Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Limits on Transporting Cash

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

  • 1stWatch
    replied
    I don't have to transport "cash" directly on my job, but I do get to do "cash escorts". This entails driving the manager/employee with the bank back to the bank, watching them drop it in, and drive them back to the restaurant where they work. I haven't run into any problems yet, but the few things we keep in mind when doing this is to keep a direct line of travel between the doors and the car, don't roll the window down for anybody, check out anybody loitering at the bank before letting the employee out, and we only use armed officers for the money escort.

    Leave a comment:


  • crankloud
    replied
    Cash escorts

    I get paid a cash handling allowance by my employer regardless of the amount. Honestly i don't want too know how much is in there. I have a name for the person carrying the money "target".

    Leave a comment:


  • ACP01
    replied
    In my opinion if you as a SO are assigned to carry ANY amount of cash or anything else of value you MUST be armed or why else have Security carry it.

    If they want unarmed carry let them carry it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by Tennsix
    When it comes right down to it, the role of a protection dog is to die in place of a human officer. The reason for having a dog in such a role is to attack the suspect thus making the situation safer for officers.

    Dog handlers and animal rights activists would disagree (for different reasons) but that is why the dog is there.
    Some dogs are equipped w/vests to give them a fighting chance. If I had to choose between a dog and some other weapon, I'd take the dog in a heartbeat. Also, their senses are far keener than humans. The dog will sense the bad guy long before you can.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tennsix
    replied
    Originally posted by HotelSecurity
    But using them to do this type of security doesn't make sense ESPECIALLY if the Security Guard has no weapon except the dog.
    Aside from the obvious role, a dog can be an influential psychological weapon. Most people are more intimidated by one dog than they are three officers. All kinds of thoughts come to mind when contemplating the consequences of a dog attack.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    After thinking a moment, I don't think the insurance carrier actually cares, since your in-house. It covers "employees" transporting cash. Your an "employee."

    Leave a comment:


  • museum security
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    This is an internal policy decision, and there are no laws governing transport of cash or securities, except when the cash or securities are under the protection of FDIC or federal banks.

    Basically, its whatever your insurance carrier is comfortable with (20 bucks says that the museum insurance carrier has no idea that security is transporting cash) and whatever your internal policies allow.

    In other news, having a uniform transport cash draws attention to the cash. Usually, the guns the uniforms carry have a deterrance factor. So do the radios, if so equipped.

    Saw another armored courrier a few days ago. Radio, 9mm, Stinger. No other equipment, no extra mags.
    I am sure that you are right and the insurance carrier has no idea what we are doing! Thanks again for sharing your ideas and expertise!

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by HotelSecurity
    But using them to do this type of security doesn't make sense ESPECIALLY if the Security Guard has no weapon except the dog.
    Human handlers need to be armed. The dog in itself is a potentially lethal weapon. That's one weapon already present. If the dog is trained in anything than SAR, the dog is an engagement tool.

    If your dog is a narcotics detection dog running detection on private property, you are going up against people who may kill to secure their drugs. Both you and the dog. If you have a protection dog, then your already armed with a lethal weapon, why carry only one that is contact? Carry a ranged weapon to defend yourself (and the dog).

    Once, a long time ago, a man said he'd sic his dog on me (a large german shepard) if I didn't get out of his way. He was entering the property at 3 AM on a deserted path. (the same path I used as a teen, I know where it goes and who uses it...)

    The man was subsequently arrested for aggravated assault, because I had a voice recorder set to VOX which got the whole exchange. I was lucky, because the dog was compliant and friendly. The man was an idiot. I don't know what happened to the dog, it was taken to Pinellas Humane Society. An idiot like that doesn't need to be trying to get his animal killed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Echos13
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • HotelSecurity
    replied
    Originally posted by Tennsix
    When it comes right down to it, the role of a protection dog is to die in place of a human officer. The reason for having a dog in such a role is to attack the suspect thus making the situation safer for officers.

    Dog handlers and animal rights activists would disagree (for different reasons) but that is why the dog is there.
    But using them to do this type of security doesn't make sense ESPECIALLY if the Security Guard has no weapon except the dog.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tennsix
    replied
    When it comes right down to it, the role of a protection dog is to die in place of a human officer. The reason for having a dog in such a role is to attack the suspect thus making the situation safer for officers.

    Dog handlers and animal rights activists would disagree (for different reasons) but that is why the dog is there.

    Leave a comment:


  • HotelSecurity
    replied
    The big thing about 10 years ago in Montreal was to do it with guard dogs. It didn't last when there was a hold-up & the bad guy told the security that he'd shoot the dog first then the guard, if he let it attack him.

    Now in Montreal Armoured Car Security is just about the only type that is armed. (Also the Technicians that fill & repair the ATMs).

    Sometimes no gun is strong enough. I remember when I was in Police Tech. taking a course from the guy in charge of the Technical Squad. (SWAT). He was waiting like a little kid to see a gun that had just been used to hold-up a Brinks truck. They had taken an anti-aircraft gun & used chains to bolt it to the floor of a panel truck. They backed up to the Brink's truck in a narrow alley & opened the back doors of the panel truck. The money was easily obtained from the Brink's guys. I'm told a bullet from the gun would have easily gone through one side of the armoured truck & come out the other side!
    Last edited by HotelSecurity; 04-11-2006, 08:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    This is an internal policy decision, and there are no laws governing transport of cash or securities, except when the cash or securities are under the protection of FDIC or federal banks.

    Basically, its whatever your insurance carrier is comfortable with (20 bucks says that the museum insurance carrier has no idea that security is transporting cash) and whatever your internal policies allow.

    In other news, having a uniform transport cash draws attention to the cash. Usually, the guns the uniforms carry have a deterrance factor. So do the radios, if so equipped.

    Saw another armored courrier a few days ago. Radio, 9mm, Stinger. No other equipment, no extra mags.

    Leave a comment:


  • HotelSecurity
    replied
    I've never heard of a "law" about it but I'm sure it might be mentioned in the insurance coverage of the business. IE they are not covered if a theft happens to an unarmed employee.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1stWatch
    replied
    I have seen no such limit in statutory law, but most clients who require security for money transfers use armed officers since they are there to prevent robbery. The take I've heard on it is they use armed because of the prevention issue, not the amount of money.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X