Security guards and doormen: can they drag you into the office and keep you there?

AARRRGH

Hey,

I've always assumed security guards in shops and doormen have the same rights as you or I - they cannot hold/drag someone without that persons permission.

On two occassions over the last few days I've seen -

1. Fours security men (very roughly) dragging a girl down Grafton street and then into the shop. I assume she was stealing, but they were forcing this girl against her will to go somewhere she didn't want to go, and they then held her there. Assault and kidnapping?

2. Roughly the same in Marks and Spencers.

Now, I'm pretty sure if I was pissed off with someone, I grabbed them, dragged them to my apartment, and held them there against their will, I'd be breaking the law.

Aren't they security guys doing the same? If I steal something from a shop and they do this to me, can I get them done for assault and kidnapping?

Shrimp

Citizens arrest...

"Citizen's arrest"
Private individuals also have powers of arrest without a warrant in certain circumstances - this is sometimes called a citizen's arrest. You may arrest a person who is committing an arrestable offence or any person whom you have reasonable cause to suspect is committing an arrestable offence. If an arrestable offence has been committed, you may arrest the person who is guilty of the offence or the person whom you have reasonable cause to suspect is guilty. This power of arrest may only be exercised if you have reasonable cause to believe that the person would otherwise attempt to avoid, or is avoiding, arrest by a Garda. If you do arrest someone you must transfer that person to Garda custody as soon as practicable.

Security people and store detectives have no more powers than other citizens in respect of arrests.

It is an offence for a person to resist a lawful arrest whether the arrest is carried out by a Garda or a private citizen.

secret_squirrel

I presume if they have proof someone has been stealing then they are allowed to use reasonable force to detain them til the guards arrive. Dont know the legal position though.

dublindude wrote:

If I steal something from a shop

Do you plan to

b3t4

As far as I am aware, once a person is seen to have shop lifted and then leaves the premises, a security officer then has the right to restrain the person.

A.

PlayaFlow

i would assume not, becuase they commited a crime. they are not being detained because they "pissed somebody off" .
if you saw somebody breaking into your car and they made off with your stereo and you eventually caught up with them , then if you were to bring them back to your home and keep them there until the guards came , ithink theyd be alright with that. thats hardly kidnapping or assault.

Redshift

The most they can do is make a citizens arrest and use resonable force to detain or prevent the arrested person from escaping.
Reasonable force is using the absolute minimum of force possible in order to detain the suspect. Four men dragging one girl would be regarded as excessive force I belive.

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

the prob is if the security guards restrain you when you haven't done anything wrong - for example, if they think you were stealing, but you actually weren't. then you can sue them and the store for a whole lot of money.

Hobbes

b3t4 wrote:

As far as I am aware, once a person is seen to have shop lifted and then leaves the premises, a security officer then has the right to restrain the person.

A.

The leaves part is important. You cannot be charged for shoplifting if you are detained in the store with the goods on you.

hullaballoo

dublindude wrote:

Hey,

I've always assumed security guards in shops and doormen have the same rights as you or I - they cannot hold/drag someone without that persons permission.

On two occassions over the last few days I've seen -

1. Fours security men (very roughly) dragging a girl down Grafton street and then into the shop. I assume she was stealing, but they were forcing this girl against her will to go somewhere she didn't want to go, and they then held her there. Assault and kidnapping?

2. Roughly the same in Marks and Spencers.

Citizen's arrest, perfectly described by:

Shrimp wrote:

"Citizen's arrest"
Private individuals also have powers of arrest without a warrant in certain circumstances - this is sometimes called a citizen's arrest. You may arrest a person who is committing an arrestable offence or any person whom you have reasonable cause to suspect is committing an arrestable offence. If an arrestable offence has been committed, you may arrest the person who is guilty of the offence or the person whom you have reasonable cause to suspect is guilty. This power of arrest may only be exercised if you have reasonable cause to believe that the person would otherwise attempt to avoid, or is avoiding, arrest by a Garda. If you do arrest someone you must transfer that person to Garda custody as soon as practicable.

dublindude wrote:

Now, I'm pretty sure if I was pissed off with someone, I grabbed them, dragged them to my apartment, and held them there against their will, I'd be breaking the law.

Aren't they security guys doing the same? If I steal something from a shop and they do this to me, can I get them done for assault and kidnapping?

False imprisonment, which is in fact an arrestable offence--so the guy who pissèd u off could actually arrest you. But don't let it fcuk your head.

hullaballoo

Hobbes wrote:

The leaves part is important. You cannot be charged for shoplifting if you are detained in the store with the goods on you.

No. See:

Shrimp wrote:

You may arrest...any person whom you have reasonable cause to suspect is committing an arrestable offence.

That means that someone you suspect of being involved in the commission of an offence--of which putting clothes down your trousers may be considered one--you can restrain them. Remember "arrest" means to stop, so it can be somewhat pre-emptive (although you can't falsely accuse someone, that's slanderous). See?

Auf

Lump

They aren't supposed to cause injury.

John

Cake Fiend

Shrimp wrote:

Citizens arrest...
You may arrest a person who is committing an arrestable offence]

Just to muddy the water a bit:

An arrestable offence is defined on oasis.gov.ie as "an offence for which the penalty, for a person who has no previous convictions, can be 5 years imprisonment or more". AFAIK shoplifting wouldn't be covered by this definition, tying in with my vague recollection of someone telling me once that a citizen's arrest can't be performed for what would be known as a 'misdemeanour' in the US, whatever we call it over here.

Hobbes

hullaballoo wrote:

No. See:

That means that someone you suspect of being involved in the commission of an offence--of which putting clothes down your trousers may be considered one--you can restrain them. Remember "arrest" means to stop, so it can be somewhat pre-emptive (although you can't falsely accuse someone, that's slanderous). See?

Auf

I worked in a clothes store. I was told if I see anyone shoplifting under no circumstances are you to go near them in the store. You wait until they leave.

If you catch someone putting stuff down thier trousers they can claim they are just carrying it. I could fill my pockets with stuff and not be arrested until I pass the checkout or the front door.

WhiteWashMan

Redshift wrote:

The most they can do is make a citizens arrest and use resonable force to detain or prevent the arrested person from escaping.
Reasonable force is using the absolute minimum of force possible in order to detain the suspect. Four men dragging one girl would be regarded as excessive force I belive.

absolutely, the other thing is that they can defend themselves against attack and harm.

so while they may use minimum force to 'restrain', if you punch him first, he can clobber you.

and proper order too. afaic, if you break the law, and then attampt to add injury to it, you deserve a good smack in the mouth!

the_syco

Shrimp wrote:

It is an offence for a person to resist a lawful arrest whether the arrest is carried out by a Garda or a private citizen.

Hmmm.... interesting. If someone claimed to be carrying out a "citizens arrest" on me, I'd proberly give them the benifit of the doubt, ie: smash their head in. Unless you show me a badge, your nothing more than a civilian.

secret_squirrel

hullaballoo wrote:

No. See:

Actually Yes. Everytime I've seen a security guard in action its after the thief leaves the premises. Until they leave the store they have not commited an offence. Experienced shop lifters know to be really apologetic and return the goods if they are stopped before leaving the store.

When I used to work in Tesco the undercover store detectives would always let them leave before nabbing them. It means they have concrete proof of an offence being committed.

Neuro

Sico wrote:

Just to muddy the water a bit:

An arrestable offence is defined on oasis.gov.ie as "an offence for which the penalty, for a person who has no previous convictions, can be 5 years imprisonment or more". AFAIK shoplifting wouldn't be covered by this definition, tying in with my vague recollection of someone telling me once that a citizen's arrest can't be performed for what would be known as a 'misdemeanour' in the US, whatever we call it over here.

Irish law dows not distinguish 'shoplifting' from any other form of Simple Larceny defined in Section 2 of the Larceny Act 1916. Convictions under Section 2 of the act are punishable by up 10 years in prison, a fine or both. 'Shoplifting', therefore, is an arrestable offence; the fact that a shoplifter is highly unlikely to be sentenced to 5 or more years in prison is irrelevent.

Shrimp

the_syco wrote:

smash their head in. Unless you show me a badge, your nothing more than a civilian.

Aww, boysh too hard.

No, If you are so think that once someone is not a gaurd they cant arrest you, well then you are greatly mistaken.

DonkeyStyle \o/

the_syco wrote:

Hmmm.... interesting. If someone claimed to be carrying out a "citizens arrest" on me, I'd proberly give them the benifit of the doubt, ie: smash their head in. Unless you show me a badge, your nothing more than a civilian.

Hmm, I'd be the same... I mean, what's to stop some crazy homeless drunk from "arresting" you because he thinks you stole his shoes or saw you doing a major drug deal as you were putting the shopping in your car boot?
Would you comply and let Drunky McStinks'o'piss hold you in a headlock and wait until the Gardai arrive?
And if you resisted the crazy drunk guy, wouldn't that make you a criminal, even though the suspicion was completely off the wall?
I mean "reasonable cause to suspect"... reasonable to who? (or should that be 'whom'? - anyone?)

You're walking down the street, you know you haven't committed any crimes, especially nothing worth 5 years... someone approaches you and claims to be holding you on citizens arrest?!
I'd think they were trying to mug me or pull some other kind of dodgy shít.
Would I stick around? Hah! my arse I would.

pork99

Shrimp wrote:

Security people and store detectives have no more powers than other citizens in respect of arrests.

It is an offence for a person to resist a lawful arrest whether the arrest is carried out by a Garda or a private citizen.

There's strictly no such thing as a "citizens arrest", only police offficers have powers of arrest of any kind (maybe also customs officers?).

What I think you do have is a right to detain someone you have witnessed committing or have good cause to believe has committed a felony. Even then you can only detain someone until the police arrive to carry out a proper arrest and only for that purpose. Maybe the law has changed since I had to be aware of that but I doubt it (I worked as a security guard for a while, years and years ago just before going to college).

I worked in a clothes store. I was told if I see anyone shoplifting under no circumstances are you to go near them in the store. You wait until they leave.

I do remember that the part of the definition of theft was that it had to involve someone taking and carrying away goods with the intention to permanently deprive the owner of the use of those goods hence the requirement to wait until the shoplifter has left the shop in order to detain them (theft being a felony crime - a felony being a crime for which you would get the death sentence back in the good old days)

Stephen

Yeah, when I was a security guard they gave us training on the difference between a felony theft and a misdemeanour theft - i.e. if the theft permanently deprives the owner of the item in question (eg shoplifting) its a felony, whereas something like someone thieving a car for a joyride, not in order to have it chopped and sold for parts wouldn't be a felony.

I'm so glad I only had to do retail security once in a blue moon. It ain't worth the hassle you get.

Lump

Ha ha, try working in -5 Degrees snowing and up to yer knees in mud. Fúcking building sites GRRRRRrrrr.

I enjoyed it really. Work some fairly high risk sites myself, like Sony depots and haulage companies. TBH, I've come across a couple of intruders. Some trying to rob, one guy getting a blowjob.

I've never thought twice about kicking off when working as a bouncer/security guard. Citizens arrest or not, it's either you or them. Obviously you call the cops but sometimes their isn't time and people end up with broken bones

John

Kingsize

if youve done nothing you can claim compensation for a false arrest.
as far as i know the gardai can arrest you "on suspicion" & therefore would claim that in court.
afaik if somebody makes a citizens arrest they must still call the gardai or take you to a garda station,they can only hold you in custody until the authorities arrive.Anything else is kidnapping.
having worked in retail in the city centre id take a guess & say that the girl being dragged down the street was probaby a known shoplifter.
Companies dont want to arrest punters willy nilly & get dragged through the courts especially in our compo culture.
having said that theres no telling what type of gimp you get working in retail security these days, i mean if you see some of the pond life manning the tills in dunnes etc i shudder to think what the security staff are like

pork99

Stephen wrote:

I'm so glad I only had to do retail security once in a blue moon. It ain't worth the hassle you get.

Yes it is one of the ****tiest jobs I ever had. Actually worse than street-sweeping, which I also did as a student holiday job. At least as a street sweeper you are out in the air, nobody bothers you, you just get on with it.

Security guard would be on the same level as the t-shirt printing factory where I washed printing screens with gallons of solvent. In an enclosed space. Without ventilation. I used to go home spaced and where the solvent soaked into your clothes you got blisters.

pork99

Lump wrote:

I've never thought twice about kicking off when working as a bouncer/security guard. Citizens arrest or not, it's either you or them. Obviously you call the cops but sometimes their isn't time and people end up with broken bones

John

My moment of glory was getting into fisticuffs with two Ken Acker style gentlemen in Ballaly shopping centre. They were roaring drunk - it took 2 security guys and half a dozen other shop staff to keep them out.

They could have legged it but they chose to keep trying too get in until the cops turned up and kicked the living sh!te out of them

hullaballoo

Neuro wrote:

Irish law dows not distinguish 'shoplifting' from any other form of Simple Larceny defined in Section 2 of the Larceny Act 1916. Convictions under Section 2 of the act are punishable by up 10 years in prison, a fine or both. 'Shoplifting', therefore, is an arrestable offence; the fact that a shoplifter is highly unlikely to be sentenced to 5 or more years in prison is irrelevent.

Firstly, anything before 1937 isn't statute, remember, war of independence etc. Secondly, even if there was a 1916 Larceny Act it woul have been out-dated by the 1997 Criminal Justice Act where archaic language such as larceny was abolished, and replaced with theft.

BTW there have been innumerable Criminal Justice (theft and Fraud) Acts since 1937, the law changes every second year.


Incidentally, misdemeanour used to be a non-death penalty offence, felony used to be a death penalty offence, now it's summary offences and indictable offences.

Auf

hullaballoo

Stephen wrote:

Yeah, when I was a security guard they gave us training on the difference between a felony theft and a misdemeanour theft - i.e. if the theft permanently deprives the owner of the item in question (eg shoplifting) its a felony, whereas something like someone thieving a car for a joyride, not in order to have it chopped and sold for parts wouldn't be a felony.

I'm not saying they didn't tell you that, just that if they did, they were wrong.

Auf

landser

hullaballoo wrote:

Firstly, anything before 1937 isn't statute, remember, war of independence etc. Secondly, even if there was a 1916 Larceny Act it woul have been out-dated by the 1997 Criminal Justice Act where archaic language such as larceny was abolished, and replaced with theft.

this is just wrong. the 1916 Larceny Act is still the main staute regarding theft. the fact taht it was pre-'22 (1937 Constitution has no effect on any pre-existing statute, unless that statute is repugnant to the constitution.) Until recently the 1585 Statute of Frauds was still the law of the land for buying and selling land

Eoin

I don't think anyone has mentioned doormen yet (as in bouncers). A couple of weekends ago, I had the pleasure of seeing no less than 6 bouncers grab some guy from their club and drag him across the street, one of them kicking him while on the ground. The same bouncer then got the guy in a choke hold around his neck - at which point I intervened and told them to ring the Gardai or let him go. I also gave my number to the guy in case the Gardai did get involved.

Five minutes later on the way to my bus I see four of the same bouncers chase the previous guys friend up Grafton street and drag him back to their night club (on South William Street) with .

Now, I am pretty sure that these two guys were acting the bollocks, but the bouncers behavior seemed way out of order, especially as these two guys did not seem the least bit violent.

Whatever about detaining someone in the premises, I find it very hard to believe that anyone (not in law enforcement) has the right to drag someone from two streets away with their arm twisted behind their backs...

PS - @Pork99, never knew you were a security guard, is that why our previous company really hired you?

hullaballoo

landser wrote:

this is just wrong. the 1916 Larceny Act is still the main staute regarding theft. the fact taht it was pre-'22 (1937 Constitution has no effect on any pre-existing statute, unless that statute is repugnant to the constitution.) Until recently the 1585 Statute of Frauds was still the law of the land for buying and selling land

Mea culpa - got the old wires crossed, on the constitution issue only though. Legislation in the last ten yrs has made most of 1916 act redundant to the point that we don't hear it mentioned as students. I still very much doubt its applicability today, but I as yet have no solid evidence to the contrary...

Ps. see Ss 18, 19 & 20 Non-fatal Offences Against the State Act 1997 esp. S 18 (1)e & s 19

vector

These days the preferred method of operation is to have two security guards.
One in a camera room, the other on the floor.

When a possible theif is detected he is followed by both but he is not touched until he is recorded on camera either stealing of looking like he is stealing.

A thief can put stuff in his coat for safekeeping as he walks around. Is is only when he tries to leave that you have him for sure.

So the process of catching takes time.

Where a shop has a street exit once the security guards steps outside he will call the guards. However where a shop is in a shopping centre the security guard can operate within the centre as if it is his own shop.

I had a job walking around a shopping centre in plain clothes with an earpiece talking to the camera room and the uniformed guards and it seemed that it is better to leave something walk away then get sued. I never stopped anyone, just observed.

When someone was definately shoplifting and the shop had them on camera the guards were called while we trailed them around covertly, because if you caught up with them they could dump the evidence or run away before the guards arrived.

vector

Sometimes the guards would take 30mins+ to arrive so we would trail the shoplifter/s around town as they went into other shops and so on.

DonkeyStyle \o/

Lump wrote:

I enjoyed it really.
[...] one guy getting a blowjob.

Did you spit or swallow?

Lump

Hardly.

MoFo...

John

Turner

landser wrote:

this is just wrong. the 1916 Larceny Act is still the main staute regarding theft. the fact taht it was pre-'22 (1937 Constitution has no effect on any pre-existing statute, unless that statute is repugnant to the constitution.) Until recently the 1585 Statute of Frauds was still the law of the land for buying and selling land

Larcency Act is no longer used.

Theft is covered by the Criminal Justice ( Theft and Fraud Offences ) Act of 2001.

Oh and stealing a mars bar is an arrestable offence, the same as stealing 1,000,000 mars bars would be. You can be detained by security until the arrival of the boyz in blue.

DonkeyStyle \o/

vector wrote:

I had a job walking around a shopping centre in plain clothes with an earpiece talking to the camera room

That sounds like a cool job... reminds me of that film Casino.
They didn't give you a cattle prod to covertly 'remove' people did they?

landser

Chief--- wrote:

Larcency Act is no longer used.

Theft is covered by the Criminal Justice ( Theft and Fraud Offences ) Act of 2001.
QUOTE]

oops

Stephen

hullaballoo wrote:

I'm not saying they didn't tell you that, just that if they did, they were wrong.

Auf

Ah I'm probably not remembering it right - it was a couple of years ago and I'm not employed in that line of work any more.

hullaballoo

landser wrote:

...the 1916 Larceny Act is still the main staute regarding theft...

Incidentally, the 2001 Act didn't repeal the 1916 Act. The 1916 Act had long ssince been repealed by the 1964 LarcenyAct.

I just came across that and thought it was useful for the sake of accuracy.[/pedant]

D

They are allowed to hold, lift and pull, they are not allowed to strike. They are allowed to twist (ankle/wrist) only after someone tried to resist.

Victor

landser wrote:

this is just wrong. the 1916 Larceny Act is still the main staute regarding theft. the fact taht it was pre-'22 (1937 Constitution has no effect on any pre-existing statute, unless that statute is repugnant to the constitution.) Until recently the 1585 Statute of Frauds was still the law of the land for buying and selling land

You mean the Statute of Frauds 1695? When was it repealed?