12 U.S.C. § 1882

Security measures

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 12 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Rules for installation, maintenance, and operation of security devices and procedures

Within six months from July 7, 1968, each Federal supervisory agency shall promulgate rules establishing minimum standards with which each bank or savings association must comply with respect to the installation, maintenance, and operation of security devices and procedures, reasonable in cost, to discourage robberies, burglaries, and larcenies and to assist in the identification and apprehension of persons who commit such acts.

(b) Time for compliance with standards

The rules shall establish the time limits within which banks and savings associations shall comply with the standards.

(Pub. L. 90–389, § 3, July 7, 1968, 82 Stat. 295; Pub. L. 101–73, title IX, § 911(a), Aug. 9, 1989, 103 Stat. 478; Pub. L. 111–203, title III, § 356(2), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1547.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2010—Pub. L. 111–203 struck out “and loan” after “savings” in subsecs. (a) and (b).

1989—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 101–73 struck out “and shall require the submission of periodic reports with respect to the installation, maintenance, and operation of security devices and procedures” before period at end.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2010 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–203 effective on the transfer date, see section 351 of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as a note under section 906 of Title 2, The Congress.

Effective Date of 1989 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 101–73 applicable with respect to reports filed or required to be filed after Aug. 9, 1989, see section 911(i) of Pub. L. 101–73, set out as a note under section 161 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1979–2020 · leading case: Deese v. NationsBank of Georgia, N.A., 474 S.E.2d 18 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Deese v. NationsBank of Georgia, N.A., 474 S.E.2d 18 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “was issued pursuant to 12 USC § 1882 , part of the Bank Protection Act of 1968.”

Collins v. AmSouth Bank, 241 S.W.3d 879 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “Roberts testified without contradiction that the night deposit drop box was a safe and that placing a cash drawer or supply of cash in the night deposit drop box would not have violated AmSouth policy.”

Davis v. Prot. One Alarm Monitoring, Inc., 456 F. Supp. 2d 243 (D. Mass. 2006). “Protection One contends that Commerce Bank was required to test its alarm system regularly pursuant to the terms of the Contract, the bank’s Written Security Program, and the Bank Protection Act of 1968, 12 U.S.C. § 1882 . 5 However, it appears that the bank never tested the…”

United States v. Robert Lee Stevens, 601 F.2d 1075 (9th Cir. 1979). “” 12 U.S.C. § 1882 (a) requires each Federal supervisory agency to promulgate rules establishing minimum standards for banks “with respect to the installation, maintenance, and operation of security devices and procedures, reasonable in cost, to discourage robberies, burglaries,…”

Pinsonneault v. Merchants & Farmers Bank, 738 So. 2d 172 (La. Ct. App. 1999). “12 U.S.C. § 1882 . The federal supervisory agencies given this authority are the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board.”

Shaffer v. Wells Fargo Guard Servs., 528 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). “It cites as authority the Bank Protection Act of 1968, 12 U.S.C.A. § 1882 (1968), which empowered Federal Banking Regulatory Agencies to promulgate rules and regulations regarding security devices to deter bank robberies not domestic disputes.”

In re Indiana State Bar Ass'n's Petition to Authorize a Prog. Governing Interest on Lawyers' Trust Accounts, 550 N.E.2d 311 (Ind. 1990). “§ 226 , amending 12 U.S.C. § 1882 . The Act permits payment of interest on negotiable order of withdrawal accounts commonly referred to as "NOW accounts" with certain restrictions.”

Otte v. UMB Bank, N.A. (D. Kan. 2020). · cites it 4× “They further allege that this short staffing was in violation of the requirements of 12 U.S.C. § 1882 (a) and 12 C.F.R. § 326.”

Otte v. UMB Bank, N.A. (D. Kan. 2019). · cites it 3× “They cite 12 U.S.C. § 1882 (a), as well as its implementing regulation found at 12 C.”

— 12 U.S.C. § 1882(a) — 1 case

Otte v. UMB Bank, N.A. (D. Kan. 2019). “They cite 12 U.S.C. § 1882 (a), as well as its implementing regulation found at 12 C.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.