to sway you one way or the other.

I just have to say this. I have spent the last 17 years working my butt off to prove that due to one mistake, it should not mean from that time forward you are a person of ill-repute. People make mistakes, honest to God, screw ups. Bad judgement calls, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, etc and so on. It happens. I've had many comments in line with those of Tennsix (nothing personal) and each time I say the same thing. I WANTED a job in LE, I was attempting to do everything to get into LE and only had about 6 months before I could apply. Why in hell would I willing screw that up?


That is no misdemeanor. N. A. Corbier summed it up well. A felon may not possess a firearm. In my opinion, any felony conviction is enough to DQ anyone applying for a security position. There are a lot of misdemeanors on my list too. Security employment requires applicants and officers/agents be held to a higher standard.

I hold myself to an extremely high standard Tennsix.

For the first few years after I was convicted, do you know the crap jobs I had to work. I dug ditches, I had people shake their head and mention the 'black mark' on my record, turned down for jobs I was qualified to do.

I finally went into truck driving and ran my butt off, making a helluva lot of money and drinking myself into oblivion on my weekends off...while giving serious thought to just taking my own life. The one thing I wanted to do was now completely and totally out of my reach, never to be possible.

Not only this, but I had let down friends, family and myself. I was now look at as some kind of a leper. I can't count the number of times I just wanted to say screw it and off myself.

I eventually came out of that, although I still get depressed at times thinking about what 'might' have been 'if'. I finally realised that I did not have to meet the proverbial (or so it seems) idea of what a -felon- should be. I cleaned up my act, went to work for a reputable trucking company, as I had proven I was reliable, nothing went missing off my freight and I could deliver on time. I decided to prove what I classify as the 'odds' wrong.

Odds are, if you offend, you will reoffend. I've been told that on numerous occasions.

I say bullcrap. You only reoffend if you allow yourself to continue down a path of destruction. You raise yourself above that level, you hold to the morals, ethics, honesty and integrity that you had in the beginning and never let go of it, because that's all you have left. Your own personal honor.

Just to let you know, I'm sure people wonder, how is a person able to be a security guard in Australia. Spent Convictions Scheme. After 10 years, if you spent no jail time, then that conviction, according to the government here is technically gone, or that is the word I've got in regards to it, and I've checked a lot of sources before I applied to become a security guard.

Do I do my job? Your damn right I do. I make sure that EVERY premises I check is fully secured, I do an extremely throrough check of every alarm response, I cordon off the scene of a break and enter, cooperate with police in any way possible...and I do it all with a passion. Far as I can see, this is MY chance to prove people wrong, (just like the doubting Tennsix) that yes, you can make a mistake and learn from it and go on to be a better, upstanding, and contributing person in the community, and not what some persons seem to believe you are from a mark in your history.

I seem to recall, back in the history of the US, that certain persons came over from different countries fleeing persecution, religious or otherwise. In a way, I guess that is what I've done, except I didn't go to the US, I left it.

[Tennsix]

I seem to recall, back in the history of the US, that certain persons came over from different countries fleeing persecution, religious or otherwise. In a way, I guess that is what I've done, except I didn't go to the US, I left it.
The people you speak of were immigrants seeking relief from unreasonable prosecution and government harassment. Others were innocent people forcibly relocated (to the US) and suffered an existence of servitude and appalling atrocities.

Didn’t the British Crown once designate Australia as a penal colony? That situation would be more relevant to this conversation.

By “Higher Standard” I mean no felony convictions and preferably no misdemeanor convictions. Sometimes, the most qualified person is not the right person. In other words, qualifications aren’t always the best measure of a perspective employee.

It seems you have made a good life for yourself in Australia. Why are you complaining about the US? In the 1950’s my grandfather had two PhD’s and the best job he could get was a custodial position at a factory. He left the US and began a new life in Mexico as a university professor.

[OzPatrol]

The people you speak of were immigrants seeking relief from unreasonable prosecution and government harassment. Others were innocent people forcibly relocated (to the US) and suffered an existence of servitude and appalling atrocities.

I used it merely as an example of sorts. Perhaps the wrong one, but with limited sleep due to certain family commitments, it was the best I could come up with at the time. Teach me to sleep first and then post. :)


Didn’t the British Crown once designate Australia as a penal colony? That situation would be more relevant to this conversation.

Nailed that one on the head friend. It was designated as a penal colony. Guess it will fit the bill just as well as anything else.


It seems you have made a good life for yourself in Australia. Why are you complaining about the US?

Complaining? I felt it was more of a comparison in differences, but yes, I can see where it could be seen as whinging. Point taken.

I have made a good life for myself. I have a wife and two very beautiful daughters who I strive to set a good example for, and am quite happy here.


By “Higher Standard” I mean no felony convictions and preferably no misdemeanor convictions. Sometimes, the most qualified person is not the right person. In other words, qualifications aren’t always the best measure of a perspective employee.

I'd have to disagree in some instances. A felony conviction does not always necessitate the person is not qualified and able to do a very good, if not better job than the person standing beside them. I find the majority of persons are unwilling to believe a person can make a mistake, recover from it and benefit the society.

Second, what would you rather have. (Example only:)

An underqualified teacher instructing your kids, and barely getting the by, or an overqualifed teacher pushing them to reach new heights. I know what I'd prefer for my children.

I know what's coming next. What if that person was a person who had committed a felony? Fair enough. What if it was. Is the felony relevant to the job in terms of is this person a predator of chidren?

If so, no, the person should not be teaching young children.

What if that overquaified person was the guy that defrauded a bank? Still a felony (I believe...but for purposes of example, lets say it is) Would he then still be unacceptable for the teaching position of these children, if there had been no further incidents for, 10, 15 years?

*shrugs* I'm not saying you are wrong Tennsix, and I do understand the driving force behind it all, but I'm saying, there should be another way of looking at things as well.

The world if not always black and white.

Edit: To fix quote brackets

[Tennsix]

I have made a good life for myself. I have a wife and two very beautiful daughters who I strive to set a good example for, and am quite happy here.
Congratulations on your family life. That is something no profession or money can bring. You are a very fortunate man, in that regard.

Yes, I do see your side. You offer an articulately presented view. I am not saying you do not deserve a second chance. However, anyone pursuing a public safety career should expect obstacles, given such a past. A burglary conviction can be used to judge one’s integrity and is considered a huge liability.

I am not in the security profession but I would imagine most clients would cringe at the thought of a convicted burglar protecting their interests. I am not saying you are a crook but that is the reality of the situation.

In the security/law enforcement context, I would rather have a person with a clean record and has the potential to be an exemplary officer. With the proper training and guidance, the “under qualified” person can soon become qualified. Hence you have a lesser qualified but “right” person for the job.

Moreover, qualifications are just a page in a resume and it doesn’t tell the whole story. I have been involved with LE hiring and I have been confronted with similar situations. Granted, each case should be individually evaluated but that is my experience, generally speaking.

[OzPatrol]

Congratulations on your family life. That is something no profession or money can bring. You are a very fortunate man, in that regard.

Thank you Mr. Tennsix. I feel extremely fortunate, and I count my blessings every day. Those two little girls are what I live for and another reason I strive to set a very good example for them to follow.

Got a good wife that puts up with me too, so that has to count for something :)


However, anyone pursuing a public safety career should expect obstacles, given such a past. A burglary conviction can be used to judge one’s integrity and is considered a huge liability.

Obstacles were meant to be overcome, or so I believe. The dream, or that's what I tend to call it, to become a productive and contributing member of the community is what I've always wanted to achieve. Now, I'm fairly certain a few people might say I could have done it in other ways, but I felt I had / have something to prove, and still do. Whether I accomplish that is yet to be seen, but I don't give up easily.


In the security/law enforcement context, I would rather have a person with a clean record and has the potential to be an exemplary officer. With the proper training and guidance, the “under qualified” person can soon become qualified. Hence you have a lesser qualified but “right” person for the job.

I completely understand your view on this, and this would be the stance many others would take. I simply want to show that it is not the 'only' way it can be done, and that others can fulfill and excel in the same position, given opportunity.

If I were on the other side of the desk looking at me, it would weigh heavily on my mind as to what I was getting myself into should I take this person on. It would be a very tough decision, if I was going to be fair about it.

I also know that not everyone with a previous history will do something like I have and attempt to learn from it Mr. Tennsix. I've done a fair amount of research in the past, and although I cannot for the life of me bring up the statistics, I do know that the chances of a person recommiting a crime after the first offense is extremely high. As I pointed out in an earlier post, suicidal tendencies, feelings of worthlessness and such, I can only state that many seem to feel it is the only course of action left to them. Some feel that if they are to be branded a criminal, then a criminal they shall be. Others just see no hope and succumb to weakness.

I personally think its an escape route, and not taking responsibility for your own actions. You can sink into the slime, or you can raise up, take hold of the reigns and do what's right, even if most of the world is ready to spit in your face. *shrugs*

I get more annoyed at people who give excuses than anything else. I make no excuse for what happened in my past. I screwed up, I made a mistake and have accepted it for what it is.

Now, the only thing I can do, and have done for 17 years is try to learn from it. And hopefully teach my kids not to put themselves into similar situations.

[quote=Tennsix]Moreover, qualifications are just a page in a resume and it doesn’t tell the whole story.[quote]

I know a fellow, extremely well learned man who has a glorious mind for facts and figures here in Australia. Great guy, well liked...has the common sense of a rock. Sorry, but that was the first thing that came to mind when I read that. He's a good friend, will help you any way he can, but he's hopeless at what I would classify as 'ordinary' task. ;)

Essentialy, it always boils down to what the client / public 'perceives'. If you have a fresh-faced officer in uniform who has never commited a crime in his life whether he be a LEO or S/O, the client / public / employer will be happy.

I understand the need to say "This officers' record is unblemished and he is a pillar of the community", so to speak. He may be a fairly mediocre worker, but he has fulfilled the 'need'.

On the other side of the coin, you have an officer that you say 'He screwed up in the distant past, so he's no knight in shining armor...he cleans up fairly well though.' Public / Client faith is shaky...at best. Yet, he goes out every day / night and goes above and beyond, doing his duty to the letter, helping where he can to prove that he's got what it takes.

First example, easy way out...second example...hard road. Don't have to be a rocket scientist to see which one would be chosen from an employer point of view. ;)

[Mr. Security]

No matter how much we want to do something, if we don't meet the qualifications, then we can't do it. For example, consider the high medical standards that pilots have to meet in order to fly as pilot-in-command of an aircraft. A pilot may have all the experience in the world, but if he/she needs to take certain medications for health problems that the FAA considers disqualifying, then they lose their medical certificate and the right to operate an aircraft alone. It has happened to many a good pilot and it hurts. Those standards or qualifications are there to protect the public. Maybe the pilot could fly w/o a problem, but it makes no difference. No medical, no solo flying.

The same is true with certain professions like LE and security. There are certain standards here in the USA that cannot be waived, no matter how much a person wants to be in LE/security. One standard is no felony conviction(s).

You have come a long way. At least Australia allows you to work in security. Not bad for all that you have been through. Just continue to be the best s/o that you can be, and don't dwell on things that you can't change. That's all that any of us can do. :)

[Black Caesar]

I've read this thread with great interest, given my background.

Like in every other walk of life, it's the few that makes the many look bad. Add to that problems in the Security/Protection industry to that (stuff mentioned here already, lack of training and standards in too many places, low pay ect ect) and you see why some cops have a problem.

I've known lots of wannabe cops that were security officers, but I've known many more who weren't. Usually I experianced the wannabes while working for podunk companies as armed security. When I worked in a "soft" uniform in a High-rise building, Not one of my fellow officers was a "wannabe". Same goes for when I was on the federal contracts, or working industrial security.

But when I worked for "low pay" companies, I met alot of them. I might even start a story thread here to give some details (you'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll....well, you get the picture :) ). Security officers are wannabe cops usually suck at being security officer's on top of everything else....

When I worked in private security, I knew how to act around the cops and could get it done without groveling or kissing butt. On several occasions I was told by various Dallas PD officers that I should be a cop, which is high priase if you know how cops think (and it was then and only then that I'd tell them I was a reserve police officer, otherwise they just didn't need to know, a sure sign of a wannabe is when they start spouting off their "creditials" to police without being asked).

The Few super-rambo ultra stealth tactical "my personal car is a Police Package Crown Vic I bought at the Auction" S/Os who make everyone else look bad are IMO the most to blame. The irrational bigotry of some in LE comes a close second.

[Mr. Security]

There isn't anything wrong with a s/o who wants to be a cop some day and is working security to gain some experience as he/she works toward their goal of becoming a police officer. The problem comes when they start acting like a LEO when they are still working in security.

I can't think of a single s/o that I have worked with who wanted to become a cop. Most worked security in addition to a day job to supplement their income, had recently left the military and weren't sure what to do next, or just wanted some part-time work.

[N. A. Corbier]

You know what I think one of the major problems is? When the security person starts acting like he has the "authority" to be an Alpha Hotel that the Sworn Badge makes some think they have.

DT4EMS calls em the Type B cop. The one that doesn't train in DT, is a frequent shooter (But can't hit the damn target), is the guy who you don't want backing you up on your call (he'll make the situation worse), and doesn't call for back-up himself.

There are things that some folks think being a police officer entitles them to. Luckly for them, unless its blatantly stupid or illegal, no one's going to call them on it internally - the only people that matter to that cop.

When you get a security officer trying to emulate Officer Billy Bad Ass of the local police, it just makes for trouble.

[knotquiteawake]

interesting, i'm getting my security job because we get to carry guns and tazers, and it pays really well for a post grad job (well better than most of my friends post grad jobs), for me any job paying over $15 an hour is going to be pretty sweet, which this job will.

[HotelSecurity]

I've also had former employees go onto become police officers. 2 are presently in the RCMP, 1 currently in training to become an RCMP Officer, 1 is in the Surete du Quebec (Provincial Police), 1 is a Sergaent with the Montreal Police, 2 are Constables with the Montreal Police. 1 is a By-Law Enforcement Officer, 1 is a "Surveillant Agent" with the Transit "Police" & 1 is an Investigator with the fire department. All have said that the experience they got working in the hotel helped them go on to their career.

[Black Caesar]

There isn't anything wrong with a s/o who wants to be a cop some day and is working security to gain some experience as he/she works toward their goal of becoming a police officer.

One thing I've noticed (and that I pass on to people who think they may want to become a LEO) is that private security experiance may possibly hurt your chances of getting on as a cop.

There is something of an irrational institutional dislike of "Security Guards" in some Law Enforcement circles. The people who do the interviewing and hiring are humans and sometimes have stupid biases.

But it is something a young prospective cop has to take into account. I got into security thinking that it would be good experiance for being a cop, but I think it did actually hurt me in the beginning. BUT after I had worked some of the so-called "higher level" private security jobs (like the federal contract work and Wackenhut) I noticed a different tone from police interviewers (also by this time I was a reserve, so I know that helped).

Bottom line I think is that if someone wants to use security as a spring board into LE they should be mindful to pursue the "right kind" of security work the police hiring authorites will respect.

The odd thing about that is that if you can get those upper echelon security jobs (for example, H. Ross Perot's old Company EDS has in-house security that is well trained and well paid), you might not WANT to be a LEO afterwards lol

[Black Caesar]

It's not SO BAD to be a wannabe. If Security Officers mimic and emulate the positive and professional practices of their local Police/Sheriff departments, I don't see that as a negative thing.


I know it's just semantics, but think there is a differance between a "prospective future LEO" and a "Wannabe" (maybe better terms might be "shouldn'tbe" or even "Can'tBe"). I use the term wannabe to describe an overzealous type of person who really isn't mentally suited for the thing they "wannabe"..

Most people I knew in private security didn't want to be police officers. But of the "wannabes". Then I knew some S/Os who did and were very professional S/Os (again, I call "Prospectives"). But the wannabe losers (thankfully a small minority of S/Os I've known) were just that, losers who shouldn't have been able to get an armed security commision, much less be a LEO.

Oddly, the "tackleberry" wannabe losers I encountered had the very very best personal equipment money could buy lol..

[N. A. Corbier]

interesting, i'm getting my security job because we get to carry guns and tazers, and it pays really well for a post grad job (well better than most of my friends post grad jobs), for me any job paying over $15 an hour is going to be pretty sweet, which this job will.

That scares the hell out of me, son. You realize that you get that gun and that taser because people may try to kill you, right? :)

[knotquiteawake]

them issuing a gun means monthly range time for free and california firearms permit, a taser means i have a less than lethal way of dealing with violence. I hope i never have to even draw a firearm, but i do hope i find it justified and necessary to tase someone, someone who isn't wearing a pacemaker or anything.

[knotquiteawake]

NEWS FLASH, knotquiteawake, you don't have to be a Security Officer to carry a gun. Criminals and idiots do it every day in this country without repercussion. Which category do you fit in?

right, NEWS FLASH: guns arn't free. getting trained in the proper safe and effective use of a firearm is very appealing. Being able to use a gun on a monthly basis at the range for free is also appealing. I am neither a criminal nor an idiot. i'm a ****ing college student, 47 days away from graduating, who's parents repressed guns and all gun related things...

try having a water gun fight when your dad won't even let you point anything gun shaped at another human, its f-ing hard and not fun when your friends don't play by the same rules.

you know, for all the bitching about law enforcement looking down on security, you guys do a whole f-ing lot of looking down too.

[knotquiteawake]

also, if we wern't getting guns and tasers, the pay would be about 7 dollars lower, hence, the reason i took the job was because we are getting armed (getting paid more).

[HotelSecurity]

WARNING-THE FOLLOWING IS GOING TO GET ME SHOT, BUT I CAN't RESIST :D

You Americans and your guns!!!!! Dr. Freud? (Honestly no offense intended, I couldn't resist!).

[HotelSecurity]

Again I meant no disrespect. Your military is respected here. Our army has guns too:D . It's the fact that they are so "wanted" by civilians as in the post that I responded to. And just as a historical fact, Canada went to war against Hitler long before the US. Again I highly respect your military. It's the "right to bare arms" by civilians that puzzles me. I don't understand the consitutional thing. It was written in 1776? when there was little public protection & when your founding fathers wanted your new country to be able to defend it'self again a corrupt government. From this I can see allowing a militia but a can't understand why grandma is allowed to carry.

Sorry if I have offended anyone. It just that with all the killing I read about with guns down south it is very puzzling to me.

Again I respect my American cousins, just need help understanding.

[knotquiteawake]

Seriously, if the Sasquaches in Canada every get out of hand and the Mounties can't take care of it America will be there to help if you ask.

[N. A. Corbier]

One thing I think most folks confuse is the right to own, and the right to carry. Wisconsin provides for both, with little restrictions. Grandma can own a gun in almost all of the US (There are exceptions per city), but she cannot carry in several states, including my own, unless she wants to carry openly.

For those of us with concealed carry laws, the guns are hidden and removed from public sight. While someone may have one, it is not certain or absolute.

Open carry, its painfully obvious who has and who does not.

[Mr. Security]

right, NEWS FLASH: guns arn't free. getting trained in the proper safe and effective use of a firearm is very appealing. Being able to use a gun on a monthly basis at the range for free is also appealing. I am neither a criminal nor an idiot. i'm a ****ing college student, 47 days away from graduating, who's parents repressed guns and all gun related things...

try having a water gun fight when your dad won't even let you point anything gun shaped at another human, its f-ing hard and not fun when your friends don't play by the same rules.

you know, for all the bitching about law enforcement looking down on security, you guys do a whole f-ing lot of looking down too.

This kind of profanity IS NOT acceptable on this forum. I have been advised by the moderators of this forum to notify them of members that insist on using it. The asterisks do not make it acceptable either. Please abide by the rules that you agreed to when you became a member. I will report all posts that fit this pattern. Thank you in advance for keeping our forum professional.

[knotquiteawake]

thats right Mr. Security, do what you do best... Observe and Report.

[Mr. Security]

thats right Mr. Security, do what you do best... Observe and Report.

It would be best if I didn't have to bring this matter to your attention in the first place. I did not report your post because you may not have been aware of the standards that we maintain on this forum. If you find this too restrictive, you always have the option of joining a forum that accepts that caliber of communication.

[The_Mayor]

Sorry if I have offended anyone. It just that with all the killing I read about with guns down south it is very puzzling to me.

Aren't you allowed to have guns in Canada too? In Fahrenheit 9/11 Michael Moore went to Canada and lots of folks there had guns (they just didn't hoard them out of fear and compulsion as is done here).

[HotelSecurity]

You can get a permit for a rifle or shotgun in Canada. If you belong to a shooting club you can get a permit for a handgun but it's very restrictive. (Things like the gun & ammo have to be transported to the club in seperate containers etc). Owners of jewellry stores etc used to be able to get a handgun permit. Not anymore. Like I said about the only civilians that can own handguns are armoured car security people.

I think that part of my view is because I have always lived in the big city. I've never lived out where the police are an hour away & I might have to defend myself because they take too long.

Our criminal code forbids civilians from owning stun guns, Tazers etc. We can legally possess Pepper Spray to use to defend against a four legged animal attack but there is an article in the code making it illegal to use any offensive chemical spray on a person.

[histfan71]

also, if we wern't getting guns and tasers, the pay would be about 7 dollars lower, hence, the reason i took the job was because we are getting armed (getting paid more).

I saw a job announcement for a Biola Campus Safety Officer recently (maybe 10 months ago) that said starting pay is $10.50 per hour. When did you get a raise?

[knotquiteawake]

starting is in the ball park of 12 bones an hour. 10.50 would be like a year ago maybe. As a great man said once, "with great power comes great... pay" so with the arming the other employees and i are speculating on whispers from management that it will go up 5-7 bones an hour. Which for living in a house with 6 other guys, splitting rent, eating top ramen ect... will mean a lot of pocket money to pay off the 40-thou i have in college loans.

[N. A. Corbier]

I can't see adding a gun making that big a jump, but then, I'm not familiar with the cost of living. Most folks in Florida make a dollar extra for carrying a gun. That's it.

[knotquiteawake]

I'm pretty sure that some of it might have to do with insurance companies. Also, just for reference, the 4 bedroom two bathroom house i'm renting with 6 other guys goes for about $2500 a month. The two bedroom two bathroom apartment i had before that was $1450 a month but is now $1600. Gas is around $2.80 a gallon right now. Insurance for my car is double what it was when i lived in northern california. I would rate the cost of living as moderatly high.
If you give someone a gun you want them to take the job seriously, a higher pay will help them take the job more seriously (I can find a $12 job anywhere, getting closer to $20 is harder). Giving a gun also means that we may be called to be proactive and intervene in a situation to protect students lives before the Sheriff has a chance to show up. Putting us at a higher risk than before.

Also, i''m not going to ask a lot of questions of why the pay would go up so high, i really don't want them to change their minds or anything. They can raise my pay all they want for all i care.

[S/O245]

Well first of all you have to think of it like this. Violent criminals, gang members and terrorists use many weapons to kill someone correct ? A Stolen gun, a knife, a bat anything possible that can kill a victim. Now if that lawful person owns a firearm or has a ccw permit and carries outside the home and that violent person or persons makes an attack the victim has a chance to defend them self and survive instead of being a homicide victim. Criminals dont go by law. They dont care about any laws. In the USA every State that has a CCW Law has lower violent crime than states without it according to the FBI.

Now about Hitler. Did you know hitler didnt want people in his country to have firearms ? Also look at the coutries he attacked. Guess what they had bad restrictions against lawful people also. Hitler considered attacking one country. This country has a law all able bodied lawful men & women by the age of 17 or 18 were suppose to own a rifle. Guess what hitler didint attack them. Why didint he attack them ? Because he would not only have to deal with thier Mililtary, Law Enforcement & others but also with the lawful civilians. He chose to attack countries that restricted its own citizens right of self defense. If you dont belive me look into the history. Hitler made many statements that should how anti self defense he was. he wanted to take over the world.

They did a study of violent criminals and they asked them what woulf you prefer a armed victim or un armed. They all said un armed. They asked them have you ever decided not to go through with a attack because you thought the victim might have a firearm. Many said yes.

Now we have more states with right to carry and from the last stats released about crime it shows that crime has droped it said to a 25 yr low. Not to offend anyone but I have read from Canadas own law enforcement agencies that crime is going up in that country. The thing that scares me about your one statement is our army has guns to. Its the fact that civilians want them. Since 1934 machine guns have been baned. So i dont understand what your talking about. The weapons law enforcement and military have such as machine guns are baned for citizens. www.clintongunban.com he wanted you to think those were machine guns. They arent.


Again I meant no disrespect. Your military is respected here. Our army has guns too:D . It's the fact that they are so "wanted" by civilians as in the post that I responded to. And just as a historical fact, Canada went to war against Hitler long before the US. Again I highly respect your military. It's the "right to bare arms" by civilians that puzzles me. I don't understand the consitutional thing. It was written in 1776? when there was little public protection & when your founding fathers wanted your new country to be able to defend it'self again a corrupt government. From this I can see allowing a militia but a can't understand why grandma is allowed to carry.

Sorry if I have offended anyone. It just that with all the killing I read about with guns down south it is very puzzling to me.

Again I respect my American cousins, just need help understanding.

[HotelSecurity]

"In the USA every State that has a CCW Law has lower violent crime than states without it according to the FBI."

Interesting! Can you point me to somewhere where I can see these stats.

I've been in hotel security in downtown Montreal for about 30 years. Only one or two hotel security departments were ever armed. (None are now). In 30 years I've only heard of a gun being pulled on 3 or 4 Security Officers. One of them was armed. I've never faced a gun & my job is not to observe & report I have to get involved. In fact I'm expected to answer calls alone that the armed police are not allowed to! Is it just luck or is it because guns are rarer in Canada?

[S/O245]

As for some states not allowing right to carry your correct. But as i said you have to look at what it says right to keep and bear arms. BEAR. One thing i dont agree with my state is 45 dollars for a permit. Indiana charges what 15 20 somethin. Some people in the poorer income 45 dollars is alot of money. And what are we saying poor people dont deserve to defend them self. I just feel Ohio is about money. And look at Ohio Gov Taft. Wasnt he convictied in a court of law lol ?

The person from canada said lawful people cant own handguns correct ? Well i read a story where a violent criminal had one. And killed some police officers. See this is why we have our firearms rights for lawful people. And if you look at your violent criminals you will find they are repeat offenders. Under Clinton i read that alot of criminals didint serve much of his/her prison term. That is the big answer for crime anyway. You need to make sure criminals do jail time and are not back on the street. The reapeat offenders are the ones killing victims. Like i said before i know a person from canada that seen a violent criminal stab a victim with a knife. Why does the criminal get to do whatever they want to ? That victim has a right to stay alive. The criminals laugh at such laws that resitrct the victim to defend his/her self. Your own officers from canada have gone public to say they are tired of it. My father was a deputy i was a police explorer and now s/o. I dont know anyone who wants to see a victim hurt or killed. But i will tell you this. I dont mind seeing the violent criminal get the worst end of it.

A Atlana Deputy was killed in the line of duty by a violent criminal with a very long rap sheet. He was a repeat offender. He keep getting out when he should have been in prison. If he had been in like he should have been the deputy never would have been killed him. The NRA at the time tried to speak to a i belive a clinton appointed prosecutor. The prosecutor wouldnt even say anything about it. He acted like he didnt care that a cop got killed.

www.nra.org
www.nranews.com

[S/O245]

do a search you should find alot which tell about this. In My State Ohio passed the CCW Law in what 2004 i think it was. And crime went down in the entire state. Even in the city of cincinnati i read that it droped 11% cincinnati is one of the bad cities in the state. Well some areas of cincinnati are bad. Thre areas which have violent gang members and alot of violent criminals. Well it can be luck or faith thats what i think of it anyways. I have never faced one. Faced some other type weapon before. You never know what you may encounter. Hopefully none of us have anything bad happen to us here. But tomorrow is not promised to us. And for people in such jobs and this you fore sure never know.


"In the USA every State that has a CCW Law has lower violent crime than states without it according to the FBI."

Interesting! Can you point me to somewhere where I can see these stats.

I've been in hotel security in downtown Montreal for about 30 years. Only one or two hotel security departments were ever armed. (None are now). In 30 years I've only heard of a gun being pulled on 3 or 4 Security Officers. One of them was armed. I've never faced a gun & my job is not to observe & report I have to get involved. In fact I'm expected to answer calls alone that the armed police are not allowed to! Is it just luck or is it because guns are rarer in Canada?

[hemi444]

And I dare say, even with all the guns on earth removed, we would still show up bearing hatchets, pick-axes and broomsticks. We would do that because "us Americans" are kinda bad-ass!
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/waffen/violent-smiley-089.gif
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/waffen/violent-smiley-001.gif

well said

[HotelSecurity]

Just a stat. Montreal has a population of just under 2 million. There were 65 arrests for firearms offenses in 2004.

[Mr. Security]

Just a stat. Montreal has a population of just under 2 million. There were 65 arrests for firearms offenses in 2004.

Wish it were that way here. :(

[N. A. Corbier]

Just a stat. Montreal has a population of just under 2 million. There were 65 arrests for firearms offenses in 2004.
Multiply that by ten to find out how many potential offenders there are, I'd have to say.

Every criminal offense is under reported, simply by failure to detect the offense by the citizenry or police.

If I remember correctly, it was the Swiss that the Germans decided not to invade. Along with the fact that every able bodied man is required to own a modern weapon, train with it frequently, and have enough ammunition to support military operations as part of their duties as the Organized Federal Miliita, gave the Nazis pause. They also invested much of their ill gotten gains into Swiss banks, because everyone knows that the Swiss are neutral till roused, then very dedicated fighters. See: Swiss Guard.

As far as American firearm ownership. A 1979 court ruling indicated that "security guards have are private citizens, and have no police powers. Security guards are not the police." This frees us from 4th Amendement issues (Search and Seizure by the government not the citizen), and also creates the framework for a simple statement.

Police have guns because they are agents of the government, and the government deems itself to be able to employ whatever weapons at its disposal. A police officer may possess any ATF taxed weapon, including an M1A1 tank if the paperwork is filled out, if the weapon system is owned by the government.

A Security Guard is not the government, and has only the priveliages bestowed on them by the government. In most cases, the first thing a state does is outlaw open carry of firearms. We'll take Wisconsin for example.

1. There is no law prohibiting the private citizen from openly carrying a firearm. There are places that it is a felony to carry a firearm into.

2. Wisconsin State Statute makes it a felony to organize any group into militia, police, or peace officers for the purpose of protecting persons or property, if said persons are armed, unless the group is assembled in compliance with the laws of the State.

- This means that a citizen cannot simply strap a gun on and be considered "armed security" or "armed police" because the state allows open carry.

- This also means that in-house security must be licensed, as they are arming a group of militia, police, or peace officers for the purposes of protecting persons or property.

- This also means that a sworn police or peace officer, empowered by the government to go armed, may not go armed as an agent of a private entity without being licensed by the State. You can carry on your credentials, but you MUST have a PI or Private Security Person's Permit along with the Firearms Permit or your a felon, and so is your employer.

3. Wisconsin State Statute further does not actually exempt security persons from firearm possession or use laws. A security person may be charged with a crime if they discharge a firearm within "40 rods" of a recreational area. The statute offers no statutory defense for licensed security persons, police officers, or the state militia.

4. Unless given written authorization by the Chief of Police or Sheriff in the jurisdiction, no security person may go armed in any structure or building owned or leased by the state.

- This means that if the state wants to put armed security, or even off-duty police officers working for the state agency (and not the Capital Police) in, they must get the permission of the Chief of Police, who then writes out a waiver against the statute prohibiting the public from carrying a weapon into a state building.

- There are no exemptions for private security persons to go armed where the public may not. Only a chief of police or sheriff may give specific case-by-case authorization for going armed in restricted areas. This is in contrast to other states such as Florida, in which the Statewide Firearms Permit superceeds all local/county laws.

The very concept of armed security comes from the fact that the public may have firearms, and may openly carry them. If this right is taken away by a state or city, then special exemptions must be made for security persons, creating a higher class of private citizen i.e. a class of private citizen so authorized to go armed in public. A good example of this are the cities of Chicago and San Fransisco, where you must be a licensed security guard to own a handgun, or an agent of the city/county/state/federal government.

[bigdog]

What case law is that?

[bigdog]

As far as American firearm ownership. A 1979 court ruling indicated that "security guards have are private citizens, and have no police powers. Security guards are not the police." This frees us from 4th Amendement issues (Search and Seizure by the government not the citizen), and also creates the framework for a simple statement.

Do you know which case law that is and where i can find it?

[N. A. Corbier]

As far as American firearm ownership. A 1979 court ruling indicated that "security guards have are private citizens, and have no police powers. Security guards are not the police." This frees us from 4th Amendement issues (Search and Seizure by the government not the citizen), and also creates the framework for a simple statement.

Do you know which case law that is and where i can find it?

Found it.
Citation:
http://oldweb.uwp.edu/academic/criminal.justice/grdpriv.htm

It is a well settled principle that security guards are not police and have no greater rights in matters of search and seizure than any other private citizen.

Case authority: People v. Zelinski (1979) 24 Cal.3d 357, 365, 155 Cal.Rptr. 575, 580.

[knotquiteawake]

as far as search and seizure for security guards we actually have greater rights than peace officers! At least in california a peace officer cannot search someone or their stuff unless that person is actually under arrest. One of the instructors at the PC-832 class i took told us how the security at a Wal Mart or some store like that had caught a burgler. By the time the Officer had arrived the guard had done a full search of the burgler and pulled out drugs and stolen property. The Officer would not have been able to do such a search unless he had probable cause that a crime had been commited.
In california for an officer to detain you he must have "reasonable suspicion" and even then he can only do a patdown search to look for weapons only, he cannot reach in any pocket and pull out anything that does not feel like a weapon. However, guards, as private citizens can do whatever they want in that regard.

[Tennsix]

Generally, speaking the CA law you mention applies to all 50 states. I don’t know if I would say a security officer has a right to search without cause or consent. I have some trouble with that terminology but I understand what you mean. The one thing you have to be careful of is acting as a police agent, even if inadvertently. You could run into problems if you conduct a search with the intention of turning over any incriminating contraband to the police.

On a side note, there is a difference between a frisk and a search. The “pat down search” you mentioned is actually a frisk. You are correct in saying the frisk is a pat down of outer clothing for weapons. However, an officer might be justified in going “deeper” if (s)he can articulate the presence of contraband.

[histfan71]

as far as search and seizure for security guards we actually have greater rights than peace officers! At least in california a peace officer cannot search someone or their stuff unless that person is actually under arrest. One of the instructors at the PC-832 class i took told us how the security at a Wal Mart or some store like that had caught a burgler. By the time the Officer had arrived the guard had done a full search of the burgler and pulled out drugs and stolen property. The Officer would not have been able to do such a search unless he had probable cause that a crime had been commited.
In california for an officer to detain you he must have "reasonable suspicion" and even then he can only do a patdown search to look for weapons only, he cannot reach in any pocket and pull out anything that does not feel like a weapon. However, guards, as private citizens can do whatever they want in that regard.

A cop can search a person in CA under three circumstances:

1. With the person's consent.
2. With proable cause to believe the person to be searched has contraband,
weapons, fruits of a crime, and so forth.
3. Incident to a lawful arrest.

[N. A. Corbier]

Ok, something I've wondered. We'll use CA law since its codified.

If you are arresting a person under CA Private Arrest, are you acting under the color of law or custom? If so, then how do avoid violating the person's civil rights under that color of law or custom?

Now, as a private person, I can search someone with consent, or incident to arrest or detainment or whatever your state calls it. However, any contraband I remove from the offender may or may not be admisible - the responding police officer has lost chain of custody, since he did not discover the contraband using first hand knowledge.

You can deal with this by searching under video survelience, in which case proper articulation and questioning (without mirandization!) can establish probable cause that the dope/weapons/etc were not planted by the security person.

"How much money is in here? This is your money?" <- Large sums of money not normally carried by a reasonable person.

"You told me you don't have any guns, and I find this gun. Is this your gun? Why is this gun on you? Are you going to hurt me with this gun?" <- Establishes concealment of a weapon when asked, etablishes fear of attack with weapon upon discovery.

The big question, of course, is how do you search someone and get away with it, when your arresting someone under a codified statute.

[Tennsix]

A cop can search a person in CA under three circumstances:

1. With the person's consent.
2. With proable cause to believe the person to be searched has contraband,
weapons, fruits of a crime, and so forth.
3. Incident to a lawful arrest.


Indiana goes a step further with #1. IN says we have to have articulable suspicion before we ask for consent to search a person or property.

The state says the same thing about a frisk.

[Tennsix]

Ok, something I've wondered. We'll use CA law since its codified.

If you are arresting a person under CA Private Arrest, are you acting under the color of law or custom? If so, then how do avoid violating the person's civil rights under that color of law or custom?

Now, as a private person, I can search someone with consent, or incident to arrest or detainment or whatever your state calls it. However, any contraband I remove from the offender may or may not be admisible - the responding police officer has lost chain of custody, since he did not discover the contraband using first hand knowledge.

You can deal with this by searching under video survelience, in which case proper articulation and questioning (without mirandization!) can establish probable cause that the dope/weapons/etc were not planted by the security person.

"How much money is in here? This is your money?" <- Large sums of money not normally carried by a reasonable person.

"You told me you don't have any guns, and I find this gun. Is this your gun? Why is this gun on you? Are you going to hurt me with this gun?" <- Establishes concealment of a weapon when asked, etablishes fear of attack with weapon upon discovery.

The big question, of course, is how do you search someone and get away with it, when your arresting someone under a codified statute.
In theory, the citizen would be listed as the arresting officer. The police would merely the means by which the suspect is lodged. The totality of the arrest falls on the arresting citizen to include any seizure of evidence. The police would take custody of the evidence but note who initially seized it and by what means it was collected.

Any allegations of false arrest or improper procedure would rest with the citizen performing he arrest. Likewise, the citizen would be liable for any criminal or civil rights violation perpetrated during the course of the arrest.

Now, all of the sounds good on paper but I would not touch it with a ten foot pole! The reality is the police would be named in any subsequent criminal and/or civil suit.

I would think all civil protections apply to a private arrest.

[knotquiteawake]

The big question, of course, is how do you search someone and get away with it, when your arresting someone under a codified statute.

yeah, that is a good question. i got nothing for it.

[S/O245]

I dont think they get mad at ones making stops that are suppose to. For example they had a sotry of one security officer that had a marked car with lights he was only suppose to use the lights for certain things. They were not suppose to make stops. He made stops on his post and even off his post.

Another thing may be some security companies dont give guys enough information on wether they are suppose to make a stop. I think more training needs to be done and everything needs to be layed out of what your suppose to do and what you cant do. I hate security companies that leave guys out to dry. Can you imagine a police officer not getting all the training they get at the academy of what they can and cant do. Well its the same with S/O's. My personal opinion i see nothign wrogn with security officers being allowed to make certain stops on posts. I just think they should have some type of PC to make a stop etc. They should get the proper training and if the vehicle doesnt stop they could call the PD and let them know whats up.

But then again making stops you get into a dangerous spot. You are aproaching vehicles which i know we already do sometime and approach persons also. But making stops can be dangerous. Then you can also get into other matters. Im not racist and im sure many of us if not all of us here are not. But what if you make a stop of a person of another race and they claim you stoped them because of that. I think when you get into making stops you get into a lot of issues. You know they could have been doin all kinds of stuff to give you PC to make the stop. In Cincinnati rev damon lynches son was stoped by Forest Park PD i think he was going 20 over the speed limit. 15 to 20. He and his father claimed the officer stoped him because he was of a different race. It wasnt because he was doin 20 over the limit ? And when the officer made the stop both subjects in the car did alot of moving around. I think in another incident he was arrested for drugs. ANother thing what if the person goes to file a suit agianst the S/O. Alot of us dont have unions. Who is going to back us ?

[S/O245]

I have never did a pat down or anything on people on the post. I keep my safe distance from them. Im not even sure if we can do it in ohio.

See thats what i mean we need some more training set up. We run into too many incidents and we dont even know what to do really. I know some security officers have powers beyond a citizens arrest. Some LP's also can detain and i know of some that can make certain arrests. Since i dont know if i can do it or not i dont. I dont want to end up violating someones rights. I know we can request to see ID etc.

As far as looking at stuff i know about plain view evidence. And if i had cars parked on the property i didnt know anything about when i walked passed i would shine the lights in the windows that sort of thing. If I see somethin i will just call PD and let them take it form that point.

Like with that one subject i had at 3am on post that claimed he had permission form client but couldnt give me a name, i wouldnt have felt safe doing a pat down alone anyway. Because for one thing i have no MDT to run this guy or anything like that. Im un armed. And being alone i didnt want to freak him out or anything. I mean if i had to do a pat down alone i would. But at times i like to go at things different. If he had been wanted and i scared him it could have turned from nothing into me being hurt or worse. So i just talked to him normal voice and acted like it was all no big deal.

[Tennsix]

I dont think they get mad at ones making stops that are suppose to. For example they had a sotry of one security officer that had a marked car with lights he was only suppose to use the lights for certain things. They were not suppose to make stops. He made stops on his post and even off his post.

Another thing may be some security companies dont give guys enough information on wether they are suppose to make a stop. I think more training needs to be done and everything needs to be layed out of what your suppose to do and what you cant do. I hate security companies that leave guys out to dry. Can you imagine a police officer not getting all the training they get at the academy of what they can and cant do. Well its the same with S/O's. My personal opinion i see nothign wrogn with security officers being allowed to make certain stops on posts. I just think they should have some type of PC to make a stop etc. They should get the proper training and if the vehicle doesnt stop they could call the PD and let them know whats up.

But then again making stops you get into a dangerous spot. You are aproaching vehicles which i know we already do sometime and approach persons also. But making stops can be dangerous. Then you can also get into other matters. Im not racist and im sure many of us if not all of us here are not. But what if you make a stop of a person of another race and they claim you stoped them because of that. I think when you get into making stops you get into a lot of issues. You know they could have been doin all kinds of stuff to give you PC to make the stop. In Cincinnati rev damon lynches son was stoped by Forest Park PD i think he was going 20 over the speed limit. 15 to 20. He and his father claimed the officer stoped him because he was of a different race. It wasnt because he was doin 20 over the limit ? And when the officer made the stop both subjects in the car did alot of moving around. I think in another incident he was arrested for drugs. ANother thing what if the person goes to file a suit agianst the S/O. Alot of us dont have unions. Who is going to back us ?

It is not a question of whether or not the police “get mad” if a security officer makes traffic stops. It is legal issue. Possible charges are impersonation and criminal confinement. The officer you mention is playing with fire. I would arrest anyone I saw making illegal traffic stops.

If a security officer is unsure if (s)he can conduct traffic stops, then they (s)he can’t. Though most traffic stops go smoothly, there is always the chance of something going wrong. Anyone that is authorized to perform a specific law enforcement function is well aware of their authority and the limits of same. Anyone that exercises police power without authorization risks being prosecuted. But more importatly, they risk their safety.

[Tennsix]

I have never did a pat down or anything on people on the post. I keep my safe distance from them. Im not even sure if we can do it in ohio.

See thats what i mean we need some more training set up. We run into too many incidents and we dont even know what to do really. I know some security officers have powers beyond a citizens arrest. Some LP's also can detain and i know of some that can make certain arrests. Since i dont know if i can do it or not i dont. I dont want to end up violating someones rights. I know we can request to see ID etc.

As far as looking at stuff i know about plain view evidence. And if i had cars parked on the property i didnt know anything about when i walked passed i would shine the lights in the windows that sort of thing. If I see somethin i will just call PD and let them take it form that point.

Like with that one subject i had at 3am on post that claimed he had permission form client but couldnt give me a name, i wouldnt have felt safe doing a pat down alone anyway. Because for one thing i have no MDT to run this guy or anything like that. Im un armed. And being alone i didnt want to freak him out or anything. I mean if i had to do a pat down alone i would. But at times i like to go at things different. If he had been wanted and i scared him it could have turned from nothing into me being hurt or worse. So i just talked to him normal voice and acted like it was all no big deal.

I tell recruits and my trainees that intuition is God whispering in their ear. Listen to that whisper. Don’t bite off more than you can chew. When in doubt, don’t take action (unless your safety is jeopardized). You can’t undo a bad choice. Time is always on your side.

[Mr. Security]

..... Though most traffic stops go smoothly, there is always the chance of something going wrong. .... But more importatly, they risk their safety.

Making traffic stops may be one of the most dangerous functions a LEO can do. (Except for domestics) Anyone who thinks it is cool should pay a long visit to the ODMP. A sober reading of all the highly trained officers who met their demise during a stop should wake ANYONE up. Leave it to the police. Going to jail may be the least of your problems. :(

[Tennsix]

Making traffic stops may be one of the most dangerous functions a LEO can do. (Except for domestics) Anyone who thinks it is cool should pay a long visit to the ODMP. A sober reading of all the highly trained officers who met their demise during a stop should wake ANYONE up. Leave it to the police. Going to jail may be the least of your problems. :(
Very true. I have had a few close calls but the scariest one was a car that missed me by inches while travelling about 70 MPH.

[Mr. Security]

Very true. I have had a few close calls but the scariest one was a car that missed me by inches while travelling about 70 MPH.

Yikes! That reminds me of a practice that some truckers had called "dusting."
The objective is to see how close you can get your rig to a trooper who is speaking to the driver of the car he/she stopped. Often, the wake from the passing truck will blow off the trooper’s hat. One trucker got to close and killed the trooper. Forensics was able to raise the indentation of the trooper’s uniform from the dent in the truck, which put the driver at the scene. (He didn't bother to stop :()

[jimmyhat]

Making traffic stops may be one of the most dangerous functions a LEO can do. (Except for domestics) Anyone who thinks it is cool should pay a long visit to the ODMP. A sober reading of all the highly trained officers who met their demise during a stop should wake ANYONE up. Leave it to the police. Going to jail may be the least of your problems. :(
Mr. Security,
You and I are often on opposite sides of many issues, but I believe the above to be one of the most accurate statements made so far on the issue of traffic stops by security. Leave that task to the agencies who are properly equipped, trained, and authorized to do so. I say that as a working S.C.O.P. We defer to police whenever possible.

[Tennsix]

Yikes! That reminds me of a practice that some truckers had called "dusting."
The objective is to see how close you can get your rig to a trooper who is speaking to the driver of the car he/she stopped. Often, the wake from the passing truck will blow off the trooper’s hat. One trucker got to close and killed the trooper. Forensics was able to raise the indentation of the trooper’s uniform from the dent in the truck, which put the driver at the scene. (He didn't bother to stop :()
I remember that incident. The driver's arrest drew public awareness to that practice. My incident was a drunk driver that was just paroled 12 hours earlier. He stole a car, didnt have a license (had been in prison for 8 yrs), almost hit me while i was assisting a disabled car, then crashed.

[Mr. Security]

I remember that incident. The driver's arrest drew public awareness to that practice. My incident was a drunk driver that was just paroled 12 hours earlier. He stole a car, didnt have a license (had been in prison for 8 yrs), almost hit me while i was assisting a disabled car, then crashed.

I bet you would have enjoyed 5 minutes alone with his parole officer. :D

[Tennsix]

I bet you would have enjoyed 5 minutes alone with his parole officer. :D
Well.... His parole officer is a part-time LEO at our PD. LOL

[N. A. Corbier]

Mr. Security,
You and I are often on opposite sides of many issues, but I believe the above to be one of the most accurate statements made so far on the issue of traffic stops by security. Leave that task to the agencies who are properly equipped, trained, and authorized to do so. I say that as a working S.C.O.P. We defer to police whenever possible.

I've had to do traffic stops. Not on public roads, of course, but on corporate campuses, residential areas, construction sites, and other things where it is part of the protective mission to either enforce rules, or determine occupant intention on the property.

Never forget that you are just as likely to be injured or killed during another way we conduct traffic stops: Gatehouses and checkpoints.

The average security guard at a gatehouse does not realize that stops to investigate has the same driver that may kill him on a private property stop.

Something I was also wondering with some folks with - exit gates. Are those not also a form of detention, as you cannot allow them to exit until they give you information or allow a search, however your policy dictates?

There's more to the issue than just the traditional vehicle traffic stop.

[LavianoTS386]

^ Wouldn't you make it clear that a condition of entering the facility would be to submit to a security search before exiting?

[N. A. Corbier]

^ Wouldn't you make it clear that a condition of entering the facility would be to submit to a security search before exiting?

You can make that civil statement, however, how can you arrest someone (deprivation of freedom) for a company policy? If I make you think that your not allowed to leave, then you are under arrest. Hopefully, this arrest is lawful.

This is one of those things that never really gets brought up. Another good example is client required searches. No public law states that you may require a person to undergo a search, nor does a public law state that you may force a person to submit to a search. Only a police officer may conduct a "frisk" for weapons, and if any contraband is found, it is admissible under "inevitable discovery." We don't have the frisk law, and the frisk law only covers searching for weapons for LEO safety.

So, if I'm standing at the line to leave work, I have clocked out, and you want to search my backpack - I can refuse your search. My employer may terminate me, but you may not search my backpack. I may use reasonable force to prevent you from searching my backpack (Your using force to try to search it is not lawful.) I may also leave. If you state that I am not leaving till its searched, you have just arrested me. If you make me think that I'm not free to leave, I will specifically ask that question.

A LEO summoned to the scene will probably ask "why is the employee being searched," attempting to establish probable cause to search the backpack. If no PC is established for the LEO, he will simply ask, "Can I look in your backpack?" The answer, of course, can be no. He then has to let you leave, and ensure that you are able to leave.

A way you get around "searching" is the "inspection." You ask, not order, someone to open their container. You have them touch things, you never lay a hand on articles in the bag or the bag itself. At any time, the searched person can terminate the inspection, and face whatever policy violation there is for it.

Same goes for vehicle gates. I can inspect your vehicle, asking you information, on the way out. I cannot unduly hold you, nor may I demand information as a condition of freedom. If the police were allowed to do this, they would have unlimited detention authority without the the requirement of establishing probable cause.

A lot of the things we do are technically illegal, but its considered "what a security guard does," by both police and the public.

Now, on the entry side, you have the authority to prevent entry, and this does not factor into detainment/arrest. The person is free to leave the property line and go elsewhere, they are simply not free to enter your private property.

[knotquiteawake]

i think you may be getting arrest and detainment blurred. Just because someone does not feel like they can leave does not mean they are under arrest, but they are detained. Detainment is not an arrest.

[N. A. Corbier]

i think you may be getting arrest and detainment blurred. Just because someone does not feel like they can leave does not mean they are under arrest, but they are detained. Detainment is not an arrest.

Citizen's have no statutory or case law authority to detain. They are unable to detain, so every detainment is an arrest. The concept of "detainment" comes from investigative detainment, which the private citizen cannot engage in. Stop and Frisk does not apply to a security officer.

Legally, when it comes down to brass tacks, unless you are a sworn peace officer covered under the state's stop and frisk law, any detainment is an "arrest."

[histfan71]

Citizen's have no statutory or case law authority to detain. They are unable to detain, so every detainment is an arrest. The concept of "detainment" comes from investigative detainment, which the private citizen cannot engage in. Stop and Frisk does not apply to a security officer.

Legally, when it comes down to brass tacks, unless you are a sworn peace officer covered under the state's stop and frisk law, any detainment is an "arrest."

Absoultely right, Nathan. However, Knot, since Biola officers have peace officer powers of arrest per P.C. 836 you might be allowed to make detentions. The language of the statute is a little hazy on that subject. It would be a good question to ask the university lawyers.

[bigdog]

ok i have to correct your grammaticall error its getting to me its not detainment , its detention.