As a practical matter, if they're packing a gun they CAN detain you... unless you have a death wish.

That's a good point, Dave. Although there's nothing in the contract to stipulate when they would be able to draw that gun. So in theory, you could ignore any "order" given to you by a PPI officer.

Now, who wants to go ahead and try?

If I'm wrong, there's the smallest risk of getting shot.

Anybody?

Thank you Mr. Davis. Yeah, normally, I would have been all confrontational, spewing rhetoric about my rights and all that, but not today. I have a 4day weekend hangover and had just bought a bottle of water. It wasn't worth it. But along the same lines as store security can't stop you and ask for your receipt unless they have evidence you actually shoplifted (saw you in the act,) it crossed my mind that Portland Patrol don't have those rights either. Oh well, if I see the guy again, I'll ask him for his receipt.

Wait, if the rent-a-cops have guns, why is the woman in that picture making a gun out of her thumb and forefinger?

I don't know if they are armed or not. I just know it's not a good idea to lip off to someone with a gun. I know this by instinct, rather than past experience.

I just know it's not a good idea to lip off to someone with a gun.

Another pithy campaign slogan for '08!

Most if not all of them carry pistols. The individual I encountered had an old school 6 shooter with a wooden handle.

b!X:

The Dave for PDX campaign has a job for you as slogan writer.

Diesel, are you sure she didn't have a gun instead of a leg, and that you weren't at the movies watching Grindhouse?

I'm just fact-checking, here...

Under the contract with the PBA, not all of the PPI rent-a-cops have guns. The contract didn't appear to specify how many of the gun toters were to be on duty at once vs the non-gun toters.

I'm wondering where the City of Portland stands on all this.....do they have any say at all over the gun-toters?

We think there are 17 armed, 13 un-armed officers, but PPI has refused to confirm this number. According to the contract, there are 22 full-time equivalent PPI officers, which could be juggled about between the 30 on part time hours.

I might be wrong, but I'm under the impression not even the cops can detain you just because a security gate goes off. Those things are useful for intimidating you into submitting to a search, but they're unrealiable enough that I don't think a non-consensual search based solely on a security gate would hold up in court.

But that's just the impression I've gotten from reading various crap (e.g. I remember Fred Meyer getting sued and losing because their employees told customers they were required to submit to a search after a gate going off). So I could be totally wrong.

An officer has the power to detain you if
he has probable cause to believe you've committed a crime. So setting off an alarm in a store would probably qualify.

Now I'm confused.

So a PPI officer can detain me if they think I've committed a crime?

Any crime? Jay-walking, smoking in Pioneer Square, etc. or just crimes against their business masters?

No, a police officer can, a PPI officer can't. But there's some confusion in the eyes of the public, and since PPI officers carry guns, nobody seems willing to test out disobeying one.

Wednesday's agenda:

A) hit the farmer's market and fill messenger bag with a bunch of yummy fresh organic vegetables.

B) walk up to Safeway on 10th and buy 1 bottle of water from the checkout line.

C) wait for gate to scream due to work security badge and keep walking and see if anyone tackles me.

Any wagers?

It would be great if you could get somebody to take some footage in MP4 format, so we can post it here!

On the wager front, I bet $10 something cool happens.

"133.225 Arrest by private person. (1) A private person may arrest another person for any crime committed in the presence of the private person if the private person has probable cause to believe the arrested person committed the crime. A private person making such an arrest shall, without unnecessary delay, take the arrested person before a magistrate or deliver the arrested person to a peace officer.

(2) In order to make the arrest a private person may use physical force as is justifiable under ORS 161.255. [1973 c.836 §74]"

This is commonly know as a citizen's arrest, and is basically where shopkeepers (and their LPOs) derive authority to detain suspected shoplifters.
Absent other sources of authority for PPI officers to detain, this would be where they get the authority to stop/detain if there's PC that a cime has been committed in their presence.
Now, with that out of the way, the real thorny issues involving PPI stops are searches of the individual and admissibility of a suspect's un-Mirandized statements made to PPI.
Since PPI are not sworn peace officers,
they can't Mirandize a suspect, but, since they are arguably government actors (via their contract w/ city)when a person is detained by PPI, the person is entitled to Miranda warnings.
I would argue a similar analysis holds true in terms of any type of warrantless search of the individual- you have an un-sworn officer who is also state actor = bad search.
My 2 cents.

Interesting dellastreet. While I agree that the citizen has the right and the obligation to arrest someone who has committed a crime, where is the line when that citizen is wearing a uniform. I could go out tonight and buy clothing that implies I am a person of authority. Does that give me implicitly the right to stop someone whom I think may have committed a crime? I think not.
Yet, that isn't meant to be a slam, just a comment. I appreciate your thoughts.

Dellastreet! Welcome! Thanks for posting. It's awesome that someone with in-depth legal knowledge is weighing in (and for no charge!) on this issue:

I would argue a similar analysis holds true in terms of any type of warrantless search of the individual- you have an un-sworn officer who is also state actor = bad search.

Right. Now, do we know of any PPI officers asking people to turn out their pockets? To "take a look" in someone's backpack? And a citizen's arrest with probable cause that someone has committed a crime is different from "detaining" a suspect to have a conversation, to establish probable cause, though, right? Only peace officers have the right to do that, or am I wrong?

dieselboi: I never, ever stop for security gates and though I've been hassled (at one point an employee followed me an yelled at me for two blocks) no one has ever tried to detain me. (Yeah, I'm kind of annoying, but I don't want to submit to a search just because your fucking security gates think I'm a criminal.) I think most store employees know that they have neither the means nor the right to detain me.

PPI is presumably well trained in whether or not they're allowed to detain you. I doubt they'd try unless they thought they had the legal ground to stand on.

So my guess is no, you will not get detained, just possibly yelled at.

It's true, they can't detain you unless they have specific evidence of your shoplifting. Setting off the machine doesn't qualify.

Mrs. Joe thinks I'm a fucking nut, but I have an issue with the Costco thing where they check your receipt. You don't have to submit to it; it's essentially a suspicionless search. And here again, they can't detain you if you refuse. Once I walked out with a huge cart of stuff (paid for), and when she asked if she could see the receipt I just said no, and kept walking. She kept saying, "Sir..SIR! Wait!" Apparently (according to Mrs. Joe, who it seems was lagging behind and telling people I was on meds) after that she said into a walkie-talkie, "We've got a runner!" I was chased into the parking lot and asked if I would show my receipt. I said, "No, I don't think so." She said, "No, you won't?" I said, "No, I won't." At that point she ran out of things to say and let me put the stuff into the car.

I urge you to try it! Maybe if enough people do it, they'll quit bothering with it.

I think the "probable cause" part is what keeps them from being able to detain you. The alarm going off is not sufficient probable cause. If you google 'shoplifting probable cause', you'll get the six steps required for establishing probable casue.

1. You must see the shoplifter approach your merchandise
2. You must see the shoplifter select your merchandise
3. You must see the shoplifter conceal, carry away or convert your merchandise
4. You must maintain continuous observation the shoplifter
5. You must see the shoplifter fail to pay for the merchandise
6. You must approach the shoplifter outside of the store

It seems to me, if you didn't actually steal anything, there's no chance they've got those six steps on you. So keep on walking...

torridjoe: I do that at Fry's and I've never, ever had a problem like that. They ask for my receipt, I say "no thank you!", and they say "have a nice day!"

I wonder if you signed something in your Costco contract that says they can terminate your membership if you don't submit to the receipt check? (I dunno, I don't belong.)

Josh pretty much nailed it.
Absent some specific, articulable facts about why a particular instance gives rise to PC, there's no basis for the stop. The buzzer at the gates alone isn't enough, they go off all the time.

Which ties into what Dieselboi said earlier, simply thinking (subjectively) somebody did something 'arrestable' is different from being able to point to facts that would lead to a conclusion that an offense has occurred in the objective sense.
Putting on a uniform that implies authority doesn't change the analysis in terms of- if a citizen, PPI uniform or not, is going to initiate something like a citizen's arrest pursuant to ORS 133.225, there still has to be some articulable basis (PC)for the arrest or there could be liability civil and/or criminal for false arrest.
Interesting point you raise, Matt.
Most of the PPI initiated arrests I've seen thus far (meaning represetning the arrestee and reading the PPI and PPB reports)involve PPI stating a basis for the initial stop, i.e., drinking in public and then not long after (really, not long after) PPB shows up to do the pat down, and search incident to arrest. The PPI reports are scant on mentioning the questioning of the arrestee prior to PPB arrival- whether that's a deliberate omission or just the way it happened, who knows?
I've had clients say otherwise as far as how the interaction w/ PPI went down.

Della: It would be really interesting to hear from some of those clients who have described interactions with PPI before cops show up to do a pat down.

mdavis@portlandmercury.com

On what basis were the cops called? Because someone was drunk? Or because they were simply "offensive?" Tricky legal territory, right?

And no one in particular, who said this:
PPI is presumably well trained in whether or not they're allowed to detain you. I doubt they'd try unless they thought they had the legal ground to stand on.

We have no idea, since PPI's training and standard operating procedures (SOP) are still a mystery to us. Their contract with the PBA simply states what their role is. We have no SOP document, or information on PPI's "rules of engagement" with the public—when they are allowed to detain a suspect, when they might be allowed to draw a gun.

When you say "presumably PPI is trained," that's the crux of the issue. Homeless rights activists feel public safety should be based on something more concrete than a mere "presumption."

Here's another wrinkle. I'm a reasonably normal looking bloke. I was dressed business casual and yet I was approached. What about the people who don't wear "presentable" clothing. Are they targeted more? Just a thought.
Yeah, I remember reading awhile back about how store security doesn't have the right to stop you and immediately went to Best Buy to try it and since then, I haven't been asked for my receipt. I want to tell them off and see what happens. Target did it for awhile, but they too have stopped. Huh.

Feature idea: "Diesel goes shoplifting."

Give these wana be cops NO RESPECT at all! Everytime I walk by one of these fuckers I give them a little disapproving look and say sorry about your job.

MSN I NIIPET
MSN

MSN I NIIPET
MSN

MSN I NIIPET
MSN