Public and Private Policing Functions,

Public and Private Policing Functions, Conflicts, And Solutions

In the United States, corporate security and other private policing organizations play a significant role in national security. That role increased substantially since the infamous terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in particular. Despite the fact that public-sector policing agencies and private-sector security organizations fulfill very similar and largely complementary functions, there is a tremendous antagonism and an overall negative component to the relationship between the public and private policing industries. That negative relationship is also primarily unidirectional in that it is public-sector police that tend to regard their private counterparts as inferior and undeserving of respect within the law enforcement industry.

Meanwhile, more effective collaboration between public and private policing would further the overall interest of security concerns and functions for several specific reasons, most notably, in relation to the lesser restrictions on the latter with respect to constitutional protections such as in the realm of search and seizure principles in particular.

To a certain extent, there is some validity to the criticisms leveled by public-sector police against the private sector security industry. On the other hand, the private security industry has improved substantially in the last decade. In principle, the most beneficial approach from the perspective of security and policing goals would be to reduce the unfounded criticism and antagonism of public-sector police toward private security along with a uniform design for addressing those criticisms that are valid.

The Fundamental Problem of Antagonism between Public and Private Police

Generally, public-sector police do not respect their private counterparts (Dalton, 2003). At worst, they regard them as unqualified and poorly trained; at worst, they refer to them as law enforcement "wannabes," "rentacops," "mall cops," and "square badges." To some degree, it may be true that some private security personnel lack the necessary qualifications for employment in public-sector law enforcement. However, the general lack of respect on the part of police for private security personnel is based much more on a fundamental prejudice that is attributable to the insular world of policing and the manner in which police personnel in the U.S. are socialized by their fellow officers to distinguish between "real" police and non-sworn private police (Dalton, 2003).

Especially, prior to 9/11, the view that private security personnel were untrained and unqualified for policing responsibilities was much more accurate than it is today (Ortmeier, 2009). Substantial evidence to the effect surfaced immediately after that attack in connection with a performance and qualification standards review of the Argenbright private security contractor that had been responsible for passenger screening at U.S. airports. That review led directly to the fast-tracking of the hiring and training of 60,000 federal security screeners in connection with the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and the comprehensive reorganization of national security agencies under the Bush administration in 2002 (Schmalleger, 2008).

The private security field also underwent significant reforms in connection with the qualifications, training, and (especially) vetting of employment candidates as well Ortmeier, 2009). Ironically, instead of recognizing the comprehensive improvement throughout the private security industry after 2001, many police personnel intensified their pre-existing disdain for all non-sworn security professionals instead (Dalton, 2003).

The Conceptual Significance of Public and Private Spaces

One of the worst consequences of the antagonism on the part of police toward private security forces is that the private security industry could actually provide valuable assistance to the overall interest of national, regional, and local security. Whereas the actions of all government policing and law enforcement authorities is very strictly limited by fundamental constitutional principles (especially in connection with 4th Amendment search and seizure concepts), non-governmental security agents can operate with considerably wider latitude (Larsen, 2007). In general, private security personnel may conduct various types of searches and investigations pursuant to the assertion of private property rights that would constitute egregious constitutional violations if conducted by any governmental policing authorities (Larsen, 2007). But for the degree to which the uncooperative attitude of police toward private security personnel is unfounded, greater cooperation with and coordination between police and private security could improve the ability of police to accomplish their public safety mission.

Toward a Solution