Light colors on security vehicle?

[gcmc security part 2]

Soon in Florida security by state statute will be required and designated to use green and amber for there vehicles. so if you see green and amber it will be security. as for traffic stops etc it depends on the property and what the owner/Property manager/HOA request. IN some places i have run radar and issued citations which if not paid end in a lien against the home owners property. For cars where the home owner associated with said car is unknown due to residents allowing people in on there own/gate runners there cars get towed in some places others nothing is done. Your mileage and laws may vary.

The FL vehicle statute has already been changed to show this. Oddly enough FL 493 has not been. So technically you still can't do it. As a few of us here have called FL DOACS DOL and found out it is ok to do green/amber but is NOT required. I don't think they will make it required, I think they will keep it optional either all amber or amber/green with the no more than 50% they have now.

If they do go required amber/green, we will have to get rid of the light bars on our office vehicles. Part of our coverage area is Alabama and it won't be legal over there. So no more lights for us!

[mad_malk]

The FL vehicle statute has already been changed to show this. Oddly enough FL 493 has not been. So technically you still can't do it. As a few of us here have called FL DOACS DOL and found out it is ok to do green/amber but is NOT required. I don't think they will make it required, I think they will keep it optional either all amber or amber/green with the no more than 50% they have now.

If they do go required amber/green, we will have to get rid of the light bars on our office vehicles. Part of our coverage area is Alabama and it won't be legal over there. So no more lights for us!

I guess i should point out that it can be clear as well and yes it's 50/50 on amber/green so you can do amber/clear or green/clear or amber/clear/green.

Under the wording as i understand it you can't have 100% green or amber. but again thats why i toss that stuff to legal and let them make a decision.

[Tennsix]

This statute allows private concerns to enter into traffic enforcement agreements with the government, for the writing of "real" parking tickets.

Does your state, through specific statute or case law, prohibit a private person from stopping traffic on private property? If not, then this would kick in.



In the absence of statutory prohibition, there is implied authorization.

I.C. 35-33-1-4 outlines the conditions in which a private citizen may make an arrest. Infractions, the category most traffic violations fall in, are not enforceable by private citizens. Some traffic violations are misdemeanors but those can only be enforced (by a private citizen) if the act is a witnessed breach of peace and the arrest is necessary to stop the prolongation of the beach of peace. Some property owners arrange to have their security personnel sworn as special LEO’s thus empowering them to act as LEO’s, while on the property.

I.C. 9-19-14-5.5 restricts the use of red, white, and blue lights on private and municipal property.

I.C. 9-19-14-3 restricts the use of sirens on private and municipal property.

I.C. 9-19-14.5-1 restricts the use of green lights to privately owned vehicles operated by certified EMS personnel.

There is also a statute restricting the use of blue lights to privately owned vehicles operated by volunteer firefighters but I’m too tired to look it up. Indiana vehicular and pedestrian traffic is not required to yield to amber or any other color not listed above.

[FireEMSPolice]

the bad people on your property should fear you MORE than the police. Police leave. Security tends to remain.

I dont mean to sound like an a-hole but surely you can not be serious with this? I am not saying I would not be compliant as its the guards "house" and I need to respect the rules but I have seen Security Officers who cant be taken serious and there is no way to be afraid of them. Think about it this way. An unarmed, weaponless, untrained guard is a sitting duck whereas a trained, armed police officer is someone to take serious.

[N. A. Corbier]

I dont mean to sound like an a-hole but surely you can not be serious with this? I am not saying I would not be compliant as its the guards "house" and I need to respect the rules but I have seen Security Officers who cant be taken serious and there is no way to be afraid of them. Think about it this way. An unarmed, weaponless, untrained guard is a sitting duck whereas a trained, armed police officer is someone to take serious.

Yes, I'm very serious.

Patrol accounts, especially in residential housing, require two things:

1. The criminal element fears the mere presence of security because security consistently and negatively impacts their operations.
2. The lawful residents respect and network with the security personnel and will rely on them to protect them and the property assigned.

When I say, "We were more feared than the police," I mean it. Police can just arrest you. The security officers at the account could have you evicted and denied the ability to live in government housing for a year.

Police usually need a reason to stop you. Security needs no reason on their contracted private property. You live here? Show your ID or we throw you out on your butt. Refuse? YOu don't live here. Butt, meet concrete.

This is not the kind of thing you can do at a mall, of course. But on commercial and residential property, especially high risk property, the criminal element either laughs at or fears the security personnel.

This requires trained, motivated, and armed personnel, of course. But when the last 10 do nothing guard services have failed and you're at 28% occupancy with no re-leases, you hire one that gets results.

[EMTGuard]

That's very different than some of us who are partoling parking lots or private facilities with vehicles which may need a lightbar. We aren't feared and we certainly aren't tossing anyone out on their butts.

[BadBoynMD]

Yes, I'm very serious.

Patrol accounts, especially in residential housing, require two things:

1. The criminal element fears the mere presence of security because security consistently and negatively impacts their operations.
2. The lawful residents respect and network with the security personnel and will rely on them to protect them and the property assigned.

When I say, "We were more feared than the police," I mean it. Police can just arrest you. The security officers at the account could have you evicted and denied the ability to live in government housing for a year.

Police usually need a reason to stop you. Security needs no reason on their contracted private property. You live here? Show your ID or we throw you out on your butt. Refuse? YOu don't live here. Butt, meet concrete.

This is not the kind of thing you can do at a mall, of course. But on commercial and residential property, especially high risk property, the criminal element either laughs at or fears the security personnel.

This requires trained, motivated, and armed personnel, of course. But when the last 10 do nothing guard services have failed and you're at 28% occupancy with no re-leases, you hire one that gets results.

Very well written, 'cause that's how it is. I love when knuckleheads say "you think you're the police, you ain't XXXX". Then I have to educate them, by saying "see, the police will lock you up, but think about where will you stay when you get released, as when this report gets submitted you're GONE". The facial expression and the "come on man, you trippin', why it got to be like that?".

Police are criminal, we as security are more civil oriented. Gotta love our job.

[Lawson]

as when this report gets submitted you're GONE".

Unfortunately that isnt the way it works in most housing areas... and if you happen to work in one of those areas you're going to look like a jackass and a fool when you tell that to someone, submit your report, and the housing authority continues to allow them to live there.

[N. A. Corbier]

Unfortunately that isnt the way it works in most housing areas... and if you happen to work in one of those areas you're going to look like a jackass and a fool when you tell that to someone, submit your report, and the housing authority continues to allow them to live there.

In my experience, this is how it works with private apartment management companies who deal with Section 8 housing.

1. A lease violation is detected by the contract security company. The contract security force will make an investigation (we all know that this could be as simple as showing up and taking a report) of the violation, determining who the violator is and their relation to a resident.

2. The contract security force writes citations or otherwise documents the lease violation. If the violation is criminal in nature, as the lease documents include provisions stating that a violation of criminal law is a violation of the lease, the police attend to the scene and make their own criminal report.

3. The management, in the morning, will review the report and/or citations from the previous night. The management will then, for substantiated allegations, issue a 7 to 10 day "Notice to Cure." The Notice to Cure is a legal advisory that the tenant is in violation of the lease, and if they commit another violation of the same type in (typically one year), they will be found in breach and the lease terminated.

Some instances will result in immediate breach and eviction proceedings. Usually, these are crimes of violence against management staff (the contract security force, maintenance personnel, etc.); sale or possession of controlled substances (pursuant to HUD regulations - good bye for 1 year!); and other crimes against person.

4. The person re-commits the offense and an eviction proceeding begins against them.

For Public housing authorities, if they're not using police officers, then nobody's going to be evicted for much.

[BadBoynMD]

In my experience, this is how it works with private apartment management companies who deal with Section 8 housing.

1. A lease violation is detected by the contract security company. The contract security force will make an investigation (we all know that this could be as simple as showing up and taking a report) of the violation, determining who the violator is and their relation to a resident.

2. The contract security force writes citations or otherwise documents the lease violation. If the violation is criminal in nature, as the lease documents include provisions stating that a violation of criminal law is a violation of the lease, the police attend to the scene and make their own criminal report.

3. The management, in the morning, will review the report and/or citations from the previous night. The management will then, for substantiated allegations, issue a 7 to 10 day "Notice to Cure." The Notice to Cure is a legal advisory that the tenant is in violation of the lease, and if they commit another violation of the same type in (typically one year), they will be found in breach and the lease terminated.

Some instances will result in immediate breach and eviction proceedings. Usually, these are crimes of violence against management staff (the contract security force, maintenance personnel, etc.); sale or possession of controlled substances (pursuant to HUD regulations - good bye for 1 year!); and other crimes against person.

4. The person re-commits the offense and an eviction proceeding begins against them.

For Public housing authorities, if they're not using police officers, then nobody's going to be evicted for much.

Again, well written, Nathan. I've had the opportunity of working for a county owned section 8 housing. They hired both county police and private security to patrol the properties, and for the year that I was there, we didn't really evict many people. Which is why, I much prefer apartment properties that are privately owned, it's much easier to get rid of the knuckleheads.

[HotelSecurity]

Wouldn't work in my neck of the woods. Quebec has very strict tenants rights laws. All evictions can only be done if the landlord wins his case before the rental board. As with most tribunals they are backlogged. I had an ex-firend who lived most of the year rent-free. He would rent a place, pay 1 month's rent then stop paying. The landlord would go to the board. It would take 6 or more months to get a hearing. He would win. It would take another month for the judgement to be written up. The landlord would then have to hire a bailiff (sp?) to do the eviction. My ex-friend would simply move the night before the bailiff arrived. He would move somewhere else & do it all over again.

[Mr. Security]

Back to the Subject

A written legal opinion is in order for a case like this. Local police interpretation may be advantageous, but should not be the only consideration. The courtroom is where the legal battle will be won or lost if push comes to shove, not at the local station or DMV.

As mentioned before, don't buy until you are certain.

[FireEMSPolice]

A written legal opinion is in order for a case like this. Local police interpretation may be advantageous, but should not be the only consideration. The courtroom is where the legal battle will be won or lost if push comes to shove, not at the local station or DMV.

As mentioned before, don't buy until you are certain.

Because most lawyers will be clueless as well.

[Tennsix]

The PD’s traffic enforcement practices should conform to the court’s interpretation. That is why the PD would be a good source. In this situation, the only legal opinion that counts is the court’s. A lawyer might view the statute differently (than the court) and tender bad advice. It shouldn’t be a complicated matter. A simple yes or no would do the trick.

[Mr. Security]

Because most lawyers will be clueless as well.

The key in my post was "written opinion." That requires considerable research and puts the attorney/firm on the record regarding the matter. The consequences for misinterpreting the law are more than sufficient to ensure due diligence from any reputable attorney.