Circle Center to "randomly" screen people through metal detecters

[cobber]

No, I retain 100% LEO powers off-duty. Your OPINION might be that we lose LEO powers working off-duty but we do not. I can wander off-duty in the mall and arrest someone if warranted.

My reading of the Indiana Court of Appeals. Who knows what they meant:

"And, when police officers are acting in the capacity of private security guards, they shed their cloak of State agency and become agents of the private hiring authority, thereby requiring no more of them with regard to a defendant's constitutional rights than of any other citizen." Bowman v. State, 468 N.E.2d 1064, 1068 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984)

Bowman involved an off-duty officer who was working as a security guard at a retail store. Although it was dicta in Bowman, it became a holding in Glispie:

"We recognize that there is case law holding that a police officer cannot simultaneously act as a law enforcement officer and a private agent." Glispie v. State, 955 N.E.2d 819, 823 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).

In Glispie an officer could be an agent, but the agency had to be explicit.

A Terry frisk is OK so a wanding will be as well.

Has the SCOTUS or the SCIND said this? Do you not see a difference between a frisk and a wanding?

 

[cobber]

Please, counselor, point out where the public city owned property and the private property separate at Circle Center.

I'll wait.

I suppose where the police cannot go without consent or a search warrant. Or where Simon pays property tax (assuming they do)?

If there is no separation, as you seem to say, then Simon Corp. cannot bar OC/CC, since that power would be reserved to a private property owner.

 

[Tinner666]

Oh, they pack while sagging. Watch their hands and you can see.

Care to elaborate? I have bangers around my shop and places in the city I work too. I'm surrounded by them at times. It's also why I have more stories of drawing than many others too.

 

[Denny347]

My reading of the Indiana Court of Appeals. Who knows what they meant:

Bowman involved an off-duty officer who was working as a security guard at a retail store. Although it was dicta in Bowman, it became a holding in Glispie:

In Glispie an officer could be an agent, but the agency had to be explicit.



Has the SCOTUS or the SCIND said this? Do you not see a difference between a frisk and a wanding?

Bowman was a police officer in a SECURITY UNIFORM. In 1984, "moonlighting" was verboten in many departments. Many departments would not approve of off-duty work that required LE powers. So officers would have to wear the uniforms of the job the worked at and not act as LEO's or face getting fired. That is not the case anymore. Sure there is a difference between a patdown and a wanding...a wanding is less intrusive.

 

[MikeDVB]

Hypothetically say a licensed carrier, who in the past had lived a rough life but turned things around (i.e. looks like a banger, but isn't), gets stopped by you as an officer at Circle Center.

You want to wand them, and they refuse.

What next? Ask them to leave? Get a warrant? Detain them?

I'm not being critical here, really do want to know how this would be handled as my curiosity is killing me.

 

[wally05]

Bowman was a police officer in a SECURITY UNIFORM. In 1984, "moonlighting" was verboten in many departments. Many departments would not approve of off-duty work that required LE powers. So officers would have to wear the uniforms of the job the worked at and not act as LEO's or face getting fired. That is not the case anymore. Sure there is a difference between a patdown and a wanding...a wanding is less intrusive.

Thank you Denny for your posting your responses. It's good to see another LEO stopping the "you can't do that if you're being paid by someone else" comments. I think I may have stated it also, but police powers are granted by the state. The dept is the only one that can nix them through policy.

 

[cobber]

Bowman was a police officer in a SECURITY UNIFORM. In 1984, "moonlighting" was verboten in many departments. Many departments would not approve of off-duty work that required LE powers. So officers would have to wear the uniforms of the job the worked at and not act as LEO's or face getting fired. That is not the case anymore. Sure there is a difference between a patdown and a wanding...a wanding is less intrusive.

One can always distinguish facts. A court might or might not find them significant in applying a holding. The agency question could be significant under some circumstances. Neither Bowman nor Glispie addressed immunity, for instance. Also the court appears to have articulated two different standards for LE and non-LE personnel working security. That could get very messy.

While you might be right on a wanding, thermal imaging or a backscatter scanner is likewise less intrusive in many ways than a patdown. A patdown is deemed unobtrusive by the courts because it goes no further than the outer layer of clothing, and may only be employed if the officer articulates facts that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the subject is armed and dangerous.

Obviously a wand goes 'deeper' than this, and is not simply an enhancement of human senses. If officers begin routinely wanding on Terry stops, look for the appeals to begin. Might not be worth pushing that envelope.

 

[Denny347]

Care to elaborate? I have bangers around my shop and places in the city I work too. I'm surrounded by them at times. It's also why I have more stories of drawing than many others too.

They have to hold onto their pistols tucked in their skivvys when they walk or move around. It will look different than holding onto their pants.

 

[Denny347]

Hypothetically say a licensed carrier, who in the past had lived a rough life but turned things around (i.e. looks like a banger, but isn't), gets stopped by you as an officer at Circle Center.

You want to wand them, and they refuse.

What next? Ask them to leave? Get a warrant? Detain them?

I'm not being critical here, really do want to know how this would be handled as my curiosity is killing me.

Ask them to leave at worst. If there is NOTHING else going on there is no reason to further detain them and certainly no PC for a warrant.

 

[cobber]

I think I may have stated it also, but police powers are granted by the state. The dept is the only one that can nix them through policy.

You will find that the legislature and the courts are the 500 lb. gorilla where there's any dispute over policy or powers.

 

[Sean]

I hate gang bangers but profiling someone based upon appearance i.e. clothing or tattoos is a slippery slope. Has there been a test case in Indiana? The only ones I know of doesn't look good for such a search. Woodson v. State tore apart the old simply being in a high crime area standard. I imagine a search and convection here would likely be similar to State(NM) v Jones (114 N.M. 147, 835 P.2d 863 (Ct. App. 1992)) out in New Mexico based upon previous rulings here. Maybe I missed a case..... I would also argue that a wanding is more invasive than a pat down, rulings have limited the frisk to the outer most layer, wanding is not limited to the outer most layer.

 

[10-32]

Correct me (on this statement)if I'm wrong but what I've picked up so far in this thread about Circle Center is that it is owned The City of Indianapolis AND Simon Properties. There is NOTHING designating what is owned by Indianapolis/Simon properties.

If the above it true, then the Police have every right to walk the property and enforce the rules of the property.

As for the rest of the ordeal, I'm with HammerHead. Since the property is co-owned by the City of Indianapolis, if a Police Officer tries to enforce the "You Must Become a Victim/No firearms rule", it would open up the city to a lawsuit under IC 35-47-11.1-3 since 35-47-11.1-4 doesn't apply. If I'm wrong here I'd prefer to be corrected by someone who possesses a Bar Card, but I'll still listen to everyone opinion.

 

[wally05]

You will find that the legislature and the courts are the 500 lb. gorilla where there's any dispute over policy or powers.

Would you like to challenge them in court, Cobber? If not, that is the only way it's changing. A police officer in uniform that is granted statewide powers can use such powers in an off-duty employment. Some agencies don't allow off-duty employment in their uniforms due to liability and nothing else.

Did you see the amount of officers at the Super Bowl? Did you have a problem with it then? Because I know for a fact that several officers from the Greenwood area make lots of money being security at that venue and some even for the VIPs and teams.

Paint it however you want, but no matter who is signing the paycheck during that time, they keep those powers.

As I stated before, I used to work LP at Nordstrom and I counted about 5 times in my short time there that fights broke out in the food court over "colors" and other idiotic macho stuff that these teens were messing with. If IMPD was not there working the mall, I guarantee one of those scuffles would have went bad fast.

 

[Hammerhead]

I suppose where the police cannot go without consent or a search warrant. Or where Simon pays property tax (assuming they do)?

If there is no separation, as you seem to say, then Simon Corp. cannot bar OC/CC, since that power would be reserved to a private property owner.

Danke, Herr cobber.

Correct me (on this statement)if I'm wrong but what I've picked up so far in this thread about Circle Center is that it is owned The City of Indianapolis AND Simon Properties. There is NOTHING designating what is owned by Indianapolis/Simon properties.

If the above it true, then the Police have every right to walk the property and enforce the [STRIKE]rules of the property[/STRIKE] laws.

As for the rest of the ordeal, I'm with HammerHead. Since the property is co-owned by the City of Indianapolis, if a Police Officer tries to enforce the "You Must Become a Victim/No firearms rule", it would open up the city to a lawsuit under IC 35-47-11.1-3 since 35-47-11.1-4 doesn't apply. If I'm wrong here I'd prefer to be corrected by someone who possesses a Bar Card, but I'll still listen to everyone opinion.

FTFY.

 

[Tinner666]

I hate gang bangers but profiling someone based upon appearance i.e. clothing or tattoos is a slippery slope. Has there been a test case in Indiana? The only ones I know of doesn't look good for such a search. Woodson v. State tore apart the old simply being in a high crime area standard. I imagine a search and convection here would likely be similar to State(NM) v Jones (114 N.M. 147, 835 P.2d 863 (Ct. App. 1992)) out in New Mexico based upon previous rulings here. Maybe I missed a case..... I would also argue that a wanding is more invasive than a pat down, rulings have limited the frisk to the outer most layer, wanding is not limited to the outer most layer.

I profile all the time as an employer. If a person can't wear his pants properly, I won't even give them an application. As a side note, watching them waddle, I'm sure they're just gay people trying to swish while they walk. Nothing against gays because I hire them and work with them, and Im friends with many. Those don't waddle to advertise. They walk normally.

They have to hold onto their pistols tucked in their skivvys when they walk or move around. It will look different than holding onto their pants.

Thank you Denny. I'll give it a bit more attention tomorrow.

 

[Sean]

I profile all the time as an employer. If a person can't wear his pants properly, I won't even give them an application. As a side note, watching them waddle, I'm sure they're just gay people trying to swish while they walk. Nothing against gays because I hire them and work with them, and Im friends with many. Those don't waddle to advertise. They walk normally.




Thank you Denny. I'll give it a bit more attention tomorrow.

I guess I need to clarify, this thread is about a specific scenario and my comment was applicable to that scenario. I couldn't care less if you profile, I also profile, however I don't think a public servant should be profiling based upon clothing. With that said I hope you can understand there's a difference between profiling someone for a job based upon their appearance and profiling someone for detainment and a search based upon their appearance.

 

[tpntch]

sounds like another way for racial profiling. :-(

 

[billybob44]

racial profiling. :-(

sounds like another way for racial profiling. :-(

Probably should let THAT go--If you want to get more than 20 posts before Banned...Bill.

 

[Tinner666]

I guess I need to clarify, this thread is about a specific scenario and my comment was applicable to that scenario. I couldn't care less if you profile, I also profile, however I don't think a public servant should be profiling based upon clothing. With that said I hope you can understand there's a difference between profiling someone for a job based upon their appearance and profiling someone for detainment and a search based upon their appearance.

We're cool. i understood, but threw the remark out there to outline another form of profiling. I was hoping it was in context with the thread in general. No harm, no foul.