Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Florida Security Policy: Conflicting Laws?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • gixxer32404
    replied
    Many people talk about post orders and contract. But in Florida I've never had written post orders observed the contract. Even after requesting post orders was told they would try to get some made. No written standard operation procedures.




    Many unethical observations. I've observed unlicensed armed s/o's, S/o's with improper retention holsters like firearms that would fall out if s/o had to run. sagging pants, untucked shirts, dreadlocks, dewrags, tennis shoes white and black tennis shoes. 80 year olds who couldn't hear you from 10 feet away yelling at the top of your lungs, sleeping on duty.


    So being armed is only allowed on armed post, so how do you know without seeing contact or post orders?? once was told to go to a post i asked if it was armed or unarmed I was told it was either one. When I got there the other guy was armed. But then again armed only paid 8/ hour.

    Leave a comment:


  • gixxer32404
    replied
    Originally posted by mjw064 View Post

    However that usually just means that I take whatever action is needed, notify dispatch and let on-duty officers handle it, if it didn't involve the entity which is paying me to be there..

    Originally posted by mjw064 View Post
    Do you realize that when a property owner employs an off-duty police officer he is SAVING TAXPAYER MONEY? Yeah, thats right because he is handling calls for service that would otherwise have to be dispatched to on-duty officers.
    Seems contradictory. MJW064????????????

    Leave a comment:


  • gixxer32404
    replied
    I see off duty LEO's working all the time. From convenience stores, recently robbed banks, construction zones, to football games.
    rest areas too. bars/clubs.

    Leave a comment:


  • kjtw
    replied
    Thank you mjw064 and NA for your responses to my questions.

    Liability is one of the biggest reasons that I don't like seeing LEOs working off duty assignments (under the authority of their badge). The liability either gets put on the client, the individual or on the municipality.

    If the liability gets placed on the client, and something happens, well, it will likely destroy the client (or at least cause a lot of harm to them) and that is contrary to the goals of providing security.

    If the liability gets placed on the individual LEO working and something happens, it can financially ruin that person, even if he/she has insurance (insurance doesn't always cover everything).

    If the liability gets placed on the municipality and something happens, that is tax dollars going right out the door for something that was not really government business.

    Very interesting on the scope of duties that are allowed in FL Corbier. Believe it or not, the specific instances where off duty LEOs were not doing anything took place in MN where they don't have that limitation (at least from what I have been told by a number of the LEOs). I have only seen a few instances of off duty LEOs being used in FL (but that was just me personally).

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    In Florida, most agencies will pick up the liability, under statute.

    Here's the fun part, that many people don't know. The ONLY thing you can rent a cop for in Florida is law enforcement. They cannot, by policy, do rules enforcement. This is basically the state telling you your blinds are the wrong color.

    Other states don't seem to care about this, but Florida agencies do. The most you can hire a cop for in Florida is to watch your property and enforce state/local laws on it.

    This is why a lot of off-duty cops don't seem to leave their cars or really do anything. They're doing what they're paid to do: Directed patrol, response to violations of Florida Statute.

    That's it. And that's a counter-selling point to the police's selling point of "We're the Police. They're guards." A guard can enforce arbitrary rules without color of authority. A sworn law enforcement officer, working as an agent of the state, can't.

    Leave a comment:


  • mjw064
    replied
    Originally posted by kjtw View Post
    Another question I have is this; who is an off duty LEO ultimately responsible to when working an assignment? Is it the municipality or the client? It is obvious that private security is ultimately responsible to the client, but it isn't as clear with LEOs. I would assume they are ultimately responsible to the municipality.
    If I am working outside employment, I am responsible to whoever is paying me. And quite frankly, I do whatever they want me to do and generally speaking the way they want me to do it.

    All clients employing off-duty police officers should be made aware that of course the officer has certain "sworn duties" which could override the outside employment. However that usually just means that I take whatever action is needed, notify dispatch and let on-duty officers handle it, if it didn't involve the entity which is paying me to be there.

    In my case the only way I would be responsible to District Government in regards to outside employment would be if someone filed a Citizen's Complaint against me while working outside employment. At that point either an Internal Affairs investigation or Office of Police Complaints investigation (depending on who the citizen complained about me to) would be launched. But of course, this same thing could happen at anytime, since I am responsible to my employer for both on-duty and off-duty activities.

    Leave a comment:


  • mjw064
    replied
    Originally posted by kjtw View Post
    Let me ask this; if an off duty LEO gets into a shooting, who holds the liability? Does the officer? How about the municipality that officer works for? How about the client?
    I can't speak for Florida, but here in the District of Columbia, if a police officer wishes to work outside employment, he must maintain his own $1,000,000 liability policy. Of course District Government would still have some liability in the case of a shooting, however $1,000,000 worth of private insurance coverage greatly reduces District Government's liability.

    Leave a comment:


  • kjtw
    replied
    Originally posted by mjw064 View Post
    Are you serious? Who are you?

    First, to say that police officers do not receive any security training is ludicrous. I have news for you, POLICE WORK IS NOT WHAT YOU SEE ON TV. And police do receive security training as we also perform both security and protection type assignments.

    Additionaly the Law Enforcement and Security fields are so closely related I would consider them like conjoined twins. Yeah we have different responsibilities, yeah some folks make more money than other folks (and it goes both ways some security officers make more than police officers) and yeah there are varying levels of authority. But when it comes right down to it, the two fields are completely related and operate with similar goals and objectives.

    Next, to complain about an off-duty cop using tax-payer funded equipment on an off-duty gig is hilarious. Do you realize that when a property owner employs an off-duty police officer he is SAVING TAXPAYER MONEY? Yeah, thats right because he is handling calls for service that would otherwise have to be dispatched to on-duty officers. You shouldn't be jealous of off-duty police officers ... they provide services to a niche market. Not everyone can afford them, but those who can will generally only pay for it when they need someone with police authority to keep the peace on their property.

    I don't know if you are ... but you sound bitter and jealous of the police.
    I both agree with you and disagree with you in a way. I think that public law enforcement and private security are related however, differ quite a bit. I tend to disagree that the goals are the same. Ultimately, a law enforcement officer's goals are just that; to enforce laws whereas the ultimate goal of a private security is to protect specific property (speaking in generalities).

    As a result of these differing goals, the mindset of each is different. I personally can't imagine being able to instantly switch mindsets. Much like it is difficult for a LEO or Security Officer to do EP (due to mindset).

    That being said, I do see where a property might want an off duty LEO to provide services. The increased authority is definately a plus in some circumstances. Unfortunately, many (not all) LEOs that take these assignments do so and have no intention of doing what they are asked to do. I have run into quite a few police officers working off duty assignments that just sit there and don't do a thing, essentially wasting the money of the client. Again, I don't claim that ALL off duty LEOs do that, but many do. At the same time, there are security agencies and officers that do the exact same thing.

    What it comes down to is simple competition where both public and private have their advantages and disadvantages. A client needs to weigh the pros and cons of each before making their decision, just like they do with any purchase they make.

    Let me ask this; if an off duty LEO gets into a shooting, who holds the liability? Does the officer? How about the municipality that officer works for? How about the client? If it is the client, well, I almost guarentee that the client's GL insurance won't cover unless it was specifically noted on the policy (which would make it darn expensive). If it is the individual officer, that officer is pretty much up the creek without a paddle. If it is the municipality that the officer works for, well, now there could be a problem. Having to cover something like this would be akin to the government paying a lawsuit for any other private organization. Then tax dollars go towards things other than what they really need to go towards.

    BTW, I am honestly asking that last question...who is liable if something happens when the off duty LEO is working for a private business/location? I am sure that it differs based on location, but in general.

    Another question I have is this; who is an off duty LEO ultimately responsible to when working an assignment? Is it the municipality or the client? It is obvious that private security is ultimately responsible to the client, but it isn't as clear with LEOs. I would assume they are ultimately responsible to the municipality.

    Leave a comment:


  • mjw064
    replied
    Originally posted by BritMike View Post
    The Police do not receive any training in Security work, none.

    The fact that a issue would come to light, that would even be discussed, of a off duty Officer having a say in anything to do with our much lower paid industry, is appalling, and must be addressed forthwith. Plus, when this off duty Officer goes out to the mall to work that gig, he is in his full uniform, with a radio to the Police dispatch, a huge conflict of interest, and a unfair business advantage, with equipment paid for with our taxes.
    Are you serious? Who are you?

    First, to say that police officers do not receive any security training is ludicrous. I have news for you, POLICE WORK IS NOT WHAT YOU SEE ON TV. And police do receive security training as we also perform both security and protection type assignments.

    Additionaly the Law Enforcement and Security fields are so closely related I would consider them like conjoined twins. Yeah we have different responsibilities, yeah some folks make more money than other folks (and it goes both ways some security officers make more than police officers) and yeah there are varying levels of authority. But when it comes right down to it, the two fields are completely related and operate with similar goals and objectives.

    Next, to complain about an off-duty cop using tax-payer funded equipment on an off-duty gig is hilarious. Do you realize that when a property owner employs an off-duty police officer he is SAVING TAXPAYER MONEY? Yeah, thats right because he is handling calls for service that would otherwise have to be dispatched to on-duty officers. You shouldn't be jealous of off-duty police officers ... they provide services to a niche market. Not everyone can afford them, but those who can will generally only pay for it when they need someone with police authority to keep the peace on their property.

    I don't know if you are ... but you sound bitter and jealous of the police.

    Leave a comment:


  • kjtw
    replied
    As with most states, FL has its share of conflicting and confusing laws regarding the security industry. However, as was mentioned before, it comes down to the ambiguity (sp?) that is built in so that it will be dealt with later.

    I think what it really comes down to is how the laws have traditionally been enforced (or not enforced). That is the ultimate way to determine how to handle certain situations. Although it states what it does in that section, I don't believe that you would have any problem physically removing a trespasser from a property. I know I have done it and not had any problem. Where a problem would arrise is if you used EXCESSIVE force to remove the person. Simply grabbing someones arm and escorting a person off the property would likely not be a problem. However, taking out an ASP baton and striking them would be much.

    The better question to ask is why is the trespass law handled the way it is by law enforcement? The law states that an owner or agent of the owner has the right to ask someone to leave. If that person refuses to leave, or returns without permission, that person is trespassing (not exact wording). However (at least in the Tampa area), if you want someone trespassed, you have to call local law enforcement to come and issue a trespass warning. There is nothing in the trespassing law that provides for this and, frankly imo, violates the property owner's rights. Normally, this type of call takes the absolute LOWEST priority and, as such, you will be lucky to see a LEO within an hour or two. By that time, the person has either left or you are in trouble for detaining them.

    I was fortunate to have a good working relationship with the local LEOs and had many of their direct cell numbers, so I could often times get trespass warnings issued when I needed them. However, if I were to stop and ID someone on the property then decide to trespass them from the property, I would have to wait and the clock was ticking. That fine line of detention is easy to cross if you are not careful.

    If I had my way, the trespassing law would be changed to specifically state that the property owner or agent has the right to issue trespass warnings without the need to contact local law enforcement. Afterall, if you are simply trespassing someone, why tie up a LEO? Also, I would add a specific citizen's arrest statute (similar to MN or MS*) that allows citizens to actually have statutory authority to make these arrests, not just common law as has been adopted in FL (felonies in presence etc).

    My view...my opinion...I didn't say it was right!

    *Both MN and MS have laws that allow private citizens to make arrests for misdemeanors committed in their presence and for probable cause that the person committed a felony.

    Leave a comment:


  • travis061986
    replied
    Originally posted by willb61 View Post
    Florida is a strange state when it comes to certain laws. Did they not just change the law recently pertaining to an assault on a Security Officer. Its more of a crime now than it would be on a regular citizen?
    In the State of Florida, battery on a Security Officer is a felony. It is basically the same as hitting a LEO.

    Leave a comment:


  • BritMike
    replied
    The JOB

    When a client seeks a relief in his desire to keep his staff, or goods, secure from injury, or in the case of goods, theft, he has a right to hire who ever he desires to effect this relief.

    Since 2006 October, the self defense of person law was radically changed, we the Industry IMHO are protected in exactly the same way "If our Security Officer feels physically threatened, or some one he is paid to protect is threatened, then force, and up to deadly force can be used"

    If I am wrong in this opinion please explain.

    Law enforcement of a public nature, The Police, are paid to keep the peace, by taxes, circa Sir Robert Peel, father of the Police as we know them today.

    We however are paid to do a specific task, arranged by a balance of law, and contractual obligations.

    The Police do not receive any training in Security work, none.

    The fact that a issue would come to light, that would even be discussed, of a off duty Officer having a say in anything to do with our much lower paid industry, is appalling, and must be addressed forthwith. Plus, when this off duty Officer goes out to the mall to work that gig, he is in his full uniform, with a radio to the Police dispatch, a huge conflict of interest, and a unfair business advantage, with equipment paid for with our taxes.

    Leave a comment:


  • bigdog
    replied
    Originally posted by gixxer32404 View Post
    That doesn't make sense. So now we continue to let them go and the Deputy might show up in 45 minutes.
    Remember you may arrest as a private citizen under common law for breach of peace in presence( with element of violence or a felony.
    You may also use reasonable force to accomplish arrest. Case law allowing use of force for citizens arrest is below

    455 So.2d 608
    Torr NELSON, a minor child, By and Through his natural guardian and next of kin, Algerian BOWENS, Appellant,
    v.
    Mitchell HOWELL, Appellee.

    No. 83-1856.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida,
    Second District.

    Sept. 7, 1984.
    Page 609
    Martin J. Jones, St. Petersburg, for appellant.
    Barry M. Salzman of Chambers & Salzman, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellee.
    DANAHY, Judge.
    The question before us is whether a private citizen is justified in using deadly force to prevent the escape from the citizen's custody of a person who committed a felony in the citizen's presence. We hold that the use of such force is justifiable if it appears to the citizen to be reasonably necessary to prevent the felon's escape, and remand this case for determination by a jury whether the use of force in this case was reasonably necessary under the circumstances.
    This is a civil action brought by the alleged felon to recover damages for injuries sustained when the appellee shot him in the back in an effort to prevent his escape after he committed a burglary in the presence of the appellee.
    The facts are essentially undisputed. The appellee is the owner of a seafood store in a shopping center. He knew the appellant well and suspected the appellant of being the person who had broken into the store on several occasions. On the day in question, a Sunday, the appellee was in the back of his store hoping to catch the person who had been breaking in. The appellee heard a noise and looked out front. There he saw the appellant inside the store walking toward the back. The appellee grabbed the appellant, who began struggling with him. The appellee told the appellant to settle down and that he was going to call the police. As the appellee started to release the appellant, the appellant turned and ran out the rear of the store.
    The appellee gave chase and grabbed a gun as he left the rear of the store. The appellant went out the back door with the appellee following him and yelling at him to stop or that he would shoot. The appellee fired a warning shot and then, realizing that he was not going to be able to catch up with the appellant on foot, fired his gun and shot the appellant in the back.
    The trial judge entered a summary judgment for the appellee, ruling that a private citizen has a common law right to arrest a person who commits a felony against him
    Page 610
    and in his presence and thus is justified in using whatever force is necessary to effectuate such an arrest. We agree with the statement of law, but disagree with the trial judge's tacit ruling that, as a matter of law, force was necessary in this case. Florida follows the common law rule that a private citizen may arrest a person who commits a felony in his presence. Collins v. State, 143 So.2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). The right to arrest a person includes the right to try to prevent his escape. The question is whether the private citizen may use force to effectuate the arrest or to prevent the escape. Although there is some conflict of authority on this question, the prevailing view seems to be that where a private citizen has in his custody a person who has committed a felony in the citizen's presence and the felon attempts to flee, the citizen may use such force in preventing the escape as is necessary, or as appears to him in the exercise of reasonable discretion to be necessary, even to the extent of taking life. Annot., 32 A.L.R.3d 1078 (1970). We align ourselves with the prevailing view. 1
    The crucial issue in this case is whether it was necessary under the circumstances, or reasonably believed by the appellee to be necessary under the circumstances, to shoot the appellant to prevent his escape. We believe this is a judgment call which should be made by a jury. Accordingly, we reverse the summary judgment for the appellee and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
    REVERSED AND REMANDED.
    HOBSON, A.C.J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur.

    Leave a comment:


  • gixxer32404
    replied
    That doesn't make sense. So now we continue to let them go and the Deputy might show up in 45 minutes.

    Leave a comment:


  • bigdog
    replied
    Originally posted by gixxer32404 View Post
    What came of the new proposed law allowing security to detain in Florida???
    It died in the legislature cause someone in the organization that was proposing it suggested that we could steal the contract that off duty Leos get if we get the authority and the police associations heard about the comment and killed it.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X