The Master Key and the 'Storage Fee'
You are a security officer at a 120-unit apartment complex. The manager calls at 9:15 a.m.: the tenant in Unit 14 has not answered, and water is dripping through the ceiling of Unit 12 below. The manager says, "Use the master key and check; if there's a leak, shut it off." No emergency maintenance is available. You enter. The unit is cluttered; you find a leaking water heater and shut it off. On the kitchen table is a Ruger 9mm pistol. You unload it, put it in your locker, and leave a note: "Firearm secured. Call security to retrieve; $200 storage fee." The tenant returns at 5 p.m., is furious, and calls police. The manager says the lease allows entry for emergencies but says nothing about removing belongings. The tenant demands the pistol back and refuses to pay. The police officer asks you to explain your authority.
1. Was the initial entry into Unit 14 lawful? What limits applied?
Read the worked answer
The entry may have been lawful, but only because of the emergency. Nevada landlord-tenant law, including NRS 118A.330, generally requires notice before a landlord enters a rented unit, with an exception for emergencies. Active water leaking through the ceiling below is a plausible emergency because delay could cause significant property damage. The manager authorized the entry and the officer used the master key for that purpose. The scope, however, was limited: enter, locate the source, and shut it off. The officer was not authorized to conduct a general search or to inventory the tenant's belongings. Once the water was controlled, the emergency authority ended. Anything beyond that required consent, a warrant, or another legal basis. The entry was defensible; the later seizure was not.
2. Did the officer have authority to take the firearm and demand a $200 storage fee?
Read the worked answer
No. A security officer is not a peace officer and has no authority to seize a lawfully possessed firearm from a private residence simply because it was seen during an emergency entry. Taking the pistol and keeping it in a locker is conversion of personal property and could support theft-related civil claims or criminal referral. Demanding $200 for its return makes the situation worse: conditioning return of someone's property on a payment can be characterized as extortion or theft by conversion, depending on the facts and the local prosecutor's charging decision. The officer should have left the firearm where it was unless it created an immediate safety hazard, and if it did, should have contacted police to secure it. The officer should not have set a fee.
3. What should the officer and manager do now to correct the situation and reduce liability?
Read the worked answer
The officer should return the firearm immediately, without payment, and document the chain of custody from the moment it was taken. He should write a factual report explaining the emergency entry, what was observed, why the firearm was moved, and when it was returned. The manager should review the lease and the emergency-entry procedure, confirm that the water heater was repaired, and notify the property insurer about the water damage. The company should remind officers that emergency entry is limited to the emergency and that personal property is not to be removed or held for payment. If police want the firearm as evidence, the officer should surrender it to the officer and get a receipt. The manager should also consider a neutral apology and a refund of any fee already collected, while preserving records for the civil claim.