TexasCHLforum.com

WTR wrote:Lets ask an active or retired LEO their opinion as to how it works.

I have, but not on this forum. The restaurant my girlfriend works at often hires the same two LEOs during big events, usually UFC fights and such. The restaurant pays them directly for a specific service. Can they make arrests and enforce laws? Of course they can, but they are being paid specifically to provide security and enforce the rules and policies of the restaurant. They are not there on behalf of the police department that employees them.

WTR wrote:

jkurtz wrote:

WTR wrote:I can't hire an off duty building inspector to come down and bless off on my family room addition .

Actually, you can. I do it all the time. When ever I test a system like the Fire Alarm system or any system for that matter that requires the shut down of the building, I have to arrange with and pay overtime to the city. They do require a 24 hr. notice and it is dependent on an inspector who will volunteer for the overtime.

In your example it sounds like you are paying the city and the city is providing the inspector, therefore the inspector is "on duty", even though they are working overtime.

Technically, I suppose you are correct. Just as a LEO would be considered "on duty" if he is acting in the capacity as an Officer. I do pay the the city the exact amount of overtime the inspector earns and he has to agree to work the overtime.

If the liquor store paid the officer directly, then I would say he was not on duty. However, similar to your example, if the liquor store paid the department, which in turn paid the officer, I would say he was on duty.

WTR wrote:I can't hire an off duty building inspector to come down and bless off on my family room addition .

Actually, you can. I do it all the time. When ever I test a system like the Fire Alarm system or any system for that matter that requires the shut down of the building, I have to arrange with and pay overtime to the city. They do require a 24 hr. notice and it is dependent on an inspector who will volunteer for the overtime.

In your example it sounds like you are paying the city and the city is providing the inspector, therefore the inspector is "on duty", even though they are working overtime.

Bryanmc wrote:

One Shot wrote:If employed by the business as a security guard, would the business be civilly liable for his actions outside the law? In his position, i would think he would reasonably be considered negligent in not knowing the laws that apply to the business he was hired to "guard".

This is a good point. He was not acting as a deputy, he was acting as a hired security guard. While he should know the law because of his "day job", he was acting as an employee of the business, not the SO. He stepped way outside the lines. At least that's how I see it.

I think that would depend on the specific conditions in which he was there, similar to how private security works. The difference is who the liquor store pays for his services. They could have (I) paid him directly or (II) paid the department he works for, which then pays him an overtime rate. In the first case he is working as an employee of the store. In the second case he is still working as an employee of his department, but is contracted to be there.