Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Juvenile Curfews

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

  • Bill Warnock
    replied
    Nathan, Curtis: I like those two sayings. I am going to add them to the aphorism portion of my security guide. Thank both of you.
    Enjoy the day,
    Bill

    Leave a comment:


  • Curtis Baillie
    replied
    Here's one I use. On the day you accept the job as Chief of Police - consider yourself as being also fired on that day.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    "We are all just one bad decision away from unemployment, prison, or death."
    ~ Lieutenant Paul Kurtzweil, Polk County (Florida) Sheriff's Office

    People think he's kidding when he says that. It is in his signature, for good reason, and something every person who works in protective services (public or private) should remember.

    Leave a comment:


  • Christopherstjo
    replied
    While I am glad to hear this.. just remember, all it takes is one to destroy your life and it always happens when you least expect it.

    Leave a comment:


  • PSOfficer
    replied
    3 weeks

    Happy to report, almost 3 weeks.. things are the same, no snags. I have had 6 contacts with offenders, very smooth.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by PSOfficer
    GCMC, Homeowners Assoc.

    We are supposed to remind them that it is not an arrest, but a safety issue.
    Well, that's easy to defeat.

    "You're not putting your hands on me."

    Also, they're minors, they may not even have the legal ability to give consent to be handcuffed.

    Leave a comment:


  • echo06
    replied
    Originally posted by Eric
    Probably was not a kid with a lawyer daddy....
    True....true.....

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by PSOfficer
    GCMC, Homeowners Assoc.

    We are supposed to remind them that it is not an arrest, but a safety issue.
    I'd say the burden is on the homeowners association attorneys to show that the association can impose a curfew, and how it can be enforced. Regulating junk cars, the color schemes used to paint home exteriors, the condition of yards, etc. is one thing. Constraining the movements of residents - even if they are juveniles - is very deep legal water indeed, in my opinion.

    Leave a comment:


  • PSOfficer
    replied
    Originally posted by GCMC Security
    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
    GCMC, Homeowners Assoc.

    We are supposed to remind them that it is not an arrest, but a safety issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Actually, the whole thing is problematic, depending to no small degree on the public/private status of the specific place where the individuals are first detained, and on the legal rights of the "community" to make and enforce "policies" in that place. Even in communities that are constituted as "legal entities", there is very likely to be a mix of public and private space, and a "policy" that you can enforce in the community park might be entirely unenforceable in the street running beside the park.

    The fact is that the question of your authority arises when and where you first constrain the individual's movement, whether or not you subsequently hancuff them, and whether or not you subsequently compel them to be transported or even whether you simply detain them for their parents.

    Since that's really the point at which the question of your authority to do so (constrain the juvenile's movements) arises, that's where my questions to my corporate attorneys would start.

    1. What is the legal authority of this community to make and enforce policies? (Be sure he has reviewed the community covenants, etc.)

    2. What are the limits of such authority? In what spaces does it exist? In what spaces does it not exist?

    3. In the spaces where the authority does exist, what are our legal options for enforcement?

    4. From question 3, of those options, which would present greater or lesser degrees of liability?

    With this information in hand, you're still not finished. Now you need to look at the options that have survived the "legal filter" questions above, and ask yourselves some "policy filter" questions to decide which of the legal, lowest-liability options available to you will best serve the purposes that the community is striving to achieve. Whatever you do must survive both "prongs" of the test - legality and good policy.

    One thing that I do not believe will serve the interests of the community in the long term is for your agency to develop bad relationships with the juveniles in the community, and quite apart from the significant issues we've already discussed, I think that handcuffing, in particular, is highly likely to cause significant damage to your future relationships not only with those you handcuff but also with their friends who see or hear about it.

    It's impossible for me to see how handcuffing survives either test - either the question of legal authority or the question of good policy. Presuming you have the authority under the specific circumstances to detain the juveniles, for many other reasons it should be done in the least coercive way possible. What both you and the community want, presumably, is to achieve voluntary compliance with the policy, and I can't see any way that handcuffing kids and throwing them in the back of your car will achieve that, even on the unlikely assumption that you have the authority to do so.

    Curfews come and curfews go, but you must remain in that community doing your job. How you handle this job will impact your agency long after the curfew has been rescinded, so you need not only to do it legally, but do it right.
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 04-30-2007, 11:20 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Christopherstjo
    replied
    Originally posted by CorpSec
    If they actively resist, then it does turn into an attack of sorts. But, the simple act of handcuffing someone in normal circumstances is not an attack in my opinion. At least I have never felt as though anyone I handcuffed was under attack.
    If there was no legal and lawful cause to use handcuffs in the first place, then the act of resisting stems directly because the security officer acted in such a way as to exceed his or her authority and violated criminal and / or civil laws in the process. To this end, the act of resisting is a natural cause and effect to one who is trying to illegally / unlawfully deprive another of his or her right to be free from restraints.

    Secondly, unless the security officer has police powers, then the security officer acts solely in the capacity of a common law citizen arrest and citizen arrest laws do not grant the legal right for the citizen to arbitrarily use handcuffs as a so-called "routine" act when dealing with suspects. To this end, the security officer is restricted in using handcuffs to only situaitons where the security officer witnessed the crime and is envoking a citizens arrest or where the suspect poses a sufficient danger to him/herself or to others, or the threat of danager based on the suspects size, body mass, phsycial strength, known fighting abilities, menal condition and so forth, and the need to restrict his / her freedom by handcuffs is [plainly] warranted to protect the safety of everyone involved.

    However, in this thread, keep in mind, that here we are not dealing with adults but rather juveniles and thus, stricter laws apply and less rights exist for a security officer to take action, in the use of handcuffs, when confronting juvenile suspects.

    Moreover, where the only so-called "crime" (sic) that has been allegedly committed is that of violating some "community policy" (sic) on curfew there is no lawful and legal grounds to handcuff the juvenile becuase a "community policy" categorically cannot be enforced as if it is law when it is not and cannot be since laws are only enacted by publicly elected officials in legislative capacities not by "community policies."
    Last edited by Christopherstjo; 04-30-2007, 08:41 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • CorpSec
    replied
    If they actively resist, then it does turn into an attack of sorts. But, the simple act of handcuffing someone in normal circumstances is not an attack in my opinion. At least I have never felt as though anyone I handcuffed was under attack.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    If someone doesn't want to be handcuffed, and you try to handcuff them anyway, its an attack on their person. Its battery. You are excused if making a lawful arrest or detention, under statute. But make no mistake. You are on the offensive. They resist, or defend themselves, against your attack. You must win, else they will escape or try to hurt you.

    Leave a comment:


  • CorpSec
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawson
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X