Privatizing Police Powers

[Christopherstjo]

I have posted the thesis I recently wrote on the subject of privatizing police powers into the hands of security officers, on other web sites. So, I thought I would do the same here for conversational purposes and since there is a good flow of member traffic on this web site, especially since I finely got my google documents ability to work correctly.

http://docs.google.com/View?docID=df...vision=_latest

[Chucky]

If a sworn police officer makes a sketchy arrest and is sued for false arrest the municipality that he works for will stand behind him and adsorb the court cost. If I had the power of arrest and got sued my companies first words would be Chucky!! Chucky who?

Once again it boils down to the bottom line and most contract companies do not have that kind of deep pockets. Arrest do not bring money to the security table. Who will pay for the employees court time? Who will fill in for the employee while he is in court. Frankly I have viewed many security web sites and can't ever remember seeing how many arrest the company has made. Even the red stripe companies don't advertise it. My point is what is the point?

[Christopherstjo]

If a sworn police officer makes a sketchy arrest and is sued for false arrest the municipality that he works for will stand behind him and adsorb the court cost. If I had the power of arrest and got sued my companies first words would be Chucky!! Chucky who?

You got that right - though generally, it is the employer that is sued or both the employer and the security officer who are sued at the same time. I have not come across any suits that were only against the security officer.

Once again it boils down to the bottom line and most contract companies do not have that kind of deep pockets. Arrest do not bring money to the security table. Who will pay for the employees court time? Who will fill in for the employee while he is in court. Frankly I have viewed many security web sites and can't ever remember seeing how many arrest the company has made. Even the red stripe companies don't advertise it. My point is what is the point?

While I share your concerns, as I point out in my thesis it can be deemed a criminal offense for the security officer not to exercise his or her police powers. Likewise, it can be deemed a criminal offense for the employer or any supervisor therein to try to prevent or obstruct a security officer from exercising his or her police powers. This of course is dependant upon the specific laws in each state - though, every state has comparble laws, insofar as generalized "hindering prosecution" and "concealing an offense" laws.

[BadBoynMD]

If a sworn police officer makes a sketchy arrest and is sued for false arrest the municipality that he works for will stand behind him and adsorb the court cost. If I had the power of arrest and got sued my companies first words would be Chucky!! Chucky who?

This isn't totally correct. Atleat in my area it isn't. If a police officer makes a wrongful arrest, or any other type of wrong doing, the department will be represented by the the city, county, etc's attorney. That attorney is mainly there for the municipality and department. If a officer is named seperately in a lawsuit it's the FOP that will appoint an attorney to represent that officer. However, you have to contribute to the legal funds (usually a certain amount of your check goes towards a legal fund account). If not, you will be getting black ink from the phone book trying to find your own attorney. Their are some police officers that already have their own attorney on speed dial.

As for security companies, yup that's pretty much what they will say.


[QUOTE=Once again it boils down to the bottom line and most contract companies do not have that kind of deep pockets. Arrest do not bring money to the security table. Who will pay for the employees court time? Who will fill in for the employee while he is in court. Frankly I have viewed many security web sites and can't ever remember seeing how many arrest the company has made. Even the red stripe companies don't advertise it. My point is what is the point?[/QUOTE]

Well I, totally agree to a point. Arrests made show proactive policing to the client. Shows you are doing what you're suppose to and not goofing off, etc etc. Apartment property managers share information and if you're out lockin' people up and getting the morons evicted, that brings money to the table, because your aquiring another account. You won't find stats on company websites. You won't find that on alot of police department websites either, however some may post them. As far as who will fill in.. in my area it takes 2 sometimes 3 months before you hit the court room, therefore you have plenty of time to find someone to cover for a couple hours, or swich days off..etc. Court compensation is billed to the client.

[Christopherstjo]

If a police officer makes a wrongful arrest, or any other type of wrong doing, the department will be represented by the the city, county, etc's attorney. That attorney is mainly there for the municipality and department. If a officer is named seperately in a lawsuit it's the FOP that will appoint an attorney to represent that officer.

Yes, if the officer's conduct is deemed by the department to have violated the law - the city will not provide an attorney for the officer, nor will the FOP, in at least some cases, for example.

The two officers, here in KCMO, who recently made national news by their causing the death of an unborn infant by refusing to permit the mother access to medical attention, have to find their own attorney's because neither the city nor the FOP are providing them one in lieu of the department determining that their conduct violated the law.

[Mr. Security]

I am leery of such a proposal. Although the private sector has demonstrated efficiency in the way it utilizes resources, financial and otherwise, it has also produced a history of abuse that can be more difficult to expose and root out, IMO. Should SOME police powers be privatized? Yes. However, I prefer that it remain at the infraction/misdemeanor level.

[BadBoynMD]

I am leery of such a proposal. Although the private sector has demonstrated efficiency in the way it utilizes resources, financial and otherwise, it has also produced a history of abuse that can be more difficult to expose and root out, IMO. Should SOME police powers be privatized? Yes. However, I prefer that it remain at the infraction/misdemeanor level.

In Maryland, an SPO (special police officer) have full arrest power. However, to have full 100% police powers, the SPO must attend a police academy and graduate.

[N. A. Corbier]

Look at South Carolina. Any person licensed as a security guard has all the powers of a deputy sheriff by state statute. They are not considered law enforcement officers, but do have the authority to issue citations on private property that subjects itself to state traffic code, can make arrests in the name of the state, can give lawful orders... If a Sheriff can do it, then a security guard can.

They can't use the term "police," or "sheriff," but lets face it. Why would you need to? You can use your law enforcement powers to enforce the laws of the state, county, or city on your property when needed, as a security person.

Now, an interesting thing is because they have law enforcement powers, the state requires under statute that any non-criminal/non-traffic citation issued (you know, the ones that we normally issue as non-sworn civilians) must adhere to a few rules, such as you must post the rules at every entrance and note security personnel will enforce them, and the citation must be "constructive" in nature.

This is most likely to ensure that the public understands the difference between a speeding citation issued as a law enforcement officer, and a speeding warning issued as a security agent of the owner.

One results in fines and may result in criminal charges (careless driving, etc). The other serves as notification of the owner's intent to prevent speeding, and may be grounds for dismissal of the speeding employee.

[Christopherstjo]

I am leery of such a proposal. Although the private sector has demonstrated efficiency in the way it utilizes resources, financial and otherwise, it has also produced a history of abuse that can be more difficult to expose and root out, IMO. Should SOME police powers be privatized? Yes. However, I prefer that it remain at the infraction/misdemeanor level.

While I agree with you that there is mounting concern over "certain" [because not everyone is guilty] security officers abusing their power, that it can be difficult to root out. The obvious solutions, yet, the ones rarely ever advocted for, is to (1) provide security officers with access to receive proper training and education. (2) Have regulatory agencices actually do their jobs for a change, (3) have the media treat such cases of illegal conduct by security officers no differently than they do when allegations of police abuse of power rise and (4) for employers to stop placing financial profits so high above everything else that employers permit, require or otherwise turn blind eyes to those security officers who engage in abuses of their power.

These avenues are the manner that proper accountability is going to come to bear, and curiously enough, by acheiveing accountability through these avenues, security officers [collectively] will actually gain at least some credibility [as a profession and as professionals] in the long run while also helping to educate general society about security and any / all authority possessed.

[bigdog]

Security officers wiht police powers will never fly in florida. One reason is every law enfovement orginization in florida would fight it. Recently I was told by a sworn Leo that a security officer is only crime watch with a uniform. If the locals think that how do we convince legislators and the such to even fathom the Idea that "just a security guard" can ever be trusted with the powers to arrest? Notice in the last sentence I used security guard because 95 % of the public including some law enforcment officers cant tell the difference between a licensed security officer and an inhouse unlicensed security guard. The public automatically assumes anyone in a security uniform is a guard. No matter what you tell them or what credentials you show them( unless they are leos ,they will accept you are a licensed SO if you show your license.)Even Some security OFFICERS licensed in the state of florida dont recognize themselves as security officers and refer to themselves as security guards . See some of the posts nathan and other fl security officers post that says LIcesed security "guard".(this statement is not an attack on any of those persons) Instead of the title Licensed security officer as written on the license. If we use the Guard title ourselves as SEcurity officers. how can we convince the public of the difference.

Rant off.

[Christopherstjo]

bigdog

First, as N.A Corbier correctly pointed out - security officers are the true first responders. It does not matter what level of authority one has or what job he or she is assigned to do - each is the first on scene and all governemnt responses are dependent upon us because we are the ones with the key's and the knowledge of and access to security systems and so forth. Try hailing an elevator at a moments notice for emergency responders, during rush hour in a high rise building and see what the heck happens - but by God, a security officer with an elevator key might as well be called King.

Second, while some states do not have laws that permit security officers to exercise any more authority than an ordinary citizen, the times and tides are slowly changing and with this, security officers are slowly rising in the ranks of being seen as a credible resource in helping the government protect public safety. Thus, sooner or later all states will ultimately address the level of authority security officers have and need to have more.

[SecTrainer]

bigdog

First, as N.A Corbier correctly pointed out - security officers are the true first responders. It does not matter what level of authority one has or what job he or she is assigned to do - each is the first on scene and all governemnt responses are dependent upon us because we are the ones with the key's and the knowledge of and access to security systems and so forth. Try hailing an elevator at a moments notice for emergency responders, during rush hour in a high rise building and see what the heck happens - but by God, a security officer with an elevator key might as well be called King.

Second, while some states do not have laws that permit security officers to exercise any more authority than an ordinary citizen, the times and tides are slowly changing and with this, security officers are slowly rising in the ranks of being seen as a credible resource in helping the government protect public safety. Thus, sooner or later all states will ultimately address the level of authority security officers have and need to have more.

Mr. Cross:

Your analysis of the security officer's "authority" - and of the question as to whether he "needs to have more" - as expressed here and other posts you have made ranges from questionable to infantile, in my opinion.

First, the security officer already has all the "authority" he needs in order to assist public responders coming onto the property he protects, such as providing keys/access codes, "hailing elevators", providing information about the site, aiding with evacuation, etc.

Second, you seem to be primarily interested in arrest powers, and to equate these with authority. This is a fairly common deconstruction of the concept of "authority", and one that we see from time to time on this board from members who have a relatively unsophisticated understanding of just what constitutes authority.

Third, it is not the duty of private security to "assist the government in protecting public safety" except in those venues where a public entity has specifically contracted with a private agency to provide security, or in emergency situations where a public agency requests assistance (and there is a separate body of laws covering those situations). The question of just what "authority" the private security officer should or can have under such a contract is both constrained by law (common, statutory, case and administrative) and flows either specifically or by legal and reasonable inference from the terms of the contract. If the public entities find that they are unduly constrained from granting security officers the necessary authority to do what they want done, they will be the first ones to go to the state legislature or other relevant body and request that more authority be made available.

I would also like to take this opportunity to tell you, in all honesty, that I most strongly resent the poor impression of security professionals that you have managed to create on the Officer.com forum. It is my opinion that you have single-handedly managed to set back police/security relations by a couple of decades with some of the officers on that forum by your bellicose, confrontational and insulting posts. Sir, you are no security professional and I offer here my apologies to all police officers on behalf of our industry for the destruction you have done. I have never in my career felt the need to do so until now, Mr. Cross, so you can consider that you have managed to reach a real low point in Netizenship.

[Christopherstjo]

SecTrainer

As I posted in another thread, I have reached a point where I am bored with you. When you are ready to have an adult like conversation the please feel free to post something worth reading. Until then, I wish you all the best and success in life.

[Chucky]

Trainer: What the hell is your problem? Anyone that disagrees in the slightest with you becomes your verbal whipping post. You my friend will be the down fall of anyone wanting to express an opinion on this forum.

Christopherstjo is putting stuff out there that may be simply thought provoking
if nothing else. Let me remind you once again Forums are for all to express their thoughts and ideas. It is not just your long boring rambling post that keep people here. How can you train anyone if you can't get your point across in less
than 500 words?

[N. A. Corbier]

Lets get some stuff in the open...

Missouri Statute's only mention of Private Security is that the Police Commissioner Board of St. Louis and Kansas City can regulate security. Otherwise, no government authority may. This was passed in 1939 originally, and updated in 1993 or so. The Missouri Code of State Regulations addresses what the Police Commissioner Board decided in the cities of KCMO and St. Louis.

Title 17, Division 10, Chapter 2.010(3) notes that "Those licensed to provide private security have police powers limited to the property that they are lawfully assigned to protect." It then further specifically states that unless you are licensed as an "airport police [officer]," this authority stops on public property or private property you are not assigned to protect.

There are two types of licenses in KCMO, the much vaunted "Class A" license, and the "Class B" license. The licensing structure is hilarious, and I suggest others take a look at it.

Basically, a Class A license is granted to those who's purpose is to actually, you know... do something. It specifically says "proactive" and suggests that "Bank Guards" and "hospital security" are Class A licensees. It calls them a "Patrol agent," and puts them on par with "Loss Prevention agents."

The only difference between a Class "A" and "B" licensee is that the Class "A" license grants the license holder the authority to detain or apprehend. That's it. They're still security personnel, and state law refers to them as such. There's no statute or regulation authorizing them to call themselves police officers.

Christopher claims that any person armed and having arrest authority, in his document, is an de facto police officer. However, Missouri does not have an actual crime of "impersonating a police officer," only the crime of False Impersonation, in which impersonating a public servant is illegal, along with impersonating licensees in licensed professions.

Wisconsin has similar laws, which is why the term police may be used freely. However, Wisconsin Law similarly does not bestow public powers on a "private" policeman, as those statutes specifically address a public officer or employee.

This reminds me of South Carolina, where every "security person" has the powers of a deputy sheriff on property and only on property. If someone flees, in KCMO, they may give chase.

Also, of note, is that KCMO has a reserve force. Who is going to pay for this DIVE team? Surely not the security companies, and surely not the city. The city has its own police force. Creating a Memorandum of Understanding with the city goes counter to the purpose of the regulation, which is to give security personnel specific police powers on the private properties they protect.

It is fascinating, if the case law interpretation is correct, in that every private security officer even those with a Class "B" "Guard" license, are sworn agents of the state, under Missouri Statute. While Christopher Cross may say, "Class B Guards are not private police," I note that (3) specifically states that "those licensed to provide private security services have police powers..." which includes those with the Class "B" license, but the class "B" license simply denies them the authority to exercise the police power of arrest or detention. Other police powers afforded the KCMO Police Department should still be in full force, such as giving lawful orders.

Whoever wrote this regulation really didn't think too hard about all this.