Relationship between private and public police: conflict and definition

Public Private Police

Relationship between private and public police

Before discussing the relationship between private and public police it is important to understand what the terms policing, private space, and public space mean. Policing can be defined as the "preservation of peace, that is, to the maintenance of a way of doing things where persons and property are free from unwarranted interference so that people may go about doing their businesses normally" (Clifford, 1992). A public space can be defined as a space that is generally open and accessible to all whereas a private space has restrictions of access.

For quite a long time it has been the duty of public police to protect the society and the property that fall under the defined areas of operation. However, in present day it is common to find private and public police working together regularly at both private and public functions. Although some similarities may be found between these two groups and complement each other in various ways, there are some key differences. The first notable one is on the training which is more rigorous for the public police as compared to the private police. Public police also face more demanding standards and certification than their private counterparts. It is obvious that the private police have very limited legal powers which are fully offered to the public police. Nevertheless, private police have access to the resources necessary for developing specializations which far exceeds the capability of most public police agencies. Even though there is much that these two groups can offer each other, there is lack of confidence between them, for instance, the police complain about the paucity of pre-employment screening, standards of training, regulation and certification of private police. Some public police feel that the training given to private police is insufficient especially for those allowed to carry weapons. There is also the feeling of competition with the public police feeling that private police are threatening their domain. Due to lack of understanding of the complex and wide capabilities, functions, and resources that public police have with respect to private police, the end up not appreciating their role. This also makes the private police feel that public police do not regard them as important until it comes to the time when they are considering joining that field.

These differences have been recognized by some large private security agencies and have found it important to reduce this gap. One of the steps that have been taken is the adoption of better training of the private officers in order to attain higher levels of professionalism. This will make them compete favorably with the public police and also cooperate easily. This high level of professionalism has even made private police a preferred lot among head CEOs and important political and celebrity figures. Additionally, even large businesses and even airports where mostly public users are found are now being protected by private security (Li, 2008). Such emerging trends are bringing a change in the relationship between these two groups which is becoming more positive. The community has also realized that the number of public police officers is not enough to offer the required protection to the whole community. It is now believed that the community is safer when there is an extra security personnel hired than without. The cooperation between these two bodies have also improved greatly and several joint operations have been carried out successfully indicating a positive relationship.

A case in point was the joint effort the Insurance Crime Prevention Institute (ICPI an umbrella organization of 400 insurance companies) cooperated with the San Jose Police in a year-long property sting. The sting purchased nearly half a million dollars of property and 35 persons were arrested. While undercover public police ran the storefront purchasing stolen property, insurance investigators worked behind the scenes identifying the owners and insurers of stolen property and serving as liaison between insurance companies and the San Jose police (ICPI Reports, January 1981). Such positive relationships are slowly creating a hybrid system of the private-public police and this takes many forms and occurs at various levels. The cooperation is experienced from the national-level, which focuses on programs enhancing sharing of information, to local-level which are operational in nature. These two groups may cooperate through informal or ad hoc collaboration, formal partnerships aimed at maintaining good relations or solving particular issues, contractual agreements, and involving off-duty public security officers in private policing.