Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Arrests

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

  • #16
    Over here down under in New South Wales, we can make an arrest under section 100 (sect 99 for Police) of the Law Enforcement Act (Powers and responsibilites) of 2002. This replaces our old section 352 for making arrests. When security officers over here make an arrest, we are executing this with the same, and no more power than an ordinary citizens arrest. Section 231 enables use to use resonable force to make that arrest.

    However subsection 2 of section 100 states we must hand the offender over to Police as soon as possible for them to be dealt with according to law. We use to be abe to take the offender before the courts ourselves etc but that's now all changed, which is a good thing because now if you arrest someone the Police must deal with them where as before if the Police didn't want to YOU had to do it which meant you had to make sure they were safe in custody etc and would cost you thousands.

    We can use handcuffs on the offender, however we must have completed to N.S.W. Police Commissioners approved course in handcuffing. Then also we can only handcuff in serious situations such as a bag snatch, serious assault. It's not like the U.S.A. where you slap the cuffs on straight away when you arrest someone.

    Only problem we have is that we make the arrest, but Police refuse to recognise that and claim our arrest power is nothing as it's only a citizens arrest. So many times I've arrested someone from being armed to serious assaults, and they take all the credit.
    A well trained dog is worth 10 men!

    I can recall my dog, but I can never recall a fired bullet!

    Would you prefer me to use the dog, the Glock, the baton or the O.C. spray? It's your health insurance so you decide. Alternatively there is always the handcuffs, followed by the Police with the court house preceeding rapidly after. Now which service would you like me to utilise

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by K-9 Aussie
      Over here down under in New South Wales, we can make an arrest under section 100 (sect 99 for Police) of the Law Enforcement Act (Powers and responsibilites) of 2002. This replaces our old section 352 for making arrests. When security officers over here make an arrest, we are executing this with the same, and no more power than an ordinary citizens arrest. Section 231 enables use to use resonable force to make that arrest.

      However subsection 2 of section 100 states we must hand the offender over to Police as soon as possible for them to be dealt with according to law. We use to be abe to take the offender before the courts ourselves etc but that's now all changed, which is a good thing because now if you arrest someone the Police must deal with them where as before if the Police didn't want to YOU had to do it which meant you had to make sure they were safe in custody etc and would cost you thousands.

      We can use handcuffs on the offender, however we must have completed to N.S.W. Police Commissioners approved course in handcuffing. Then also we can only handcuff in serious situations such as a bag snatch, serious assault. It's not like the U.S.A. where you slap the cuffs on straight away when you arrest someone.

      Only problem we have is that we make the arrest, but Police refuse to recognise that and claim our arrest power is nothing as it's only a citizens arrest. So many times I've arrested someone from being armed to serious assaults, and they take all the credit.
      Canada's law are very similar. And I can relate to your last sentence. In my 30+ years in security (last week was my 25 with the same company, I had worked other places ) I have made about 20 arrests but I don't think that the police or even the courts acknowledged this. Whenever I would turn someone over to the police they always re-arrest them.
      I enforce rules and regulations, not laws.
      Security Officers. The 1st First Responders.

      Comment


      • #18
        Concerning the program I was referring to: The Criminal Code says that we must "deliver" them to a peace officer. My guess is that the police stretched the term "deliver" to mean "present the suspect over the phone" ie have the sgt. talk to the arrestee over the phone. My guess is that no one's challenged it because it's not really against the fundamental principles of the law (the police are informed of the arrest, and can determine if it's valid, etc..) really convenient and no one loses (because it's very likely the arrestee will be in a lot less trouble than if the police physically showed up.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by bigshotceo
          Concerning the program I was referring to: The Criminal Code says that we must "deliver" them to a peace officer. My guess is that the police stretched the term "deliver" to mean "present the suspect over the phone" ie have the sgt. talk to the arrestee over the phone. My guess is that no one's challenged it because it's not really against the fundamental principles of the law (the police are informed of the arrest, and can determine if it's valid, etc..) really convenient and no one loses (because it's very likely the arrestee will be in a lot less trouble than if the police physically showed up.
          I'd still be worried & would check with a lawyer. Some smart a*s lawyer could make something of this, claiming false arrest because the suspect was not "delivered" to a peace officer.
          I enforce rules and regulations, not laws.
          Security Officers. The 1st First Responders.

          Comment

          Leaderboard

          Collapse
          Working...
          X