'Inside' Company Security Rules OR versus D-class Security Guards Comparison

[ddog]

Thanks for all the great education to every contributor on this site.

I, like many here, work along side Inside Company Security personnel and would like to better understand any legal constraints they may have. Compared to Security Guards, the borders seem fuzzy at times.

>> I'd like to understand what exactly they cannot do, unless D-Class trained in FL specifically <<

My goal is to provide as much value-add services as a SO working in cooperation with the Company employees. A few things I can see to help their company is good attitude, hustle, service innovations, and consistent results. But a better understanding of the applicable laws can never hurt. This is especially critical in patrols (as compared to Entry/Exit Gates), where the Inside Security and SO Guards interface continuously.

Thanks!!

[N. A. Corbier]

YOU, as a Class D licensee, may only use force defensively. You may not use force to remove someone from a property. You may not use force to deny entry. You may not use force unless you or someone else is physically attacked.

An employee working directly for a company as an employee may do anything they want, basically, except carry a gun. If they are to carry, they must have a D and G.

493 only applies to D licensees, not proprietary employees.

[ddog]

YOU, as a Class D licensee, may only use force defensively. You may not use force to remove someone from a property. You may not use force to deny entry. You may not use force unless you or someone else is physically attacked.

An employee working directly for a company as an employee may do anything they want, basically, except carry a gun. If they are to carry, they must have a D and G.

493 only applies to D licensees, not proprietary employees.

Thank You Sir. Plus I also have a uniform that looks identical to local LE, which commands respect . . . or at least a second look.

[EMTGuard]

Thank You Sir. Plus I also have a uniform that looks identical to local LE, which commands respect . . . or at least a second look.

Or which will get you shot by someone who doesn't respect cops or care to take a second look.

[ddog]

Or which will get you shot by someone who doesn't respect cops or care to take a second look.

You got that right! I stick to my isolated upscale high-security setting, and don't wear uniform anywhere else except maybe 7-11 on the way to work. I get long looks there and pot-heads holding doors for me, so don't want to stretch my luck too far. Its fairly easy to strip shirt off, and have body armor shirt underneath thats almost exceptable in public.

I never wear my uniform publically, much less in confidence outside my SO job setting. Good point, but the uniform is effective in my setting to some degree.

[jeff194307]

A convienience store is the last place I would were my uniform, especially in a city of any size. One of my fellow officers in corrections went into a store after work, interupted two teens doing a beer run. The teens shot and killed him, later they told the arresting officers that they thought he was a security guard.

[N. A. Corbier]

Thank You Sir. Plus I also have a uniform that looks identical to local LE, which commands respect . . . or at least a second look.

I'm missing something here. You, as a Class D security officer, lack the ability to do things that the janitor on the site you guard can do. This includes using any level of physical force against someone unless you or someone else is under physical attack. If someone is climbing a fence, you cannot touch them unless they attack you. If someone is stealing from the site, you cannot stop them. Basically, the only time it is lawful for you to touch someone is with their consent or if they are physically attacking you or someone else.

What does this have to do with having an identical uniform to your local police agency?

I took your original question to mean, "What can non-licensed people do without a Class D license, so that we can work with them and not get them into trouble." The answer is: They can do anything you can do. They can do more than you can do, because they are not bound to FSS 493's restrictions. They can use force to protect property. They can use force to terminate tortuous interference. They can physically prevent someone from entering a property.

The only thing that an "in-house" employee cannot do is carry a gun. If the company wants their employees to carry a gun, they must be licensed with a Class G license. To get a Class G license, the employees must have a Class D license.

FSS 493 governs licensees at all times, not just at work. Not just when working for a contract security firm. Due to the language of FSS 493, anyone hiring a person with a Class D license in any manner must deal with the impositions of FSS 493 for their employee.

This means that if you hire in-house guards that happen to have Class D licenses, they cannot use force. Case law has already shown that guards who are licensed, but not actively employed in the security field are still subject to FSS 493. Any violation of FSS 493 is a criminal offense, as well.

In other words: Unless you want an armed guard in Florida, in-house is superior as they're not saddled with the rules of Chapter 493.

[bigdog]

I'm missing something here. You, as a Class D security officer, lack the ability to do things that the janitor on the site you guard can do. This includes using any level of physical force against someone unless you or someone else is under physical attack. If someone is climbing a fence, you cannot touch them unless they attack you. If someone is stealing from the site, you cannot stop them. Basically, the only time it is lawful for you to touch someone is with their consent or if they are physically attacking you or someone else.

What does this have to do with having an identical uniform to your local police agency?

I took your original question to mean, "What can non-licensed people do without a Class D license, so that we can work with them and not get them into trouble." The answer is: They can do anything you can do. They can do more than you can do, because they are not bound to FSS 493's restrictions. They can use force to protect property. They can use force to terminate tortuous interference. They can physically prevent someone from entering a property.

The only thing that an "in-house" employee cannot do is carry a gun. If the company wants their employees to carry a gun, they must be licensed with a Class G license. To get a Class G license, the employees must have a Class D license.

FSS 493 governs licensees at all times, not just at work. Not just when working for a contract security firm. Due to the language of FSS 493, anyone hiring a person with a Class D license in any manner must deal with the impositions of FSS 493 for their employee.

This means that if you hire in-house guards that happen to have Class D licenses, they cannot use force. Case law has already shown that guards who are licensed, but not actively employed in the security field are still subject to FSS 493. Any violation of FSS 493 is a criminal offense, as well.

In other words: Unless you want an armed guard in Florida, in-house is superior as they're not saddled with the rules of Chapter 493.

Hopefully thiswill change i've spoken to Fasco and they are submitting the detention bill again and adding to 493.6118 (J) a security officer may use force in the process of detaining for LE. You may also arrest for someone committing battery on you or another security officer if you have a patch or emblem Id your company and you as a security officer. Note: ive contacted a few attorney over the language in that law and they have informed me that the "Identifying the wearer as a licensed security officer" doesn't mean you have to have that exact lettering on you uniform.

[hawk]

I hear that a lot in hear. class C or D license. I take it your refuring to the state statute. here in N.C. its 74C or 74D. Just asking. I have a 74C and 74D license.

[gcmc security part 2]

This is for FL

Class D = Unarmed Security Officer License

Class G = Statewide Firearms License

[FlaSecurity1234]

Justifiable Use of Force in Florida

With regard to use of force, I see two issues raised here; use of force to defend oneself or another, and use of force to prevent or terminate a trespass. For the former, Florida law allows you to the option to defend yourself, as long as you are in a place you have a legal right to be or are not engaged in some otherwise unlawful use of force, and do not use unreasonable force to do so. There does not seem to be any debate about that here.

However, as for the latter, the use of force, as I believe it is referenced in this part of this thread, is covered in FS776 “Justifiable Use of Force.” The following section may be useful to note.

“776.031 Use of force in defense of others.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.”

FS493 does not, at present, regulate the use of force. The “Detain and Hold” bill did not pass. The authority of a security officer, whether proprietary or licensed, to use force comes from FS776. The authority for any person to use force in the State of Florida comes from FS776. This chapter contains no requirement for any type of licensure to use force nor does it prohibit the use of force by anyone who holds certain types of licenses.

Confusion may come from language in the “Detain and Hold” bill that would have allowed only ‘G’ licensed security officers to detain a subject and use force to do so. This is different from using force to “prevent or terminate a trespass,” which is available to all under FS776.