Introduction to Security

1. Introduction to Security Chapter 3 The Public/Private Interface

2. Historical Friction • Public security (police) and private security often see themselves as being in competition. • Police often view private security as “wannabees” – not good enough candidates to be police officers, so they settle for second best.

3. Attitudes towards security over the years: • 1960s – indifference • 1970s – mistrust of the industry • 1980s and 1990s – most likely regarded as a period of collaboration and joint ventures

4. Police may not be confident in security because: • They lament the quality of private security’s pre-employment screening, training and standards • Police doubt the quality/ amount of private officer’s firearm training • Police view security officers as “wannabees”

5. Police may not be confident in security because: • Police view security officers as a threat to their domain. • Police don’t understand the depth of the security field.

6. Security May Not be Confident in Police Because: • Private officers view police as being elitist. • Private security practitioners feel that police don’t care about or appreciate the security field until they want a job in it.

7. The Growth of Private Security • Nationally, private security officers outnumber public law enforcement by 5:1. • This ratio is even greater in certain states such as California.

8. Comparison of the Growth of Private & Public Security Officers

9. Movement between the public and private sectors: • There is considerable movement of individuals between the two fields. • Some individuals use the private security field as a stepping stone to public law enforcement. • Retired law enforcement officers may pursue private security jobs.

10. Moonlighting • Police officers moonlighting • The practice of officers working off-duty as security officers does present some problems. • Workman’s Comp issues • Do they ever actually quit being police officers? • Authority issues

11. There are four basic differences between officers from the public and private sector: • Private sector is a for-profit entity, law enforcement is non-profit. • Private sector serves only specific clients, not the public at large. • Security is prevention-oriented, police work tends to be reactive. • Police have statutory authority, security may deal with non-criminal conduct not under police authority.

12. Legal Authority • Law enforcement has far greater legal powers. • Private security officers generally have the same legal authority as private citizens. • Private officers can, however, enforce legal company rules and regulations that a law enforcement officer may not be able to.

13. Legal Authority • Bowman v. State (1984) rules that private security officers do not have to issue Miranda warnings. • Weingarten Rights: an employee being questioned in an investigatory interview by private security has the right to union representation if they so wish.

14. What is an investigatory interview? • A supervisor questions an employee about a subject that could result in discipline such as: • Absenteeism or lateness • Drinking or drugs • Fighting • Sabotage • Work performance, accidents or safety violations • Theft • Other miscellaneous reasons...

15. Important note: • Due to the nature of their work, security officers performing their jobs do open themselves up to more potential civil lawsuits, or torts, than the average person. • Therefore, it is essential that security officers understand what their limitations are…

16. What private security officers cannot do: • Invade another person’s privacy • Electronically eavesdrop • Trespass • In some jurisdictions, wear a uniform or badge that closely resembles a police officer’s. • Commit crimes

17. Cooperative efforts • Knowing these restrictions opens the door up for cooperation between public and private officers. • Private officers can assist with certain duties formerly assigned to police. This is known as privatization. • Not all privatization involves uniformed guards – there are numerous applications possible.

18. Privatization Targets: • Responding to alarms • Examining evidence in private labs • Conducting background checks • Protecting executives and VIPs • Crowd Control • Transporting Prisoners • Prisons

19. Prison Privatization • There are 4 key issues surrounding the privatization of correctional facilities: • Are they legal? • Are they more effective? • Are they cheaper to operate? • Do they produce a better prisoner?

20. Answers to these questions: #1. Are they legal? Yes – the courts have upheld that government may privatize basic services, although it remains responsible for any incidents that occur in the facility. Prepared by: Matt J. McCarthy

21. Answers to these questions: #2. Are they more effective? There is no conclusive evidence either way to determine this.

22. Answers to these questions: #3. Are they cheaper to operate? Again, there is little evidence to support this claim.

23. Answers to these questions: #4. Do they produce a better prisoner? There have been no studies so far that have documented whether prisoners from private facilities are more or less likely to reoffend than their publicly held counterparts.

24. Recommendations for Building Public-Private Partnerships: • Leaders of both sides should make a formal commitment to cooperation. • Fund research/ training on relevant legislation • Appoint an advisory council • Local partnerships should set priorities to address problems.

25. Benefits of public/private cooperation: • Prepares private security to assist in emergencies • Helps to coordinate homeland security efforts, as most of the infrastructure is privately owned • Increases personnel resources and expertise (e.g., in cybercrime) • Assist in obtaining evidence of crimes (CCTV recordings) Prepared by: Matt J. McCarthy

26. Benefits of public/private cooperation: • Reduce the number of calls for service • Individuals from each side know their counterparts • Builds law enforcement’s understanding of corporate needs • Increased training opportunities • Boosts mutual respect

27. Partnerships in Action • Lakewood, Colorado • Outsourced some law enforcement tasks to private firms. • Contracted with a private security organization to provide guards for prisoners that had been hospitalized in Denver area hospitals. • Also, security personnel were sued to help guard crime scenes when needed.