Handling Drunks

[N. A. Corbier]

That depends on if Colorado's private arrest statute and case law allow for private transport. They're already committing a misdemeanor criminal offense (trespassing,) which is arrestable by any person in the state.

If the drunk agrees to get into the vehicle, then its not kidnapping. If they refuse, and they are then arrested and transported, then its a lawful private arrest and not kidnapping.

Again, it depends on the state, the statutory law, and the case law.

A good example is that in Tennesee, a private person when arresting someone must present them before the magistrate, or a law enforcement officer. Yep, you read right, they have the option of transporting to the booking magistrate themselves without police intervention. Private persons may book into county jails. They also have full arrest powers from that statute.

[HotelSecurity]

Just a question. Does your insurance company know you transport people in your vehicle?

[Mall Director]

The law, the safety, the right thing to do!

As well pointed out by N.A., It is not kidnapping. In colorado, under arrest laws, even by private citizen, the transporting of any arrested subject for the safety of the common wealth, subject and arresting party is permitted.

As for the insurance carrier, yes, we are insured to transport subjects, medical or arrest.

And for the last note on liability, we have transport documents that are filed each time we conduct a transport. We have specified forms, either arrest, assist, or medical. With the exception of arrest, all others (unless medical can not, due to physical conditions) have signature blocks in which the subjet signs prior to transport, and again at the end of trsnsport for release of liability towards us and our carrier. It was a document recently (last year) we developed, not because of any past issues, but to prevent any future issues...

As for the situations I described earlier, it is the subjects request to be transported. So, again, no kidnapping, just delayed realization when the subject understands after going inside, that this may not have been what he expected.

We developed these transport forms, as we get alot of individuals, particularly female juvenile subjects, who may not have violated any regulations or laws, but are at our mall, well late into the night. Sadly, some are not dressed appropriately, and to imagine what would happen to them if they walked off our property and down the street, well, I am sure you have an imagination. Today, too many parents do not care about their children. They let them go where ever, when ever, and how ever the child desires. Alot of parents.. Hmm mmm, will drop their children off at a mall, as it has built in baby sitters, and leave them there until they are done partying or playing. The minor is left unattended, and with no means to get a hold of a parent who is not home. We, as Mall Security, instead of allowing some 15 year old girl, in a tube top and mini skirt, go off and walk home, where the chance something may happen to her, leaves us legaly responsible, especially if any of my staff ever comes in contact with the minor, before she/he goes off property.

Now this goes for any minor child. In most states I have operated in.. If you come in contact with a minor, you are the In loco's parentis custodian. So, let the child go off, and if something happens to that child.. guess who's responsible.

How many times do we read about law suits, where the company, store, or property owner, is held responsible, or even charged, because they allowed an individual (intoxicated or minor child) to leave their property, not in proper condition, and allowing them to walk out and get hurt. This day and age, a burglar can sue you if he trips on your rug in the middle of the night and hurts himself.

I think we will keep the celebration days going.. Its alot safer, and we dont get sued for "escorting them off property" where they end up getting hurt.

[Lawson]

It sounds like you have a pretty good system going there. I wish more businesses and security organizations would be able to set up ideas such as that.

[Mall Director]

Thank you!!

I sometimes wonder if I am more of the "non-coporate" person, than a corporate person.. Corporates, as well as others have a tendancy to let things happen first, then make plans to prevent it from happening again. I like to "nip-it-in-the-bud" before it happens. As we all know, you can do a ton of great things in this industry, and rarely will it get recognized.. But do one thing wrong, or let something wrong happen.. who do they go to blame? And how long does it take to forget or forgive?

I can just see our paper having a hay day at my expense. Not to mention, Proactive is something I am more directed at, then reactive.

[Guest]

In your post you did not say you had arrested them for drunk in public, trespassing, or anything else. You said you offered them a ride, and that the drunk consensually went along with you.

Not sure about Colorado, but I will find out, since one of our Sergeants was a cop in Colorado Springs for many years before coming out here, but in many states if a person is intoxicated to the point of having impaired judgment that person is legally incapable of giving knowing, voluntary, consent. So if you take someone from point A to point B without having lawfully arrested him or her and without his or her consent (remember, impaired people are incapable of giving consent) you have committed the crime of kidnapping.

As far as minors go, I have never heard of mall security transporting minors home. They take the minor to the security office and call their parents or other responsible adult to come and pick junior up. If they cannot reach parents or responsible adult, the minor is turned over to the police. What would you do if you took the minor to their house and no one was home? What if the minor then complains that the guard who drove them home tried to rape her?

[Lawson]

...in many states if a person is intoxicated to the point of having impaired judgment that person is legally incapable of giving knowing, voluntary, consent. So if you take someone from point A to point B without having lawfully arrested him or her and without his or her consent (remember, impaired people are incapable of giving consent) you have committed the crime of kidnapping.

I think that only applies to certain situations. If a drunk cant give consent because of impared judgement, that means they wouldnt be able to do a lot of things. I think back on all the papers I have seen people arrested for DUI sign, are all of those void cause they were drunk?

How about when they consent to a search of themselves, their abode, or a vehicle? Is that void?

Is their judgement too far off for them to not get into a courtesy taxi? Because it sounds like that is all M.D.'s security team is doing.

Actually, as I think about it... most cases and instances with the exception of some legally binding documents (that typically have "being of sound mind" written somewhere into them.) I have run into, it has been found that being drunk is no excuse for your actions or decisions as you were of sound mind to become drunk in the first place.

I think if someone is drunk to a point where they cant make any form of sound judgement what-so-ever, they have become a threat to themselves and everyone around them and they should be detained by law enforcement or medical staff.

[Mall Director]

Ahhh.. This is where my years of experience have provided me an excellent ground of knowledge.

1) Good samaritan laws cover these issues, and have in the past.
2) But lets say, just for advocates sake, take away the good samaritan law.. Then what???? Well, for one, set up procedures. Everything you do when you take on a new situation, you set up procedures from approved methods used elsewhere. Single officer transport is a no-no. Always have a second officer during a transport. Then it is two words against one. Now, lets take away this procedure.. Then what???
3) Sometimes the Officers word isnt enough. So, as posted here by so many in a past topic, use audio or video. All my officers, for example, run audio on each of them, all during duty. Next, a "Sony Handycam" from a pawn shop wont run you more than $100. Run the video in your patrol unit. Even if it isnt caught on tape (the subject transported) it will catch audio, as well as driving video.
4) Covenant not to Sue.. This is a common document. Even a minor can sign it legally, just as a trespass warning order.. And guess what.. Parents do not have to be present, nor sign for it to be valid!

Cover your 6! Dont rely on just one form or procedure to cover you.. paperwork it to death. Is it a PIA? Possibly, but its worth it.

As for the kidnapping issue, laws define this action as "against their will", same as false imprisonment. If an intoxicated subject says yes to a ride, then even though their mental ability is deminished, the point of concern comes from the intent. You would have to prove that the intent was to kidnap a subject, for reasons of an inmoral act. To take anyone, and release them at a police station would counter any means for kidnapping.

It would be the day that anyone is ever kidnapped and to be taken to the proper authorities. The intent behind this one would make a very entertaining court case.

I on the other hand, if it were ever to be an issue, would continue to do the same.. I would rather take my chances with "kidnapping" than to be negligent. We have a responsibility towards others, especially in our field, to be held accountable. If you ever have a chance to work in the security field, you will more often than not hear "If an incident happens, and the officer is not in the area, does this make him accountable?", the answer will always be yes. How many times does something happen somewhere else on our property, and who is held accountable.. "Security". Its the nature of the beast. I have been around more negligent cases, than ficticous charges of kidnapping. I rather avoid the concern of being held accountable for being proactive then reactive. Just cover your basis, and you are gold!

[Mall Director]

I think that only applies to certain situations. If a drunk cant give consent because of impared judgement, that means they wouldnt be able to do a lot of things. I think back on all the papers I have seen people arrested for DUI sign, are all of those void cause they were drunk?

How about when they consent to a search of themselves, their abode, or a vehicle? Is that void?

Is their judgement too far off for them to not get into a courtesy taxi? Because it sounds like that is all M.D.'s security team is doing.

Actually, as I think about it... most cases and instances with the exception of some legally binding documents (that typically have "being of sound mind" written somewhere into them.) I have run into, it has been found that being drunk is no excuse for your actions or decisions as you were of sound mind to become drunk in the first place.

I think if someone is drunk to a point where they cant make any form of sound judgement what-so-ever, they have become a threat to themselves and everyone around them and they should be detained by law enforcement or medical staff.

I agree so much. Sadly, luxury may not always permit the best of situations. As for the laws, you are also correct in the way people may go about avoiding responsibility for their actions. People even then find some strange law somewhere, that counters a well known law, and use or it misuse it to their benefit. All we can do is cover ourselves.

This does remind me of another issue, which I appologize for going a little off topic, but I find can be applied here as well.. Check this out:

In Colorado, and four other states, a private person may enter onto private or public property, and remain on anothers property, without removal in any case, if the person is envoking their constitutional right to petition. The pirvate person may also demonstrate, in a peaceful manner, and may use evidence to populate his/her petitioning needs.

I found this out danged near the hard way. Example: (Mr. Paul Tiger/ Colorado Libratarian Party VS. Boulder County/ Boulder City/ Colorado State University) Mr Tiger deemd it necessary to petition on private property, as well as public property, the legalization of marijuana. Mr. tiger also used "demonstrative material" (which in all other cases is viewed as illegal) to promote his cause for his petition. Needless to say, when authorities attempted to remove Mr. Tiger from said private property, the agency was in violation of Mr. Tigers constitutional rights. The outcome was a suit won on Mr. Tigers part.

Personally, I ran into this fellow once, as he was on my mall property. After researching "before acting" and confirming with local authorities, I could not have him removed, as he was within his legal right to remain and conduct his petitioning. I was not to approach him within 5 feet, nor was the local police. This was our private property he was doing as such. Anywhere else in this state, and other states, carrying such items are illegal, but used in petitioning, he was covered.

Laws dont always coincide with eachother, and people will try anything to get out of responsibility. Which is why I dont need a drunk getting hit by a car later on that night, then nailing me for "letting him leave in such a condition". Its an excuse, but it works!

[Guest]

I think that only applies to certain situations. If a drunk cant give consent because of impaired judgment, that means they wouldn’t be able to do a lot of things. I think back on all the papers I have seen people arrested for DUI sign, are all of those void cause they were drunk?

Depending on what the drunk is signing, DUI laws are a different animal, since there are many exceptions to probable cause and reasonable suspicion requirements in DUI cases. Voluntary intoxication is not a valid defense to criminal charges. For example, if a drunk wanders onto your property and you arrest him for trespassing, the drunk cannot use the fact that he was voluntarily intoxicated and due to his intoxication he did not realize that he wandered onto private property as a defense in court.

How about when they consent to a search of themselves, their abode, or a vehicle? Is that void?

Yes, voluntary intoxication is a defense to consent. There have been plenty of cases, in California anyway, where a defendant was drunk and signed a Consent to Search Form. The courts have later held the drunk's consent to be invalid; therefore any evidence found in the search was suppressed.

I think if someone is drunk to a point where they cant make any form of sound judgement what-so-ever, they have become a threat to themselves and everyone around them and they should be detained by law enforcement or medical staff.

Yes they do, and the police (who are trained to handle these situations) should be called. Mall security guards should not be handling drunks, much less giving them rides to the police station.

[HotelSecurity]

In Montreal it is illegal to transport an injured person to hospital. You have to call an ambulance.

[HotelSecurity]

Yes they do, and the police (who are trained to handle these situations) should be called. Mall security guards should not be handling drunks, much less giving them rides to the police station.

Here we go again. Cops are Gods

On the other hand I in my personal opinion think that MallSecurity's type of security goes too far. I strongly believe that we should be FIRST RESPONDERS for the police, fire & ambulanace, controlling the situation until they arrive, not replacing them.

Histfan71 Your attitute reminds me what we have had to fight with the Doctors when it comes to Paramedics. Many had the Doctors are Gods complexe, they would not accept that others could preform some medical acts. For the most part this has changed. Maybe there is hope with you

[K-9 Aussie]

Yes they do, and the police (who are trained to handle these situations) should be called. Mall security guards should not be handling drunks, much less giving them rides to the police station.

Correct me if I am wrong, but would it not be against the law in the U.S. for a security officer to walk away and leave a drunk person in a shopping center knowing full well the threat that person has the potential to be to other members of the public and themselves? Not to mention the civil implications on the shopping center and the security company if the intoxicated person injured themselves or someone else?

We have a "duty of care" over here where we must be seen to extend this to both the public and offender. If we know someone is drunk, and do not use a "resonable response" to maintain the safety to the public and the offender we face possible criminal and civil charges.

I'm a bit lost when you've made the comment of "the police (who are trained to handle these situations) should be called. Mall security guards should not be handling drunks" tho. I've only ever found 3 types of drunks, those being:-

1.) Happy drunks:- These just want to be your best friend
2.) Sleepy drunks:- All they do is fall asleep
3.) Aggressive drunks:- These types simply want to fight.

I can't honestly see how the training of a Police Officer to a Security Officer can be any different when handling intoxicated people. I've yet to see any magical Police method over security methods that's for sure. Quite often I've found over the years, if you work in the area you live in and locals know you, the intoxicated person will responde better to security than the Police Officer they don't know.

How often do security officers these days find themselves doing the hard work, only then handing the offender over to the Police to be what we call here "bagged and tagged"? Most of the times it's the security that is the front line and deals with the immediate situation and the Police simply process them.

I think we can all agree on one thing tho, that being dealing with intoxicated persons is a real pain in the...... well you know where

[HotelSecurity]

Read the posts by Histfan71 & you'll see where he is coming from.

[K-9 Aussie]

Read the posts by Histfan71 & you'll see where he is coming from.

I've gone over all his comments in here especially in regards to offender transport, before I made mine.

I must admit he has a point when it comes to transporting offenders. We've discussed this at length over here many times.

Our insurances including public liability does not cover us for transporting offenders.

Plus over here when we arrest someone we are not simply allowed to place them in handcuffs straight away. They must have commited a serious offence and it therefore necessary to detain them for Police. We don't have the highly set up vehicles you guys do either. Hell we aren't even allowed to speed to duress alarms or use flashing lights or sirens.

Personally I wouldn't want an offender in my vehicle anyway. The risk of assault is to great, as to allergations that an be made by the offender. Not to mention if a drunk threw up in my vehicle I'd be charged with assault due to me rubbing their nose in it.

But at the end of the day, if the law allows you to do it, you have the proper equipment and training to do it and follow the law then there isn't any reason why not.

If we only had some decent laws over here................