Don't Even Know Where To Start To Research This

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trunk Monkey

Trunk Monkey

member
Joined
Dec 25, 2011
Messages
4,120
Location
Colorado
A member of our church security team who is not a sworn LEO has been carrying handcuffs while performing her volunteer duties.
I noticed it the other day and mentioned that she was risking liability to herself and the church by doing so and got asked to cite specific statutes.

Unfortunately my Google -Fu is weak and I don't even know where to start looking.

Any help would be appreciated. I'm in Colorado.

As for THIS specific incident, I didn't push the issue I just notified the ministry head and showed him the relevant page in the church security policy manual. He'll take care of it or not and my hands are clean
 
Here is an article on Colorado's Citizen Arrest Statute.

Understanding Colorado’s Citizen’s Arrest Law 16-3-201- How Far Does It Go? Colorado and the West has a long tradition of the Citizen’s Arrest. With the wide open plains of the Southwest – law enforcement was practically nonexistent and it was left to the people to enforce the laws and to keep the peace until law enforcement arrived – if it ever did.

With that rich history – the Citizen’s Arrest has remained mostly the same over the years. This article is intended to help understand the law as it exists today (2015)
Click to expand...
 
If a situation occurs which call in the need for cuffs, will any laws or rules against really matter? "This man was attacking with a knife. We subdued him and he's over there cuffed to the pew, officer." I can't imagine that leading to an issue.

Although, she sounds a bit zealous.
 
I suspect I won't find a specific Colorado statute if it says you can't carry handcuffs unless you're sworn. I think it will fall more Under The Heading of unlawful detainment false arrest, something like that.

As far as the church's policy goes they're carrying liability insurance on their security volunteers under a rider from their insurance company and one of the conditions of the rider is that the security volunteers don't carry handcuffs, don't carry OC spray, don't carry tasers, don't carry batons and unless they're actually sworn police officers. So if this woman ever does slap the cuffs on somebody and she's not justified she's acting outside the scope of her duties in the church will drop her like a rock and they should. But she was an MP in the Army and she's decided that means she can carry handcuffs as a civilian and it's okay.
 
If I somehow or another felt the need to restrain someone, I think I'd probably carry a couple of long wire ties. I have a pair of handcuffs, but I don't remember why or when I got them. That memory may filter up to my wrinkled old cortex soon.

Kind of a good question about restraint in a citizen's arrest, whether metallic cuffs or wire ties or just plain rope are the instruments, aside from the particular church situation in the OP.
 
While I can't speak for Colo I am quite familiar with the Commonwealth. LEO's here are not the only ones empowered to make arrests (not citizen arrests). Armed security officers have the power to make arrests on the property they protect.

I would be willing to bet that Colo law says something similar
 
16-3-201. Arrest by a private person



A person who is not a peace officer may arrest another person when any crime has been or is being committed by the arrested person in the presence of the person making the arrest.

HISTORY: Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 199, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-3-201.
 
16-2.5-141. Colorado state security guard



A Colorado state security guard is a peace officer while engaged in the performance of his or her duties pursuant to article 7 of title 24, C.R.S., whose authority shall be limited to the scope and authority of his or her assigned duties and who may be certified by the P.O.S.T. board.
 
Trunk Monkey said:
As far as the church's policy goes they're carrying liability insurance on their security volunteers under a rider from their insurance company and one of the conditions of the rider is that the security volunteers don't carry handcuffs, don't carry OC spray, don't carry tasers, don't carry batons and unless they're actually sworn police officers. So if this woman ever does slap the cuffs on somebody and she's not justified she's acting outside the scope of her duties in the church will drop her like a rock and they should. But she was an MP in the Army and she's decided that means she can carry handcuffs as a civilian and it's okay.
Click to expand...

It appears you have answered your own question.

Liability can mean many things and there need not always be a legal "Statute" attached.

Do these "security" volunteers carry firearms or any other form of self defense protection?
 
Trunk Monkey said:
Don't Even Know Where To Start To Research This.....
Click to expand...
To actually research the legal side of the question you really need access to the correct tools.

I would start with the Colorado statute or statutes relating to citizens' arrest. I could then look at the statute(s) as published in the annotated Colorado codes. These are books of the statutes annotated with citations to cases in which the statutes have been cited. I'd need to go to a good law library to find those annotated codes. Or if I had access to a searchable legal database like Westlaw or Lexis I could do that on-line, but subscriptions to such databases are expensive.

Once I've found citations to cases in which courts have applied the statute(s) I can read those cases; and those cases can also lead me to other cases in which the issues I'm interested in were considered.

That's how we do legal research.

Trunk Monkey said:
...I think it will fall more Under The Heading of unlawful detainment false arrest, something like that....
Click to expand...
Quite possibly. That would present another avenue of research. Again one would need to look at some Colorado cases involving those issues. Once a couple of cases are found they can lead the researcher to others. There would quite possibly be some overlap of false imprisonment cases and citizens' arrest cases.

Trunk Monkey said:
....As far as the church's policy goes they're carrying liability insurance on their security volunteers under a rider from their insurance company and one of the conditions of the rider is that the security volunteers don't carry handcuffs, don't carry OC spray, don't carry tasers, don't carry batons and unless they're actually sworn police officers. So if this woman ever does slap the cuffs on somebody and she's not justified she's acting outside the scope of her duties in the church will drop her like a rock and they should....
Click to expand...
And that's also correct. If she's a security volunteer but acts outside of policy, she might find herself out swinging in the wind all by herself.
 
Trunk Monkey said:
I suspect I won't find a specific Colorado statute if it says you can't carry handcuffs unless you're sworn. I think it will fall more Under The Heading of unlawful detainment false arrest, something like that.

As far as the church's policy goes they're carrying liability insurance on their security volunteers under a rider from their insurance company and one of the conditions of the rider is that the security volunteers don't carry handcuffs, don't carry OC spray, don't carry tasers, don't carry batons and unless they're actually sworn police officers. So if this woman ever does slap the cuffs on somebody and she's not justified she's acting outside the scope of her duties in the church will drop her like a rock and they should. But she was an MP in the Army and she's decided that means she can carry handcuffs as a civilian and it's okay.
Click to expand...

I think this is the best bet for clarity.

Whereas research of applicable jurisdictional laws may require both time and interpretation, not to mention interpretation of the applicability of any specific court cases that may be found, church policy and insurance policy as you've posted is in black and white.

Actually physically restraining of another person by someone who is not a law enforcement officer is pretty serious and can lead to a lawsuit for any number of reasons.
 
This is a issue that should be discussed with a lawyer representing the Church.

In the large city I work in the City has a training requirements to be a licensed as a security officer. They offer two different levels of permits...

The first level is a 40 hour basic training class. All it does upon successful completion is gives you a piece of paper saying you are now a licensed security officer.

The second level in another 40 hour training class that upon completion gives you the authority to carrying handcuffs and chemical agent (mace / OC). You must complete this class to be able to carry cuffs and mace.

There used to be a third level of permit for being authorized to carry a firearm which involved firearms shooting qualification on a annual bases. However that requirement was dropped after conceal carry became legal in Kansas.

What is silly about requiring a permit for security officers in the city to carry handcuffs and mace is it is not illegal for citizens to do so! Companies that use licensed security officers use the class under the theory of limiting their liability by being able to claim their officers are trained in proper use of handcuffs and chemical agents.

However some companies are ignoring the expense of sending officers to the training classes since State Law allows the carrying of firearms, handcuffs and chemical agents by citizens without a permit. Since permitless carry is legal for citizens the City licensing requirement is largely meaningless.

Since handcuffs are a proven humane tool for restraining violent people that poses a risk to self and others and reducing the danger I am curious why the O.P. is against the carrying of handcuffs?
 
Last edited:
Being a practical guy I'd take the "handcuff carrier" aside and counsel them in two directions. The first is a simple principle that goes... "just because you can do something doesn't mean you should" - and then I'd advise them to contact their attorney and listen carefully to all the things that could go wrong if you restrain someone -and it's later determined to be un-justified...
 
I want to make it perfectly clear that I'm asking this for informational purposes only. As I said in the OP I mentioned it to her and got (politely) told to MYOB. I told the ministry head because she might be putting the church at risk for a lawsuit but once I told him it was out of my hands and I'll never bring it up to her again. I just want it clear in my own mind.

I also want to be clear that this person is not a licensed security guard and none of the laws that apply to security guards apply to her
 
BSA1 said:
Since handcuffs are a proven humane tool for restraining violent people that poses a risk to self and others and reducing the danger I am curious why the O.P. is against the carrying of handcuffs?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's really a matter of being a humane tool for restraint so much as it is a matter of restraint in the first place.

First of all, physically restraining a person is fraught with all kinds of potential dangers. Why? Because you have to intentionally approach the individual to put them in restraint, and that places you in easy reach of them.

If they struggle or fight at all during the restraint process, then you'll end up using ever greater amounts of force in order to obtain at least the minimum compliance required to affect the restraint. This opens you up to greater possibilities of injuring, maiming, or killing the person.

You can't even make them put themselves into restraint, when you think about it. Consider a scenario where you stop a violent attack through the use of deadly force, or the projection of the intent to use deadly force. If you tell them to put handcuffs on and they refuse, what are you going to do? Shoot or threaten to shoot them until they comply? You've just crossed the line from defense to assault.

In fact, once the imminent threat which required the use of deadly force in the first place ha s passed, then restraining, or attempting to restrain, the person could be considered assault on your part.

Restraining a person is so inherently dangerous that even police officers have problems with this. It's NOT to be considered lightly, even if there are more than one of you.


I'm 5' 9" tall and the last time I stepped on the scales I weighed in at 177 pounds. If you were 6' 2" and 220 pounds of muscle, I could still make putting me in handcuffs very difficult and dangerous. And any injuries I sustained in the process could end up being your legal liability...on top of any personal injuries you received in the process.

Stop the attack. If the person runs...let him.


Heck, if you've got the time and opportunity to consider physical restraint, you've got the time and opportunity to take some cell phone pictures for the police if he does decide to run.
 
Since handcuffs are a proven humane tool for restraining violent people that poses a risk to self and others and reducing the danger I am curious why the O.P. is against the carrying of handcuffs?
Click to expand...

Where did the OP say that he was against the carrying of handcuffs? Please be specific.
 
I never intended to turn this into a debate and I'm not going to. My question has been answered to my satisfaction and I think we'd be better off just locking this one up
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top