security guards and Handcuffs....

[Mcameron]

ok, ive got a question for some of you who are hopefully a little more knowledgeable than i am in Massachusetts law ...

......ok, i work as a security guard part time......and i know i really cant do much in the way of detaining people......im more or less a second pair of eyes and ears for the police officers on duty that day.........


but the other day i was at Target, and i noticed the security guard (yes, he was a guard and not a police officer) at the front of the store had a pair of handcuffs.....and instantly i thought..

..."whoa!, wait a minute....he cant actually use those can he?"...

then i remembered seeing a mall security guard with a pair of handcuffs several weeks ago....

so im just wondering, can a security guard actually detain people....or is that just a law suit waiting to happen?

 

[weekendracer]

or is that just a law suit waiting to happen?

Without knowing anylaw in whatever your state is: C. All of the above.

 

[Mcameron]

Without knowing anylaw in whatever your state is: C. All of the above.

i knew i was forgetting something......

state is Massachusetts

 

[GSG]

You probably saw a Loss Prevention Officer, who has more authority to detain in Mass. than a standard security guard does.

so im just wondering, can a security guard actually detain people....or is that just a law suit waiting to happen?

Same citizens arrest powers as any other regular Joe in Mass.

http://masscases.com/cases/app/11/11massappct165.html

In Massachusetts a private person may lawfully arrest someone who has in fact committed a felony. Commonwealth v. Lussier, 333 Mass. 83 , 92 (1955). The stricter requirement for a citizen's arrest -- that the person arrested be shown in fact to have committed a felony -- is designed to discourage such arrests and to prevent "the dangers of uncontrolled vigilantism and anarchistic actions." Commonwealth v. Klein, 372 Mass. 823 , 829 (1977). Cf. Commonwealth v. Mahnke, 368 Mass. 662 , 688-689 (1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 959 (1976). See also Rohan v. Sawin, 5 Cush. 281 , 285 (1851); Commonwealth v. Carey, 12 Cush. 246 , 251 (1853); Commonwealth v. Walden, 380 Mass. 724 , 728 n.2 (1980); Note, Arrest Without a Warrant in New England, 40 B.U.L. Rev. 58, 76 (1960). Generally, the person arrested must be convicted of a felony before the "in fact committed" element is satisfied and the arrest validated. If the citizen is in error in making the arrest, he may be liable in tort for false arrest or false imprisonment.

Pay careful attention there to the liability if the felon isn't convicted for the crime you saw them commit. Plea deals are common and would screw you in that regard. Keep in mind this case was off duty cops out of jurisdiction, and this is still how the courts view them. I know of a recent case in Mass. where an off duty muni cop was charged with kidnapping and related crimes for cuffing someone outside of his jurisdiction. He wasn't convicted, but that's gotta be a really fun set of charges to explain during every LTC/employment application he files for the rest of his life, especially considering that many PD's will never hire anyone who has been charged with a felony, regardless of the case disposition.

Save your cuffs for assisting outnumbered cops or propping open building doors.

 

[reflex439]

Some security officers have powers of arrest and are actually sworn special police officers, although they may be limited to their property and/or other legal boundaries. Other have no more power than any other regular citizen. I do know more than a few of the larger retail stores have their loss prevention personnel sworn in as specials, and do have powers of arrest. The local PD will transport and take custody, but the loss prevention personnel is on record as the arresting officer and will testify in court as such. It really depends on a case by case/town by town basis.

 

[tigersplint]

Back in the mid 2000's, I worked at a big department store that will go unnamed. To meet the criteria of theft in MA, no matter where IN the store, or outside, one would only have to conceal unpaid merchandise on his person. Massachusetts businesses on the other hand, had took it a step further to ensure that LP was making productive stops. There are 4 points to which an individual would have to meet in order to make a stop, ( and yes, depending on the subject, you could detain him with handcuffs, perfectly legal). You would have to have selection, if they don't see you select it from the shelf, they can't bust you. You could say that the item was yours. Next you would have concealment of the item, physically observing the subject concealing. Next, 100% observation, so in your report you can say that the item never left the subject's person. Lastly, and most importantly in MA, you would have to wait till the subject passed ALL points of purchase,(the registers, or outside the store doors, depending), After meeting all four points then you can detain, and situation depending, handcuff, and the stores reasoning for that is "to protect not only the subject but for the employees of __________ including managers, associates and loss prevention, and other customers." In order to use handcuffs, you would have to complete a training module on the computer. Now this isn't always the case, but it was great for us LP's at the time, and I wish all stores would be like them, because you never know what kind of scumbag you are going to have to apprehend. Man do I have some great stories.


To the OP though, security guards are just deterrents. The Target SG with the cuffs would not be able to detain anyone, if they were just at the front the whole time, because they did not all the criteria for a stop. ( unless there was another working inside the store and asked the other to help make a stop, meeting all the criteria)

 

[ochmude]

GSG pretty much nailed it. I worked security part-time for two years in MA. We carried cuffs because the boss wanted us to carry cuffs. It was completely for the visual deterrent. If our cuffs ever touched someone's wrists we'd be fired. Citizen's arrest in MA requires that you meet a very high legal threshold, and until that individual is convicted of the crime you have not met the threshold. Also, as GSG mentioned, Loss Prevention does have more authority than security in MA and in many states because there are laws that apply specifically to merchants that don't apply to other commercial property owners (offices, warehouses, housing projects, etc.) which allow them to detain shoplifters.

 

[GSG]

I do know more than a few of the larger retail stores have their loss prevention personnel sworn in as specials, and do have powers of arrest.

I also know there's some stores in Mass. that contract security guards who are SPO's. Basically you'd need to do a lot of research to figure out if they were legally able to detain you.

 

[In God We Trust]

I worked security many years ago and my boss told me to be a deterrent and a good witness. If I saw someone doing something stupid, I was to stare at them and follow them until they left or the police arrived.

I know that the boston housing authority police are pretty much deputized security guards, but some of them go to the full police academy or at least the part time MA academy. They also probably deal with more crap than the average municipal cop in MA.

 

[tigersplint]

Go on...

None that can be shared via internet, maybe at a shoot or show

It's my personal opinion that most SG's are no more than babysitters, with a security badge.

 

[reflex439]

I was a supervisor for a short while at a large east coast retail chain. In our case, we had the same 4 points, although the last point wasn't always needed and left to the LPs discretion in a few cases (is, multiple concealments, return fraud, employee theft, etc). We were all sworn SPOs. The security guards, when used, were contracted from a local security services company and had no powers. They were mostly used just for show during the holidays and high traffic sales, etc.

 

[Mcameron]

wow, i had actually never heard of a loss prevention officer before.......

and as for the sworn special officers, i always figured that was more for the armed security( cash truck drivers, ect.)

but the rest is pretty much what i figured... that they carry them for show.....

 

[ochmude]

wow, i had actually never heard of a loss prevention officer before.......

and as for the sworn special officers, i always figured that was more for the armed security( cash truck drivers, ect.)

but the rest is pretty much what i figured... that they carry them for show.....

Armored car security is rarely sworn based on my experience. I've talked to guys from Loomis, Garda, and Brinks, and they're all unsworn just like any other warm-body security guard.

 

[tigersplint]

sworn special officers, i always figured that was more for the armed security( cash truck drivers, ect.)

but the rest is pretty much what i figured... that they carry them for show.....

Not always the case, there are many private armed security firms out there that are not sworn in.

 

[chris_1001]

Armored car security is rarely sworn based on my experience. I've talked to guys from Loomis, Garda, and Brinks, and they're all unsworn just like any other warm-body security guard.

I worked for one (Armored car Co.) No handcuff's period... And no one was sworn unless they were a part time cop.

 

[Mcameron]

So what's the deal with being armed security in MA? You're just like anyone else but armed, and because you're in uniform it's "okay"? What I mean is, if I were to open carry, I'd be arrested probably.

wait a second...you might be on to something there......just buy some dickies and a gray button down shirt....maybe even one of those Concealed carry badges......and you should be golden....

 

[ochmude]

So what's the deal with being armed security in MA? You're just like anyone else but armed, and because you're in uniform it's "okay"? What I mean is, if I were to open carry, I'd be arrested probably.

Yup, pretty much. And even then there still isn't a 100% guarantee that you won't get hassled.

 

[oldguy]

Is there any licensing requirements to start up an armed security company in mass other than a 25.00 local business license from the town hall and proper tax accounting?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

wait a second...you might be on to something there......just buy some dickies and a gray button down shirt....maybe even one of those Concealed carry badges......and you should be golden...

Back when the New Orleans police chief was announcing that they were not going to allow people to be armed, there were numerous news films showing people with black T shirts with large block lettering "SECURITY" on the front and back carrying shotguns. It may actually be that designation as private security was the key to avoiding seizure.

Is there any licensing requirements to start up an armed security company in mass other than a 25.00 local business license from the town hall and proper tax accounting?

I don't know about the business license, but curiously, MA does not have any specific training requirement for private sector armed security. Many states with shall-issue carry permit systems have specific additional training and licensing requirements to carry as uniformed armed security.

 

[ochmude]

Is there any licensing requirements to start up an armed security company in mass other than a 25.00 local business license from the town hall and proper tax accounting?

Actually, yes. Oddly enough, you need a private investigator license in order to run a security company. You just need a pulse to be an employee, though.

Chapter 147, Section 23

No person shall engage in, advertise or hold himself out as being engaged in, nor solicit private detective business or the business of watch, guard or patrol agency, notwithstanding the name or title used in describing such business, unless licensed for such purpose as provided in section twenty-five.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to an agent, employee or assistant of a licensee....

 

[tigersplint]

So what's the deal with being armed security in MA? You're just like anyone else but armed, and because you're in uniform it's "okay"?.

Your job is to deter/destroy criminals, depending on your work site/contract. At least thats how it was...

 

[GSG]

Is there any licensing requirements to start up an armed security company in mass other than a 25.00 local business license from the town hall and proper tax accounting?

Yes. Also, keep in mind thatthe owner's LTC issues have caused people to lose their company guard license in Mass. before. Guards have also lost their LTC's for behavior on duty, or when in uniform off duty.

You just need a pulse to be an employee, though.

And no felony convictions. But even an FID won't guarantee that the person isn't a felon.

 

[nitromaxx]

Dont carry handcuffs if you dont have a policy regarding them.

 

[ochmude]

Yes. Also, keep in mind thatthe owner's LTC issues have caused people to lose their company guard license in Mass. before. Guards have also lost their LTC's for behavior on duty, or when in uniform off duty.



And no felony convictions. But even an FID won't guarantee that the person isn't a felon.

Nor can the employee have committed any offense involving moral turpitude. However, CORI checks are not mandatory and employee records are rarely (if ever) audited. The company I worked for had a turnover rate so high that we couldn't even staff every site we contracted for some evenings. As such, the owner was not at all picky about criminal records.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Posts #4 and #6 are spot-on; a "citizens arrest" is one of the quickest ways to visit the Moakley Courthouse.

When I worked LP in my younger days for an unnamed department store chain at one of their MA locations, we were actually trained and encouraged to use handcuffs. To this day, I still know of no legal foundation upon which they can be used unless an LP employee is sworn in some capacity, such as an SSPO or constable.

 

[GSG]

Nor can the employee have committed any offense involving moral turpitude. However, CORI checks are not mandatory and employee records are rarely (if ever) audited.

I know how that is, I worked for a scuzzy little security company once. If one of your coworkers is intoxicated while on duty, gets in an argument with a police officer, and when said police officer contacts the owner of the company to complain the owner laughs at the officer before hanging up on him, MSP will audit in record time. Ask me how I know this.

The company I worked for had a turnover rate so high that we couldn't even staff every site we contracted for some evenings. As such, the owner was not at all picky about criminal records.

Did he also try to coax employees into double or triple covering sites?

To this day, I still know of no legal foundation upon which they can be used unless an LP employee is sworn in some capacity, such as an SSPO or constable.

You're basically right, but the issue is fairly complicated.

MGL 231-94B provides a defense in court against false arrest for what is known in common law as "merchant's privilege."

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.

In caselaw the courts seem to view LP detaining or even searching people as the most normal thing in the world, and they essentially place them on the same level as cops when it comes to issues that parallel Terry stops and such, specifically in Coblyn v. Kennedy's, Inc., 359 Mass. 319, (1971). The statute that directly preceds this one, MGL 231-94A, gives LE nearly the exact same protection for misdemeanor arrests as this one does for Loss Prevention. The Mass. courts also don't differentiate between an SPO and non-sworn LPO's when examining these cases, although it's obvious in some that the LPO was sworn, such as in Comm. v. Hampton, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 938, (1988). But the issue is that 231-94B is only a legally recognized defense to a lawsuit. It's not authority to cuff 'em and stuff 'em, or immunity from any civil liability, just a defense come trial time if they get sued.

The advantage of LP with SPO creds is that they will have clearly outlined powers of arrest, backed up by state training. The non-sworn will be left in the same boat as everyone relying on the "castle law" in Mass., subjected to an expensive and lengthy court process where their actions are picked apart. They could also be charged with any number of offenses (kidnapping, battery, etc.) for going hands on with someone if they caught the right cop on the wrong day, since technically they're not exempt from anything. It seems mighty risky to me.

 

[ochmude]

Did he also try to coax employees into double or triple covering sites?

But of course.

 

[tigersplint]

We as LP never searched anyone. Not our lane, however, we did strongly suggest to our theives that they return all of our merchandies, and double check by emptying out their person, as was implied that when the P.O. was to show they would do that anyway. The police then did a seperate check (as per their SOP). I also attended every court case we prosecuted for, and with clear and concise testimony, I made sure all of our(LP DEPT) actions were warranted and fully explained why neccessary.

 

[r1dermon]

as someone who works in security (not retail...thank the lord), i can tell you that we are advised never to touch anyone, even if they hit us. we are to flee until cornered, and we cannot escalate the confrontation. we have 100% citizen authority, the most powerful thing i have is a uniform. and often times, it's good enough with a firm respectful tone to get people to listen. if i were to face a situation where i had cuffs and saw the bad guy getting away...

A. i dont get paid nearly enough to get shot, stabbed, or otherwise injured to save a bit of merchandise. we have cameras to catch the perps, the police can handle the rest
B. i'd never in a million years want to put myself in a position where i'd have to be a defendant in a case where the plaintiff was a shoplifter whom i stopped and subsequently injured or something else. not worth it AT ALL. security jobs are a dime a dozen.

i agree, use them to prop open doors.

 

[dwarven1]

most SG's are no more than babysitters with a badge.

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!DING! We have a winner here!!

That's EXACTLY what I was when I worked security, and I doubt that it's changed much over 30 years and in a different state. I was supposed to walk around and be seen... and i did NOT get paid enough to get physical with anyone. But I had a LTDTPD* and I was ready to use it!!



*License To Dial The Police Department