licensed security officer detention bill

[bigdog]

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:

Section 1. Section 493.6307, Florida Statutes, is created
to read:

493.6307 Detention of suspects.--

(1) A Class "D" or Class "M" licensee performing duties
regulated under this chapter who has probable cause to believe
that a felony or misdemeanor has been committed may take the
alleged offender into custody and detain the alleged offender in
a reasonable manner until the arrival of a law enforcement
officer. A law enforcement officer shall be called to the scene
immediately after the alleged offender has been taken into
custody, and the alleged offender shall be transferred to the
officer's custody upon the officer's arrival.
(2) A Class "D" or Class "M" licensee who takes a person
into custody in compliance with subsection (1) shall not be
criminally or civilly liable for false arrest or false imprisonment.

Section 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2008.

[Minneapolis Security]

Is this something you proposed? Or is this already up for consideration in the legislature?

[Minneapolis Security]

(2) A Class "D" or Class "M" licensee who takes a person
into custody in compliance with subsection (1) shall not be
criminally or civilly liable for false arrest or false imprisonment.

Section 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2008.

I like the limit on liability for false arrest and false imprisonment. We should have some legal protection, anyone can make a mistake. This would also help keep the vultures away, attorneys are always looking to take cases on speculation.

[gcmc security part 2]

Is this something you proposed? Or is this already up for consideration in the legislature?

It went up once before but was removed from consideration at the last minute due to lack of LE support. Not that they didn't support it just not enough new about it.

From what I've been told this session it has the full support of Florida Sheriff's Association and Fraternal Order of Police.

I forsee it passing, which raises the ultimate question. How do I detain someone? Keep in mind, the only time you can use force in FL is in the defense of life or GBH.

[bigdog]

It went up once before but was removed from consideration at the last minute due to lack of LE support. Not that they didn't support it just not enough new about it.

From what I've been told this session it has the full support of Florida Sheriff's Association and Fraternal Order of Police.

I forsee it passing, which raises the ultimate question. How do I detain someone? Keep in mind, the only time you can use force in FL is in the defense of life or GBH.

Reasonable manner includes the right to use force.

[bigdog]

Is this something you proposed? Or is this already up for consideration in the legislature?

Its in the legislature. It was ubmitted by a florida house rep on august 23.

[bigdog]

It went up once before but was removed from consideration at the last minute due to lack of LE support. Not that they didn't support it just not enough new about it.

From what I've been told this session it has the full support of Florida Sheriff's Association and Fraternal Order of Police.

I forsee it passing, which raises the ultimate question. How do I detain someone? Keep in mind, the only time you can use force in FL is in the defense of life or GBH.

You can use force to protect against any physical harm.

[mh892]

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:

Section 1. Section 493.6307, Florida Statutes, is created
to read:

493.6307 Detention of suspects.--

(1) A Class "D" or Class "M" licensee performing duties
regulated under this chapter who has probable cause to believe
that a felony or misdemeanor has been committed may take the
alleged offender into custody and detain the alleged offender in
a reasonable manner until the arrival of a law enforcement
officer. A law enforcement officer shall be called to the scene
immediately after the alleged offender has been taken into
custody, and the alleged offender shall be transferred to the
officer's custody upon the officer's arrival.
(2) A Class "D" or Class "M" licensee who takes a person
into custody in compliance with subsection (1) shall not be
criminally or civilly liable for false arrest or false imprisonment.

Section 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2008.

Good job. I am hopefull your efforts come to fruition. This is a long needed tool for those working in loss prevention and apartment/resort security jobs, as well as others.
Hopefully some specific legal and physical training will be required/provided by the state for class D & M in "taking into custody".
I'm curious how the detaining until LE arrives aspect will be written. Some people need physical restraint in order to prevent injury or escape.

[bigdog]

Good job. I am hopefull your efforts come to fruition. This is a long needed tool for those working in loss prevention and apartment/resort security jobs, as well as others.
Hopefully some specific legal and physical training will be required/provided by the state for class D & M in "taking into custody".
I'm curious how the detaining until LE arrives aspect will be written. Some people need physical restraint in order to prevent injury or escape.

Thank nathan this is part of a bill he wrote in early 2006 and i submitted to fasco that was initially rejected then gutted till we have what we see here.

As stated before the FOP and the Florida sheriffs assocaiation approved the language. SO they an we are hoping that the language stays the same.
Also keep in mind reasonable manner includes use of force and restraints. (IE cuffs)

the training will probably be like the Seaport detention bill no training in taking in custody but training in criminal law.

[N. A. Corbier]

My original bill was well thought out, and huge. So, of course, it was gutted by a lawyer to neuter it so that the cops wouldn't flip out about how "those security guards are asking for detention powers." The bill was attached to the uniform bill, so that nobody would really care. That was its downfall, nobody really cared enough to tell the senate why THEY should care.

This is a step up from the last submitted bill, at least.

[Hank1]

My original bill was well thought out, and huge. So, of course, it was gutted by a lawyer to neuter it so that the cops wouldn't flip out about how "those security guards are asking for detention powers." The bill was attached to the uniform bill, so that nobody would really care. That was its downfall, nobody really cared enough to tell the senate why THEY should care.

This is a step up from the last submitted bill, at least.

Nathan, did Will Holcomb help out on this too? Or was this your brainchild alone?

[N. A. Corbier]

Nathan, did Will Holcomb help out on this too? Or was this your brainchild alone?

Mr. Holcomb dropped off the face of the Earth a month before this was put together.

[Hank1]

Mr. Holcomb dropped off the face of the Earth a month before this was put together.

I have not hear from him for 2 years or so.

[N. A. Corbier]

Last I heard, Mr. Holcomb was working for/with FASCO. At least, that is what the FASCO PR page said, that Holcomb did Change 493 on their behalf.

Which doesn't jive with what Mr. Holcomb originally said, which was it was his own initiative, not affiliated with CIS or FASCO.

FASCO is looking towards others now, it is my understanding, to take he place of Mr. Holcomb.

The last thing Mr. Holcomb touched on was the light bill, and my little missive about how if you touch someone to remove them from private property as a D officer, you are a criminal under FSS 493.6118(j) and can be arrested for it.

The cashier, on the other hand, can kick them out on their ass without repercussions.

[Hank1]

The last thing Mr. Holcomb touched on was the light bill, and my little missive about how if you touch someone to remove them from private property as a D officer, you are a criminal under FSS 493.6118(j) and can be arrested for it.

The cashier, on the other hand, can kick them out on their ass without repercussions.

You are absolutely correct! It's amazing isn't it?