Migrating from "Observe and Report" to action

[Jedi]

One of the terms I hate to see in any message, article, or publication is "in a post 9/11 world...", but I am going to start there anyway. The reality is that much has change in emphasis and awareness since our Country was attacked on that September morning. One specific area is our realm of security. With the increasing awareness of violent incidents ranging from mall shootings to large scale terrorist attacks, the leadership of many organizations are looking to their security staff for strategies that go beyond prevention.

This is a paradigm shift from the conventional belief that the role of security guards is to prevent by presence then observe and report if an incident occurs. It is now not acceptable, in many organizations, for security to become voyeurs when an incident unfolds.

As a rather recent example, an incident occurred in the parking lot of a very large retailer where a verbal disagreement between two individuals ended up in one running the other over with a car. The family of the victim immediately asked where the retailer's security was while this incident unfolded. That same question was echoed by all of the media outlets reporting the story.

Unfortunately, if the security guards from the organization were following the instructions provided in state mandated training, they were doing exactly what was expected of them, as described in California's BSIS Powers of Arrest manual "If you can’t prevent an incident, the proper action is to observe and report."

It is a very muddy bog that we tread into when the organizations expectation moves past, or contrary to, those set by the licensing authority. The concept of replacing observing and reporting an incident with taking action to resolve an incident is in opposition of policies but in line with the public expectation. So how do you do it?

As the desire and even need for private "police" agencies (which are really just security patrol companies) grows, the legislature needs to update the policies and laws governing the security industry to be in line with the new role of security. Some states have already realized this and started to take steps to correct it, but most are way behind the times. It is time that action is taken.

Of course, this is my personal view on this... what do you all think?

[Limo LA]

As the desire and even need for private "police" agencies (which are really just security patrol companies) grows, the legislature needs to update the policies and laws governing the security industry to be in line with the new role of security. Some states have already realized this and started to take steps to correct it, but most are way behind the times. It is time that action is taken.

Of course, this is my personal view on this... what do you all think?

My personal view is based on

Fact 1
BSIS Security minimum required training 40 Hrs +
versus
Level 3 reserve Peace officer minimum 162 +
Level 2 reserve 390 hrs
Level 1 730 hrs+ 400 hrs field training.(Still not full peace officer power granted)

information from below

http://www.post.ca.gov/Training/Reserve_Peace_Officer_Program/requirements.asp

Minimum 162 hours trained reserve peace officer are still Almost "prevent and report" status.

From California POST

Level III Penal Code sections 830.6(a)(1) and 832.6(a)(2)
Level III reserve officers may perform specified limited support duties, and other duties that are not likely to result in physical arrests, while supervised in the accessible vicinity by a Level I reserve officer or a full-time regular officer. Additionally, Level III reserve officers may transport prisoners without immediate supervision.

Level II Penal Code sections 830.6(a)(1) and 832.6(a)(2)
Level II reserve officers may perform general law enforcement assignments while under the immediate supervision of a peace officer who has completed the Regular Basic Course. These officers may also work assignments authorized for Level III reserve officers without immediate supervision.

Level I Penal Code sections 830.6(a)(1) and 832.6(a)(1)
Level I reserve officers may work alone and perform the same duties as full-time regular officers.

Full Peace officer training would be 664 hours (only basic) +,+,+

http://www.post.ca.gov/Training/Mandates.asp

MY personal view
clients need for Security industry is very wide area (level).
Some clients want just security who is wearing T-Shirts or jacket shows "Security" siting or standing. because they don't want to pay much.
Some clients want Off-duty or at least Reserved officer type highly trained S/O and willing to pay higher rate.

So as S/Os are in very wide variety.
from still look like high school kids or retired old man who may not run for 50 yards to looks like SWAT or Secret service Agent.

And All of those S/O are in one category and licensed as "California Registered Security Officer".

My hope is BSIS will set up level of Security license.
Level 1 officer, Level 2 officer.... so on.
40 hours minimum trained officer is fine for some clients.
if clients want "Almost" Police power S/O, they have to contract and pay for 300 hours required training Level 1 Security officer and pay $40/hour (Example).
Because 300 hours minimum training required license S/O will not work for minimum wage.
Hopefully, if client pays $40/hour, S/O may receive $25 to $28 / hour.
if someone who doesn't step up level of license (unarmed minimum training license), he (she) would be still paid for minimum wage.

State should regulate minimum training (include field training) for different Level of license and grant little more power to higher level S/Os.

Also state need to issue separate license for Personal protection (Body Guard, Executive protection) than all same one type of Guard Card.
and I hope BSIS will get power to issue "on duty CCW" for personal protection S/O.
Because CCW issued by Sheriff and CCW for Personal protection S/O's are for different purpose.

[bigshotceo]

I think that the first problem in going beyond "observe and report" is that it simply cannot be worked into the current security framework, which is what some "progressive" companies are trying to do. When you consider that most companies only give 40 hours of training (if you're lucky), little to no defensive/communications equipment, and no legal/financial/medical support if things go wrong, I think that it's irresponsible for most companies to expect anything more than "observe and report".

Then comes the money issue. If you want more than "observe and report" guards, AND you want to do it properly and responsibly, it's going to cost a lot of money in wages/benefits, equipment and training. How many clients are realistically willing to pay, for example, $60/hr for a guard? Also, how can you prevent companies from undercutting and outbidding each other, and creating the same "race to the bottom" we currently see in private security?

The final question is this: who will you hire to be your hands-on/private police guards? Remember, comparing most security jobs to public police/private police jobs is comparing apples to oranges. 90% of the time the type of person who takes a security guard job (often a student, retired, looking for a 2nd job, recently laid off, etc...) is not interested in hands-on/private policing. If you're going to fill this role you're probably going to need the type of person who's more interesting in policing. If you're going to attract these people, though, you need to be competitive with what public police agencies are offering. This means better wages, benefits, job stability, etc.

[NRM_Oz]

There are some serious issues on liability here if you say "YOUR RULES ARE ...... " and the S/O oversteps the boundaries due to operational requirements such as the removal of persons from your premises. I lost 1 contract when I had my company as it came to dollars and cents for front of house security. It was far cheaper for them to use S/O's than it was to pay a professional receptionist who worked for 8 hours a day. Amazing huh ?

Public perception believes the word SECURITY requires you to act like a police officer to assist them but if you had asked them to leave a premises you are nothing but dirt as you are just an S/O. What makes things worse is when you go from Action to O / R duties based on previous incidents, management stupidity or bad contract negotiations by your employer.

[Maelstrom]

Sadly common sense & SOPs don't always co-exist harmoniously

Receptionist/Security... sounds like a bad dose of 'multi-skilling' OR double the opportunity to take the heat over someone else's short comings

[Jedi]

At the heart of the matter, I think a huge problem is that the security industry is too varied in missions. It encompasses everything from someone watching a gate open and close in between their naps to heavily armed defense contractors providing for our nuclear stockpiles; from simple window intrusion alarms to complex network intrusion detection software/hardware; from investigating employee theft of a pack of gum to developing threat matrix of the next likely terrorist attack.

Just looking at the security guards/officers, what Limo LA has suggested makes some sense. After all, you have different levels of assignments, why not have different training requirements and expectations, from a regulatory stand point, for those completing the assignments. So lets discuss how we structure this.

[N. A. Corbier]

Folks, you're looking at state licensing from the wrong angle. The licensing and training requirements aren't there to turn out cops.

They are there to protect society from security firms. That's why they exist.

That's why your state gives as little as 4 hours of training, or up to 40. That's why the training is more about what your limitations are.

That's why there are no "defensive tactics" or "officer survival" courses. The entire point of the training is to protect society from security guards.

Florida was thinking of a "tiered" system, with certifications for things like providing first aid or arresting people.

This isn't to benefit the guard. It is because they don't trust the security firms to adequately teach how to do these things, so they'll mandate the training through law.

That's the whole point of state training: You people can't be trusted to teach, so we'll require it.

POST courses are designed to teach someone how to do something. Security Licensing courses are to teach untrained individuals what they can't do.

[Bill Warnock]

Nathan IMO you are on the mark. When attending both Air Police and Sheriff's Academies they stressed both what you were allowed do and how to do it and what you weren't allowed to do. The security guard companies who hire only those who can see lightning and hear thunder place emphasis on observing and reporting. And still some companies and/or guards manage to screw that up. Call police or 911. OK, call police, what is the phone number and where is the phone I am to use? OK, dial 911, again where is phone? Most importantly, what information is the guard supposed to provide. I read on one guard order, and Nathan, I'm not making this up, the police or 911 will talk you through the problem. Underlined, that is their responsibility. Continuing, under no circumstances are you to get involved. To do so will result in your termination.
In examining another post order it stated, and again, I'm not making this up, you are to notify your immediate supervisor and nobody else. There was neither name nor phone number.
Now sit down for this one! When I submitted my report, the woman who hired me said with a straight face, "Mr. Warnock, I didn't think you would be looking that close."
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[SecTrainer]

Folks, I'm really kind of ashamed of us all here. Mounting an effective response to a security threat is NOT "POLICING", and as professionals we should all know that. This is a subject for another thread, though.

If a client wants "observe and report", one thing we should be doing is making sure that this is really what they want. In my experience, a little conversation on that topic often results in a change of mind because there are actually damned few clients that REALLY want strict "O&R".

You: "Then, if our officer were to see a small fire in the electrical closet and could extinguish it, they are only to report the fire, and watch it engage the whole floor before the fire department can arrive and set up?"

Client: Well, no, of course not. We'd like them to report it and then extinguish the fire.

You: "I see. Then, if our officer were to see an unrecognized vehicle parked toward the back of your employee lot with someone inside, they are to simply watch as the occupant of this vehicle snatches up one of your female employees leaving work? Oh, and report it, of course!"

Client: Well, umm, no, not exactly.....

You: "I see. Then, if our officer were to observe one of your disgruntled ex-employees entering the facility with an automatic rifle, they should report this, and maybe just count the dead bodies before the police can possibly arrive - you being probably among the dead, as the owner/manager? You do know, Mr. Client, that most of these incidents are over before the police arrive?"

Client: "Well, not quite...no, that wouldn't be very satisfactory."

You: "I see. NOT quite exactly 'observe and report', eh? Observe, report and respond is what it seems to me you want, Mr. Client. OR & R, not O&R."

[Bill Warnock]

SecTrainer as usual, you have cut to the chase. We do not sell true security to the client; however, having said that, in most instances a procurement type does all the hiring of companies with little or no contact where the rubber meets the road. Shame on the collective US.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[Limo LA]

Especially, Clients of Personal Protection service don't expect S/O to observe and Report when their children are about to be kidnapped or client himself is about to be shot.
No client hire Personal Protection Service for observe and report. If it was, it can be done by Nanny or House keepers.

They are definitely expecting immediate Reaction and immediate Protection.
But Security Officer's privilege (Right) is no more than Clients themselves and almost same as other bystanders by law.
and I think little difference between S/O and clients'mind is that "Prevention" is second for client's mind, but it is (should be) first in S/O's mind.

[Limo LA]

They are there to protect society from security firms. That's why they exist.

Thank you for reminding me that.
Yes, licensing agency (bureau)'s duty is protect public from us (Some of us who would illegally and poorly operate Security service to public)

I think Peace officer (LEO)'s privilege and power are given because they are working for public agency.

California BSIS clearly stated that (off duty) P/O who are working as Private security officer may not have peace officer's privilege and power while he (she) is on duty as private security officer.

If Someone who is not employed by public agency, even who finish POST or have PhD. of Police science, They do not have privilege as exception for duty to retrieve, not protected as waiver for arresting result (waived from civil or criminal liability for his arresting activity), do not have power as force of arrest (people may not resist to P/O's arrest thru if it's lawful or not but people can resist to citizen's arrest).

Peace officer's privilege and power (and protection) are not because training or license to him (her), it was given to Public agency's duty.

If I'm not mistaken, USC (Private University) use to have USC police.
I don't know since but they changed it's name to USC department of public safety.
None of Private University or college use word "police" anymore as I know.
Only public (State) university (and school district) has Police department and it stated in Penal code section 830

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=38569111867+9+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

Even Oregon, Nevada, Arizona LEO are stated as California peace officer and has power and privilege as California Peace officers but
Someone who work for Private companies are Security officer and doesn't have any police power even who use to be (or current) peace officer.

and some of Private security officer who work for public agency as Security officer (not peace officer) are exempted for requirement of having BSIS issued Guard Card and/or BSIS firearm/Baton permit because they work for Public agency, "almost" treated as Peace officers.

[SecTrainer]

Folks, you're looking at state licensing from the wrong angle. The licensing and training requirements aren't there to turn out cops.

They are there to protect society from security firms. That's why they exist.

Nathan, I'm afraid I can't quite agree with this characterization, unless we were to adopt the position that all occupational regulation is designed to protect the public from <bad actors in whatever occupation>, in which case we have only said the obvious. That is, in fact, what the state does, but it doesn't explain everything.

Every occupation has limits and/or conditions of some kind on what its practitioners are allowed to do, and these limits and conditions will often form the bulk of the government regulations regarding that occupation, as would be expected. The state--especially as regulator--is not generally in the business of commanding affirmative duties (although there are exceptions - see SPECIAL VENUES below), but is in the business of proscribing certain forbidden activities, and also setting conditions for the performance of certain other activities.

Since these form the "boundaries" of the occupation's activities, it is very important that practitioners understand exactly where those boundaries lie. Hence, the state says "Your people must know the boundaries and demonstrate at least certain fundamental skills". It is a very different thing between saying "We are here to ensure that security companies operate within proscribed boundaries" and saying "we are here to protect the public from security companies". Indeed, the state regulations exist in order to ENABLE security companies to operate (the alternative would be to prohibit them altogether) and to give the public some measure of CONFIDENCE that security companies will operate in certain ways.

Beyond describing such boundaries, however, the state is basically silent with respect to most occupations. The legal assumption is that whatever is NOT forbidden or constrained in some way by law (which as a practical matter includes the interpretations handed down by case law) is legally permissible. That the state requires X hours of mandatory training that includes (but is not usually limited to) training in the legal constraints does NOT preclude the security company from offering more training in a wide variety of additional skills, etc. The state PRESUMES that the company will train its people beyond the minimums IF the company believes such training is appropriate to the duties the officers are to perform. (The civil law areas of torts and negligence make the same presumption, incidentally.)

Now...do we have a number of security companies that do the minimum training and nothing more? Yes, we certainly do. But that is a company's BUSINESS decision and has nothing whatever to do with the state.

Thus, we have two different forces at work here. One is the state's interest in seeing that services meet at least minimum standards. This is really the lesser of the two forces and only sets the "floor" for training. Beyond this there are a vast number of duties and their attendant additional training options that are both legally permissible for, and available to, the security company. The company makes business decisions about which, if any, of these additional options to employ based primarily on what it sees the cost:benefit ratio to be. The business forces have MUCH more influence than state regulations do on expectations with respect to SO duties and the relevant training provided.

SPECIAL VENUES: There are times when the government does mandate certain duties and training beyond the "minimums". These are often federal in origin and usually apply to certain "high-risk" industries. At times, the government stops short of issuing a mandate and instead publishes "standards" or "recommendations". It is unwise, from a liability standpoint, for a security company to ignore these "suggestions" merely because they are not absolute mandates.

BOTTOM LINE: When it comes to occupational and business regulation, the state is interested in establishing the minimum standards or expectations, and as such it must ensure that all practitioners demonstrate awareness of the proscribed boundaries. Within those boundaries, however, there is wide latitude for companies to act according to their business interests and it's not the state minimums that are driving those decisions - it's the marketplace, the power of which vastly eclipses the power of the state.

So, with a real estate company, for instance, there are certain requirements about the knowledge and experience that a broker must have, constraints on the way he does business, etc. It would be strange, however, to say that these requirements and constraints are set in order to "protect the public from real estate brokers". Rather, they are what ENABLE real estate brokers to do business and the public to have some measure of confidence that they operate in the public interest. I suppose that you might say that the state is protecting the public from BAD real estate brokers, but you really do need that qualifier in there to make the statement true. The state has no interest in protecting the public from ETHICAL real estate brokers, nor does it have any objections if the broker implements policies and training for his people that go far beyond the minimums.

[N. A. Corbier]

I can name at least one state where the stated goal of the licensing board is specifically to protect the citizens of the state from unregulated activity. Other states also take this strange road, as well.

This is what I'm getting at. We have one state that specifically comes out and says it. "We are here to protect society from rogue guards."

[HotelSecurity]

I can name at least one state where the stated goal of the licensing board is specifically to protect the citizens of the state from unregulated activity. Other states also take this strange road, as well.

This is what I'm getting at. We have one state that specifically comes out and says it. "We are here to protect society from rogue guards."

That is the reason for Quebec's new law. I do not think it was necessary, setting up an agency to do it. We were always regulated. That is what law suits are for.