Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should Security Officers Play A Major Role In Government Emergency Responses?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Christopherstjo
    replied
    Originally posted by SecTrainer
    You, on the other hand, seem to have "one gear" - full speed ahead and damn the objections.
    If the objections had merit that would be one thing but they do not and they are not substantiated by objective data from independant sources and ruling authorities.

    So, as I have said, merely because you want to ignore the facts does not mean the facts simply disappear.

    You cannot discredit me, no matter how much you try, becuase I am not relying upon my own "personal opinions" but rather that of case laws handed down by the courts that prove what I am saying to be true.

    Leave a comment:


  • Christopherstjo
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    What you are saying is that these "security officers with police powers" have the full vested authority of the government to issue lawful orders. This means that the security officer is no longer a private person contracted to enforce rules and regulations in addition to whatever else they're supposed to do, this means that they are an agent of the state who's sole function can only be to enforce laws on the property.
    The state is knowingly playing both ends against the middle by claiming its' right under a "compelling state interest" so as to compel, encourage, direct or encourage specific conduct by security officers with a Class A license to further the ends of government in fighting crime.

    In doing this, the state is authorizing and requiring that the security officer with a Class A license act [under color of law] or as a [state actor] and therein makes the security officer and his or her employer liable under federal law of Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (civil charges) and Title 18 U.S.C. Section 242 (criminal charges) for violations of anothers rights, liberties, privileges and / or securities guranteed to them under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

    In short, the state / city have literally forced the security officer and his or her employer to absorb legal liabilities whether or not they want to do so by exercising the right under a "compelling state interest." And the U.S. Supreme Court took away the right of private security officers [including those operating prisions for the state] who act under color of law or as a state actor to have qualified immunity. Thereby making it very very very easy for the security officer and his or her employer to be successfully sued in federal court for violations of the U.S. Constitution and laws of the United States when police powers are exercized in violation of clearly established laws.

    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    This is only if the state recognizes that the security officer is an agent of the state, and therefore the security officer has a legal duty to exercise police authority. In many cases, unusually appointed police officers do not have a legal duty to exercise these powers, and do so only at the leisure of their employer.
    Argue with me if you feel the need, but you CANNOT legitimately argue with the rulings that have been repeatedly handed down by the Courts.

    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    Most security guards in South Carolina are Observe and Report only. Yet, they are vested with police authority. Case law has shown while they are vested with the authority of a deputy sheriff, there is no legal duty for the employee to actually use those powers.
    As I have said before, STOP thinking that because there is a case law in North or South Carolina, it applies to every state. IT DOES NOT.

    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    Again, what about states that invest statutory arrest authority to private citizens, without calling them "police" or "law enforcement officers?" There is no duty to report violations of or enforce criminal laws for these people, yet they are vested with arrest authority by the state.
    Nathan, I will once again and for the final time explain to you how the duty to act comes to bear, insofar as it applies here in KCMO.

    First:

    When the City of Kansas City, KCPD legal dept argued in trial, that "private security licenses were vested with police powers to supplement the overall efforts of the KCPD, in fighting crime" this statement created a duty to act.

    The duty exists by giving specific state / city authorized powers to security officers with a Class A license, for the specific reason of favoring the government and furthering the ends of government in its' efforts to fight crime.

    In other words, the argument by the city, had the intent or the effect of (1) controlling, (2) directing, (3) counseling or (4) encouraging the conduct of security officers with a Class A license.

    Nowhere in the argument did the city argue that police powers were vested just in case the security officer, employer or client wanted the security officer to use them. The statement is explictly clear that police powers were vested to supplement the overall efforts of the KCPD in fighting crime.

    Second:

    By and through the words of "shall have the authority to detain or apprehend" in Section 10-2.030(1)(A) of Title 17 of the Missouri Code of State Regulations. The state / city intentionally placed what courts have defined to be a "substantive predicate" to deliberately constrain the decision making authority of others, including the employer and client, in matters of the security officer exercising his or her police powers.

    The words "shall have" in terms of law, is to give a legal order that others do not have the authority to take away, obstruct or prevent. By giving this order, the state / city command that security officers with a Class A license will have this authority and in so doing, nobody, not the employer, the client, or some John Doe, has the legal authority to obstruct or prevent the security officer from exercising such.

    The result of this is to (1) compel, (2) direct, (3) counsel or (4) encourage the conduct of security officers with a Class A license to exercise police powers in a light most favorable to the government and further the ends of government in fighting crime.

    Third:

    As you pointed out earilier. A security officer does have a legal duty to act in accordance with the contract which is to protect life, property and assets.

    This contract imposed duty to act means that the security officer has a duty to exercise his or her police powers to protect life, property and assets on the property for, which he or she is assigned.

    Because the state / city have given a legal order that the security officer [shall have] the authority to detain or apprehend those committing felonies, misdemeanors or city ordinance violations of law on the property for which he or she is assigned and extending into the streets when a suspect attempts to escape, up to the point that the suspect enters a vehicle.

    Neither the client or the security officers employer have the legal authority to cherry pick what laws will and will not be enforced because the state / city took this authority away from the client and employer by and through the order of [shall have] the authority to detain or apprehend. If the client or the employer seek to obstruct or prevent the security officer from exercising his or her police powers, they can be charged criminally pursuant to 575.020 and 575.030 of the Missouri Revised Statutes (2006). To-wit, again, I have provided two case laws (one from the Missouri Court and one from the federal Court by the 8th Circuit Court for the District of Missouri) that prove such conduct by the client and employer to be in violation of the law.


    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    I would wager that unless the state specifically vests a duty, no said duty exists unless the contracting company assumes the duty themselves
    In general you are correct - BUT - in terms of the subjects I have been discussing you are factually incorrect and the courts have been abundantly clear on this point.

    As I have said before, I do not rely upon my own "personal opinions" to assert a fact. Rather, I rely upon objective data from independant sources, such as the Courts because at the end of the day my "personal opinion" means nothing in the face of what the State and Federal Courts have held.
    Last edited by Christopherstjo; 04-18-2007, 01:06 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by Christopherstjo
    People are looking at this from a one dimentional view.
    Mr. Cross, I'm afraid that it is you who have the one-dimensional view. Those of us who recognize that there are two domains here that have (appropriately) conflicting interests and missions, that there are both logical and logistical difficulties with your "emergency management" ideas, and that there are better solutions to the issues you raise are the ones who are viewing the situation from multiple dimensions.

    You, on the other hand, seem to have "one gear" - full speed ahead and damn the objections.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by power102
    SecTrainer is not fond of insects. (reading past posts)
    I'm hunting around now for my can of BUGG-BEGONE.

    Leave a comment:


  • power102
    replied
    Originally posted by Christopherstjo
    Sorry, but that is the outdated way of looking at security. The proof of this is in the fact that current 30 states have enacted laws to give security officers police powers to aid the "government" in fighting crime, and more states will follow. Our society has become too violent, with unpredictable incidents such as we have recently seen in the tech school and the mall, occurring. Security has to be more advanced in their skills, actions and foresights.
    As the famous DIVE team commander would say..."reiterate"..

    Outdated? To be more specific...I'm talking about private security firms (not anything like Airport security or government bldgs - I'm aware that certain companies require more training), but private security officers, in general, are usually given fairly easy duties & assignments regarding their job description. (there's no "outdated" way of looking at it)
    1.Periodically check accounts which customers pay them to do. (mobile and/or foot patrol)
    2. Observe/report and arrest if needed (if a crime is suspected or in progress) - on customer accounts ONLY. Period.
    If a security officer witnesses a crime in progress AWAY from his/her assigned post (like on a city street, for instance) it's up to him/her to use their own judgment as a citizen (because that's what security officers are when not on the premises of hired property..a citizen)..but it's still risky because that officer could easily wind up facing serious law suites by the officer's own poor actions. (i.e. he/she shoot's someone) your company, or the company you work for could get sued...you could lose your job...and face criminal charges - all because your bullet strays away and hits an infant in a car seat - Hypothetically Speaking. (without a dash cam to proove your innocence)
    What I'm getting at....If security officers want actual police powers, then he/she should just become a cop.
    I'm sure you don't need to hear me educating you on proper security officer procedures...you seem like a fairly articulate little fella

    As far as our society becoming too violent.....it's because unfortunatly, semi-retarded people have become our policy-makers. (i.e. "no-gun" policy..but that's for another thread) - referring to Virginia Tech.

    I agree that something needs to be done regarding better training for security officers who lac common sense, but as far as a DIVE team....it's a waste of funding IMO.
    In the wake of a catastrophic disaster...government agencies respond (with the exception of Red Cross). During Katrina, N.O. police were in the same boat as everyone else..they were looting right along with citizens. See where I'm getting at? Your DIVE team would end up having to be rescued...which would add to the problem at hand. It takes thorough training in regards to massive catastophic disasters and ever greater training in the event of civil unrest.

    Be carefull though, sgt. Tackleberry...
    SecTrainer is not fond of insects. (reading past posts)
    Last edited by power102; 04-18-2007, 06:42 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by Christopherstjo
    [U]2. Security officers with police powers have a better opportunities, than those without police powers, to carry out their legal obligations to protect life, property and assets on the properties for, which he or she is assigned. This rises, in part, by having the legal authority to give lawful orders and to arrest those not obeying such.
    What you are saying is that these "security officers with police powers" have the full vested authority of the government to issue lawful orders. This means that the security officer is no longer a private person contracted to enforce rules and regulations in addition to whatever else they're supposed to do, this means that they are an agent of the state who's sole function can only be to enforce laws on the property.

    If the state gives you a lawful order, it is on pain of arrest that you obey it. The problem with security personnel giving lawful orders on pain of arrest is that the public feels compelled to follow law enforcement direction even in avenues where the police have no authority to give such orders.

    In most rules enforcement situations, the security officer acts as an agent of the owner and on their behalf gives corrective notification to visitors or tenants or client personnel. As stated before, my favorite thing, "The color blinds on your window do not meet the covenant of documents, you must remove them," as stated by an agent of the state means that the state just told you to correct a civil matter.

    Ever wonder why the police say, "That's a civil matter, we really can't say or do anything about that, you should contact an attorney?" Because the state does not get involved in civil matters unless its a plaintiff or defendant.

    Originally posted by Christopherstjo
    3. Because a security officer is given police powers, the security officer can be personally sued and held criminally liable if and when he or she fails or refuses to exercise his or her police powers unless there is a complling reason not to do so. Though, arguing that the client or employer would not permit them to do so, is not a sufficient argument because again, the security officer has been drafted into law enforcement duties and funcitons and the states compelling interest supercedes any interest of the employer and the client.
    This is only if the state recognizes that the security officer is an agent of the state, and therefore the security officer has a legal duty to exercise police authority. In many cases, unusually appointed police officers do not have a legal duty to exercise these powers, and do so only at the leisure of their employer.

    Most security guards in South Carolina are Observe and Report only. Yet, they are vested with police authority. Case law has shown while they are vested with the authority of a deputy sheriff, there is no legal duty for the employee to actually use those powers.

    Again, what about states that invest statutory arrest authority to private citizens, without calling them "police" or "law enforcement officers?" There is no duty to report violations of or enforce criminal laws for these people, yet they are vested with arrest authority by the state. While Sally Soccermom may be able to bust down doors and say, "You're under arrest for growing pot, I could see it outside," Sally is not compelled by the state to enforce those laws, even though she has the power to do so vested in her.

    I would wager that unless the state specifically vests a duty, no said duty exists unless the contracting company assumes the duty themselves. There is always the duty to protect, since a reasonable person expects protection from a security guard regardless of their vested authority, but the enforcement of law is not a legal duty.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by Christopherstjo
    Not necessarily true, it really depends on the type of license you have and the authority with that license and where you work. Here in KCMO, it is fairly common to have to deal with the criminal element pretty much no matter where you work and a Class A license was given police powers specifically to aid the KCPD in fighting crime.
    I have to disagree here. A police officer, an agent of the state, cannot be put in a position to enforce anything but the law of the government. For a police officer working a "short call" at an apartment complex, it opens several institutions up to liability claims when the police officer is expected to enforce rules and regulations which are not law.

    A police officer cannot tell you you have the wrong color blinds on your condo window. This is the government intervening in a civil matter, as an agent of the state is attempting to enforce a civil covenant. While public police work off-duty "security" jobs, their sole function is to protect the client from criminal interference. Kids get out of hand? They are creating a disturbance and trespassing. The officer does not enforce a rule or regulation of the client, the officer enforces the state "no trespassing" and state "disorderly conduct" laws.

    Whereas a security officer, as a private citizen with no or limited state authority (which usually does not make them an agent of the state), can enforce rules and regulations as an interested party of a civil covenant. Remember well, the actions of the security officer are usually seen as on the behalf of the client in civil proceedings.

    Now, there are times when even non-sworn/no-police-power security personnel act in the interest of the state, such as when enforcing laws and making private arrests or detentions on behalf of society as opposed to the owner of the property.

    Even if you have police authority, you do not automatically have a sworn duty to enforce the laws, punishable by law. In many cases, state trial courts have shown that unless the security personnel are considered "law enforcement officers" by the government, and act as agents of the government (not a private client), there is no duty to use those police powers.

    Leave a comment:


  • Christopherstjo
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill Warnock
    Why would I need special arrest powers as a private security officer? My realm is what my employer has specified.
    People are looking at this from a one dimentional view.

    Think of it this way.... States are using their legal powers to enact a draft; not for the military, but for law enforcement and they are drafting security officers with a specific license type to become law enforcement personnel whether or not the security officer, the employer or the client like it or want it to happen.

    States are perfectly within their legal rights and powers to enact this kind of draft and they are doing it with a very - very - very specific agenda in mind.

    1. First, by drafting private security officers into law enforcement duties and functions the State is doubling if not trippling its police force but is not having to pay a penny for the training, employment benefits, and liability issues, by giving security officers police powers. Hence, the State gets to have its' cake and eat it too - it is a brilliant scheme, from the view of government officials, because it serves provides the State a substantial economical gain.

    2. Second, in the face of rising crime rates and continued threat of domestic and foregin terrorist acts, the State has a "compelling state interest" do enact this draft. This is where the States legal authority comes into play, by asserting their "compelling state interest" and any time a State asserts this right, citizen rights are legally permitted to be deprived or abridged whether or not they like it or want it to happen. Federal Courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court have been abundantly clear that a State has the legal right to take away citizen rights when there is a "compelling state interest" involved and asserted.

    The down sides to doing this are abundant but the four primary ones are:

    1. The public is being put at serious risks of suffering constitutional violations to their clearly established rights, liberties, privileges and / or securities because despite security officers being given police powers, they are NOT being properly trained, screended and qualified, and are enaging in widespread abuses of power; both intentional and unintentional.

    2. There is, now, a greater likelihood that security officers, their employers and the clients will commit criminal acts. I discuss how this happens in my thesis. http://docs.google.com/View?docID=df...vision=_latest

    3. States have discarded the "traditional security" practices and concepts by adding a new element into the duties and functions of security officers through enacting laws that give police powers to security officers. In doing this, the State has asserted its' legal authority to make the security officer an agent of the state and no longer an agent of their employer and client. Hence the draft.

    4. Security officers are forced to absorb even more legal liability in their duties and functions both in terms of their private employment and in terms of their having and exercising police powers. Moreover, security officers now at even more risks of being held legally accountable in employment and in a court of law because they are not being properly trained in the constitutional and other legal aspects of exercising police powers.

    The positive sides, providing security officers are properly trained, to this are equally abundant; the top three are:

    1. It affords the city and / or state the ability to use security officers in law enforcement efforts to protect public safety in fighting crime; even if only doing so on the property for, which the security officer is assigned.

    2. Security officers with police powers have a better opportunities, than those without police powers, to carry out their legal obligations to protect life, property and assets on the properties for, which he or she is assigned. This rises, in part, by having the legal authority to give lawful orders and to arrest those not obeying such.

    3. The client and the public on the clients property, are afforded safer enviornments.

    The conflicts existing are also obvious:

    1. Employers are focused on financial profits and because of this, are NOT requiring or providing proper training opportunities for their security officers with police powers so as to safeguard the rights of others and those of their security officers.

    2. Clients are focused on "image" and financial profits and are therefore willing and quick to obstruct or prevent a security officer with police powers from exercising such under threats, intimidation or coercion tactics, yet, still hold the security officer accountable for the failure to address and solve the problem correctly.

    3. Because a security officer is given police powers, the security officer can be personally sued and held criminally liable if and when he or she fails or refuses to exercise his or her police powers unless there is a complling reason not to do so. Though, arguing that the client or employer would not permit them to do so, is not a sufficient argument because again, the security officer has been drafted into law enforcement duties and funcitons and the states compelling interest supercedes any interest of the employer and the client.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Warnock
    replied
    Folks, I don't really get the gist of these discussions. I worked on both sides of the aisle. When functioning as a security officer (guard), the scope of my authority and responsibilities were defined in my post or patrol orders. Why would I need special arrest powers as a private security officer? My realm is what my employer has specified.
    As an Air/Security Policeman, my authority and jurisdiction came from Article 7B Uniform Code of Military Justice. As a Police Officer, my authority and jurisdiction came from the Ohio Revised Code, County and Township Ordinances. As a private security officer my authority and jurisdiction came from the special orders as agreed to by the Client and Company for whom I was employed.
    What am I missing?
    Enjoy the day,
    Bill

    Leave a comment:


  • BadBoynMD
    replied
    [QUOTE=Virginia, I am told, vests arrest authority in security personnel. They also have special conservators of the peace, which are a sort of police force.QUOTE]

    Actually, I believe, you have to be armed and then you're considered a "Special Police Officer". You have arrest authority and so forth.

    Maryland is a tad confusing when it comes to "Special Police Officers". There was and/or is only one "police department" that was staffed by "Special Police Officers", and they a few years ago got reconginized as a Maryland police department.

    Leave a comment:


  • Christopherstjo
    replied
    Originally posted by john_harrington
    The real issue your program faces is the training that you keep referring to. With the exception of some nuclear power plants and large urban hospitals, I have seen few organizations spending any resources on training to the level needed to implement your proposal.
    There are various federal grants that can be obtained for the purpose of training security officers. Likewise, the police department can also provide training for free, as the KCMO police dept does for law enforcement officers, and thanks to my "opening a can of worms" as I was told, security officers with a Class A licnese can participate.

    Originally posted by john_harrington
    I also firmly believe that the security function is much different than the police function. Different skill sets are required for each- though they do overlap in many areas.
    Not necessarily true, it really depends on the type of license you have and the authority with that license and where you work. Here in KCMO, it is fairly common to have to deal with the criminal element pretty much no matter where you work and a Class A license was given police powers specifically to aid the KCPD in fighting crime.

    Leave a comment:


  • john_harrington
    replied
    The real issue your program faces is the training that you keep referring to. With the exception of some nuclear power plants and large urban hospitals, I have seen few organizations spending any resources on training to the level needed to implement your proposal.

    I also firmly believe that the security function is much different than the police function. Different skill sets are required for each- though they do overlap in many areas.

    Regards

    Leave a comment:


  • davis002
    replied
    Minneapolis Special Police

    Minneapolis is another one that allows "Special Police", but I don't think it's in wide use, if at all.

    -----------------------------------------------

    ARTICLE II. SPECIAL POLICE

    171.90. Mayor may appoint.Whenever, in the judgment of the mayor, it shall be necessary for the preservation of the public peace and order to increase the police force of the city temporarily, the mayor may appoint in writing such number of persons as he or she may think necessary to accomplish the object above stated, to be called "special police officers," and the appointment shall designate the time for which, and the place where the services are to be rendered. The person therein named shall accept in writing such appointment, and the same shall be forthwith filed by the mayor with the city clerk. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 631.010; 99-Or-004, § 1, 1-8-99)
    Cross references: Appointment of civil defense personnel as special policemen, § 128.270.

    171.100. Council may revoke appointment.At the next meeting of the city council after such appointments have been made and filed, the clerk shall report to the council all appointments made and filed with the clerk of special police officers, and the council shall have power to revoke any such appointments by resolution, and after such revocation, the persons whose appointments are revoked shall no longer have authority to act as police officers. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 631.020; 99-Or-004, § 2, 1-8-99)

    171.110. Powers.Any persons appointed special police officers shall, during the time for which they were appointed (unless their appointments are revoked), have authority to serve process and make arrests and do all acts authorized by law to preserve the public peace and order, that other police officers in the city have, and their duties and obligations in that regard shall be the same. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 631.030; 99-Or-004, § 3, 1-8-99)

    171.120. Uniforms.No person having appointment as special police officer shall wear at any public gathering, or upon any public street or highway, or in any public place, whether on or off duty, a uniform of the same color as that adopted and used by the Minneapolis police department, and no person acting as a special police officer shall wear any cap of the same color as that adopted by the Minneapolis police department. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 631.040; 99-Or-004, § 4, 1-8-99)

    171.130. Badge.No person appointed as special police officer shall wear any badge or other insignia except such badge or insignia as is furnished to him or her by the Minneapolis police department, or wear any badge or other insignia which simulates in any way the police badge or insignia of the city. Upon application to the police department and the presentation of the commission or order appointing such person as a special police officer and a receipt in the sum of twenty-five dollars ($25.00), the police department shall issue to the applicant a special police officer's badge or emblem designed and adopted by the police department. The sum of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) herein required shall be paid to the city finance officer and shall be a deposit to guarantee the return of the badge issued to the police department. Upon the expiration of the term for which the special police commission or order is issued, or upon revocation thereof, the person holding such badge shall immediately return the same to the police department. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 631.050; 99-Or-004, § 5, 1-8-99)

    171.140. Limit of authority.No person commissioned as a special police officer shall exercise any police authority or act as a police officer except in the place or places designated in his or her appointment. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 631.060; 99-Or-004, § 6, 1-8-99)

    171.150. Duration of appointment.The term of office of any special police officer shall expire at the time of expiration of the term of office of the mayor making such appointment. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 631.070; 99-Or-004, § 7, 1-8-99)

    171.160. Bond.Every person appointed as a special police officer shall, before entering upon the discharge of his or her duties, file with the city clerk a written acceptance of such assignment on a form prescribed by the chief of police, and shall file a bond in at least the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) written by a surety company authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota, which bond shall provide for the faithful discharge of the duties of the office of special police officer, and shall comply withall applicable laws and ordinances and be approved as to form and execution by the city attorney. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 631.080; 99-Or-004, § 8, 1-8-99)

    171.170. Subject to regulations of police department.All applicants for appointment as special police officers shall submit to all reasonable regulations and requirements of the police department as the same shall relate to identification, photographing and fingerprinting. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 631.090; 99-Or-004, § 9, 1-8-99)

    171.180. Surrender of commission.All special police commissions shall clearly define the purpose for the appointment and the area or location in which the appointee is to act, and if for any cause the purpose or the location stated in the commission ceases to exist, the holder of such commission shall, within ten (10) days, surrender the commission and his badge to the chief of police. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 631.100)

    171.190. Revocation of commission for violation of article.Any violation of the terms of this article by a special police officer shall be grounds for the revocation of the commission by either the mayor or the city council. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 631.110; 99-Or-004, § 10, 1-8-99)

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Forgot Michigan, Act 330 Security Police Officers, commonly called (by the MSP) "Act 330 Arrest Powers Security Guards." Act 330 requires that they specifically be called "Security Guard," and they must wear the designation in large print on their uniforms.

    Unless someone repealed that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Investigation
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    North Carolina does not give security personnel police authority. It allows companies to form internal police departments, which must be staffed and commanded by POST certified police officers.
    It's also interesting to note that they not only give the power to form internal police department, but also the power to form contract police departments like Westec.

    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    Either Washington or Oregon decided to make a special police force for a huge gated community, they used to be security but are now POST certified WA or OR police.
    That would be Oregon (Black Butte Ranch and Sun River). They are not a special police force, but a fully commissioned police department.

    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    The state of Kansas does not regulate security as far as a I know, but several cities regulate "Merchant Police," which are police officers who work for merchants. As in, security personnel with a different title.
    I have seen a few of these companies around, but from the ones I have seen, they are security officers that are allowed to use the Merchant Police name (with no police authority)

    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    On the west coast, San Fransisco still maintains its Special Patrol Police Department, which is a merchant police force under the auspices of the SFPD. Instead of a private company running it, the SFPD does, but make no mistake: They are security forces with police powers for merchants and neighborhoods, not patrol police officers.
    Let me be a bit more specific. What states give a contract guard force police powers as part of their licensing (besides the ones mentioned).

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X