Introduction to Security
Chapter 3
The Public/Private Interface
1
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.
2
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
3
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”
4
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.
5
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.
6
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.
7
Comparison of the Growth of
Private & Public Security Officers
8
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.
9
Moonlighting


Police officers moonlighting
The practice of officers working offduty as security officers does
present some problems.



Workman’s Comp issues
Do they ever actually quit being police
officers?
Authority issues
10
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.
11
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.
12
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.
13
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...
14
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…
15
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
16
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.
17
Privatization Targets:
 Responding to alarms
 Examining evidence in private labs
 Conducting background checks
 Protecting executives and VIPs
 Crowd Control
 Transporting Prisoners
 Prisons
18
Prison Privatization

There are 4 key issues surrounding
the privatization of correctional
facilities:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Are they legal?
Are they more effective?
Are they cheaper to operate?
Do they produce a better prisoner?
19
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
20
Answers to these questions:
#2. Are they more effective?
There is no conclusive evidence
either way to determine this.
21
Answers to these questions:
#3. Are they cheaper to operate?
Again, there is little evidence to
support this claim.
22
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.
23
Recommendations for Building PublicPrivate 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.
24
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
25
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
26
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.
27