Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Juvenile Curfews

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by PSOfficer
    Thank you for all the good ideas.. I will take them to our meeting. I'm trying to understand why handcuffing is such a big deal to some. It would seem to me that it is just a safety thing. I have cuffed before, and never had a problem with it.
    It's not that we have a 'problem' with handcuffing... It's that you're placing yourself in a situation where you could potentially be facing a lawsuit, if the person you handcuff hasn't broken any laws. You REALLY need to contact a lawyer to have them review your policies, and give you the PROPER way to handle these situations, so that you don't get into trouble in the future.
    Corbier's Commandos - "Stickin it to the ninjas!"
    Originally posted by ValleyOne
    BANG, next thing you know Bob's your Uncle and this Sgt is seemingly out on his a$$.
    Shoulda called in sick.
    Be safe!

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by PSOfficer
      Thank you for all the good ideas.. I will take them to our meeting. I'm trying to understand why handcuffing is such a big deal to some. It would seem to me that it is just a safety thing. I have cuffed before, and never had a problem with it.
      To answer your question; here is the last sentence of my thesis on private security using their authority to arrest others.

      ". . .Leastwise, we only effectively create a militia which has no meaningful purpose other than to engage in vigilantly operations for financial and other profits; under the cloak of such being a legitimate . . . .function."

      Here, you would be acting not in accordance with established laws but rather that of some community policy that may very well be in violation of established laws. Contrary to popular belief and conduct of others, having the services of private security by no means gives a client, or anyone else for that matter, any right to instruct security officers to act outside the scope of established laws and commit criminal and / or civil crimes in the process.

      As I said, based upon what you describe it is clear that these parents are merely passing the buck of parental duties and responsibility onto security officers, to properly supervise their children. Hence, if security is to play any role it should be confined to only that of calling the parent and notifying them of the location of their child so the parent can come and get him or her. Or in the alternative, to escort the minor to their house by the minor walking (without being handcuffed) and with security following them from a safe distance away to ensure they get home and do so safely. Additionally, another option is for this community to contact their local police department and request the assistance of police in addressing the curfew issues.

      As a general rule of thumb, however, handcuffing should only be done when there is a reasonable belief that the person actually poses a danager to him/herself or to others, or that the person is being detained or arrested (whether under a citizen arrest or legal arrest). However, one has to be mindful that when handcuffing another there is always an inherent risk that doing so will create a problem where none existed beforehand.

      In the situation you have described handcuffing would be done based on a policy rather than having actually established a reasonable cause to believe there is a legitimate threat of danger or the commission of a crime warranting taking another's freedom away.

      What happens when some juvenile decides to fight you because he / she does not want to be handcuffed and gets' injured in the process? Or what happens if the minor elects to take off runing after he or she is handcuffed and get's hit by a car?

      In other words, the threat of danger did not exist until you created it by handcuffing the juvenile without having first established a lawful need to do so and now the juvenile is injured and the parent who told you it was ok to handcuff their child turns on you and files both a criminal complaint and a lawsuit against you and your company.

      Yet, I would take no actions until an Attorney, preferrably the company attorney, reviews the specific policy to be enforced and all details involved to give his or her legal advice. If your company does not have an attorney, then make an appointment with one to discuss this privately... generally it does not cost to do a consultation but if it does it is well worth the money spent considering you could be facing criminal charges and prison time if you act outside the scope of law.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Arff312
        I am by no means endorsing the use of handcuffs if they havetn commited a crime. As far as the videotaping there really isnt much ground for them to standon. We are all issued video cameras for our belts and carry tham and tape certain types of calls. Any time a minor is involved it is taped. I have never heard anything that you cant tape a minor as then the cameras in stors and malls are no good. Also I defintely would not transport them unless specifically requested to by parents and it is absolutley needed.
        This is a battle I just encountered here not too long ago. Due to being in a mall, and having a patrol vehicle, the use of video equipment has been under the gun. After researching, the use of video in stores and malls, fall under the Level of expected privacy. As we enter onto other property, the expected level and rights to privacy are limitted, where as in a motor vehicle the privacy level is assumed higher then that of communing with others in an open area.

        I installed video in our car, but for the purpose of making "contacts", not for recording transported juveniles. It was scrutinized, but since its intentful purpose was for the traffic contact, it was permitted..

        See what you can fly at your location!
        Deputy Sheriff

        Comment


        • #19
          Easiest way to put it about handcuffs:

          You are a private citizen, without the immunity that the police have from criminal prosecution and civil (tort) claims. The moment you touch someone against their will, if you are not authorized under a specific statute or common law principle, you are violating a law.

          The placing of handcuffs on someone (no matter whom or what age) basically ... what's a good analogy... You are now completely responsible for their care, their custody, and their control. If you are not arresting them in the name of the state (statutory detention, private arrest, common law arrest), then you are "unlawfully detaining" or "falsely arresting" them. It doesn't even have to be putting them in handcuffs, but that's the surest way to get a false arrest charge.

          The curfew is a private policy that has no weight of law behind it. It is arbitrary, and has enough force behind it as:

          Our board has recently passed a rule stating that all persons must wear a silly hat from dusk to dawn. We have signs posted at every entrance that say "SILLY HATS ONLY, Board of Directors Rule 352.352.1," and warn people we come in contact with.

          We recently had a juvenile outside after dusk without a silly hat. We handcuffed him, took him into custody, and transported him back to his parents to get a silly hat.

          Understand, a "community rule" is just that. A rule that the property owner comes up with. The only criminal law that you really can use to enforce these rules is Trespassing, since trespassers can assert no lawful right to be on the property and therefore stay at the fiat of the land owner.

          So, explain to us how you can handcuff (detain or arrest) and transport (take someone forcefully against their will) a juvenile or adult to a unit for not wearing their silly hat?

          Its the same thing.
          Some Kind of Commando Leader

          "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

          Comment


          • #20
            My wife and I use to use handcuffs all the time without any problems but that would be a different thread. Why not simply get on the cell phone and call the parents and inform them that in case it slipped their minds the association has a mandatory curfew and their little precious is presently in violation and needs to be picked up immediately to avoid any further action by the association. If no ones home or they give you crap just file a report and let that become someone else's problem.
            THE AVERAGE RESPONSE TIME FOR A 911 CALL IS FOUR MINUTES
            THE AVERAGE RESPONSE TIME FOR A .357 MAGNUM ROUND IS 1400 FEET PER SECOND?
            http://www.boondocksaints.com/

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Christopherstjo
              But under no circumstances do you handcuff and transport a juvenile merely because he / she is in violation of a [community imposed policy] (sic) pertaining to a curfew.
              It's usually dicey to make blanket statements, but I have to agree with this one. While we might not think of handcuffing as a "big deal" from our perspective (it's a normal part of our world), it really IS a "big deal" both legally and psychologically to most citizens, particularly juveniles (and their parents). We're talking here about a lioness and her cub, if you get my drift, when you think of a mother standing at the window and watching her child getting out of the car in handcuffs. There aren't many who wouldn't be horrified and not a few who would become very upset with your agency about it. Is that what you want?

              I just wouldn't do it - handcuff OR transport - when it comes to juvie curfew violations - and particularly when you're not a police officer or police agency. You can practically hear the PI lawyers jostling to get in line on this one and I seem to hear the phrase "emotional distress" being tossed around.

              Mall Director's venue is different from yours, but I think his approach as described above is well worth considering.

              At the end of the day, whatever you decide, be SURE you've consulted with your agency's attorney and perhaps also your insurance carrier.
              Last edited by SecTrainer; 04-29-2007, 03:07 PM.
              "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

              "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

              "There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

              "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

              Comment


              • #22
                Isn't the law they broke the curfew rule? I get everyone's opinion, for my own knowledge, but I still have to obey orders from my superiors. But in my opinion, I'd rather deal with a restrained juv. than not. I think there would be more risk in them running if not cuffed.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by PSOfficer
                  Isn't the law they broke the curfew rule? I get everyone's opinion, for my own knowledge, but I still have to obey orders from my superiors. But in my opinion, I'd rather deal with a restrained juv. than not. I think there would be more risk in them running if not cuffed.
                  First off once you place someone in handcuffs you have ARRESTED them. If they havent commited a crime then you have falsely imprisoned them. This curfew policy does not sound like a law rather a community policy. As far as the juvenille running so what? They are going to be going home on their own. But if they are cuffed and run and get hurt it is your responsibility. As for transporting you can walk them or contact the parents. If you do something illegal because your superiors told you to you will still be arrested and charged. Remember that YOU are responsible for your actions. Also dont start to say well if i dont do it i will get hit with insobordintaion or something . As this only applys to LAWFUL orders and fromt eh looks of things your orders are not lawful.
                  Robert
                  Here endith the lesson

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Arff312
                    First off once you place someone in handcuffs you have ARRESTED them. If they havent commited a crime then you have falsely imprisoned them. This curfew policy does not sound like a law rather a community policy. As far as the juvenille running so what? They are going to be going home on their own. But if they are cuffed and run and get hurt it is your responsibility. As for transporting you can walk them or contact the parents. If you do something illegal because your superiors told you to you will still be arrested and charged. Remember that YOU are responsible for your actions. Also dont start to say well if i dont do it i will get hit with insobordintaion or something . As this only applys to LAWFUL orders and fromt eh looks of things your orders are not lawful.
                    Placing handcuffs on a person does not constitute an arrest. I've cuffed several people, and when doing so, I simply say "you're not under under arrest, it's for your safety and mine" Wording goes a lot further than most think.
                    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I dont know what state you are in. But in california if you deprive the person of the freedom to leave it is an arrest. In california simple personell postioning can be an arrest. You can not handcuff some one in california to "Protect Them". security in california has no detention powers. Only arrest. So it may be different where you are. All a person has to say is they felt that they could not leave and there is a detention or unlawful arrest.
                      Robert
                      Here endith the lesson

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by BadBoynMD
                        Placing handcuffs on a person does not constitute an arrest. I've cuffed several people, and when doing so, I simply say "you're not under under arrest, it's for your safety and mine" Wording goes a lot further than most think.
                        And for those security officers who do not say this (and many do not)... a reasonable person can believe the security officers' conduct constituted an arrest.

                        To assume, therefore, that use of handcuffs does not constitute an arrest is an incorrect assumption when the security officer says nothing to indicate the contrary.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by PSOfficer
                          Isn't the law they broke the curfew rule? I get everyone's opinion, for my own knowledge, but I still have to obey orders from my superiors. But in my opinion, I'd rather deal with a restrained juv. than not. I think there would be more risk in them running if not cuffed.
                          Is the Curfew Rule place by the city/county/state? Or is it the Homeowners Assoc?

                          If it was made by the Homeowners Assoc than it is not a law. If they violate it they are violating a HOA rule and the HOA can Fine them or such but you can't place them "Under Arrest"

                          I would tell your superiors in the meeting that they and the company lawyers need to review this rule and any possible procedure for Security most rikki tikk

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            To drive several points home:

                            1. "You are not under arrest, I am going to handcuff you for your safety and mine." The person is not under arrest at this time, are they? Are you arresting them? If not, then what legal right do you have to deprive them of freedom against their will? All it takes is for them to say, "No, you're not going to handcuff me."

                            At that point, you either have the lawful authority to detain or arrest them (deprivation of freedom == detention or arrest), or you are committing a serious crime against them by forcing them into submission.

                            Never forget, when you go to handcuff someone, you are attacking them. Why do you think the charge is called "resisting arrest?" They're resisting your attack (offensive action), not you resisting their attack. You win, you make them submit, and you cuff them.

                            If you do not have the lawful authority to handcuff someone against their will, you are basically "unlawfully detaining" or "wrongfully arresting" them.

                            2. "the law they broke was the curfew?" Only the legislature of the state you live in may pass criminal laws. (Cities and Counties pass ordinances, which may or may not be part of the criminal code. From what I've seen, they're not criminal acts under state law, though.) A home owner's association may make "rules," and those who refuse to follow those rules may be told to leave. They may be sued for tort claims, as well, but criminally - they may be told to leave. That's it.

                            Think of it this way: If they violated a law (being out after curfew), would you not be required to turn them over to the police? After all, you are arresting them for violating a law. Wouldn't the police have to take them to jail, or return them to their parents after issuing a citation with a court date for the kid?

                            The quickest way to a false arrest charge and a very hefty lawsuit from the kid's parents is to think that association rules == the law, and that you have the power to enforce those laws through forcing citizens to submit to your putting them in handcuffs for violating a rule.

                            As I said before, a curfew from a homeowner's association is no different than rule about silly hats, and has the same legal standing. In criminal court, NONE.
                            Some Kind of Commando Leader

                            "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
                              To drive several points home:

                              1. "You are not under arrest, I am going to handcuff you for your safety and mine." The person is not under arrest at this time, are they? Are you arresting them? If not, then what legal right do you have to deprive them of freedom against their will? All it takes is for them to say, "No, you're not going to handcuff me."

                              At that point, you either have the lawful authority to detain or arrest them (deprivation of freedom == detention or arrest), or you are committing a serious crime against them by forcing them into submission.
                              It is also possible to make a de-facto arrest. Even if you tell someone "You are not under arrest." If they have reasonable reason to believe they have been arrested, then they have been arrested.
                              "Alright guys listen up, ya'll have probably heard this before, Jackson vs. Securiplex corporation; I am a private security officer, I have no State or governmental authority. I stand as an ordinary citizen. I have no right to; detain, interrogate or otherwise interfere with your personal property-... basically all that means is I'm a cop."-Officer Ernie
                              "The Curve" 1998

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I would never in a million years handcuff and transport a juvie for something as trivial as a curfew violation. You are begging to be sued or arrested, or both!

                                I can't underscore how foolish this is. I don't necessarily agree that handcuffing someone is "attacking" them. That is a little dramatic.

                                In my state, most security personnel can only arrest, no detain. The reasonableness standard applies. If a reasonable person would feel as if they aren't free to go, then they are arrested. No matter what you told them. A reasonable person is not going to think they are free to go if you are cuffing them.

                                Comment

                                Leaderboard

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X