2006-07 U.S. Dept of Labor Definition of Security Officers

[Christopherstjo]

It is necessary to point out that because every city and state is different in their licensures types, requirements to be licensed and the authority given to any speicific license. The 2006-07 U.S. Dept of Labor Handbook on Security Officers is NOT inclusive to what does, does not, may or may not actually exist. It is rather a generalization of the entire industry and makes no distiction between what takes place in one state verses that of another state. The report does, however, point out that some armed security officers are being given special police powers but fails to cite the specific states authorizing these powers.

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos159.htm#nature

According to the 2007, report by J. R. Roberts of Security Strategies in Savannah, Georgia the private security industry has a 300% turnover rate and provides very little to no training to security officers, especially in critical areas involving public safety.

http://www.jrrobertssecurity.com/whowillguardtheguards.htm

Moreover, while the 2001 ASIS Security Officer Training and Selection Manual sought to establish a standards of practice in our industry, which was created by "employers." None currently exists and this is greatly harming both the security profession and security officers alike, because without a standards of practice, we cannot achieve the level of credibility needed to be seen as anything more than "guards", "window dressing", "robo-cops", "rent a cops", and "wannabe's" despite the obvious importance of our work; value of our insight, and the necessity of our presence.

http://www.asisonline.org/guidelines/guidelinesprivatefinal.pdf

Some argue that the non-existant standards of practice is intentional because to have one would greatly influence the ability of the employer to obtain contracts for services. Outlined in the 2005 "U.S. Producer Price Index for Security Guards and Patrol Services (NAICS 561612)" is the fomula employers use to determine what costs a client will have to pay for services rendered.

http://www.stat.fi/voorburg2005/page.pdf

It is apparent, therefore, that States having a specific legislative "Act" for security officer operations fair better in way of security officer training, pay, qualifications and credibility, than do States with no legislative Act.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/06/11/BU172056.DTL&type=business

It is equally clear that a greater focus is being placed on the selection of security officers. The "About: Business Security" 2007 article points out several key factors clients need to consider when contemplating hiring private security officer services.

http://bizsecurity.about.com/od/securityguards/a/GuardCriteria.htm

[Mall Director]

Wow... Very insightful! Good Job!

[Christopherstjo]

Wow... Very insightful! Good Job!

Thank you. I am a firm believer that forums such as SIW are invaluable not only in having the ability to communicate with a broad audiance throughout our nation and world but also in having the ability to share information on a wide array of subjects; many of which serve enormous importance in educating ourselves and thus, being better professionals.

[Christopherstjo]

I thought I would add this link as well because of the important relevance

In 2004, the United States Department of Justice, COPS program published its' report on the partnerships between front line security officers and front line police officers. The report demonstrates that establishing parterships between the two professions, is critical to achieving successful law enforcement efforts and objectives, yet, these necessary partnerships customarily do not exist.

http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/mime/open.pdf?Item=1355

[SecTrainer]

I thought I would add this link as well because of the important relevance

In 2004, the United States Department of Justice, COPS program published its' report on the partnerships between front line security officers and front line police officers. The report demonstrates that establishing parterships between the two professions, is critical to achieving successful law enforcement efforts and objectives, yet, these necessary partnerships customarily do not exist.

http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/mime/open.pdf?Item=1355

NOTE: THIS IS A LONG POST. I DON'T WANT ANY GUFF ABOUT THIS FROM THOSE WITH SHORT ATTENTION SPANS. IF NECESSARY, PRINT IT OUT AND READ IT WHEN YOU HAVE MORE TIME.

This is a very thoughtful and insightful paper that I have had occasion to reference in several research studies in public/private policing. It makes five "action" recommendations for public/private cooperation that, if implemented, would be enormously beneficial to both domains.

When read carefully, and in context, one can easily see that it supports the position that security officers should be trained to partner with the police in critical incident response...within their own protected properties. For instance, the primary justification offered for this suggestion is that security officers, not the police, are often the "first responders" to emergencies. This obviously refers to the security officers on site.

The report recommends a variety of things that can be done to enhance cooperation, such as creating channels for information sharing that address the problem of confidentiality of police information, access of security companies to criminal databases for improved personnel selection, formalized cooperative projects, "marketing" the cooperation concept, etc.

What is most relevant to these discussions, however, is that nowhere in this report is the need for greater extension of police powers to security forces recommended or implied.

One of the preconditions for effective private/public partnerships discussed in this paper is the need for greater respect for security on the part of the police. In examing that issue, it is very instructive to consider the partnership that exist between the police and fire professionals, and to ask why that partnership is demonstrably much more successful than the police/security partnership has been.

Empirically, I believe that the police/fire partnership succeeds because it is based on the mutual respect of each side for the recognized competence of the other within its own domain of operation. (Interestingly, "crossover" between the two domains has been tried with the so-called "public safety departments", but has generally not been very successful, and has fallen out of favor. A number of cities that have tried this experiment have since returned to the two-agency model, at least operationally.)

Another factor that is rarely openly discussed, but clearly operant, in the police/fire (and any other similar) domain relationship is something that I call "domain separation". This is a negative operant, meaning that respect is inhibited and/or denied when you come into "my territory" and "try to do my job". When this operant is discussed, it is described as a "turf-protection attitude", usually with the implication that it amounts to nothing more than professional jealousy or even "job fear". But is it really that juvenile or primitive ? Perhaps not, if you consider the very concept of a "professional domain". Some thinking around the concept of medical specialties, and the relations between them, offers some insight to just what a "professional domain" implies, and why the practitioners of one domain SHOULD NOT welcome the encroachment of others into their domain. (Ask yourself who would ultimately be harmed if dentists started performing neurosurgery.) Partnering, yes. Sharing, yes. Assisting, yes. Encroachment, no - and there IS a difference.

Dear readers, it is really as simple as this: If we expend our efforts and our resources to become increasingly competent, more carefully selected, better trained, more expert and more effective within our own domain of operation (and not only in terms of incident response), recognition of this competence by others (and not only the police) will have its own impact on the question of respect. In turn, more opportunities for partnership will flow as our own competence increases the perceived returns from such partnership for the public side.

We cannot put the cart before the horse. We cannot, as it were, "shove partnerships down the throats of the police". The major driver of mutual respect is domain-based competence, and everything else flows from that. "Competence" means effectiveness in all aspects of our operations, including personnel selection and retention, training, equipment, supervision and management.

As we consider each of these areas, we know that we have plenty to do to set our own house in order, and vast improvements that need to be made in every area. This must be done first. It is, as Ford says, "Job One". Also, it is critical to building mutual trust that security clearly understands, and operates within, its own domain. Is that domain changing? Yes, although some authors make more of them than they really are, being much more quantitative than qualitative. (The core domain of private security is not in flux.) The important thing about shifts in the boundaries of domains is that they meet more resistance when those boundaries are "shoved out" from within (which is perceived as "seizing territory") than when they are "pulled out" by external forces, which means being invited by relevant stakeholders to sit down at a new table and participate in new activities. Even so, being invited does not mean we should always accept the invitation, for there will always be some foolish invitations that do not promise benefit to either side.

[Christopherstjo]

For now I want to make the following points.

First, ideally it would great if every security officer were given the type and level of training needed to do incident response on the properties for, which he or she is assigned. However, the reality is that this is NOT occurring and it will not anytime in the near future, in part, because security officers are far too complacent to stand up and advocate for themselves and their fellow officers to receive better training.

Second, there will always be those, who, for one reason or another will gripe about any new ideas that are innovative in both concept and approach. But there are two facts that cannot be argued with: First, we are not receiving the type and level of incident response training needed to keep up with the serious changes being made in our own industry and this, is seriously harming us in both our abilities and our credibility in the eyes of others. Second, my program thinks outside the box; it seeks to offer at least a selected group of secuirty officers more advanced training that serves a public good and makes the security officer a better skilled professional and a more valuable employee.

We do not live in a society that is free of violence; where natural and man made disasters do not abruptly occur and where a strong utilization of manpower and resources is not needed to protect public safety during times of serious or otherwise mass emergencies. To the contrary, as more and more we see the rising human devastation existing when forced to face disasters occurring.

So, like it or not, our industry is changing as more and more states are enacting laws to give us more authority and mandates to use that authority but without receiving the necessary and proper training. And when things go wrong, we get the blunt of the public ridicule, blame and shame - not those who are pulling our puppet strings; not those who dictate policies and laws - but us; the average joe making 8 bucks an hour who is intentionally deprived having a voice while held privately and publicly accountable nonetheless.

Now, for all the gripes on how every security officer should be trained to do incident response; how we should not play a meaningful patrotic role in disaster services and incident response beyond the boundaries of the properties we are assigned. At least my program seeks to do something positive for us and the public good, in the face of the multitude of us, who only prefer to sit and gripe about what should be instead.

When was the last time those of you having dissenting opinions stood up and banded together with your fellow security officers and demanded of your employers, your clients and your legislators to mandate better training opportunities for you and your fellow security officers - until you achieved success in your demands? When was the last time you tried to do something other than just gripe and try to shoot down another's idea, based solely upon your preconceived and unsubstantiated notions that it will never work when it has never been tried?

I do not profess that my program is the cure all - be all. But at least it does more than just sit there and gripe. At least it tries to open doors in training opportunties that are currently closed to us and at least it seeks to make us better skilled professionals with a positive direction that serves a public good.

[SecTrainer]

Note my board name...training is what I do, and I am everywhere on this board advocating training.

First, I see no "mandates". I'll recognize a "mandate" when I see a private security officer/company other than railroad police or certain very limited "special police" such as the "constable" in Delaware being hailed into court for malfeasance, dereliction of duty or negligence for their specific failure to exercise their "police authority", or specific provisions in the law that would provide for such sanctions to be applied to private security officers. Until then, however broadly you wish to interpret "authority" or "authorization", these do not, andl never will (to my mind) constitute a "mandate".

Note that there will be some other things happening simultaneously to confirm the existence of such "mandates", such as the explicit (statutory) extension of qualified immunity for false arrest, and at least the implicit (case law) extension of constitutional mandates (4th Amendment, in particular) to the private sector much more broadly than has been the case to date (there are a few cases, but the facts in those cases were exceptional and not typical of normal security operations). Otherwise, we have the untenable situation in which individuals who possess the power of the state are not obliged to observe the constitutional protections and rights of the citizens. We will also likely see that adequate training in criminal law and constitutional law, on the order of that currently required of public police officers, will be mandated for private security officers if they are ever *required* by law to exercise police authority. No one will have to scream for this training when and if private security officers are ever *obliged* by law to exercise "police powers". The citizenry, through their legislators, will demand it.

Second, it is not necessary to invent any nexus between public authority and private security, nor between public emergency response operations and private security, in order for state security-regulating agencies, or security companies or departments, to justify, conduct, require, or recommend training of any sort that is appropriate to the contractual duties of security officers. All the justification necessary for higher levels of training already exists, although it has been admittedly ignored not only by those who operate security organizations but by state regulators who seem to be caught in the political grasp of those operators.

What I suggest is most desperately needed by the private security community is a body of state regulators who will get some backbone and start to require the higher level of training that we can clearly demonstrate is demanded by the nature of the job just as it is right now. No other justification is necessary.

[N. A. Corbier]

I know of no security personnel who have any duty to enforce laws. Note I say "duty." As in, legal duty, under pain of law. There are legal duties to protect people and property, after all, that's what the contractual obligation in most security companies is. But there is no legal duty to enforce laws.

I remember reading a case in South Carolina (Yes, I'm on a kick with that state) where the matter before the court was, "Did the security company have a duty to enforce laws on the property, which would of prevented an attack?" The court soundly noted that while the security guard was vested with police authority, no statutory or common law duty was placed on the guard or company to enforce state, county, or municipal law. The guard had a duty to protect the patrons and property assigned, yes. But to enforce laws? No.

The only people in the private sector who are required to enforce laws under the pain of law are private sworn law enforcement officers such as "Special Police" or "Company Police" personnel who's states recognize them as sworn law enforcement officers.

A security person with police powers is not generally considered a "sworn law enforcement officer," and therefore has no statutory or common law duty to enforce laws simply due to the power(s) vested in their security position.

[Christopherstjo]

I know of no security personnel who have any duty to enforce laws. Note I say "duty." As in, legal duty, under pain of law.

Nathan, I have explained this over and over and over and over and over and over again....It is plainly discussed in my thesis, insofar as it pertains to Kansas City, Missouri. I cannot be any more clear in explaining how the duty to act comes to life.

There are legal duties to protect people and property, after all, that's what the contractual obligation in most security companies is. But there is no legal duty to enforce laws.

I cite two specific case laws (one from the Missouri Court and one from the Federal 8th Circuit Court for the District of Missouri) that prove you wrong.

The court soundly noted that while the security guard was vested with police authority, no statutory or common law duty was placed on the guard or company to enforce state, county, or municipal law. The guard had a duty to protect the patrons and property assigned, yes. But to enforce laws? No.

The case law you refer to has NO jurisdictional authority here in Missouri. Thus, your reference to that case law has no authority to what does and does not apply here in Missouri.

The only people in the private sector who are required to enforce laws under the pain of law are private sworn law enforcement officers such as "Special Police" or "Company Police" personnel who's states recognize them as sworn law enforcement officers.

Right, you go a head and believe that if you want. You are of course, factually wrong, as the law applies here in Missouri.

A security person with police powers is not generally considered a "sworn law enforcement officer," and therefore has no statutory or common law duty to enforce laws simply due to the power(s) vested in their security position.

Right, you go a head and believe that, too, if you want. You are of course, factually wrong, as the law applies here in Missouri.

As I have said before Nathan, given that I live and work, here in Missouri and you do not, I think I am in a far far better position than you, to know what the law is and is not, in Missouri. You are consistently citing the law incorrectly insofar as it applies to Missouri.

[Christopherstjo]

SecTrainer

You can write as many and as long of a post as you want but the facts remain to be:

1. You are inherently wrong in your stated opposition, which is based entirely upon your own "personal opinion" and NOT upon any objective data so as to take your "personal opinion" into being that of a "substantiated claim."

2. You are frequently factually incorrect in your personal opinions and are greatly misleading the readers in the process.

3. You commonly misquote and mischaracterize what I am saying; what I have written numerous of times.

4. Your "personal opinions" are routinely defeated by the multidues of independant objective data that I have provided from leading experts across the U.S., in both government and non-government capacities.

You are certainly entitled to your "personal opinions" and to voice them as well, yet, at the end of the day that is all it is, simply and only your " unsubstantiated personal opinions" and nothing more.

[SecTrainer]

Mr. Cross:

1. It is not possible to "substantiate" a negative, such as the absence of a "police mandate" or "duty" where there is no evidence that any such thing exists...except to say, as I have said, that I see no evidence of it.

2. However, it is possible to "substantiate" the obverse position (yours), and you have not done so.

3. My opinions are just that, and I have CLEARLY stated that. However, my opinions aren't constructed of straw and I don't just dream them up. They rest on many years of experience in both domains, including administrative positions of some responsibility, over 1000 hours in training at two different state police academies, more professional LE and security domain training certificates than I can count, a degree in Security Management, training in both terrorism and disaster management with both FEMA/DHS and the United Nations, and postgraduate work in Emergency Management.

I'm not interested in pissing contests, "Mr. Criminologist", but if we get into one I'm pretty sure you'll discover that mine IS big enough to do you, so be careful you don't drop the soap!

Notwithstanding the above, when an argument is illogical it does not require "credentials" to refute the argument and the least educated hillbilly is perfectly correct when he recognizes the illogical reasoning. Since your argument contains such illogical elements, it doesn't require "credentials" or "substantiation" to refute. It is destroyed internally.

4. I was writing research papers that had to conform to academic standards, as well as APA and other accepted style formats, while you were still kicking the slats out of your playpen. If I do see a serious need based on anything that you write to require "FORMAL" refutation of your positions, I can and will do so, but it's tiresome work and will take much better - and may I repeat, MUCH better - quality of both analysis AND writing in your submissions to force me to spend my time in that way. I believe that I have carefully read most of what you've posted here and elsewhere. I recognize a number of the papers or links you've hastily Googled up and offer as support even when they do no such thing. I see no reason as of this moment to gun my motor or waste my nitro refuting your non-references when I look over and see that you haven't even made it to the starting line.

[Christopherstjo]

SecTrainer

For someone who purports to have the long list of credentials that you say you do, it is curiously odd that you routinely resort to childish remarks and efforts to try and personally insult and attack me because I do not agree with your dissenting views. I am neither impressed, nor am I intimidated by you or your childish and unprofessional conduct.

Notwithstanding the aforesaid, it is abundantly clear, SecTrainer, that despite the long list of purported credentials you claim to have, you give no demonstration that you grasp even the most simpleminded applications of law, in the subject I have addressed pertaining to privatizing police powers. And your personal opinions regarding my DIVE Team are, as I have said before, unsubstantiated opinions because they are not supported by the multitude of leading expert reports on both the government and non-government sides that I have provided in support of my claims. A point you consistently chose to ignore out of convenience rather than a legitimate cause.

Indeed, like me, you too are passionate about your beliefs and about the security industry and I compliment you on such. We need more in the industry with such driving passion. But caution must be given nonetheless in understanding that despite all the degrees and certifications in the world, you can still be wrong even when you firmly believe your [unsubstanitated] personal opinion is right. Bearing in mind, of course, that sometimes ones "driving passion" and preconceived notions about ones "certifications" can get in the way of being "objective" and clearly you you have such delimas by virtue of feeling the need to resort to childish comments and efforts to try and personally attack and insult me. Hence, even in fourms such as this, one should always maintain a high level of integrity, professionalism and ethics, even in the face of expressing ones strong opposition. Clearly, however, you believe and choose to act otherwise.

Again, I say, I do not rely upon my own personal opinion because at the end of the day my personal opinions mean nothing when the Courts have been abundantly clear in what they have rulled; so much so that it is well settled law.

Likewise, despite my expertise in the field, I nevertheless willingly look to other experts and listen to their wisdom on both the proponent and opponent side because in doing so, I become a better professional. Something you should try.

Thus, even though I strongly disagree with you - I have still learned from you nonetheless, in all your glory of dissent, and that makes me a better person for all my tomorrows to come because, unlike you, I am willing to embrace the idea that I am wrong and therefore, I need to listen to and grow from what others have to say.