Police Detention vs. Arrest

The difference between "detention" and "arrest" is that in an arrest, the cops have to give Miranda warnings and generally can't ask questions once a lawyer has been requested. Detention is more informal. Generally they can't search -- -- except for a patdown to ensure they aren't in danger from a weapon. And if they take stuff from you they can do a "custodial" search, so they know what they have to return. So if there's obviously no weapon in a pocket, they technically can't search w/o permission, and they couldn't go through a wallet. Of course cops stretch this sort of thing (a "suspicious bulge"), but there are limits.

In order to avoid these restrictions, and avoid Mirandizing the suspect, cops don't arrest, and they "request" permission to search. No matter what they tell you, this request be disregarded. They don't need to tell you that you're allowed to say no, and they can strongly imply that you are not permitted to say no. But you can. You also do not have to answer questions. True enough, they can arrest you or otherwise make your life difficult. But unless it is totally self-evident that your answers will release you from their control, and that the answers can't harm you, there is probably little benefit in spilling your guts. Cops will use psychological pressure to try to convince you otherwise.

Now if they really have questions or want to search, they can always arrest you. But they technically need probable cause to arrest. If they arrest and search, and have no probable cause, the search can be surpressed at trial. So while you sit in jail for a while, the prosecutors would have no case, or much worse of a case (which makes it easier for a plea deal).

Cops and guards always go crazy when they have cornered a suspected criminal. I think the difference is in what happens when you go before a magistrate/judge in a supression hearing. It may very well be that if/when you try to leave, they arrest you. But you can always demand your stuff back and say you're going. Puts the pressure on them to defend a probable cause finding. Not to mention that
private security guards probably do not have the same immunity to suit as the cops do, so if they hold you they might be open to getting sued. Cops really aren't subject to that liability.

most excellent post

Cops and guards always go crazy when they have cornered a suspected criminal.

There are good cops and guards, and there are bad ones. They are all people, and like all people, many react to different situations in different ways. How can anyone declare a statement like this as if it is a fact?

private security guards probably do not have the same immunity to suit as the cops do

"Probably"? If this person does not know the law on this issue, why is he declaring all this stuff as an authority?

It would probably be a good idea to ignore this poster as I am going to do now.

-T-

you sound just like ad hoc. Is this the same person?

are pretty much on the opposite sides of the liberal/conservative fence, but he is extremely intelligent and a helluva nice guy.

I'll take that as a high compliment.

Contrary to popular belief police officers do not have to Mirandize everyone they arrest. I cannot comment on the acccuracy of the rest of the post as I am neither a lawyer nor in law enforcement.

The issues raised by Not a dime are interesting ones and worthy of more discussion on this board. Thanks for the topic Not a dime.

SS

A security guard has the same ability to detain a criminal suspect as any other non police officer. He can detain someone if a forcible felony has been committed, and would not be subject to suit for that. A police officer can detain someone, even to investigate an infraction (i.e. improper lane change) for which there is no jail time. If the officer has probably cause that an infraction (or misdemeanor or felony) has been conducted, he is immune to suit for any kind of "false imprisonment".

Not a Dime's post is quite accurate on your right to say "No" to a search, or refuse to answer questions. It is infuriating to watch "Cops" and see officers trampling rights of minorities who just don't know better. After pulling someone over for a missing taillight, "Do you mind if I search your car for illegal contraband? You don't have nothing to hide, do 'ya?" That is the beginning of an illegal search, with invalid consent. Good luck to the minority though, who cannot afford an attorney to suppress whatever was found.

Another interesting thing about security guards... If they search you, and find contraband, you cannot suppress it from trial. The Constitution only protects you from unreasonable searches from the government, not individuals.

Sorry, stream of consciousness at the kb...

Police Officers only have to "Mirandize" a person under arrest if he plans on questioning that person. If all he's going to do is take him off to the hoose-gow, no Miranda is necessary. Since he's not questioning the subject, any proclamation of guilt by him/her, would be classified as an "excited utterance" and would probably be admissible at trial - as long as he was properly mirandized right after that utterance.

The cop does have to inform the suspect that he is under arrest. Otherwise he's not allowed to move the person.
If your under detention you may be forcibly restrained, but not moved.
If your under arrest then you can be transported to the station.

I find it hard to believe that someone would proclaim their guilt without any type of prompting by the police officer. This seems like a bit of a gray area and is probably why Miranda is SOP in most arrest situations.

authorities have the "right" to ask for your ID..they have the "right" to ask you for your SSN...from what i know about the law you MUST produce ID when requested...thats it.

Sure, the coppers ask to search your vehicle...you say no.. and that should be it...but ...the cop will ALWAYS RESPOND..."if you didnt do anythig wrong, then what are you afraid of" ...most people balk at this trick and subject themself to a "legal search without warrant"...my advise....reply by saying...either ..."my friend(or if you are young say your friend's father) is a lawyer and he told me if the police ask to search my vechile, I have the right to say no." Usually that wil shut up the cops...if the cops continue t persist don't say anyting else....else you MAY give them a "reason" to search.

A last word of caution, in some states, i know in Florida, cops are allowed to use "racial profiling". In other words, if a peron's appearance fits a set description, the cops automatically have a "reason" to search a person's person or possesions. Eg, a black man in his mid 20s driving a late model Benz....goes on all the time....oh yeah and planting.....that too..."well this time he didn't have anything on him, he must of just sold it, but we(the coppers) know that he deals, so we'll plant this on him and do the community a favor"......GOD I can't wait till all cop cars get built in cameras, they will protect the honest folks....more cynicism from MT

Another interesting thing about security guards... If they search you, and find contraband, you cannot suppress it from trial. The Constitution only protects you from unreasonable searches from the government, not individuals.

It is correct that private security guards are not bound by the same
constitutional restrictions as cops. And when they discover evidence theycan turn it over, and the evidence would not be suppressed (the theory behind the heralded "TIPS" program). By the same token,however, they are liable to suit for assault, or assault and battery, or unlawful imprisonment -- while they can make a citizen's arrest, so to speak, if they get things wrong they don't have the same protection from civil suit(whereas a cop is basically immune from suit unless they do something egregiously outside the bounds of their job description). I think they would therefore be much more leery about forcibly locking someone up or taking their property without "consent" (which can, of course, be requested in a most threatening manner)

I believe that if a cop used a security guard as an agent to conduct a
search that the cop himself could not do, you might have grounds to
challenge the evidence.

had friend who took a grad school hospitality law class, tape recorded all the classes...

security guards are pivate citizens...they can search you and that d/n break the law......

Basically--security guads are private citizen
and police are public
constitution only applies to those employed by the state.

A gray area exist when an off duty police officer works as a security officer (since the oath officers take in most areas is that they are a police officer 24/7) A good lawyer can get any evidence collected by a police officer while working as a security officer.

Note: Hotel staff can illegally break into your room when you are "renting" it and notify the authorities of your activity....in fact the police often ASK the hotel staff to enter a guest's room and "look around" if anything is in "plain site" ..the hotel staff will open the drapes...thus the police can "look through the window" and see thus gaining prob cause to enter....

IF this happens to you...you are in deep doo doo...sure you can sue the hotel....but the evidence will be in trial...bottom line is that most hotels will not aid the police for fear of being sued by guests..yet as a previous poster noted the poor are taken advantage of cause they are unaware that of what action they could bring.

The point:
1. if you work/own hotel NEVER aid the police in entering a guest's room. If they ask why, say something like "under advisement from my counsel, I was told not to allow anyone in the room other than who is on the register.
2. Check to see if the person who entered the room is also employed in law enforcement.
3. Never keep anything i plain site(heck never break the law)
4 If a hotel employee entered your room without consent, check to see what lega options you have.....of course the hotel will argue that they their right to maintain their propetry supercedes your right of privacy....yet without reason they have no right to enter.....lots of people have made lots of money by protecting their rights.
4. Please, thank you, and NO you may not! give no reason
5. "Gee you have a lot of cash, you must be a drug dealer" yousay "naw just a card counter" LMAO dont say that

Ill leave you with an interesting case I read, a man was staying at a hotel with his mistress. The man stayed at this hotel on numerous occasions and the hotel staff knew him and his wife. The wife came to the hotel asking if her husband was there, unaware that he was with his mistress, the hotel staff said yes AND GAVE HER A KEY. She opened the door and errr...something was goin on in there....the wife ran out crying and filed for divorce..so what???...

The man sued the hotel and WON a large sum(coupl hundred thou of money stating that if the hotel d/n give the key, the wife never would of found out...in other words, the proximate cause of the divorce was the hotel staffer givin the key to a person not on the registery. Oh yeah, in case you are wondering, he sued AFTER the divorce and DID NOT have to split his settlement with his wife...

authorities have the "right" to ask for your ID..they have the "right" to ask you for your SSN...from what i know about the law you MUST produce ID when requested...thats it.

Anyone has a right to ask you for anything. But authorities as in casino personnel have no right to see your ID apart from CTR, over-21, and perhaps some other state-specific reasons. The police also have no "right" to see your legal ID, although if you are defiant they may search you as discussed in "Police Detention vs. Arrest" by Not a dime for DM. Police do have a right to see a driver's license if you are driving.

The U.S. does not require its citizens to carry identification papers. In fact, a police officer in my jurisdiction was recently suspended for 30 days after handcuffing a man who politely refused to show identification.

if your local newspaper/tv has a webpage and carried that story, i'd love to see it

email me: microeffic@aol.com

i agree that the US does not require you to carry id...most under 16 have no id....are you sure the man was handcuffed for not producing his id or was he possibly detained for another reason?

Look under Nevada Revised Statues and Gaming Statues. Go to Nevada Gaming Control site for clarification. I used to teach classes on this issue. But you know Security, low pay, low intellect, high turnover, so I stopped, er... was not asked after the first round of classes to continue teaching. There was much heated debate about this, people can not accept the laws governing this situation, much less apply these laws correctly. You still have many old/outdated attitudes out there. Binions, Old Mint (remember the Mint), DI, Sands, Dunes, etc. These places all had there own way of handling these situations, rarely in a players favor (I'm being nice here). Hi Titmouse.

That low pay comment made about surveillance people (which, by the way, is completely true, they have horrible pay) must have really hit home pretty hard, seeing as how you keep brining it back up.

I don't believe I've ever said one thing or another about Surveillance pay. First, I've been lucky in that for most of my life I've been able to do those things that really truly interest me, that I've truly loved to do or both. Second, I've had a couple of other careers before getting into Surveillance. Now before anyone gets their dander up about me catching Advantage Players let me clarify my definition of an Advantage Player. Can you hurt the Casinos, 98% of the time no you can't. I only look for the 2%. I've observed many of you grind it out (hi pat), never have I said anything. Why, because you are not a threat. My definition of a threat? Well you'll just have to wonder I guess. But if you actually do spend any time wondering then you are not a threat and you should (I hope know it). So now if I'm only looking for 2% they're easy to spot and they know it. You are all too paranoid, seriously. More theft occurrs from within than without. Get it, thats the real challenge, catching the complicated, and in some cases not so complicated cases from within. By the way there is more leakage each year in the casino slot departments in the State of Nevada than in the gross national product of some countries. So get a clue, don't be greedy, keep your sessions short 45 minutes to an hour or less (if you can, hard to do now with no mid round entry being so common), pick and chose your games more carefully (look for more than just penetration, rules, etc... look for legal alternative advantages...), train yours eyes to see and then take advantage of these situations, THEY ARE EVERYWHERE.
Well I've said to much already, wait for the book. Have fun, Good Games & Good Cards to you all.