[sensei]

I did a search and could not find anything on this.

If you are at a business establishment and they have Security Guards on premises and they ask you, "What's in the pack? or even if for some other reason they ask if you are armed, are you obligated to tell them you are armed?

I was at the Mall the other might and overheard a Mall guard ask a young man (I would guess in his late 20's or early 30's) "Hey man, What you got in your pack?" We were not in a store... so I don't think...the guard was thinking the young man was shoplifting. What rights, if any, do Security Guards have?

I may have gotten in trouble. I probably would have told him, "It's none of your business."

Certainly a genuine LEO will get my respect and any information I can give him. But a Guard, I think not.

I'm in Texas.

sensei

[Mastrogiacomo]

As a lady security guard myself it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling to know what others think of me....now I know why everyone flips me the bird when I ask them to comply nicely. All the more reasons why I think my company should let me carry my piece on the job. You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with just a kind word....

If you're asked what's in the bag, you are obligated to show it if for security purposes. If you have a permit for your firearm, you shouldn't have any reason for concern. Had it been me that asked you to open your bag, I'd have done nothing if you were within your rights to carry -- except maybe to send you on your way if you had no business being in an apartment complex or building I was watching....:cool:

[spacemanspiff]

a security guard is not a member of law enforcement. therefore, they have no business knowing anything about me. i will not submit to a security guard that attempts to frisk me or search any of my belongings.

[spacemanspiff]

in some malls i see they employ armed guards. armed or not, those guards only have authority to ask me to leave the premises, or to call police when i dont comply with their demands.
granted, i doubt Mastrogiacomo would display a powertripping bad attitude, but that type of guard is far and few between.

[Mastrogiacomo]

Granted, but if I'm watching a residence and ask to see ID and you refuse, I'll remove you by calling for back up. If I'm guarding a store and suspect you of wrong doing and you refuse to show me your bag -- again, I'll call for back up to force you to comply or explain your attitude problem at the police station. Fortunately for me, my back up is often cops on their second job.

Should add that while my authority is definately limited, put your hands on me you're going down -- guard or not. I find it unfortunate guards don't have more authority on the job -- as someone with a M.Ed. and Class A permit -- it be great if there were some security companies that could offer their employees more than an opportunity to use harsh language....

[repsychler]

All the more reasons why I think my company should let me carry my piece on the job. You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with just a kind word....

Am I to take it you think you should be able to threaten someone with a gun because you think you have the right to search their belongings?

[Mastrogiacomo]

Obviously not, but at least it allows me to be safe on the ride home particularly in the event that I piss someone off while on the job. It also gives me more of an appearance of authority which a badge and run down patrol car clearly don't. To be blunt, even on an armed post the gun would be useless when dealing with the public unless you were fired upon first...

[Tamara]

All the more reasons why I think my company should let me carry my piece on the job. You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with just a kind word....

No, you'd still get told "Sorry, ma'am, but it's none of your business."

again, I'll call for back up to force you to comply

I'd strongly suggest that you ensure that your employer has been keeping up with their unemployment insurance payments before you attempt to "force" me to do anything. :)

[Mastrogiacomo]

I wouldn't have to force you or anyone Tamera -- you'd just receive a nice police escort off the property....

[Tamara]

you'd just receive a nice police escort off the property....

...and I'm completely cool with that. :cool:

[sensei]

That would be fine.

[jsalcedo]

I mean no disrespect but no one is going to search my belongings wthout a warrant.

I will not be detained by anyone other than an identified police officer.

Private security guards can ask me to leave the premises and that is it.

If one lays a hand on me I will respond with force and follow up with a lawsuit.

That said,

I have chased shoplifters and confronted thieves but they were caught red handed. They just dropped the mechandise and took off running. I would write down the license plate and contact the police at that point.

[Bainx]

Here, here!:p

[Mastrogiacomo]

Well here's a few facts from Boston -- if I'm guarding an apartment complex that has this policy for non-residents, you'd receive a police escort for not letting me view your bag. If you're licenced to carry -- I wouldn't care. My only concern would be just to check your bag is that was the policy I was expected to carry out. If I'm guarding a business -- particularly one in fear of a hostile employee and you're the one visitor that hassles me about not letting me check your bag, I'm calling in back up. Not because you're carrying a legal gun but because you won't comply with the company policy like everyone else.

If in a store and I had to check bags for people coming in -- same thing. I don't care about legal carry guns -- just the policy. I personally have never asked to check a person's bag -- I usually catch shop lifters in the act of stupidity. However, if I was guarding a theater or providing security at a concert and they wanted us to check bags for weapons, I'd have to. I may not agree with the policy myself -- and don't for legal gun owners -- but if the theater said Laura, no weapons, licenced guns or otherwise allowed, I'd have to follow orders and call back up if you refused. It's not a law that the theater or mall put it in writing.

I got caught myself when going to the Tango but with a knife I almost forgot to remove from my coat. Thank Christ I remembered. I think it's a 9/11 thing and it was the first time security asked to inspect my pocketbook before going in. I'm still a little shocked they did this to all the ladies and somewhat pissed at it because I don't think it was right.

[spacemanspiff]

Should add that while my authority is definately limited, put your hands on me you're going down -- guard or not .

mastrogiacomo, perhaps you could provide us with some insight upon your job. you mention the question of 'whats in the bag?'; well what exactly is your employers policy? as a security guard, what are the parameters of your duty?
up here in alaska, very few buildings actually employ full time security. its mostly contracted out to a company that has its employees drive around to various locations to check on their premises, check all the doors and parking lots, and thats it. so i have no real clue as to what you do in your job.


as far as what i quoted above, are you authorized to put your hands on someone? do you have arrest capabilities?

[DMK]

What if the mall supervisor or owner asked to see the contents of your bag or pockets? Would you allow them to violate your 4th amendment rights?

I mean no offence to those in the security business, but they are agents of those who own the mall and therefore have no more authority than those who hired them.

Now myself, I'd ask politely what all the hubbub was about. If I was treated politely and with respect, I would return the treatment.

If I was told that somebody matching my description stole an item, I would ask what the item was(to avoid a witchhunt) and only then open the bag for them to see that said item was not inside. If it was, I would instead show the reciept which I always keep in my pocket. I would not hand over the bag or item.

I also would never carry a weapon off body in a public place like that. Search of my body would not be tolerated. If it was demanded, I would leave never to do my business there again.

[Standing Wolf]

Only sworn law enforcement officers have the legal right to detain and/or search me, and then only if they have probable cause to believe I've committed a crime. Any security guard who attempted to violate my legal rights would be warned in advance, then sued in court if he or she persisted.

This is the United States, not the old Soviet Union, communist China, or England.

[Mastrogiacomo]

Security guards have no rights really but if someone put their hands on me, I'm taking them down in a painful way as I'm allowed to do if assaulted. One of the buildings I worked had a policy that residents needed to show ID as proof of residence. Visitors had to be let in by the residents or leave, workers by their employers or leave. All packages coming into the apartment complex had to be clearly viewed by me. In the event that they refused, I called back up (cops) who'd take it from there. I work at a store downtown now. If I ask to view a bag leaving the store and the person refuses, I call back up and they handle it. This would be the same procedure for stores that routinely check bags from customers in this area: Best Buy and Guitar Center to name two. I don't have any legal rights but I'd gladly take that notebook to write tickets for parking violations... :rolleyes:

[TallPine]

If I ask to view a bag leaving the store and the person refuses, I call back up and they handle it.
And by then said person is long gone, right ...?

Unless you intend to practice unlawful detention.

[Ladybug]

In Arkansas, the owners or employees (security personnel, sales people, etc.) of a store have a right to "detain in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable length of time" any person giving rise to a presumption that they are shoplifting. A PEACE OFFICER may arrest without a warrant "upon probable cause for believing the suspect has committed the offense of shoplifting."

I'm all for asserting your rights, but if you're not breaking the law, and they DO have a lawful right to detain/question you, you're WAY better off complying - if I'm carrying legally I'd just tell them, if I'm not shoplifting and they want to see what's in my bag, I'll show them. They're just doing their job, and I have no reason to make their life difficult JUST BECAUSE they're some sort of "authority figure." But that's just me and I know a lot of people feel differently.

[spacemanspiff]

so what happens when a customer refuses to show you the contents of a bag? do you detain them? or write down their description and get a license plate number for police to follow up on?
who is your backup? local police department? you said something earlier about off duty cops or something, i forget.

what is the purpose of viewing packages going into the apartment? looking for explosives? is there some forbidden materials that cannot be allowed inside?
who benefits from such security measures?

[Ladybug]

TallPine - I'd read the laws in your state before causing trouble and assuming that they would be "unlawfully" detaining you.

[Mastrogiacomo]

If the person leaves, not my problem. That's why I have a radio and the area I work is surrounded by cops. I'm not concerned. I can block their way but if they go past me -- not my job. That's what the back up is for.

[spacemanspiff]

I'm all for asserting your rights, but if you're not breaking the law, and they DO have a lawful right to detain/question you, you're WAY better off complying
no disrespect intended to those who work for security outfits, it is a living, not sure if i can really call it a *honest* living as i suspect there is some intrusion upon individual liberties, but i digress... like i said, no disrespect, but good luck getting a law abiding person like myself to comply if you are not a member of law enforcement. i wont lay my hands on you, but if you lay hands on me and you are not law enforcement, its gonna be a fun ride.

:D

[Mastrogiacomo]

Personally, I don't get paid enough to care about you (customer, resident, visitor, or employee) so I wouldn't bother to touch anyone that hasn't tried to hurt me. I don't see how doing my job would violate anyone's rights. I don't force you to work in a building, or shop in a store, park in a fire zone, or visit a business where you're no longer employed. You don't like it, go elsewhere. I don't check anyone without cause or unless I'm following orders -- if I don't like it, I don't have to accept the post. I've turned down a couple so far...

[Ladybug]

My point, Spaceman, is that they DO have a lawful right (in Arkansas) to detain/question you. Think of them what you want, but YOU'RE the one who might end up in a lot of trouble, just because you want to prove to them that they are not "real" cops.

[Mastrogiacomo]

Well I'm not a cop but I do have the right to detain you or ask you to comply with a policy. If you don't, my job ends and I call in the cops that do my job and mess up your day royally. Think of how much easier it'd be on the person giving me the trouble to just do what I ask -- and nicely. I'm never rude, God knows why people would think so little of what I do. I'm there to protect the public. By the way, the apartment I guarded had this policy because of the terrorist threat to high rise apartments. Residents weren't happy with the check everyone rule but a few were very happy to see me. I got coffee and offers for food from some of the folks.

[EJ]

Really interesting--

First -- Mastrogiacomo

Security guards have no rights really but if someone put their hands on me, I'm taking them down in a painful way as I'm allowed to do if assaulted.

EXACTLY -- and if you put your hands on a sensible person they would "taking them down in a painful way"--- take you down as you recommend--


Second --Ladybug

In Arkansas, the owners or employees (security personnel, sales people, etc.) of a store have a right to "detain in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable length of time" any person giving rise to a presumption that they are shoplifting.

Yup--

If I'm held for shoplifting I would wait patiently for the Security guard to summon Police -- (If they do not wait wih me I would leave)--
Upon arrival I would refuse the voluntary search and allow the custodial or incident to arrest search by the LEO --therby increasing my distress immesurably and adding to the monetary value of the impending suit for false detention and arrest --suit against the Security Guard and the business enmploying said guard--
The LEO's report would support that suit -


Mastrogiacomo

Not a good position to be in --I feel for you --None of the authority and all of the responsibility===

As to being armed -- I couldn't agree more -- If you are in uniform you should be armed--

Armed BG won't check to see if you are carrying -- they just see badge and assume gun--:uhoh:

[Carlos]

A security guard will certainly get my due respect and cooperation, as any human being deserves. However no security guard will ever search me, my bags, my car. So, call for backup. I really don't care. By the time they arrive, I'll be long gone, unless you intend to lay hands on me, at which time "you'll" go down. I'm no lawbreaker and I generally don't like wannabe authority figures. Hope that's clear.

Cops, on the other hand, will get my cooperation, including their right to search me.

[spacemanspiff]

i'm not trying to start an argument, and its certainly not about proving to security personnel that they are not *real* cops.

i've worked in retail before that had plainclothes security. they kept an eye not only on customers but also employees. as far as customers were concerned, they could put a shoplifter in cuffs, and hold them until police arrived. i was friends with most of the security staff, and i knew that they never detained or held anyone that was not a shoplifter. they only moved in when they personally saw the shoplifter in the act.

ladybug, your tone suggests that if a person doesnt do what you tell them to do you go out of your way to make their life miserable. i hope thats not hte case. if it is, well it fits the definition of JBT. thats just my opinion though.

[Ala Dan]

In Alabama a police officer working a second job as a
SO; has the same powers as a regular SO, NONE! :(
But, most likely he and/or she will make a note of
it in their pocket notebook for future reference.

My thought's have always been and continue to be, a
sworn LEO is a Police Officer/Deputy Sheriff first; and a
security officer second. Therefore, the powers of arrest
should be maintained throughout their employment. Perps
can and will appear anywhere, and everywhere.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

[Ladybug]

impending suit for false detention and arrest

But see, if they had any reason to believe you MIGHT have been shoplifting (your non-cooperation would not be viewed favorably, I'm afraid) you'd lose the lawsuit... that's an aweful lot of wasted energy, time, money, just to make a point.

[EJ]

I should add--

OF COURSE
the owner or agent (Security guard) hasa right to search as a condition of entry to private property -- if you don't like it -- don't go in--


One can run their own property the way they see fit--It is America--
:D

[DMK]

Well I'm not a cop but I do have the right to detain you... You do mean verbally detain someone, right? ie. "Wait there a moment", "Stay there while I check this out", etc.

Not trying to be argumentative, just curious.

EDIT: Man, this is a fast moving thread! That's six posts up already!

[Mastrogiacomo]

Carlos -- I'm not a wannabe. I am a person of authority. Depending on what I was protecting, I'd pursue you if needs be -- protecting a person from attack, a business from a hostile employee who threatened an attack, etc. If low level concern, shoplifting etc. I won't bother. I'm a little concerned though that you have such a disregard for what I'd do that you'd give run especially if you've done nothing wrong. As a guard if someone detained me -- on or off the job, I'd show them the respect of allowing them to search me. After all, I've done nothing wrong so what would I care? They have a job -- it's not personal, just policy.

I can verbally detain you and block the exit. If you touch me, I touch you back. I can't put my hands on your first. Correct. Strange, I was always taught to respect people of authority. I didn't know so many people got technical about it and had all these loopholes.

[EJ]

Ladybug--

But see, if they had any reason to believe you MIGHT have been shoplifting (your non-cooperation would not be viewed favorably, I'm afraid) you'd lose the lawsuit... that's an aweful lot of wasted energy, time, money, just to make a point.

That's the difference between LEOand Citizen in Wisconsin and Illinois law--

The LEO has a right to act on reasonable belief --
The citizen DOES NOT -- hence the suit holds up--

YMMV -- States are often different--

[Sentry]

If I'm guarding a store and suspect you of wrong doing and you refuse to show me your bag -- again, I'll call for back up to force you to comply or explain your attitude problem at the police station.

No one would be forcing me to do a single thing. Your suspiscions are worthless to me, and there would be a lot bigger problems than trying to get to a phone to call the police if they were attempted to be enforced.

Should add that while my authority is definately limited, put your hands on me you're going down -- guard or not.

You about what, six five, 350? I'd love to see you try to take down some of the people I've dealt with, yelling at them isn't going to work.

They have a job -- it's not personal, just policy.

It IS personal when you've accused me of wrongdoing. The company can't accuse someone, you can.

I can verbally detain you and block the exit. If you touch me, I touch you back.

That's called illegal detainment, try again. If you tried illegally detaining me, you wouldn't have the opportunity to touch me back. And you not a person of authority, you're a freaking mall ninja. Get real.

[EJ]

That's rough in Alabama

Illinois and Wisconsin--Off duty Security doesn't preclude your authority --
Assuming you are within your jurisdiction--

You don't "lose" your authority due to supplemental employment--
A "PEACE OFFICER" is a peace officer 24 hours a day--

[Ladybug]

EJ - you're right, I'm sorry. As I said in my earlier post - read your laws carefully before assuming that certain people don't have certain rights. There was a lawsuit here in Ark. fairly recently where a woman tried the old "I'm not gonna cooperate and you can't make me" trick... sued the store for false imprisonment - and lost. It IS different in every state, but I think a lot of people tend to believe that only police officers have a right to detain/arrest people - most places there are exceptions to that!

[Mastrogiacomo]

Why yell? I'm not getting that much money to care. But you touch me physically and yes, I'll hurt you before you hurt me. I may not be imposing but none of the best Wing Chun practictioners were either so I'm in good company. :cool:

[Ladybug]

Sentry, for example, probably believes he has a lot of rights that he actually DOESN'T have...

[Sentry]

I know full well what my rights are, and some Sacks Fifth Avenue security guard is not going to illegally detain me without having hell open up.

[griz]

For clarification, If you asked them to look in the bag, and they politely said no, would ask them to leave first, or just call for backup?

[Ladybug]

What state to you live in Sentry? Have you read all of the statutes and court cases regarding false imprisonment in your jurisdiction?

[DMK]

I'd show them the respect of allowing them to search me. After all, I've done nothing wrong so what would I care? Ah, that's where we (U.S. Citizens) get in trouble. "I'm not doing anything wrong, I have nothing to hide, why should I care if I'm detained and searched evertime I enter this building, get on this airplane, or hey how about just anytime somebody in authority feels like it.

Just were do we draw the line between freedom and safety?


Strange, I was always taught to respect people of authority. I didn't know so many people got technical about it and had all these loopholes. It's a funny thing about this country. We the people tend to like running the place. Sometimes we have to be a little ascertive to keep it that way. Please take no offence, it's not personal.

I can't speak for others, but I was also raised to show respect for people in authority (actually I was raised to show respect to anybody that deserves it). However, I also demand respect for my rights as a citizen.

[Sentry]

Yes, I have. And unless reasonable grounds i.e. sight of actual theft can be proved that I was attempting to steal, it is illegal. Searches by those not under the direct direction of a police officer, and without my consent are also illegal.

[Mastrogiacomo]

Depends on the situation -- let me see your bags in an apartment -- no -- I'd just ask them to leave the building. Call back up if they say no. Prevent them from entering the building where the residents are if needs be.

Entering a store? I wouldn't ask. If checking the bags before leaving was policy and they wouldn't comply -- call back up.

Sentry -- you sound like you have a real problem with authority. You assume I have fewer rights than I do. True I can't enforce the laws but I can get my back up to so. As cops, they have no limits.

[Carlos]

Mastrogiacomo. Read my first sentence. Don't assume that I'd run. I would ask you politely to get out of my way.

However, this is all meaningless, as I don't typically attract the cops or security.

So, no offense. Maybe I've seen too many of these security clowns in action. One instance, while working in an office building attached to a large mall, my van was stolen. I'm standing in the empty parking and security comes by in a car. I tell them my car was stolen and to please call the cops. They told me they "don't do that." I was pissed and stormed back to the office building. The main security desk said "What's wrong." I told them. They informed me that they were in charge of security for the mall, apologized and handed that security person their A$$. Security and I had a very good relationship after that.

I had somebody at a grocery store once years ago point me out as somebody who stole something at the meat department. Security follows me out and a block later, asks to see inside the store bag. I complied. I then demanded that he point out the person to me who falsely accused me of theft. I told that clown to make damned sure they were right before ever pointing a finger at me again. That clown was sure embarrassed.

I worked for Boeing Aircraft Company. Going in and out, it was the rule that the guard could check your bags. No problem. It was company policy.

I typically go to the United States Courthouse and local county courthouses. Armed security at US Courthouse has right to scan me and anything brought in. No problem. Same for the real deputies at the country courthouse.

I guess my big problem is with Mall Ninja types. So, again, no offense, but don't get in MY way. It won't be pleasant for anyone. Simple.

[Sentry]

I've worked in law enforcement kid, I have no problem with REAL authority.

[Mastrogiacomo]

So I'm not real enough to warrent even fake respect for following orders? Thirty six as of Monday by the way...

[Sentry]

Orders? Am I in the Army? Unless you're my wife or a police officer, I have no reason to follow a thing you say. 5 dollars an hour doesn't afford control over my life and rights. And I couldn't care less what physical age you are.

[Mastrogiacomo]

So....a threat against a building by a hostile employee. I ask everyone to check their bags before entering a building -- as was done to me as a Federal employee during the Gulf War -- I'm out of line?

[Moparmike]

As an AR resident, I dont care if they can search me and my bag. If they are polite, they might get cooperation. If they come up to me like some mall ninja and want to harass me, they can bring in someone with authority, tact, training, and most importantly, a BADGE. A LEO I will cooperate with because he has the authority. Some oppressive mall ninja is going to be reciving all the crap he/she throws at me right back at them.

Having a right to question me does not add up to unlawful detainment. If they want to say that someone fitting my description ran off with a Dillard's bag when I am in possession of one and be polite about it, its kosher with me.

If some security guard walks up to me when I am entering the building and asks to search it, I will say no and leave. If they want to press the issue, they can call the cops and they will find out that I simply didnt want to be searched and peacefully left the building/premises. The security guard wants to get physical, they can have their desire fulfilled because they have the same right to touch me when I am being peaceful as any other Joe Blow in the mall. They wont like it either.

I am not for disrespecting authority figures. SO's have a certain amount of authority, which I respect as long as they respect my rights. Its within their perogative to ask me to leave when I dont submit to their search. Its within my rights to give the mall $0 and a hastily written letter dispising their business practices as well.

[Sentry]

We aren't talking about entering anything, now are we?

[Mastrogiacomo]

So as a Federal employee with a badge, I'm walking into a Federal building, the security requests to see my ID, I can flip him the bird and keep going. Call a real cop if I did something wrong? It's a violation of my rights to see my badge and check my bag? Wow....:uhoh:

[spacemanspiff]

After all, I've done nothing wrong so what would I care?

isnt a matter or right/wrong to us. its a matter of personal liberty.

this neednt be a huge deal. there are simply many here that have beliefs and opinions regarding what is unlawful behavior, and granted, that varies from state to state.

[Sentry]

I didn't say a single thing about walking into a Federal building, now did I?

[Ladybug]

Having a right to question me does not add up to unlawful detainment

Read my first post about Arkansas law. They DO have a right to detain you.

[Mastrogiacomo]

Obviously the right to detain regarding us lowly security guards differs from state to state -- just as gun laws and depends on the situation. A security guard in a Federal building gets more respect than I would because I only oversee the safety of residents in an apartment. Unusal but confusing but I'm doing the same job, but different setting. Appartently, the setting makes all the difference. Move from the apartment to a Federal building where I used to work -- now I have respect and compliance. Odd. I've never considered it such a violation of my freedom to comply with the policy of a store. But that's just me. I wouldn't hesistate to comply with a cop or a guard, especially since they're just doing their job -- like I try to every day respectfully, I might add...

[Moparmike]

Read my first post about Arkansas law. They DO have a right to detain you.Yep, and they can kiss my butt too. Unless these property owners can prove these allegations when they are being billegerant, they can call the local LEO's and let them sort it out. Otherwise, those wannabe tyrants can help themselves to my dust as I walk out and never step foot there again.

Look for this thread to be shut down soon. Its getting heated.

[Ladybug]

Okay, I'm bored with this thread and I'm repeating myself. Let me just say for the record -- I totally support people's vigilance when it comes to protecting their rights. There is no need to submit to something if you truely think you are being harassed and there is no just cause. BUT I also think it's childish to be a pain in the rear JUST BECAUSE you want to teach those "mall ninjas" a lesson. And finally, don't assume that a store employee, an ordinary citizen, or a security guard has no right to detain you. It IS different in every state, so I would just recommend that before you decide to "show them" you know exactly what your rights are and are not. Out.

[spacemanspiff]

True I can't enforce the laws but I can get my back up to so. As cops, they have no limits.

correct me if i am wrong mastrogiacomo, but you are charged with enforcing POLICIES, correct? huge difference between enforcing policies and enforcing laws.
and i would question any law enforcement officers insistance that i comply with a private parties policies.

is it breaking a law to refuse to allow a security guard to perform a search? can i be arrested for telling someone 'no you may not look in my personal belongings'? will i be charged with a crime for not waiting around while you call backup?

educate us mastrogiacomo. some here have hostile attitudes. others of us do want to learn.

[Mastrogiacomo]

I think a lot of folks here would love Boston. We have so much respect for individual rights, we practically gave the terrorists the keys to the city. Gee, if only someone detained them....they wouldn't have gotten by me. All I can I say on the subject, no matter what they thought of my position.

[Tamara]

So as a Federal employee with a badge, I'm walking into a Federal building, the security requests to see my ID, I can flip him the bird and keep going.

Two key words there: "Federal" and "Employee" add many layers of ramifications.

You, as an employee MallCo Security, handling the anti-shoplifting chores of Kut-Pryce Discount Emporium can ask to see my bag as I walk in or out. Since you are a representative of the people who operate the establishment, I have a choice of either complying, or leaving. You, however, do not have the choice of physically restraining or ejecting me unless you actually saw a crime take place, and then you'd better be darn sure of it, because a security company will drop an hourly employee in a New York minute if they think it'll help 'em avoid even the tiniest out-of-court settlement.

Now, if you are authorized to check bags as folks come in, and someone blows past you, then they are trespassing. OTOH, if they are on the way out, it would be best to let them keep strolling.

[jrhead75]

It ain't rocket science...malls, apartment complexes, my house...are all private property and can take what security measures they deem fit. Granted, if your private property is a retail facility, it's probably not a good idea to get silly about it, profitswise.

I go armed...period. But if a piece of private property says "no guns" then it's my choice, don't carry there...or don't go there.

Now "no carry" rules in gummint (of the people, by the people) buildings is a whole different matter...

[Double Maduro]

Ladybug,

I think if it was tested the Arkansas law would be found unconstitutional. It is too ambigous, what is a reasonable amount of time?

The security guard has the same rights and privileges as any citizen, among them the right of "citizens arrest".

If the owner of a property said I had to open my bags to enter I would open them or leave. No fuss no muss.

Any and every body has the right to ask me a question, I have the right to refuse to answer. Even if a police officer asks if he can search your person, car, house, etc. you have the right to say no. If the officer has reason enough to arrest you they will and then they can proceed as necessary.

I served 30 days on the grand jury of Multnomah County, Oregon and the biggest lesson we learned is "JUST SAY NO". Unless you are under arrest or there is a search warrant they can't search without your permission.

This is for the state and county listed above, ymmv.

Back to the original question.

If a security guard or anyone, LEO or not came up to me in the mall and asked what I had in my bag, I would tell them as politely as possible that it was none of there business. If they persisted, I would call for the Police and file a complaint.

DM

[griz]

Thanks for the answer Mastrogiacomo. As Spaceman pointed out, I was trying to understand if your intention was to get the LEO to enforce policy instead of law.

FWIW, I, like most people, don't have a problem complying with polite and reasonable request. It did grate on my nerves having to leave my pocket knife at home and take my shoes off at the airport last weekend, not because of rudeness but because I think it is a futile charade. Of course nobody forced me to fly.

[Sentry]

Yeah, because we all know you could have busted a multi-national terrorist plot by catching an arab with a box cutter.

[Mastrogiacomo]

No...but I wouldn't have been stupid enough to say OK guys, I'm just a paid fixture here! Go right in, don't worry about ID and hey, welcome to Boston!:rolleyes:

[Pilgrim]

California Penal Code Section 490.5.
(f) (1) A merchant may detain a person for a reasonable time for
the purpose of conducting an investigation in a reasonable manner
whenever the merchant has probable cause to believe the person to be
detained is attempting to unlawfully take or has unlawfully taken
merchandise from the merchant's premises.
(2) In making the detention a merchant may use a reasonable amount of
nondeadly force necessary to protect himself or herself and to
prevent escape of the person detained or the loss of tangible or
intangible property.

Pilgrim

[Sentry]

Fake ID's take a few days to get. How are you going to prevent that? You can't. Stop thinking like you are God on a rampage against crime, or go join the FBI.

[Mastrogiacomo]

There's no hearing impaired workers in the FBI -- I couldn't lie my way into the Marines, or become a cop or get into the FBI. You can lose your hearing after you get in but not before. I was born this way. So I'll have to be content to do the jobs I have now well whether that pisses most freedom loving Americans off or earns their respect.

[spacemanspiff]

sorry this thread turned so nasty mastrogiacomo....:uhoh:

[Sentry]

"probable cause to believe the person to be
detained is attempting to unlawfully take or has unlawfully taken
merchandise from the merchant's premises"

In other words they see it, or an item suddenly disappears after someone goes into a dark corner. I dress in dark, large clothes and walk quickly, am I automatically a suspect of shoplifting? Of course not. There have to be mitigating factors to determinate a detainment, and a simple suspiscion isn't one of them.

[Mastrogiacomo]

At the post I have, I've detained no one unless I clearly see they've taken something and can point to where they have it. I do my job to the extent that I'm allowed and don't assume guilt until the person (or kid more often than not) is proven innocent. It's just a security job -- I don't make more of it than it is....

No offense Spaceman -- some people just can't stand security guards. I can't stand the pay myself and lack of respect, which is why I'm looking for clerical work now even with carpal tunnel in both hands...desperate times...:)

[jrhead75]

Mastrogiacomo, since you brought it up, are you a Marine? Doesn't matter one way or the other, FWIW, I agree with you.

[Mastrogiacomo]

No. When I was eighteen, I tried to trick the recruiter and lie my way in. Said I could hear just fine without my hearing aids. Didn't work -- on him, the police, or the FBI/CIA. I'm probably one of the few that actually lied to try and get in....the man was impressed by my efforts though....:p

[Carlos]

Mastrogiacomo

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!

Another Libra. :) Like me.

Now, the thing I guess that pissed me off was the apartment thing, saying that you could search my person or bags to gain entry. Sorry, that just ain't going to happen. I'd leave, even if somebody got in my way, and call the friend who lives in the apartment to come down and talk to security and then the cops would get called.

Again, no offense, as you don't sound like your typical dumba$$ mall ninja. I hate them with a passion.

[Pilgrim]

In other words they see it, or an item suddenly disappears after someone goes into a dark corner. I dress in dark, large clothes and walk quickly, am I automatically a suspect of shoplifting? Of course not. There have to be mitigating factors to determinate a detainment, and a simple suspiscion isn't one of them.

The key phrase is "probable cause." That is a much higher standard than simple suspicion. That is the same standard that permits a law enforcement officer to arrest. It is the standard that will cause a magistrate to hold a person to answer for a felony.

Probable cause exists when the facts of the incident are presented to person(s) of ordinary care and intelligence and those facts cause those person(s) to believe a crime was committed and the person arrested committed the crime.

Pilgrim

[Mastrogiacomo]

Thanks Carlos -- I was born in the Year of the Goat according to the Chinese -- and if you've read most of my posts, you know how I love Chinese films. One of the reasons I got a Beretta...:D Boy, if we celebrate the Year of the Goat next February -- I wonder if my luck on the job front will change for the better? I know policy, laws, are all one clouded area regarding security which is why I'm aware that working armed doesn't change anything. It won't give me anymore authority except make me look more imposing...or not, I am short. As a guard it's my job to impose the policy of the store but the customer has the choice to leave if he/she wants. I've given that option to one young lady recently but she chose to stay anyway. Not the best line of work, I agree.

[Carlos]

It is a job that need to be done. Good luck to you. I, too, am seeking different employment and the situation in Portland sucks.

Hmm, don't know what Chinese year I was born in, but I got 10 years on ya. The funnest thing I did today was renew my just expired driver's license.

Heading to the range.

[Chipperman]

Since mastrogiacomo is in MA, I thought I would post this link from MA general laws. It's in typical poorly-written legalese, but you get the point:

Chapter 231: Section 94B False arrest; shoplifting; defrauding innkeepers; defenses

__Section 94B. In an action for false arrest or false imprisonment brought by any person by reason of having been detained for questioning on or in the immediate vicinity of the premises of a merchant or an innkeeper, if such person was detained in a reasonable manner and for not more than a reasonable length of time by a person authorized to make arrests or by the merchant or innkeeper or his agent or servant authorized for such purpose and if there were reasonable grounds to believe that the person so detained was committing or attempting to commit a violation of section thirty A of chapter two hundred and sixty-six, or section twelve of chapter one hundred and forty, or was committing or attempting to commit larceny of goods for sale on such premises or larceny of the personal property of employees or customers or others present on such premises, it shall be a defense to such action.

[Chipperman]

See also this link. The important part is the last paraqgraph:

GENERAL LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS
PART IV.
CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I.
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 266. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY

Chapter 266: Section 30A Shoplifting; penalty; arrest without warrant

__Section 30A. Any person who intentionally takes possession of, carries away, transfers or causes to be carried away or transferred, any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale by any store or other retail mercantile establishment with the intention of depriving the merchant of the possession, use of benefit of such merchandise or converting the same to the use of such person without paying to the merchant the value thereof; or

__any person who intentionally conceals upon his person or otherwise any merchandise offered for sale by any store or other retail mercantile establishment with the intention of depriving the merchant of proceeds, use or benefit of such merchandise or converting the same to the use of such person without paying to the merchant the value thereof; or

__any person who intentionally alters, transfers or removes any label, price tag or marking indicia of value or any other markings which aid in determining value affixed to any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale by any store or other retail mercantile establishment and to attempt to purchase such merchandise personally or in consort with another at less than the full retail value with the intention of depriving the merchant of all or some part of the retail value thereof; or

__any person who intentionally transfers any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale by any store or other retail mercantile establishment from the container in or on which the same shall be displayed to any other container with intent to deprive the merchant of all or some part of the retail value thereof; or

__any person who intentionally records a value for the merchandise which is less than the actual retail value with the intention of depriving the merchant of the full retail value thereof; or

__any person who intentionally removes a shopping cart from the premises of a store or other retail mercantile establishment, without the consent of the merchant given at the time of such removal, with the intention of permanently depriving the merchant of the possession, use or benefit of such cart; and

__where the retail value of the goods obtained is less than one hundred dollars, shall be punished for a first offense by a fine not to exceed two hundred and fifty dollars, for a second offense by a fine of not less than one hundred nor more than five hundred dollars and for a third or subsequent offense by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or imprisonment in a jail for not more than two years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Where the retail value of the goods obtained equals or exceeds one hundred dollars, any violation of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than two and one-half years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

__If the retail value of the goods obtained is less than one hundred dollars, this section shall apply to the exclusion of section thirty.

__Law enforcement officers may arrest without warrant any person he has probable cause for believing has committed the offense of shoplifting as defined in this section. The statement of a merchant or his employee or agent that a person has violated a provision of this section shall constitute probable cause for arrest by any law enforcement officer authorized to make an arrest in such jurisdiction.

[gundam007]

I have no problem with security in stores or housing complexes, they do actually secure the place, and I would comply with them... but some security guards at the local mall (in the halls) are/ were real ninja-y and ask to search bags of people leaving (sometimes, depended on how the people dressed-profiling) even though there was no Prob. Cause. I have problems with that.

[JimJD]

All the more reasons why I think my company should let me carry my piece on the job. You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with just a kind word....

Jeez... easy there serpico... Thank God you're not a cop.
In NYC, you, thankfully could not pull half of the stuff you are talking about.
I've had scores of rent-a-cops pull crap like that with me based on my appearance.
They've asked "can you open your backpack?" and I always reply "No."
I have'nt taken anything, in most cases, I just purchased something!
Unless a crime is seen or caught on video, no bag opening for you!
You can not detain anyone, unless a crime has been committed.
If you so much as lay a hand on someone, bingo! you and your employer are going to be rightfully sued. As a result you will lose your job and be blacklisted from the industry.
One place I worked had a guard that watched too many episodes of COPS, he ended up breaking someone's arm while "searching" them. It turned out the "suspect" did not steal anything. In the end, Richard Branson's MEGA-company had to pay out a hefty amount of money to the injured.
Side note: The head of that store's security, was sent to jail for robbing the store blind after hours. Nice, Huh? Well, enough of that.
Because too many play-cops have pulled what you are talking about in a super-litigious city, the laws we're changed. Thankfully.
As far as you being an "Authority"... Uh...sorry to break it to you... you are not. I don' t mean it as an insult. It's just that, it's the truth. I have family in both by the way.
A LEO, an MP, a federal officer/agent... That's just some of the legitmate authority here on this earth.
But no matter what, ultimatlely, GOD is the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY.
Can't get bigger than that.
:D

[Mastrogiacomo]

You need to re-read my posts, I don't consider myself a tough guy or above the law. I'm painfully aware of my lowly staus. God huh? More people have been killed on his behalf than for any other reason. So much for authority. Besides, what has he done for me lately? Appreciate the insight all have offered but stuff I was already made aware of by my employers. Whenever I'm on a site these days, can't help wonder, what the Hell am I doing here anyway if I can't do anything?.....

[Tamara]

Remember, the consciences of the guilty are your strongest weapon. Cultivate a stare somewhere between that of a nun teaching in a Catholic school and a Jewish mother and you will be well on your way to success in this temporary gig. ;)

[chaim]

OK this thread has gotten long so I have not read the entire thing, I apologize if I repeat what others have said. However, some of the attitudes I've read so far could get you arrested (at least here in MD).

Once upon a time I was a manager at a major Washington area department store (in Montgomery County MD). Our store security guards had legal authority to arrest and detain you on store property (inside and outside). The mall guards had the same authority on mall grounds. Like police if they don't have probable cause they can ask to see your bags and you can refuse. Like police if they have probable cause they can force you to comply (including detaining you, cuffing you, checking your bags anyway, and waiting for the police to come and arrest you officially depending upon whether you have stolen something, attacked the guard, threatened or verbally abused them, or even said something that could be taken as threatening him/her). Also, they do not have to actually see you take something, if it looks on the security camera like you might have taken something that is probable cause to search you. My advice if they ask, say yes or no your choice, but if they say you must then you better comply (or you could face action, up to and including arrest) and then consult your lawyer if you feel they went beyond their legal authority.

Of course, what rights they have to detain and/or search you depends upon state law and the amount of authority within state law that their employer wishes to take advantage of (many employers may not allow them to do all that the law allows out of fear of lawsuits due to overzealous guards).

[jrhead75]

I say again...it's private property...If they want the rules to read that everyone entering will be put face down and searched, then so be it...submit or leave...entirely YOUR choice!

You're on my property...you obey my rules, or getting searched will be the very least of your problems!

Mastrogiacomo...sounds like you have a crappy job! You have my sympathy, AND my respect.

[RocketMan]

Nice reply, Tamara, right on the money.

Many years ago, in a place not so far away, I worked retail sales for a major electronics chain store. While working for them I had the opportunity, if you can call it that, to catch a few shoplifters in the act.
In each instance I used the old "command presence" that I had learned in the service. Apparently I was very convincing, no screaming and yelling and I didn't have to lay hands on anybody, and they stuck around for the police.
I wonder if I could do that today? I wonder if I'd be dumb enough, given the proliferation of weapons carried by bad guys these days?

[JimJD]

God huh? More people have been killed on his behalf than for any other reason. So much for authority. Besides, what has he done for me lately?
There's this thing called tongue-in-cheek humor...
Ah forget it, you're no fun ;)

[Sentry]

Also, they do not have to actually see you take something, if it looks on the security camera like you might have taken something that is probable cause to search you.

Wrong. Hope that store enjoys the lawsuit because of what a few guards seem to "think" happened. So if half the camera is pointing at you, you pick up an item out of sight, put it back, and then put your hand in your pocket in sight, according to your analogy that would be enough to search me. I think not. Everytime I drive a car, or load up a weapon, it "looks" like I could do something with them, but that is not probable cause to pull me over, or arrest me.

[gunsmith]

I don't know how they do things in Beantown (other then lose world series:p )

Here in the wild west ,security- armed or not (like I said I'm armed)
can detain IF we see a FELONY.
If it's reported to us by an employee we can ask to look,if they give us the one finger salute,it gets filed under free speech.
We can stand in the way till the PD arrive though.
We can only search for weapons if we detain after a felony that we witnessed,we are not allowed to conduct a search of bags/person.

A friend of mine got a 5000$ settlement after being assaulted
by an unarmed s/o.
he was told to move his bike that he had locked to a light pole in front
of an office building.
s/o followed him yelling at him and said (as my pal went into a building)
move the bike now or I break the lock.
My friend laughed and told him stealing is illegal and the guard punched him.
my friend fell down and stayed there till the cops showed up,pressed charges filed a lawsuit won the case and of course s/o lost job.
I am more for friendly banter,if involved in anything I prefer to let the cops deal with it ...most security companies won't hire a lawyer for you..

[duckfoot]

Ever walk out of a Wal-mart and the little dinger goes off even after you paid for your items. Do you stop or keep walking?

"Guilty till proved innocent" is Wally world's motto.

[TallPine]

Well, I have thought about this a while, and now I am really upset.

At any time on THR there are threads going on about how you cannot (in most states) use force to protect property. "Someone stealing your car or your TV? Let it go and call 911 .... that's what you have insurance for ..."

Since when does the property of a business become more valuable than the property of a homeowner? Are businesses some sort of "super-citizens" with more rights than the rest of us?

So ... a business can hire somebody for 5 bucks an hour, give them a uniform, and now they get to play cop? Well, how about I hire myself as my own home security guard ...? It's getting close to Xmas, so I'm sure I can find some kind of plastic badge in the toy dept - I'll even pay for it :neener: Now I am a security guard, and can defend my own property.

So why don't stores do like the rest of us are supposed to do ... just buy insurance and call 911 ????

I'm getting tired of reading about "hero" security guards who chase down a shoplifter, and "idiot" homeowners who chase down a burglar.

This isn't intended as a insult to those who try to do a difficult job with no legal standing. But security guards are just a facade and you might as well get used to it - just be a good witness and call 911 like the rest of us.

Incidently, if you are going to use any level of force (including verbal force) to confront a thief, you better be prepared at all times to use deadly force if the situation escalates, because it just may do that.

[whitebear]

Let's take a look at this from an economic standpoint.

Giant Electronics World (GEW) has a serious "inventory shrinkage" problem. So, they electronically tag their merchandise, and use uniformed, but unarmed security officers to watch the doors in an attempt to cut down on the amount of product walking away by itself.

They do this because hiring the guard reduces some amount of shoplifting, thus reducing the cost of lost goods which must be passed on to the consumer to keep the company in business.

Oh, you thought the company just ate the cost of all the stuff that all the clever folks boosted, huh? Wrong, bubby! That cost gets passed on to all of us. Most of these uniformed folks are just trying to keep the wolf away from the door. They would probably appreciate some common courtesy.

There may be some seriously over-revved mall ninjas out there, but you know, if I had to deal, day in and day out, with some of the attitudes shown by some of the posters on this thread, I'd develop an attitude, too.

Face it, folks - for good or ill, any time you see a security guard in a place of business, someone in charge thought it was necessary to either reduce costs that would have to be passed on to the consumer, or actually had the security of the customer at heart. No one hires a security guard for the sheer pleasure of the hassle they create for the public.

One more quick comment aimed at a specific, unnamed poster on this thread - if you dress like a thief and act like a thief, expect to be treated like a thief, profiling be damned. And an attitude the size of Australia won't help your case any. Grow up.

[Old Fuff]

It appears to me that Mastrogiacomo’s position is that as a security guard he must follow the dictates of the company he works for, and of that company’s client. This may include hand-searching parcels that are carried to, or out of, the premises. If a person objects to this he may let the matter pass, or call for backup (which in this case seems to mean the police). On his part this is a judgment call. He will not otherwise force the issue, but may (or may not) try to detain the individual until the backup arrives. Again this is a judgment call on his part. If the person then assaults him he will respond with whatever level of force is necessary to defend himself.

Unless the police have been called (or maybe even if they have) the person always has an option to leave. However everyone should keep in mind that using force to resolve the issue cuts two ways. It is entirely possible that if things get out of hand someone could easily end up being convicted of a felony that would end their gun-owning rights forever. Given that possibility I would either leave (or more likely not enter the building in the first place), or peaceably wait for the police so that I could state my case. If the security people have made a mistake you can seek a remedy in civil court - but that also works two ways.

[Smoke]

Should add that while my authority is definately limited, put your hands on me you're going down -- guard or not. I find it unfortunate guards don't have more authority on the job -- as someone with a M.Ed. and Class A permit -- it be great if there were some security companies that could offer their employees more than an opportunity to use harsh language....

If you have a Masters in Education, why are you working security?

Just curious?

[Brian Dale]

Morally and ethically, a security guard has all of the rights and authority of the owner of the property. He or she stands in the owner's place when dealing with others on the property. Many states have citizen's arrest; my state does not, as it happens. States have given security personnel and certain (sometimes all) other employees the authority to "detain" people for various reasons. They can do what the law permits, and no more.

Duckfoot, when I've paid for my merchandise at Wal-Mart and the dinger goes off, I keep going. Once I've paid for something, it's my property, and they had better respect my property rights; I respect theirs, too. They don't pay me to help them calibrate their equipment. A while back, a local Wal-Mart tried, very briefly, to inspect all purchases as customers left the premises. This is done at Sam's Club (same corporate ownership, IIRC), and has been for years. The difference is that Sam's makes it plain that they do this when people come in and ask to "join," and people sign an agreement before shopping there. The Wal-Mart experiment lasted a very short time; I can imagine some of the responses of customers to their new policy.

And Mastrogiacomo, it's irrelevant how smart you are, how moral, how ethical, and how well reasoned your thesis that you should have the respect accorded to LEOs.

-break-

{Edited to insert this: I was wrong here. Nowhere do I see Mastrogiacomo arguing for "the same" anything that sworn LEOs have. I apologize for my diatribe. Mastrogiacomo's integrity is above reproach; I'll work to follow her example.}

-back to original paragraph-

You have the respect of this group for the way you present yourself, but this isn't the job. Unless and until you are a sworn LEO, then you aren't one. You are obviously the sort who should be training security staff; there are some working who don't appear to have your ability to discern what's appropriate in the performance of the job.

That failing isn't limited to security personnel. When I managed a small retail store, my assistant manager once followed a couple of shoplifters he had seen stealing: they all trooped out the door and down the strip mall. He took one by the arm as they were entering Wal-Mart, after passing eight or ten other stores; quite some distance, in that context. He kept them there for the police with some fast talking. In a rough town. When I heard about it, I was appalled. This was NOT within his responsibilities, to say the least. I told him that (1) I was glad he was OK, and (2) although I liked him a lot, and he was very good at his job (he was in training to manage a store himself), I'd have to fire him on the spot if he ever did anything like that again. He never did. He moved to a store manager job a few months later.

You ask, what the Hell am I doing here anyway if I can't do anything? You've mentioned carpal tunnel, but I'll still say this: there are publishers (and other outfits that hire writers) with offices in Boston. With the way you think, take a serious look at becoming a technical writer, editor, start as a proofreader, whatever shows up. It's a good living, and you've shown the ability.

[Pilgrim]

In reading these posts I am reminded of Hector C. Hector was one of the little jerks in the city I worked in. He watched enough television and talked to enough jailhouse lawyers to be an authority on the law. Whenever I had cause to detain Hector, he invariably would ask, "You gotta warrant?" Needless to say, I didn't ever have a warrant to detain Hector. I had other things like reasonable suspicion and on a few occasions probable cause.

Just as a refresher, here are the various degrees of suspicion that would cause a shopper to be watched by a security officer or detained, or even arrested.

Mere Suspicion - Sometimes called a "hunch" or "gut feeling" that someone is up to no good. These hunches or gut feelings are often developed by people who have a lot of experience in the security business and in law enforcement. It is not enough to detain someone, but it is certainly enough to cause the officer to continue to observe the person or even strike up a conversation with the suspicious person.

Reasonable Suspicion - A police officer's grounds to stop and detain someone when he has suspicion to believe a criminal act has occurred or is about to occur and the person detained is involved in committing that criminal act. The purpose of the detention is to further investigate and determine if probable cause exists to believe a crime has in fact been committed or is being attempted and the person detained can be arrested.

Reasonable suspicion is a standard applied to detentions by police officers. It was first defined in Terry v. Ohio, a U.S. Supreme Court case. It is that set of facts and circumstances that when presented to other police officers of similar training and experience to suspect a crime has been commited or is about to be committed and the person detained is somehow involved in committing the crime.

Probable Cause - Exists when a set of facts and circumstances is presented to a person of ordinary intelligence and care and causes that person to believe a crime has been committed and the person arrested committed that crime. While the probable cause standard is applied by police officers and judges to determine if a person should be arrested and further held to answer in a criminal trial, ultimately it is a jury who will determine by examining and weighing the evidence if a crime was committed and the person held as a defendant committed the crime.

Probable cause appears to be the standard in most states that allows a merchant or his agent to stop and detain a shopper they believe has stolen merchandise from the store. It is a higher standard than mere suspicion and higher than the peace officer's reasonable suspicion. I highly doubt that a merchant who has it together will detain a shopper because he thought he saw the shopper put something in his pocket. He or his staff will have observed several acts which will give them probable cause to detain.

Just keep this in mind. If a shopper is stopped by a merchant or his security officer and asked to allow his packages to be examined, and that merchant or officer believes he has probable cause to believe to detain that shopper, most states it seems will allow that merchant or officer to use reasonable force to detain that shopper to investigate the matter.

If the shopper believes he doesn't have to cooperate and starts a fight either directly or by attempting to leave and causing the merchant to restrain him. The judge of whether there was sufficient probable cause to detain will be a jury of the shopper's "peers." I am sure the merchant will have saved all of his store's surveillance tapes and be prepared to present them in court in his defense.

One other thing to consider. Responding like a jerk to a security officer's simple and polite request to examine your packages will not help you in court should you decide to sue.

Pilgrim

[chaim]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, they do not have to actually see you take something, if it looks on the security camera like you might have taken something that is probable cause to search you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Wrong. Hope that store enjoys the lawsuit because of what a few guards seem to "think" happened. So if half the camera is pointing at you, you pick up an item out of sight, put it back, and then put your hand in your pocket in sight, according to your analogy that would be enough to search me
While I don't know the law where you are, here you are wrong. Security is allowed to make mistakes so long as they acted reasonably. They cannot detain because an associate or manager saw something, they have to have seen either the shoplifting or something that looked like it either in person or on camera. If they lost a law suit every time they were wrong most major department stores would be out of business. You would have to show that they were completely unreasonable in their suspicions or that there was some kind of pattern of discrimination in who they choose to search. When I was a manager at the department store there were quite a few mistakes and many of those people threatened the store with lawsuits (assuming just what you are assuming), a few actually hired lawyers, and not one lawsuit was ever settled or lost by my store. As for your example, I was not a security guard there, even as a manager they kept us in the dark about much of the specifics (we were their main targets as the majority of retail loss to theft is internal), but my guess is on its face there isn't enough info- it would depend on other factors as well that they are looking at (looking for cameras or employees before making your move, mannerisms, patterns of similar behavior, etc.).

Since when does the property of a business become more valuable than the property of a homeowner? Are businesses some sort of "super-citizens" with more rights than the rest of us?
Since long before I was born (and probably you too). Here in MD pretty much the only catagory that can fairly easily get a CCW license is a business owner who carries large sums of cash or who is in a class of business that is a likely target (i.e. gun dealers, jewelry stores). Supposedly with a documented, and continuing, death threat you can get a CCW but many such people are turned down. Personal defense isn't good enough, in fact the application directly states that "personal defense" is not a valid reason to approve a carry permit. Carrying large sums of cash (and being able to document it) for your business is almost "shall issue" easy. Another, essentially "shall issue" catagory is people employed as armed security- if you are employed in such a position and you can legally own a gun you will get a carry permit.

Is it fair, heck no! I'd prefer TX law where both businesses and "the little guy" are allowed to do what they need to in order to protect their property. Though I do not advocate shooting someone over a car, it would be nice if we could detain them, use force if needed, and even defend ourself with a gun if attacked, without being arrested "because we shouldn't have gone out there knowing they were stealing the car, you should leave that to the police".

Giant Electronics World (GEW) has a serious "inventory shrinkage" problem. So, they electronically tag their merchandise, and use uniformed, but unarmed security officers to watch the doors in an attempt to cut down on the amount of product walking away by itself.

They do this because hiring the guard reduces some amount of shoplifting, thus reducing the cost of lost goods which must be passed on to the consumer to keep the company in business. Whitebear has a very good point. In most cases, what we are talking about isn't petty harrassment. Businesses are in business to make money and can't afford to antagonize their customers. Most decent retail security officers will be very sure they are right before stopping someone. They have, at minimum, a very good idea that something has been stolen. This is indeed a serious problem. As much as 25-50% (depending upon the industry) of the retail price of many goods is due to "shortage". You wouldn't believe how many millions of dollars per store, per quarter a major department store can lose to internal theft (employees shoplifting or taking from the till) and external theft (shoplifting), and no I can't give specific numbers from the store I used to work for (first, its been a few years so I don't remember the exact number, and two I can't get any more specific than "millions per store per quarter" due to the fact that it is considered a trade secret that they don't want getting to their competitors- and yes even as a former manager I am legally and ethically bound to protect any trade secrets I know).

Anyway, I understand the frustration of someone caught up in the security net (so to speak) who hasn't actually done something. I've been there. Long before I was a manager I was suspected of a $600 theft because I rung up someone who won a free shopping spree and my boss was slow to get the paperwork through the proper channels. Since they didn't have the paperwork all security saw was that I rung up $600 worth of stuff and marked it down to $0. Yes it was a PITA, I was taken to a small room with no windows. I had one guard in back of me, and one (the security manager) in front of me. They wouldn't tell me what they thought I did, only that they "know what you did. Tell us now and we won't have you arrested, you'll only lose your job. Don't tell us and you go to jail." Luckily for me I eventually figured out what probably looked suspicious to them (it was about a week prior), explained it, they checked on it and I was OK (though they never acknowleged that was what they suspected). I worked there another year and a half before leaving and came back a few years later as a manager. If I had been a suspected shoplifter it would have been easier (I had been up there almost 2 hours). They would have checked my bags and receipts and if everything was there I'd be sent on my way. Yes, it is a PITA, but the billions of dollars lost every year to theft in the retail industry makes it necessary- and sometimes some of us (the good guys) get erroniously suspected.

[morganm01]

Security Gaurds have no more legal authority than any other citizen. They can ask you whatever they want, but they CANNOT force you to jump through any hoops, unless they tell you to leave and you don't. In which case YOU are tresspassing. And then all they can do is escort you away. Think of it like this. If some little old lady comes up to you and ask's you to "show me whats in the bag!" you don't have to . SG's have the same authority as the LOL.

[Sentry]

Yeah well I don't live in a communist state, do I?

http://www.crimedoctor.com/shoplifting1.htm

1. You must see the shoplifter approach your merchandise
2. You must see the shoplifter select your merchandise
3. You must see the shoplifter conceal or carry away your merchandise
4. You must maintain continuous observation the shoplifter
5. You must see the shoplifter fail to pay for the merchandise
6. You must approach the shoplifter outside of the store

Everyone needs to read that site. Unless a guard sees you stuff a box of twinkies down your pants (at which point you know you're already guilty) and leave the store, and they confront you about suspected shoplifting instead, tell them to shove it and leave.

[Daniel T]

Sentry, that's nice and all, but if you make it look like you're stealing something, but don't actually take it, you will be stopped and detained. If you act like a jerk and get physical, your little prank will land you, and not the SO, in jail. Even in Texas.

Ask me how I know.

[chaim]

Sentry, that could be good CYA advice for the typical store owner or manager of a small storefront. However, keep in mind that different states have different laws and not all situations are the same. The parent company of the department store I worked for was one of the top 2 dept store companies in the country. They had some pretty knowlegable lawyers look over and approve their proceedures. I'm sorry, but some (or many) of those "rules" can be ignored by a well trained security staff (despite what people like to think a dept store usually has a good security staff- all our guys were retired cops, former MPs, or current criminal justice majors at the least), again with some variation in state laws. As just one example, I can't think of a single time the security staff intentionally allowed a shoplifter to leave the store before stopping them. If they saw them take something they gave them maybe 4 or 5 minutes in case they were simply absent minded. However, sometimes they grabbed them immediately if they saw them take something. If they only had strong suspicions (based on what they could see on the security camera) then perhaps they'd give them a little more time.

If you "tell them to shove it and leave" they will take you down with whatever level of force is needed based on your behavior (grabbing and cuffing you if no resistance, up to various degrees of physical force if you resist physically). I've seen dozens of shoplifters and suspected shoplifters who had to be tackled. If it got there, the police were always called (even if the suspected shoplifter didn't end up with stolen merchandise on their person) and in every such case (including when the guy didn't actually steal anything) when the police came the suspected shoplifter was the one to leave in cuffs (a verbal assult is all that is needed for an assult charge and the guards were working within their legal parameters and I do know some got resisting arrest charges for resisting the guards).

[whitebear]

OK, Sentry, I went to the site you reference, and actually read the materials. I think you should go back and do the same.

The six points you quote are presented as "universally accepted steps that a merchant should follow before detaining someone suspected of shoplifting" (emphasis mine).

To further quote from the same page:

You should also be well insulated from civil liability if you followed these six steps correctly. Remember, the steps recommended in this article exceed most state laws and are not always required for successfully prosecuting a shoplifter. (Again, emphasis mine.)

You might also note that the author of the page you are quoting is NOT an attorney, and any advice he gives may or may not be valid in your state.

If you're gonna mess with the system, you should probably get your facts in a little better order.

[chaim]

Oh, there is another thing you need to be careful about if you want to test the system. Even if your state has laws that severely tie the hands of security guards, do you know who you are dealing with? Many guards are off-duty cops who are moonlighting. I know around here most of the guards you see at the shopping centers are retired or off-duty cops. The off-duty guys can, and will, arrest you if they deem it necessary. The fact that they are off duty and working in their security guard capacity doesn't temporarily cause them to cease to be cops. They can still arrest. In some areas the retired guys may be able to arrest you too. Even if they can't, keep in mind that they may still have friends on the force and a call from a retired cop working security may get very quick results.

I can vouch for the last sentence personally (it wasn't only told to me by security guards I knew). A few years back I was a teller working the drive through line in the evening (after the rest of the bank was closed). A customer wanted to take money out but his account was frozen by the state due to a criminal investigation (there were also notes on the account that he had threatened a manager of another branch). Anyway, when I told him I couldn't give him the money he wanted he started screaming and cussing at me, and threatened to kill me (he told me he knew we closed at 7pm and he would wait, he also informed me there was a gun in the pickup truck). He then proceeded to park his car in a spot facing my window. I called the shoping center security (my manager wouldn't allow me to call the police) and he called the police on his radio (apparently it tied in with the police). Well, a retired cop working security calling the police got a squad car in front of the bank within about 30-45 seconds!:what: Unfortunately, the BG left when he saw the security guard enter the bank, and I don't know if he was ever found or arrested.

[Mastrogiacomo]

Hi Smoke -- to answer your question. I tried to get into teaching English as a second langage but couldn't because everywhere I went, they asked if I could speak Spanish. My response -- no....but I speak excellent English... it wasn't good enough. Gee, didn't know so many Cambodians wanted to learn Spanish with some English. :rolleyes: They also wanted me to teach English for math -- which is called Bilingual Education, not TESOL. Besides, I have dyscalculia so I couldn't do that in any language. In short, Bilingual Educators could go after my ESL jobs and get it but I couldn't go after their jobs. Also, no full-time ESL positions so no benefits or much pay.

I passed two of the three required tests for state certification in teaching but the final test included linguistics. My learning disability makes it hard to read for content or understand symbols -- hence, I can't read music or follow phonetic transcription. My hearing loss adds to the difficultly but it's not required by law to accomodate the handicapped on teacher's exams so after two expensive tries -- I gave up. Tried to get back into Federal work with the direct hire for the handicapped. It's a joke. After three years of trying to get back in, I gave up. I took the first job I was offered that might lead to armed work and possibly more money....no respect, but more money. Has yet to happen...

[tommytrauma]

I got caught myself when going to the Tango but with a knife I almost forgot to remove from my coat. Thank Christ I remembered. I think it's a 9/11 thing and it was the first time security asked to inspect my pocketbook before going in. I'm still a little shocked they did this to all the ladies and somewhat pissed at it because I don't think it was right.


After all, I've done nothing wrong so what would I care? They have a job -- it's not personal, just policy.

So, were you pissed about having your pocketbook searched, or did you not care? If you feel it wasn't right, does that cause you any moral difficulties whrn you do it to others?

I think a lot of folks here would love Boston. We have so much respect for individual rights, we practically gave the terrorists the keys to the city. Gee, if only someone detained them....they wouldn't have gotten by me. All I can I say on the subject, no matter what they thought of my position.
Am I reading this wrong, or are you claiming that the 9/11 terrorist attacks wouldn't have occured if you had been standing post at the airport?

[Mastrogiacomo]

Folks, you're reading too much into everything. Personally, if I was a guard at Logan, I wouldn't have just let anyone through the way their "security" did. I've given cleaning women more hassle getting into the building where they've worked than these men got. I don't really understand the point of arguing this point because it's along the lines of If I won the lottery type of responses. Suffice to say, I'd have taken my work seriously as I always try to do without targeting any one group, or falsely detaining people. I do what I'm told by my employers, nothing more or less and again, I'm very aware of my status and limitations. As for me, when I'm asked to open my bag, I may be pissed but unlike a lot of others, I comply.

[Navy joe]

Mastro, I give you the free pass of assuming you are not the typical security guard based on your status as an esteemed:D THR member; and that love of Berettas not withstanding you don't insert foot in mouth too often. ;)

Why I in general despise security guards. All too often they are wannabes, couldn't be so they work security. The few straight guys or gals working it as a second job are easy to spot and usually decent to talk to. Their legal authority is limited in inverse proportion to what authority they think they have. I'm around uniforms all day and it is a stretch for me to equate any uniform with authority. I get my authority/respect based on who I am and expect others to do the same. In the military sense I may respect an utter petty tyrant based soley on their uniform(because it may affect my service rather badly) but I will file them away in the enemies for life bin. So, when I see a security guard in a $5 uniform it don't exactly do it for me. I'd give more respect to a plainclothes security that looked like they knew what was going on.

Quick example. Going to a Waffle house down here at about 2am on a Friday is a cultural treat. The IHOP uses off and on duty cops, the WH goes for private security. Armed. 5 of 'em. So you got 5 rent-a-cops standing in the little vestibule and they want to tell you which of the doors you can go in or out of. Doors 10ft apart and lead to the same inner door. Petty authority for the sake of authority. Marginally trained armed guys talking belligerent to patrons who use the wrong door and odds are I'm the only sober one that night. So there I sit looking at 5 armed guys who I, judging by their weapons and holster care, wouldn't let on a square range with me. I guess that "protection" makes the WH mgmt. feel good, darned expensive though. All it means to me is that I'm going to become one with the floor if someone does start shooting, no telling what will happen. I feel a lot less safe and don't get any real sense of authority.

I surely believe that property owners should be allowed to employ private security to protect what's theirs. It's a shame that most properties are too much of cheapskates to get them trained well. I most certainly will cheerfully comply with whatever security measures established to come in, if I don't that's trespassing. Please don't block the exit however. You can check my reciept on bags, I understand loss prevention. Block the only exit and I'm gonna start fearing for my safety. Hope you got "WELCOME" written down your jacket zipper flap because it's going to get trod on.

Now, the hard reality of preventing terrorist attacks. You may if you are very lucky and good. ID checks may prevent an attack, but not likely. Mostly they make the denizens of the bldg. feel safe. As a private citizen I too will surely shoot if I see a guy in a turban with a Krinkov acting badly. Usually not that simple though. Far too often though private security guards and military sentries alike faithfully discharge their duties of stopping terrorists by getting killed. If they are lucky like in the Kenya embassy bombing their actions cause a bomb to prematurely detonate and we later recognize the heroic action of doing their job and getting blown up for the trouble. Now if a determined terrorist wants to access you building you will again serve a valuable function known as the tripwire. The sound of you getting shot will alert anyone else. That's why any decent military or private security has the guy out front at the gate or desk and then a whole buncha guys you don't see. If the front line guard gets off a shot or notifies the cavalry that is known as bonus points.

The one comment I highly disagree with: I'm there to protect the public. By the way, the apartment I guarded had this policy because of the terrorist threat to high rise apartments. Residents weren't happy with the check everyone rule but a few were very happy to see me. I got coffee and offers for food from some of the folks.

No, you are there so that after the apartment is a smoking crater the owner can say they had security. Hopefully your precense is a deterrent to amateur night terrorists and run of the mill thugs. This public don't want or need your protection. This public would also bring you coffee and a Christmas gift certificate, having stood an armed watch or three I know a crappy job when I see it. Now the whole thing about call the police that have no limits? Whoa, whole idea of this country is that everybody we choose to elevate to a public figure has limits. When the public figures decide they've had enough of limits we have ways of dealing with that and I don't mean lawsuits. So, while I will give a security or police officer all the respect thay demand through their bearing they better know their limits, because I do.

[Mastrogiacomo]

I wish my uniform costs $5. My supervisor reminds me twice a week it costs $250. Too bad I don't get the respect that comes with the territory of trying to please everyone, and have a sense of balance between the employers and the public.

[tcdrennen]

I worked armed security here in CA full time and part time for about 6 years and still keep my permits up to date. I have a degree in Criminal Justice and have completed POST 832PC and School Peace Officer training.

In CA, to be a licensed Security Guard working for a licensed Private Patrol Operator (i.e. a contract security company) you need to pass the Powers of Arrest course and be licensed, which includes a fingerprint background check. You must be in uniform, with a shoulder patch clearly marked Private security and having the PPO's name on it. To work armed requires an additional Open Carry permit which must be renewed every two years, with firarms qualification shoots certified every 6 months; you have the specific caliber(s) you may carry on the card, and the PPO can restrict you further, or the city you work in. L.A. used to require any private patrol officer to get and wear a city-issued badge after a further background check and limited weapons to .38/.357 revlovers with 125 gr. JHP .38 +P ammo. Another company I worked for limited ammo to .38 Spl 158 gr lead SWC. At one time working two jobs I had to change all my ammo between shifts - annoying! :banghead:

(As an aside, a business can hire anyone and give them security or loss prevention authority as agents for the business; such employees do NOT have to be licensed or checked, but the employer assumes a massive liability - a PPO contractor has to have a $1 million bond in place and follow a lot of regulations including ensuring guard permits are up to date, etc.)

anyway: in working shopping center security, I had all the powers of arrest any private citizen has. In CA, the ONLY DIFFERENCE between a private person and a LEO in this regard are essentially that a Private Party must be 'in the presence' of a misdemeanor to make a lawful arrest of the violator, and has no authority to arrest on a warrant. This meant that as long as I or my partner (we worked in pairs at these centers) SAW the shoplifting and we followed the person out of the store (important) we could then detain and searrch them for the contraband. HERE'S THE IMPORTANT THING - once you have told a person they are being detained for suspected crime (shoplifting, vandalism, trespassing, whatever) YOU MAY PERFORM A PAT DOWN , open and inspect any bags or containers IN THE PERSONS IMMEDIATE CONTROL - and require the person to empty his pockets-YOU ARE SEARCHING FOR ANY WEAPONS FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY. When the contraband is found in the course of that search, well, that's just coincidence. Again for your own safety, you can secure the person as needed - including handcuffs.

Then you call the cops - when they come, you give them the report on the incident and sign the Private Person arrest form, and they then take custody of the person. In CA, a Peace Officer MUST take custody of an arrestee from a private person arrest. They can LATER let them go on citation, or take them to jail, but they MUST take custody.

The last thing I would do was to inform the arrestee that they were barred from the premises in the future and would be arrested and charged with trespassing if they came back. I did have to do that once.

Point is: I made probably 2 dozens arrests in my time in those posts, and every one was a good arrest which led to conviction; only once did I even have to be available to testify, and that guy pled out before trial (had a sharpened screwdriver and crack vials in his backpack so faced worse than the trespassing we arrested him for!) The critical thing is to be aware of exactly what the law requires and permits; to be able to ARTCULATE THE INCIDENT properly and clearly; and be prepared to testify if required. Twice I/we had to chase down and tackle/struggle with a violator, and they had the additional charges of resisting lawful arrest and assault and battery added to the shoplifting.

In other words, the same standards a LEO has to meet. Actually, higher standards, because the LEO has immunities the Private Person (even when acting lawfully) doesn't, so I had to be D@#% sure I knew exactly what I was doing and could report it clearly and correctly.

Your state and milage may differ, but I never had anything but respect from my employers, clients and the LEOs - I did things correctly and according to law. And the customers and business owners ALL appreciated what we did. We kept the hookers and drug dealers off the property, escorted the drunks away and sent them home (or arrested them if they refused) and gave our stores a reputation as places which were nice and safe to shop in - but BAD places to act up or shoplift.

[Brian Dale]

Thanks, tcdrennen; good info. One minor nitpick: YOU ARE SEARCHING FOR ANY WEAPONS FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY. When the contraband is found in the course of that search, well, that's just coincidence. If you have the legal authority to detain or arrest and perform a search, then it doesn't matter if you're searching for giraffes. State law specifies what can be done, and that's that.

[rock jock]

Sentry,

Please keep posting. Your arguments now lack any credibility but are still quite amusing.:D

[tcdrennen]

Happy Bob:
If you have the legal authority to detain or arrest and perform a search, then it doesn't matter if you're searching for giraffes. State law specifies what can be done, and that's that.
Actually, it's because of Supreme Court rulings on searches incident to arrest. If you are "detaining' a person on reasonable grounds, before actually 'arresting' them, you may search the person or belongings ONLY to ensure officer safety. Applies to police, too - kinda of an 'exigent circumstance' loophole around the court-interpreted 4th Amendment search and seizure prohibitions, but the law these days is whatever the Supes say it is, so ya go with the flow :rolleyes: :uhoh: :scrutiny:

Then of course you support and promote pro Constitution measures and candidates in hopes of getting common sense back into the law. :banghead: :fire: :cuss:

[Brian Dale]

tc, thanks for the correction.

[TamThompson]

I certainly agree with protecting one's 4th amendment rights and not allowing oneself to be bullied.

However, as a point of practicality, I would urge folks to give security guards the same courtesy and respect you'd accord any fellow citizen doing their job. For one thing, it's the right thing to do (what goes around comes around), and for another thing, you do not know if that security guard is an off-duty cop OR if their friends/siblings/parents are cops. You could end up surrounded by them.

Another point, which may have been mentioned, is that once you're on private property, you're a guest. If you don't play by the house rules, you can be asked to leave (escorted out by cops.) Don't like the house policy? Quit going there, and write them a letter, or call, and tell 'em why. (I do this a LOT.)

[Sentry]

Demise - Did I say I was "playing pranks"? I'm not 12. I'm going about my daily life, and will not let some 5 dollar an hour overzealous wannabe change that.

Chaim - If they try and "take me down" when I have not commited a crime, then I'm going to consider them a threat and they will be on the receiving end of a very nasty situation. Trying to tackle me will result in the same force as it would on the street. I've had my own training, and no one is putting me on the ground. Ever seen 2 cops fight? There wouldn't be an easy win, and I know not a single officer who does Wal*Mart security around here, anyways. It's a bunch of wannabe's. 16 an hour doesn't necessitate working at JC Penny's for a second job. Then again, I'm not in a state where 5 hours of training makes you any better than an average citizen, and doesn't equate you to law enforcement like some.

whitebear - And those steps are developed from lawsuits where the retailer has lost. I don't "mess with the system" but I don't let some stores system mess with me, either.

rock jock - You aren't even a part of this conversation, your opinion isn't concerning.

[semf]

As cops, they have no limits.

Mastrogiacomo----Please tell me that was a typo or something


Carlos -----I believe you are a Rooster (1957 1.31 - 1958 2.17:)


Demize ----How do you know ? ( just curious)


Mastrogiacomo----- I was offered a job as an ESOL teacher with no bilingual requirements. But it was in Vietnam, if your interested.( Food sucks, but the weather is bad)

[SeaG]

This has been an interesting discussion so far. I get the feeling the reason that some people become so agressive about the guard not touching them is because they are the type of person who would never steal anything. I learned that lesson when I was five. My dads was then an active duty state trooper and always told us kids that the police wouldn't have to be called because he would run us in himself =P It kept all three of us on the straight and narrow.

My pet peev are the electronic tags that are so common place now. I frequent Best Buy and have for several years now. I went in one day during an off time when there were very few customers in the store. I found the electronics that I wanted and purchased them at the only register that was open. I spent in the $100-$150 range and was aprox 10 feet from the security guy at the door and he was facing the direction of the register so I know he was aware of me. Ofcorse the gal at the register didn't do her job and I beeped as I walked out the door. Predictably the security guy says he needs to see in my bag. I was already in a bad mood that day and the fact that I saw the guy watch me check out didn't help my mood. I looked him in the eye and said something along the line of " This really pisses me off" after which he didnt even look in the bag and said "Sorry sir, have a nice day."

I've worked security for both the military and private sector. I've seen my share of good security people and those "gung ho" types . If one of those types decided to tackle you as you walked out to restrain you because of what they thought they saw, and later found out they were mistaken, would they be leaving themselves open for assualt charges? I get the feeling if I as a citizen ,thought I saw someone do something ,tackled them and waited for the police then there was no proof of a crime... I'd be the one going to jail.

[Bostonterrier97]

My understanding is a security guard can search your belongings ONLY if you voluntarily submit to a search. The ONLY time that a security guard can conduct an involuntary search is when they have conducted a citizen's arrest and then and only then..can they conduct a search. However the search is only to be made on the arrestee's body and only for a weapon.

This means a "pat down".

Otherwise it is an illegal search.

On the other hand..on private property (such as a mall)..failure to submit to a search can result in you being asked to leave the property, and if you refuse you can then be arrested for trespassing.

[fearlessrogue]

Have any of you actually been detained? It is really insulting.

When I was 17 and looking like a hoodlum I went to the mall with my mom. While I was there I noticed a life size cardboard standee (sp?) of Rocky outside of a Suncoast. I went inside and asked if I could buy it, to which they replied not, but that they would take my number and get back to me if it became available. 15 minutes later the standee became available which I picked up and carried with through the mall.

After several minutes I noticed that I had picked up a tail, which became 3 s/g that would detained me. Mind you at the time I was with my mother and 5 year old niece. After 10 minutes they let me go, and to this day I regret not having cried bloddy murder and then demanding proof of detention in writing/ coaxing one of the ninjas into assaulting me, though what they did was likely enough for a lawsuit.

The lesson I learned is that malls suck, but the average mall ninja sucks more. I avoid both now like the plague.

[SeaG]

I have a CCW and the whole patting down for a weapon thing scares me to death. If this person pats me down feels my gun and attempts to disarm me, well thats not going to happen unless its a police officer. That loaded weapon is my responsiblity. I will not surrender a loaded weapon to someone who may not have the ability to safely handle it. I just can't see anything but major panic happening at the first sighting of a weapon.

[Old Fuff]

SeaG:

In most states that have concealed weapons licenses you can carry inside a store or whatever unless it is clearly posted otherwise. If it is you shouldn't enter, but instead go back to your car and either take off the weapon and then return - or better yet, simply leave.

If for some reason you face a "pat-down" you should tell the security guard or police officer that you are carrying a handgun and that you have a valid license to do so. Then state that you will only submit to a search by a sworn police officer and no one else. If you are in a situation that would justify a search then you have a right to demand that the search be made by an officer, especially if you're carrying a gun. If you get any flack demand to speak to the store manager. I always make a point of carefully looking for "no guns" signs before I enter a building, and if there is one I don't go in. One's money should be spent in establishments where they, and their arms are welcome.

[BlkHawk73]

This entire thread has become ridiculous! Each state has is own unique laws /rules/regulations governing this type of stuff. Thinking you know the laws in your state doesn't do any good if you're in another state. Playing the macho man and spoting off with the "you touch me I'll hurt you, sue you, ..." ain't impressing anyone here. More than likely should an event occur, that mentality won't get you far either. Playing the "ain't no way anyone detaining/searching me..." isn't always the best idea either. Ever think for a second that maybe, just maybe you DON'T know the exact scope of the law. I'm always amazed at how everyone seems to have law school educations. Yes, we live in the United States. However, that doesn't mean that everything you object to is a wrongful act against your rights. So many people are always in a hurry to say that something is a violation of a particular right. Once again...I'm always amazed at how everyone seems to have law school educations. I'm one of us that didn't atted law school. I did however graduate high in my class with a degree in law enforcement and worked for the local police dept. While I'm not educated on the laws of other states, I can tell you that in some places those "non-cops" (private security) gaurds CAN legally detain you under reasonable suspicion and may conduct a search under those same conditions. If you wan't to dispute it, don't bother doing it here. Prove it to all of us by acting suspicious and evasive at the local mall and see what occurs when you set your method of operations into effect with the security.

Oh, hey try flying and got going through the metal detecor or have your luggage get scanned/checked. I don't see any LEO badges on those people. Go ahead just waltz on through and then object to the search and "take them down painfully" You won't be landing in your intended destination.

I'm not a super frequent poster here at THR. I visit multiple times a day but seldom post unless I can offer a different side to a thread, or if no requested info has been given. From reading the threads over time, some members here earned my respect based solely on thier responses. This thread has dispelled a great deal of that respect for a number of people. Granted, none here proberly give a rat's a$$. I really don't either and more than likely the "know-alls" here wouldn't care if it were just them here to brag to each other. Mastrogiacomo...you have my respect!

[Andrew Rothman]

This entire thread has become ridiculous! Each state has is own unique laws /rules/regulations governing this type of stuff.....Ever think for a second that maybe, just maybe you DON'T know the exact scope of the law. I'm always amazed at how everyone seems to have law school educations. Yes, we live in the United States. However, that doesn't mean that everything you object to is a wrongful act against your rights.

Try paragraph breaks...please!

You are 100% correct that laws differ from state to state. The lesson here is that it would behoove each person in this discussion to actually look up their own state's laws (as several have).

But if you need a "law school education" to know what the law is, there is something horibly wrong with the law.

The average person with a high school education should be able to read and understand his state laws.

Oh, hey try flying and got going through the metal detecor or have your luggage get scanned/checked. I don't see any LEO badges on those people.

Sigh.

If you don't know the difference between a security guard acting on behalf of Macy's and a security guard acting on behalf of the federal government. I can't help you. I suspect that you do, though, so why compare apples and oranges?

I am never ready to assume that I should give up my rights. Why are you?

Matt

[Andrew Rothman]

Minnesota law says: (the highlighting is mine)

629.366 Theft in business establishments; detaining
suspects.

Subdivision 1. Circumstances justifying detention.
(a) A merchant or merchant's employee may detain a person if the
merchant or employee has reasonable cause to believe:

(1) that the person has taken, or is taking, an article of
value without paying for it, from the possession of the merchant
in the merchant's place of business or from a vehicle or
premises under the merchant's control;

(2) that the taking is done with the intent to wrongfully
deprive the merchant of the property or the use or benefit of
it; or

(3) that the taking is done with the intent to appropriate
the use of the property to the taker or any other person.

(b) Subject to the limitations in paragraph (a), a merchant
or merchant's employee may detain a person for any of the
following purposes:

(1) to require the person to provide identification or
verify identification;

(2) to inquire as to whether the person possesses
unpurchased merchandise taken from the merchant and, if so, to
receive the merchandise;

(3) to inform a peace officer; or

(4) to institute criminal proceedings against the person.

(c) The person detained shall be informed promptly of the
purpose of the detention and may not be subjected to unnecessary
or unreasonable force, nor to interrogation against the person's
will. A merchant or merchant's employee may not detain a person
for more than one hour unless:

(1) the merchant or employee is waiting to surrender the
person to a peace officer, in which case the person may be
detained until a peace officer has accepted custody of or
released the person; or

(2) the person is a minor, or claims to be, and the
merchant or employee is waiting to surrender the minor to a
peace officer or the minor's parent, guardian, or custodian, in
which case the minor may be detained until the peace officer,
parent, guardian, or custodian has accepted custody of the minor.

(d) If at any time the person detained requests that a
peace officer be summoned, the merchant or merchant's employee
must notify a peace officer immediately.

Subd. 2. Arrest. Upon a charge being made by a
merchant or merchant's employee, a peace officer may arrest a
person without a warrant, if the officer has reasonable cause
for believing that the person has committed or attempted to
commit the offense described in subdivision 1.

Subd. 3. Immunity. No merchant, merchant's employee,
or peace officer is criminally or civilly liable for any action
authorized under subdivision 1 or 2 if the arresting person's
action is based upon reasonable cause.



So it comes down to "reasonable cause". I wonder what the case law is on that.

I also note that there is no right for a merchant to search the person.

There's one state down. 49 to go!

Matt

[Ladybug]

Darnit, I was trying to stay away from this thread :p

Regarding people reading the laws in their state... as I said earlier I definately think this would behoove anyone who plans on putting something like this to the test. And no, generally you do not need a law school education to understand the law. HOWEVER, and mpayne hinted at this, reading the statutes will not give you all of the information - you have to read cases to understand how those laws really apply. Someone earlier thought that "vague" laws were unconstitutional.... phrases like "reasonable" are very common in statutes, and the only way you know what they really mean is to read how the courts have interpreted them.

I asked sentry earlier if he had read ALL of the statutes and cases pertaining to false imprisonment in his jurisdiction, and he said yes... I highly doubt that. I've read the AR statute on shoplifting and a merchant's right to detain people, plus a few cases that have been decided recently, and I feel pretty confindent that anyone on this thread who thinks they would win a lawsuit against their "mall ninja oppressors" would lose. But even so, there's nothing to say that the circumstances of that particular case might not be just different enough to let them win. Most importantly, IMO, is the fact that IT'S JUST NOT WORTH IT!!! How much time, money, effort, aggravation are you really willing to expend to bring something as ridiculous as a security guard wanting to see what's in your bag to court? Me - none.

And for those who asked - in most places that I'm aware of - if one of those security detectors at the front door beep when you go out that IS sufficient grounds to detain you.... but again, if you just show them that you've done nothing wrong there won't be any need for that.

Finally let me just add this -- who do you think pays for shoplifting? YOU DO! If stores are not allowed to take protective measures to prevent theft, and they lose a certain percentage of their merchandise to shoplifting, YOU will pay for it by paying more for the things in that store.

[Matt G]

This thread's getting all over the place.

Originally, the question at hand was: "What to do if asked what's in the pack/purse/briefcase/pocket, when carrying?"

Then it's moved into a question of what rights security personnel have to stop and detain you. This is a pretty vague discussion topic, as we have posters here from 50 states, many more countries, numerous commonwealths, protectorates, and subdivisions, politically. If you're in the U.S., for example, you may be allowed [X] leeway as security person. If you're in a certain state, you then are restricted to [X]/[Y] lattitude. If you're in a certain county or city, you may be restricted to [X]/[Y]/[Z]/ activity. Add corporate policies and/or covenants of local groups, and you get [X]/[Y]/[Z]/[a]. And so on. There are so many permutations of this available, blanket statements on the subject are just silly.

Attacking each other is not just silly-- it's inappropriate here.

Please either attempt to address the topic at hand civilly, or refrain from posting here.

[TallPine]

I believe the original question involved having your personal items (clothing, briefcase, purse, etc) searched routinely upon entrance or exit to some property.

Of course, upon entry you should have the option to just refuse and leave.

There are no grounds to search everyone's personal effects upon exit of a place of business. That is outrageous and should be absolutely refused.

A "beeper" going off - that is a different issue ... I guess I would be ready to haughtily prove that the register clerk didn't do his/her job right :neener:

So before some of you get on a high horse and criticize some others for their reaction, you need to understand what the reaction is to.

[Andrew Rothman]

One more thing: At least in Minnesota, a person may be detained if they are reasonably believed to have stolen an article of value from a merchant.

On the other hand, a security guard at an apartment building may ask to see my bag, but I may refuse. That guard may ask me to leave, but may NOT detain me. If they do, it is assault and I may defend myself in accordance with state law.

----

One OTHER more thing.... :)

I am sick unto death of the treatment at Sam's Club. After standing in a long line at the register, I am in no mood to stand in a long line at the exit door for some employee to "check the receipt" (count the items in my cart and compare it to the total items on the receipt).

My usual response, if there is a line, is to walk past the line and out the door. I have paid; my business with the store is concluded.

And I don't think I can be detained, either. Sam's can't hvae "reasonable cause" to believe that EVERY customer is a thief.

I talked to the manager about this. He said it is to "make sure the cashier didn't miss any items."

Tough noogies. It's not my responsibility to help train or audit their employees.

So far I have gotten yelled after, but never been stopped.

Matt

[Brian Dale]

with the aside that personal attacks are always inappropriate here. There's been a lot of useful brain exercise going on, and here (IMO) Old Fuff has answered the question: If for some reason you face a "pat-down" you should tell the security guard or police officer that you are carrying a handgun and that you have a valid license to do so. Then state that you will only submit to a search by a sworn police officer and no one else. If you are in a situation that would justify a search then you have a right to demand that the search be made by an officer, especially if you're carrying a gun. If you get any flack demand to speak to the store manager. I always make a point of carefully looking for "no guns" signs before I enter a building, and if there is one I don't go in. One's money should be spent in establishments where they, and their arms are welcome. It's clear, concise and to the point. Thanks.

{Edited after reading MPayne's post, to add:} Matt, check the agreement that you signed when you joined Sam's Club. The "exit inventory" (I don't know what Sam's calls it) is something that I decided to put up with in exchange for money - I save a lot there on supplies. I knew their procedure before I signed the contract.

[BlkHawk73]

The "law school education" I was referring to was meant to be taken seriously. I was simply saying that people have thier idea of what is & is not legal. The majority of these people have likely never read the laws thier claiming to know or taken the time to learn the scope of these laws.
Apples to orages...a number of responders made it clear that unless the person wishing to question/search or detain them was a police officer, they had to leagl right to do anything that person asked for. Last I knew these airport security checkers were NOT LEOs - just as Macy's security is not LEOs. A LEO is a LEO. A sec agent is a sec agent. Apples to apples:banghead:

Now let me answer the original question at hand here. Since I have nothing illegal with me not committed any crime. I'd more than likely comply. I think first I'd question politely why.

[Andrew Rothman]

I said:
If you don't know the difference between a security guard acting on behalf of Macy's and a security guard acting on behalf of the federal government. I can't help you.

You said:
Apples to orages...a number of responders made it clear that unless the person wishing to question/search or detain them was a police officer, they had to leagl right to do anything that person asked for. Last I knew these airport security checkers were NOT LEOs - just as Macy's security is not LEOs. A LEO is a LEO. A sec agent is a sec agent. Apples to apples.

Nope.

A security guard is an AGENT of her employer, and thus has the same rights and obligations AS THE EMPLOYER. Turns out that the federal government has slightly different rights and obligations than Macy's.

Apples to watermelons! :)

(edit: oh, by the way, the civilian security screeners are NOT security guards. They are young and old, frail and hale, and are only responsible for scanning and customer interaction. Any detention or enforcement is handled by their backup -- which is law enforcement.)

Matt

[BluesBear]

My usual response, if there is a line, is to walk past the line and out the door. I have paid; my business with the store is concluded.

LOL! Pull that stunt in Washington State and you won't be a member for very long. :neener:

[Al Thompson]

Wow! What a whopper of a thread.. I don't get to this forum often..

Just for general info, here in South Carolina, a security officer on his employee's premises has the authority of a deputy sherrif.

We have had officers pursue a suspect on foot - right to the property line. Then it's observe and report or a citizen's arrest.

As for the search thing - it's "Sir/Ma'm can I see inside that bag? No? OK - please leave the premises, your tresspassing". EOS

[Hot brass]

as someone with a M.Ed. and Class A permit -- it be great if there were some security companies that could offer their employees more than an opportunity to use harsh language....



Maybe you should find a NEW type of employment.

[Andrew Rothman]

Just for general info, here in South Carolina, a security officer on his employee's premises has the authority of a deputy sherrif.

Al, I looked at SC law and couldn't find a cite. Can you help?

[buzz_knox]

Security Gaurds have no more legal authority than any other citizen.

Depends on the state. In Tennessee, they essentially have LEO authority on the property they are protecting.

We have had officers pursue a suspect on foot - right to the property line. Then it's observe and report or a citizen's arrest.

Unless I'm mistaken, TN law allows for pursuit off the premises.

[Al Thompson]

Mpayne - it's SC code Title 40, chapter 18. Don't have a web address, but on the back of my card it states " Security officers shall have the authority and arrest power given to sheriffs deputies to arrest a person violating a criminal statue of this state but posses the powers of arrest only on the property on which the officer is employed."

HTH