Puzzling Post Order

[Taktiq]

So, at the gated community I was reassigned to, I monitor traffic in and out of the gate in addition to the usual patrolling. Ok, simple enough. The thing that strikes me funny is the order, "Do not allow anyone to exit gate on foot." That's exactly how it's worded. No explanation to be had from anyone.

Tonight, one of the residents approached me in the gate house asking me to let him out so, I informed him that my post orders won't allow me to do that. Understandably shocked, he told me, in cliche fashion, "the other guard lets me do it". He then stated that he could simply hop the gate (I suppose he could...wonder how my orders would deal with that). Anyway, I asked if he had a car and he stated yes, but he had been drinking and didn't want to drive so he was waiting for a cab he'd called, but wished to wait outside the gate so it wouldn't need to come in or him have to give out his personal gate code. We chatted a bit more and, not surprisingly, claimed he was a lawyer (I've noticed over time, drunks always call themselves lawyers, yet lawyers call themselves attorneys) and that he'd talk to the HOA board about the policy of exiting on foot and that what I was doing could be construed as "false imprisonment/unlawful detainment".

Whether or not he was an attorney, IMO, he did have a valid point. It could be seen as unlawful detainment. I then wondered, what about residents just wanting to go for a morning jog, etc? Apparently, there is a keypad on the back of the gate house where residents can punch in their codes to get out (not working right now), but then again, there's also my post order....

Well, any thoughts?

[NRM_Oz]

We had something similar with a private complex where NO-ONE was permitted to walk up the vehicular ramps into the carpark due to a blind spot where cars will turn into the carpark and not see anyone standing there. After a few near misses and 2 hits (signs had been posted, so we had a boom gate put in that activated a piezzo warning buzzer to alert the pedestrians if they did not follow the signs. So perhaps this is a traffic issue ?

[Lawson]

Sounds like he may just have an unlawful imprisonment case, unless there is another way for him to exit the community on foot. What if someone's car is broken down? Are they simply just not allowed to leave?

[SecTrainer]

Sounds like he may just have an unlawful imprisonment case, unless there is another way for him to exit the community on foot. What if someone's car is broken down? Are they simply just not allowed to leave?

Agreed! This post order definitely requires elaboration, revision or revocation. You can't keep people from leaving the community by any means they so desire - even if there is a 'traffic issue" - without some much more special and compelling reason and/or elaboration. One can think of such reasons, but none of them are expressed in this post order.

Even more specific orders of such a nature could be problematic. If this order, for instance, said that "No persons under the age of 18 may be permitted to leave the community on foot after 10 PM without prior permission from their parents or guardians", I'd bet a lawyer...er, excuse me...attorney could still make a case for false imprisonment.

I'd get some clarification on this one real quick.

[publicsafetyred]

If questioned I would state that you are not barring them from leaving, you just will not open the gate for them. I am sure there are other ways to leave your property, if there isn't you have other problems about fire and emergency issues.

[Taktiq]

If questioned I would state that you are not barring them from leaving, you just will not open the gate for them. I am sure there are other ways to leave your property, if there isn't you have other problems about fire and emergency issues.

In case you missed it, the order, VERBATIM was "Do not allow anyone to exit gate on foot." Period. No clarification is given anywhere. This particular order is the last issue under "traffic/gate monitoring" which gives procedures on greeting residents and visitors, checking resident decals, signing in visitors and then that, one, concrete sentence about not letting anyone leave on foot at the very end before moving on to the next issue about when and how to patrol the property areas.

I patrol that entire property on foot and no, there is no other way to leave. Other than the electronically controlled gate on the north side, the entire community (compound) is surrounded by a 6 foot brick wall. In fact, as far as fire and emergency issues, it reminded me, quite comically earlier that night of the song "Forest Fire" by the punk rock band The Dead Kennedys.

Anyway, in the end, I informed this resident about my order and he didn't push me on it, just questioned it like I did. He admitted to having already been drinking and stated he could hop the gate, which I agreed he could, though never did, and when his cab arrived, I opened the gate for it and as he left I wished him a safe night. I NEVER once told him he could not leave, I just told him that "my post orders won't allow me to let anyone to exit the gate on foot." This entire exchange was recorded as well, on the 4 security cameras monitoring both the gate house and gate, but the order still has me puzzled.

[junkyarddog]

So, at the gated community I was reassigned to, I monitor traffic in and out of the gate in addition to the usual patrolling. Ok, simple enough. The thing that strikes me funny is the order, "Do not allow anyone to exit gate on foot." That's exactly how it's worded. No explanation to be had from anyone.

Tonight, one of the residents approached me in the gate house asking me to let him out so, I informed him that my post orders won't allow me to do that. Understandably shocked, he told me, in cliche fashion, "the other guard lets me do it". He then stated that he could simply hop the gate (I suppose he could...wonder how my orders would deal with that). Anyway, I asked if he had a car and he stated yes, but he had been drinking and didn't want to drive so he was waiting for a cab he'd called, but wished to wait outside the gate so it wouldn't need to come in or him have to give out his personal gate code.

I would have said, "I apologize, but I have to follow my post orders. Why don't you give me your name and I'll file the complaint to my supervisor. If we get enough complaints, the policy will change." That way, when you catch the guy jumping the fence, you have his info.

We chatted a bit more and, not surprisingly, claimed he was a lawyer (I've noticed over time, drunks always call themselves lawyers, yet lawyers call themselves attorneys) and that he'd talk to the HOA board about the policy of exiting on foot and that what I was doing could be construed as "false imprisonment/unlawful detainment".


Whether or not he was an attorney, IMO, he did have a valid point. It could be seen as unlawful detainment. I then wondered, what about residents just wanting to go for a morning jog, etc? Apparently, there is a keypad on the back of the gate house where residents can punch in their codes to get out (not working right now), but then again, there's also my post order....

Well, any thoughts?

Odds are the people living in the community signed a contracting saying they will abide by the rules of the community and one of them is probably no leaving that gate by foot. So it is not unlawful detainment, because the person in question likely already signed the contracting/waiver agreeing to the rule. I would make it a point to find out if this is the case and (if possible), review that contract and any such waivers for yourself. That way you can simply inform the next person that they signed a contract saying they will not leave said gate by foot, they waived their rights to leave said gate by foot, and that your job is to enforce that part of the contract on behalf of the community he is living in.

[bigshotceo]

A few disjointed comments (if you want logical, structured thought I'll send you a rate card ):

1) You believe that it's ok not to let people exit by foot because they signed a contract. Keep in mind, though, that there are certain essential freedoms that people cannot generally sign away, and freedom of movement is one of them. While they can sign something that says "If I do X you may do Y" (ie "If I leave on foot you can fine me $100 or kick me out of the weekly bingo games) you can't simply agree to give away such a freedom. While certain situations do exist (for example, if you're on a plane barring an emergency they're under no obligation to land to let you off until they're reached the final destination) such situations exist because of the logistical, financial and safety problems it would cause. I doubt you could prove letting someone out in your case could cause significant problems.

2) Can you actually verify that each person coming to the gate has in fact signed such a contract?

3) For a situation not to be false imprisonment, barring situations where you have custody over someone (ie as a parent, or if they're under arrest, etc..) or specific situations mentioned in part 1, a person must have a reasonable and accessible means of exit. Expecting someone to leave by jumping a fence, using the sewer/ventilation system, etc.. would not count as reasonable and accessible. If there is some sort of gate, it would need to be one which the average person could open somehow. Also, expecting someone to leave through an alarmed fire exit would not be appropriate, as in many areas it's against the law to trigger a fire alarm for non-emergency reasons.

4) I'm guessing the people in the gated community have a lot of money. If they decided to sue you over it, do you believe your company would be willing to cover your legal costs? I'm guessing probably not. As a general rule, if you gut tells you your post orders could get you into legal trouble, go with your gut.

[N. A. Corbier]

This is a silly post order.

Alright, his orders are to not allow anyone to leave via the gate on foot. Is this a criminal violation of law, leaving by foot in a vehicle gate? If not, then how is he supposed to prevent this from happening if the guy attempts to leave?

This sounds like a "concrete rule" for "safety," preventing people from being ran over by exiting vehicles, or caught in a vehicle gate. Every time I saw a vehicle gate, it would say, "DANGER, DO NOT ENTER OR EXIT THROUGH THIS GATE. SEVERE INJURY OR DEATH MAY RESULT." Of course, there was a pedestrian gate (unlocked, I might add!) right next to the vehicle gate.

As far as unlawful detainment, if I wish to leave the property and that's the only way a reasonable person can leave it (climbing the fence or causing other disorder is not how a reasonable person leaves!) then there is probably a criminal case.

But, to make that case, you would have to say, "I wish to leave. Open the gate so I may leave." His orders are to prevent that. So, you have detention, as he's refusing to let you leave.

[Lawson]

Odds are the people living in the community signed a contracting saying they will abide by the rules of the community and one of them is probably no leaving that gate by foot. So it is not unlawful detainment

I bet visitors dont sign any contract. Are you going to restrict their freedom of mobility as well?

I personally say this is a post order that is going to get you in trouble. I would not follow it.

[bigdog]

This is a silly post order.

Alright, his orders are to not allow anyone to leave via the gate on foot. Is this a criminal violation of law, leaving by foot in a vehicle gate? If not, then how is he supposed to prevent this from happening if the guy attempts to leave?

This sounds like a "concrete rule" for "safety," preventing people from being ran over by exiting vehicles, or caught in a vehicle gate. Every time I saw a vehicle gate, it would say, "DANGER, DO NOT ENTER OR EXIT THROUGH THIS GATE. SEVERE INJURY OR DEATH MAY RESULT." Of course, there was a pedestrian gate (unlocked, I might add!) right next to the vehicle gate.

As far as unlawful detainment, if I wish to leave the property and that's the only way a reasonable person can leave it (climbing the fence or causing other disorder is not how a reasonable person leaves!) then there is probably a criminal case.

But, to make that case, you would have to say, "I wish to leave. Open the gate so I may leave." His orders are to prevent that. So, you have detention, as he's refusing to let you leave.

We have the same set up where i work except the pedestrian gate is locked however they may request that security open it so they may leave. Also most residents have the key to it.

[sgtnewby]

Gated communities always seem to have these absolutly rediculous policies that noboby living in the community wants to follow. How 'bout this, if you don't like the rules, don't buy a house where they don't allow plastic pink flamingos!

[Michael Ledgerwood]

For one thing I think you are reading to much into the order. Post orders are put out as the rules of the post. With that said, if you ever take a police academy or criminal law class they will tell you that rules and laws are open for interpitation. Why don't they want someone walking through the gate? You need to look at the area and see if you can figure it out (i.e. no safe pedestrian areas). If you can't figure it out find someone who can tell you. Most post orders are written for two reasons 1) its what the client wants you to do and 2) gives written directives that can reduce the legal liability of the company and/or client. This sounds like a little of both. Chances are neither the homeowners association nor the company wants to risk a lawsuit associated with someone walking out a vehicle gate. Maybe other options need to be explored (i.e. pedestrian gates).

One thing I am curious about is why would a resident who was drinking at home be leaving? Might be legit but I would question more. To me it sounds like a guest was trying to leave and if thats the case the responsibility falls on the resident to arrange transportation. Just something to consider. I think there is more to this issue than what you have told us though so hopefully some of this is helpful.

[Mr. Security]

If you don't have a supervisor on site or via radio/telephone to request an exception, then you must use good judgment on a case-by-case basis.

Personally, I would let him through unless his coordination/judgment was so impaired from drinking that he was a danger to himself or others, in which case I would call the police.

[Andy Taylor]

I bet visitors dont sign any contract. Are you going to restrict their freedom of mobility as well?

I personally say this is a post order that is going to get you in trouble. I would not follow it.

+1

Unless you want to end up in jail, do not follow is post order.