Story: http://www.securityinfowatch.com/art...on=379&id=6743
From Lexis-Nexis via SecurityInfoWatch.com
URBANA -- The owners of the Home Run Food Mart, 1509 Washington St., have sued Urbana, seeking to overturn a city demand that the business must hire an armed, licensed security guard or face the loss of its package liquor license.
I have seen "public nusance" issues like this before. Companies generate so many calls for police service that the city feels they are an undue strain on police resources, and require steps be taken in good faith to control the criminal element on their property.
These usually translate, from my personal perspective, into a demand to hire off-duty police officers. Most companies, being faced with a Code hearing declaring them a public nusance if they don't hire the off-duty police officers at 40-60 dollars per hour, run to a licensed private security company for protection. The hiring of private security officers on the property is evident of the good faith attempt to control the property.
But, in this case, we have the city demanding that the owners of the store purchase the services of an armed security officer. Note that the Chief of Police, who drafted a Security Plan for the store at city expense, and the council requires its implementation, stated one, armed, licensed security guard.
How many companies would feel comfortable taking on that contract, with the added overhead of a pre-determined security plan from the police department as part of any post orders negotiated with the client? Especially when the client does not wish the services demanded by the police?
From Lexis-Nexis via SecurityInfoWatch.com
URBANA -- The owners of the Home Run Food Mart, 1509 Washington St., have sued Urbana, seeking to overturn a city demand that the business must hire an armed, licensed security guard or face the loss of its package liquor license.
I have seen "public nusance" issues like this before. Companies generate so many calls for police service that the city feels they are an undue strain on police resources, and require steps be taken in good faith to control the criminal element on their property.
These usually translate, from my personal perspective, into a demand to hire off-duty police officers. Most companies, being faced with a Code hearing declaring them a public nusance if they don't hire the off-duty police officers at 40-60 dollars per hour, run to a licensed private security company for protection. The hiring of private security officers on the property is evident of the good faith attempt to control the property.
But, in this case, we have the city demanding that the owners of the store purchase the services of an armed security officer. Note that the Chief of Police, who drafted a Security Plan for the store at city expense, and the council requires its implementation, stated one, armed, licensed security guard.
How many companies would feel comfortable taking on that contract, with the added overhead of a pre-determined security plan from the police department as part of any post orders negotiated with the client? Especially when the client does not wish the services demanded by the police?
Comment