494 CC security CARE AND CONTROL

Discussion, ideas, questions and thoughts on case law.
DJM
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 8:27 pm
Contact:

494 CC security CARE AND CONTROL

Postby DJM » Mon Jun 15, 2015 2:00 am

so there is the thing im wondering. I work security at a plaza that has two bars at it, DUI is a huge problem as patrons leave the bar and try to drive home. I have seen the situation before where a security guard arrested someone for care and control and the person blew over and was charged when police arrived but that guard was an opp auxiliary officer who had the whole training behind determining if someone is impaired and luckily she blew over thus had been found committing the indictable offence of care and control. i was taught in my security course by my teacher who was ex rcmp that i could arrest for care and control but my main concern is if i arrest the person and they end up being just under the legal limit then im liable.

i know the nystagmis test and looking for the five signs of impairment but i dont want to be in the situation where after all those tests and they end up being .07 instead of .08. im first wondering what blood alcohol rating someone who fails a nystagmis test likely be at.

Also i was looking through the criminal code and noticed an annotation which stated one ,ust have reasonable grounds that they apparently found them commiting an indictable offence(r v Abel), could that mean that if i arrested someone who i though on reasonable grounds was impaired based on five signs and then failed nystagmis and they blew under i am covered as i had reasonable ground to believe the person was drunk and thought i saw him apparently in the act of care and control.

Now i know the anser some will bring and know it is a safe answer which is call police and have them deal with it but every time i have done that person has gotten away due to the time lag for response and it only takes the person 30 seconds to take off, people have always got away like that with me and i know they endanger peoples lives doing it and im trying to do everything i can to prevent people from getting hurt but dont want to break the law doing so. also if someone knows where i can get police level training courses for this as civilian that would be great.

User avatar
Stinger
Poobah Overlord
Posts: 2736
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 7:57 am
Contact:

Re: 494 CC security CARE AND CONTROL

Postby Stinger » Mon Jun 15, 2015 8:15 am

Call the local Police Det or station and advise them of whats going on and they will let the officers know to step up patrols. Also part of your questions seems like a fishing expedition and this forum doesn't hand out legal advice.

User avatar
ryan.p
Rookie Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:18 am
Contact:

Re: 494 CC security CARE AND CONTROL

Postby ryan.p » Mon Jun 15, 2015 8:38 am

I'll only add 2 points:

1) I never have and never will drive impaired. On that same note, I never have and never will submit to any sort of field testing from a civilian security guard. So, good luck with aspect.

2) Is your employer well aware and supportive of your intentions? Speaking from opinion, I can't see too many employers wishing to open themselves up to that sort of liability.

Like mentioned above, call the police immediately, grab a plate number and description and I'm sure a couple of units will be on site quickly.
| Now on board with VanB's 5 step program |

User avatar
basketcase
Poobah Overlord
Posts: 3430
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:41 pm
Contact:

Re: 494 CC security CARE AND CONTROL

Postby basketcase » Mon Jun 15, 2015 10:20 am

DJM wrote:i know the nystagmis test and looking for the five signs of impairment but i dont want to be in the situation where after all those tests and they end up being .07 instead of .08. im first wondering what blood alcohol rating someone who fails a nystagmis test likely be at.


First of all, there is more to it than testing for nystagmus. Second of all, the only people who can demand Standardized Field Sobriety Testing are POLICE officers who are TRAINED in SFST administration. FInally, there may or may not be more than five signs of impairment. The burden of proof is really only slight impairment from what's "normal" when dealing with ones ability to operate a motor vehicle.

Impaired driving is all reasonable grounds. There's no real "Finds Committing". As soon as you have to put pieces of the puzzle together to make an arrest, you're dealing with reasonable grounds. There are other variables which may make it seem that somebody is impaired, but they're not. Medical issues being one of the big ones.
OFFICER OF THE LAW

User avatar
Pete Broccolo
Moderator
Posts: 500
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Weyburn SK Canada
Contact:

Re: 494 CC security CARE AND CONTROL

Postby Pete Broccolo » Mon Jun 15, 2015 10:43 am

DJM wrote:so there is the thing im wondering. I work security at a plaza that has two bars at it, DUI is a huge problem as patrons leave the bar and try to drive home. I have seen the situation before where a security guard arrested someone for care and control and the person blew over and was charged when police arrived but that guard was an opp auxiliary officer who had the whole training behind determining if someone is impaired and luckily she blew over thus had been found committing the indictable offence of care and control. i was taught in my security course by my teacher who was ex rcmp that i could arrest for care and control but my main concern is if i arrest the person and they end up being just under the legal limit then im liable.

i know the nystagmis test and looking for the five signs of impairment but i dont want to be in the situation where after all those tests and they end up being .07 instead of .08. im first wondering what blood alcohol rating someone who fails a nystagmis test likely be at.

Also i was looking through the criminal code and noticed an annotation which stated one ,ust have reasonable grounds that they apparently found them commiting an indictable offence(r v Abel), could that mean that if i arrested someone who i though on reasonable grounds was impaired based on five signs and then failed nystagmis and they blew under i am covered as i had reasonable ground to believe the person was drunk and thought i saw him apparently in the act of care and control.

Now i know the anser some will bring and know it is a safe answer which is call police and have them deal with it but every time i have done that person has gotten away due to the time lag for response and it only takes the person 30 seconds to take off, people have always got away like that with me and i know they endanger peoples lives doing it and im trying to do everything i can to prevent people from getting hurt but dont want to break the law doing so. also if someone knows where i can get police level training courses for this as civilian that would be great.

You COULD, if the "client's" signs ARE gross, but you have LITTLE to NO coverage for this, so, no matter what that ex-member says (and PLEASE print this out, show it to him and have him e-mail me so we can discuss this, horse-rider to horse-rider), do NOT grab anyone. You are not paid, equipped, authorized nor probably given direction enough by your employer to do this. Stick to your work - patrol, observe, report.
#32936 - Cst - RCMP - 1975-10-27 / 2010-12-29
"F" Div - 1976-05-04 / end (GD & HP / RTS)
Proud Dad of #54266 - RCMP - 2007-02-12 / date
RCMP Vets Assoc - Regina Div member
Husband, Dad (*), Father-In-Law, & Grampa (*+2)

GoodWitness
Rookie Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:25 am
Contact:

Re: 494 CC security CARE AND CONTROL

Postby GoodWitness » Mon Jun 15, 2015 1:49 pm

Is it possible to be an OPP Auxiliary and work as a security guard? Just curious, seems like a potential issue somewhere down the road.

DJM
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 8:27 pm
Contact:

Re: 494 CC security CARE AND CONTROL

Postby DJM » Mon Jun 15, 2015 4:25 pm

to answer some of the replies my employer supports arrests and wants more arrests on site. were not a just observe and report outfit as implied with all security guards, we are primarily there for protecting property and arresting those who are causing disturbances but arresting for DUI is something that as long as there were no legal issues the company will back me up. as for the auxiliary guy he is now an active opp member and i know the bitch we arrested is fighting the case so i look forward to seeing the outcome from that. now again for those that said police will be there quick i will repeat the offender is gone before police show up, even with the plate and shit they havent found the fucker. As for not equipped we are equiped with batons cuffs and body armour but i dont mean to make it seem like we dont communicate first because i use a lot of communication. also for those that said nobody will submit to testing i have ASKED persons to do some testing and they did it without arguement and i am aware they can refuse and if they do there isnt anything i can do to force them into testing.

User avatar
Toonces
King Poobah
Posts: 1888
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 12:51 pm
Contact:

Re: 494 CC security CARE AND CONTROL

Postby Toonces » Mon Jun 15, 2015 8:33 pm

As an OPP officer, I wouldn't want anything to do with you and your lack of professionalism. I am specifically speaking to your post above. Chosing to exercise a right to a trial does not make a woman a bitch. Further, I am trained to do SFSTs. You have no business doing these tests without proper training and accreditation.

You display an appalling attitude. Your company should distance themselves from you, and quick.
I will NOT respond to PMs from those not belonging to the private side.

User avatar
RedcapCrusader
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 7:36 pm
Location: Calgary, AB
Contact:

Re: 494 CC security CARE AND CONTROL

Postby RedcapCrusader » Mon Jun 15, 2015 8:47 pm

Toonces wrote:As an OPP officer, I wouldn't want anything to do with you and your lack of professionalism. I am specifically speaking to your post above. Chosing to exercise a right to a trial does not make a woman a bitch. Further, I am trained to do SFSTs. You have no business doing these tests without proper training and accreditation.

You display an appalling attitude. Your company should distance themselves from you, and quick.


+1 to that. :thumbsup:

User avatar
ryan.p
Rookie Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:18 am
Contact:

Re: 494 CC security CARE AND CONTROL

Postby ryan.p » Mon Jun 15, 2015 8:59 pm

DJM wrote:to answer some of the replies my employer supports arrests and wants more arrests on site. were not a just observe and report outfit as implied with all security guards, we are primarily there for protecting property and arresting those who are causing disturbances but arresting for DUI is something that as long as there were no legal issues the company will back me up. as for the auxiliary guy he is now an active opp member and i know the bitch we arrested is fighting the case so i look forward to seeing the outcome from that. now again for those that said police will be there quick i will repeat the offender is gone before police show up, even with the plate and shit they havent found the fucker. As for not equipped we are equiped with batons cuffs and body armour but i dont mean to make it seem like we dont communicate first because i use a lot of communication. also for those that said nobody will submit to testing i have ASKED persons to do some testing and they did it without arguement and i am aware they can refuse and if they do there isnt anything i can do to force them into testing.


Quoted so this gem of a reply stays on record.
| Now on board with VanB's 5 step program |

GoodWitness
Rookie Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:25 am
Contact:

Re: 494 CC security CARE AND CONTROL

Postby GoodWitness » Mon Jun 15, 2015 9:19 pm

Image

User avatar
Floydie
Seasoned Member
Posts: 395
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2013 7:58 pm
Contact:

Re: 494 CC security CARE AND CONTROL

Postby Floydie » Mon Jun 15, 2015 9:59 pm

DJM wrote:i know the bitch we arrested is fighting the case so i look forward to seeing the outcome from that

...I wouldn't hold your breath...most likely won't be the outcome you're hoping for :roll:
CX-1 @ Millhaven

Tango5
Rookie Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:34 am
Location: E Div
Contact:

Re: 494 CC security CARE AND CONTROL

Postby Tango5 » Mon Jun 15, 2015 10:17 pm

First > The "bitch"? And the "fucker"? :shame:

Secondly > So, in the past, you have administered testing you are not legally authorized to do... Did any of this "Unauthorized testing" ever go to court or did you just get lucky?

---
x2 @Toonces
... For the Grammar Police, get off my back, I wasn't born here.

User avatar
IndictableChaser
Veteran Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:20 pm
Location: Halfway Between the Gutter and the Stars
Contact:

Re: 494 CC security CARE AND CONTROL

Postby IndictableChaser » Tue Jun 16, 2015 12:24 am

Trespass to property act. Always worked wonders, or breach of the peace. Or make shit up as you go, I don't really remember....
Ever listen to k billy's super sounds of the 70s?

"...if every time, Snot Boogie stole the money, why’d you let him play?
... Got to. It’s America, man."

DJM
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 8:27 pm
Contact:

Re: 494 CC security CARE AND CONTROL

Postby DJM » Tue Jun 16, 2015 12:48 am

Toonces wrote:As an OPP officer, I wouldn't want anything to do with you and your lack of professionalism. I am specifically speaking to your post above. Chosing to exercise a right to a trial does not make a woman a bitch. Further, I am trained to do SFSTs. You have no business doing these tests without proper training and accreditation.

You display an appalling attitude. Your company should distance themselves from you, and quick.


Your right a woman excersizing a right to a fair trail isn't a bitch but I'm not calling her a bitch for that I'm calling her a bitch as stated by police themselves cus she kicked out an officers knee, headbutted her lawyer, smashed the window out of the cop car, and attempted to endanger the lives of innocent people by driving behind the wheel while impaired. Yes I get I dropped a few curse words but I know cops are just as guilty. As far as the tests go all persons consented and had the right to refuse and I never arrested on the results of the tests just told them to go home which most did.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest