Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

co-operation between security agencies

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • co-operation between security agencies

    As a security company owner, have any of you assisted or been assisted by another security company owner with bodies for a special event, etc. etc ?

    The reason I ask is because the guy I used to work for let me know that if I ever needed help with bodies or if he saw or had an account that he couldn't handle, he'd send it my way since he specializes in nightclub work.
    he said that he has done that with another company with good results.

    I've heard of mutual cooperation between law enforcement agencies but not with security companies.

    what are your thoughts ?
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Edmund Burke.

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes ?

    www.patrol4u.com


    sigpic

  • #2
    We have an agreement with the mall across the street from our hospital that if we have an individual that we've had an issue with and we observe them crossing the street and going towards the mall we call their supervisor's cell phone and vice versa.

    Comment


    • #3
      I have seen it done before. I got a call once when I was working as a Port Security Patrol Officer of a group of people locked out of their vehicle. I went to it and an S/O from another Co. was there. He was stopping by the building to make sure it was locked when he saw the kids in the parking lot (my area).

      The reason you see it a lot more in policework than private security, is because for the most part, police have the same mission and end up playing as a team. Their mission is the general investigation and combat of crime and lawlessness. Security's mission is usually to quell infractions and disturbances on private property and assigned sites. While I worked well with the S/O from the other company, I would not have been suprised if he decided to never call me at all so that my company would look bad and his could win the account when it came up for bid. Police is a public service while security is a business.
      "Alright guys listen up, ya'll have probably heard this before, Jackson vs. Securiplex corporation; I am a private security officer, I have no State or governmental authority. I stand as an ordinary citizen. I have no right to; detain, interrogate or otherwise interfere with your personal property-... basically all that means is I'm a cop."-Officer Ernie
      "The Curve" 1998

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by gonzo1510
        I've heard of mutual cooperation between law enforcement agencies but not with security companies.

        what are your thoughts ?
        There are many, many examples of cooperation and there could and should be many more, because there are many situations that call for cooperation and many advantages to doing so, chiefly because cooperation can offset the short-comings and limitations of smaller agencies that inhibit them unnecessarily.

        I know of a situation in which three smaller companies formed a cooperative in order to be able to bid on a project that none of them alone could handle. Whether this cooperative was hammered together as a partnership or corporation, I couldn't tell you, but it was a separate business entity for the sole purpose of this project. They were able to beat out a couple of the "biggies". Of course, this practice of forming cooperatives among "competitors" to achieve a greater goal has been used very successfully in many, many other industries as well.

        I also know of a less "formal" agreement (although one that still required certain legal formalities) between two companies to the effect that they would provide backup for each other's patrol officers in certain situations. The arrangement required them to obtain the agreement of their clients and make a simple modification to their contracts, but I understand they had no difficulty in doing this, as there were obvious advantages to the clients as well (faster alarm response, etc.). The arrangement also included an agreement to coordinate schedules that gave each agency some flexibility it did not have on its own. This reduced the overtime that each was having to pay and some of the "panic situations" that arise when an officer doesn't report to work and you have no "headroom" in your staffing ability.

        Subcontracting in the security industry is another form of cooperation that is certainly not unknown. Under such arrangements, for instance, where an RFP might call for "special" services that the bidder does not ordinarily provide, such as CCTV or access control system design/installation, the bidder will deal with that set of requirements by way of a commitment proposal from a subcontractor if the RFP permits it.

        There's also a well-established history of cooperation among private investigative agencies when, for instance, one of them does not have certain specialized surveillance gear, when a case calls for special expertise they don't have such as computer forensics, or when a case takes them outside their "normal" geographic area of operation.

        What's required in all of these situations, of course, is for companies to see the advantages of laying aside a blind, dog-eat-dog, winner-take-all attitude toward their competitors in order that an "alliance" can obtain business that none of them could handle individually. What this does is to expand the sphere of the smaller company into the realm of contracts that formerly were the exclusive domain of the large companies merely by virtue of their size.

        Information-sharing is another form of cooperation. In at least one city I know of, several LP departments of some large retailers share a joint intelligence database on shoplifters. The investigative arms of different insurance companies are famous for cooperation as well.

        In all of these cases and others, the cooperating agencies find themselves faced with situations in which the advantages of cooperation outweigh the disadvantages of non-cooperation.

        It is a mistake to think of the private arena as one that is "competitive" and the public arena as "noncompetitive". The fact is, both public police agencies and private police agencies live in competitive environments in one way or another - and cooperation among public agencies is by no means a "given", nor do public agencies necessarily see themselves sharing a "common mission" except in a very broad philosophical way.

        If a certain police department cannot solve its burglary problem, it will be content to drive the problem out of its jurisdiction and into that of another police agency. "That's THEIR problem" is a phrase that is heard quite often in the administrative offices of police agencies. Sometimes the competition among agencies has found expression in ugly ways, for instance when an agency refuses to share intelligence ("our" intelligence) with another, as has been well and repeatedly documented.

        Public agencies even find themselves having to engage in certain forms of what we might ordinarily think of as "business competition". The public police agency must compete within its own governmental unit for scarce resources with other departments such as the street department or the planning department, for instance. And, among agencies, there are may be multiple public police departments within a given metropolitan area that must compete among themselves (and with the private police) for the best applicants available within the local labor pool, or who must compete with one another for federal and state grant money, etc. All you have to do to look for evidence of the competition for personnel, for instance, is to notice that many agencies have "permanent openings" posted on their websites for "lateral entry" officers and other people. They're always happy to steal people from one another - especially those who have already been through the POST academy, etc. Ask any public police administrator, and he can tell you about competition between public agencies!

        ...and public police agencies also find themselves in competition with private police agencies in many subtle ways. For instance, studies have shown that when wealthy residential enclaves spend money for private police services, the residents of those enclaves are less willing to vote for tax increases for the public police department - or even to permit such increases to come to a vote when they have enough influence to prevent it. In other words, they are very deliberately shifting their dollars from the public to the private police agency just the same as a shopper who decides to go to WalMart instead of K-Mart.

        Whether the public or the private police, a certain degree of competitive tension can be a very good thing when it drives agencies to continually improve their services, their compensation packages, their capabilities, etc., but we all must also recognize the advantages, and indeed, the absolute demand in certain situations, that we be able to form the linkages and the organizational channels whereby cooperation rather than competition serves our clients - public or private - best by expanding our own limited capabilities and services.
        Last edited by SecTrainer; 01-02-2007, 09:12 AM.
        "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

        "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

        "There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

        "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

        Comment


        • #5
          At my full-time job, we've had lots of activity with hunters (often with firearms) on our property. In several cases, they have fled onto another companies' campus that boarders a corner of ours. After an incident this fall, we now have their contact numbers for their Security Office and Supervisor so that we are able to coordinate with them when someone flees from us onto their property to avoid being caught.

          At the part-time job, we are a very small, in-house operation. We have a standing arangement with a local security company to provide backup coverage in the event of a major incident - when we have a need for drastically increased security presence.

          Jon
          The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed.

          Comment


          • #6
            Montreal attracts 18 to 20 year olds that are too young to drink legally in their province or state but with 18 being the legal age here it is ok. There are companies in Ontario & New England that sell group tours to this market. These groups are problems for us. We will not take these groups unless they agree to pay for us to hire contract people to provide coverage for at least 6 hours per floor occupied during the overnight period. We usually work well with these contract people but have had some problems. One of these is that (and more than one company has explained why) we do not always get their best people. The reason being is that the agencies send their best people to their best contracts Us being casual, end up with the left-overs!

            As for the day-to day cooperation Montreal has an Association of Hotel Security Directors that meets once a month to discuss common problems. There is another Association that I know about where the Security Directors of the businesses connected by Montreal's famous Underground Mall meet & exchange info. In both cases we used to have what was called "Round Robins". When an incident occurred at my hotel I would call an hotel. This one would call the next one on the list & that one would call the next etc etc. This system died in the hotel association when hotels began cutting their day-time security shifts but has come back in a different form using e-mail. We now e-mail each other pictures taken from our video cameras.
            I enforce rules and regulations, not laws.
            Security Officers. The 1st First Responders.

            Comment


            • #7
              I think cooperation depends on several things.

              If your security company has contracted with another to provide supplemental coverage in emergencies, then the cooperation isn't so much as one company taking the position of client and the second company remaining a contract security company. Its not really cooperation, its a client-contractor relationship, and I would hope that the contractor "cooperates" with the client.

              There wasn't much cooperation between properties that I saw in Florida. Mainly because of Chapter 493 F.S. (Leave your property and you are violating the law unless the contract specifies you may for specific purposes, period.) preventing employees of the same company from going from one post to another to help (Abandoning your post.)

              There's also the problem of "losing your powers" once you leave your property line. If you're armed, there's "crap, I'm no longer performing the contractual duties, I am now a man with an illegal gun." If your not, then there's still the problem of losing agent-of-owner status.

              At least in St. Petersburg and Tampa, there was a certain "don't talk to other guards" mentality when on duty. Maybe they'll try to steal the account, maybe they're not coming anywhere near your property during their shift, etc. If you approach them to say "hi," a lot of folks try to throw you off the property immediately or call the police for a "trespasser from another security guard company."
              Some Kind of Commando Leader

              "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

              Comment


              • #8
                Nathan,

                When you talk about "agent of the owner" does it mean you only have this status while "on" the property of the owner? In Canada we have it "on or in relation to the property".
                I enforce rules and regulations, not laws.
                Security Officers. The 1st First Responders.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by HotelSecurity
                  Nathan,

                  When you talk about "agent of the owner" does it mean you only have this status while "on" the property of the owner? In Canada we have it "on or in relation to the property".
                  In relation would be meaningless in Florida. Your agent of the owner powers only allow you to deny access to someone from entering your property, tell someone to leave (trespass warning), force someone to leave using physical means, and that's about it.

                  Special laws allowing you to detain people for certain offenses always have "on the property" riders, so that fresh pursuit doesn't apply. I.e. you cannot chase a shoplifter off your property to detain them, your authority to detain stops at the property line.

                  What powers does an owner have off his property in Quebec?
                  Some Kind of Commando Leader

                  "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    In Canada, the owner of property (or a representative) can perform a citizen's arrest (in Canada we arrest, not detain) for any criminal offence, be it indictable or summary (equivalent to felony or misdemeanour) on their property. The "in relation to" the property part means that an owner (or a representative) can arrest for offences that while not occuring on the owner's property clearly involve their property. An example would be someone throwing rocks at a building's windows from a public sidewalk.

                    Canadian case law has accepted the notion of hot pursuit; in Canada, if you're chasing someone (presumably to arrest someone) you can chase them off your property. (Again, part of the notion of "in relation to" property).

                    Interesting, Ontario (I'm not sure about other provinces) has a Trespass to Property Act, which provides additional means for owners (or representatives) to protect their property. It criminalizes trespassing (meaning that owners/representatives can arrest for it) as long as certain conditions have been met (generally either the person has been instructed to leave, already been banned, or warned not to trespass via signage). Interestingly, it also expands the definition of trespassing to include engaging in activities which, while not illegal, are prohibited by the owner and made clear by appropriate signage. This would mean, for example, that if each entrance to a shopping mall had a "must wear a shirt" sign or a "no skateboarding" sign a security guard could arrest for either of those actions without prior warning other than the sign.

                    That being said, many companies, like in the US, discourage their guards from arresting people. There have been companies, however (mostly in Toronto) that have been making a lot of arrests, which is possible given the wide range of situations in which a security guard may arrest.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by bigshotceo
                      In Canada, the owner of property (or a representative) can perform a citizen's arrest (in Canada we arrest, not detain) for any criminal offence, be it indictable or summary (equivalent to felony or misdemeanour) on their property. The "in relation to" the property part means that an owner (or a representative) can arrest for offences that while not occuring on the owner's property clearly involve their property. An example would be someone throwing rocks at a building's windows from a public sidewalk.

                      Canadian case law has accepted the notion of hot pursuit; in Canada, if you're chasing someone (presumably to arrest someone) you can chase them off your property. (Again, part of the notion of "in relation to" property).

                      Interesting, Ontario (I'm not sure about other provinces) has a Trespass to Property Act, which provides additional means for owners (or representatives) to protect their property. It criminalizes trespassing (meaning that owners/representatives can arrest for it) as long as certain conditions have been met (generally either the person has been instructed to leave, already been banned, or warned not to trespass via signage). Interestingly, it also expands the definition of trespassing to include engaging in activities which, while not illegal, are prohibited by the owner and made clear by appropriate signage. This would mean, for example, that if each entrance to a shopping mall had a "must wear a shirt" sign or a "no skateboarding" sign a security guard could arrest for either of those actions without prior warning other than the sign.

                      That being said, many companies, like in the US, discourage their guards from arresting people. There have been companies, however (mostly in Toronto) that have been making a lot of arrests, which is possible given the wide range of situations in which a security guard may arrest.
                      Well explained!!

                      I've heard the "in relation to" can even be used by a credit card investigator. If you read the back of your credit card it says ' this card is the property of XYZ bank". I've been told that if you are committing a crime using the bank's credit card, the agent of the bank can make an arrest.

                      And Quebec DOES NOT have a trespass to property act. The criminal code of Canada allows us to use the force necessary to evict a trespasser & to arrest for "assault by a trespasser" if he actively resists being physically removed. There is also an article dealing with "trespass to property at night'. There is a strict definition of night. (From 21h00 to 05h00). I"ve been told it was written to combate peeping toms but could possibly be used for someone walking down the hallwayof a hotel with no reason during the defined night hours.
                      I enforce rules and regulations, not laws.
                      Security Officers. The 1st First Responders.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Years ago when I worked the mall, another mall across the street kept us informed as did we to them by using a scanner and then by using our own radio, broadcast "in the blind" to them. This was very usefull in turning away undisirables at the property line. Taking this a step further, the California Highway Patrol would also broadcast to us "in the blind" when they needed us to assist them and we could use the same tactic to obtain CHP backup for us
                        Murphy was an optomist.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Ok, that makes sense in re "in relation." In Florida, there is no such thing, and all detention statutes have wording to invalidate a detention if its preformed off the property, unless you are a law enforcement officer who has probable cause to make an otherwise misdemeanor arrest.

                          Its funny you bring up "throwing rocks," because in Florida, that's a second degree felony (790.19, F.S.), which means you can make an arrest (felony in presence) as a citizen. (You cannot make arrests as a security officer, only a private citizen)

                          However... If the state finds out that you left your property to make this arrest, and you are not authorized to do so contractually, you have abandoned your post and have violated Chapter 493.
                          Some Kind of Commando Leader

                          "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Marchetti, David, M
                            As a security agency owner yes I have sent work to others that I choose to pass on and I have been sent business, even some state troopers have used my companies name, tips his hat. On one job while working for a company I was placed in charge of Pinkerton Security Guards, working with their supervisor we got along great and had no problems. Even today I have contact with other security officers, and for the most part no problems at all. Some of them I have become friends with as they are good people. The only time I have had any problem is with a site supervisor working for American Protective some old fellow who stated he does not want me in the building, too bad as I work for the property owner and my authority exceeds his when the property owner is not around at night security is left in complete control on behalf of clients i.e. ( lawful custodial agent of the property owner ). I always thought a computerized version of NCIC for security companies would be good.
                            As an in-house officer I do not like it when a school group staying at the hotel hires a contract person to stand in the hallway outside their rooms overnight. I have staff that can provide this service. In this case I am representing the owner & prpbably could enforce the No Loitering in the hallway rule if I wanted to!
                            I enforce rules and regulations, not laws.
                            Security Officers. The 1st First Responders.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by HotelSecurity
                              As an in-house officer I do not like it when a school group staying at the hotel hires a contract person to stand in the hallway outside their rooms overnight. I have staff that can provide this service. In this case I am representing the owner & prpbably could enforce the No Loitering in the hallway rule if I wanted to!
                              When you say "staff," do you mean security officers? I thought you worked solo.
                              Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

                              Comment

                              Leaderboard

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X