SEC350 Civil Liability and Private Police Paper

Civil Liability

Civil Liability and Private Police Paper

Name

SEC350

Date

Professor

Civil Liability and Private Police Paper

Private police are basically for-profit security companies that hire personnel that maintain law and order and to secure the property from any loss. Private police wear uniforms, drive vehicles equipped with lights, carry weapons, and detain suspects involved in criminal behavior. The private police are confined to policing the area they have been assigned which most commonly involves banks and residential areas or public locations such as bus stations or important national monuments. Private police do not have the same authority that is provided to public police.

The private security industry in the United States now has approximately twice as many personnel as do the public police (Moore, 1987). Because there have been more cases on inexperienced security officers committing illegal acts against customers or fellow employees. Due to the position of authority a security or private police officers plays at the facility there is a great potential for excessive behavior or misconduct. Constitutional protections that are available if the act were committed by a public police officer are not available to the private security officer.

The only recourse for a private individual against reckless and wanton conduct on the part of private security personnel is a civil action, seeking compensation for the inconvenience caused or injuries received (). There are few criminal routes and less the private police officer blatantly breaks the law. Private police provide many benefits to society. They assist police in policing areas for the private citizen which relieves the workload from the public police as well as improves the level of safety in the community. The challenges that surface through the use of private police is lack of proper training that results in the rights of the citizen being violated or the citizen becoming physically or mentally harm.

Police officers hired by the public are considered public servants that are charged with protecting the citizens and their properties in a particular jurisdiction and have greater authority than the private police. On the other hand the public police officer is under greater scrutiny than the private police officer and is held to a higher standard. This has made private policing and their power over citizens to be one of the greatest concerns in security management. Private police also have similar duties to the public police officer without the same constitutional constraints. Public police officers must protect the rights of the citizen while still completing their duties.

Private police officers have similar duties to the police officer and include patrolling the area they are responsible for keeping secure, maintaining order, protecting loss of property, detaining suspects, crowd control, and securing community members from being harmed. Public police are empowered through the legislation to enforce laws while private police are not empower but restricted by legislation. The private police officer faces the same dangers that are faced by the private police officer in the field but is not provided with the same type of equipment designed to minimize the harm and keep the police officer safe.

Private police officers also do not receive the same operational support and support activities like human resource, forensic services, IT services, and policing logistics (VIJ, 2000). Private police are not empowered by law to act and they do not have same discretion that is afforded to police officers. When a private police force identifies a potential threat to the facility they are guarding they may detain the security threat but that’s where their power ends. Once a threat has been identified or detained the private security officer is obligated to call the law, however, they do not have the same constitutional restrictions as the public police.

Public police officers are obligated to protect and not intrude on the due process rights of the citizen. They cannot search the property of a suspect or interrogate them without first getting a warrant or warning the suspect of their Miranda rights while the private security officer does not have the same obligation. If a police officer were to violate the rights of a citizen any evidence that is collected would be excluded from the court process but is a private police or security officers were to break the law while doing their duties they do not have the same protections as police against prosecution and will face the full force of the law. On the other hand the private police officer can detain and restrain a suspect without evidence while the public police must first have probable cause to arrest.

The private police officer also faces civil liability when acting as the security officers for a particular private facility or governmental facility. The courts have found that companies and their security personnel have an obligation to be reasonable in their investigations of suspected criminal violations by employees and customers (VIJ, 2000). When they act with what is considered unreasonable behavior the result is potential criminal charges or civil liability. Civil liability is different from criminal liability in that the security officer and their firms would be financially responsible for any damages or harm that came to the plaintiffs.

The lack of accountability of the private police officer compared to the public police officer has resulted in false arrests, assaults, or false imprisonment. The result is the private police officer can end up charged with a crime and the private police officer and the security firm in which they work face being civilly liable. Civil law is divided into three different categories that include strict liability, intentional wrongs, and negligence. Strict liability refers to where the private police officer or the security firm is held liable to an injured party for actions that they committed that created harm. Under strict liability the defendant may not have purposely harmed the plaintiff but because of their actions they are still liable. Intentional wrongs refer to the private police officer committing an intentional act that result in harm to the plaintiff. Negligence refers to the action of the defendant causing harm to the plaintiff due to their failure to act reasonably.

If the private police officer or their security firm is found strictly liable for causing harm to the plaintiff they will be required to pay the plaintiff a settlement. This financial burden usually falls to the security firm and not the private police officer. If the act committed against the plaintiff was intentional the result will be the same but the private police officer could also be subject to criminal charges. The private police officer does not have the authority to use unnecessary force against a suspect and can only detain until the public police arrive. In negligence cases the private police officer there are three different level of negligence they could face. This includes slight, gross, or criminal. Slight or gross negligence can result in civil liability.

The potential for civil liability in the private police industry is high. In order to ensure that the employees of the private police firm do not result in criminal or civil liability the proper measures need to be in place. The first step is ensuring the security firm is in compliance with federal and state laws and regulations and private police officers are put through a rigorous training program that explain the rights of the citizens and the acts that could potentially lead to civil liability. When private police officers are not properly trained before being put into the field the public is not safe and the organization faces paying out a large sum to the untrained private security officer’s victims as well as creates damage to the security firm’s reputation.

In order to avoid potential criminal liability an effective compliance program should be implemented and a reporting system needs to be in place. Private police officers should be provided with a measure for reporting the bad behavior of other private police officers without any repercussions. Next the organization should take responsibility for the bad behavior of their private police force and take active steps to repair the damage done to the victim. If the damage to the victim is repaired the organization could bypass a civil lawsuit.

Lastly when the organization becomes alerted to any bad behavior of members of their private police force they need to conduct an investigation and take active steps to resolve the problem. A security company with a poor reputation will not be able to stay competitive or have success in the private security industry. Civil lawsuits can financially destroy an organization and result in private police officers losing their jobs. Through continuous training and the proper measures in place to mitigate liability a security organization can provide effective and well trained private police officers.

References

Moore, R. (1987). Civil Liability of Private Security. Retrieved August 19, 2012 from

http://www.springerlink.com/content/221q8u434446w740/

Vera Institute of Justice. (2000).The Public Accountability of Private Police Lessons from New

York, Johannesburg, and Mexico City. Retrieved August 20, 2012 from

http://www.vera.org/download?file=225/privatepolice.pdf