Private police may not be completely private for long

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

User avatar
FormerNavy
Posts: 2342
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:19 pm
Location: Southwest Ohio

Re: Private police may not be completely private for long

Post by FormerNavy »

I'm sorry, I see the need to keep private business records private. But I feel this should be an exception when it comes to law enforcement activities of private police. Otherwise, remove their arrest powers and other stuff and let them call the public police like everyone else.
CroManGun
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1613
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 3:29 am
Location: Paarmaa!

Re: Private police may not be completely private for long

Post by CroManGun »

FormerNavy wrote:I'm sorry, I see the need to keep private business records private. But I feel this should be an exception when it comes to law enforcement activities of private police. Otherwise, remove their arrest powers and other stuff and let them call the public police like everyone else.
It would appear that the private police debacle is sorely in need of some checks and balances. I hope the thread title becomes fact as soon as it's able to be done.
Genuine Scooter Trash
Member: NRA/OFCC/AAA/GER/AFG
Former Member: Amish Chippendales
I Am Not A Lawyer, But I Have Played One In Real Life
mreising
Posts: 6274
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:07 pm
Location: Warren County

Re: Private police may not be completely private for long

Post by mreising »

It seems to me that the entire issue needs to be addressed, I see no reason why a private entity should possess powers of the government, such as police powers, They can have security officers (guard service) just like any other private entity in the state, but there is absolutely no reason that an amusement park (as one example) should have the powers of arrest, or require that I notify. I realize we are more likely to eliminate the notification requirement before we ever eliminate private police forces.
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny

Mark
NRA Training Counselor-Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun, Reloading, Personal Protection in the Home, Personal Protection Outside the Home, Home Firearms Safety, Chief RSO. NRA Endowment Life member.
SMMAssociates
Posts: 9557
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:36 am
Location: Youngstown OH

Re: Private police may not be completely private for long

Post by SMMAssociates »

Mark:

It's been way too long since I looked, but back when my FTO thought that flintlocks were just a passing fad, each individual Private Police Officer ("Special Police", "Special Deputy", and a few more) had to go through the same OPOTA training as the "regular" Officers, and when I did it, WITH them, too. I think there were about six rentals and about 25 "regulars" in my class in '67-'68.

Somewhere along the line, that got split, as the training requirement for the "regulars" increased significantly. Meantime, instead of being a free agent employed by the store or other venue, many of us ended up with our Agency licensed as a "Private Detective Agency", which covered fixed site assignments and mobile patrols, and required armed Officers to be registered as such (and trained as such). That's still in place, AFAIK, although the training requirements have changed.

I presume that the same general thing applies today - a store or other venue can get licensed, or employ Security staff from a licensed agency. I don't think you can hire armed SO's without somebody being licensed and the Officer certified. Off-duty LEO's may be an exception, though.

Power of arrest varies, but back in my day, other than being told to stay away from Traffic, the only real difference between me and the guy in the City car was who signed the check, and regular hours.

One other thing - University and Park Police, for example (I'm not sure how the heck this works) can form a "Police District", which can operate as if it were a municipality for Law Enforcement purposes. A now-deceased buddy of mine (Sergeant with the YSU PD at the time) caught a couple of house burglars just off campus. BG's went away for a while on it, but he caught heck from the University for getting involved. (The YSU PD always were armed, etc.)

There seems to be nothing in the "notification" requirement that tells you who to notify. Off the top of my head, a uniform, badge, and gun, ought to do it. Soft clothes, maybe not. However, you're taking a chance that the SO is off-duty from someplace.

Normally, today, powers of arrest and some other issues (like towing a car) seem to apply only to "your" property, but with an off-duty LEO involved, or in the case of Police District, it may be prudent to assume that they're not bounded by the location.

Locally, the City PD and several other agencies, including YSU PD!, all worked together on highly visible and intensive OVI enforcement the other weekend, and YSU PD definitely has mutual aid with YPD.

Yet another reason to drop notification....

Regards,
Stu.

(Why write a quick note when you can write a novel?)

(Why do those who claim to wish to protect me feel that the best way to do that is to disarm me?)

יזכר לא עד פעם
User avatar
Werz
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 5506
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:37 am

Re: Private police may not be completely private for long

Post by Werz »

Tweed Ring wrote:
FormerNavy wrote:
Tweed Ring wrote:No, not to me. I believe there are mechanisms which can be used by a person, or his attorney, to obtain this information.
Does it change things that these university police also utilize their police powers off campus?
No. What is key, to me, is this information is available through discovery, subpoena, etc.
Criminal Rule 16 discovery is not co-extensive with public records requirements.

Anyone who exercises general arrest powers is asserting governmental authority. Their records regarding the exercise of governmental authority should be public.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
-- Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon
"Remember that protecting our gun rights still boils down to keeping a majority in the electorate, and that our daily activities can have the impact of being ambassadors for the gun culture ..."
-- BobK
Open carry is a First Amendment exercise.
User avatar
evan price
Forum Janitor
Forum Janitor
Posts: 9044
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: Westfield, Ohio

Re: Private police may not be completely private for long

Post by evan price »

djthomas wrote:Emphasis mine. But wait you say, a private police officer is not a municipal police officer. Now we turn to the enabling statutes for the various types of private police officers. For instance, banks and hospitals under ORC 4973.17 where their powers are set out in ORC 4973.18 in pertinent part:
Policemen so appointed and commissioned shall severally possess and exercise the powers of, and be subject to the liabilities of, municipal policemen while discharging the duties for which they are appointed.
This statute hasn't been touched in over 60 years but the intent seems to be to equate private police officers to a municipal police officer (who is a law enforcement officer) so long as the jurisdictional and/or "direct discharge of duties" requirements under 4973.17 are met.

It may be the cranky argumentative person in me, but when I take what 4973.18 says and interpret it literally, it says that private police have the same powers and liabilities as municipal police. It does not say they ARE municipal police.
Sophistry, perhaps. But if there were no difference between private police and municipal police why does the ORC not just say that they ARE municipal police?

Conversely, if that argument is shot down, by saying that private police are "..subject to the liabilities of, municipal policemen while discharging the duties for which they are appointed." does that not mean that they are required to submit to the liability of keeping and displaying records and such as any municipal policeman must do?
"20% accurate as usual, Morty."

Striking down evil with the mighty sword of teamwork and the hammer of not bickering!
Carpe Noctem- we get more done after 2 am than most people do all day.
User avatar
MyWifeSaidYes
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5449
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
Location: Central Ohio
Contact:

Re: Private police may not be completely private for long

Post by MyWifeSaidYes »

Good news and bad news.

First, the good news:

The Ohio Supreme Court says...
Police Records at Private University ARE Public

http://www.courtnewsohio.gov/cases/2015 ... 140244.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, what's the bad news?

This was a 4 to 3 decision. It should have been a slam dunk.
MyWifeSaidYes
User avatar
Atilla
Posts: 1928
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:18 am
Location: Euclid

Re: Private police may not be completely private for long

Post by Atilla »

Tweed Ring wrote:If these private police officers work for a private sector entity, then I believe their work product and related documents should be private. These records should be open to scrutiny under the same rules as any private employers' records.
Then they would be security guards or mall cops, NOT law enforcement. If they want to play cop, then they need to follow all the rules.
C'mon! We're all going to die, die standing up!
Post Reply