Calling all security guards

[ar15barrels]

Could be mistaken, but when I watch Cops the line "you're not under arrest you're only being detained" is followed by handcuffs and the line "these are for your protection and mine". It seems to me a person is, under those circumstances, either not free to go or the cop must remove the cuffs if the person says "I don't want to talk to you and I want to leave".

Perhaps one of our LE members can discuss the legal definition of being detained and whether the average security guard (one not involved in retail nor the agent of an owner) is permitted to detain.

It's pretty plainly stated above that security guards are not permitted to detain except in the case of shoplifting.

[F-2_Challenger]

Contact BSIS and file a complaint with them.

Just got off the phone with Professional Security Consultants (the company whose lackeys detained me on the 1st for open carrying) and basically, they are not allowing me to look at the security procedures for their company so I now can't find any real information about what happened.

Basically, the company is standing behind their guards and said that they acted reasonably given the circumstances, even when they did not give me the option to leave. According to their lawyer, they were justified in investigating and for reasonably detaining me, but I don't know if this is supported by any of the laws.

I have a little research on my hands to do but if there are any guards that work for PSC on this board that would be helpful. Even better, anyone that knows about the laws regarding these things would be really nice as well.

I am LIVID that these people won't quit being lame and start answering my questions with legal support.

OK, off to work for a little while. Thanks guys!

-N8

[CSDGuy]

Could be mistaken, but when I watch Cops the line "you're not under arrest you're only being detained" is followed by handcuffs and the line "these are for your protection and mine". It seems to me a person is, under those circumstances, either not free to go or the cop must remove the cuffs if the person says "I don't want to talk to you and I want to leave".

Perhaps one of our LE members can discuss the legal definition of being detained and whether the average security guard (one not involved in retail nor the agent of an owner) is permitted to detain.

This is all outside of the Merchant's Rule (PC 490.5)

If done by PD, someone can be detained against their will. Basically it's to hold someone in place for investigative purposes. At some point, even PD would have to either release the person or arrest them. They'd detain for reasonable suspicion. If they can't develop PC to arrest, they must release.

Security guards (and citizens) do not have authority to detain (especially in the situation the OP was in).

[devildog999]

Could be mistaken, but when I watch Cops the line "you're not under arrest you're only being detained" is followed by handcuffs and the line "these are for your protection and mine". It seems to me a person is, under those circumstances, either not free to go or the cop must remove the cuffs if the person says "I don't want to talk to you and I want to leave".

Perhaps one of our LE members can discuss the legal definition of being detained and whether the average security guard (one not involved in retail nor the agent of an owner) is permitted to detain.

If you read what I posted over and over, you will find the answer. A security guard CANNOT detain, no matter who the heck they work for (well, maybe except the merchant rule thingy majig, as I have no knowledge of this). I work in the parking lot, if someone is stealing a car or breaking into a car or doing something else illegal, I CANNOT detain them, I can only ARREST them. No ifs ands or buts! Only cops can detain, and that is so that they cannot get sued for false arrest every time they need to hold someone before they are ready to file charges.

[rg_1111@yahoo.com]

CCGuy,
Security guards (and citizens) do not have authority to detain (especially in the situation the OP was in).

Right.

The security guard must see a crime to make an arrest. Only LEOs can detain.
The guard can only arrest. He better make sure you committed a crime if he does arrest you.
If he false arrest's he is liable and can be sued and his company can be sued.

[CSDGuy]

I'm putting my comments below in red...

CCGuy,
Security guards (and citizens) do not have authority to detain (especially in the situation the OP was in).

Right.

The security guard must see a crime to make an arrest. Only true for Misdemeanors. They can arrest you for a Felony if they know it actually happened and they have reasonable suspicion you did it. Only LEOs can detain. Outside the Merchant Rule, correct.
The guard can only arrest. He better make sure you committed a crime if he does arrest you.
If he false arrest's he is liable and can be sued and his company can be sued. True for both Felony and Misdemeanor arrests.

For Security Guards and citizens, an arrest for a Felony has to satisfy two major criteria: One is that the Felony must have actually happened. Second is that reasonable cause must exist that the person being arrested committed that Felony. For LEO's, they can arrest upon Probable Cause that a Felony was committed by a particular person, even though later it was discovered that particular crime actually didn't happen. Misdemeanor arrests basically require that the offense be witnessed by the person doing the arresting...

[Cali-V]

You should know; If you plan a legal action, to continue posting in this venue, will harm your chances of being made whole...

[biglou]

Security Guards can make a "Citizens Arrest", just like anyone else. They can question you if your are on private property, and you have the right to walk away. If you are on DOE property, you give up your 4th Amendment Right as a condition to enter the site. Read the sign at the gate. Contract Security at DOE sites have federal arrest authority. Read section 161K, Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

[dfletcher]

If you read what I posted over and over, you will find the answer. A security guard CANNOT detain, no matter who the heck they work for (well, maybe except the merchant rule thingy majig, as I have no knowledge of this). I work in the parking lot, if someone is stealing a car or breaking into a car or doing something else illegal, I CANNOT detain them, I can only ARREST them. No ifs ands or buts! Only cops can detain, and that is so that they cannot get sued for false arrest every time they need to hold someone before they are ready to file charges.

I did and I agree with you - I've also posted that guards can not legally detain. But one of the definitions posted asserted a person is detained even if they are free to leave while a later definition stated a person who is detained is restrained. As in:

WHAT IS DETAINMENT?
A person who voluntarily responds to questioning and is not actually restrained (i.e., free to go at any time) is considered to be detained.

A person may be detained by the police for further questioning in an investigation & that person is not necessarily under arrest. The police have the authority to detain a person against his will & still not arrest that person.

Those definitions seem to be at odds - or is there one definition for non LE and another for LE?

If the guards asked the OP "Hi, can we ask you a few questions?" and the OP - being an agreeable sort - says "Sure thing" was he being detained? According to paragraph one, yes. By paragraph two, no.

So I think getting a clear legal definition of detainment is important because I'd fully expect the 3 guards to say "we weren't detaining him - we were just informing him guns aren't allowed in the mall and asked him to leave. Then he started arguing with us and Dios Mios - was I afraid. An upset guy with a gun - we didn't detain him, we wanted him to leave". And the company will produce documentation that these 3 outstanding employees all signed paperwork where they acknowledge they can not detain.

As an aside, I'd suggest the OP post his case on this website, see if he gets any bites:http://www.handelonthelaw.com/AboutUs.aspx

[glockster]

WRONG! I had a few friends back when I was in the Corps that worked for the San Onfre Nuclear Plant when they got out, they were not employed by the DoE.

Yeah, I understand that those guys at the "Dolly Parton Memorial" are some serious tactical badazzes with all kinds of nice toys at their disposal that not even the local LEOs have.

[ar15barrels]

WHAT IS DETAINMENT?
A person who voluntarily responds to questioning and is not actually restrained (i.e., free to go at any time) is considered to be detained.

I think this is an error that should read as follows:

WHAT IS DETAINMENT?
A person who voluntarily responds to questioning and is not actually restrained (i.e., free to go at any time) is not considered to be detained.

LEO would call that a "Consentual Contact".

[devildog999]

I did and I agree with you - I've also posted that guards can not legally detain. But one of the definitions posted asserted a person is detained even if they are free to leave while a later definition stated a person who is detained is restrained. As in:

WHAT IS DETAINMENT?
A person who voluntarily responds to questioning and is not actually restrained (i.e., free to go at any time) is considered to be detained.

A person may be detained by the police for further questioning in an investigation & that person is not necessarily under arrest. The police have the authority to detain a person against his will & still not arrest that person.

Those definitions seem to be at odds - or is there one definition for non LE and another for LE?

If the guards asked the OP "Hi, can we ask you a few questions?" and the OP - being an agreeable sort - says "Sure thing" was he being detained? According to paragraph one, yes. By paragraph two, no.

So I think getting a clear legal definition of detainment is important because I'd fully expect the 3 guards to say "we weren't detaining him - we were just informing him guns aren't allowed in the mall and asked him to leave. Then he started arguing with us and Dios Mios - was I afraid. An upset guy with a gun - we didn't detain him, we wanted him to leave". And the company will produce documentation that these 3 outstanding employees all signed paperwork where they acknowledge they can not detain.

As an aside, I'd suggest the OP post his case on this website, see if he gets any bites:http://www.handelonthelaw.com/AboutUs.aspx

Only problem with the last paragraph is there are likely video cameras that caught the incident. Those would show he was not being hostile and they had him surrounded. They can try to lie, but it won't work. Either way, if they surrounded him, it will be obvious to any jury that he was being kept from leaving. Plus, the fact that they were surrounding him til the cops arrived is even more proof that they wouldn't let him leave.

[ar15barrels]

Only problem with the last paragraph is there are likely video cameras that caught the incident.

Those tapes always magically dissappear before the subpeona gets served.

[devildog999]

Those tapes always magically dissappear before the subpeona gets served.

Not always. Plus, I can see it now. The jury hears the tape just happened to disappear. The exact tape that shows what happened. What will they think happen. I can give you two guesses but you'll only need one

[dgey]

You better have deep pockets to get started with your lawsuit... no real lawyer is going to take on a case without any concrete evidence other than your word against theirs... $275 - $500 per hour is what you should expect to be charged. Is this worth your ego being bruised. Open carry in a Mall isn't the smartest thing to do. There's a saying that says something like "JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD..."