TCPS
Update
INVESTIGATION ENCOUNTERS
What are some of the situations T.C.P.S. investigator encounters, when they are checking security officers?
The T.C.P.S. investigator is checking for compliance with statutory requirement of Chapter 1702 of the Texas Occupations Code (The Private Security Act) and the Commission rules adopted for the administration of the statute.
Some of the more serious situations that we have encountered involve the security officers who are carrying weapons.
We have noticed a state wide occurrence of noncommissioned security officers carrying the asp baton (or any form of a club), the noncommissioned security officer is not authorized to carry any form of a club, and in fact he is in violation of the Texas Penal Code.
This security officer could be charged with at least a Class A Misdemeanor, and this could be up graded to a Felony, if the security officer is on a licensed Premise.
Section 46.03 of the Texas Penal Code provides a defense of prosecution for the Commissioned Security Officer, who is carrying a club.
Many of these security officers are being arrested and charged with unlawfully carrying a weapon.
We are urging all guard companies to inform their noncommissioned security officers that they are not authorized to carry clubs, or any variation of a club.
In one night of inspections this investigator encountered all of the following scenarios:
One security officer was wearing a sam brown belt with an empty gun holster;
In doing this, the security officer is putting each Law Enforcement Officer, on edge; the Law Enforcement Officer is concerned about where the firearm is truly located.
Did the security officer remove the firearm and hide it behind a counter or place it in his vehicle, because he knows that he is not authorized to carry a firearm. What is the true reason for an empty holster?
Is the security officer hoping for a psychological advantage?
What kind of deterrence is an empty holster?
Although it is not a violation of the Private Security Act or the Penal Code, it seems to be an unwise choice.
The second encounter:
The security officer who was carrying a firearm that was a caliber that is not authorized by the Private Security Act. (This is a violation of Commission Rules)
The third encounter:
The security officer was carrying a firearm that was missing a firing pin, and the firearm was literally being held together with tape. This firearm was completely inoperable, and a danger to himself and the persons he was there to protect. (This is a violation of Commission Rules)
The forth encounter:
The security officer was carrying a firearm, which was not loaded.
The security officer stated that it is his �personal� rule not to carry a loaded weapon.
In the situations where the guns where out of compliance, empty, inoperable, are the clients paying a premium for commissioned security officers? Are the companies in violation of their own contract with the client?
The client would expect at a minimum that the commissioned security officer have with him an operable weapon and one that is loaded.
In the event of a worst case scenario and the security is faced with a situation where he must defend himself or another, what good is that inoperable or unloaded weapon.
Compliance with the uniform requirements, compliance with the rules regarding the pocket card, and the proper registration of the person performing services regulated by the Texas Commission on Private Security.
For violations of any of the above the guard and the company may be subject to citation, the guard for the violation and the company for permitting and allowing the violation to occur.
We urge the company managers and owners to perform both routine and spontaneous inspections of their security officers to ensure their security officers are in compliance with Chapter 1702 Texas Occupations Code and the rules adopted by the Commission.
This action could save the security officer and company the adverse effect of citations, but more importantly could save a
life.
|
