Homework Responses Wk 5

I think that since public law enforcement is restricted in custodial interrogation because of the Miranda rule, I think it benefits the private security guard not being legally bonded to this rule unlike the public law enforcement.  Police must advise suspects of their rights. In the case Miranda v. Arizona it was held that the Miranda warnings are not applicable to private security officers. (U.S. Department of Justice, 1976) In another case, United States v. Antonelli it stated that the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not require the giving of constitutional warnings by private citizens or security personnel employed who take a suspect into custody. (U.S. Department of Justice, 1976)

With all this being said, a person being questioned does have the right to remain silent. If the use of force or threats of force are made to try and get answers or any type of unlawful restraint could be tortious conduct. If you were to cause and mental distress, or damage someone’s reputation then you would have a lawsuit on hand. I have read that it could be questionable when a private security guard invites the cooperation of the public law enforcement. I think that this is because the public law enforcement has to abide by the Miranda rule, and the private security guard does not. I think that this makes the private security guard more valuable when it comes to questioning because public law enforcement has stricter guidelines to abide by. I think that not having the Miranda rule apply as a private security employee helps keep liability off of them from malicious prosecution if they are trying to file a complaint against someone for criminal charges. I personally believe this is something that protects the right of the security personnel.

In another article that took place in Virginia some private security guards drew a weapon on a person who was acting suspicious. (U.S. v. Day, 2010)The guards questioned and searched the suspect without reading the suspect their rights because they are not obligated by the Miranda rule.  The lower courts in Virginia felt that the suspects constitutional rights were violated and thought that the security personnel should have followed the same protocol. They might have felt this was but from all the previous cases private security guards are not public law enforcement. Private security guards are not employed by the government. This was brought up in the appeal, and showed that the private security guards were not bound by the constitution. Do I agree with this 100% not really. I can see how both sides can be argued, I just think that there should be really good policies in place to protect the rights of everyone. But hey, not everyone will always be satisfied.

 

References

U.S. Department of Justice. (1976, August ). Scope of Legal Authority of Private Security Personnel . Retrieved from National Institute of Justice : https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/146908NCJRS.pdf

U.S. v. Day. (2010, January 8). ACLU Legal Filing Says Private Security Guards Bound by Constitution When Detaining Suspects. Retrieved from American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia : https://acluva.org/4178/aclu-legal-filing-says-private-security-guards-bound-by-constitution-when-detaining-suspects/