I'm employed in the security department of a Houston medical complex that includes a separate psychiatric hospital. The psychiatric hospital has gun safes at each of the two entrances for law enforcement officers to stow their weapons before entering. The Houston PD officers who work extra security jobs with us and those who are on city time dutifully secure their weapons before entering. I know for a fact that the HPD General Orders has a section forbidding armed officers from entering a psychiatric facility except under the most extreme circumstances.
The problem is that the security department has also hired police officers from another agency to work extra jobs at the medical complex, and they refuse to secure their weapons when dispatched to routine calls to the psychiatric hospital. As a result, the security supervisor has to instruct those officers to disregard the calls to keep them from entering the psychiatric hospital with their weapons.
It is my understanding that there is some state code forbidding armed officers from entering psychiatric facilities and that the HPD General Orders simply incorporated the excerpt from the state code. I've done a lot of online searching but haven't been able to find the code in question, however. Can any Texas officers help me out here? If I can cite the appropriate state code to the security department, the department might be able to use that to enforce compliance from the officers from the other agency.
Simple solution: Have the Security Dept hire only those officers willing to disarm, instead of trying to find a statute to hammer the other officers into complying.
If it were me, I'd tell you to keep your side job.
A government strong enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have. -Thomas Jefferson-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cat_Doc
You just gotta realize he is hard of hearing and cranky, and try to speak up more clearly next time and make it perfectly clear what you were saying so there is no misinterpretation. You gotta try not to get mad at the old guy, recognizing the issue at hand.
Policy is one thing; however, the section in Penal Code 46.03 that prohibits the carry of weapons in a correctional facility does not apply to peace officers. You DON"T carry there because of policy.
The OP is looking for law to support their policy.
__________________
"Speed is fine, but accuracy is final" --Bill Jordan
Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.
Well, since I've had to respond to stat calls in the psychiatric hospital by myself because the police officers who should have been backing me up refused to secure their weapons, I do worry about it.
A little background on the siutation: Many years ago before I assumed my present supervisory duties, there was an incident in the psychiatric hospital where a patient went for an HPD officer's weapon. After that incident, the psychiatric hospital adopted a "no weapons" policy, and if I remember correctly the justification for doing so was research turning up a state code of some kind prohibiting armed officers from entering psychiatric hospitals. I remember a hospital administrator actually holding up a photocopy of the code and reading it to us.
Fast forward: Several psychiatric hospital directors and several security department directors later, the documentation for the no weapons policy has gotten lost in the shuffle. The old time HPD remember it and abide by it (it also turned out that HPD general orders also prohibit armed officers from entering psychiatric hospitals), but the newer hires from the other agency aren't aware of it and aren't aware of anything in their general orders about it. I didn't hire the people from the other agency; my superior did. But I'm the one getting caught without adequate backup. I reported the situation to my superior, and the department is attempting to reconstruct the documentation of hospital policy so that the choir will all be on the same page so to speak.
Now txinvestigator1 has posted that there is no such state code, so perhaps I'm mistaken or the the code has been rescinded. Then again, it might be a code so obscurely tucked away that few are aware of it. This is more than just an issue of police officer extra jobs; its a matter of an institution--bound by all kinds of regulations and accreditation standards--going by the book.
This sounds suspiciously like a private security supervisor trying to extend his authority over police officers and is looking for a statute that covers a particular issue, in order to force compliance. Have you considered stomping your feet and holding your breath until they do what you tell them?
A couple questions spring to mind...
Why is the hospital hiring individually or contracting with the city to have sworn police officers on staff? Wouldn't hiring another security guard be cheaper? Were the police hired because they can legally perform some function that private security can't, such as file an emergency psychiatric detention order or hold? Seems awful strange... in light of so many company's efforts to downsize, cut costs, and short-staff... that the hospital administration would be willing to spend the extra money hiring police officers instead of less expensive private security officers.
If you told your supervisor of the problems in getting the officers to comply with policy, why isn't HE doing something about hiring only those officers willing to comply OR working with the other agency to address these problems? Why are YOU having to do it?
Why aren't you calling other security officers to respond to back you up... you know, the people who are actually under your supervision?
I've seen this kind of thing before. My agency occasionally has to run a hospital watch on a prisoner being treated medically at a certain area hospital. Without fail, every time we have one, the hospital security staff sends a representative with a series of forms for the officer to fill out and sign, individually agreeing to follow all hospital policies and to subordinate himself to the supervision of security staff.
The trouble is, some of the hospital's policies directly conflict with our agency policies and training... like agreeing to abide by the decisions of security supervisors in certain situations, restrictions on use of certain restraints, and use of certain types of force. Our command staff has told us to politely refuse to complete the forms or sign anything. The hospital doesn't like it very much, but so far they haven't refused us when we've got a prisoner that needs medical treatment.
Simple solution: Hire those officers willing to comply, and don't hire those unwilling to do so. This aint rocket science.
A government strong enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have. -Thomas Jefferson-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cat_Doc
You just gotta realize he is hard of hearing and cranky, and try to speak up more clearly next time and make it perfectly clear what you were saying so there is no misinterpretation. You gotta try not to get mad at the old guy, recognizing the issue at hand.
As the others have said, this appears to be more of a conflict with the responding department's policies and training.
In my state, bringing weapons into a state prison or jail is prohibited without the consent of the person in charge of the facility. State prisons routinely prohibit peace officers from bringing weapons into their facilities. My agency respects that policy. However, we require that our personnel be armed when engaged in the performance of their duties. For that reason, we have notified the State Prison system that we will not respond to calls for assistance or mutual aid inside their prisons unless they consent to our officers being armed when doing so.
Supporting Member L2 Supporting Member L4 Verified LEO
Join Date: October 9th, 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 14,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by L-1
However, we require that our personnel be armed when engaged in the performance of their duties. For that reason, we have notified the State Prison system that we will not respond to calls for assistance or mutual aid inside their prisons unless they consent to our officers being armed when doing so.
If a prison has to call regular cops in, I would suspect it's deteriorated to the point weapons are needed.
Personally, I wouldn't think it would be advantageous to contract with a police dept to provide security for a hospital anyway. It's not like they're using police skills as much as providing muscle when the regular staff can't handle the situation.
__________________
Police officers: Here to save your ass, not kiss it.
A government strong enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have. -Thomas Jefferson-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cat_Doc
You just gotta realize he is hard of hearing and cranky, and try to speak up more clearly next time and make it perfectly clear what you were saying so there is no misinterpretation. You gotta try not to get mad at the old guy, recognizing the issue at hand.
Have you considered stomping your feet and holding your breath until they do what you tell them?
I didn't have to stomp my feet and hold my breath until they did what I told them. When we were dispatched to that disturbance call in the psychiatric hospital and I saw that they were going to enter without securing their weapons, I told them not to enter the psychiatric hospital and they didn't.
Quote:
Were the police hired because they can legally perform some function that private security can't
Yes
Quote:
If you told your supervisor of the problems in getting the officers to comply with policy, why isn't HE doing something about hiring only those officers willing to comply OR working with the other agency to address these problems? Why are YOU having to do it?
Actually several of us are researching the issue, including an HPD captain who found the general order stating that armed HPD officers couldn't enter a psychiatric hospital. The new security director certainly isn't going to be doing any future hiring from the other agency; the problem is dealing with the situation involving the ones that have already been hired. And guess what? If our research shows that there is no state code prohibiting armed officers from entering a psychiatric facility and that the general orders of the other agency contain no similar prohibition, I'll be perfectly okay with that.
Quote:
Why aren't you calling other security officers to respond to back you up... you know, the people who are actually under your supervision?
The police officers and I were the only ones available to respond to the call. (And they were under my supervision.)
Quote:
the hospital security staff sends a representative with a series of forms for the officer to fill out and sign, individually agreeing to follow all hospital policies and to subordinate himself to the supervision of security staff
When we have a "forensic patient," we give the law enforcement agency sitting on the patient a little information handout pointing out the nearest routes out of the building in case of a fire, what a "code blue" is, and so on.
Quote:
Simple solution: Hire those officers willing to comply, and don't hire those unwilling to do so. This aint rocket science.
Yes, but again the problem is that the ones from the other agency unwilling to comply have already been hired. And again, this goes beyond police officer extra jobs. For example, what if a police officer from an outlying municipality arrives at the psychiatric hospital to take a statement from a complainant who is a patient in the psychiatric hospital? Is the police officer obliged by state code to secure his weapon? If not, could the psychiatric hospital staff be charged with interfering with a peace officer in the performance of his duties if they don't allow him up with his weapon?
The VA system which operates a few hundred psych facilities has that problem solved. They issue out firearms with a magazine disconnect feature. When an Officer goes onto the psych unit, the magazine is removed and placed into your pocket. If things go bad, the Officer still has a tool to react, yet if the Officer is disarmed the bad guy is holding a gun that won't fire.
Linear Mode
