Mall Cops > Pennsylvania

Posted: 3/5/2008 3:51:29 PM EDT

Let me start by saying I have never had an altercation, nor do I intend to ever have an altercation with Mall Cops.

It is just a matter of curiosity as I was sitting out my wife and watched one of these 18 year olds strutting his stuff through the mall.

I know they have no arrest powers and have to call in local police to do anything interesting.

What I am wondering is just what "powers" or "authority" that they are actually entitled to?

And would anyone know what specific law this is under?

No speculation or uninformed opinions please. Just looking for something from those that actually know. Thanks!

Posted: 3/5/2008 5:23:51 PM EDT

[#1]

NONE, they have no arrest power. Park city in lancaster uses constables, but they too have no arrest power. They can be armed though..

Posted: 3/6/2008 4:16:26 AM EDT

[#2]

Thanks – by the way I live in Columbia and frequent Park City…

The Mall I was referring to about the 18 year old, was one in Reading.

Posted: 3/6/2008 9:23:00 AM EDT

[#3]

They have the same powers as a property owner.

§ 507. Use of force for the protection of property.

(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of property.--The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable

when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary:

1.to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or other trespass upon land or a trespass against or the unlawful carrying away

of tangible movable property, if such land or movable property is, or is believed by the actor to be, in his possession or

in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts; or

2.to effect an entry or reentry upon land or to retake tangible movable property, if:

i.the actor believes that he or the person by whose authority he acts or a person from whom he or such other

person derives title was unlawfully dispossessed of such land or movable property and is entitled to possession;

and

ii.(A) the force is used immediately or on fresh pursuit after such dispossession; or

(B) the actor believes that the person against whom he uses force has no claim of right to the

possession of the property and, in the case of land, the circumstances, as the actor believes them to

be, are of such urgency that it would be an exceptional hardship to postpone the entry or reentry

until a court order is obtained.

(b) Meaning of possession.--For the purpose of subsection (a) of this section:

1.A person who has parted with the custody of property to another who refuses to restore it to him is no longer in

possession, unless the property is movable and was and still is located on land in his possession.

2.A person who has been dispossessed of land does not regain possession thereof merely by setting foot thereon.

3.A person who has a license to use or occupy real property is deemed to be in possession thereof except against the

licensor acting under claim of right.

(c) Limitations on justifiable use of force.--

1.The use of force is justifiable under this section only if the actor first requests the person against whom such force is used

to desist from his interference with the property, unless the actor believes that:

i.such request would be useless;

ii.it would be dangerous to himself or another person to make the request; or

iii.substantial harm will be done to the physical condition of the property which is sought to be protected before the

request can effectively be made.

2.The use of force to prevent or terminate a trespass is not justifiable under this section if the actor knows that the

exclusion of the trespasser will expose him to substantial danger of serious bodily injury.

3.The use of force to prevent an entry or reentry upon land or the recaption of movable property is not justifiable under

this section, although the actor believes that such reentry or caption is unlawful, if:

i.the reentry or recaption is made by or on behalf of a person who was actually dispossessed of the property; and

ii.it is otherwise justifiable under subsection (a)(2).

4.

i.The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if:

(A) there has been an entry into the actor's dwelling;

(B) the actor neither believes nor has reason to believe that the entry is lawful; and

(C) the actor neither believes nor has reason to believe that force less than deadly force would be

adequate to terminate the entry.

ii.If the conditions of justification provided in subparagraph (i) have not been met, the use of deadly force is not

justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that:

(A) the person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling

otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or

(B) such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in dwelling.

(d) Use of confinement as protective force.--The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of confinement as

protective force only if the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows that he can

do so with safety to the property, unless the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime.

(e) Use of device to protect property.--The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of a device for the purpose

of protecting property only if:

1.the device is not designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury;

2.the use of the particular device to protect the property from entry or trespass is reasonable under the circumstances, as

the actor believes them to be; and

3.the device is one customarily used for such a purpose or reasonable care is taken to make known to probable intruders

the fact that it is used.

(f) Use of force to pass wrongful obstructor.--The use of force to pass a person whom the actor believes to be intentionally or

knowingly and unjustifiably obstructing the actor from going to a place to which he may lawfully go is justifiable, if:

1.the actor believes that the person against whom he uses force has no claim of right to obstruct the actor;

2.the actor is not being obstructed from entry or movement on land which he knows to be in the possession or custody of

the person obstructing him, or in the possession or custody of another person by whose authority the obstructor acts,

unless the circumstances, as the actor believes them to be, are of such urgency that it would not be reasonable to

postpone the entry or movement on such land until a court order is obtained; and

3.the force used is not greater than it would be justifiable if the person obstructing the actor were using force against him to

prevent his passage.

PA Uniform Crimes Code.

Posted: 3/6/2008 4:46:17 PM EDT

[#4]

They have citizens' arrest powers.

... private citizens may make arrests for felonies and breach of peace misdemeanors they witness. Commonwealth v. Corley, 316 Pa. Super. 327 (1983)

Posted: 3/7/2008 5:24:37 PM EDT

[#5]

Yep, I read about citizens arrest all the time in the news, Try it once and see how fast a lawyer fucccks up your life...

Posted: 3/10/2008 9:38:36 PM EDT

[#6]

As stated above, they have the powers of a property owner.

As for Citizens arrest, Make sure it is a felony and make sure YOU witness it!!!

Posted: 3/11/2008 3:13:41 AM EDT

[#7]

If you are in private security or loss prevention....

Repeat after me....."Stop or I'll ~~shoot~~ shout!"

Posted: 3/12/2008 8:38:29 AM EDT

[#8]

Posted: 3/13/2008 4:32:24 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
these mall ninja's and other security personel /private investigators in pa need to be certified act 235 agents to work legally
they take a required Course approved and run by the state police out of harrisburg there are certified instructors that hold the classes thruout the state for people to obtain the cert

after becomming certified they do have powers of arrest while working and they also have the right to use force ranging from constructive authority (stop or i'll shout) all the way to deadly force (stop or i'll shoot....BANG) if necessary and if the option is avalible to the agent being there are two differant cert levels armed and unarmed

the thing i found strange is even a leo needs to take this course to operate legally doing security or private investigations part time in pa

Only if you are armed on the job. Unarmed mall guards Do not need 235. When I played mall ninja I did have hand kuffs and pepper spray and had to go through certifications for both though.

Posted: 3/14/2008 6:17:31 AM EDT

[#10]

the thing i found strange is even a leo needs to take this course to operate legally doing security or private investigations part time in pa

LEO'S can get a waiver of training.

The certification is not needed at all if the security guard carries no weapons of any kind.

Posted: 3/14/2008 6:59:28 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
these mall ninja's and other security personel /private investigators in pa need to be certified act 235 agents to work legally
they take a required Course approved and run by the state police out of harrisburg there are certified instructors that hold the classes thruout the state for people to obtain the cert

after becomming certified they do have powers of arrest while working and they also have the right to use force ranging from constructive authority (stop or i'll shout) all the way to deadly force (stop or i'll shoot....BANG) if necessary and if the option is avalible to the agent being there are two differant cert levels armed and unarmed

the thing i found strange is even a leo needs to take this course to operate legally doing security or private investigations part time in pa

As stated by Halo, Only if armed.

Also, Act 235 does not give anyone the power to arrest. Security officers have the same powers as a private citizen. Citizens arrest if you WITNESS a felony. In PA, ONLY a sworn LEO can LEGALLY detain someone if they have not witnessed a felony. LEO's don't need ACT 235 to work as an armed security officer if the have current ACT 120.

Also, you do not need to have Act 235 to be armed security if the organization you work for has a training program that meets or exceeds the PSP standards.

As for use of force, the standard is the same for everyone, including LEO's. The minimum amount of force required to stop the threat.

Posted: 3/15/2008 6:45:40 AM EDT

[#12]

LEO's don't need ACT 235 to work as an armed security officer if the have current ACT 120.

They certainly do need ACT 235 to work armed security. They can get a waiver of training, but they have to get the certification card. The exception would be if they are working off-duty THROUGH THIER DEPARTMENT on a security detail. To work for a private agency or independently, they need the 235 certification.

Warning

Confirm Action

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Mall Cops

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Mall Cops