Negligent Security

yellancnigg

Private_Security_and_the_Law_Chapter7.pdf

Home >Law homework help >Negligent Security

7 Public and Private Law Enforcement

A Blueprint for Cooperation

CHAPTER OUTLINE

Introduction: The Relationship between the Public and Private Sectors ................................. 301

Public Interest versus Private Concerns....................................................................................306

Moral or Egalitarian Purpose ...................................................................................................307

A Caste System of Professionalism...........................................................................................308

A Failure to Communicate and Cooperate..............................................................................310

Positive Programs on Interaction and Cooperation ................................................................... 314

College and Municipal Police Forces........................................................................................316

Transit and Municipal Police Forces.........................................................................................319

Private Security Industry and Law Enforcement Agencies .....................................................321

Recommendations......................................................................................................................... 324

National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice..................................................................324

The Hallcrest Report..................................................................................................................326

The Private Sector Office of the Department of Homeland Security ....................................327

Summary........................................................................................................................................ 328

Discussion Questions.................................................................................................................... 329

Notes.............................................................................................................................................. 329

Introduction: The Relationship between the Public and Private Sectors The interplay between public and private law enforcement and the modern delivery of

public safety from privatized interest continue unabated. Everywhere across this rich

country, public police entities engage the private sector, governments employ private

sector companies for security of facilities and asset protection, communities turn to

both arms of the justice model, and the military industrial complex appreciates the

value of private sector involvement in military operations. It is the commonality of inter-

ests that spurs on this unbridled growth in cooperation. Despite the differences in legal

powers, employers, and mission, private security officers and public police have many

similarities.1

The historical legacy that characterizes the relationship between the public and private

justice systems is less than positive though continuously improving. In 1976, the Private

Security Advisory Council, through the U.S. Department of Justice, delivered an insightful

Private Security and the Law

Nemeth, C. (2011). Private security and the law. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from apus on 2020-10-13 13:21:28.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

critique on the barriers to full and unbridled cooperation between the public and private

law enforcement systems. Struggling with role definition and resource deployment, the

relationship has been an uneasy but steady one. The council stressed the need to clarify

role definitions and end the absurd and oft-practiced negative stereotyping.2 The council

cited various areas of conflict and ranked them in order of importance:

1. Lack of mutual respect

2. Lack of communication

3. Lack of cooperation

4. Lack of security enforcement knowledge of private security

5. Perceived competition

6. Lack of standards

7. Perceived corruption3

Put another way, each side operates from a series of perceptions, some accurate, others

not. For the most part, the caricatures inhibit full cooperation. The Hallcrest Report I4

decisively addressed this issue. In characterizing the police role as inclined toward crime

detection, prevention, and control, security will always be to some extent the public

police’s antagonist. Private police give less attention to apprehension, crime detection,

prevention, and technology than do their public counterparts. Comparatively, private

security addresses similar subject matter but still dwells intently on the protection of

assets, immediate deterrence, and commercial enforcement. Figure 7.1 note 5 provides

a graphic illustration of the major distinctions between these two entities. Tables 7.1

note 6 and 7.2 note 7 further edify these occupational distinctions.

n n n

Learn about Hallcrest Systems, the consulting firm that produces outlook reports on the

private sector at http://www.hallcrestsystems.com.

n n n

A cursory assessment of these figures shows fundamental agreement on the protec-

tion of lives and property. Departure occurs in the upper classifications of law enforce-

ment since the thrust of any public police department must be for the eventual arrest

and prosecution of suspects. In contrast, the private justice function is still concerned

Input Role/Function Targets Delivery System Output

Citizen Crime Prevention General Government Enforcement & Apprehension

Client Crime Prevention Specific Profit-Oriented Enterprise Loss Reduction/Assets Protection

Private PublicSecurity Services

FIGURE 7.1 Comparison between

public and private police functions.

302 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

with preventive activities in the area of crime loss, fire prevention, and other order-

maintenance functions. In the security manager rankings, criminal investigation and

arrest and prosecution show up in the lower rankings. This prioritization, in and of itself,

is a telling distinction, though it should not be viewed as justification for a sharp divi-

sion. If anything, both public and private law enforcement share a generic goal—namely,

the general enforcement of laws. As Bill Strudal points out in his article, “Giving the

Police a Sense of Security”:

Our goal, usually not shared by police and security is law enforcement . . . if we accept

the premise that police and security have the same goals, then why don’t we work

together on a regular basis? There are differences; nobody can deny that . . . there

are many other gaps between the two forces, but none is insurmountable with good

training and dialogue.8

Table 7.1 Security Manager Rankings of Private Security Functions (Rank Ordered)

Proprietary Managers Contractual Managers

1. Protection of lives and property 1. Protection of lives and property

2. Crime prevention 2. Crime prevention

3. Loss prevention 3. Loss prevention

4. Fire prevention 4. Fire prevention

5. Access control 5. Access control

6. Crime investigation 6. Order maintenance

7. Employee identification 7. Employee identification

8. Order maintenance 8. Crime reporting

9. Arrest/prosecution 9. Arrest/prosecution

10. Accident prevention 10. Information security

11. Crime reporting 11. Crime investigation

12. Information security 12. Accident prevention

13. Traffic control 13. Traffic control

N ¼ 676 N ¼ 545

Table 7.2 Law Enforcement Executive Ratings of Law Enforcement Function (Rank Ordered)

1. Protection of lives and property

2. Arrest and prosecution of criminals

3. Investigation of criminal incidents

4. Maintaining public order

5. Crime prevention

6. Community relations

7. General assistance to the public

8. Traffic enforcement

9. Traffic control

N ¼ 384

Chapter 7 • Public and Private Law Enforcement 303

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

The similarities between function, duty, and obligation are very apparent when the tasks

of investigation are considered. The skills of the private sector are essentially identical to

those of the public sector. Review Figure 7.2 to see the diverse opportunities shared and

borne by both the private and public sectors.

Given the equal occupational capacity of both the private and public sectors to

engage in these many activities, cooperation rather than division appears a wiser tactic.

Surely, the concerns of private sector justice increasingly mirror that of the public

model. Security’s threats and concerns are charted at Table 7.3.9

Employee theft, property crime, and access controls are the top concerns of security

professionals. Computer and information security concerns continue to increase as the

most important security-related concerns.

Another recurring stumbling block, at least perceptually, is public law enforcement’s

attitude of superiority. Table 7.410 indicates that traditional law enforcement takes a dim

view of the contribution of proprietary and contractual security when compared to its

own role, though the merger of functions and roles will likely shrink this chasm in the

near future. But there is a road to travel.11

FIGURE 7.2 Common tasks of private and public officers.

Table 7.3 Security 2001 Profile: Security Threats, Concerns

2001 1999 1998 1997

1. Property crime 1. Employee theft 1. Employee theft 1. Employee theft

2. Employee theft 2. Property crime 2. Property crime 2. Property crime

3. Violent crime 3. Access/egress 3. Access/egress 3. Fire/safety*

4. Computer sec 4. Computer sec 4. Violence** 4. Access/egress

5. Access/egress 5. Parking sec 5. Computer sec 5. Computer sec

6. Parking sec 6. Violent crime 6. Parking sec 6. Work violence

7. White collar 7. Burglary 7. Burglary 7. Violent crime

*Fire and life safety concerns broken out as a separate question since 1998.

**Workplace violence broken out as a category under life safety concerns since 1998. On the security side, workplace violence and

violent crime combine together this year into one category called violent crime.

304 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

In appraising the findings of this perceptual study, the Hallcrest II authors suggest:

Here again, law enforcement executives gave markedly lower ratings than did the

private security managers. They agreed, however, on the areas that deserved the

highest and lowest ratings. Thus, both the law enforcement executives and the secu-

rity managers felt that private security was relatively effective in reducing the dollar

loss of crime, and relatively ineffective in apprehending larger numbers of crim-

inals. This ranking is consistent with the preventive orientation of private security,

which is more concerned with loss control than with arrest and prosecution for

crimes. Consistent, too, is the finding that proprietary security managers gave

themselves highest marks for maintaining order.12

Unfortunately, slight differences in approach and methodology have increased the divide

between these camps. And with these attitudes in place, it becomes a much more difficult

task to partner and cooperate. A 2004 Policy Summit co-sponsored by public and private

law enforcement associations lists the main reasons why these alliances falter:

• Egos and turf battles

• Lack of resources (funds, staff)

• Lack of a product

• Overemphasis on structure or resource needs

• Insufficient commitment and support from higher levels of participating

organizations

• Overemphasis on the social aspect and underemphasis on business

• Unwillingness of partners to share information, especially information that would

reflect poorly on the sharer

• Insufficient alignment of interests 13

To the detriment of all, these petty differences continue to the present.14 John

Driscoll, in his article “Public and Private Security Forces Unite in Dallas,” asserts “this

negative approach prevents the two similar entities from realizing their commonalities

Table 7.4 Private Security Contributions to Crime Prevention and Control: Ratings by Law Enforcement and Private Security Managers

Law Enforcement Proprietary Security Contractual Security

Overall contribution 2.2 1.5 1.2

Reduction in volume of crime 2.4 1.7 1.5

Reduction in direct dollar crime loss 2.2 1.6 1.5

Number of criminal suspects apprehended 2.6 1.9 2.0

Order maintenance 2.4 1.4 1.7

N ¼ 384 N ¼ 676 N ¼ 545 SCALE: 1 ¼ very effective, 2 ¼ somewhat effective, 3 ¼ not effective.

Chapter 7 • Public and Private Law Enforcement 305

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

and capitalizing upon mutual cooperation.”15 Driscoll recounts the “Dallas experiment”

that stresses interaction between the parties in sharing “criminal information bulletins,

recruit[ing] class training blocks, field training officer and security officer meetings, and

additional joint information seminars.”16 The elitist attitude taken by public law

enforcement fosters a polarization between the public and private sectors. Though role

conflicts and perceptual views of the public and private sectors are compelling argu-

ments, there are other forceful explanations for the natural tension between these com-

peting interests. What is undeniable is the march forward into the public realm, with

examples so numerous it is now difficult to catalog. Private sector operatives now watch

over airports and parks, act as first responders and protectors of federal and state instal-

lations, deliver safety and security to the Olympics and sporting events, conduct surveil-

lance, and assess critical infrastructure. In the final analysis, the playing field will be

leveled a little more each day by the ever-growing numbers of private security forces.17

Public Interest versus Private Concerns

Public law enforcement is and has always been tasked with the needs of the public good.

Few private security companies have to be concerned with domestic disputes, the trans-

portation of the deceased, stray animals, or protection of the homeless and other down-

trodden individuals.18 The Private Security Advisory Council characterized police work

as a public interest function. Public police have “a wide range of responsibilities to pro-

tect essentially public concerns and their efforts are closely tied to statutorily mandated

duties and the criminal justice system.”19 The advisory council further relates that the

police are burdened with constitutional limitations and must interpret and implement

certain guidelines in the performance of their law enforcement duties. Additionally,

public policing is further restrained by public budgeting and financing processes. Police

management policies and an administrative hierarchy within most major police depart-

ments must evaluate and allocate resources according to the needs and demands

presently operating within this community structure.20

Norman Spain and Gary Elkin, in their article, “Private Security versus Law Enforce-

ment,” relate with precision:

One of the traditional functions of the public police is to deter crime. In reality, their

ability to do this is drastically limited. The primary reasons are that the police have

little authority to change the conditions that foster crime and they have no author-

ity to decide who will reside in their jurisdiction, whom they will police. Private

security forces, on the other hand, may alter—at times drastically—the environ-

ment in which they operate. They can have walls and fences erected, doors sealed,

windows screened, lights put up, and intrusion detectors installed. They can often

play a decisive role in determining whom they have to monitor—who is to be an

employee of the company—by conducting background investigations of potential

employees.21

306 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Such a supposition is difficult to dispute, since private security is primarily concerned

with the private concerns of private property assets and particular individuals. “Indivi-

duals and privately funded organizations and businesses undertake measures to provide

protection for the perceived security needs that involve their private interests, not in the

public domain. Private security is an option exercised to provide an additional or

increased level of protection than that afforded by public law enforcement, which must

respond to the larger concerns of the public.”22

Moral or Egalitarian Purpose

Entrance into the vocation of public law enforcement is considered by most a moral

and social commitment—a vocation rather than a mere job. This career distinction is

generally not applied to individuals who commit their lives to the service of private

security. But is such a viewpoint fair and rational? Is not the protection of assets, gov-

ernmental facilities, communities, business interests, private proprietary holdings, or

contributions in military and security initiatives a noble endeavor? If private security

were not involved, what would be the state of American industry and its physical

plants, the security of courthouses and judicial centers, transportation facilities, and

neighborhood associations? How would the dynamic of the battlefield change in for-

eign wars? How would the allocation of military personnel be impacted? For that mat-

ter, how many more employees would the public sector have to hire, on the backs of

already beleaguered taxpayers, to cover the diverse functions of private sector justice?

By what standards are these judgments of moral superiority or social importance

designed? Critics and theoreticians who scathingly condemn the nature of private jus-

tice often forget the historical contribution private security has provided. Long before

the establishment of a formal, publicly funded police department in pre- and postco-

lonial America, private security interests were the only entities providing protection

for individual persons, assets, and business interests. Remember that the nature of a

system of town watches, the “hue and cry,” calling for posse formation and community

cooperation, constables, and part-time sheriffs could hardly be characterized as public

in design.23

Judgments about private sector justice cannot be made in a vacuum but must be

evaluated in light of the range of services the industry provides a troubled world. To

be more particular, who would protect the majority of federal installations? Who would

protect the majority of American museums? What force or body would ensure safety and

protection in the college and university environment? What other bodies would provide

adequate crowd control at entertainment events? What cost would society incur to

ensure a public police officer in each bank? Should taxpayers’ money be spent in

the transportation of money and other negotiable instruments? What police depart-

ment would provide adequate security for American corporations? How far could city

budgets be stretched to provide a secured environment for its multiple retail establish-

ments if security services were absent? When these queries are explored, public law

Chapter 7 • Public and Private Law Enforcement 307

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

enforcement’s tendency to preach from a high moral pedestal is not as convincing.

Richard Kobetz and H. H. Antony Cooper, in their article “Two Armies: One Flag,”

cogently state:

It is no exaggeration to aver that without the aid of those presently engaged in the

various tasks of private security, the resources of public law enforcement would

have to be expanded far beyond the limits that the taxpayer could afford and would

pay. Even those who do not contribute directly to the cost of providing private secu-

rity services benefit to some notable extent from their existence. Private security is

not a public luxury. It represents a substantial contribution to the general security

of the community. In their impact on the community public and private law

enforcement are one and indivisible.24

A Caste System of Professionalism

Private security has long been an underclass when compared to public law enforcement.

Differences in orientation, training, requirements, and social status accorded these posi-

tions have a great deal to do with the class or status differentiation. While much time

and energy has been expended in the professionalization of public law enforcement,25

negative stereotypes, justified or not, still exist concerning private security personnel.

The most powerful trend is the continued growth of the private security industry, both

in real terms and relative to law enforcement. In 1987, the director of the U.S. Justice

Department’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) wrote that

cooperation becomes increasingly essential with the growth of the private security

industry. [In policing,] resources to meet the increasing demand have dwindled.

In most major cities, police personnel have declined, and the number of police

employees per 1,000 population dropped 10 percent between 1975 and 1985.

Shrinking tax revenues throughout the country and outright taxpayer revolts . . .

have curtailed growth in government. Police, like other public administrators, have

become familiar with cutback management.26

The Private Advisory Council expounds that these attitudes

are based on incorrect assumptions that private security personnel perform the

same job duties as patrol officers and investigators in law enforcement, and that

a broad generalization can be made about the nature and personnel of all compo-

nents of proprietary and contractual security—guards, private patrol services, pri-

vate investigators, armored car guards and armed couriers, and alarm response

runners and installers. Certainly, the security industry and private justice practi-

tioners must concede there is a distinction between the level of training and

308 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

qualifications for certification. The security industry has been its own worst enemy

in this area by failing to promote high level, sophisticated standards of educational

requirements.27

In response to the call for increased state and local regulation of the private security

force, Richard Lukins, in his article “Security Training for the Guard Force,” castigates

the industry for its lack of action:

This trend has not caught the affected components of the private security industry—

the guard services and proprietary security managers—completely by surprise but it

does not appear that they were totally prepared either. And certainly no one can say

that our industry has established an imposing record of self-regulation.28

Lukins further relates that the present impression of a security guard as not more

than “half a cop” will be deleterious to future professionalism in the security industry. 29

The quest for professionalism requires more than rhetoric. As outlined in Chapter 2 on

regulation, licensing, and qualifications, the road to professionalism is filled with impe-

diments. Those impediments—a lack of educational discipline or cogent body of knowl-

edge, an accepted code of ethics, a prestige or status consensus on occupational roles,

or a seal of social and governmental legitimacy—are all attainable goals.30 To get beyond

the characterization that a private security practitioner is nothing more than a play

policeman, the industry will have to aggressively implement the standards of profession-

alism. On the other hand, much of that judgment is the result of prejudice and stereo-

type. “Private security is aware of this status differential imposed by many law

enforcement personnel and deeply resent it since they feel that law enforcement neither

understands nor empathizes with their crime prevention role. This in turn leads to a

lower level of esteem by private security for law enforcement personnel.”31 Petty bicker-

ing and hate mongering further erodes the ambition of professionalism. Constructive

suggestions regarding increased standards and performance objectives are more in

order. Certification programs such as that offered by ASIS International and its Certified

Protection Professional programs make a real contribution to substantive professional-

ism. The CPP program’s chief objectives are as follows:

1. To raise the professional standing of the field and to improve the practice of security

management by giving special recognition to those security practitioners who, by

passing examinations and fulfilling prescribed standards of performance, conduct,

and education, have demonstrated a high level of competence and ethical fitness.

2. To identify sources of professional knowledge of the principles and practices of

security and loss prevention, related disciplines, and laws governing and affecting the

practice of security.

3. To encourage security professionals to carry out a continuing program of

professional development.32

Chapter 7 • Public and Private Law Enforcement 309

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Attaining professionalism will require both dedication and perseverance. Howard

C. Shook, former president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP),

remarks that the private security sector has “proven its worth and can defend itself from

detractors rather easily.”33 Harold Peterson, in his work “Private Security v. Public Law

Enforcement,”34 calls for a natural respect between the public and private sectors and

highlights the unique and extremely sophisticated expertise exhibited by the private jus-

tice system. He warns the traditionalist in law enforcement:

There are those in both the community and law enforcement who believe that the

public police alone are responsible for crime reduction. If, as a chief, you think like

this, I’m afraid that your agency will fail the public you serve.35

A Failure to Communicate and Cooperate

Predictably, a lack of respect between the public and private sector leads to a lack of

communication. The Private Security Advisory Council cogently concludes:

Since many law enforcement personnel perceive themselves as having a higher

degree of status than private security, and do not properly appreciate the role of pri-

vate security in crime prevention, there will be a tendency to avoid communication

with private security personnel. One might expect that private security would com-

municate freely with law enforcement as a perceived higher status group. But the

intensity of feelings expressed by private security and the ambiguity of their rela-

tionship with law enforcement . . . would seem to indicate an uncertainty as to

the equality of status with law enforcement. Private security, then, would generally

tend to avoid communication with law enforcement; without effective communica-

tion cooperation cannot be imposed.36

Like squabbling relatives, this state of interaction is counterproductive but easily cor-

rectable. Many of the perceptions, viewpoints, and preconceived notions about the role

of private security as it relates to public law enforcement that each party possesses are

highly biased and unscientific. For example, it is ludicrous to argue that the training

and educational requirements for all public law enforcement positions are markedly

higher. Some major police departments, such as the one in the city of Philadelphia, with

a metropolitan area of more than 6 million people, historically required no more than an

eighth-grade education. While this may be an exception to the general requirement of a

high school diploma, it is folly for public police personnel to perceive their educational

requirements as always being more rigorous. Of course, there has been a strong ten-

dency toward higher educational requirements with a recent flurry of legislative activity

concerning the regulation, licensing, and education mandated for private security.37 The

perception that only public policing has erudite training is fundamentally flawed.

310 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Another rationale often espoused by the public sector, which justifies its lack of com-

munication, is functional separation. Some see no benefits to communication because

of distinct occupational roles. The perception that private security protects only those

interests that are strictly private is incorrect. Consider Table 7.5,38 which charts the pub-

lic functions performed by the private justice sector.

Table 7.5 Sites with Experience in Private Provision of Protection Services

State Jurisdiction Type of Service

Alaska Anchorage Parking meter enforcement

Parking meter collection

Parking lot security

Arizona State Parking lot enforcement

Flagstaff School crossing guards

Maricopa County Building security

Phoenix Crowd control

California Federal U.S. Department of Energy facility security

Hawthorns Traffic control during peak hours

Los Angeles Patrol streets surrounding private university

Traffic and security for special events

Los Angeles County Building security

Park security

Norwalk Park security

San Diego Housing project security

Park security

San Francisco Building security

Santa Barbara Airport security

Prison transport

Colorado Denver Building security

Fort Collins Building security

Connecticut Hartford Sport arena security

Florida Dade County Courts, building security

Fort Lauderdale Airport, building security

Pensacola Airport security

St. Petersburg Park security

Hawaii State Parking lot enforcement

Idaho State Regional medical center security

Idaho Falls School crossing guards

Kentucky Lexington Housing project security

Massachusetts Boston Hospital, courts, library security—city

Library security—federal

Nevada Federal Nuclear test site security

New Jersey Sport Authority Sports arena security

New York State Response to burglar alarms in state office

Buffalo County security—federal

(Continued)

Chapter 7 • Public and Private Law Enforcement 311

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Those asserting a limited public role for private security inaccurately portray the

industry. Private security personnel have willingly taken on, been legislatively granted,

or freely pursued these traditionally public functions:

• Community protection and services

• Public housing protection

• Parking authority control and security

• Enforcement of motor vehicle laws

• Natural resource activities

• Waterways and port services

• Air and rail protection

• Animal control

• Court security

• Governmental office security

• Private prisons

• Code violation inspectors

• Special event security

• Governmental investigations

Table 7.5 Sites with Experience in Private Provision of Protection Services—Cont’d

State Jurisdiction Type of Service

New York City Security compounds for towed cars

Shelter security

Human Resources Administration security

Building security

Locate cars with outstanding tickets

Arrests for retail store theft

Management training, police

Campus security

Pennsylvania State Unemployment offices security

Welfare offices security

Philadelphia Parking enforcement

Pittsburgh Court security—federal

Patrol city park

High school stadium security

School crossing guards

Transfer of prisoners

Texas Dallas/Fort Worth

Houston

Airport security including baggage checking Building security

Utah State Building security

Training for transit police

Washington Seattle

Tacoma

Building security

Sports arena security

Washington, D.C. District of Columbia Federal Planning and management

building security

312 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

The call for cooperation and professional interchange is earnest and well grounded.

Professional associations and groups such as the American Society for Industrial

Security have formulated liaison committees. Additionally, the International Association

of Chiefs of Police has emphasized the unique capacities of the security industry, stating

that it should be viewed as a complement to public law enforcement.39 Even the current

structure and bureaucratic makeup of the Department of Homeland Security includes

a Private Sector Commission that is considered a significant contributor in the war

on terror.40

There can be little dispute that privatization of public services or contracting out

a government responsibility to private employers is a major trend. Not unexpectedly,

much of this activity has been viewed with distrust and apprehension, particularly from

those authorities that intend to ensure the vested interest of police. The Hallcrest Report

I notes that this type of bickering and failure to communicate borders on the inane. The

interest of the public will be better served through “constructive dialogue and creative

planning by law enforcement and private security to facilitate contracting out of certain

non-crime activities.”41 The report further notes that energy, time, and resources are

being wasted in this debate and “could be better utilized in identifying areas for contract-

ing out and developing tightly prescribed contract specifications of performance.” 42

The momentum of privatization makes public reticence to private sector justice even

more unjustified. “But the trick to privatization is not only lowering costs, but also

maintaining quality of service—particularly when the service in question is security.”43

The transference of public obligation to private interest is a trend likely to continue.

See Table 7.6.44

The failure of public and private policing to communicate undermines and

hinders the social order. Public law enforcement, in its own ignorance of the processes

and functions of private law enforcement, simply chooses to disregard the reality of

its professional counterpart. In the same vein, private security, particularly through its

own internal decision making, management, and personnel practices, has done

little to dissuade its reputation that it is a business first and foremost. As one commen-

tator states:

Table 7.6 Possibility of Transferring Responsibility to Private Security

Activity Law Enforcement

Executives Proprietary Security

Managers Contract Security

Managers

Responding to burglar alarms 57% 69% 68%

Preliminary investigations 40% 88% 68%

Completing incident reports

(a) victim declines prosecution;

for insurance purposes only

68% 87% 66%

(b) misdemeanors 45% 81% 63%

Supplemental case reports 38% 78% 63%

Transporting citizen arrests 35% 32% 38%

Chapter 7 • Public and Private Law Enforcement 313

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Many problems are constant and intractable while the barriers remain; solutions

become possible only as they fall away. Familiar roles are exchanged for others less

accustomed. The experience is designed expressly to give practical insight into the

domain and responsibility of others. It is a sobering feeling to have once in a while

the privilege of walking a mile in someone else’s moccasins. It is hoped that these

shared experiences may be carried over into the day-to-day realities of professional

life and provide a positive inspiration for cooperation and understanding.45

Failure of both the public and private justice systems to communicate and cooperate

is a staggering loss of human and professional resources. The Private Security Advisory

Council revealed an exceptionally low level of interaction between the public and pri-

vate sectors. Its more salient findings included the following:

1. Less than one-half had conducted a survey to find out how many and what types of

private security agencies operated in their areas;

2. Only one-third of the agencies stated that they had an office or officer to provide

liaison with private security;

3. Only 25 percent of the agencies had policies or procedures for defining working roles

of law enforcement in private security;

4. Only 25 percent had policies covering interchange of information with private

security;

5. Less than 20 percent had procedures for cooperative actions with private security.46

The lack of cooperation and communication negatively impacts both systems, as evi-

dent in Table 7.7. 47

Both law enforcement and the private security industry have a moral and legal obli-

gation to open channels of communication and to cooperate professionally. To maintain

the current relationship is debilitating to efforts to reduce criminality and assure a safer

world. The continued practice of turf protection, stereotyping, and prejudicial analysis

benefits no one. As Kobetz and Cooper relate:

As soon as the essential unity of a mission is perceived and accepted, the special diffi-

culties of responsibility and approach can be studied in detail. For too long, the other

side—our common antisocial enemy—has seen matters in terms of “them versus us,”

is it not time that we, the public and the private providers of security, truly end this

and in a practical and professional fashion begin to think of “us versus them”? 48

Positive Programs on Interaction and Cooperation The best remedy for the unfortunate divide between the public and private justice

model is success by cooperation and integration.49 Instead of diverse worlds, there need

be the forging of a solid professional alliance. Public and private needs see each system

314 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

as distinct yet complimentary, unique yet dedicated to a similar mission. “While healthy

competition and fraternal camaraderie are still in the distant future, the likelihood that

more and more local police departments will recognize the hidden wealth that lies in

police private security relations seems closer than ever.”50 To accomplish the objective

of mutual cooperation and communication, certain goals, objectives, and responsibil-

ities have to be met. Daniel E. McElory, in his article “A Professional Alliance,” holds

the following to be essential:

• Recognize certain prescribed standards of performance, education and high level of

professional competence of individuals entering the field or presently employed in

the industry.

• Encourage the use of sound practices, principles of security and loss prevention.

• Promote mutual respect, cooperation, and communication between both sectors as

well as increasing the knowledge of each other’s functions.

• Speak in a unified voice on issues that promote the industry at large.

• Stress and promote programs designed for increasing professional development at all

levels of employment.

• Work to establish liaisons wherever possible that will serve to benefit the entire industry.

• Pursue a program of true professionalism in thought, word, and deed. 51

Table 7.7 Private Security Perceptions of Law Enforcement Cooperation on Criminal Incidents/Assistance Calls

Security Managers Degree of Law Enforcement Cooperation Proprietary Contract

Don’t cooperate

Cooperative reluctantly

Cooperate fully

Interfere with private security investigation

Withhold needed information

23%

71%

N ¼ 676

33%

34%

15%

N ¼ 545 Security Employees

Law Enforcement Response to Assistance Requests Proprietary Contract

Respond promptly

Respond slowly

Depends on situation

Have never called police

59%

32%

35%

10%

36%

19%

Law Enforcement Support for Security Employee Decisions

Support decisions

Do not support

Sometimes support

N/R

75%

11%

13%

N ¼ 110

52%

23%

22%

N ¼ 78

Chapter 7 • Public and Private Law Enforcement 315

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Factionalism is surely not a fixed state for either side of the policing model. What

appears more likely on the horizon is the recognition that these are two armies

operating under one flag. The present landscape has many a story to tell about how

these two theaters work in unity. For a sampling of these partnerships, see Appendix 4.

These are the true success stories in the life of private security—the ones where public

and private work as comrades in arms.52

n n n

Review the current state of partnering between the public and private sector at http://www

.ilj.org/publications/docs/Operation_Partnership_Private_Security.pdf.

n n n

College and Municipal Police Forces

The cooperation exhibited between city or municipal police and college and university

security forces is a long-standing example of how these two worlds can effectively

cooperate. William Bess, director of campus safety at Bowling Green State University,

and Galen Ash, director at the Bowling Green Police Department, feel confident that

they have mastered the art of interaction by identifying the essential elements in the

recipe for successful cooperation:

1. Mutual assistance agreement

2. Support from the courts

3. Shared training programs

4. Efficient communications (technical)

5. Ongoing administrative working relations

6. Police/advisory committee participation

7. Shared crime prevention programs

8. Cooperative investigations and sharing of information

9. College educational programs

10. Informal daily contacts.53

At Bowling Green, the private and public police model overcomes the preconceptions

and caricatures so often applied to each model. Both parties indicate that rhetoric is

easy, but activities that are planned and concerted are the elixirs that smooth over the

distrustful state of affairs. The interaction between public and private security, especially

between college and university departments and the city or municipalities in which they

are located, is an ongoing departmental obligation. The National Association of College

and University Business Officers affirms the need for continuing interplay:

The security department must be largely self-sufficient, but able to work harmoni-

ously with other institutional departments. It should also maintain effective liaison

with other law enforcement agencies, the courts, the prosecuting agencies and the

316 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

press. It is also advisable that the local chief of police be informed of public func-

tions to be held at the institution, so that he may be prepared to assist if necessary.54

n n n

Find out about the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Association at

http://www.iaclea.org/visitors/about.

n n n

Not all relationships are born from good will. For example, at both the University of

Pennsylvania and Temple University, the cost cutting of once public police forces

erected a newer private sector model, which has resulted in efforts to unionize the

private guard force. Allied Barton, the replacement company, has been met with severe

labor organizing activities that reflect disgruntlement. On October 10, 2010, the private

force voted to unionize.55

The influence of private sector policing on college campuses is multidimensional.

With the implementation of new federal legislation on the reporting of the campus

crime rate, under the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act of 1990, 56

private

sector justice computes the crime data. Campuses are required to collect and publish

the following data:

(A) A statement of current campus policies regarding procedures and facilities

for students and others to report criminal actions or other emergencies

occurring on campus and policies concerning the institution’s response to

such reports.

(B) A statement of current policies concerning security and access to campus facilities,

including campus residences, and security considerations used in the maintenance

of campus facilities.

(i) the law enforcement authority of campus security personnel;

(ii) the working relationship of campus security personnel with State and local law

enforcement agencies, including whether the institution has agreements with

such agencies, such as written memoranda of understanding, for the

investigation of alleged criminal offenses; and

(iii) policies which encourage accurate and prompt reporting of all crimes to the

campus police and the appropriate law enforcement agencies.

(D) A description of the type and frequency of programs designed to inform students

and employees about campus security procedures and practices and to encourage

students and employees to be responsible for their own security and the security of

others.

(E) A description of programs designed to inform students and employees about the

prevention of crimes.

Chapter 7 • Public and Private Law Enforcement 317

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

(F) Statistics concerning the occurrence on campus, in or on non-campus buildings or

property, and on public property during the most recent calendar year, and during

the 2 preceding calendar years for which data are available—

(i) of the following criminal offenses reported to campus security authorities or

local police agencies:

(I) murder;

(II) sex offenses, forcible or non-forcible;

(III) robbery;

(IV) aggravated assault;

(V) burglary;

(VI) motor vehicle theft;

(VII) manslaughter;

(VIII) arson; and

(IX) arrests or persons referred for campus disciplinary action for liquor law

violations, drug-related violations, and weapons possession; and

(ii) of the crimes described in sub clauses (I) through (VIII) of clause (i), of larceny-

theft, simple assault, intimidation, and destruction, damage, or vandalism of

property, and of other crimes involving bodily injury to any person, in which the

victim is intentionally selected because of the actual or perceived race, gender,

religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability of the victim that are reported

to campus security authorities or local police agencies, which data shall be

collected and reported according to category of prejudice. (G) A statement of policy concerning the monitoring and recording through local police

agencies of criminal activity at off-campus student organizations which are recognized

by the institution and that are engaged in by students attending the institution,

including those student organizations with off-campus housing facilities.

(H) A statement of policy regarding the possession, use, and sale of alcoholic beverages

and enforcement of State underage drinking laws and a statement of policy

regarding the possession, use, and sale of illegal drugs and enforcement of Federal

and State drug laws and a description of any drug or alcohol abuse education

programs as required under section 1011i of this title.

(I) A statement advising the campus community where law enforcement agency

information provided by a State under section 14071(j) of Title 42, concerning

registered sex offenders may be obtained, such as the law enforcement office of the

institution, a local law enforcement agency with jurisdiction for the campus, or a

computer network address.

(J) A statement of current campus policies regarding immediate emergency response

and evacuation procedures, including the use of electronic and cellular

communication (if appropriate), which policies shall include procedures to—

(i) immediately notify the campus community upon the confirmation of a significant

emergency or dangerous situation involving an immediate threat to the health or

safety of students or staff occurring on the campus, as defined in paragraph (6),

unless issuing a notification will compromise efforts to contain the emergency;

318 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

(ii) publicize emergency response and evacuation procedures on an annual basis in

a manner designed to reach students and staff; and

(iii) test emergency response and evacuation procedures on an annual basis.57

The International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administration (IACLEA)

has been a major implementer of the new policy. While the reporting requirements are

administratively cumbersome, the “law has, however, delivered some good. Besides

placating many victims’ rights groups, it directs attention toward campus security with

real and positive impact. As prospective students focus more on crime statistics as

criteria for choosing a college, campuses will tend to beef up onsite security programs

by specifying integrated access control, communications, and monitoring systems in

dormitories, classrooms, parking lots, and other facilities.”58 Local police departments,

as well as state entities, increasingly rely on this information.

Crime is a growing reality on college campuses, as is the paucity of funds to control

and eradicate it. Universities and colleges are increasingly looking to the private sector

to deliver safety and security on campus. Allied Barton is entrusted with the University

of Pennsylvania, works closely with the Philadelphia Police Department, and delivers a

wide array of services to the educational community including the following:

• Campus Fire Safety

• Evacuation Planning

• Drug and Alcohol Abuse

• Domestic Abuse

• High Risk/Confrontational Situation Management

• Clery Act

• Access Control

• Lock-outs and Vehicle Assists

• Campus Escort Services

• Residential Life Security

• Campus Emergency Preparedness

Other companies are major players in the delivery of law enforcement services, and all

of these entities work closely and cooperatively with public law enforcement.

Transit and Municipal Police Forces

In the areas of transit, transportation systems, and other public facilities from airports to

bus stations, the role of private sector justice is clearly evident. Transit systems are often

large and complicated and present serious and significant security challenges for

security professionals.

n n n

See how the Sacramento California Transit system utilizes both public and private police in

the operation of its system at http://www.sacrt.com/lightrail.stm#Security.

n n n

Chapter 7 • Public and Private Law Enforcement 319

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Some transit systems, such as the city of Los Angeles and its five surrounding

counties, employ full-time transit police to oversee the safety of its operations.59 Cou-

pling a massive metropolitan area with a highly visible bus and transit service provides

opportune laboratory conditions to test public/private cooperation. So sophisticated is

the interaction between the private transit police and the surrounding city of Los

Angeles and counties that in 1982 Los Angeles County was awarded a grant of

$375,000 for the purposes of “hiring off-duty local police officers to work on a part-time

basis.”60 The benefits of the program over the years since its inception have been many

and include a massive infusion of manpower, which has resulted in a decline of violent

criminality in transit locations.61 The intangible and indirect benefits of interaction and

cooperation seem to be held in the highest regard. Harry Buzz, then assistant chief of the

Transit Police Department, has written:

The indirect benefits include development of working relationships between

members of our local enforcement agencies. The part-time officers have gained

respect for the professionalism of our department which they take back to their

own agency. They have become more sensitized to transit crime and can, while

working with their primary agency, handle unique transit related problems with

confidence.

Transit police officers have benefited from the exposure to highly trained and

experienced officers of other agencies. Also, since transit police officers patrol most

streets in Los Angeles County, especially the high crime areas, they are frequently

called upon to provide backup to local jurisdictions. This is particularly true in

the city of Los Angeles where [the Los Anglese Police Department, LAPD] is operating

with extremely limited personnel resources. On many of these occasions, the officer

being assisted has worked part time for our department and the other officers know

each other.62

Aside from these remarkable benefits, the transit-LAPD experiment has dramatically

increased the public’s perception of safety. That, of course, is the greatest benefit of any

policing process whether public or private.63 Other transit programs which utilize

private sector entities and officers include Seattle, Washington, Milwaukee, Wisconsin,

and Phoenix, Arizona.

n n n

Review the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Guide on security guidelines for mass transit

at http://transit-safety.volpe.dot.gov/publications/security/PlanningGuide.pdf.

n n n

While in many cases interaction and cooperation between public and private law

enforcement is impeded by an atmosphere of distrust and elitism, these examples indi-

cate the capacity to change and to benefit from mutual dedication.

320 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Private Security Industry and Law Enforcement Agencies

Public and private policing have a significant relational history. At the federal level,

various agencies of government, from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to

the military branches, have come to heavily depend upon the services of private sector

justice. As the Bureau of Justice Assistance notes in its Engaging Private Security to

Promote Homeland Security, private sector justice can jump in with feet first. Private

security can do the following:

• Coordinate plans with the public sector regarding evacuation, transportation, and

food services during emergencies.

• Gain information from law enforcement regarding threats and crime trends.

• Develop relationships so that private practitioners know whom to contact when they

need help or want to report information.

• Build law enforcement understanding of corporate needs (e.g., confidentiality).

• Boost law enforcement’s respect for the security field. 64

The entire mission of homeland security presumes cooperation and alliances. Even

the president’s guiding mission statement on the defense of this nation notes:

We will help ensure that the Federal Government works with states and local

governments, and the private sector as close partners in a national approach to

prevention, mitigation, and response.65

In homeland defense, the private sector justice model achieves extraordinary benefits

for the collective. According to the Homeland Security Research Corporation, by 2011

the private sector “will trail only DHS in HLS industry procurement volume. This stems

from the forecasted 50% private sector procurement growth from 2007–2011, totaling an

accumulated $28.5B.”66 The face of private sector justice can be discovered across the

DHS spectrum; from privatized forces seeking out terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan to

the protection of federal installations across the mainland, private sector justice makes

extraordinary contributions in the defense of the country.67

This same mentality extends to both states and localities. Each of these entities seeks

the promotion of safety and security by mutually agreed upon responsibilities and the

appropriate delegation of power and authority to those properly entrusted. Public and

private police must work together since the benefits are so measurable. Partnerships

advance

• Creative problem solving,

• Increased training opportunities,

• Information, data, and intelligence sharing,

• Force multiplier opportunities,

• Access to the community through private sector communications technology, and

• Reduced recovery time following disasters. 68

Chapter 7 • Public and Private Law Enforcement 321

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Another successful forging between public and private security forces is between the

city of Amarillo, Texas, and a private security company Allstate Security Industries,

Inc. The president of Allstate and the chief of the Amarillo Police Department recognize

that mutual cooperation benefits both departments. Commencing in August 1981, both

entities devised a program whereby Allstate Security would begin responding to all

alarm calls. In reviewing the findings of an internal study, the department revealed that

“this procedure relieved the police department of the time consuming responsibility of

answering an average of 8 alarms per day and saved the Department approximately

3,428 man hours, or the equivalent of adding 13/4 men per year to their police depart-

ment. All of this was at no cost to the taxpayers.”69 The results of such mutual coopera-

tion are advantageous from an economic as well as a human point of view. As Allstate

continues to pursue alarm calls, the policy frees up other public officers to perform

more critical functions relating to investigative and apprehension processes. As it

spreads out the many responsibilities, the policy reduces the stress level in the entire

department and builds or affirms goodwill between the department, the security

company, and the public at large. Given the success of this relationship, the program

of mutual cooperation was expanded to include a neighborhood patrol program and

a canine program. Current internal studies of these activities indicate a positive

outcome.70

In the early 1980s, Washington State embarked on an ambitious joint endeavor

between the public and private sector entitled the Washington Law Enforcement

Executive Forum (WLEEF). “Membership is composed of 26 individuals equally divided

between the private sector and law enforcement executives, including sheriffs, chiefs,

the state patrol chief, and special agents in charge of the Seattle offices of the FBI and

Secret Service, as well as representation from the state attorney general’s office. Close

relationship and open communication exist between the WLEEF and the Washington

Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs.”71 WLEEF’S achievements include the

following:

• funding a statewide loan executive program to enhance management of local police

agencies;

• providing support for the Law Enforcement Executive Journal, the nation’s first law

enforcement/business publication;

• support computer crime control legislation;

• funding and developing a state-wide toll-free hotline for reporting drunk drivers;

• sponsoring legislation for regulation and training of private security personnel;

• promoting a Business Watch program to prevent crimes against businesses; and

• creating an Economic Crime Task Force;

• to assess the nature and extent of white-collar crime in the state,

• to develop strategies to reduce such crime,

• to promote appropriate legislative initiatives and revisions, and

• to collect and disseminate information on economic crime. 72

322 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

More recently, WLEEF has been an active participant in the state’s 1991 legislation

on the regulation and licensing of the private security industry. This joint endeavor

produced a variety of positive results, including these:

1. The philosophical and operational “gap” between public law enforcement and

private security is not nearly as wide as often imagined.

2. Competitive security companies can work well together for legitimate common

causes, such as training.

3. A high-quality training program can be put together in a short four-hour block.

4. Good communication between government and the security industry can go a long

way toward making a licensing law workable and meaningful.

5. There are a lot of community resources available for training.73

n n n

Visit WLEEF’S webpage at http://www.wastatesecuritycouncil.org/about.html.

n n n

WLEEF, by and through its Operation Cooperation program, educates both ends of

the justice spectrum on the benefits of cooperation. It designates particular structures

and goals as well for the public-private consortium and delineates how intimate, how

formal or informal, these associations might be. Calling these partnerships, WLEEF finds

plenty of room for distinctive relationships:

Degree of formality. Some programs are formal, incorporated ventures, such as 501(c)

(3) nonprofits; others are merely “clubs” with bylaws and officers; while others are

completely informal.

Specificity of mission. Some exist to solve specific problems, while others are general-

purpose, networking organizations.

Leadership. Some collaborative programs are led by law enforcement, others by the

private sector, and still others jointly by both fields.

Funding. Some programs have no budget, while others are well funded. There are

many models for funding. For example, a partnership may receive money from

participating organizations (including police agencies), from sponsors, or from police

foundations or crime commissions.

Inclusiveness. A partnership may be a collaboration between law enforcement and

private security or between law enforcement and the larger business sector, including

more than security operations. On the law enforcement side, collaboration may

include not only municipal police and sheriffs, but also state and federal law

enforcement officers and school district and campus police. Cooperation also can be

arranged between a single company and the local police department or between a

federal agency and businesses throughout the country.74

WLEEF continues its aggressive promotion of cooperation between the public and

private sector by laying out the essential ways in which these two worlds can cooperate.

Chapter 7 • Public and Private Law Enforcement 323

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

In the final analysis, mutual cooperation, respect and a passionate orientation toward

professionalism all lead to safer communities. James A. Kirkley, then director of the

Department of Public Safety at the Claremont Colleges in Claremont, California,

critiques the traditional separation of authority and power:

It is now time for a total community effort. The high percentage of non-crime calls

for service, the percentage of non-observable crimes, and the fiscal constraints

placed upon you, make it ludicrous to expect the public police alone to be respon-

sible for reducing crimes.

Teamwork has long been recognized as an essential ingredient in winning. It is

used in all sports, war, business, and even in police work. . . .

The time has come for the public sector and the private sector in law enforcement

to work as a team.75

The consensus building for continual interaction and cooperation between the public

and private sector has come of age.

Recommendations

National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice

Most professional associations, groups, think tanks, and institutes stress the essentiality

of cooperation between the public and private sectors. Most issue unequivocal recom-

mendations on the sensibility of working closely for a similar goal and cause. The

National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, in its Report of

the Task Force on Private Security, urges significant interaction and close cooperation.

The report concludes:

Over the past decade, the resources devoted to both public law enforcement and the

private security industry have increased as the awareness of the need for greater

crime prevention and control has grown. National leaders have called upon every

private citizen, institution, and business to join their efforts with the criminal

justice system to prevent crime. Although a closer cooperation between the private

security and public law enforcement spheres offers a special opportunity for

improved crime prevention, the relationship has often been ignored, overlooked or

restrained. Recently, however, the potential of that meaningful working relationship

between law enforcement and private security has been recognized.76

Theoretical concerns aside, practical, pragmatic considerations justify and even com-

pel a policy of interaction. As this work has delved into the complex legal and policy

questions involved in private security, one striking, recurring observation occurs—that

for all the clamor about the differences of public and private security, there is really very

little difference between the two entities. Therefore, the limitations and hesitations

about a unified purpose are largely the result of hyperbole and exaggerated positions.

324 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

The National Advisory Committee enunciated specific standards, steadfastly

encouraging cooperation, mutual respect, and regular interaction. Stated as specific

goals, the report recommends:

Goal 6.1: Interaction Policies

Effective interaction between the private security industry and law enforcement

agencies is imperative for successful crime prevention and depends to a large extent

on published clear and understandable policies developed by their administrators.

Policies should be developed to serve as guides for modification by appropriate

agencies.77

Goal 6.2: Survey and Liaison with Private Security

Law enforcement agencies should conduct a survey and maintain a current roster of

those security industry components operating in the agencies’ jurisdictions, and

designate at least one staff officer to serve as liaison with them. 78

Goal 6.3: Policy and Procedures

For law enforcement agencies and the private security industry to most effectively

work within the same jurisdiction, policies and procedures should be developed

covering:

(a) the delineation of working roles of law enforcement officers and private security

personnel;

(b) the continuous prompt and reasonable interchange of information; and

industry.79

Goal 6.4: Multi-Level Law Enforcement Training in Private Security

There should be a multi-level training program for public law enforcement officials,

including but not limited to:

1. Role and mission of the private security industry;

2. Legal status and types of services provided by private service companies;

3. Interchange of information, crime reporting, and cooperative actions with the

industry; and

4. Orientation in technical and operational procedures.80

Goal 6.5: Mistaken Identity of Private Security Personnel

Title, terms, verbal representations, and visual items that cause the public to mistake

private security personnel for law enforcement officers should be eliminated; security

employers should ensure that their personnel and equipment are easily distinguishable

from public law enforcement personnel and equipment.81

Goal 6.6: State Regulation of Private Security, Uniforms, Equipment and Job Titles

Each state should develop regulations covering use and wear of private

security uniforms, equipment, company names and personnel titles that do not

conflict with those in use by law enforcement agencies within the state.82

Goal 6.7: Law Enforcement Personnel Secondary Employment

Law enforcement administrators should insure that secondary employment of public

law enforcement personnel in the private security industry does not create a conflict

of interest and that public resources are not used for private purposes.83

Chapter 7 • Public and Private Law Enforcement 325

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Goal 6.8: Law Enforcement Officer Employment as a Security Manager

No law enforcement officer should be a principal or a manager of a private security

operation where such an association creates a conflict of interest.84

Goal 6.9: Private Investigatory Work

Law enforcement officers should be strictly forbidden from performing any

investigatory work.85

The National Advisory Committee approaches the dilemma on multiple fronts. First,

in order to ensure a cooperative environment between public and private sectors, it har-

kens for continuous and regular interaction and calls for the creation of a liaison officer

and other committees to facilitate the interchange between public and private factions.

The committee also urges the elimination of all conflict of interest situations, especially

as relates to moonlighting and industrial involvement where either an actual or a per-

ceived conflict might exist. Finally, the committee, while insisting on mutual respect

and emulation of each other’s tasks and duties, reminds the private sector that it cannot

be copycat police officers and should not hold itself out, whether by uniform, badge, or

other representation, as operating under the authority of the state or municipality where

it is located. Such actions foster potential abuse and cause confusion in the public eye.

n n n

The Private Sector Office frequently lends its business expertise when evaluating particular

security procedures such as air safety. See: http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/research/programs/ifs/

DHS-OTTI_PilotStudyReport_v7-FINAL.pdf.

n n n

The Hallcrest Report

The Hallcrest Report I accepts the fact that private security has “got its head together

and found its purpose in life.” Its recommendations now insist on a more proactive

and participatory role in the elimination, prevention, and detection of criminality in

society. Some of the following recommendations attest to this philosophical direction:

• Private security should be involved in community crime prevention. 86

• Private security should be participants in the development of an Economic Crime

Institute.87

• Private security should be required, through its associations, to develop crime loss

reporting data and information. 88

• Private industrial security firms should formulate employee awareness programs and

specific corporate policies on business, business ethics, and crime.89

• Private security concerns should be involved in strategic planning, alternative policing

arrangements, and the transfer of selected police activities to the private sector.90

• Private security should provide the resources necessary to design a Private Security

Resource Institute.91

• Private security should establish standard industrial classifications. 92

326 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

• Private security should have total access to criminal histories. 93

• Private security should be permitted to achieve an identity through uniforms and

appropriate advertising.94

• Private security should develop the capacity to transfer its technology to the public sector. 95

• Private security should support efforts to standardize qualifications, educational

training, and certification.96

• Private security should provide educational opportunities for public law enforcement

officials.97

• Private security should establish a task force of police and private security personnel

for various purposes.98

As propounded earlier, these recommendations call for a more active involvement in

crime prevention, deterrence, and apprehension than traditionally has been expected.

Private security as an industry can no longer expect to be insulated from either the gov-

ernment’s regulatory process or public scrutiny. As the role of private security expands,

both legally and socially, new responsibilities and obligations must be tackled. Given the

high rate of public dissatisfaction over the performance of the public police systems, pri-

vate police should view increased demands as a sign of confidence. The world’s overall

complexity makes it likely that security is here to stay and flourish. “The world has

shrunk and most industries now face global competition. Businesses are not only

concerned with the ethics and mores of a domestic environment, but must now deal

with the values of a dynamic world market. Vast new technologies in communications

have placed enormous pressures on businesses to protect their data and the assets that

pass through these technologies.”99 Public policing, with its numerous restrictions and

difficulties, can only envy the private police process.

The Private Sector Office of the Department of Homeland Security

Aside from professional associations, think tanks, and other groups, the future for the

private sector will be bound tightly to the activities of the DHS. From its earliest days,

when it was referred to as the Office of Homeland Security, the National Strategy

for Homeland Security,100 states that the role of private security and public law enforce-

ment in terrorism planning and detection was to be a “close partnership.”101 Federal

spending “on anti-terror since 9/11 has tripled.102. . . Estimates of private sector direct

spending on increased security range from $10 billion to $127 billion.”103 Presidential

executive orders since 9/11 repeatedly encourage cooperation between the two sectors

in infrastructure, critical cybercrimes, incident response, and maritime and health pol-

icy.104 The Bureau of Justice Assistance in the Department of Justice urges the creation

of partnerships between the public and private sector. To be a successful partnership,

12 essential components are needed:

• Common goals

• Common tasks

Chapter 7 • Public and Private Law Enforcement 327

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

• Knowledge of participating agencies’ capabilities and missions

• Well-defined projected outcomes

• A timetable

• Education for all involved

• A tangible purpose

• Clearly identified leaders

• Operational planning

• Agreement by all partners as to how the partnership will proceed

• Mutual commitment to providing necessary resources

• Assessment and reporting 105

DHS formally encourages these sorts of arrangements. Throughout DHS policy

making is the perpetual recognition that it cannot go it alone and that it needs the daily

cooperation of the private sector. Within its Office of Policy, DHS has erected a Private

Sector Office, its chief aims being as follows:

• To engage individual businesses, trade associations, and other nongovernmental

organizations to foster dialogue with the department;

• To advise the secretary on prospective policies and regulations and in many cases on

their economic impact;

• To promote public-private partnerships and best practices to improve the nation’s

homeland security; and

• To promote department policies to the private sector.

Outreach by both sectors is critical to partnering success, though DHS appears to expect

the first initiative from the public sector.

n n n

Visit the Private Sector Office of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at http://www

.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1166220191042.shtm.

n n n

Summary This chapter pragmatically examines the current cooperative programs between public

and private law enforcement. While efforts to stress the commonality of interest between

private and public justice are ongoing, there are still glaring differences regarding legal

authority, rights, and obligations. There have been judicial and social efforts to extend

constitutional protections to private justice. While numerous attempts have been made

to color the activities of private policing as a state action or a governmental exercise,

which in turn affords more significant constitutional protections to the aggrieved suspect,

no permanent bridge has yet been built. Private security, for all of its shortcomings, still

has the upper hand procedurally when compared to the restraints of public policing.

Much of the chapter was concerned with the distinct, yet complementary functional

approaches to crime prevention, deterrence, and policy interests of the public and

328 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

private sectors, requirements in training and other qualifications, and a critical review of

stereotypic and prejudicial perceptions of both law enforcement interests. In the final

analysis, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the public/private

division is more an exercise in human prejudice than in logic or knowledge. Public/

private cooperation would be an intelligent exercise of combined resources to combat

criminality in American society. Examples of the cooperation between college and

municipal police departments, private transit police forces, and other private/public

joint ventures were presented. While these examples are not scientifically probative,

they are illustrative success stories.

Finally, recommendations from the National Committee on Criminal Justice

Standards and Goals as well as the findings of the Hallcrest Reports I and II and the

Private Sector Office of the Department of Homeland Security were covered in depth.

The private security industry’s involvement in public justice activities, tasks, and obliga-

tions signals increased responsibility for the industry and demands it to be a major

contributor and policymaker in the elimination of crime and a safer world.

Discussion Questions 1. Offer a few recommendations on how to improve the interaction of private police

and public law enforcement.

2. Do police and private security have any common interests?

3. Does private sector justice have a moral or egalitarian purpose?

4. In your jurisdiction, are there any examples of mutual cooperation between public

and private law enforcement?

5. What are some drawbacks of having a state or local police commission exercising

regulatory oversight over the private security industry?

6. Pose three suggestions on how to equalize the status of public and private law

enforcement.

7. Would it be feasible for state or other governmental regulators to require the security

industry to donate time to assist public law enforcement in public order or public

safety activities?

Notes 1. Arthur J. Bilek, James C. Klotter, & R. Keegan Federal, Legal Aspects of Private Security 180 (1980);

James Pastor, Security Law and Methods (2006); James F. Pastor, Terrorism and Public Safety Polic- ing: Implications for the Obama Presidency (2009).

2. National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Private Security: Report of the Task Force on Private Security (1976); see also Operation Cooperation, Guidelines for Partner- ships Between Law Enforcement & Private Security Organizations 11 (2000).

3. National Advisory Committee, supra note 2, at 2; see also Operation Cooperation, supra note 2.

Chapter 7 • Public and Private Law Enforcement 329

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

4. William C. Cunningham & Todd H. Taylor, Private Security and Police in America (1986); see also Experts Salute Public & Private Sectors on Crime Reduction Collaboration, Security Letter, July 8, 2002; Chris A. Bradford & Clifford A. Simonsen, The Need for Cooperative Efforts between Private Security and Public Law Enforcement in the Prevention, Investigation, and Prosecution of Fraud- Related Criminal Activity, 10 Security J. 161 (1998).

5. William C. Cunningham, John J. Strauchs, & Clifford W. VanMeter, Private Security Trends 1970 to 2000: The Hallcrest Report II 116 (1990); see also Operation Cooperation, supra note 2.

6. Cunningham et al., supra note 5, at 120; see also Operation Cooperation, supra note 2.

7. Cunningham et al., supra note 5, at 118.

8. Bill Strudel, The Private Security Connection: Giving the Police a Sense of Security, Police Chief, Feb. 1982, at 28-29; Law Commission of Canada, In Search of Security: The Roles of Public Police and Private Agencies (2002); George S. Rigakos, The New Parapolice (2002).

9. 2001 Industry Forecast, Security Mag., Chart 2 (2001).

10. Cunningham et al., supra note 5, at 121; see also Operation Cooperation, supra note 2.

11. International Chiefs of Police, National Policy Summit: Building Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships to Prevent and Respond to Terrorism and Public Disorder (2004), available at http:// www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/ric/Publications/national_policy_summit.pdf.

12. Cunningham et al., supra note 5, at 121.

13. International Chiefs of Police, supra note 11, at 18.

14. John E. Driscoll, Public and Private Security Forces Unite in Dallas, Police Chief, 1988, at 48; see also S. Ronald Hauri, Public-Private Security Liaison: The Synergy of Cooperation, Crime & Just. Int’l, Oct. 1997, at 16; Operation Cooperation, supra note 2.

15. Driscoll, supra note 14, at 48; see also Hauri, supra note 14.

16. Driscoll, supra note 14, at 48; see also Hauri, supra note 14.

17. Operation Cooperation, supra note 2, at 11; see also Pastor, Terrorism, supra note 1; James F. Pastor, The Privatization of Police in America: An Analysis and Case Study (2003).

18. Richard A. Lukins, Securing Training for the Guard Force, Security Mgmt., May 1976, at 32.

19. National Advisory Committee, supra note 2, at 5; see Mahesh K. Nalla & Don Hummer, Relations between Police Officers and Security Professionals: A Study of Perceptions, 12 Security J. 31 (1999).

20. National Advisory Committee, supra note 2, at 5; Hauri, supra note 14; Operation Cooperation, supra note 2, at 2-3.

21. Norman M. Spain & Gary L. Elkin, Private Security versus Law Enforcement, 16 Security World 32 (1979); see Nalla & Hummer, supra note 19; Hauri, supra note 14.

22. National Advisory Committee, supra note 2, at 5.

23. E. J. Criscuoli, Jr., Building a Professional Complement to Law Enforcement, Police Chief, 1978, at 28; see also Robert R. Rockwell, Private Guards: A Viewpoint, Security Mgmt., 1975, at 5; Nalla & Hummer, supra note 19; Hauri, supra note 14.

24. Richard W. Kobetz & H. H. A. Cooper, Two Armies: One Flag, Police Chief, 1978, at 28.

25. See generally Charles P. Nemeth, Status Report on Contemporary Criminal Justice Education (discussing education and its correlation to police professionalism) (1988).

26. Operation Cooperation, supra note 2.

27. National Advisory Committee, supra note 2, at 11.

28. Lukins, supra note 18, at 32.

29. Id.

330 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

30. Id. at 34; see also Pastor, Terrorism, supra note 1; Pastor, Privatization of Police, supra note 17.

31. See generally Private Security Advisory Council, Codes of Ethics for Private Security Management and Private Security Employees (1976); Private Security Advisory Council, Model Security Guard Training Curricula (1977); Private Security Advisory Council, Report on the Meeting of April 21-23, 1976 (1976); Nemeth, supra note 25.

32. Note, Certified Protection Security and Law Enforcement, Security Mgmt., 1980, at 75.

33. Howard C. Shook, Certified Protection Professional Progress Report, Security Mgmt., 1980, at 75.

34. Harold I. Peterson, Private Security v. Public Law Enforcement, Police Chief, 1983, at 26; see Nalla & Hummer, supra note 19; Hauri, supra note 14.

35. Peterson, supra note 34, at 27; see Nalla & Hummer, supra note 19; Hauri, supra note 14.

36. National Advisory Committee, supra note 2, at 12.

37. See Nemeth, supra note 25; see also Charles P. Nemeth, Directory of Criminal Justice Education, Including Criminology, Law and Justice Related Education (1991); Olson, A Comparison of Some Characteristics of Public and Private Security Personnel, 1 J. Security Admin. 51 (1978) (for further breakdown of the stereotypes on age, income, and educational level).

38. Cunningham et al., supra note 5, at 275-76.

39. Kobetz & Cooper, supra note 24, at 33.

40. See Charles P. Nemeth, Introduction to Homeland Security: Principles and Practice (2010); see also K. C. Poulin & Charles P. Nemeth, Private Security and Public Safety: A Community-Based Approach (2004).

41. Cunningham & Taylor, supra note 1, at 185; see Nalla & Hummer, supra note 19; Hauri, supra note 14.

42. Cunningham & Taylor, supra note 1, at 186.

43. Stephen C. George, Privatization & Integration, 29 Security 5 (1992).

44. Cunningham et al., supra note 5, at 272.

45. Cunningham & Taylor, supra note 1, at 187.

46. National Advisory Committee, supra note 2, at 14.

47. Cunningham & Taylor, supra note 1, at 196.

48. Kobetz & Cooper, supra note 24, at 32.

49. The Law Enforcement-Private Security Consortium, Operation Partnership: Trends and Practices in Law Enforcement and Private Security Collaborations (2005) http://www.ilj.org/publications/docs/ Operation_Partnership_Private_Security.pdf; see also Pastor, Terrorism, supra note 1; Pastor, Priva- tization of Police, supra note 17.

50. Harold W. Gray, Private Security—Some Comments, Police Chief, 1978, at 34; see also Bilek et al., supra note 1, at 206.

51. Daniel E. McElory, A Professional Alliance, Security World, 1979, at 34, 37-38.

52. Andrew Morabito & Sheldon Greenberg, Engaging the Private Sector To Promote Homeland Secu- rity: Law Enforcement-Private Security Partnerships(2005) at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/ 210678.pdf.

53. William R. Bess & Galen L. Ash, City/University Cooperation, Police Chief, 1982, at 42; see also Ronso, The U.S. Air Force Security Police: Is There a Civilian Counterpart? Police Chief, 1982, at 32.

54. Bess & Ash, supra note 53.

55. Fabricio Rodriguea, Philadelphia Security Officer Union, Social Policy 4, 6 (Winter 2010).

56. 20 U.S.C.A. }1092 (West 2010).

Chapter 7 • Public and Private Law Enforcement 331

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

57. 20 U.S.C.A. }1092(f) (West 2010).

58. Note, Federal Guidance Lacking as Colleges Report Crime Statistics, 30 Security 12 (1993).

59. John W. Powell, Security, 3 Coll. Univ. Bus. Admin. 5 (1974).

60. Harry Budds, Los Angeles Transit Police: A Unique Agency Taking on Unique Challenges, Police Chief, 1982, at 30.

61. Id. at 31.

62. Id.

63. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Transit Security Handbook (1998); 4 Transportation Research Board, Public Transportation Security: Intrusion Detection for Public Transportation Facilities Handbook (2004) at http://trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_86v4.pdf.

64. Bureau of Justice Assistance, Engaging the Private Sector to Promote Homeland Security: Law Enforcement-Private Security Partnerships 11 (2003).

65. The White House Web site, Homeland Security Page, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/ homeland-security.

66. Press Release, Homeland Security Research Corporation, Private Sector to Become 2nd Largest Homeland Security Industry Customer by 2011 (April 9, 2008).

67. For an examination of how these privatized practices prompt ethical concerns, see Kateri Carmola, Private Security Contractors in the Age of New Wars: Risk, Law & Ethics (2008).

68. Bureau of Justice Assistance, supra note 64, at 11.

69. Dale Pancake, The New Professionals: Cooperation between Police Departments and Private Security, Police Chief, 1983, at 34; see also James McGuire, Michael O’Mara & Albert Ware, Training: The Bridge that Connects Public and Private Police, Police Chief, 1983, at 38.

70. Pancake, supra note 69, at 35; David H. Bayley & Clifford D. Shearing, The New Structure of Polic- ing: Description, Conceptualization, and Research Agenda—NCJ 187083 (2001).

71. Cunningham et al., supra note 5, at 255.

72. Id. at 255-256.

73. Note, Private Security and Police Join Training Forces in Washington, Police Chief, Oct. 1992, at 170. Information regarding the program can be obtained from: Washington State Security Council, 6632 S. 191st Place, E-107, Kent, Washington 98032; (206) 872-2450; fax: (206) 872-1403.

74. Bureau of Justice Assistance, Operation Cooperation: Guidelines for Partnerships between Law Enforcement & Private Security Organizations 5 (2000), available at http://www.ilj.org/ publications/docs/Operation_Cooperation.pdf

75. James A. Kirkley, The Role of the Police in Private Security, Police Chief, 1982 at, 35; see Nalla & Hummer, supra note 19; Hauri, supra note 14.

76. National Advisory Committee, supra note 2.

77. National Advisory Committee, supra note 2.

78. National Advisory Committee, supra note 2, at 207.

79. National Advisory Committee, supra note 2, at 211.

80. National Advisory Committee, supra note 2, at 214.

81. National Advisory Committee, supra note 2, at 210.

82. National Advisory Committee, supra note 2, at 222.

83. National Advisory Committee, supra note 2, at 226.

84. National Advisory Committee, supra note 2, at 231.

332 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

85. National Advisory Committee, supra note 2, at 236.

86. Cunningham & Taylor, supra note 4, at 237; for a summary of the entire Report see, William C. Cunningham & Todd H. Taylor, Crime and Protection in America: A Study of Private Security and Law Enforcement Resources and Relationships, NCJ Number: 93660 (1984).

87. Cunningham & Taylor, supra note 4, at 241.

88. Cunningham & Taylor, supra note 4, at 242.

89. Cunningham & Taylor, supra note 4, at 242 (1986).

90. Cunningham & Taylor, supra note 4, at 242 (1986).

91. Cunningham & Taylor, supra note 4, at 247 (1986).

92. Cunningham & Taylor, supra note 4, at 249 (1986).

93. Cunningham & Taylor, supra note 4, at 250 (1986).

94. Cunningham & Taylor, supra note 4, at 254 (1986).

95. Cunningham & Taylor, supra note 4, at 259 (1986).

96. Cunningham & Taylor, supra note 4, at 262 (1986).

97. Cunningham & Taylor, supra note 4, at 265-266 (1986).

98. Cunningham & Taylor, supra note 4, at 271 (1986).

99. Ira S. Somerson, Preface to Security @ the Millennium, presentation at ASIS International Seminar and Exhibits, Sept. 27-29, 1999.

100. Office of Homeland Security, Office of the President, National Strategy for Homeland Security 12 (2002).

101. Id.

102. Bart Hobijn, What Will Homeland Security Cost?, Fed. Res. Bank N.Y. Econ. Pol’y Rev., Nov. 2002, at 23, available at http://www.ny.frb.org/research/epr/02v08n2/0211hobi.html.

103. Id. at 28.

104. Diane Ritchey, Public and Private Security: Bridging the Gap, Security Mag. Online, June 1, 2010, at 2, available at http://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/public-and-private-security-bridging- the-gap-1.

105. Bureau of Justice Assistance, supra note 64, at 13.

Chapter 7 • Public and Private Law Enforcement 333

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Intentionally left as blank

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed