Is it ever legal for a company to instruct employees not to call 911? First question, is it illegal to prevent someone from calling 911 in the event of an emergency? I'm assuming it is. I had an internship in large corporate buildings and have seen some weird things. On some phones it had a number to call for security (999) or a private incident response team. I never was able to get a straight answer out of the bureaucracy, but do some really large corporations have private police forces you are supposed to call before (or after) calling 911? What is the point of having a fire-warden in the building, is that so you don't have to call 911 if there's a fire? Maybe this is a better fit for workplace.stackexchange.com but I'm interested if it's legal. I'm in a common wealth country but interested about the US as well.
Authority A lot of this falls under life skills and common sense, rather than law per se. If you've lived and worked in skyscrapers and laboratories and corporate environments these are things you just come to know. Maybe some of this comes from being a Boy Scout growing up as well. Calling 911 Usually there would be a law prohibiting employment retaliation against someone making a legitimate report to law enforcement, but an employer might reasonably suggest when it is and is not appropriate to do so. Outright stopping someone from calling 911 when it is appropriate to do so would probably constitute obstruction of justice or something similar. Private Security There are a variety of tasks normally performed by private security in a business. Routine patrol to make sure that nothing is amiss and that only authorized people are in the building; excluding trespassers with non-deadly force if necessary; maintaining awareness of neighborhood security threats (e.g. protest marches, repeated crime incidents where employees go) investigating property crimes on the property after reporting the to law enforcement for insurance purposes (which usually has a policy of not investigating small dollar crimes reported to them themselves); maintenance and monitoring of security cameras; organizing fire wardens, scheduling fire drills and scheduling real fire department inspections of the premises when required; response to disturbances (if necessary notifying police); confirming that doors that should be locked are locked; alerting emergency services of fires and crimes in progress or observed; greeting legitimate employees and guests; supervising outside maintenance people; and providing minor first aid, and getting someone to health care when an ambulance is not necessary and calling for one when it is not. Their objective is to serve the company's needs, but often, those heavily overlap with the public's need in the area of security and safety. Fire Wardens A "fire warden" in an office building is responsible for: passing on information from the fire department that employees in the fire warden's unit need to know; to be alert to identify and remedy fire code violations that are identified in inspections (e.g. fire extinguishers that are no longer certified, alarm signals that are broken or need new batteries); to understand and communicate how to respond to a fire alarm and to distinguish between scheduled tests of the equipment and true drills; to supervise the conduct of fire drills and non-drill evacuations; to make sure that everyone knows the meet up location following a true fire; and to keep track of who gets out, who was never at work in the first place when there was an evacuation, and who was unable to escape. A "fire warden" is basically a responsible civilian who coordinates with the fire department which does real inspections and responds to real fires. In contrast, any competent person calls the fire department when there is a real fire that requires response and/or rescue. Any competent person might put out a fire in progress, but a fire warden would be told standard operating procedure for follow up response after an emergency fire or incident is dealt with as a putting out a visible fire in a complex urban or commercial environment is often not sufficient to know that the threat is gone. Often a fire warden would insist that the fire department be called even though there was no visible ongoing threat. This is particularly important in high rises, commercial kitchens and industrial buildings.
In the United States, you can always choose to (try to) flee police. If the police subsequently assert that they tried to detain you, then they can choose to charge you with a number of crimes (which vary by jurisdiction). The assertion that you did not (or could not) in fact hear or perceive a lawful order to stop is a defense that you could raise in response to such charges. It is up to the triers of fact to determine whether, given the specifics of the case, they accept that defense.
There isn't a general answer to this question. It needs to be evaluated incident and sub-incident act by sub-incident act. The use of force is legally permitted to prevent harm to others and to the property of others under some circumstances. Citizens arrests are permitted under some circumstances, but generally, the person making the arrest must have personal knowledge of the crime while it is in the process of being committed. Some laws prohibit wearing masks under some circumstances, but usually not in all circumstances. Your client's "business model" is not consistent with being able to testify in court, so the criminal justice system will only be able to convict someone whom your client delivers to police if they can do so without your testimony. As a general rule, the 4th Amendment exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence collected by private parties or to statements obtained by private parties that are not made under duress that are not Mirandized. But, if your client is effectively "deputized" or becomes a "de facto" agent of the state who is called up to be a member of a posse for the police, for example, by using an agreed symbol such as shining a light with a symbol on it on some clouds, at that point, with respect to that matter, the 4th Amendment exclusionary rule and Miranda probably do apply to evidence that your client obtains, and exclusion of that kind of evidence could make prosecution much more difficult, unless the prosecution can successfully make an argument that the other evidence that the illegally obtained evidence leads them to is not "fruit of the poisonous tree" because it would have inevitably been discovered in due course using only the legally obtained evidence. Even if your client does violate the law, law enforcement is not obligated to investigate his alleged crimes even if the victims complain, and prosecutors are not obligated to prosecute those crimes, even if they have overwhelming evidence of guilt which they could use to secure a conviction. Prosecutorial discretion is basically absolute. Your client might be sued civilly for operating a corrupt enterprise under RICO, for various intentional torts, and for negligence, by people who think that they have been harmed by his conduct, but someone can only sue your client if they can figure out who he is and serve him with civil process. If you are helping your client conduct on ongoing criminal enterprise, whether or not the crimes are prosecuted by the criminal justice system, the attorney-client privilege you have with your client is probably forfeit should you be placed under a subpoena and your may be violating other ethical rules. But, of course, somebody has to figure out that you are part of this criminal enterprise before you suffer any consequences for being involved.
This would probably constitute illegal wiretapping and would certainly constitute a 4th Amendment search if conducted by law enforcement. Normally, the definition of whether something is "public" for purposes of an expectation of privacy is whether it could be detected by a human being unaided by technological enhancements from a place where someone could lawfully be to make that kind of observation. Some of the relevant cases are Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. (1967) (tape recorder outside a public telephone booth was a search violating the expectation of privacy) and U.S. v. Karo, 468 U.S. (1984) (tracking device placed in barrel by authorities violated expectation of privacy). RFID signals are not "public" even if they are not encrypted with a private code because a device, such as the ones identified in the question, is necessary to receive them. The Wiretap Act, codified by 18 U.S. Code § 2511, is a federal law aimed at protecting privacy in communications with other persons. Typically, when you think of a "wiretap," the first thing that comes to mind is someone listening to your telephone calls. But the Act protects more than that. Under the Act, it is illegal to: intentionally or purposefully intercept, disclose, or use the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication through the use of a "device." The Act provides criminal and civil penalties for violations, although it creates various exceptions to when interceptions and disclosures are illegal. From here. In this circumstance, despite being passive, one is intentionally intercepting the contents of electronic communications through the use of a device. The fact that there was not in all cases an intent to communicate through, for example, an RFID chip, on a specific occasion probably does not suffice to render it not a communication.
Loss prevention officers are just security guards employed by the owners or management to regulate patrons or customers in compliance with the terms and conditions of the store. They have no special powers or no more powers than the average person. They may be able to arrest and or detain someone however this is usually limited to a 'caught red-handed' scenario, ie they have to be a witness to it. Upon arrest they must only use reasonable force, they can't assault you. The force must be reasonable no matter what regardless of guilt. They don't have powers of search and thus any search must be consented to, you have the right to refuse a search or questioning but that may mean you have to leave the premises.
When does a CEO (or the investor or the board) have to notify employees they will be unable to pay them for work already done? Directors and officers (which includes executive officers like the CEO) but not investors have a duty to ensure that the corporation does not trade while insolvent. In this context, "trading" means incurring new debts and "insolvent" means being unable to pay their debts as and when they fall due. Unfortunately, it is a judgment call by those directors and officers and the exact point where it occurred is generally only clear with hindsight, if then. For example, you describe a "tumultuous week"; quite likely the company was urgently seeking additional sources of funds and until it was clear they had no prospect of getting those, they weren't insolvent. The director's duty is to act reasonably (a broad range of activities) and not be overly pessimistic nor optimistic about the company's prospects. As far as I know, they don't have a positive duty to inform their creditors that they can't pay. If that happens their obligation is to file for bankruptcy and their obligations cease - the bankruptcy trustee then invites creditors to prove their debts. Does an investor have a responsibility to ensure all employees are paid? No. That is pretty much the purpose of limited liability corporations: to shield the investor from the debts of the company. Do the employees have any recourse? Yes. Employees are typically priority creditors in Colorado and rank ahead of many other creditors. However, if the company is not based in Colorado different laws will apply. Of course, you must be an employee of the company - this priority doesn't apply to true independent contractors. Also, the liquidator's fees rank ahead of anyone and unless the bankrupt company has adequate realizable assets, even employees are unlikely to get a dividend. You also need to be clear who you work for as you say "that last Friday was paid for/fronted by the HR company". Do you work for the bankrupt company or this (non-bankrupt) HR company? If the latter then they owe you your wages and the bankruptcy of their principal is their problem, not yours. Is "secured debt" real? And does that reduce the likelihood of receiving a paycheck in a bankruptcy settlement? Yes. There is a priority in the payment of creditors in liquidations and it varies by jurisdiction but a typical arrangement might go like: Liquidator's Fees Employee wages and entitlement accrued within the last 6 months Certain taxes Secured creditors (who may have a ranking among themselves) Unsecured creditors (including employee entitlements more than 12 months old, other taxes, trade creditors etc.) Shareholders (who may have a ranking among themselves) Basically, the lower you rank, the less likely you are to see a dividend. Does any of this change if the company doesn't file for bankruptcy? Sure. Until the company does this it is still a going concern and it has to pay its debts. If it doesn't it's creditors can sue and recover their monies as best they can which may include forcing the company into bankruptcy.
This is an excellent explanation. All Australian jurisdictions have (in general) common road rules. In NSW these are enacted by Road Rules 2014 regulation under the Road Transport Act 2013. The relevant provision is Clause 306: 306 Exemption for drivers of emergency vehicles A provision of these Rules does not apply to the driver of an emergency vehicle if: (a) in the circumstances: (i) the driver is taking reasonable care, and (ii) it is reasonable that the rule should not apply, and (b) if the vehicle is a motor vehicle that is moving-the vehicle is displaying a blue or red flashing light or sounding an alarm. From your statement (a)(i) and (b) would seem to apply so it becomes a question if (a)(ii) does. Well, you don't know the circumstances so you can't judge if it is reasonable that the rule not apply: if the police car were involved in a collision, caught on a red light camera or booked then the driver would have to show that it was. It is worth noting that some road offences like drink or dangerous driving are not in the Road Rules, they are in the Crimes Act and so the exemption doesn't apply to them. It is also not a shield from civil liability although the difficulty of proving negligence goes up because disobeying the road rules is no longer enough.
In this specific scenario, not only is it not a crime, failure to do so is a breach of proper maritime protocols and could be illegal. A person manning a boat and sees a human in water in distress should immediately go to the rescue or recovery of the victim. This is commonly started by the crewman of the vessel who spots the body shouting &quot;Man overboard&quot; once... which triggers every crewman on the deck to also shout the same thing exactly once regardless of if they can see the man who is overboard (The idea is that the call is so all crew on the deck are not announcing the sighting but responding that they know there's an emergency situation in progress... and to muster to the appropriate situations). The boat's helmsman or pilot will then proceed to maneuver to recover the body in the water and bring it onboard the boat, (if traveling by sail, to then as soon as possible transfer to a motor powered vessel or to land which ever is quicker). Additionally, should the boat have radio communication, the situation should trigger a mayday communication which will alert other vessels, regardless of purpose and local emergency services to the situation, with GPS tracking aiding all responders. Typically while underway at sea or in large bodies of water, all operators of watercraft are required to respond, regardless of actual purpose on the water (recall the famous &quot;Miracle on the Hudson&quot; incident where New York Ferry Operators were the actual first responders to get ALL passengers and crew off the crashed plane to land, where EMS and police services were waiting to deal with the survivors). Most boating licenses these days require a basic understanding of duties with maritime safety and if you come upon a situation while underway, you are a first responder automatically. Remove the question of water and say that there is person who you are unsure of if they are alive or dead on dry land. Under law, you cannot be held liable for anything you do in the course of saving a life so long as you are acting within your competency to do so, and do not take actions you are not licensed to do as part of training, oversight, and regulations dictate, you cannot be sued for medical injuries inflicted on someone in the course of saving their life (called &quot;Life over Limb&quot;... that if the only way to save an unconscious person from death is to amputate a limb, you're not liable for cutting off the limb in question, so long as you are trained to do this. To a lesser extreme example, if CPR is performed right, you will break the victims ribs... since it's a question of keeping the person alive, the temporary pain and handicap of broken ribs is seen as acceptable). As a lifeguard (for pools, I wasn't certified for &quot;wilderness lifeguarding&quot; but the differences in this respect were minimum) your first thing to do when getting in the water to fish out a swimmer in distress was to get them back to the pool deck before life efforts could occur (there are a few times where you had to start the life saving efforts in water, but I can count them on one hand, and one of those incidents was only after confirming your victim was conscious and even then you still were moving to get them out of the water asap... it's just asap would be a little bit longer. We also weren't trained to pronounce death. If it was so serious that CPR starts, you do not stop unless another guard or EMS relieve you.). In these situations, there is proper evidence gathering procedures that will be used to establish what happened. For example, the first responders will be fingerprinted and prints in the areas touched for life saving efforts will be noted as part of the evidence. Additionally, paramedics, EMS and first responders will often alert police to any items of note they saw around the victim that were disturbed in the process of life saving efforts. The police may collect evidence from you to rule you out as a suspect (by showing the evidence on the body was consistent with applied life saving techniques) and to identify evidence not related to you at all (a pink fiber on the body that doesn't match any of your clothes means the body came into contact with the fibers from another source). This also establishes &quot;Chain of Custody&quot; when you call the body in and stay with it and allow minimum contact with it (many larger ships will store the body in a locked room to keep crew and passenger contact to a minimum). Either way, so long as you tell the police everything you did in rescue and recovery, this isn't tampering with evidence on the face of it. If something that is inconsistent with your story comes up, it's not necessarily incriminating either... in the heat of the moment in a rescue and recovery effort, tunnel vision can form and you aren't expect to recall everything you did. Police should know this and understand that you were cooperating in what for most of the world is an unusual situation.