Local Government Security Patrol Vs Rangers

[dazla]

For that reason Celestial Insight I believe they should have Ranger powers so at least they can back up what they say.

You are not OBLIGED to do anything, the only thing you need to tell a Police Officer is your name, DOB and where you live. I should know, I am one.

I dont know what kind of Security you have done, but you dont seem to talk that highly of the idustry.

[jmmw]

Sorry, i was completely wrong i didnt mean it to be interpreted in that way but it was my mistake.

I shall now troll the forums looking for every quote and remark something along the lines of

Could Admin please remove this thread as I think the forum will find this tastless as someone has been murdered.

Could Admin please remove this thread as I think the forum will find it tasteless..

as i now believe that all quotes are tasteless.

furthermore i shall change every post i have submitted previously to

..

in a effort to gain back all the credibility i have lost, my apologies.

[Fastlane]

Geezus, grow up.

[jmmw]

This isnt just personal attacks, obviously nothing said on a forum gets taken to heart its all friendly barter. If you are taking this personally CI say so and i will apologise properly but you shouldnt be.

[celestial_insight]

Nah, all cool

[Ambul8]

An interesting thing to note:

A Ranger only has the normal powers of citizen arrest (except under the Bush Fires Act - when an authorized person (ie ranger, FCO, most senior FF) may arrest an offender obstructing fire brigade activities).

You are obliged to give a Ranger your name and abode only for most offences and most local government legislation does not require you to show any ID to the Ranger.

So unlike the Police who will arrest you on the spot, failing to give your name and abode to a Ranger would generally have to ringa nd wait for the police allowing you sufficent time to bugger off. Not that that would be good - but there are a lot of reniagde rangers out there who would have you beleive differently.

Differences between Ranger and MOST council security guards:

Ranger: Properly authorized officer under state and local government Acts, Regulations and Local Laws. Can issue infrigments/cautions and initate prosecutions. They perform a Statutory Law Enforcement on mainly quasi-criminal or simple offences (but some offences may be inditable and could also result in prision time, which would be co-investigated with Police - ie dog attack - max penalty = fine + prision time)

Security: there to monitor the use of and protect property. How they request you to leave say a park, if you are misbehaving, that IS a public place is a bit offy to me.

Dual Role: any person may be appointed under the Acts, Regs, Local Laws, and a person could be employed as 2 jobs Ranger/Security, Ranger/Road Grader Driver, etc.

It depends on what each individual Council may decide is best fopr their community.

When I worked in Local Government many moons ago, we had something like 300 offences that we could issue infringments for! A copper mate once told me that was more than they had - whether tru or not I do not know.

For gerneral information, legislation that rangers may be appointed under include:

Bush Fires Act & Regs - (BFCO + Section33 Authorized Officer + Prosecuting Officer)

Dog Act and Regs

Littter Act and Regs

Control of Vehicles (Off-road Areas) Act and Regs

Local Government (Uniform Local Provisions) Act

Local Government Act and Regs (specifically relating to Public Poundkeeper and prosecution functions)

Animal Welfare Act (more common in country)

Navigable Waters Act and Regs (rare)

Local Laws relating to Parking, Reserves, Property, Thoroughfares, Signs and Hoardings, Dogs,

Training that I did was Cert III and IV in Local Government Law Enforcement, Prosecutions, Firearms, plus fire courses.

this is what I can remember from many moons ago. may have also changed, been ammended

[Ambul8]

BTW, I think both positions should be in isolation. there is too much to being a ranger without adding security work to the fray.

Rangers are great at being rangers. Its specilized.

Just like security work is too.

[HEKTIK]

Wanneroo shire also has the joint ranger/security patrol, called Security watch, its a 24 hour local service.

[dazla]

I still think it would be better to at least give the Security Patrol Ranger powers and perhaps have a couple of investigators to investigate serious offences such as dog attacks.

[thedonbeech]

another two acts.

Spearguns Control Act 1955 (which also gives rangers powers of arrest) and Caravan and Camping Act.

Security officers are paid a level lower than rangers and work worst shift patterns. Rangers are required to put together the brief for dog attacks and question and take statements from persons of interest and witnesses. I agree that council security officers should have full ranger powers and be able to perform simple ranger functions such as impounding dogs, issuing parking tickets, etc.

When it comes to full blown investigations such as dog attacks and some litter investigations and dog noise investigations it is best left to the rangers. Why pay a ranger to sit around all night and early hours of the morning in case their is a dog attack. It is better to pay a security officer (who is on lesser wage) to patrol at night and carry out simple functions. If there is a dog attack at night, the security officer can take details and impound the dog and the ranger can follow up the next day with interviews, statements, identification, etc, etc.

Most dog attacks occur during daylight hours in parks.

Having rangers patrol 24/7 would be waste of money as they require more training and pay than security officers. Remember most of the time security officers are driving around patrolling aimlessly as they have no legislative functions, where as rangers are usually busy & heading to their next job. I agree councils should have a security service 24/7, but it should be separate to the rangers section.

I have worked as a ranger, security officer, patrol officer & customer service officer for local governments

[Fastlane]

Power of arrest in Bush Fires Act 1954!? Do you care to explain where in that act Ambul8, 'coz I've never seen it in there and have gone through the Act in a few courses?

Section 54 prescribes an offence for obstructing someone acting under the act, but doesn't give any provision for arresting them for doing so?

Also with regards to the Dog Act, there is no provision for time in prison for a dog attack except for where a person has deliberately set the dog onto a person or animal unless it was in good faith to defend a person/property or for removing an animal whilst droving.

[thedonbeech]

yeah, i was sure we had the powers of arrest under bushfires act. I have had a quick scroll through the act and regs and can't find it anywhere though. Maybe it has been removed. Obviously it wasn't used because rangers are NOT trained to arrest people, have no means to transport them and no place to keep them!

Obviously for these offences summons would be issued. Also don't forget Section 47 of the Dog Act.
Causing harm to dogs.
A person who wilfully and without lawful excuse kills, poisons, injures or causes unnecessary pain or suffering to any dog commits an offence.
Penalty: $10 000, or 12 months imprisonment, or both.

[Ambul8]

Power of arrest in Bush Fires Act 1954!? Do you care to explain where in that act Ambul8, 'coz I've never seen it in there and have gone through the Act in a few courses?

Not a prob. Been a few years since I worked as a Ranger and I slightly misquoted the context. An arrest without warrant can be made if an alleged offender refuses to give name and place of abode to an authorized officer. Not bad memory but for 6 years! In general legal terms this is an obstruction, but the point I made about a "general obstrution to fire activites" was not really correct - but I was barking up the tree next door!!! (not bad I reckon for not having done it for 6 years)The section was also amended in 2002 & 2004 so maybe powers of arrest were reduced:

Section 56, Bush Fires Act 1954 (as Amended) states:

"S.56 (1) it is the duty of -

(a) a member of the Police Force, a member of the Authority, an officer of the Authority, a bush fire control officer appointed under this Act and an authorised CALM Act officer, who finds a person committing an offence against this Act to demand from the person his name and place of abode and to require him to produce a permit or authorisation under the authority of which it is claimed a fire is lit;

(b) a bush fire control officer if he obtains the name and place of abode of a person as provided in paragraph (a) to report the facts of the offence and the name and place of abode of the person who committed the offence as soon as conveniently may be to the local government in whose district the offence is committed.

(2) A person who refuses to state his name and place of abode when required by a member of the Authority, an officer of the Authority, a bush fire control officer appointed under this Act, or an authorised CALM Act officer so to do, may without any other warrant than this Act be apprehended by the person requiring his name and place of abode under the provisions of this section and detained until he can be dealt with according to law.

(3) A person who in contravention of this section refuses to state his name and place of abode, or states a false name or a false place of abode, is guilty of an offence.

Penalty: $1 000."

I found a person trying to light a fire in a sizeable reserve on a very high fore danger day. Asked him for his name and address, he refused. Long story short I arrested him, Police were called, and when he was chucked in the back of the paddy wagon, he decided it was serious, and had better cough up with name and address.

Pleaded guilty in Court. As a juvie, got community service.

Also with regards to the Dog Act, there is no provision for time in prison for a dog attack except for where a person has deliberately set the dog onto a person or animal unless it was in good faith to defend a person/property or for removing an animal whilst droving.

True, but the point I made was that Rangers deal with inditable offences, which make the statement true in the context.

There is two portions to a dog attack: a dog that attacks or a dog that is incited to attack. Obviously there are some defences to the allegation of an offence, but this does in no way reduce the validity of the point I was trying to make in raltion to the types of offences that Rangers deal with.

[Ambul8]

another two acts.

Spearguns Control Act 1955 (which also gives rangers powers of arrest) and Caravan and Camping Act.

They were the 2 acts I couldnt think of!!!!

Most dog attacks occur during daylight hours in parks.

I worked a shire that was semi-rural + rural and found that most dog attacks occured to people walking out side the dogs property ie along the footpath.

Conversly, in the rural areas it was attacks on livestock by straying dogs. Most dogs in this situiation got shot by the farmer - rightly so too! A few times we prosecuted the people too!!

[Fastlane]

I found a person trying to light a fire in a sizeable reserve on a very high fore danger day. Asked him for his name and address, he refused. Long story short I arrested him, Police were called, and when he was chucked in the back of the paddy wagon, he decided it was serious, and had better cough up with name and address.

Pleaded guilty in Court. As a juvie, got community service.

Ahh got it now.. be nice if they stick with the same terminology from act-to-act This doesn't apply to firefighters in general though (as you said up above), 'nor rangers UNLESS they are appointed as a Bush Fire Control Officer. Your Brigade Captain for example couldn't exercise this power, unless he was also appointed as an FCO..

True, but the point I made was that Rangers deal with inditable offences, which make the statement true in the context.

There is two portions to a dog attack: a dog that attacks or a dog that is incited to attack. Obviously there are some defences to the allegation of an offence, but this does in no way reduce the validity of the point I was trying to make in raltion to the types of offences that Rangers deal with.

BUT if it's an inditable offence, the coppers are pretty quick to run with it anyway...