florida licensed security officer bill

[bigdog]

new bill introduced to florida senate would give security officers more rights on client properties.

heres the legislative summary

S1298 GENERAL BILL by Baker
Licensed Security Officers/Rights; authorizes said officers to
temporarily detain persons under certain circumstances for specified
purposes; requires security officers who detain any person to notify
appropriate law enforcement agency & transfer custody of detainee to
responding law enforcement officer; requires security officer to seize
any weapon found pursuant to search & provide such weapon to responding
law enforcement officer, etc. Amends 493.6305. EFFECTIVE DATE

Link to full text of bill http://flsenate.gov/cgi-bin/view_pag...billtext/html/

[LPGuy]

Is Florida an extremely restrictive state as far as private security is concerned?

I don't see anything in this bill that a security officer can't do in Washington... seems like they're just redefining a citizen's arrest.

[bigdog]

We dont have a citizens arrest statute and common law citizens arrest only covers breach of peace or felonies. This would cover any crime.

Yes security is very restricted from firearms down to our use of force. we cant even use force to throw someone off a property.

[davis002]

Is Florida an extremely restrictive state as far as private security is concerned?

I don't see anything in this bill that a security officer can't do in Washington... seems like they're just redefining a citizen's arrest.

ditto here in MN.

[mh892]

"Such temporary detention may not extend beyond the place where it was initiated or the immediate vicinity thereof, unless dangerous mitigating circumstances exsist."

Talk about needing eplaination. That sentence will open a can of worms. Who's definitions?

"beyond" the place................? OR. "immediate vicinity" thereof.............? What guidelines do we use for "beyond" and/or "immediate vicinity?

"dangerous mitigating circumstances"..........? In who's opinion? The SO, at the time of action, may have a differing opinion then that of an armed LEO or an attorney in a nice safe courtroom.

I agree with the Spirit of this law but the wording could use more definition.

[bigdog]

It was written by a lawyer. I agree with the more definition of the wording. the bill i wrote and sent to fasco was rejected and was replaced with this,

[Rooney]

requires security officer to seize
any weapon found pursuant to search & provide such weapon to responding
law enforcement officer, etc.

So if you only have oc and a baton you "have to" seize their gun.

[bigdog]

"
If such a search discloses a dangerous weapon or any

evidence of a criminal offense, the weapon may be seized and

shall be provided to the responding law enforcement officer. "SO your not required to seize the weapon but you can.

[mh892]

It was written by a lawyer. I agree with the more definition of the wording. the bill i wrote and sent to fasco was rejected and was replaced with this,

The automatic pistol and other law/regulation wording went thru the same thing. Seems no matter how well the suggestion is as presented, some secretary, lawyer or janitor changes it just to be changing it. O.K. I'm done ranting.

[N. A. Corbier]

This is a stealth bill, designed to get through without much debate or notice. Notice where it was put.

BTW, the terms such as "immediate vicinity" and such are already defined by case law, all they did was take the Florida Stop and Frisk Act, replace "law enforcement officer" with "licensed security officer," then require any action taken by the LSO end in turning the offender over to a law enforcement officer without delay.

Amusingly enough, you can actually make a "temporary detention" (i.e. arrest) of someone for a noise ordinance, then turn them over the to the law enforcement officer for him to do... nothing, he didn't observe the ordinance violation.

The good part, though, is that even though the officer is powerless to arrest someone for a misdemeanor committed out of presence, he can get the person's information and turn it over to the LSO.

[N. A. Corbier]

It was written by a lawyer. I agree with the more definition of the wording. the bill i wrote and sent to fasco was rejected and was replaced with this,

This is a copy of the bill and statements relating to the bill that Bigdog approached NAPSOA with:

History in Law:
1. So called "Merchant's Rights" have been afforded several agriculture and commercial entities related to such crimes as retail theft, petit theft, trespass in a structure or conveyance, disturbing borders. This statute is the "boilerplate" for most of Florida's detention statutes.

(3)(a) A law enforcement officer, a merchant, a farmer, or a transit agency's employee or agent, who has probable cause to believe that a retail theft, farm theft, a transit fare evasion, or trespass, or unlawful use or attempted use of any antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure, has been committed by a person and, in the case of retail or farm theft, that the property can be recovered by taking the offender into custody may, for the purpose of attempting to effect such recovery or for prosecution, take the offender into custody and detain the offender in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time. In the case of a farmer, taking into custody shall be effectuated only on property owned or leased by the farmer. In the event the merchant, merchant's employee, farmer, or a transit agency's employee or agent takes the person into custody, a law enforcement officer shall be called to the scene immediately after the person has been taken into custody.

The statute also holds the LEO, merchant, etc. al, harmless if the arrest is affected in accordance with statute.

(c) The taking into custody and detention by a law enforcement officer, merchant, merchant's employee, farmer, or a transit agency's employee or agent, if done in compliance with all the requirements of this subsection, shall not render such law enforcement officer, merchant, merchant's employee, farmer, or a transit agency's employee or agent, criminally or civilly liable for false arrest, false imprisonment, or unlawful detention.

2. In 2006, Florida passed the following act as part of Chapter 311, Florida Statutes, which authorizes State-Licensed Security Officers with a special designation "Seaport Certified" the powers of arrest for trespassing in a specific area.

311.124 Trespassing; detention by a certified seaport security officer.--

(1) Any Class D or Class G seaport security officer certified under the Maritime Transportation Security Act guidelines and s. 311.121 or any employee of the seaport security force certified under the Maritime Transportation Security Act guidelines and s. 311.121 who has probable cause to believe that a person is trespassing pursuant to the provisions of s. 810.08 or s. 810.09 or this chapter in a designated restricted area pursuant to s. 311.111 is authorized to detain such person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable period of time pending the arrival of a law enforcement officer, and such action shall not render the security officer criminally or civilly liable for false arrest, false imprisonment, or unlawful detention.

(2) Upon detaining a person for trespass, the seaport security officer shall immediately call a certified law enforcement officer to the scene.

History.--s. 6, ch. 2006-193.


3. Another statute allowing arrest of persons violating misdemeanor law, specifically public disorderly with threat of violence in a specific place, illustrates that the law must do three things.

509.143 Disorderly conduct on the premises of an establishment; detention; arrest; immunity from liability.--

(1) An operator may take a person into custody and detain that person in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time if the operator has probable cause to believe that the person was engaging in disorderly conduct in violation of s. 877.03 on the premises of the licensed establishment and that such conduct was creating a threat to the life or safety of the person or others. The operator shall call a law enforcement officer to the scene immediately after detaining a person under this subsection.

(2) A law enforcement officer may arrest, either on or off the premises of the licensed establishment and without a warrant, any person the officer has probable cause to believe violated s. 877.03 on the premises of a licensed establishment and, in the course of such violation, created a threat to the life or safety of the person or others.

(3) An operator or a law enforcement officer who detains a person under subsection (1) or makes an arrest under subsection (2) is not civilly or criminally liable for false arrest, false imprisonment, or unlawful detention on the basis of any action taken in compliance with subsection (1) or subsection (2).

(4) A person who resists the reasonable efforts of an operator or a law enforcement officer to detain or arrest that person in accordance with this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, unless the person did not know or did not have reason to know that the person seeking to make such detention or arrest was the operator of the establishment or a law enforcement officer.

History.--s. 1, ch. 86-174; ss. 14, 52, ch. 90-339; s. 4, ch. 91-429.


The bill must

1. Specifically authorize a licensed security officer to detain for a misdemeanor of which the licensed security officer has probable cause to believe occurred, allowing for reasonable efforts and a reasonable time.
2. Specifically authorize a sworn law enforcement officer to arrest a violator of the detainment statute based on probable cause, on or off property. The probable cause for the LEO is determined from the detaining party.
3. Hold the security officer harmless for reasonable efforts.



Current Working Text
493.6306 Qualifications, training, and certification of security officers authorized to detain certain offenders-- This is something we'll have to address later, because we basically have to write that FDLE and DOACS get to make up a training course for detention authority.

493.6307 Detention by certified security officer-- A certified security officer may take into custody and detain a person in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time when:

(1) The person has committed a felony or misdemeanor in the presence of the certified security officer. A detention for the commission of a misdemeanor shall be made immediately or in fresh pursuit.

(2) A felony has been committed and and he or she reasonably believes that the person committed it.

(3) He or she reasonably believes that a felony has been or is being committed and that the person to be detained has committed or is committing it.

(4) The certified security officer is in performance of his or her duties.

(5) A law enforcement officer is summoned to the scene immediately after the person has been taken into custody.

901.15 When arrest by officer without warrant is lawful.--A law enforcement officer may arrest a person without a warrant when:
...
(16) There is probable cause to believe that a person taken into custody by a licensed security officer with detention certification pursuant to Chapter 493 has committed a misdemeanor in the security officer's presence.

493.6309 Immunity from liability -- A certified security officer or law enforcement officer making a detention or arrest pursuant to this section is not civilly or criminally liable for false arrest, false imprisonment, or unlawful detention on the basis of any action in compliance with this section.

493.6310 Resisting Certified Security Officer -- A person who resists the reasonable efforts of a certified security officer to detain that person in accordance to this section is guilty of a misdemeanor in the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, unless the person did not know or did not have reason to know that the person seeking to make such detention was a certified security officer.

I got to write this S.O.B., and when Bigdog submitted it to FASCO, he was told that the powers granted were way too vast and it would be vigorously fought by law enforcement.

Remember, in Florida, police are trained that only a sworn officer may make an arrest. A few detention statutes (retail theft) are taught, but citizen's arrest is foreign to the LEO in Florida. Some academies cover it, but only as it applies to the law enforcement officer out of jurisdiction, so they think its still a police only thing.

[HotelSecurity]

Florida is not the only place police officers are not taught the laws of citizen's & property owner's arrest powers. But I have the opposite problem. I have had police give me heck for NOT detaining a suspect. I have to explain to them that only they can arrest on reasonable & probably grounds. I have to witness the crime.

[GCMC Security]

Hmm I wonder if this law is going to require that officers have "licensed security officer" on thier uniforms like the battery law that came out. If so another one that TWC officers get screwed out of.

[N. A. Corbier]

Here in Connecticut we can be vested as Special Police Officers for private companies by just being sworn in by the mayor. One thing for sure the world is changing around us, makes you feel old don't it - laughing. The days of the old night watchman with keys in one hand and detex in the other is dying out that's for sure.

Please reread that statute, special constables cannot be licensed as security guards. Special Policeman for Armored Car services are licensed as "Special Policemen" by the state, not the mayor.

[N. A. Corbier]

Hmm I wonder if this law is going to require that officers have "licensed security officer" on thier uniforms like the battery law that came out. If so another one that TWC officers get screwed out of.

It may be added by the senate committee. Most likely it will be, so that companies can opt out of the law by failing to have proper patches.