¶ … Liaison The security industry has in the recent past experienced a shift towards the Hybrid approach in which contractual agency and the client create a synergy. This approach has gained considerable attention in the recent past and is commonly known as engaged liaison. Engaged liaison is defined as a security system in which the client company and the contractual agency work in collaboration to meet specific security goals and objectives (Fischer, Halibozek & Walters, 2013). Through this process, the engaged liaison creates a hybrid security system in which each of these parties have some responsibilities relating to security activities and objectives. Security managers believe that an engaged liaison is the answer to modern security challenges because it enables relevant agencies to work together toward accomplishing specific security-related objectives.

The significance of this approach is also evidenced in its creation of an organizational structure with enhanced capabilities to hire specific expertise. Additionally, the approach is important because it helps in lessening costs associated with training and preparing proprietary security personnel. This is primarily because it promotes the establishment of a strong and powerful proprietary oversight where several line security operations are contracted to companies/organizations that specialize in offering such services.

Security and the Law

The security industry has been directly impacted by some significant legal cases that have played a key role in defining the roles and responsibilities of security personnel. Some of the significant cases in the history of the security industry include Miranda v. Arizona, Cervantez v. J.C. Penney and Burdeau v. McDowell. These cases have had considerable impacts on some of the major aspects of law enforcement like interrogation.

Miranda v. Arizona is a case that represents the amalgamation of four different...

However, the bone of contention in these cases is that the defendant was subjected to the interrogation techniques without being notified of his Fifth Amendment rights. In this case, Miranda was arrested in his house and questioned by law enforcement personnel for kidnapping and rape after being brought to a local police station. These officers managed to obtain a written confession from Miranda, which was admitted to trial despite being objected by the defense attorney on the premise that Miranda was not notified of his Fifth Amendment rights. Miranda was later found guilty of the crime, which was affirmed and upheld by the Supreme Court of Arizona following an appeal. The Supreme Court overturned this decision on the premise that Miranda's constitutional rights were violated since each of the interrogation techniques utilized by the police officers failed to ensure he spoke to the officers willingly.
The case is relevant to the security industry since it seeks to protect the rights of suspects during investigations by police officers. The ruling in the case shaped the security industry by requiring public law enforcement personnel to ensure that statements they obtain from the accused are provided after notifying the accused of their constitutional rights (Fischer, Halibozek & Walters, 2013). Therefore, the case helps to ensure that police officers do not coerce accused persons into giving statements during interrogation or deprive them of their freedom.

Cervantez v. J.C. Penney is a case in which an off-duty law enforcement officer who was serving as a store detective for J.C. Penney arrested two people for misdemeanor theft without a search warrant. After they were later released for lack of evidence, the individuals sued the company and police officer for false false arrest and incarceration among other things. There were two…