Saskatchewan Security common mistakes
Saskatchewan Security · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating a security guard's authority as equivalent to a police officer's - asserting a power to detain, search, or demand identification because 'I'm security.'
Candidates study federal Criminal Code provisions in isolation and never learn that in Saskatchewan a guard is a private citizen with only citizen's-arrest and self-defence powers, plus whatever the property owner delegates (trespass, contract). Films and US media reinforce the 'junior police' image.
What to do instead
Drill the two-source rule: every action must trace to (a) a citizen power under the Criminal Code, or (b) delegated authority from the property owner/occupier. If neither supports it, the guard has no more authority than any member of the public. Practice classifying scenarios as 'citizen power,' 'delegated,' or 'none.'
Arresting someone for a summary offence such as shoplifting after the person has left the store, or arresting on suspicion alone without witnessing the offence.
The Criminal Code citizen's-arrest power (s. 494) is genuinely different for indictable and summary offences, and candidates memorise 'guards can arrest' without the conditions. They also confuse 'reasonable grounds to believe' with 'a hunch' or with 'the person looks nervous.'
What to do instead
Memorise the s. 494 structure: for an indictable offence, arrest is permitted where the person is found committing it or is escaping from and freshly pursued by someone with authority; for a summary-conviction offence, only where the person is found committing it. Build a checklist - Did I see it? Is it indictable or summary? Is the person still 'found committing' or freshly pursued? - and apply it to ten practice scenarios.
Jumping straight to physical control - grabbing an arm, blocking a doorway with the body, or pushing - without first attempting verbal de-escalation or assessing whether force is even necessary.
Nerves and the desire to 'look in control' push candidates toward physical action; they also equate 'use of force' with 'restraint techniques' rather than a continuum beginning with presence and communication.
What to do instead
Learn the force continuum as a ladder: presence, verbal direction, soft control/escort, hard empty-hand, intermediate weapons. Every response must be proportionate to the threat and stop when resistance stops. In written answers, always narrate the lower steps attempted before force and the point at which force ceased.
Continuing a restraint after the subject has stopped resisting, or placing a person face-down and kneeling on the back for an extended period.
Adrenaline and fear of the person resuming the fight keep guards holding on; positional asphyxia risk is not intuitive and is rarely emphasised in informal on-the-job training.
What to do instead
Adopt the rule: control ends when resistance ends. Move a restrained person off their stomach into a seated or recovery position as soon as safe, monitor breathing and consciousness continuously, and call EMS for any prolonged struggle, complaint of breathing difficulty, or loss of consciousness. State this explicitly in use-of-force reports.
Failing to preserve a scene and evidence - letting staff clean up a spill, moving a weapon, or allowing bystanders to walk through - before police and EMS arrive.
Candidates see their job as 'handling the incident' and tidying up feels helpful; they don't appreciate that their notes and the untouched scene may be the only record.
What to do instead
Treat scene preservation as part of the response: secure and cordon the area, don't touch or move items unless needed for life safety, note the original positions and any changes you had to make and why, record who entered the scene and when. Write it in the notebook at the time.
Writing vague, conclusion-filled notes such as 'subject was aggressive and intoxicated, apprehended without incident,' with no times, observations, or quotes.
Guards write notes from memory hours later and compress events into judgements rather than observable facts; they assume the reader shares their context.
What to do instead
Use a structured format - date/time, location, who/what/when/where, direct quotes, objective descriptions of behaviour, actions taken, witnesses and their contact details, disposition. Replace every adjective with the observation that produced it ('smelled strongly of liquor, slurred speech, unsteady on feet' rather than 'intoxicated'). Write contemporaneously and never alter notes after the fact; add later entries as dated addenda.
Reporting only conclusions ('seemed fine,' 'nothing to report') and omitting anomalies - an unlocked door, a propped fire exit, a person loitering near a vehicle.
Guards fear being seen as alarmist or as wasting a supervisor's time, and they assume someone else has already reported it.
What to do instead
Adopt the standard that the report is the product: record the observation, the time, the location, and the action taken, even if resolved. Practise writing 'observed / action / outcome' entries for routine patrols so anomaly reporting becomes the default, and remember that a written record protects the guard as much as the client.
Escalating an argument with a member of the public - matching their tone, arguing about rules, or taking insults personally - instead of disengaging and calling for support.
Guards interpret 'maintaining authority' as winning the exchange, and repeated confrontation erodes patience. The result is a shouting match that turns physical and becomes a use-of-force incident.
What to do instead
Train the de-escalation sequence: lower and slow your voice, use the person's name, acknowledge the concern, state the rule once without debate, offer a face-saving option, and set a clear limit with a stated consequence. If the person will not engage, withdraw to a safe distance, summon backup, and document. Rehearse 'I'm not going to argue with you; here is what I can do' until it is automatic.
Failing to identify hazards and follow emergency procedures - not knowing the fire-exit routes, muster point, or who to notify on site, and improvising during an evacuation or medical emergency.
Candidates memorise emergency theory but never walk the actual site; post orders are skimmed on the first shift and never revisited.
What to do instead
On every new site, do a documented orientation walk: exits, muster point, alarm panels, fire equipment, first-aid kit and AED, electrical and chemical hazards, and the notification tree. Keep a pocket checklist. In written answers, follow a fixed sequence - assess safety, call for help/EMS/911, protect life, then preserve the scene and report.
Crossing professional boundaries - accepting gifts or favours, sharing client information with friends or on social media, becoming personally involved with a person on site, or using the position for personal advantage.
Guards work alone for long shifts, build rapport with regulars, and gradually normalise small favours and casual talk; they don't recognise the cumulative conflict-of-interest and confidentiality risk.
What to do instead
Apply a bright-line test: would I be comfortable if this conversation, gift, or decision were read aloud in a report to the client and my employer? Disclose any gift, relationship, or prior connection to a supervisor before acting, keep site information confidential even after the assignment ends, and refer requests for favours to the client's process rather than granting them personally.