florida licensed security officer bill

[ValleyOne]

Wouldn't it be a lot simpler if Florida followed some of what Oregon has done, if you provide security-rgardless of in house or not-you must be certified (licsensed)??

I would think that would take a lot of the (seemingly) confusion out of the problem related to who is who is not licsensed. We are required to be certified/licsensed regardless if you do contract patrol security, LP work, bar bouncing. Our laws state that all must be certified at the minimal level-Unarmed. If you desire tobe certified as an Armed Officer you also must be certified as Unarmed before and during your Armed Cert.

Just a thought.

[bigdog]

the state actually tried that a few yrs ago the inghouse companies basically told the state no way in heck are we gonna have our inhouse employees get licensed. nathan knows more about it than me.

[HotelSecurity]

The new Quebec law that was passed last year requires In-House to be licensed. It even says that if you provide 'security like' services you will have to be licensed. I think this was added because some people, like the owner of my hotel said that we would simply stop calling ourselves Security & would become Guest Relations or something like this. The Quebec law is not being enforced yet. A board has to be set up. I,m a little nervous because there will be a test to get the license. In order to become a professional in Quebec you have to write French. I don't

[N. A. Corbier]

the state actually tried that a few yrs ago the inghouse companies basically told the state no way in heck are we gonna have our inhouse employees get licensed. nathan knows more about it than me.

It was called a "PD" or Proprietary D registration. No one bothered with it, and there was no rule against not registering. This is one of the reasons that it was abolished, nobody bothered with it, and the laws of the state gave no incentive to register.

Before the battery bill, a junior college (that's a public college of th state) security force (contract or in-house) was protected simply because JC's didn't have the authority to have police officers like the state University System. The state realized that colleges used private security like campus police (in that they used them to protect the campus) and added "security employed by the regents of a junior college" to those who its a felony to batter.

Companies simply will not pay, nor do some of them like the training the the D license requires.

[Echos13]

493 authorizes you to use force to defend yourself or another against physical attack. Battery in Florida is intentional unwanted touching. If someone so much as puts a finger on you, you are authorized to use reasonable force to terminate their criminal battery on you.

As far as the statutory upgrade for battery on a security officer, the legislature's intent has always been "Licensed Security must be identifiable to the public." Look at it this way: What's the difference, to the public, between a contract officer and the guy at Target who's in-house?

How will the public and law enforcement know which is licensed (and therefore hitting one is a felony), and which one isn't (which is just simple battery, like any other citizen)?

We're close to the issue, we know that Wackenhut means security, but to one deputy, he thought a woman who was battered was a receptionist, not a security guard. She was wearing the casual polo uniform.

He thought that her supervisors, who were armed and in hard uniforms with Wackenhut patches were security. So, he declined to file an upgraded charge, nor arrest the violator.

I am aware of the 493 section. It's the part of being able to have the subject charged. So I guess when the LEO arrives and we give him the details I guess I have to say, "Oh, by the way you know about the law regarding battery on a LSO right?". Or. "This guy attacked a LSO so take care of it". You would be suprised how many here do not know about it or just ,er well don't care.

[N. A. Corbier]

I am aware of the 493 section. It's the part of being able to have the subject charged. So I guess when the LEO arrives and we give him the details I guess I have to say, "Oh, by the way you know about the law regarding battery on a LSO right?". Or. "This guy attacked a LSO so take care of it". You would be suprised how many here do not know about it or just ,er well don't care.

Articulating it correctly is key. Its my understanding that unless you have something to back it up, some officers aren't going to listen to you. After all, they've heard nothing about this, and if they try to file a non-existent charge, the ASA is going to have a field day with them.

If the officer decides to arrest on misdemeanor battery but says "there's no such redefinition," that's fine. Contact the SAO and inform them of the issue. They may, or may not, decide to file. Some counties won't file felony charges unless the LEO is going to the hospital, which means the LSO isn't getting felony charges for anything short either.

[bigdog]

The bill was withdrawn from the legislature because we couldnt get a house sponsor.

[SecTrainer]

The bill was withdrawn from the legislature because we couldnt get a house sponsor.

That's too bad. It's hard to believe there wasn't ONE "law-and-order" House member who would stand up for the bill.

The law is needed, and none of the other problems mentioned here with regard to the enforcement of this law amounted to a hill of beans, or were anything that couldn't have been easily dealt with. We have many crimes on the book for which victim status is one of the elements of the crime, and they are both charged and prosecuted successfully every day. In some cases, the victim's status is only learned by the officials after the initial charges are laid and the perp is simply re-charged with the greater offense.

In not a few of these crimes, prior knowledge of the perp as to the victim's status is NOT relevant. In fact, there are some for which it is not even necessary for the victim themselves to have prior knowledge of their status! One example is a law upgrading battery on a pregnant woman to a felony from a misdemeanor. The victim herself might not learn that she is pregnant until she is in the hospital being treated for her injuries...won't change a thing. The greater charge will be brought and it won't serve as a defense for the perp to whine that even the victim didn't know she was pregnant. The law does not require for her belly to be sticking out in a visible way...it only requires that she be pregnant and he should have considered that possibility before he attacked her.

You might have an upgraded crime for an attack on a homeless person. It would be sufficient to show the victim's status as being homeless, and irrelevant whether the perp stopped to ask the victim whether he had a home address before he hit him with the 2x4.

Also, it is absolutely not a prerequisite for cops to bring the "right" charge when they arrest an individual. Cops will charge what they believe to be the proper crime at the time, but many times the prosecutor, on review of the case or on learning new evidence, will drop those charges and re-charge the individual with the correct crimes.

Further, there is a mechanism almost everywhere for police to learn about new laws such as this, the elements of the crime, and how it is to be charged. Typically, this is done by an "in-service" that is conducted by the prosecutor's office for the police. We had such in-service training sessions conducted by the DA's office several times a year.

However...all this is moot now, I guess. It's really too bad, and shame on the House members for sitting on their hands!

[N. A. Corbier]

One House member requested that law enforcement officers contact his office and tell him if this was a "good idea" or not. Obviously, nobody important did.

[bigdog]

heres FASCO's explaination

We were required to request the Senate sponsor to withdraw the bill because it did not have a House companion bill. Our House sponsor had only one bill slot, but we needed two. They get only 6 slots and she had committed 5 when she mistakenly thought our two issues could be combined into one bill. We chose not to do that because if one issue had failed, the bill would have failed, and both FASCO issues would have been lost. Faced with that situation, FASCO elected to go with the lights bill only.

We continued to try to get another sponsor and approached Rep. Charlie Dean, retired Sheriff of Citrus Co. While he was very receptive to the content of the Detain and Hold bill, he too, was unable to get the Speaker to agree to allow its introduction through the proposed committee bill process, which was our last possible viable option.

Rest assured, if FASCO elects to do so, the bill will be introduced again next year. Also, you may already know that the recently passed Port Security bill gives hold and detain authority to security officers on seaports, although they are required to complete substantially more training in addition to the 493 mandated 40hr + 28hr for armed licensees.

[Investigation]

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.

The interesting thing about Washington State is that there is no Citizens Arrest powers beyond what is given to merchants for theft of merchandise reasons (R.C.W. 4.24.220).

[Lawson]

The interesting thing about Washington State is that there is no Citizens Arrest powers beyond what is given to merchants for theft of merchandise reasons (R.C.W. 4.24.220).

For some reason you can't search for it on Washington's website, but there was a blurb under the AGO that stated a citizen could detain/arrest for an in-presence breach of peace in WA.

[N. A. Corbier]

For some reason you can't search for it on Washington's website, but there was a blurb under the AGO that stated a citizen could detain/arrest for an in-presence breach of peace in WA.

Remember when I found that damn thing? Also, doesn't the Armed Security Guard's manual talk about that? The one that no company uses cause it tells the guards things that the company does not want them to know....

As to the bill... The Seaport bill only allows for statutory detention for trespassing in a restricted area. So... Its pretty obvious what FASCO is after with their detention bill: Unlimited trespass detention authority.

This is less and less about "enforcing law and good order" and more about being able to grab those pesky trespassers.

[Investigation]

Remember when I found that damn thing? Also, doesn't the Armed Security Guard's manual talk about that? The one that no company uses cause it tells the guards things that the company does not want them to know....

Right, it may state it in the manual, but that does not give private security any legal statutory authority to perform a Citizens Arrest. This is probably why companies purport observe and report. If there were such powers, they would be listed under the Revised Code of Washington or the Washington Administrative Code. These can be searched at: http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsearch/default.asp#RCW

[sgtnewby]

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

Brings back the old "Stop, or I'll throw my keys!"