INSTRUCTOR:  Dr. William E. Thornton
OFFICE:  Stallings 124
PHONE:  (504) 865-2134
E-mail:   thornton@loyno.edu
 

I. Course Description:

    The course will attempt to integrate material from the fields of security, crime prevention and premises liability.  The plan of the course is to review key elements of security and crime prevention (and forensic criminology) and show how this material has been integrated into aspects of premises liability in legal and non-legal contexts.  Businesses, for example, seek to protect customers and other invitees from third party criminal actions by adhering to certain crime prevention strategies.  At another level, businesses who fail to provide reasonable and adequate security to their legitimate invitees run the risk of being forced to provide such security through the vehicle of civil liability.

The term security is ambiguous, and, to some people, unattractive. Some would prefer risk management or loss prevention.  However, neither of these terms adequately accounts for the myriad activities encompassed within the field of “private security.” Private security may be defined as the sum total of all preventive and protective efforts provided by entities other than public law enforcement.  We will discuss these various activities in the class exploring both the history of private security in America as well as the phenomenal growth in this industry – e.g.,  private security personnel outnumber public law enforcement about three to one at the present time.  In addition, we will review the broad field of crime prevention, an area which more or less underpins much of the field of private security and loss prevention.  Crime prevention entails any action designed to reduce the actual level of crime and/or the perceived fear of crime.  These actions are not restricted to the efforts of the criminal justice system and include activities by individuals and groups, both public and private. Just as there are many causes of crime, there are many potentially valuable approaches to crime prevention.  Crime prevention can be divided into three approaches similar to those found in public health models of disease prevention.  Each of the three areas of prevention – primary, secondary and tertiary – attack the problem at different stages of development. Primary prevention within the realm of criminal justice identifies conditions of the physical and social environment that provide opportunities for or precipitate criminal acts.  The types of prevention approaches subsumed here take a variety of forms and are located within a wide range of social organizations. Included here are environmental design, neighborhood watch, general deterrence, private security, and education about crime and crime prevention.  Secondary prevention engages in early identification of potential offenders and seeks to intervene prior to commission of illegal activity. Implicit in secondary prevention is the ability to correctly identify and predict people and situations. Perhaps the most recognizable form of secondary prevention is the idea of situational crime prevention. Tertiary prevention deals with actual offenders and involves intervention in such a fashion that they will not commit further offenses (Lab, 2000)

Through the vehicle of civil law, premises security liability is the civil liability of property owners to provide reasonable and adequate security to customers and other invited patrons onto their premises.  When a property owner fails to provide a reasonably safe environment to patrons and, as a result, an invited individual suffers a criminal victimization such as a rape, armed robbery, or assault by a third party, the property owner may be liable under civil jurisdiction for losses the patron incurs.  Relatives of patrons who are murdered on premises are, likewise, subject to civil remedy associated with the loss of a loved one.  Losses may include costs associated with physical injury, psychological trauma leading to inability to enjoy life or earn a living, and future income as a result of victimization.

To a large extent, the standards necessary to trigger the charge of negligent security on the part of public and private establishments are subject to legal debate and vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The controversy usually focuses on several key questions that generally must be answered when inadequate security is alleged against a property owner or manager in a civil action. Does the owner or occupier of the property owe a legal duty of care to the plaintiff?  Was the interpersonal crime foreseeable on the premises? Did the owner or occupier of the property fail to conform to a “reasonable standard of care”?  Was the negligence the proximate cause of the assaultive crime upon the plaintiff? Was the plaintiff damaged or otherwise injured as a result of that breach of duty?

Experts often are called upon to help clarify the issues and to provide defensible guidelines for making decisions or judgments pertaining to questions of “foreseeable crime, “reasonable standard of care,” and “adequate security.”  Attorneys employ a wide variety of experts to both collect data for their cases and render advice and opinions regarding the grounds for the case.  Given that no uniform standard of criminal foreseeability to guide courts exists, the “definition of the situation” proffered by criminologist experts at each stage in a premise liability case – beginning from initial conception and moving to deposition to settlement or trial – has a tremendous influence on whether a case is lost, settled, or won.  Perhaps in no other area of law is it possible for criminologists to define and set the parameters of legal decisions as well as to establish precedence as in the realm of premise liability.

II. Course Materials:
 

(1) Stephen P. Lab.  Crime Prevention: Approaches, Practices and Evaluations. Anderson, 2000- in Loyola Bookstore;

(2) Clifford E. Simonsen. Private Security in America. Prentice Hall, 1998 – in Loyola Bookstore;

(3) Larry Sherman, et al., Preventing Crime: What Works. What Doesn’t and What’s Promising   (http://www.ncjrs.org./works/);

(4) Lydia Voigt and William E. Thornton. Sociology and Negligent Security: Premise Liability and Crime Prediction;

(5) William E. Thornton  Private Police Forces: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives and;
William E. Thornton. Public CCTV Surveillance Systems: A Review of the Issues ;

(6) Walsh and Healy, Protection of Assets Manual (excerpts given out in class)

(7)  William E. Thornton.  Key Points and Recommendations for a Public CCTV Surveillance System in New Orleans. Unpublished.

(8)  James L. Schaub and Ken D. Biery, Jr. The Ultimate Security Survey , Boston, MA. Buterworth-Heinemann, 1994 (NOTE:  This file is 1,516 KB or 1.5 MB; once you download this the first time, save it to your hard drive or to a disk)

Private Security
1. Private security – an overview and history - PSA, chp. 1
2. The security profession – standards, ethics, and training - PSA, chp. 2
3. The growth of private security – PSA, chp. 3, 14

  Hallcrest 1 and Hallcrest II
  Norman Bates study – trends in security litigation
  Security-police cooperation
  Private “justice”

Workplace Violence
Aviation security
Banking and financial services security
Healthcare security – www.rustingpubs.com (See Hospital Security and Safety Management – 5 year Subject Index (scroll down to page 3 for the actual Index); Hospital Security and Safety Management- Newsletter of Loss Prevention, Crime Prevention and Accident Prevention – Volume 22, # 6, October 2001
Educational Institutional security – www.rustingpubs.com   (see Campus Security Report – 5 year Subject Index (scroll down to page 3 for the actual Index) ; Campus Security Report – Volume 13, # 10, October 2001)
Hotel/Motel Security – www.rustingpubs.com (See Hotel/Motel Security and Safety Management – 5 year Subject Index (scroll down to page 3 for the actual Index) ; Hotel Security Report, Volume 19, # 11, October 2001
Commercial office building security
Retail security
Cargo security
Computer security
Nuclear security

Crime Prevention

15. Crime prevention model – CPA, chp. 2

Primary Prevention

16. Physical environment and crime – CPA, chp. 3
17. Neighborhood crime prevention – CPA, chp. 4
18. Displacement and Diffusion – CPA, chp. 5
19. Mass media and crime prevention – CPA, chp. 6
20. General deterrence – CPA, chp. 7

 Secondary Prevention

21.  Prediction for secondary prevention – CPA, chp. 8
22. Situational crime prevention – CPA, chp. 9
Read chapter 7, John Eck, Preventing Crime at Places ( http://www.ncjrs.org./works/chapter7.htm )
23.  Community policing – CPA, chp. 10
24. Drugs, crime and crime prevention – CPA, chp. 11
25. The school and crime prevention – CPA, chp. 12

 Tertiary Prevention

26.  Specific deterrence and incapacitation – CPA, chp. 13
27.  Electronic monitoring and home confinement – CPA, chp. 14
28.   Rehabilitation – CPA, chp. 15

Premise Liability – Voigt and Thornton article

29.   Legal elements of a premises liability claim

 duty and reasonableness
 foreseeability
 breach of duty
 causation

Shirley Posecai versus Wal-Mart Stores D/B/A Sam’s Wholesale Club and Joe Doe, Supreme Court of Louisiana 99 - 1222 (La. 11/30/99);
James Joseph Pinsonneault, et al versus Merchants & Farmers Bank and Trust Co, et al, Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit  99 - 12 (La. App.3 Cir, 07/21/1999

IV. Course Requirements:

A.  Louisiana employs a duty-risk analysis to determine legal responsibility in negligence claims.  The determination of liability usually requires proof of five separate elements:

1. Proof that the defendant had a duty to conform his conduct to a specific standard (the duty element);
2. Proof that the defendant’s conduct failed to conform to the appropriate standard (the breach element);
3. Proof that the defendant’s standard of conduct was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff’s injuries (the cause-in-fact element);
4. Proof that the defendant’s substandard conduct was a legal cause of the plaintiff’s injuries (the scope of protection element); and
5. Proof of actual damages (the damages element)

Your assignment is to use Nexis-Lexis (or West Law) and find two premise liability cases (e.g., inadequate security or negligent security), print them out,  and discuss  how the above elements are met or not met in the case decision. Pinsonneault is good example to see how the elements were met in a recent case. We will discuss this case in class.

B.  You have two options here for a major term project: a traditional “term paper” or a “security assessment.”

Option 1: Traditional Term Paper

This assignment entails a detailed review and analysis of a specialized topic in the field of security or crime prevention.  Once you select a topic, you should develop an outline to guide your literature search.  You will need to utilize books, monographs, journals and internet resources for this assignment. Unlike much of criminology, empirical information on crime prevention and security is diverse and spread out among a number of publishing vehicles.  On the first day of class I will review key works in the field to give you some direction for your research.  I give as an example a very rudimentary outline from a short piece that I wrote for an introductory reader on private security.  While not fully enumerated, the outline shows the progression of development and logic used in researching materials and writing the paper.  (Your outline should be more detailed.)  I include a brief list of possible topics for your research.  I am, of course, open to your suggestions:
 

· Preventing crimes against tourists
· Hospitality crimes – the motel and hotel guest as victim
· The use of CCTV systems in preventing and controlling crime in multiple use environments
· Protecting invitees in parking environments from property and predatory crime
· The banking industry and ATM crimes: irresponsibility at the highest level
· A state by state analysis of licensing requirements for private security officers
· The broken window theory at the neighborhood level and community level – rhetoric or reality
· Crime and security in convenience stores – history and current issues
· Hospital security  - current issues and developments
· Crime and on college campuses
· Crime and security in the public schools – real, media generated, or what
· Violence in the workplace
· The use of private security on public property
· Gated communities – ultimate security in residential settings?
· Crime and security in casinos
· Indian casinos – a special situation
· Technology and security – where are we headed
· Electronic surveillance and security: Is Big Brother upon us now

====================================================
SAMPLE OUTLINE

Private Security Forces: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives
I.  History of Public and Private Policing

A.  Origins of Public Policing
B.  Origins of Private Policing
C.  Reasons for the Growth of Private Security

II.  The Role of the Private Security Officer

A.  Contract vs. Proprietary Security
B.  Standard Functions of Private Security
C.  Specialized Functions of Private Security

III.  Private Security Officer Standards and Training

A.  Recommendation Studies

1)  Federal Government
2)  Professional Associations
3)  Industry Specific Associations

a)  Federal Banking Act
b)  American Hotel /Motel Association- Innkeeper Laws
c)  Joint Commission for Accreditation of Hospital Operations

IV.  Legal Authority of Private Officers

A.  Legislative and Local Ordinances
B.  Commissioned Officer Powers

V.  Public and Private Police Protection

A.  Conflict or liaisons
B.  “Private” police and municipal protection

VI.  Future of Private Security

A.  Professionalization
B.  Techno-security

====================================================
Option 2: Security Assessment

This is a fairly specialized type of assignment.  It entails a methodology that helps determine the level of protection required for a property, which is being surveyed by a security professional.  “The technique allows a systemic examination of assets, threats, and vulnerabilities that point to the probabilities of threats occurring, the cost of losses if they do occur, and the value of the safeguards or countermeasures designed to reduce the threats and vulnerabilities in operations.” (Simonsen, p. 214). While there are several models to follow for a security assessment of a property, we will utilize the steps that Simonsen outlines in Chapter 8 of his textbook.  All of this will be discussed in class.

Step 1:  Develop a survey plan;

Step 2:   Determine what elements of the operation are most important to organizational survival;

Step 3:  Identify, inventory and evaluate the assets (targets) as defined by the management or ownership of the company that need to be protected.  Such assets include facilities, machinery, personnel, administrative records, raw materials, products in storage or shipment, customers, etc.;

Step 4:  Identify those threats that might cause the most harm to the facility, personnel, customers, or operations being surveyed;

Step 5:  Estimate a numerical assessment of associated losses by the impact of that loss if the threat should occur;

Step 6:  Evaluate all threats in this step in terms of the probability of their occurrence;

Step 7:  Analyze weaknesses or points of susceptibility in the facilities, operation and activities;

Step 8:  Identify the safeguards and countermeasures for each threat considered and the costs associated with their procurement and maintenance;

Step 9: Conduct a cost benefit analysis of the safeguards and countermeasures listed in step 8;

Step 10: Rank the safeguards and countermeasures in an order of priority for selection by he approving “executive.”

Private Security Forces: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives

In the United States, it is commonly believed that public police as part of the criminal justice system represent the first line of defense against crime and disorder. Yet, current estimates suggest that the number of private security personnel including private security officers or private police, outnumber sworn public law enforcement officers by about three to one, and outspend public law enforcement by  as much as 50 percent.   During the past 40 years there has been extraordinary growth in the private security industry, particularly in contract guard services.  Reasons for the growth of private security include: (1)  an increase in third party premise liability suits in which crime victims place a greater responsibility on businesses to provide protection over and above traditional law enforcement; (2) increased public fear of crime and awareness of safety issues resulting in a greater demand for crime prevention and protection; (3) a greater responsibility of businesses to ensure safe environments for both patrons and employees; (4)   an increase in crimes in the workplace; (5) the increasing costs of providing public law enforcement to communities; and (6) an increased public and business awareness of the cost effectiveness of private security services.  Problems affecting the private security industry mainly revolve around inadequate training and education, lack of standardization within the industry, and the legal functions of private security personnel in relation to public law enforcement.

Private security personnel are used in such diverse settings as public and private schools and universities; hotels; apartments; shopping centers; parking garages; parks; airports; hospitals; factories; corporations; nuclear power plants; and local, state, and federal government buildings and facilities.  Some metropolitan police departments now contract out some of their services to private security for traffic control; the protection of public property such as buildings, parks, and other recreation sites; animal control; prisoner transport; housing development patrols; city and county code violations; and court security.  Private security has become such an integral part of the auxiliary protection system in the United States that some people suggest that it comprises what might be called a “private justice system,” which provides protection for most of the assets, people and property, in corporate and industrial America.  As noted in a 1985 U.S. Department of Justice study, this  private justice system handles countless incidents, many of which meet statutory definitions of crime, which otherwise would overwhelm the resources of the criminal justice system. While the duties of private security guards and public police overlap in some ways, distinctive differences between the two  exist.  Municipal and state police, who, for example, have a mission to  protect  the public from crime, including the investigation and apprehension of alleged offenders,  derive their mandated authority from local, country, or state legislation, and are funded by respective taxes.  Private security personnel, on the other hand, protect people and property only within clear limits of their sphere of influence, e.g., in a particular business, and with some exceptions, have no greater legal authority than private citizens in their ability to detain, investigate or make arrests. Private security operations are usually funded by the private businesses that they service; however, when private security personnel are contracted by governmental entities the funding is through public taxes.
 

History of Public and Private Policing

The institution of public police empowered by state authority is a relatively new phenomenon, coming into existence in the first three decades of the nineteenth century.  Indeed, specialized institutions of formal social control such as state mandated police  forces were invented when societies had grown so complex in social structure and diverse in population  and normative composition that the older mechanisms of informal social control ceased to be effective in maintaining social order.   For many centuries, ordinary individuals secured their own families, villages, and businesses.   In England, at least from the time of Alfred the Great (871-899), primary responsibility for keeping the peace in communities fell on all able-bodied males over age 12  according to an ancient code of collective responsibility known as the “mutual pledge” system.   Groups of citizens were required without pay to apprehend offenders and form posses to track them down if they escaped.   Later, following passage of the Statute of Westminister in 1285, local security was provided by a system of “watch and ward” where all “able bodied” men were required to patrol and protect English towns against criminal elements. Crime became such a problem in cities such as London  through the 1700s that merchants and tradesmen organized private forces of ex-soldiers and cavalrymen to police the warehouse and trade districts of the city.  Essentially bounty hunters, these private police were paid a fee for apprehending or killing the most dangerous criminals. Due to increasing crime and violent civil disorders, the inadequacy of the “watch” system, and the inability of military forces to quell mob violence, the first formal police department was authorized in London in 1829 by the London Metropolitan Police Act.

When British colonists arrived in America, they brought with them the police system as it existed in 16th and 17th century England, including the “watch and ward” in the larger villages and towns, and the concept of collective responsibility for law enforcement. Following the American Revolution, however, increased urbanization during the first decades of the 19th century brought increases in crime and disorder as small homogenous villages turned into larger and more diverse centers of trade and commerce. In short, what was happening in London was also taking place in the major American cities.  The first public police force was established in New York City in 1844, followed by other cities such as Chicago, Boston, Baltimore, San Francisco, Philadelphia and New Orleans.  Despite the creation of public police departments in virtually every major city in the U.S. by 1890, increases in crime and the particular need for industrial and business organizations to protect their assets stimulated growth of the private security industry.  Alan Pinkerton formed the North West Police Agency in 1855 to provide private protection for Midwest railroads, and the Pinkerton Protection Patrol in 1857 to provide a private guard service to businesses, particularly large industrial concerns. The Pinkerton company remains one of the largest private guard services in the world.   Other security practitioners of the 1850s included Washington Perry Brinks, who started a truck and delivery service which became Brinks Armored Car Service, and Henry Wells and William G. Fargo, who likewise developed a major firm to offer security for the transportation of valuables and money.  The 20th century saw the use of private security  hired by factory owners to protect their people and property from labor disturbances and union rallies.  Overzealous  and uncontrolled security forces beat and shot strikers in several controversial encounters during the depression years.  Both World War I and II  stimulated the use of proprietary or “in house” security in the protection of defense plants from domestic and foreign sabotage and espionage. The Defense Industrial Security Program (DISP) was created by the federal government to better train private police to improve plant security. Most authorities believe, however,  that private security did not become a nationwide industry until the late 1940s.   The utilization of both contract and proprietary security personnel to protect   the vast defense industry complex in the United States  has dramatically expanded during the past 50 years.  Most major corporations and businesses now have security, loss prevention or risk assessment  divisions engaging in any number of  asset protection programs, many of which involve the deployment of private security officers to protect people and property. Current figures estimate that there are about 2 million contract private security officers in the United States today with unknown numbers of proprietary security personnel working in various organizations.
 

The Role of the Private Security Officer

Private security officers routinely perform some of the tasks traditionally performed by public law enforcement officers including guard, patrol and investigative services.  The degree of these, and other services, often depends on whether the security officer is working in the capacity as a contract guard employed by a large company such as Wackenhut or Burn’s International Security Services, Inc., or as a proprietary or in-house officer employed by a specific business. Contract security personnel are contracted by a business to perform specific, and often specialized security functions, whereas in-house officers may engage in a broader diversity of security activities such as engaging in crime prevention practices, crisis prevention and disaster management, fire and safety monitoring, and follow-up investigations of security breaches which occur on the property.

Guard services include a number of duties  such as access control, or ensuring that only authorized individuals enter a premises and that unauthorized people are kept out. Other activities along these lines may require officers to check identification badges of employees  or assign special passes to other individuals who have legitimate business on a property.  An officer may also monitor and check motor vehicles and other means of conveyance on to a property for proper admittance. Officers may also guard specific types of property such as merchandise in a retail store, money in a bank, company computers and data,  or vehicles in a parking lot.  They also guard people, including employees in a business or customers or other invitees on to a property such as a motel or hotel.  Specialized security guards engage in “executive protection” where wealthy persons or top executives who are at risk to abduction or kidnapping are given exclusive protection. Private security officers guarding specialized facilities such as airports or nuclear power plants may engage in elaborate procedures in protecting the perimeter and boundaries of the property.   The patrol duties of private police involve the monitoring and observation of a specific property which can range from high rise office buildings to shopping centers.  Officers  usually patrol a premises based on the nature of the property or business and the degree of risk that the property is subjected to. Special post orders are usually given to security personnel, requiring them to give special attention to particularly vulnerable areas of a property.   Personnel may be assigned to foot or walking patrols, bicycle patrols, or to vehicular patrols. In all instances, patrol duty involves monitoring  a facility  for anything that might be out of the ordinary and threaten the operation including such things as attempted illegal entry, harm to individuals, the movement of unauthorized personnel, fire, malfunctioning of equipment, or any other potentially disruptive problem.  Large properties may also be “video patrolled” where private security officers monitor closed circuit television surveillance systems around a property, and then physically respond when problems occur. Officers are usually required to document through internal incident reports or logs problems that occur during their patrol shifts.  This information is used by business owners in periodic security assessments of their property to determine if their level of security  is adequate or inadequate over time.   Some private security officers engage in various types of investigations connected with their work such as investigating internal and external thefts, employee sabotage, workplace violence incidents, and other acts that affect the safety and security of the premises that they are protecting.  However, company rules and regulations do not have the same force as law.  Employees may be investigated by security for breaking rules or regulations but when violations of the law occur, including allegations of charges and investigations, cases come under the jurisdiction of local, state and federal law enforcement agencies. The security guard must leave law enforcement to the responsible agency.
 

Private Security Officer Standards and Training

A 1972 study of private policing by James Kakalik and Wildhorn Sorrel characterized the average security guard in this country as underscreened, undertrained, undersupervised, underpaid and in need of licensing and regulation to upgrade both personnel and services.  While there have been  significant advances made in the larger field of private security, and more particularly in the area of  training security officers since this study,  efforts to provide national  statutory standards for operating private security firms and minimum guidelines for security officer training have been slow in coming.  No doubt, part of the slowness can be attributed to the costs associated with educating and training private security officers.    Cost aside, there has not been a lack of  studies making recommendations  for improvement.  Twenty five years ago, the federal government issued Private Security: Report of the Task Force Report on Private Security (1976)  in which a number of goals and standards  for private security were proposed including recommendations for thirty-two to forty hours of training for armed security guards; however, the report neglected training criteria for other types of security guards.   More recently, in 1998,  the International Association of Chiefs of Police in conjunction with several national security associations issued guidelines for the selection, training, and licensing of private security officers.  Different types of licenses or certifications for private security officers (e.g., armed, unarmed, and armored car officers) were proposed  and training topics  (e.g., legal, operational, firearms, administrative, electronic, armored transport, and use of force) were offered as minimum basic training requirements for state private security regulatory agencies to follow.  Currently, about half of the states have minimum standard guidelines for the certifying or licensing of private security officers.  Criteria vary substantially by state but include such things as minimum classroom hours devoted to security topics such as law, legal powers, general duties and report writing as well as additional instruction for armed guards.  Unfortunately, in some states with minimum requirements guidelines apply only to contract security officers and not proprietary personnel.

Several professional security associations, some industry specific,  have developed their own security officer training and certification programs.  For example, the International Foundation for Protection Officers (IFPO) provides training for officers through The Certified Protection Officer (CPO) program.  The International Association for Healthcare Security and Safety (IAHSS) offers a Basic Security Officer Training Standard consisting of a forty hour course of instruction.  Additionally, other professional associations such as the American Hotel and Motel Association through their Educational Institute Lodging Security Officer program  offer a Certified Lodging Security Officer (CLSO) designation. There is no doubt that efforts to better train certify and license private security personnel will continue in the 21st century.
 

Legal Authority of Private Officers

Although some of the duties of private security officers are similar to commissioned law enforcement officers, their overall powers are very different.  Under special circumstances private security officers working under the authority vested in them through state legislation or local ordinances may have similar legal authority as traditional law enforcement officers.    For example, public housing authorities and public transit systems in cities may employ private security officers who have special officer commissions which allow them to have police powers only on their respective premises.   Likewise, all states have shoplifting statutes which give merchants and their employees, including private security, the right to detain suspected shoplifters in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable length of time when there are reasonable grounds to think that a person has stolen money or merchandise from their place of business.  This type of detention is not considered an unlawful arrest, and the security officer is not criminally or civilly liable.  With these exceptions, private security  officers basically have the same legal powers as citizens in terms of detaining and arresting individuals for crimes, usually limited to felony offenses, which occur in their presence.  However, some differences do exist between private citizens and private police officers in that private individuals often have less reasonable grounds to believe that they are making a valid arrest compared to security officers who are making an arrest on company property, often with the consent and knowledge of their superiors. This distinction  has important consequences in terms of the civil liability of the arresting individual.  The amount of force that can be used to make an arrest must be the amount necessary only to complete the arrest.  Deadly force can only be used only when the arresting individual has reason to believe that his or her life is in danger and the danger is imminent.  State laws regarding the powers of private individuals and security officers to conduct searches, even pursuant to a legitimate arrest vary and are often ambiguous.  Most private security officers are trained to ask for a suspect’s permission before conducting a search of their person or property.  However, even if an illegal search takes place, any evidence obtained from the search is admissible in a criminal proceeding. Businesses that employ private security guards are subject to vicarious liability whereby the employer may be liable under civil law for the inappropriate behaviors, e.g., unlawful arrest, of their officers.  Because of increases in premise liability cases over the years where individuals have sued businesses for the tortious actions of negligent security officers, it is incumbent upon a business owner to make sure that he or she is hiring well-trained security personnel.
 

Public and Private Police Cooperation

In the past there has been less than hospitable relations between the traditional police and private security officers. Private security guards were often depicted as nothing more than “door rattlers” and “wanna be” cops. It is interesting to note that about 20 percent of commissioned law enforcement officers regularly  supplement their salaries by performing off-duty private security details for a variety of businesses.   However, as the budgets of large metropolitan police departments have been reduced making it difficult to maintain personnel and resources necessary to provide crime control, and as the field of private security has undergone professonalization, cooperation between public and private police  has been enhanced.  It is quite common now in large cities to find police commanders meeting regularly with private security directors of major businesses in an effort to share information and keep one another mutually informed about such things as known criminal offenders, “hot spot” or problem areas, and special  events (e.g., conventions, sports, concerts) which affect crime. When this information is shared with private officers, who monitor and patrol any number of businesses, and municipal police officers, who patrol the public areas of cities, true crime prevention and control efforts are in operation.
 

Future of Private Security

A well-known report on the state of private security, Hallcrest Report II (1990) makes predictions about the future role of private security in the control of crime.  The report suggests that private security will continue to surpass public law enforcement in terms of spending and number of individuals employed, and that greater cooperation between traditional law enforcement and private security will occur in the protection of people and property. However, emerging and new security technology such as electronic surveillance,  access control systems,  and sophisticated alarm systems will no doubt have an affect on the continued growth of security personnel, especially guards. This may be one of the most dynamic changes in the private security industry in the 21st  century.
 

         William E. Thornton

================================================================================
Further Reading

Bilek, Arthur J., Klotter, John C., and Federal, Keegan, R., Legal Aspects of Private Security, Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing Co., 1980

Crinchley, T,  The History of Police in England and Wales, Montclair, N.J.: Patterson Smith

Cunningham, William C., Strauchs, John J., and Van Meter, Clifford, W., Private Security Trends 1970 to 2000: The Hallcrest Report II, Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1990

Cunningham, William C. and Taylor, Todd. H., Private Security and Police in America: The Hallcrest Report I, Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1985

DeWitt, Charles B. Private Security: Patterns and Trends, Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1991

Fischer, Robert J. and Green, Gion, Introduction to Security, Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1998

Forst, Brian, “The Privatization and Civilianization of Policing,”  Boundary Changes in  Criminal Justice Organizations, Washington, D.C.: National Criminal Justice Reference Service, 2000

Jacobs, James B., “Private Police and Security Forces,” in  Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice, edited by Stanford H. Kadish, New York: The Free Press, 1983

Gray, B.M., “History and Principles of Crime Prevention,” in Handbook of Loss Prevention and Crime Prevention, edited by Lawrence J. Fennelly, Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1989

Hamill, William, National Laws and Statutes for Private Investigators and Security Guard Agencies, Edmond, Oklahoma: Oklahoma Investigators, 1991

Kakalik, James S. and Wildhorn, Sorrel, Private Policing in the United States: Findings and Recommendations, LEAA,  Washington, D.C.: Department of Justice, 1972

National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Private Security Report of the Task Force on Private Security, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976

Private Security Officer Selection, Training and Licensing Guidelines, Alexandria, VA: International Association of Chiefs of Police, 1998 (available at http://www.theiacp.org/pubinfo/pubs/pslc/pslc6.toc.htm)

Purpura, Philip P., “Private Security: History and Development in the United States,” in Encyclopedia of Security Management, edited by John J. Fay, Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1993

Shearing, Clifford d. and Stenning, Philip, C., Private Policing, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1987

Simonsen, Clifford E.  Private Security in America, Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1998

Voigt, Lydia, Thornton, William, Barrile, Leo, and Seaman,  Jerrol M, Criminology and Justice, New York: McGraw Hill, 1994

U.S. Department of Justice. Crime and Protection in America: A Study of Private Security and Law Enforcement Resources and Relationships, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1985

Williams, Timothy L.  “Guard Operation,” Protection of Assets, Santa Monica, CA: Merritt Publishing, 1007

The contents of this communication are the sole responsibility of Dr. William E. Thornton and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of Loyola University New Orleans.  Copyright © 1996-2002 Loyola University New Orleans.  Last updated on December 23, 2001