Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Handling Drunks

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

  • Mall Director
    replied
    Impressive source!

    Well N.A., very impressive outsourcing for information! Not only am i impressed, but pleased to see some one other than me has taken enough interest to gather information.

    For a personal note on myself, and my department, I value what your PD Officer had to say. I am glad to see that this may be put to rest. I will admit, Colorado is a different colored bird to say the least. The laws are very pro security in this state.. similiar to California. I, just in case ever questioned, hold no interest in persuing LE type actions, persay, in my area of operation. My biggest concern is only within my property lines. As I have been charged with the duty and responsibility of a large shopping center, I am to do the best I can, in providing the safest atmosphere and security above common standards. Some o fthe skills we exercise, have been provided by LE in my area, and are greatly appreciated. I am no fool, and understand the governmental situation of staffing and resources. I feel for our LE partners here, as they are overtasked like mad with the crime in our community. If I could make some vote possible or even pay into a fund to help our LE get more of what they need to handle these issues, I certainly would. Many times I sit back and just wish there was more I could do in our community. So, as we are permitted to, I exercise every right we are given, and safely (cant forget that), and do what we can. As Mr. Aussie put it, "bagging and tagging", helps as we dont squander our greatest resource (LE) by tying them up for hours on end with issues, when so many others do.

    We do have our own substation in our mall, and I am assigned one PD officer, who is so overtasked, the guy is gonna have a stroke if he doesnt slow down. He is one of my best assets, as he partnerships with my department, and helps me ensure we dont go out of bounds, legally. Drunks and Vagrants, two lovely charactors we and PD see on a consistant level, as well as the gangs, that never go away. Strangely, they are attracted to a mall.. Go figure! I did want to add, I encourage as many as possible to work hand in hand with our locals, and sometimes we hold alot of great intellegence gathered from our operations that LE gains from.

    Now, its onto replacing the rear seat cusion in the car.. Eww!

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    From a Colorado Springs Sworn LEO (Verified)

    In as far as I can tell no colorado statutes have been violated. Private security has a lot of the powers police have. Could they get hemmed up by their company if they get involved in a traffic accident en route to their destination....definetly.
    Kidnapping is-- by force or threat of force moving a person against their will from one point to another(significant distance is required) Moving an intoxicated person from one point to another with consent even in a diminished capacity is not kidnapping. You would also want to put color of authority into consideration of if a crime was committed. A security officer who is POST certified has the judgement to carry out his/her duty. If a drunk on the property has shown the propensity/inclination to commit a crime to the property they are assigned to protect, i see no problem with them offering a ride elsewhere matter of fact they are proactively doing thier job.
    I would have to go back to the DUI example. In Colorado we have expressed consent stating that as a driver on our roads you have already consented to a chemical test of your blood or breath. A refusal to submit to either will result in the loss of license for 1 year. submitting on your first DUI you lose you license for 3 months. I explain this to intoxicated persons all the time. By arresting them for DUI I have already determined they are legally intoxicated. I then ask them to consent to a chemical test. They usually submit to one or the other. Their consent in never in question. Now would a drunk be allowed to testify in a criminal trial no, would their signature on a contract be honored maybe. it all depends on the depth of the legal consquenses, if they do something while intoxicated. accepting a ride is no big deal.
    The above poster has been verified as a sworn officer of the Colorado Springs Police Department by SPEForums.com.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mall Director
    replied
    Originally posted by K-9 Aussie
    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
    I am pretty sure this has been beaten to death, but wanted to reply to your response.. You are correct! You are correct on many levels. Security are the front lines, as we operate in a much smaller area, and know the layouts and routes better than anyone else, so we all end up with it in our hands first.

    For safety, you are correct with US law. Allowing a dangerous occurance to go without attempting to maintain safety of self, subject and others, holds security liable. Its been proven by so many court cases where somebody just stands by and watches it happen.

    PS: Dont forget about the drunks that we cant understand at all! LOL!

    And lastly, the training.. You are correct again. PPCT, OC, Firearms, Tazer, and other trade qualities of Police are shared with Security, by the very same training procedures. ArmorHolding Training Academy train Police, Sheriff's, State Troopers, Security, and other agencies in the same exact class room. When I recieved my instructor certifiation, I was in a class full of PD, and other LE's. I was shot in the face with the same OC that the PD officer next to me was shot with. I was expected to do the same exact thing and pass with the same passing scores as the PD officer in front and behind me. Same goes for PPCT. Trained by a national company, given to all and expected to pass with same results and standards. So, we all recieve the same training. Its law and department policy that control who does what and how. So, lets continue to share and learn!

    And it is a PIA to deal with them. Incooperative, smelly, funny acting individuals, who like to saturate your office chairs and vehicle back seats with urine. Ohh joy!

    Leave a comment:


  • sgtnewby
    replied
    stinky.....

    We will first try to "eject" drunk/DK/ETOH persons if they are not asking to see a doctor. If they are not here to see a doctor, we eject them if they're able to walk. Otherwise, when they see a doctor, they will usually be placed on a "transportation hold." Once on a hold, if they become uncooperative or disruptive we will get called to restrain them to their bed. We do not need to stay with them while they are in restraints. If staff need the restraints removed or adjusted, they just call us. Luckilly, we have the benefit of being "in house" county security, so we can go hands on for any legitimate purpose.

    Leave a comment:


  • K-9 Aussie
    replied
    Originally posted by HotelSecurity
    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................

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • K-9 Aussie
    replied
    Originally posted by histfan71
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • HotelSecurity
    replied
    Originally posted by histfan71
    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
    Last edited by HotelSecurity; 10-12-2006, 01:30 PM.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by BHR Lawson
    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.

    Originally posted by BHR Lawson
    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.

    Originally posted by BHR Lawson
    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.
    Last edited by histfan71; 10-12-2006, 11:13 AM. Reason: typos

    Leave a comment:


  • Mall Director
    replied
    Originally posted by BHR Lawson
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • Mall Director
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawson
    replied
    Originally posted by histfan71
    ...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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mall Director
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X