Providing Protection and Law Enforcement Services

[N. A. Corbier]

I remember when I was a security officer in Florida, most of the contracts that my employer was using specifically stated that the company was contracted to protect "property of the client," "enforce client rules and regulations," "respond to law violations, and detain the violator for law enforcement if practical, while reporting the violation," and "protecting the persons on the property."

The company hired professional security officers, who recieved OJT in how their duties applied to them, beyond the state's 24 hour course. (Way beyond, the State of Florida states that private security protects property only, the protection of persons is the job of the police.)

I'm wondering if others take contracts like this, and if so, what experience they have with mitigating the legal duty protecting people from harm, with the limited rights of a private citizen.

[jmaccauley]

As you mentioned, if professionally licensed officers are hired and the company experessly forbids them from acting to protect individuals on thier property, the liability is incredible! Florida laws allow the protection of persons as well as property. I would not accept such a contract from an employer and would certainly discourage potential clients from forbidding security from assisting persons on their property. It boils down to someone having the "watchman" mentality and not trusting the offiecrs to use sound judgement.

[N. A. Corbier]

As you mentioned, if professionally licensed officers are hired and the company experessly forbids them from acting to protect individuals on thier property, the liability is incredible! Florida laws allow the protection of persons as well as property. I would not accept such a contract from an employer and would certainly discourage potential clients from forbidding security from assisting persons on their property. It boils down to someone having the "watchman" mentality and not trusting the offiecrs to use sound judgement.

That's one of the reasons that I'm wondering why the Department of State, and now the Department of Agurculture and Consumer Services tries so very hard to state that the duty of private security is to protect property, and property only.

The state regulatory licensing agency I deal with now, Wisconsin, is next to clueless about private security, having lumped them with the PI companies. In fact, you be a security company, you have to be a PI company.

Wisconsin looks towards Illinois for guidance for anything. They forbid anyone but a law enforcement officer to carry concealed, and require PIs to wear uniforms to openly carry firearms. The last time it was debated by the state if PIs should have concealed firearms, the state agency's oversight comission was disbanded.