[2 Dismissal] Security authority in the absense of command personnel [Pending 21/04]

So, we know that security needs a warrant to search or arrest someone on code green (unless they witnessed the infraction themselves). Warrants can be issued by either captain (or acting captain), head of security, warden or IAA. If the code is raised to blue or red security can bypass the need for warrants. The code can be raised by command staff.

So what is security supposed to do when there's no command staff or warden aboard the station? Let's consult the official sources

If none of these roles are occupied then just do your best.

and

Exceptions to this rule (searches and arrests require a warrant rule - editor's note) exist if an officer is a direct witness to a crime, or may reasonably conclude that failure to act will pose an immediate danger to the crew and/or station.

So that's all security has to work with without command. Do your best and act if there's immediate danger.

However that means that petty crime (all yellow infractions and some amber infractions) goes completely unpunished and there's nothing that can be done about it since it doesn't pose immediate danger to the crew or the station. Crewmembers can harbor criminals and refuse to comply with searches and would technically be in the right (if there's no immediate harm coming out of it). This also renders investigators pretty much useless since the results they come up with and that would normally be used to obtain a warrant are moot since there's noone to sign off on that warrant. All in all it seems very much like a gaping hole in NT security protocols.

Considering all of the above i would suggest to do the following:

allow security officers to use their own discretion when conducting arrests and/or searches in the absense of command staff/warden/IAA. All searches and arreast are subject to immediate review by the command members/warden/IAA should they arrive or CCIA if no command arrives and the crewmembr still feels he has been wronged with resulting punishment for illegal detainment/illegal search/neglect of duty applied if an arrest or search is deemed invalid.

When Command isn't around, Sec will do what they need to in order to keep the peace. Yellow and Amber get punished anyways, even without warrants. What you're asking for is formalities to cover a few outstanding incidents that happen once in a blue moon, as such, this might as well be added to fill the loop hole.

This is already something that is more or less allowed. There is a lot of precedent because complaints have cropped up before about these situations and admins more or less run it rather loosey goosey. If there is no command then do your best to follow regs and ahelp if you are unsure.

I unno man. Officers can just write their own warrants and sign their own names. If someone yowls that an arrest was invalid or done improperly, you have your own warrant to back you up.

The Warden has to explicit power to write warrants, and is not the de-facto HoS when one isnt around.

You're trained officers, write your own warrants, uphold regs and do your best under the current circumstances.

Officers can just write their own warrants and sign their own names.

They can?

I unno man. Officers can just write their own warrants and sign their own names. If someone yowls that an arrest was invalid or done improperly, you have your own warrant to back you up.

The Warden has to explicit power to write warrants, and is not the de-facto HoS when one isnt around.

You're trained officers, write your own warrants, uphold regs and do your best under the current circumstances.

Officers cannot currently write their own warrants, that are visible with the projector. They must write out paper forms. Either way, Officers are expected to act according to the regulations, and any failures on that part can be ahelp'd or IR'd.

They can?

No, they can't, unless he means warrant form.

I unno man. Officers can just write their own warrants and sign their own names. If someone yowls that an arrest was invalid or done improperly, you have your own warrant to back you up.

The Warden has to explicit power to write warrants, and is not the de-facto HoS when one isnt around.

You're trained officers, write your own warrants, uphold regs and do your best under the current circumstances.

If you mean in the absence of any command staff sure but there is zero precedence for upholding an officer signing his own search or arrest warrant and executing it. That would be very strange.

I unno man. Officers can just write their own warrants and sign their own names. If someone yowls that an arrest was invalid or done improperly, you have your own warrant to back you up.

The Warden has to explicit power to write warrants, and is not the de-facto HoS when one isnt around.

You're trained officers, write your own warrants, uphold regs and do your best under the current circumstances.

 

If you mean in the absence of any command staff sure but there is zero precedence for upholding an officer signing his own search or arrest warrant and executing it. That would be very strange.

Thing about this though, if someone did file an IR about it, a certain officer would be in deep shit, either icly or oocly, depending on what was written on the warrant.

And also, yes. The paper variant of the warrant would be needed in this case.

I unno man. Officers can just write their own warrants and sign their own names. If someone yowls that an arrest was invalid or done improperly, you have your own warrant to back you up.

The Warden has to explicit power to write warrants, and is not the de-facto HoS when one isnt around.

You're trained officers, write your own warrants, uphold regs and do your best under the current circumstances.

 

If you mean in the absence of any command staff sure but there is zero precedence for upholding an officer signing his own search or arrest warrant and executing it. That would be very strange.

This is jackboot-speak for, "nobody's done this before, ever, because it's so absurd in and of itself."

Security has a job, and that's protecting the property, interests and personnel of the company. If there's no command to guide them during dead hour rounds, they shouldn't be jumping to exercise their power without a really, really good reason.

Warrants cannot be authorized without a head of security. It is dubious even then just to allow the warden to do it, as warrants are generally up to command.

The writing is pretty clear to me, go with the arrest with/without a warrant if you have a reasonable doubt that they committed a crime, and with reasonable doubt i mean something you can convince the agent back at central about.

If the risk or the proof is enough to justify an arrest without a warrant then go with it.

Officers who abuse this to be dicks will get IRs.

Officers who abuse this to secure valids will be bwoinked.

Officers who use this properly will be pardoned.

It's pretty straight forward.

Hmmhmm. As Berry said here. I seem to have been misinformed for the LONGEST OF TIMES. So just disregard all I have said ^^'

Officers can already exercise their best judgement when it comes to protecting the station for violations they see or as a reaction to obvious danger, command or no. When it comes to people actually needing warrants because all they have is a suspicion, it's completely defeating of the warrant system to allow officers to just authorize their own searches and arrests. The Warden can already do this as a temporary stopgap when there is no HoS or Captain, and even that is a bit of a skeezy compromise because the Warden's minimum qualifications don't make them qualified for management of officer activities like that.

Sec officers are neither police nor judges. Without management to authorize them to do things they wouldn't normally do, they still default to protecting the station as best they can - they just don't proactively discover and solve crimes. Formalizing a policy where officers can justify whatever they like in the moment, and then pass it off to be reviewed later, is too abuse-able for me to support. Playing at very low population times with a lack of Command, IA, and the Warden is a challenging and unrealistic scenario, but empowering officers to become THE LAW during those shifts just seems to be too much. I think it would shut down more antag rounds than it would enhance.

Voting to dismiss this.

Officers can already exercise their best judgement when it comes to protecting the station for violations they see or as a reaction to obvious danger, command or no. When it comes to people actually needing warrants because all they have is a suspicion, it's completely defeating of the warrant system to allow officers to just authorize their own searches and arrests. The Warden can already do this as a temporary stopgap when there is no HoS or Captain, and even that is a bit of a skeezy compromise because the Warden's minimum qualifications don't make them qualified for management of officer activities like that.

Sec officers are neither police nor judges. Without management to authorize them to do things they wouldn't normally do, they still default to protecting the station as best they can - they just don't proactively discover and solve crimes. Formalizing a policy where officers can justify whatever they like in the moment, and then pass it off to be reviewed later, is too abuse-able for me to support. Playing at very low population times with a lack of Command, IA, and the Warden is a challenging and unrealistic scenario, but empowering officers to become THE LAW during those shifts just seems to be too much. I think it would shut down more antag rounds than it would enhance.

Voting to dismiss this.

Considering every role that can authorise warrants is whitelisted except for the warden (which is a singular slot) makes the absense of all of those not so unrealistic. In fact it's pretty common for a deadshift to have an offcier or a cadet, some scientists and a bunch of civilians.

Can the power in absense of command be abused? Yes it can. But so can guns, tasers, flashes and cuffs. We already have means to punish it and they apply in this situation too as clarified in Berry's post. And this is true for the opposite: the lack of security powers in absense of command can be abused by crew.

Would it destroy antag rounds? No, i don't think it would. Antags are usually up there in the range of red violations which already warrants security action. Low-level infractions is usually interaction of security with normal crewmembers. And if antag decides to lay low with sneaky yellow infractions, there would be no means to use forensics or interviews to catch him on that, depriving the conflict of one of the opposing forces.

Is it defeating of a warrant system to allow officers to conduct searches and arrest in absense of command? Not really since there is no warrant system at that point. It is reinstated whenever anyone who can put warrant system in motion appears and all searches and arrests are reviewed then.

Are people using warrants to take action when all they have is suspicion? Sometimes if we're speaking about suscon and search warrants. But as a rule - no. The end result of any investigation is obtaining a warrant. Investigators work off of the acquired information to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a certain crewmember commited a certain infraction. Evidence can be very solid but there's no immediate danger to the station in that infraction and no officer witnessed it so warrant is still required. Yet it can not be obtained even with concrete evidence because there's noone to sign it off and the prequisites for warantless arrest are not met.

I´m only going to address this here:

In fact it's pretty common for a deadshift to have an offcier or a cadet, some scientists and a bunch of civilians.

To so so I have pulled some stats from the last 100 rounds played.

Out of 100 rounds, we had 11 rounds where there was no warden, no hos and no captain.

Now, keep in mind that in the absence of a captain, the remaining members of command can perform captain level actions.

That means if there is no captain and no HoS, you can go to any head of staff on the station and with a majority command decision they may issue warrants at their discretion.

That reduces the number of rounds where there is no one available who can fill out a warrant to 4 out of 100.

There is however a flaw with the way the stats are gathered as they only see if that role was present during the round.

No matter if they joined initially, after 10 minutes or after 2 hours.

Officers can already exercise their best judgement when it comes to protecting the station for violations they see or as a reaction to obvious danger, command or no. When it comes to people actually needing warrants because all they have is a suspicion, it's completely defeating of the warrant system to allow officers to just authorize their own searches and arrests. The Warden can already do this as a temporary stopgap when there is no HoS or Captain, and even that is a bit of a skeezy compromise because the Warden's minimum qualifications don't make them qualified for management of officer activities like that.

Sec officers are neither police nor judges. Without management to authorize them to do things they wouldn't normally do, they still default to protecting the station as best they can - they just don't proactively discover and solve crimes. Formalizing a policy where officers can justify whatever they like in the moment, and then pass it off to be reviewed later, is too abuse-able for me to support. Playing at very low population times with a lack of Command, IA, and the Warden is a challenging and unrealistic scenario, but empowering officers to become THE LAW during those shifts just seems to be too much. I think it would shut down more antag rounds than it would enhance.

Voting to dismiss this.

Dismissing per the above argument.

Locking and archiving.