Private Security in Project One,

Private Security In project one, I reported information for the state of Oregon pertaining to the minimum requirements of the state for a private security officer. These minimum requirements included that the person must be 18 years of age or older and must have completed training as specified in Oregon statute. Additionally, the individual could not have been convicted of a felony, have not been incarcerated, placed on probation or parole within 10 years, have not been convicted of any drug offense, and is not required to register as a sex offender.

Finally, the individual can not have committed a misdemeanor that is deemed by the Board of Public Safety to interfere with performance (Chapter 498, Oregon Laws, 2001). While these requirements are certainly necessary, they are simply not sufficient, in my opinion. Those working in the private security sector are, by default, trusted by the public due to the nature of their uniforms, and are able to carry with them deadly weapons, or weapons such as pepper mace, stun guns, and other objects.

Individuals in such positions should be highly qualified, highly scrutinized, and carefully selected. In light of this, minimum security requirements should include a personality profile and psychological tests, done by a licensed psychologist, to ensure the individual is of a stable state of mind. Additionally, such individuals should be required to obtain random substance abuse tests to ensure sober and safe officers.

All private security officers should be required to have yearly training on any weapons they carry, and should be required to provide information which allows a full background check. Finally, private security officers should be required to participate in internship programs with public police departments to ensure proper arrest procedures and detainment methods. By using these requirements, private security companies could ensure the safety of the public, the security officers, and the defendants.

In project two, I focused on the changes to security following the enactment of the Patriot Act in October of 2001. The research showed the changes resulting from the new act included lower requirements for search and seizure, and an increased ability by security officers to view any tangible articles inclusive of books, records, papers, documents, and other things required for a search to safeguard against global terrorism or secret intelligence acts, even without Fourth Amendment backing (Murray 2003).

Further, the Act allows security officers to detain individuals without trial for long periods of time (Cole, 2002). The private security sector has vastly overreacted to post-911 situations with the enactment of the Patriot Act. While increased security is certainly necessary, as shown by the ease of the assault on 9-11, the new Act trades personal freedoms in the name of national security.

The rights of individuals, both nationals and foreigners, are drastically reduced with the new Act, and security officers are more able to detain, investigate, and prosecute all individuals without proper cause. The First and Fifth Amendments, designed to protect the rights of individuals, are being infringed on with legal backing, making for a hostile post 9-11 environment that simply increases the likelihood for further resistance against law enforcement. In the future, improvements to the post-911 climate in the private security sector can certainly be improved.

Creating a check and balance system for the new regulations contained within the Act can help protect individual rights while simultaneously increasing the ability of security officers to detect illegal activity. Regulations should be passed to allow detainment of individuals suspected of illegal activity, but only with judicial approval. While private records such as computer documents and phone conversations should be allowed to be viewed by security officers, those records should only be given with judicial approval.

Finally, in all cases, those not suspected of a crime based on solid evidence should not be subject to persecution. The privatization of certain public law enforcement functions is a cost effective, logical, and easily implemented solution to several issues facing law enforcement today. By allowing private security companies to take over in areas such as child support enforcement, warrant issuing and arrest, and parole and probation violations, many benefits can be seen. Since private companies are often more efficient, the costs of such actions could be reduced.

Additionally, in high crime areas, law enforcement officials can be focused on violent crime and drug offence prevention, while allowing private companies to handle smaller, non-violent functions. Further, with competition already existing in the private security area, there is a higher likelihood for accountability than in government law enforcement. However, there are some concerns with the use of privatization in public law enforcement. First, because the companies providing the service are not public, there is a higher likelihood of payoffs or bribes.

Additionally, worker benefits special for law enforcement are likely to be unavailable to private security officers. Finally, without the necessary training for law enforcement, private officers are more likely to place themselves, the public, and the potential defendants in harm's way (Friedman, 1984). As Friedman (1984) points out, however, these issues could easily be addressed through training programs in association with public law enforcement, and a check and balance system to protect worker rights and to monitor the activity of the private sector enforcer's activities.

By using a model of private/public law enforcement such as that outlined by Friedman (1984), in which a court sets the punishment to be imposed on convicted criminals and the private security firm receives an amount equal to that punishment, service delivery and public opinion could both be improved.

By allowing private firms to apprehend criminals whose punishment would be fine based, and by allocating those fines in part to the private firm, public dollars would be saved, service delivery would be increased due to competition, and ideally, more public resources could be allocated to high crime areas, resulting in an even higher level of public opinion of law enforcement. The primary reason for seeking the CPP, or the Certified Protection Professional Program, for any security officer is the high level of distinction and knowledge such a designation requires.

In order to even test for the CPP, applicants must have nine years of security experience, or hold a Bachelors Degree or higher and seven years of security experience. In both cases, at least three of the years must have been served in responsible charge of a security function. The CPP covers questions on security principles, business principles, personnel security, physical security, informational security, emergency practices, investigations, and law and regulations.

In other words, the test is extensive, and includes even recently emerging fields of security, such as information security (Collins, et al., 2000). For older security officers, many of the emerging technologies and new regulations are not required knowledge. Without experience in such fields, those in the industry are likely to know less about these topics that even those recently joining private security firms. For this reason, seeking CPP designation for all security officers is vital to ensuring comprehensive knowledge on both fundamental principles as well as updated technological advancements.

Designation as a CPP is not a guarantee that there will be across the board expertise in private security. However, a survey by ASIS in 2001 did show a CPP designation implied five positive qualities about employees. First, the CPP demonstrated professional competence in a wider variety of security aspects than a degree alone. Additionally, employees with a CPP demonstrated a higher level of commitment to the security profession, self-motivation, a high level of comprehension of security knowledge, and high professional standards (ASIS, 2001).

By seeking such a designation, and by hiring those receiving such distinction, the private security sector can increase knowledge and public trust while simultaneously ensuring public and officer safety. Interpersonal causation theories for workplace violence suggest most employees and customers who commit workplace violence do so because they have been mistreated by the organization or specific members of the organization. In this type of theory, acts of violence are committed by one of two specific groups of individuals. One group is that of the customer or client.

In these situations, acts of violence are committed against the worker of a specific company by a customer during the course of a business transaction or as the result of a business.