Introduction to Security

1Introduction to SecurityChapter 3 The Public/Private Interface

2Historical FrictionPublic 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.

3Attitudes towards security over the years:1960s indifference1970s mistrust of the industry1980s and 1990s most likely regarded as a period of collaboration and joint ventures

4Police may not be confident in security because:They lament the quality of private securitys pre-employment screening, training and standardsPolice doubt the quality/ amount of private officers firearm trainingPolice view security officers as wannabees

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

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

7The Growth of Private SecurityNationally, 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

9Movement 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.

10MoonlightingPolice officers moonlightingThe practice of officers working off-duty as security officers does present some problems.Workmans Comp issuesDo they ever actually quit being police officers?Authority issues

11There 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.

12Legal AuthorityLaw 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.

13Legal AuthorityBowman 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.

14What is an investigatory interview?A supervisor questions an employee about a subject that could result in discipline such as:Absenteeism or latenessDrinking or drugsFightingSabotageWork performance, accidents or safety violationsTheftOther miscellaneous reasons...

15Important 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

16What private security officers cannot do:Invade another persons privacyElectronically eavesdropTrespassIn some jurisdictions, wear a uniform or badge that closely resembles a police officers.Commit crimes

17Cooperative effortsKnowing 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.

18Privatization Targets:Responding to alarmsExamining evidence in private labsConducting background checksProtecting executives and VIPsCrowd ControlTransporting PrisonersPrisons

19Prison PrivatizationThere 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?

Prepared by: Matt J. McCarthy20Answers 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.

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

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

23Answers 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.

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

Prepared by: Matt J. McCarthy25Benefits of public/private cooperation:Prepares private security to assist in emergenciesHelps to coordinate homeland security efforts, as most of the infrastructure is privately ownedIncreases personnel resources and expertise (e.g., in cybercrime)Assist in obtaining evidence of crimes (CCTV recordings)

26Benefits of public/private cooperation:Reduce the number of calls for serviceIndividuals from each side know their counterpartsBuilds law enforcements understanding of corporate needsIncreased training opportunitiesBoosts mutual respect

Partnerships in ActionLakewood, ColoradoOutsourced 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.27