[N/A] Police as Security at Local Stores

What about stopping and asking someone what is going on when they walk like they have stuffed two frozen turkeys between their legs?

What about the person that rabbits when you tell them they you want to ask a question about what is under their shirt?

These questions come from the person watching the cameras and saw this person stuff turkeys and the other one slip a bottle of mouthwash under their shirt.

(this is common at the local Walmart and Safeway)
 
I'm not an expert but I have stayed in a few Holiday Inns..

I think there may be some variations between states as far as what a security guard/property owner is actually allowed to do. It's always been my assumption that you could probably just disregard anyone but an actual police officer in these situations and simply leave the premises. I've never seen a uniformed officer.... what I run into far more often is the automated alarm going off and nobody around to check anything. I don't feel compelled to obey a recorded voice system so I just leave. So far so good.
 
Flyingfanatic said:
So your point is that when you walk into a business or location that displays a sign that says anyone entering the property is subject to search that the fourth amendment no longer applies?

That is true at airports, government buildings and military installations perhaps, but I doubt that is the case at BestBuy.
Click to expand...
Perhaps a minor point, but the fourth amendment applies at those locations. However, what constitutes a reasonable search may vary.
 
ARFlyer said:
I guess our city is going south when the local Best Buy has police officers acting as door security when you walk out.
Click to expand...

What is really sad is police in AR have to moonlight at Best Buy because the wages in your state are so poor.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I've never heard of off duty police working security in anything other than police uniform.
Click to expand...

I've known of a couple LE officers that moonlight as security for a casino. At their second job they are acting as employees of the casino in plain clothes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Flyingfanatic said:
So your point is that when you walk into a business or location that displays a sign that says anyone entering the property is subject to search that the fourth amendment no longer applies?

That is true at airports, government buildings and military installations perhaps, but I doubt that is the case at BestBuy.
Click to expand...

I don't know what the case is at Best Buy, though I assume that if they had "by entering, you are subject to search at any time" posted at the entrances, it would be legit. I know for a fact that at a public event/gathering/festival that those signs are definitely implied consent.
 
Flyingfanatic said:
The I've misunderstood your question.

You want to know what gives a business employee or security guard the right to search you when there is a sign indicating you're subject to search on their premises? That I don't know.
Click to expand...
I want to know whether there is, as you say, a difference in implied consent...that a store employee can search you but a police officer can't in those circumstances.

My case law example was to show that security can conduct a search that is outside the fourth amendment, while the police cannot. I believe that is relevant to the discussion.
Click to expand...
It appears to me in your posted case that there is no appreciable difference between private security guards and police officers in this regard.
 
I haven't read all the posts, but one thing I have not seen mentioned:
If the security alarm beeped, that gives the officer "probable cause" to search. And as someone else said, even if an officer is being paid by a private employer on his off hours, a police office is never off duty, so you need to follow his commands as if he was on the clock.
 
Lindberg said:
In most cases, the agency is involved in the arrangement. The officer will (is supposed to) follow department policy regardless of what the store asks. There's a mall here that uses a mix of private security and off duty LE from all over. They all wear the mall's uniform, but the LEOs are armed. I don't know what their deal is.
Click to expand...

That sounds really strange. I suspect the off duty officers are actually employees of a private security company. Naturally, they would be allowed to be armed security. Around here, if a private entity needs to hire uniformed officers they contract with the law enforcement agency, not the individual officer. It's up to the agency to fill the overtime opportunity and the officers participating wear their regular uniform.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Real text messages from today...

Me to my "boss"/co-worker:
Hey did you see the alert that the office burglar alarm is going off?

Him: Yeah. I'll look at the cameras.

Me: Anything? More motion sensors going off now.

Him: I'm trying to correlate times but it looks like the janitorial staff opened an outside door 30 minutes ago.

Me: Ok. Makes sense.

Him: And now there's cops with guns drawn walking through the warehouse.

Me: Aww crap. You want me to call their dispatch and let them know, or call the VP and let him know or what?

Him: I got it. I just turned off the alarm for them.

...

LOL. Somebody didn't close a door well enough I guess.

Haven't heard the final tally but boss/co-worker decided to go up there and double check all the door sensors before turning the alarm back on.

Told him it was probably a good thing Walter White and Jesse Pinkman weren't there cooking meth in the warehouse. LOL.

I should get that "emergency only" all phone paging configuration set up for building wide announcements. Might have come in handy today. Plus we need it for fire drills and/or real evacs.

"Denver Police - any office please pick up any phone and dial extension XXX, this is the building owners. Thank you."

Oh well. All worked out. I'm sure someone has or will get "spoken to" about the stupid doors again.
 
Kevin16587 said:
That sounds really strange. I suspect the off duty officers are actually employees of a private security company. Naturally, they would be allowed to be armed security. Around here, if a private entity needs to hire uniformed officers they contract with the law enforcement agency, not the individual officer. It's up to the agency to fill the overtime opportunity and the officers participating wear their regular uniform.
Click to expand...

Correct...there is not a scenario where you can hire a uniformed cop directly independently of the agency. You either contract with the municipal agency for a uniformed officer or you hire private security...which may very well be an off duty and armed cop moonlighting on the side which is allowed by some agencies, but they will not be in LEO uniform.

If the mall cops are wearing mall uniforms, that will be an agreement in coordination with the LEO agencies they are contracting with. Highly doubt they are paying the cops directly unless they are contracted through a service that coordinates off duty cops for security...bit in which case they would not be wearing their primary agency badge.
 
Last edited:
Shawn said:
Correct...there is not a scenario where you can hire a uniformed cop directly independently of the agency. You either contract with the municipal agency for a uniformed officer or you hire private security...which may very well be an off duty and armed cop moonlighting on the side which is allowed by some agencies, but they will not be in LEO uniform.

If the mall cops are wearing mall uniforms, that will be an agreement in coordination with the LEO agencies they are contracting with. Highly doubt they are paying the cops directly unless they are contracted through a service that coordinates off duty cops for security...bit in which case they would not be wearing their primary agency badge.
Click to expand...

I think there are some municipalities which might be different. I've *heard* that there are agencies where the officer can be hired in full uniform but be getting paid directly by whatever thing he's providing security for without an agreement with the parent agency. I *think* I heard that about NYPD a decade ago, but I could be (and probably am) very wrong.

Our system is the same as you describe... you want a uniform? You're paying the department rate on a contract.
 
JOhnH said:
.. if an officer is being paid by a private employer on his off hours, a police office is never off duty, so you need to follow his commands as if he was on the clock.
Click to expand...
Really? Where is that written? Just curious...
 
I think what's being glossed over here is the difference between a random search and a search that occurs after establishing PC (probable cause). In a store setting, most of the time loss prevention and/or store employees are watching people who are acting shady. Once they see someone swap tags, conceal an item, etc then bypass the point of sale, there is PC for theft. At this point, you are subject to a search incident to arrest without consent or a warrant (depending on state, there can be some limitations, i.e. locked containers etc).

In our shoplifting example this could be a search for evidence of theft tools (some accomplished thieves carry specialized tools to defeat store anti-theft devices), lack of money (i.e. showing you had no means or intent to pay when you entered vs "I forgot, it was a mistake"), the item(s) taken, etc. If other crimes are discovered (dope, felon in possession of a gun, stolen gun, etc) while looking for the theft related items they are subject to charging as well. This is different than asking someone (or demanding) to search them without PC.

As far as stores hiring off-duty LE, I believe there motivation is based upon several factors:
-visual deterrent to robberies, etc
-deterrent to organized retail theft (which has become a real problem, especially with cell phone/electronics stores, particularly things like iPhones when they come out with a new version
-most stores prohibit their loss prevention from doing anything other than "observe and report." By having LE there, if loss prevention detects a shoplifter, LE would not have the same restrictions and could arrest the theft suspect on the spot vs the store having to report it and make an ID based on video. Merchandise may get recovered this way as well.
 
As a kid we used to go to the Jack-in-the-Box whenever we wanted something to eat late at night. They had a table labeled "Reserved for Police" and it had a phone on the table and when the police came they got free coffee and prepare their reports. We always felt safe there and the food was OK. Of course now everyone has a phone and no one drinks coffee unless it is from a place that charges four dollars a cup. Man am I old. Are there still Jack-in-the-Box stores around?
 
paflyer said:
Really? Where is that written? Just curious...
Click to expand...

I can't cite the name(s), but there is case law that recognizes police officers have their authority 24/7 regardless of uniform as long as they can ID themselves. The case I am thinking of in my home state was from an off-duty officer who interrupted a crime outside his house in (essentially) his boxers, a badge on a neck chain, and his handgun. Police authority does not end off the agency's clock. That said, many agencies expect that off duty officers are going to intervene only in life or death situations. There are too many tactical and safety issues related to acting in your LE capacity without the benefit of all your tools, radio, uniform, and backup.
 
Here we go:

Police officer wants to do a bag check at a private business, you can refuse until he tells you he is acting as private security. If they are acting as cops then they need reasonable suspicion to detain you for further questioning which must develop probable cause - you retain all your rights to refuse inspection.

Then, s/he has the same rights as any other private security. If you alarm a detection system in the store, the store owner has the right to detain you for a reasonable period of time to conduct an inspection to determine if you have stolen property. simple as that. you show your receipt - they check the item, you can go on your way. If they have other facts to suspect shoplifting, then they can easily detain you for a few minutes to determine if you have - the operative word is a 'few'.

Interestingly, Walmart around here has started using 'loss protection' staff to check receipts at the store exit, just like Sam's Club and Costco. Unlike Sam's and costco, they are not membership stores and do not have such a member policy in place. Thus - you can ignore them completely. Which I do.

Since it's Walmart - there is always a line - so I just walk around the line and exit the store - no one stops me, no one detains me. And everyone in line stares at me. "whats he doing?" I"m following the law, idiots.

California and most other states have a simple law which states that a shopowner can detain you if they have a reasonable basis for suspecting theft. Now, Walmart USED to actually stop me, until I filed an unlawful detention complaint against them - we settled the case to the mutual satisfaction of all parties.
 
cgrab said:
As a kid we used to go to the Jack-in-the-Box whenever we wanted something to eat late at night. They had a table labeled "Reserved for Police" and it had a phone on the table and when the police came they got free coffee and prepare their reports. We always felt safe there and the food was OK. Of course now everyone has a phone and no one drinks coffee unless it is from a place that charges four dollars a cup. Man am I old. Are there still Jack-in-the-Box stores around?
Click to expand...
I'd kill for a Breakfast Jack (as prepared in the late 70's/early 80's). Lived on those while in school.
 
comanchepilot said:
Here we go:

Police officer wants to do a bag check at a private business, you can refuse until he tells you he is acting as private security. If they are acting as cops then they need reasonable suspicion to detain you for further questioning which must develop probable cause - you retain all your rights to refuse inspection.

Then, s/he has the same rights as any other private security. If you alarm a detection system in the store, the store owner has the right to detain you for a reasonable period of time to conduct an inspection to determine if you have stolen property. simple as that. you show your receipt - they check the item, you can go on your way. If they have other facts to suspect shoplifting, then they can easily detain you for a few minutes to determine if you have - the operative word is a 'few'.

Interestingly, Walmart around here has started using 'loss protection' staff to check receipts at the store exit, just like Sam's Club and Costco. Unlike Sam's and costco, they are not membership stores and do not have such a member policy in place. Thus - you can ignore them completely. Which I do.

Since it's Walmart - there is always a line - so I just walk around the line and exit the store - no one stops me, no one detains me. And everyone in line stares at me. "whats he doing?" I"m following the law, idiots.

California and most other states have a simple law which states that a shopowner can detain you if they have a reasonable basis for suspecting theft. Now, Walmart USED to actually stop me, until I filed an unlawful detention complaint against them - we settled the case to the mutual satisfaction of all parties.
Click to expand...
By "detain" does that mean they can put hands on you? What if you tell them to **** off and leave?
 
ARFlyer said:
I guess our city is going south when the local Best Buy has police officers acting as door security when you walk out.

I beeped the door scanners and both the police officer and store clerk inspected my bag plus receipt before I could leave.
Click to expand...

In Israel cops, military and anyone trained with an fully-automatic weapon are hired to stand guard outside the door of restaurants, markets, hair salons you name it. They wear their firearms in plain site. Customers are expected to tip them as part of a meal or other service.
 
paflyer said:
By "detain" does that mean they can put hands on you? What if you tell them to **** off and leave?
Click to expand...

Are you referring to police acting as police, or to police acting as private security? If the latter, I'm not sure. If the former, absolutely, provided either reasonable suspicion or probable cause exists. Reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred, is about to occur, or is occurring allows an officer to detain you for a reasonable period of time, even by force if necessary. A frisk for weapons is allowed as well at this point. The belief of a criminal act must be based on the totality of the circumstances and the officers training and experience. The "reasonable amount of time" has certain accepted standards but can vary (i.e. if you are in the area of a felony crime that just occurred and match the suspect description, I might be able to articulate holding you for a show-up, whereas if we are talking about some lesser offense and/or less correlation to you I might not). See Terry v Ohio. This case is what gave the name "Terry stop" to signify a detention based upon reasonable suspicion.
 
Omalley1537 said:
Are you referring to police acting as police, or to police acting as private security? If the latter, I'm not sure. If the former, absolutely, provided either reasonable suspicion or probable cause exists. Reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred, is about to occur, or is occurring allows an officer to detain you for a reasonable period of time, even by force if necessary. A frisk for weapons is allowed as well at this point. The belief of a criminal act must be based on the totality of the circumstances and the officers training and experience. The "reasonable amount of time" has certain accepted standards but can vary (i.e. if you are in the area of a felony crime that just occurred and match the suspect description, I might be able to articulate holding you for a show-up, whereas if we are talking about some lesser offense and/or less correlation to you I might not). See Terry v Ohio. This case is what gave the name "Terry stop" to signify a detention based upon reasonable suspicion.
Click to expand...
Cop as cop, I get. What about non-police "security" in a store, or "off duty" cops acting as security? Of course a DA is going to support the cop no matter what.
 
paflyer said:
Cop as cop, I get. What about non-police "security" in a store, or "off duty" cops acting as security? Of course a DA is going to support the cop no matter what.
Click to expand...

In my state, by statute, the "owner or agent" of the store may detain you if they have probable cause to believe you have shop lifted. (Just like Comanche describes above.) Note that this is not limited to just "police officers," or "security guards." Yes, they can use force. So, the minimum wage shelf stocker or check out lady can physically restrain you. They can hold you until the police get there, or for two hours, whichever occurs first. But the store does so at its own peril. If it is later determined they didn't actually have probable cause, they are likely going to pay something.
 
Last edited:
JOhnH said:
I haven't read all the posts, but one thing I have not seen mentioned:
If the security alarm beeped, that gives the officer "probable cause" to search. And as someone else said, even if an officer is being paid by a private employer on his off hours, a police office is never off duty, so you need to follow his commands as if he was on the clock.
Click to expand...

I have heard those alarms go off numerous times at various stores. Even when I walked out. Every time, the person who tripped the alarm had paid for everything they had. They were all false alarms. To me they are too unreliable to constitute a valid probable cause.
 
SkyDog58 said:
I have heard those alarms go off numerous times at various stores. Even when I walked out. Every time, the person who tripped the alarm had paid for everything they had. They were all false alarms. To me they are too unreliable to constitute a valid probable cause.
Click to expand...
And it is a very simple thing to prove that you paid. There is no reason to resist or get obnoxious.
 
SkyDog58 said:
I have heard those alarms go off numerous times at various stores. Even when I walked out. Every time, the person who tripped the alarm had paid for everything they had. They were all false alarms. To me they are too unreliable to constitute a valid probable cause.
Click to expand...
why thank you Officer Skydog!

How many people are smart enough to ask an armed officer "Excuse me officer, are you on-duty acting as a police officer or a private security guard?"

People see a cop in uni and they assume on duty. Which is why many of the more professional operations prohibit unsanctioned off-duty wearing of the uniform while privately employed.

Now, a PD will 'authorize' wearing the uni if you pay for the cop through the department so they get their beak wet - but privately many ban wearing of the uniform off official duty unless its for funerals, union events or the like.
 
JOhnH said:
And it is a very simple thing to prove that you paid. There is no reason to resist or get obnoxious.
Click to expand...
Well, showing a receipt is one thing, but someone touching me to "detain" me is going to get a rude response.
 
Clip4 said:
What is really sad is police in AR have to moonlight at Best Buy because the wages in your state are so poor.
Click to expand...
You could be right,
or it could be that the cop's wife wants a new diamond necklace, or perhaps the cop wants to attend law school.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top