security guard rules ?

[sj01]

Hi, I was coming out of tesco with a lot of other people when the alarm went off, as I was the only one with a trolly the security guard stopped me and took my trolly back throught the alarm, it didnt go off because it wasnt me.

My question is, can they just stop any one because they are the slowest walker. Its still embarassing even if you didnt do it.

What would have been my rights to refuse to go back in the shop?

Can they stop people for no reason?

[hightail]

I think they can only ask. I've had an experience of coming out of Tesco and 'security' wanting to check my shopping. I said no but I was perfectly willing to wait while they called the police so they just went on to the next victim. I think they were bored, not sure what the situation is if an alarm goes off as they presumably have better reason to ask if they can check.

[jackboy]

I had the same situation once coming out of Morrisons, the only one with a trolley. The guard asked if I had any razor blades or cds. When I answered no, he looked at how much I had in the trolley and I said that if he thought I was going to empty it while he checked it, then he could think again and what about the people that came through at the same time as me? He then said that I could go and I thanked him, quite sarcastically.

[JonCris]

Security guards CANNOT detain anyone UNLESS they have firm grounds to believe you have stole something. They certainly CANNOT make spot checks on consumers & to do so is not only unlawful its also illegal. If you refuse & they attempt to stop you & take you back to their quiet office they are guilty of assault, hostage taking & kidnap

[SR3009]

Security guards CANNOT detain anyone UNLESS they have firm grounds to believe you have stole something. They certainly CANNOT make spot checks on consumers & to do so is not only unlawful its also illegal. If you refuse & they attempt to stop you & take you back to their quiet office they are guilty of assault, hostage taking & kidnap

 

Totally ridiculous.

 

It be classed as a False Arrest.

[pin1onu]

Security guards CANNOT detain anyone UNLESS they have firm grounds to believe you have stole something.

Not totally correct they must witness you committing a crime. They cannot detain on suspicion, only a sworn police officer can arrest on suspicion.

 

They certainly CANNOT make spot checks on consumers & to do so is not only unlawful its also illegal. If you refuse & they attempt to stop you & take you back to their quiet office they are guilty of assault, hostage taking & kidnap

 

Some stores (e.g. cash and carry) make it a condition of entry that you agree to be searched. This is would have to be agreed beforehand or they leave themselves wide open. If you want a practical example of this football clubs make it a condition of sale that you agree to submit to being searched. Refusal gives them grounds to eject you from the ground and consfiscate your ticket. Note that is agree before purchase.

 

Totally ridiculous.

 

It be classed as a False Arrest.

Actually it's not totally ridiculous. If other crimes such as assault have been committed then a Security Guard runs the risk of being charged with them. Reasonable force can be used but excess force will be deemed assault.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Totally ridiculous.

 

It be classed as a False Arrest.

 

Drivel.

 

A security guard has no power of arrest. If a security guard detained someone who was not actually committing a crime, and/or if the individual was subsequently found not guilty by a court, the guard would be likely o find himself accused of wrongful imprisonment and/or assault.

 

I cannot find a crime on the statute of 'False Arrest' - can you provide a link?

[JonCris]

Totally ridiculous.

 

It be classed as a False Arrest.

 

I'm sorry but the only one who's being ridiculous is you

[JonCris]

Not totally correct they must witness you committing a crime. They cannot detain on suspicion, only a sworn police officer can arrest on suspicion.

 

 

 

Some stores (e.g. cash and carry) make it a condition of entry that you agree to be searched. This is would have to be agreed beforehand or they leave themselves wide open. If you want a practical example of this football clubs make it a condition of sale that you agree to submit to being searched. Refusal gives them grounds to eject you from the ground and consfiscate your ticket. Note that is agree before purchase.

 

 

Actually it's not totally ridiculous. If other crimes such as assault have been committed then a Security Guard runs the risk of being charged with them. Reasonable force can be used but excess force will be deemed assault.

 

I didn't say they could detain anyone based on suspicion I said they had to have 'good grounds' in other words they have to have seen you steal

 

Prior agreement to being searched is a bit like those private parking signs unless its made highly explicit prior to entry then its unlawful & if you do refuse they cannot force you to comply they can only refuse you future entry.

 

They can only use reasonable force to stop you leaving the area in which you have been detained. They CANNOT force you to go ANYWHERE & that includes their 'quiet' office, if they do that amounts to assault, kidnap, hostage taking (if they make any demands such as you signing anything) AND false arrest & imprisonment ........... watch this space

Edited August 16, 2010 by JonCris

[rashismart2000]

Security officer can only ask , if you refuse they do not have a power to stop you.all they can do to call the police.They can

ask for search your bags or trolly at the entry point, if you refuse then they have the right to rfuse your entry.

[caledfwlch]

Not totally correct they must witness you committing a crime. They cannot detain on suspicion, only a sworn police officer can arrest on suspicion.

 

 

 

Some stores (e.g. cash and carry) make it a condition of entry that you agree to be searched. This is would have to be agreed beforehand or they leave themselves wide open. If you want a practical example of this football clubs make it a condition of sale that you agree to submit to being searched. Refusal gives them grounds to eject you from the ground and consfiscate your ticket. Note that is agree before purchase.

 

 

Actually it's not totally ridiculous. If other crimes such as assault have been committed then a Security Guard runs the risk of being charged with them. Reasonable force can be used but excess force will be deemed assault.

 

Out of interest, what happens if you refuse to hand over the ticket? I assume a bit of small print issued by a private company cannot give them the right to then forcibly remove the ticket off you?

[JonCris]

Out of interest, what happens if you refuse to hand over the ticket? I assume a bit of small print issued by a private company cannot give them the right to then forcibly remove the ticket off you?

 

They can only use reasonable force to detain you where they stop you they CANNOT confiscate anything nor can they insist you go to their office

[caledfwlch]

They can only use reasonable force to detain you where they stop you they CANNOT confiscate anything nor can they insist you go to their office

 

So, refusing to adhere to a civil contractual agreement to be searched, gives private security guards at football matches the right to use reasonable force to detain you?

[JonCris]

So, refusing to adhere to a civil contractual agreement to be searched, gives private security guards at football matches the right to use reasonable force to detain you?

 

No but it does give them the right to refuse entry. You can only be detained if you have committed an arrestable offence

[My Real Name]

Isn't it an indictable, as opposed to arrestable?

[totallyinnocent]

It isn't clear to me what action the Security Industry Authority is doing about such matters.

 

I thought they needed to provide licensed individual that comply with codes of conduct.

[JonCris]

Isn't it an indictable, as opposed to arrestable?

 

Same thing ............ otherwise it ain't 'arrestable'

[JonCris]

It isn't clear to me what action the Security Industry Authority is doing about such matters.

 

I thought they needed to provide licensed individual that comply with codes of conduct.

 

A licence doesn't mean they know what they're doing & sadly most don't, they only think they do

[totallyinnocent]

I found this bit of case law interesting Self, R. v [1992] EWCA Crim 2 (25 February 1992).

 

It involves someone accused of stealing a 79p bar of chocolate from Woolworths, with a contested citizens arrest.

[JonCris]

Read the CAB report available on this site I think it mentions the 2 cases upon which the CR's rely for their activities

[JonCris]

Check page 12 of the CAB report "Unreasonable Demands"

[totallyinnocent]

These two case only show that if they you divert time of employees away from generating business their time can be recovered.

 

Security staff do not generate business. No sales staff time is usually wasted.

 

Having said that, all claims made through illegal activity are generally not valid. As they arrest people using PACE 24 they should also comply with the rest of PACE including clause 28.

 

PACE 30(1A) requires that "The person must be taken by a constable to a police station as soon as practicable after the arrest."

 

Note, it does not make any distinction of who has effected the arrest. This therefore makes it a requirement that if you arrest someone you better get a police constable forthwith or you will be breaking the law yourself. The police constable may then choose to bail you so negating the need to take you to the police station. Another person can't do this, at the scene (if we are strictly following PACE).

 

Failure to comply with PACE is illegal. Hence no damages can be claimed for illegal activities. The case I quoted refers to this principle.

 

Self, R. v [1992] EWCA Crim 2 (25 February 1992).

 

I'm also looking for information about what constitutes impersonation of an officer of the law or similar offences these security pguards commit in performing interrogations. I've started another thread about this.

 

Any decent operation would a) arrest you (PACE 24), b) make a record of the arrest (PACE 28), c) hand you over to the police (PACE301A) together with a copy of the relevant information. If they wanted to take the matter further they could then obtain your details through official channels. I believe the Security Industry Authority should make it a condition of the license that security firms comply with PACE.

Edited September 10, 2010 by totallyinnocent
remove auto smileys

[JonCris]

These two case only show that if they you divert time of employees away from generating business their time can be recovered.

 

Security staff do not generate business. No sales staff time is usually wasted.

 

Having said that, all claims made through illegal activity are generally not valid. As they arrest people using PACE 24 they should also comply with the rest of PACE including clause 28.

 

PACE 30(1A) requires that "The person must be taken by a constable to a police station as soon as practicable after the arrest."

 

Note, it does not make any distinction of who has effected the arrest. This therefore makes it a requirement that if you arrest someone you better get a police constable forthwith or you will be breaking the law yourself. The police constable may then choose to bail you so negating the need to take you to the police station. Another person can't do this, at the scene (if we are strictly following PACE).

 

Failure to comply with PACE is illegal. Hence no damages can be claimed for illegal activities. The case I quoted refers to this principle.

 

 

 

I'm also looking for information about what constitutes impersonation of an officer of the law or similar offences these security pguards commit in performing interrogations. I've started another thread about this.

 

Any decent operation would a) arrest you (PACE 24), b) make a record of the arrest (PACE 28), c) hand you over to the police (PACE301A) together with a copy of the relevant information. If they wanted to take the matter further they could then obtain your details through official channels. I believe the Security Industry Authority should make it a condition of the license that security firms comply with PACE.

 

Your arguing with the converted, you know that, I know that but unfortunately THEY don't know or simply don't care if they do know they STILL rely on none-applicable findings to argue their position with lay persons

[totallyinnocent]

I'm just building up arguments to present in an appropriate letter, or other. Perhaps (as I'm new) there is a already a sticky or otherwise that has this all done already.

 

It would be good to be armed with standard rebukes. They may not care but the CR operatives receiving letters with certain wording may well back track a bit and pick on easier targets.

 

I now just need to know if it is sensible or not to either complain to the store about the actions of their agents with respect to PACE, and/or to point out to the police that a store agent had effected an arrest but didn't follow through as they had another agenda.

 

I've read the CAB report page 12 which refers to R+v Versicherung AG v Risk Insurance and Reinsurance Solutions SA & Ors [2006] EWHC 42 (Comm) (27 January 2006) which refers to British Motor Trade Association v Salvadori (1949) and others.

 

The judgement is quite clear "... that to be able to recover one has to show some significant disruption to the business; in other words that staff have been significantly diverted from their usual activities [of generating business]. Otherwise the alleged wasted expenditure on wages cannot be said to be "directly attributable" to the tort. ..."

[JonCris]

I'm just building up arguments to present in an appropriate letter, or other. Perhaps (as I'm new) there is a already a sticky or otherwise that has this all done already.

 

It would be good to be armed with standard rebukes. They may not care but the CR operatives receiving letters with certain wording may well back track a bit and pick on easier targets.

 

I now just need to know if it is sensible or not to either complain to the store about the actions of their agents with respect to PACE, and/or to point out to the police that a store agent had effected an arrest but didn't follow through as they had another agenda.

 

I've read the CAB report page 12 which refers to R+v Versicherung AG v Risk Insurance and Reinsurance Solutions SA & Ors [2006] EWHC 42 (Comm) (27 January 2006) which refers to British Motor Trade Association v Salvadori (1949) and others.

 

The judgement is quite clear "... that to be able to recover one has to show some significant disruption to the business; in other words that staff have been significantly diverted from their usual activities [of generating business]. Otherwise the alleged wasted expenditure on wages cannot be said to be "directly attributable" to the tort. ..."

 

 

They rely at least in part on the Nottingham Court Tesco matter