CSD is on the right track when it comes to security

[Matthew]

I just finished reading Karen's latest story on CSD security.

CSD likely to protect Security officers from lawsuits | RanchoMurieta.com -- Rancho Murieta news, homes, golf, forums and people

I think the board, staff, and attorney are all on the right track. I am glad to see they will probably indemnify our officers from civil actions for citizen arrests. Thank you Bobbi for pushing that point.

I also thought this quote by Steven Rudolph was very interesting.

"an absence of police power and these ordinances probably shouldn't be on your books, before that occurred, it's not as if there was an extensive amount of citations being issued by Security as it relates to the enforcement of these ordinances. In fact, there was almost none. ... I understand that there may be a political perception problem or a sense of vulnerability created in the community by the elimination of these ordinances from our books."

Probably "very, very little" has actually changed, Rudolph said.

[Creative]

I agree. I see we have more fear mongering on the dot com. At what point did we lose some measure of safety and security? I feel we have more than a measure of safety and security. I am glad to see we are thinking of ways to stop what crime we do have, but come on this is not an unsafe community.

[TDS]

Originally Posted by Matthew

I just finished reading Karen's latest story on CSD security.

CSD likely to protect Security officers from lawsuits | RanchoMurieta.com -- Rancho Murieta news, homes, golf, forums and people

I think the board, staff, and attorney are all on the right track. I am glad to see they will probably indemnify our officers from civil actions for citizen arrests. Thank you Bobbi for pushing that point.




I also thought this quote by Steven Rudolph was very interesting.

I think that enforcement of the district ordinances that relate specifically to the police power probably was very rare. In terms of that, I doubt anything has changed. Remember, prior to Jan 1, 2005 the CSD patrol officers were legally able to arrest/cite district wide for misdemeanor and infraction violations of Federal, State, and County laws... regardless of the legality of the CSD's own ordinances. Now they can't. I consider that a big change.

What is also an interesting quote from that article is this (regardless of whether or not you like her, she makes a point):

"What I perceive is the problem is we're trying to solve law enforcement issues with non-arch rules," said Lisa Taylor. "... If you want them to catch, if you want them to detain, if you want them to follow up, then that's law enforcement. ... You're setting Security up by asking them to enforce non-arch rules they have no power to enforce." Taylor is the wife of Security Sgt. Jim Bieg.
Taylor and some of the directors pointed out that the homeowner rules wouldn't apply outside the gated community. Options were suggested for addressing that by forming an association similar to RMA to adopt the same rules or by leaving merchants to call the Sheriff's Department for crimes like shoplifting.

[Matthew]

Homeowner rules shouldn't apply outside the gated community.

I don't feel we need them to detain anyone. In the last several incidents there was no one to detain. We could use more patrols though. How many patrol officers are on duty at 1am on a Saturday? One? Have we tried neighborhood watch? (I know it's in the works). Have cameras proved to be effective?

Let's try smaller scale things first before jumping to a police force. If the small scale things don't work I will be right behind you asking for a police force.

[TDS]

Originally Posted by Matthew

Homeowner rules shouldn't apply outside the gated community.

I don't feel we need them to detain anyone. In the last several incidents there was no one to detain. We could use more patrols though. How many patrol officers are on duty at 1am on a Saturday? One? Have we tried neighborhood watch? (I know it's in the works). Have cameras proved to be effective?

Let's try smaller scale things first before jumping to a police force. If the small scale things don't work I will be right behind you asking for a police force.

Actually, homeowner's rules apply only to those that the HOA actually have control/authority over. Does the RMA have any ability to control areas outside the gates? No. Do they control all the areas and home/lots behind the gates? No. Do they control everyone that comes through the gates? No. Can they? No. Can they confer upon any security force the ability to enforce the rules on everyone, considering the above? No.

RMA rules only apply to those that are contractally obligated to abide by those rules and clearly, not everyone is obligated to follow those rules.

Starting small is good. Doing things right from the start is better. Neighborhood Watch programs that remain active might help. Cameras might help. They should be and remain a supplement to whatever the CSD chooses to do.

[Matthew]

Originally Posted by TDS

Actually, homeowner's rules apply only to those that the HOA actually have control/authority over.

Yup as they should. HOA rules should not apply to those not in the HOA.

Originally Posted by TDS

Does the RMA have any ability to control areas outside the gates? No. Do they control all the areas and home/lots behind the gates? No. Do they control everyone that comes through the gates? No. Can they? No. Can they confer upon any security force the ability to enforce the rules on everyone, considering the above? No.

RMA rules only apply to those that are contractally obligated to abide by those rules and clearly, not everyone is obligated to follow those rules.

I am alright with all of that.

Originally Posted by TDS

Starting small is good. Doing things right from the start is better. Neighborhood Watch programs that remain active might help. Cameras might help. They should be and remain a supplement to whatever the CSD chooses to do.

No police force is the right way to start.

[Wilbur]

I'd rephrase that as "A police force is probably not the right way to start."

[Luke]

And I would edit that to, "A police force is definitely not the way to start."

[Wilbur]

Duly noted.

[TDS]

Originally Posted by Matthew

No police force is the right way to start.

Originally Posted by Wilbur

I'd rephrase that as "A police force is probably not the right way to start."

Originally Posted by Luke

And I would edit that to, "A police force is definitely not the way to start."

And yet it would be foolish not to consider all the options. The CSD may not (and probably won't) go directly to creating a police force... however, it probably would be quite foolish to not look at the future and see if it's likely that one may be necessary and seek out low-cost/no-cost things that would help prepare for that possibility.

I think that in the short term (less than 2 years), restoring district-wide LLE authority with authorization to enforce misdemeanor and infraction violations of Federal, State, and County laws would be the way to go. By continuing to hire academy grads and folks that hold a Basic POST certificate, it helps out with a longer term option, perhaps 5-10 years down the road, of creating a small police department. By then, there should be enough rooftops in place to keep the cost per residence down.

I think that is probably the better way to go. Dismissing any option before everything has been looked at and considered is flat-out dumb. Telling everyone that you would only support "observe & report" security and that you know that there's likely going to be about a 20-60 minute response time from the SSD is perfectly fine. In fact, a number of people on this board have done exactly that. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. The members of the CSD Board will eventually make the final decision and regardless of how we all feel about the subject, that will be what we all have to live with.