Security Guards

[PirateJafa]

What actual legal powers/authority do they have? I've heard that they cannot legally detain you, but then that's just what I've heard - no idea if it's true or not.

I can't help but chuckle every time I see Matrix Security guys in their wannabe-army uniforms and combat boots.

[Rockbuddy]

I think they have the same powers as any member of the public they can make a citizens arrest and detain you until the cops turn up.

[Ixion]

By and large they have no powers beyond those of any other private citizen. Specifically, they do not have arrest powers (other than the ever debatable citizen's arrest)

[The Pastor]

thanks for dropping a clue that i was there too you little prick

[PirateJafa]

thanks for dropping a clue that i was there too you little prick
You were there at night with your lights off/plate covered setting a tag you knew was slightly dodgy. You're complaining why? :violin: ;)

[PirateJafa]

By and large they have no powers beyond those of any other private citizen. Specifically, they do not have arrest powers (other than the ever debatable citizen's arrest)

Cheers.

Edit: Oh and if Wikipedia is to be believed, you'd *really* need to be dicking arouund for them to be able to arrest ya. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_arrest#New_Zealand

[The Pastor]

you were there at night with your lights off/plate covered setting a tag you knew was slightly dodgy. You're complaining why? :violin: ;)
lights out on the way in, plate coverd on the way out....

[Felicks]

By and large they have no powers beyond those of any other private citizen. Specifically, they do not have arrest powers (other than the ever debatable citizen's arrest)

Out of interest - are you guys aware of the citizens arrest criteria?

There is always a lot of inuendo about it but not many people actually know the real answer. I'll get it if anyones interested, Ive got summary of it at work which I could throw in this thread later...

[SMOKEU]

Security guards perform citizens arrests all the time, usually when someone gets caught shoplifting and they detain the thief until the cops arrive.

[p.dath]

What actual legal powers/authority do they have? I've heard that they cannot legally detain you, but then that's just what I've heard - no idea if it's true or not.

I can't help but chuckle every time I see Matrix Security guys in their wannabe-army uniforms and combat boots.

Citizens Arrest does not give you the right of detention. Security guards do not have the right of detention. In either case if you ask to be let go and they don't then you can lay a complaint (in fact, you could legally place them under citizens arrest). Holding someone against their will, particularly if it is in a room so you can't leave can easily result in jail time.

It should also be noted the citizens arrest is almost pointless. The Police have immunity from prosecution (except in exceptional circumstances) if they make a mistake. If you place someone under citizens arrest and get it wrong you can be charged with wrongful arrest (and potentially face jail time).
Pretty much all you can do is utter the words. No more.

[Creeping Death]

Only patched up coppers can arrest or detain is my understanding.

Security guards have no power whatsoever.

They can only take details....as you flee the scene of the crime.

[SMOKEU]

Citizens Arrest does not give you the right of detention. Security guards do not have the right of detention. In either case if you ask to be let go and they don't then you can lay a complaint (in fact, you could legally place them under citizens arrest). Holding someone against their will, particularly if it is in a room so you can't leave can easily result in jail time.

It should also be noted the citizens arrest is almost pointless. The Police have immunity from prosecution (except in exceptional circumstances) if they make a mistake. If you place someone under citizens arrest and get it wrong you can be charged with wrongful arrest (and potentially face jail time).
Pretty much all you can do is utter the words. No more.

I work in a supermarket and on an average week we catch around 5 shoplifters. Those thieves are then escorted into a small room by the duty manager and/or security guard. The police are then called. Most thieves are quite well behaved once they are caught and they don't try and escape, although some of them do try and escape so they are physically restrained until the police arrive.

[p.dath]

I work in a supermarket and on an average week we catch around 5 shoplifters. Those thieves are then escorted into a small room by the duty manager and/or security guard. The police are then called. Most thieves are quite well behaved once they are caught and they don't try and escape, although some of them do try and escape so they are physically restrained until the police arrive.

That is quite illegal - and most definitely a criminal offence. You have probably only got away with it because no one has charged the duty manager/security guard - yet.

It's rather like stealing. If you keep doing it you get away with it some of the time, but eventually you get caught.
Your manager/security guard will eventually get charged.

In the case you describe the behaviour is also pre-meditated. Even if the person your detaining is found guilty both your duty manager and the security guard would be facing some serious jail time (potentially more than 10 years).

I would not be taking such a risk if I were them!

[SMOKEU]

The thief will sometimes make a huge fuss once the police arrive and say "that fucking security guard cunt was holding me down for the last 10 minutes and they wouldn't let me go", but in the end the thief gets cuffed and taken away and the cops have never said anything to the security guards or store management about restraining thieves. The staff at most shops will physically restrain a thief if need be. If the store management and security guards would get sent to jail for such a thing then shoplifters would never get caught because they could just run away and then every second person in this country will be shoplifting.

[p.dath]

The thief will sometimes make a huge fuss once the police arrive and say "that fucking security guard cunt was holding me down for the last 10 minutes and they wouldn't let me go", but in the end the thief gets cuffed and taken away and the cops have never said anything to the security guards or store management about restraining thieves. The staff at most shops will physically restrain a thief if need be. If the store management and security guards would get sent to jail for such a thing then shoplifters would never get caught because they could just run away and then every second person in this country will be shoplifting.

If the thief lays a complaint it will be game over. First let me refer you to section 209(b) of the Crimes Act which carries a jail term of up to 14 years:

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/whole.html#DLM329775

209 Kidnapping

*

Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who unlawfully takes away or detains a person without his or her consent or with his or her consent obtained by fraud or duress,—
o

(a) with intent to hold him or her for ransom or to service; or
o

(b) with intent to cause him or her to be confined or imprisoned; or
o

(c) with intent to cause him or her to be sent or taken out of New Zealand.


I believe it also violates the Bill of Rights and the Crimes of Torture Act 1989 (which also makes it illegal to detain people - even if you don't torture them).


Basically if you are a civilian, and unless you are acting under a warrant, court order, direction of the Police, you risk facing serious jail time.


Like I said. The store manager/security guard might get away with it 999 times. But is it worth risking 14 years in jail (assuming you are only prosecuted under a single act)?

[kave]

I know it goes against everything Kiwibiker stands for, but here are some facts.

The Crimes Act 1961, s(35) states that everyone is justified in arresting without a warrant when you find:

(a) Any person you find commiting an offense against the act where the maximum penalty is no less than three (3) years.

or

(b)Any person you find by night committing any offense against the Act.
(night refers to the time between 2100 and 0600)

Also During Night Hours

s(36) Arrest of Person Believed to be Committing Crime by Night
Every one is protected from criminal responsibility for arresting without warrant any person whom he finds by night in circumstances affording reasonable and probable grounds for believing that that person is committing an offence against this Act.

and

During Daylight Hours

s(42) Preventing breach of the peace
(1) Every one who witnesses a breach of the peace is justified in interfering to prevent its continuance or renewal, and may detain any person committing it, in order to give him into the custody of a constable:
Provided that the person interfering shall use no more force than is reasonably necessary for preventing the continuance or renewal of the breach of the peace, or than is reasonably proportionate to the danger to be apprehended from its continuance or renewal.

All this information can be found here
http://www.acornconsulting.co.nz/sentinelwatch/sentinelwatch10aug08.pdf

In other words, if you see someone commiting a serious crime during the day, or any crime at night you can arrest them. If it turns out that no crime was actually comitted but you had good reason to believe one had been, then you are protected from prosecution by s(36).

Of course most reputable security guards will hang back and get in touch with the police if at all possible. Once police have requested that you detain someone then legally everything becomes even easier.

[p.dath]

I am familiarwith the powers of arrest you cite. However as I said, they do not give you the power to detain someone you arrest, and certainly not by force.

[Usarka]

I don't know about security gaurds, but bouncers have the right to smash you bro.

[p.dath]

Haha. There have been so many bouncers charged and convicted of common assault it is funny anymore.

[Ixion]

Out of interest - are you guys aware of the citizens arrest criteria?

There is always a lot of inuendo about it but not many people actually know the real answer. I'll get it if anyones interested, Ive got summary of it at work which I could throw in this thread later...

Given the (usual) amount of F.U.D. being generated,here that might be a very good idea.

Thank you

[kave]

I am familiarwith the powers of arrest you cite. However as I said, they do not give you the power to detain someone you arrest, and certainly not by force.

Arresting someone is detaining them by legal authority. That is what arresting means. Saying that you do not have the power to detain someone you arrest is the same as saying that "you do not have the power to detain someone that you detain", it is nonsensical.

The use of force is covered under s(39) which states:

Force used in executing process or in arrest

Where any person is justified, or protected from criminal responsibility, in executing or assisting to execute any sentence, warrant, or process, or in making or assisting to make any arrest, that justification or protection shall extend and apply to the use by him of such force as may be necessary to overcome any force used in resisting such execution or arrest, unless the sentence, warrant, or process can be executed or the arrest made by reasonable means in a less violent manner:

provided that, except in the case of a constable or a person called upon by a constable to assist him, this section shall not apply where the force used is intended or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm.

In other words, as long as force is required to detain someone that you have arrested you may use it. You may not use excessive amounts though and you must not use force with is intended or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm.

[SMOKEU]

I've heard on my scanner many times before "shoplifter being held by security at xxxxxxxxx supermarket, he/she is getting quite agitated etc" the courts don't give a fuck about store staff and/or security guards physically restraining a thief if need be, provided excessive force is not used.

[p.dath]

Arresting someone is detaining them by legal authority. That is what arresting means. Saying that you do not have the power to detain someone you arrest is the same as saying that "you do not have the power to detain someone that you detain", it is nonsensical.

The use of force is covered under s(39) which states:

Force used in executing process or in arrest

Where any person is justified, or protected from criminal responsibility, in executing or assisting to execute any sentence, warrant, or process, or in making or assisting to make any arrest, that justification or protection shall extend and apply to the use by him of such force as may be necessary to overcome any force used in resisting such execution or arrest, unless the sentence, warrant, or process can be executed or the arrest made by reasonable means in a less violent manner:

provided that, except in the case of a constable or a person called upon by a constable to assist him, this section shall not apply where the force used is intended or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm.

In other words, as long as force is required to detain someone that you have arrested you may use it. You may not use excessive amounts though and you must not use force with is intended or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm.

The key bit here is "any sentence, warrant, or process,". A civilian performing an arrest is not executing a sentence, warrant or process. So s(39) does not apply.

[Mully]

The key bit here is "any sentence, warrant, or process,". A civilian performing an arrest is not executing a sentence, warrant or process. So s(39) does not apply.

But it also says:


or in making or assisting to make any arrest (emphasis mine)

So that should mean that s(39) does apply, correct?

I'm not trying to stir, I'm just curious about what the legal situation actually is.

[kave]

The key bit here is "any sentence, warrant, or process,". A civilian performing an arrest is not executing a sentence, warrant or process. So s(39) does not apply.


or in making or assisting to make any arrest

Read the whole thing. Dear lord, it's not actually particularly complicated.

[kave]

But it also says:

(emphasis mine)

So that should mean that s(39) does apply, correct?

I'm not trying to stir, I'm just curious about what the legal situation actually is.

Correct, s(39) does apply because you are making an arrest.

[sAsLEX]

Only patched up coppers can arrest or detain is my understanding.



Wrong. I can, and so can many like me, not being civilian has its perks....

[p.dath]

Lets pull together several bits.

Section 35 only allows arrest without a warrant (pretty much a citizens arrest) if the person is in breach of the Cimes Act 1961, and then only if the maximum setence for that crime exceeds three years.
Further at the point of the rest you have to be able to cite the charge you are laying, and comply with the criteria for said arrest.

Section 223 gives the penalties for theft. If under $500 its a maximum imprisonment of 3 months. If it is $500 and $1000 the maximum imprisonment is 1 year.

So in the supermarket case, it is highly likely they could not legally arrest someone. As a consequence, section 39 can not be applied.
However section 209, kidnapping (due to false imprisonment), does apply, and is a serious crime with a serious jail sentence.
Further, if the person is a child (under 16) then the provisions of section 209A apply.

So if you plan to arrest someone and detain then then you had be better be very sure of the section of the act that applies so you can quote it and the sentence for that act so you can certain your arrest is legal.


All in all, citizens arrest followed by detention in an enclosed room with no path of escape that is controlled by force is highly dangerous.

[p.dath]

I should also point out that if you do get it wrong, apart from facing criminal proceedings, you can also gave civil proceedings.

That means you can be personally sued.

[YellowDog]

At the end of the day the store guard security is actually assisting the Police in a way they could not otherwise achieve. To hold some with video evidece of the crime to ensure a safe conviction is something that is not in their interests to stop.

You state that the criminal has rights however these rights only come into force if anyone actually listens to them. The incentives to plead guilty and end the ordeal by far outweigh any potential for redress.

The police are unlikely to want to cut off the hand that feeds them.

[p.dath]

At the end of the day the store guard security is actually assisting the Police in a way they could not otherwise achieve. To hold some with video evidece of the crime to ensure a safe conviction is something that is not in their interests to stop.

You state that the criminal has rights however these rights only come into force if anyone actually listens to them. The incentives to plead guilty and end the ordeal by far outweigh any potential for redress.

The police are unlikely to want to cut off the hand that feeds them.

I completely agree with the first bit. The Police can't be everywhere, and they really could do with support for more serious crimes.

Having video evidence of the thief taking something from a supermarket makes no difference though. It makes no difference if the person is guilty or innocent. The issue is that already citizens like you and me do not have the power to detain other people. However Mully has raised a point, and I think he is right - you could legally detain someone for a *serious* offence (and this does not include petty theft) if you first placed them under citizens arrest and complied with the procedure for arresting someone in the Crimes Act 1961.
However doing this is so dangerous you wouldn't normally want to risk it.

With regards to your last statement, if the thief lays a complaint against the store manager and security guard, and its a serious one of kidnapping with a serious jail sentence, the Police pretty much have to investigate it. It's out of their hands.

[kave]

It is true that for shoplifting and other crimes that have a maximum sentence of less than three years you cannot make a citizens arrest during the day. At night if anyone does anything against the act you can arrest them. Also, you have to remember that if someone is operating on a property that they have been hired to protect, then they becomes a lawful occupier which gives you all sorts of powers under the summary offences act, which enables you to arrest for crimes such as:

*Common assault
*Assault on Police, prison, or traffic officer
*Ill-treatment or wilful neglect of child
*Leaving child without reasonable supervision and care
*Wilful damage
*Graffiti vandalism, tagging, defacing, etc
*Possession of graffiti implements
*Being found on property, etc, without reasonable excuse
*Peeping or peering into dwellinghouse

as long as you hand the person arrested over to a constable as soon as is practical.

[Mully]

With regards to your last statement, if the thief lays a complaint against the store manager and security guard, and its a serious one of kidnapping with a serious jail sentence, the Police pretty much have to investigate it. It's out of their hands.

Hmm, interesting. Has this actually happened in NZ, though? I'd be interested if any scumbag has done thought to do this.

Would the Police take it seriously or "seriously"? Can't they refuse to prosecute if it's in the public interest (i.e. no-one will assist the Police any more if they might get prosecuted for it), or is that for the "can't-beat-your-kids" law only?



*Peeping or peering into dwellinghouse

So I could be arrested for this?

What the hell am I meant to do at night now, then?

[kave]

So I could be arrested for this?

What the hell am I meant to do at night now, then?

Peep sneakily. It's not illegal if you don't get caught.:msn-wink:

[Insanity_rules]

I heard that security guards have the power of mince pie knock out breath, B O Defense shield and the mighty mag lite rectal probe. I have been too scared to ask.

[p.dath]

Hmm, interesting. Has this actually happened in NZ, though? I'd be interested if any scumbag has done thought to do this.

Would the Police take it seriously or "seriously"? Can't they refuse to prosecute if it's in the public interest (i.e. no-one will assist the Police any more if they might get prosecuted for it), or is that for the "can't-beat-your-kids" law only?

So I could be arrested for this?

What the hell am I meant to do at night now, then?

I don't know whether it has happened or not, but I suspect it must have happened. But my bet is that most stores would aim to settle the matter out of court. The PR would be terrible.

I'm not aware of any act of parliament requiring them to investigate, but I be very surprised if they elected not to investigate a serious criminal charge.

And certainly, some rich kids day could certainly afford a private prosecution.

Your comment about assisting the Police - if you are directed or requested by the Police to help then you are effectively granted immunity from prosecution. So that is a special case.
It is only dangerous if you decide to take action yourself.


If it affects your job then I would ask your boss to consult a criminal lawyer for guidance and establish a policy to protect the safety of the companies employees. I think it is also reasonable the company indemnify you against being personally sued - since the law permits allowing you to be sued directly for this.
But otherwise express to your boss your concern that it is illegal to imprison and physically restrain individuals for petty theft.

You can ask people over 16 years of age to accompany you, and as long as they comply willingly your fine.

Just because your boss asks you to do something doesn't make it legal. :)

[p.dath]

Also don't forget the quote kave made about "night time" - but I still put it to you that you put yourself into a legally dangerous position if you place someone under arrest.

s(36) Arrest of Person Believed to be Committing Crime by Night
Every one is protected from criminal responsibility for arresting without warrant any person whom he finds by night in circumstances affording reasonable and probable grounds for believing that that person is committing an offence against this Act.

[p.dath]

Also consider this case - you legally arrest the person, they go before the judge, and they get discharged without conviction because it is their first offence (not uncommon unfortunately).

Now consider this. They have not been found guilty. Your are now open to civil prosecution for wrongfull arrest.

[Felicks]

There are certainly some interesting views held here. The relevant law has already been quoted.

Yes - arrest includes the issue of detention, in fact detention usually occurrs before arrest. Hence the Bill of Rights can apply before someone is actually arrested.

Arrest without warrant is not citizens arrest. Without warrant refers to the situation where a warrant to arrest has not been issued. This would be a bench warrant (come from a Judge) or a warrant issued by a registrar (normally) pursuant to section 198 of the Summary Proceedings Act. There are also statuatory powers pursuant to specific Act like the Arms Act and Misuse of Drugs Act. But in summary, most detentions and arrests are effected 'without warrant'.

Of all the shoplifters I've seen arrested, I haven't seen one challenge his/her alleged unlawful detention. I'm not saying it can't or won't happen however if it were straight forward, I'm sure it should have happened by now. I'll have to ask around and see if I can find out.

Don't assume that because someone makes a complaint of 'something', a prosecution will result. The circumstances, known facts and public interest are only some of the things that can be taken into consideration before deciding whether or not to investigate a case, let alone charge. I can confirm the Police are pretty realistic and reasonable when it comes to sorting out 'opposing sides'.

Of course there is always the private prosecution. Very rare but they can happen. Having said that, they still don't necessarily succeed. e.g. Constable A from a Police shooting in the North Island years ago.

[scumdog]

I don't know whether it has happened or not, but I suspect it must have happened. But my bet is that most stores would aim to settle the matter out of court. The PR would be terrible.

The thieving drongos normally know when they're screwed.
Loosers.

[SARGE]

I know it goes against everything Kiwibiker stands for, but here are some facts.

The Crimes Act 1961, s(35) states that everyone is justified in arresting without a warrant when you find:


(b)Any person you find by night committing any offense against the Act.
(night refers to the time between 2100 and 0600)

Also During Night Hours

s(36) Arrest of Person Believed to be Committing Crime by Night
Every one is protected from criminal responsibility for arresting without warrant any person whom he finds by night in circumstances affording reasonable and probable grounds for believing that that person is committing an offence against this Act.




meh ... if i catch someone committing crimes against me at night there wont be much left to arrest ...

[SMOKEU]

If a citizens arrest was illegal for 'minor shoplifting', think of this scenario:

Someone puts stolen licence plates onto his/her car. They then drive to a supermarket, park in the car park, enter the store and steal $400 worth of cosmetics. Upon leaving the store, store security tell the thief to stop and open up their bag. The thief doesn't comply and the security guard doesn't physically touch them for fear of prosecution. The thief then walks out to their car and they drive off. Security then calls the police giving them the description of the vehicle and the licence plate. By the time the police arrive at the shop 10 minutes later, the thief is long gone.

This is why thieves must be restrained, otherwise they would get away with theft a lot more often.

[jono035]

If a citizens arrest was illegal for 'minor shoplifting', think of this scenario:

Someone puts stolen licence plates onto his/her car. They then drive to a supermarket, park in the car park, enter the store and steal $400 worth of cosmetics. Upon leaving the store, store security tell the thief to stop and open up their bag. The thief doesn't comply and the security guard doesn't physically touch them for fear of prosecution. The thief then walks out to their car and they drive off. Security then calls the police giving them the description of the vehicle and the licence plate. By the time the police arrive at the shop 10 minutes later, the thief is long gone.

This is why thieves must be restrained, otherwise they would get away with theft a lot more often.

Sorry mate, the law doesn't always work the way that you think is logical.

Sure, that is a scenario in which the shop gets a tougher end of the stick, but there are costs involved to personal rights and freedoms to allow this.

[SARGE]

Security then calls the police giving them the description of the vehicle and the licence plate. By the time the police arrive at the shop 10 minutes later, the thief is long gone.
.

10 minute police response?... where do YOU live?

[jono035]

From the legislation.govt.nz page on the Crimes Act 1961 No 43 (as at 01 July 2009) (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM328250.html?search=ts_act_crimes+act_resel#DLM3 28250")

Arrest of persons found committing certain crimes
Every one is justified in arresting without warrant—
(a) any person whom he finds committing any offence against this Act for which the maximum punishment is not less than 3 years' imprisonment:
(b) any person whom he finds by night committing any offence against this Act.



an offence where the maximum punishment is 'not less than 3 years'... That would imply to me the person has to commit an offence that is punishable by MORE than 3 years max imprisonment to be arrestable? That means you could put someone under citizens arrest for manslaughter, but not shoplifting.

Edit: This seems more logical to me. People placing each other under citizen's arrest for minor crimes that may not normally be prosecuted (I saw him smack his kid in the supermarket! Citizen's arrest!)

[pyrocam]

so what everyone is saying, jafa, is we should of boosted it across the grass.

[davereid]

For what its worth, I'm involved in the security industry, and have run a security company for many years.

Kaves take on things is correct, there are many circumstances where a guard (or anyone else for that matter) can arrest, using minimum force as needed.

Most arrests by police are not based on "special" police powers, as originally, police didn't have any - they used the same powers of arrest as anyone else.

Police now have extra powers, but the old right of arrest remains, and guards can and will use it.

Furthermore, you are OBLIGED to assist a policeman if requested, and you are protected by law if you do so, and prosecuted if you do not.

I also understand that the law does not require the policeman to be at the scene, he can ask for a guard assistance via two-way radio for example.

Because there are many circumstances in which a guard may misjudge the situation, most security companies do not encourage guards to arrest, as no one wants to be on the end of a law-suit.

But it would be a very brave midnight ram-raid burglar who assumed that the attending guard could not arrest him !

[jono035]

For what its worth, I'm involved in the security industry, and have run a security company for many years.

Do you know if my reading of the law as above correct? That a citizen cannot detain someone for an offence carrying a maximum penalty of less than 3 years, or is there some separate law that controls this situation?