Auburn Sam's Club Police Encounter

Dave in Edmonds said:

Here is a news item from just yesterday involving an off-duty officer in uniform working traffic at a construction site.

http://q13fox.com/2014/04/18/off-du...c-struck-by-hit-and-run-driver/#axzz2zOCmWcpI

Again, if you don't live here, why are you arguing about this? For that matter, why are you posting in the Washington forum at all?

Click to expand...

Dave_pro2a said:

Which brings up an interesting point about the common lie "police work is more dangerous than other professions."

This "officer's" injury should not count toward LEO injury statistics since he was working for a private company.

Nor should he be entitled to any 'on the job injury' insurance, sick leave or benefits. If he died, he spouse and children should not be entitled to the standard Cadillac survivor benefits.

You either for for tax payers, or for private companies. Don't double dip like a welfare cheat.

Click to expand...

davidmcbeth said:

It does create issues ... I have run into cops being security guards. Security services can perform investigations (CGS Sec. 29-161u) in the course of their responsibilities but this is about the limit of their ability to try to hold or detain someone (w/o doing it under a citizen's arrest method that creates a possible civil issue).

When they say that they are a cop ... I tell them to either place me under arrest (and it would be a citizen's arrest) or leave me alone ~ they may huff and puff, but they wisely leave me alone. Their immunity would not be a bar to a civil suit against them personally because it does not exist. It only exists when they are in the performance of their duties for the government.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_534.htm A whole host of law and regulations regarding security services and PIs in my state. Security services is a highly regulated business.

A cop wearing his uniform in my state, working for a security service, violates:
Sec. 29-161s. Uniformed employee's insignia. The licensee of a security service shall issue to each uniformed employee a metal or woven insignia of a design approved by the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection, with an inscription thereon containing the word "security", the name of the licensee and an identification number. Such insignia shall be conspicuously worn at all times by the employee when in uniform and acting in the service of the licensee, and the commissioner may prescribe the manner of displaying such insignia. As used in this section, "uniform" means any manner or type of dress of a particular style and distinctive appearance as distinguished from clothing usually worn by the public.

Click to expand...

Dave in Edmonds said:

If you're not from Washington, why do think you know about what goes on here? I know several Seattle police officers personally and can tell you that they ALL do private security work in uniform regularly, as does my buddy who is a Pierce County Sheriff's deputy. Our State Patrol officers do it as well.

Click to expand...

JamesCanby said:

How DARE you question the McBeth!? He knows all laws everywhere in every state and makes certain he confronts every LEO or soldier that doesn't measure up to his standards! At least, that's what the scenarios in his mind tell him he has done...

Click to expand...

NavyLCDR said:

I agree. Is the person acting in the capacity of a police officer or as an agent of the management of the company? On private property, agents of the owner/manager of that property have more authority over visitors/customers on that property than police officers do. It was most excellent of decklin to know that and verify that the police officer was acting as an agent of the manager/owner - when clearly the officer was not. Never accept no from a person who does not have the authority to say yes - but some people will be intimidated into thinking they must accept no from someone just because of the uniform.

Click to expand...

davidmcbeth said:

Alas..one who does not know that one can argue other state law in court to make a point.

And from one in yet another state who does not argue my facts and cites are incorrect and w/o providing any cites to counter.

And I have visited this issue in several states .. all with the same result. People can argue WA law ... but it seems as if no WA law has been stated that makes the behavior noted by the OP to be proper.

The only thing said is "they do it all the time here". That's a weak argument ... very weak...not an argument at all but just an observation, in fact.

You have facts and argument I suggest the keyboard-commando make them. I don't mind people presenting facts and argument.

Just because cops do something does not make it right. I think its something people have seen time and time again on the forum.

Click to expand...

NavyLCDR said:

I agree. Is the person acting in the capacity of a police officer or as an agent of the management of the company? On private property, agents of the owner/manager of that property have more authority over visitors/customers on that property than police officers do. It was most excellent of decklin to know that and verify that the police officer was acting as an agent of the manager/owner - when clearly the officer was not. Never accept no from a person who does not have the authority to say yes - but some people will be intimidated into thinking they must accept no from someone just because of the uniform.

Click to expand...

notalawyer said:

Only to the extent that they can ask someone to leave. Because in reality, that is the only authority a private property owners has over others on his property. They cannot require that you do, or not do, something, only make you leave the property for refusing their request.

Also while acting as an agent of the property owner LEO are no longer in the legal performance of their duties and therefore cannot give 'lawful' orders as related to the owners rules. And are not protected by qualified immunity in such instances.

Click to expand...

Primus said:

Cite on the second part?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

notalawyer said:

Of course it depends on the actions taken, but here is a good one.
St. John v. McColley, 653 F. Supp. 2d 1155 - Dist. Court, D. New Mexico 2009

Click to expand...

davidmcbeth said:

Alas..one who does not know that one can argue other state law in court to make a point.

And from one in yet another state who does not argue my facts and cites are incorrect and w/o providing any cites to counter.

And I have visited this issue in several states .. all with the same result. People can argue WA law ... but it seems as if no WA law has been stated that makes the behavior noted by the OP to be proper.

The only thing said is "they do it all the time here". That's a weak argument ... very weak...not an argument at all but just an observation, in fact.

You have facts and argument I suggest the keyboard-commando make them. I don't mind people presenting facts and argument.

Just because cops do something does not make it right. I think its something people have seen time and time again on the forum.

Click to expand...

Private law enforcement off-duty employment — Guidelines.
Washington state patrol officers may engage in private law enforcement off-duty employment, in uniform or in plainclothes for private benefit, subject to guidelines adopted by the chief of the Washington state patrol. These guidelines must ensure that the integrity and professionalism of the Washington state patrol is preserved. Use of Washington state patrol officer's uniforms shall be considered de minimis use of state property.

Click to expand...

boatswain said:

FYI, the story about the Aurora shooter choosing the theater based on their gun policy is an urban myth. Yes, there were a couple of closer theaters to his apartment, but they were a Hispanic theater and a discount family theater, neither of which were showing Batman on opening night.

You can do the research yourself as the apartment address was widely publicized online. He drove a few miles to the closest large theater.

Click to expand...

boatswain said:

FYI, the story about the Aurora shooter choosing the theater based on their gun policy is an urban myth. Yes, there were a couple of closer theaters to his apartment, but they were a Hispanic theater and a discount family theater, neither of which were showing Batman on opening night.

You can do the research yourself as the apartment address was widely publicized online. He drove a few miles to the closest large theater.

Click to expand...

JamesCanby said:

And none of those facts prove that he didn't take the gun-free-zone nature of the theater into his considerations and planning. Why would he care if the people he was going to kill were Hispanic or paid a reduced price to get into the movie?

Click to expand...