Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Murder On Post

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

  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by cocknaces View Post
    Thanks for calmly, intelligently, and thoroughly responding to the points I've raised in this thread. Again, where government is concerned, the idea of absolutes is disturbing to me. I'll question that every time, even if it seems a little unreasonable some of the time.

    A couple things I have to respond to from the last two posts here:



    Unfortunately, terms like "public welfare" are often platitudes, not measurable things with tangible limits. Stalin killed 8 million of his own citizens "for the public welfare". That is certainly not what we are facing here in the USA, but that kind of tyranny has its roots in the failure of the private citizen to question- at least within himself- the power of the police.

    Some of what I've said here may seem extreme, but again: the only thing keeping power in check in this or any other country is hardcore honest criticism of government authority and police power. If things seem so good now that we don't have to worry about- thats why things are so good. Because people constantly criticize and challenge authority. Even the authority they themselves have voted for and generally accept with open arms.
    This isn't a political forum, though - it's a security forum, and we were discussing the SO's responsibility during a crime investigation, not theories about governmental power. If the police should overstep their authority in some way during their investigation, there are ample means available for redress.

    It is because of these means of redress that the public who are not involved in incidents of overreach learn that they do happen sometimes. In other words, it is never a secret for very long when the police overreach. The citizen involved selects from among the 3 jillion attorneys who descend upon him seeking his business (most on a contingency basis for a percentage of the damages), files some sort of action for redress, and the press immediately and joyfully trumpet "POLICE ABUSE!" to the world, who always knew the police were Fascist Nazi Pigs. Contrary to what some in this society are forever claiming these days, we do NOT live in a secret police state. Quite the contrary. In fact, the government seems to find it impossible even to protect its most legitimate secrets, no matter how critical their secrecy may be to national security - thanks to "concerned citizens" who themselves are actually the ones who abuse their power.

    Yes, it does happen that the police will sometimes search a place without a warrant when one should be obtained. Yes, it does happen that they will continue to interrogate a subject after he has invoked his right to counsel - usually by some highly questionable or bizarre expression of privilege - which is later "interpreted" as "invoking the privilege" by a court that has seven years and three million law books to weigh the situation.

    In my VERY long experience, the police do not overreach very often, tending to err instead on the side of caution. The police prefer not to spoil all of their efforts by having evidence thrown out of court and prefer not to deal with the interference of the press who see abuse hiding behind every tree in the forest, or to cope with complaints from citizens and the like.

    Generally, an outrageous police demand or action - i.e., one that is so far outside the boundaries of their authority that it is offensive to any reasonable person - CAN be refused at that time. However, such demands and actions are extremely rare in modern professional police work, and otherwise, even if he may question the legitimacy of a request, the citizen is to cooperate with the police. There is time enough later to consider the propriety of police actions, to debate the balance of power between the government and the individual, to read the works of the Constitutional fathers, to decry the heavy hand of the police, and to file a $60 zillion claim (plus treble damages) against the police because they forgot to say "Please" and "Thank You".

    A criminal investigation isn't a game of "Mother May I?" or "Simon Says". Leave the political blogosphere behind when you go to work. The fact is that, in the constitutional democracies such as United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand, at least, the legal and sociopolitical means of controlling police power are alive and well, and neither you nor your client are in any very real danger of having your rights trampled into the dirt by the police.
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 11-19-2007, 07:37 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • HotelSecurity
    replied
    It boils down to my belief that we are First Responders. We take care of emergency situations until the Police, fire or medical professionals arrive. THEN we back off & assist IF THEY REQUEST. Nothing hurts the Police/Fire/EMS & Security relationship than a guard who can not learn to back off & tries to tell the emergency service worker how to do his job.

    Leave a comment:


  • junkyarddog
    replied
    Thanks for calmly, intelligently, and thoroughly responding to the points I've raised in this thread. Again, where government is concerned, the idea of absolutes is disturbing to me. I'll question that every time, even if it seems a little unreasonable some of the time.

    A couple things I have to respond to from the last two posts here:

    Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post
    When private rights come up against the duty of government to provide for the public welfare, the interest of public welfare usually wins.
    Unfortunately, terms like "public welfare" are often platitudes, not measurable things with tangible limits. Stalin killed 8 million of his own citizens "for the public welfare". That is certainly not what we are facing here in the USA, but that kind of tyranny has its roots in the failure of the private citizen to question- at least within himself- the power of the police.

    Some of what I've said here may seem extreme, but again: the only thing keeping power in check in this or any other country is hardcore honest criticism of government authority and police power. If things seem so good now that we don't have to worry about- thats why things are so good. Because people constantly criticize and challenge authority. Even the authority they themselves have voted for and generally accept with open arms.

    Leave a comment:


  • bpdblue
    replied
    SecTrainer, I just want to tell you that the posts you wrote on this thread were so right on the money.

    I was fairly mad when I wrote my last posting here because of the posts suggesting that cooperation with the police was not necessarily a necessity, but more of a "I'll cooperate if I have to, but I won't necessarily tell you everything I know," or even, "I'm going to grab the video recording of the incident and run away with it."

    What kind of person thinks this way about responding to the people that society has determined will be their representatives in the protection of that society at home (in the USA). Those that have the job of protecting (which includes catching criminals and investigating crimes, among other things) are called law enforcement officers.

    The courts, and laws have made it clear that law enforcement has the powers to enforce laws, and protect the public, and that the public must comply with the lawful demands of law enforcement.

    When a poster wrote that his client took a video recording of some incident and ran off with it for whatever reason, the poster made it sound like that was a GREAT thing to do. Well I'm here to tell anyone who thinks that was good, that (if the tape had incriminating information on it, such as in a murder) they are going to be in trouble. First for delaying and obstructing, and if the tape is destroyed, than for destruction of evidence. It also makes the person taking the tape look like they might have been involved in the crime.

    The poster wrote that the client was arrested, but that charges were later dropped. I don't know if the client was arrested in regard to the taking of the video tape, but if the tape had information on it related to a crime being investigated, and the person who took the tape knew this, they are committing a crime, and charges would not be DROPPED if the police new what they were doing.

    OK, now that I have gotten through my heated portion of this, and have taken my calm-down meds , I will try to be more civilized.

    All should remember that when it comes to video tapes, that even reporters (defenders of the first amendment, and all that) have gone to jail for refusing to turn over a video tape to the police when ordered to do so by the courts, so don't expect anything better if you do the same. If there is something on the tape that is not regarded important to the criminal case, but is important to the client of the guard, the tape can be edited (on the courts order, of course).

    It should be remembered that even presidents of the good ol' USA can be compelled to testify in court if ordered to do so, and if executive privilege, or government secrets are claimed as a reason not to testify, a JUDGE will make the decision on whether those claims justify not testifying.

    Now I know that all I have written about makes the police sound all powerful, and that the general population are just pawns for law enforcement. This is NOT TRUE, and I am totally against the police being given too much power. Most cops I know are pretty conservative people, and fear law enforcement having too much power, because they are smart enough to know that sooner or later that power can be used against them too.

    I also know that I am no longer a police officer, and that I must submit to their authority as much as anyone one else, and probably must do it better than the general public because I am suppose to know how things work better than the average person.

    Remember, if you are ordered to give the police something, or they take it without lawful reason, a judge can order it be returned and not used by the prosecutor. If it is found to have been illegally obtained by the police, all things learned from that illegally obtained item (or information) will be excluded from the court case, including if the identity of the murderer is learned from it. The suspect will probably walk free, unless their identity can be learned from other sources not linked to that illegally obtained item or information. (For those of you interested, this is called FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE, and it means that once something, or some information is received that was obtained illegally, ALL other things or information received for the case because of the previously illegally obtained item or information is also now considered illegally obtained.)

    So, I again state, if you are not sure you are on solid legal ground when you decide not to assist the police, you better have REAL GOOD LAWYERS, cause your going to need them.

    Oh, yeah, one more thing, for all those in the security business who feel that helping the police solve crimes associated with the property you are guarding / associated with is not necessarily a good thing, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING IN THIS BUSINESS. The police / law enforcement is a natural extension of what we do for a business. If you don't think so, why do you think things like firearms, tear gas, batons, handcuffs, ect., are considered essential equipment for guards in this business.

    You think I've written enough for now, me too.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    When it comes to investigating crime, the police have a duty to perform. This is a duty to protect the public welfare by the discovery and apprehension of criminals.

    When it comes to a crime scene investigation, the police ARE absolutely "in charge". That is, once the presence of the police is legitimately established at the scene of a crime, private property interests generally must give way to the public interest in solving the crime. You, as well as the property owner, are simply citizens whose duty is to assist or, at least, not to interfere with the police or in any other way to obstruct justice.

    Neither you nor the property owner could, for instance, assert your "property rights" and order the police to leave the scene. Neither you nor the property owner can tell the police how they will conduct their investigation. Neither you nor the property owner may interfere with the police investigation. Furthermore, there is an affirmative duty to cooperate with the investigation, for instance, by providing all relevant information to the police or place yourself in jeopardy of a charge of obstruction of justice.

    This does not mean, of course, that the police can do anything they want to do. We are all aware of the constitutional limits to police action. However, these constitutional limits have been modified by the courts and may not be available to a property owner during the immediate efforts of the police to discover and capture a felon. I have a right to privacy in my home, for instance, but should the police observe a felon run into my house they may demand entrance without a warrant - and even forcibly enter my home - and I cannot assert my rights against that demand. When private rights come up against the duty of government to provide for the public welfare, the interest of public welfare usually wins.

    This is the "hot pursuit" exception to the constitutional limits on search and seizure. We are also aware of the Terry stop-and-frisk rule. Other rulings permit the police to examine the area immediately adjacent to what might legally be considered the "technical crime scene", in order to check for a suspect in hiding, etc. These and other exceptions to constitutional and/or "property" rights are very well established in the law - and most of these exceptions apply to a period of immediate police action in the effort to discover and apprehend a felon, because the requirements for warrants, etc. would prove burdensome to the police and advantageous to criminals. Crime scene investigation is considered to be such a police action.

    Your civic duty - both individually and as the agent of the property owner - is to cooperate with the police investigation, or at least not to obstruct justice. It can - and has - been the source of "obstruction" charges for a citizen to fail to provide relevant information to the police, or to refuse to cooperate with the lawful demands of the police, when that citizen is in possession of such information or is able to cooperate with those demands.

    It should also be noted that it is your duty to the property owner NOT to place HIM in jeopardy by obstructing justice "on his behalf" or "as his agent", any more than you could commit any other crime "as his agent".

    Bottom line: If you have the police on site investigating a crime, THEY ARE IN CHARGE, private property or not. Absent some absurd request by the police - such as demanding that you unlock a desk drawer on the pretense that they are searching for the criminal who they think might be hiding there - just do what the police tell you to do. Most so-called "property rights" that you might think you would like to assert are trumped during an immediate police action in the effort to discover and apprehend a felon. Just about the only right that you could successfully assert in refusing a lawful police order without facing an obstruction charge - or some related charge such as harboring a fugitive if they should later be found to have been hiding on site while the police were being refused access - might be the 5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination...and one would hope that we're not talking about that, eh?

    Just cooperate. Provide full information as requested or known to you. Stay out of the way unless asked to do otherwise. Comply with lawful orders. Should the police overstep their bounds or in some other way commit official misconduct, there will be time enough in the months ahead for corporate counsel to seek redress for such actions. Meanwhile (here's a surprise), you can STILL be found guilty of obstruction even if a police action or request is later found to be unlawful! The question will be whether, at the time, you had a very good reason for refusing the police request. So just cooperate, and quit trying to "lawyer" the situation. You're not trained to do so.

    Leave a comment:


  • junkyarddog
    replied
    Originally posted by bpdblue View Post
    Ok, I'm going to give you this from the police perspective, although much of the info has already been posted here.

    First, read SecTrainer's posts on this thread. Put simply, they were written informationally correct, and written in easy to to understand language.

    Secondly, the guard was the reporter for his company by gathering what information he could about the incident. The report was well done for the info he had. Only a few things missing, like the last time a check of that area was made prior to learning of incident, was anything out of the ordinary for the area, ect, were left out. Incidently, you might have added things to the report that could have been inaccurate, such as are you sure there were no witnesses, are you sure the victim was hispanic, ect. If you are not positive, you should word items like that with a phrase like "to my knowledge."

    But again, for what you had, your report was GOOD.
    I don't disagree.

    Now, to the complaints about police cooperation in cases like this by some posters. It is the responsibility of the POLICE to put the case together, and if possible, present it to the district attorney's office for the purpose of prosecuting suspect(s). As has been already written about, they can't release info on most things during an investigation, and sometimes even after it's over. (Like a juveniles name, sexual assault victims info, ect.)
    Right.

    It is your duty as a guard to provide all general info you have about the incident to the police.
    I thought the duty of a guard was to follow the post orders provided by his company? hmmm This is one of the places where I think people can sometimes be a little too eager to help.

    Now if your saying that there is info you cannot provide to the police, they can obtain a search warrant and get it.
    Given the time sensitive nature of investigating major crimes, the police would rather just have you give them the info then and there than have to attain a warrant.

    Then if you have it and don't provide it, the business is shut down and a slow methodical search is done by the police to get the info. You of course will have been fired by then, and someone from management from your company will be doing EVERYTHING the police want to try to minimize the damage to your company' reputation.
    Of course, regardless of what your company says, as soon as you see the warrant, you give them whatever the warrant specifies. 99% of the time the company will simply copy the data and give the police a copy/the original without a warrant.


    Can you tell that attitudes like some (one) of those in this thread have upset me a bit. It is because I have had to deal with people who thought they were running the show when the police were involved, and no matter how many times you told them they were NOT running the show, they disagreed. That is until they were told to comply or get out of the way or they would be arrested. Guess what, some IDIOTS did have to get arrested for obstructing, and delaying a police officer conducting the investigation.
    Funny thing...our actual customer (security director for the client corporation)
    has actually been arrested in such a manner in the past. He was in his rights in refusing the police what he refused them, the charges were immediately dropped, and he is still the security director for the company. The customer asks us to push the envelope, but when it comes down to it, he is right there at bat for us. In other words, if something happens on site and he wants the video (etc) sealed, we seal it and hurries to the particular post and takes the media of the info (aka the recording/documentation etc) himself.

    Our team buys into his system and into him as a person because of this. Government entities- or individuals- on the other hand will throw you under the bus the first chance they get and are loyal to absolutely no one but each other. That kind of thing nurtures a feeling of trust and loyalty in the former and a sense of apprehension about the other.

    Personally I am a strong believer in the rights of the private citizen and private entities. In almost every case (of discussion) I will argue in favor of those rights. The government (and government enforcers) are right most of the time. But not all of the time. The kind of power that goes along with government needs to be critiqued every step of the way, their procedures questions, their attitudes CHECKED by private citizens and entities.

    The lack of this kind of healthy skepticism by private citizens and entities is far more dangerous to a free society than the lack of assuming that everything an entity or person does is beyond question just because that person wears a certain badge or hat or official title.

    So, before you start saying you will not assist the police with what they need, you better be real sure your on solid ground, or you might be needing a lawyer real soon.
    I will never break the law to help a client.

    Assisting the police with what they say they need can cause you to need a lawyer as much as not assisting them. It depends on who you KNOW will throw you under the bus and who will back you up.

    Leave a comment:


  • junkyarddog
    replied
    Originally posted by ozsecuritychic View Post
    Do you seriously think the cops are going to give someone that is possibly a suspect (from being there) info ???if they start giving out info about crime scenes and then catch up with someone who knows too much, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
    .
    Of course a murder, you have to be pretty humble about even asking for information at the scene and can't expect much in the way of information.

    But generally, there are a ton of variables. Some police are sketchier than many security officers. Allot of municipal PDs are comprised of a full time chief (50k) and a full time patrol officer (40k) who keep their jobs because they are in with the mayor and/or counsel. The rest of the PD (in this case) are part time patrol officers (12/hr) that probably won't be in the department more than a few months.

    When the part time patrol officer hangs out on your property, blocks your S/Os from doing their patrols on that property ("No, I won't move the cruiser so you can get through to patrol the area behind this building, get out of here".) and not only refuses to acknowledge the area as "patrolled by PD", but demands all kinds of info. (about employees, about the kind of foot and vehicle traffic etc etc) and refuses to give any himself...that gets irritating and leads one to include in some message board posts, comments about police demanding info and giving none. This kind of thing, I (S/O supervisor), talk to the sargent (P/O supervisor) and the issue is usually resolved (the issue of blocking our S/O from a patrol area). If not, our captain will talk to their chief and then it is resolved. It is more nuanced than just "Give any police officer anything he wants or asks for at any time no matter what, because he is a police officer, and never ask anything in return".

    Leave a comment:


  • NRM_Oz
    replied
    I was always lead to believe that the more you assist the police, the better a situation becomes. I have had complex investigations where I thought I had covered every possible scenario only for the police to say - finger prints, we need something with the respondents fingerprints on it ........... OOPS I overlooked that one as a source or control document.

    A completed report can only cover before / during / after with any supplimentary documents attached for completion of the report. No police department is going to give you information or documents in relation to a current case but MAY advise you of the progress of the matter for you to relate to your client / boss. I always say - here is the phone - if you don't believe me ring the Case Officer, Detective ________, they soon shut up.

    BDPBlue - that is a sad story and I am sure is more common that what we would be lead to believe as well. I once threatened to arrest a facilities manager for the contamination and trespass of a crime scene before the CSO's (like CSI) had arrived because "he wanted to have a look" - he soon back away quietly from the door way.

    Leave a comment:


  • junkyarddog
    replied
    Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post
    First, I think the "interests" that you describe are for your client's corporate counsel to protect, not a security vendor.

    Second, I don't believe that a security officer's filing of a preliminary "incomplete" report, so long as it contains the information available to the officer at the time, would in any way jeopardize those interests.
    Who but the corporate counsel determines what interests a security vendor is to protect?

    It all depends on what the client wants. I think that is what is key to this conversation. Most clients probably want exactly what you and others have been saying. Some do not want that. The exception is always what is interesting to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • bpdblue
    replied
    You better be careful how you deal with the police

    Ok, I'm going to give you this from the police perspective, although much of the info has already been posted here.

    First, read SecTrainer's posts on this thread. Put simply, they were written informationally correct, and written in easy to to understand language.

    Secondly, the guard was the reporter for his company by gathering what information he could about the incident. The report was well done for the info he had. Only a few things missing, like the last time a check of that area was made prior to learning of incident, was anything out of the ordinary for the area, ect, were left out. Incidently, you might have added things to the report that could have been inaccurate, such as are you sure there were no witnesses, are you sure the victim was hispanic, ect. If you are not positive, you should word items like that with a phrase like "to my knowledge."

    But again, for what you had, your report was GOOD.

    Now, to the complaints about police cooperation in cases like this by some posters. It is the responsibility of the POLICE to put the case together, and if possible, present it to the district attorney's office for the purpose of prosecuting suspect(s). As has been already written about, they can't release info on most things during an investigation, and sometimes even after it's over. (Like a juveniles name, sexual assault victims info, ect.) It is your duty as a guard to provide all general info you have about the incident to the police.

    Now if your saying that there is info you cannot provide to the police, they can obtain a search warrant and get it. Then if you have it and don't provide it, the business is shut down and a slow methodical search is done by the police to get the info. You of course will have been fired by then, and someone from management from your company will be doing EVERYTHING the police want to try to minimize the damage to your company' reputation.

    Can you tell that attitudes like some (one) of those in this thread have upset me a bit. It is because I have had to deal with people who thought they were running the show when the police were involved, and no matter how many times you told them they were NOT running the show, they disagreed. That is until they were told to comply or get out of the way or they would be arrested. Guess what, some IDIOTS did have to get arrested for obstructing, and delaying a police officer conducting the investigation.

    A perfect example, a head administrator at a hospital in town called to report that a female patient in their mental ward had been sexually assaulted by another female patient on the ward. When I got there the administrator told me the assault happened approx six hours before the call to the police was made. I was also told that I was not going to be able to see the victim until the hospital staff got permission from the victim's doctor because that was the hospital's policy.

    I told the administrator that hospital policy had no bearing on the police. The administrator refused to let me see the victim. I gave the adminitrator five minutes to bring the victim to me, or she ( the administrator) was to be arrested. In just under five minutes a hospital guard produced the victim. The hospital administrator had disappeared.

    The victim was extremely upset, but not with me. She was so very happy to see me since the hospital had done NOTHING for her since she reported the incident immediatly after it happened. Over the next six hours (after the incident occurred) the victim asked the hospital staff what was going on in regard to her, and where were the police. On one of the occasions, a nurse responded something similar to "don't you have therapy or something to go to." I told the victim the police were not notified until just before I arrived.

    I took her out of the hospital, to our county hospital, for a sexual assault exam, where, as the victim reported to me, her vagina had been injured by the suspect in a way and manner consistent with the way the victim described that the incident occurred.

    I bring up all this because do you think I could have / would have arrested the head administrator if the victim would not have been brought to me. ABSOLUTELY.

    I also told the victim that she needs to sue the hospital, and administrator, for their absolutely outrageous actions towards her, and their delaying me in the performance of my duties. The victim obtained the lawyer and is suing.

    As a side note, the suspect in the case was convicted of a felony, but is not getting any prison or jail time, but was sentenced to more mental health hold time. (I thought they would find her guilty by way of insanity, but nope, it was guilty.) The actual big news was the lawsuit moving forward. The last I was involved was at at a hearing where I was the star guest. Well, I gave a stellar discussion on what occurred, to the point of having the hospital's lawyer dumbfounded by the hospital staffs actions, and that I said I could not wait until this got to open court so all the world will know.

    Do you think they will settle out of court? We will see.

    So, before you start saying you will not assist the police with what they need, you better be real sure your on solid ground, or you might be needing a lawyer real soon.

    Leave a comment:


  • ozsecuritychic
    replied
    Originally posted by cocknaces View Post
    Thanks. . No one will want to share information with you, but "security" in general being primarily an information-gathering
    This is what I hate about people at all comparing security officers and law enforcement officers. and documenting service, the customer may very well want thorough reports on anything that could lead to a criminal complaint or civil law suit against them.

    The one thing I disagree with LE about is how tight they are with information. They want it but do not want to share it. But that is a two way street. The bad part is that law enforcement is NOT liable for the protection of anyone, security (depending on the contract) IS. Maybe law enforcement has an interest in hording information and not sharing it, but the customer certainly does not and neither does the security officer as an agent of the customer.
    In fact, the attitude that the police should horde information and demand it from the private citizen or entity while also refusing to share information with the private citizen or entity is, to me, pretty disturbing and is absolutely opposite the very spirit of the free society that law enforcement is sworn to protect.
    Do you seriously think the cops are going to give someone that is possibly a suspect (from being there) info ???if they start giving out info about crime scenes and then catch up with someone who knows too much, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.




    .

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by cocknaces View Post
    Everyone has their priorities, their job to do.



    I agree, you don't get up in the face of the police with questions. Crime scene or not. But -imo- my immediate priority is the best interests of the customer and no one else.



    Like I said, everyone has to do their job. I also think people should remember who they work for.



    Well, we aren't a news agency either and don't have to give anything up at all - including camera footage etc- like I said, it is a two way street.



    After the dust settles and the wrong person has filed criminal or civil charges against your customer because they were able to get their hands on information that you were not because your S/Os were too busy controlling traffic or getting coffee.

    I do agree with what your saying in 99% of all situations, but there are exceptions. If we can get an edge for that customer we should do it. That doesn't mean interfering with an investigation or being rude or being anything but cooperative. The last time anyone was killed on one of our posts it was the police that did the killing and that place was locked down tighter than you could imagine. They were very very aggressive about keeping us away from the scene. And we were more than happy to stay away. The really weird thing is they never asked for the cctv dvr video of the incident. You'd think that would be the first thing they would want to secure. There we were watching it, and could have burned as many copies as we wanted, sent them to god knows who. But of course we closely guarded the dvr and the customer took the entire hard disk the next morning.
    First, I think the "interests" that you describe are for your client's corporate counsel to protect, not a security vendor.

    Second, I don't believe that a security officer's filing of a preliminary "incomplete" report, so long as it contains the information available to the officer at the time, would in any way jeopardize those interests.

    Leave a comment:


  • junkyarddog
    replied
    Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post
    The typical involvement of the SO in a major crime situation typically is limited to the following:

    1. Alerting authorities and EMS.
    2. Rendering immediate aid to the victim if possible
    3. Crime scene protection until relieved by the police.
    4. Alerting your superiors, client, etc., as required by post orders
    5. Documenting how and when you were alerted to the situation, what you did in response, what you saw, arrival of authorities, and anything else that you might personally know about the incident. Documentation typically also includes the identification of the chief investigator and the PD case number.
    6. Providing additional assistance as requested by the authorities in their investigation. This might involve traffic control, scene protection, unlocking facilities, etc. It might also involve "Please remove yourself from the crime scene".


    This situation is now in the hands of the police, and they have very little time to get after the suspect. Security documentation, in the sense of providing you with information other than as noted above, comes very far down on their immediate list of priorities!
    Everyone has their priorities, their job to do.

    You can write up a preliminary report covering the items noted above for the time being, and any additional information can be added to this by way of a supplemental report well after the initial urgency of the police investigation has passed. There is very rarely any urgent need for security to have this information immediately, including the identity of the victim.

    Mention was made above of insurance investigations. Well, yes, but the insurance investigator isn't typically up in the face of the police while they're still trying to sort out what happened. He usually comes in well after the first urgent phases of the police investigation are finished.
    I agree, you don't get up in the face of the police with questions. Crime scene or not. But -imo- my immediate priority is the best interests of the customer and no one else.

    There is absolutely no need for us to be butting heads with the police on this kind of thing. And remember, the government (meaning the police) DOES have very tight privacy strictures regarding what information it can give out, and to whom, and under what circumstances. There have been far too many cases of inappropriate or inaccurate information being given out, and the police these days simply aren't going to risk that. They have very detailed policies regarding the release of information and they won't violate them. If you were in their position, you'd do exactly the same thing, so get over it. It has nothing to do with "bad security-police relationships".
    Like I said, everyone has to do their job. I also think people should remember who they work for.

    ALMOST ALL INFORMATION EXCHANGE IN THE IMMEDIATE INITIAL PHASES OF A POLICE INVESTIGATION WILL BE ONE-WAY...YOU (AND OTHER WITNESSES, ETC.) TELLING THE POLICE WHAT YOU KNOW so they can launch their investigation. This is EXACTLY how it should be, and this is EXACTLY how we cooperate with the police...not by whining that they're not spilling their guts to US. The police aren't a news agency. Dig it and get hip, cats.
    Well, we aren't a news agency either and don't have to give anything up at all - including camera footage etc- like I said, it is a two way street.

    After the dust settles, there is plenty of time for you or your superior to go to the police department, contact the investigative bureau, establish a proper "need to know" and get all the information that is relevant for your needs, and that can be released. File this in a supplemental report to your initial report, and you're good to go. Even if you think there might be something you wish they'd release and won't, you've done what you can do, and that's the end of it.
    After the dust settles and the wrong person has filed criminal or civil charges against your customer because they were able to get their hands on information that you were not because your S/Os were too busy controlling traffic or getting coffee.

    I do agree with what your saying in 99% of all situations, but there are exceptions. If we can get an edge for that customer we should do it. That doesn't mean interfering with an investigation or being rude or being anything but cooperative. The last time anyone was killed on one of our posts it was the police that did the killing and that place was locked down tighter than you could imagine. They were very very aggressive about keeping us away from the scene. And we were more than happy to stay away. The really weird thing is they never asked for the cctv dvr video of the incident. You'd think that would be the first thing they would want to secure. There we were watching it, and could have burned as many copies as we wanted, sent them to god knows who. But of course we closely guarded the dvr and the customer took the entire hard disk the next morning.
    Last edited by junkyarddog; 11-16-2007, 05:39 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • junkyarddog
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier View Post
    cocknaces wins, and this is why the police won't share information with security. Individual officers might, but quite frankly, there are times that the information security gets from individual officers would land the PO in hot water.

    I have been given active case information before. I have actually seen first hand what happened to a Deputy Sheriff who gave me information by his Sergeant, past the report number.

    The Sergeant reminded the deputy that its illegal to give out active case information to a third party. And since I wasn't the victim, a police officer, or a State's Attorney, I was the third party.

    Many times, when you go to look up a case after getting the case number, you're told "Case is active, I can't give you any info from it."

    This was even more fun when I was subpoenaed by the SAO for a case I'd never heard of before. I had to speak to a police records supervisor, show him the subpoena in my hand, then he had to call the SAO to verify that I was on the "right side." Only then could he tell me the address of the call simply so I could run a check through my report database and find out wtf it was all about.
    Excellent reply. Thank you.

    Security and Police 90% play complimentary roles, but there are times when they play competitive roles. Examples-

    In the case of a murder or major felony committed on their property, your customer might forbid the unsealing of any information to ANYONE other themselves. That means CCTV footage, any PIR or microwave alarm info. first hand accounts by S/Os on duty at the time etc.

    Some customers want security to detain individuals when they are caught committing a crime on the customers property. Then call the police. In high crime areas, the police might just be laying in wait anyways because they know they can bump up their arrests by doing so. So the police get the actor and not security and the customer complains that security is not doing its job because the police made the arrest first.

    Some places the police simply are not allowed to go but they go anyways. Your customers property without a warrant is one place. Especially when that property is packed full of technology that can kill anyone who is not trained to be around it, and the same lack of training likewise potentially resulting in further loss of life and major property damage. Have fun stopping them from going in. Its not like you can call the police on the police.

    Leave a comment:


  • NRM_Oz
    replied
    Trust me I have been given more info than I should have by police because I just blend in with the crowd. I go into the station with my files prepared correctly and assist where possible as the AGENT or LIAISON. A few times I found out about employees who had criminal records which I could not divulge or have them fired because of our strict privacy laws and could not have someone fired based on WHERE I obtained the information (cops just blabbed too much information forgetting whom I was).

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X