Similarities and differences between law enforcement and private security

Law Enforcement and Security

In the United States, there are a number of different components, both private and public, which work together to create the system that is referred to, collectively, as the criminal justice system. Two of these components are law enforcement and security. Law enforcement and private security professionals carry out many of the same job tasks, but do so in different capacities, which means that there are a number of similarities and differences in their job descriptions. For the most part, law enforcement and private security work together as part of the criminal justice system, but there are times when they may goals and aims that actually conflict. Understanding how the two systems interact is, therefore, a critical part of understanding the criminal justice system.

Public Sector

Law enforcement refers to a number of different agencies that act in the public interest to enforce local, state, and federal laws. At the federal level, the two best-known law enforcement agencies are the Federal Bureau of Intelligence (FBI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), though there are additional agencies, such as Homeland Security, Border Patrol, and the Transportation Safety Agency which have quasi-law enforcement functions and serve the public sector. At the state level, law enforcement agencies vary by state, but most states do have at least one state-level law enforcement agency. These agencies may be something like the Texas Rangers, game wardens, parks and statewide Department of Public Safety Officers. These officers would have jurisdiction over state-level laws and would be able to enforce them throughout an entire state. In addition, in most states, even local-level law enforcement officers would need to be certified at a state level. While they may not have jurisdiction throughout the state, they probably have the ability to enforce laws in certain areas and the duty to enforce certain laws when they see violations. However, these rules and regulations would vary by state rules. At the local level, law enforcement agencies would include municipal police departments, county sheriffs' departments, and constables.

The most significant difference between law enforcement and private security is that law enforcement works to protect the public interest. This means that law enforcement officers always play a dual role; while responsible for apprehending people who are in the progress of committing crimes, who have committed crimes in the past, or who commit a threat to public safety, they also have a responsibility to protect those people. Law enforcement officers also have a duty to balance interests when considering what actions to take; if an action would increase public danger, even if lawful, then law enforcement has a responsibility to ensure that public safety is protected.

Private Sector

Private sector security enforcement includes any person working security for a private employer, instead of in the public sector. Private sector security has a tremendous range. It can include people who perform security duties in addition to their other job duties and have no specific experience or training in security up to people who are trained security professionals working specifically to protect the interests of an employer. Unlike public sector law enforcement personnel, a private sector employee's first obligation is to his or her employer, as long as the employer does not ask the employee to violate any laws. This means that private sector security officers have no obligation to report criminal violations to any law enforcement agencies as long as their employers do not want the crimes reported. In fact, they may actually have an obligation not to report crimes if their employers have instructed them not to do so. There are a number of reasons that a private sector employer may not want a crime reported, but primarily because when a crime is reported confidence in a business may be reduced. Therefore, the conflict between private employer interests and public interest can be critical when looking at the obligations and duties of those working in criminal justice.

Working Together

While public and private sector criminal justice specialists may have occasional conflicts, the vast majority of the time they are working to reach the same goals. They cannot do this unless they are in communication and working with one another to reach those goals. However, territorial conflicts may prevent this type of communication. Veney identified four things that public law enforcement and private security could do to strengthen their relationship (2004). The first thing they can do is coordinate on special projects, to ensure that special events not only run smoothly for the private sector but also do not interfere too significantly with the public (Veney, 2004). Examples of this would be coordinating traffic after large events, working on crowd control during events that are expected to become raucous or potentially violent, and managing areas experiencing an increase in crime (Veney, 2004). The second thing that they can do is for law enforcement to share local criminal statistical data with private security and for private security, in turn, to ensure reporting of all crimes to local police officers (Veney, 2004). While these two things may seem to be givens, the reality is that both private and public officers may keep information to themselves, rather than share the information. The third thing that they can do is coordinate on major investigations, which means not only contacting the police when a crime has occurred, but also fully cooperating with any criminal investigation (Veney, 2004). Finally, it is important for private firms to share information with police when they foresee a potential increase in criminal activity. "When devastating incidents can be avoided, both police and private security personnel look like heroes" (Veney, 2004).

Hybrid Organizations

Of course, there are some organizations that resist classification as purely private or purely public organizations. For example, security in public schools is often handled by private organizations, but is still done for a public employer and for the public interest. Moreover, school security may not even be handled by security professionals, but by teachers, aides, or other school personnel. However, as violence in schools has increased, so has the need for on-campus security, so that the vast majority of schools, at least in large school districts, use professional dedicated security personnel to provide security services in schools. The various forms of security staffing being used at schools include: school security departments comprised of in-house personnel; school resource officers who are officers employed by local police departments and assigned to the schools; school police departments which are regular police departments run by school districts; and hall monitors who are basically school personnel that perform security functions (National Education Agency, 2002-2015).

History

The history of police predates the history of the United States, as almost all formal governments have had some people designated to enforce their laws. However, in the United States, the history of policing can be traced directly back to policing in Great Britain, where there were actually multiple forms of law enforcement to help enforce the laws. Initially, law enforcement in the colonies was handled by the colonists, themselves, with a justice of the peace in charge of sentencing people. Punishment was swift and public, with people punished in stocks, but it was also relatively non-isolating; people were punished and then returned to the community. As the colonies grew, the justice of the peace system was no longer capable of handling crime and criminals. "In 1636 the city of Boston established Night Watch, which idea worked reasonably well as long as the area remained a rural and agrarian one. New York City established the Shout and Rattle Watch in 1651, but, by 1705 Philadelphia found it necessary to divide the city into ten patrol areas" (Sabath, 2015). In fact, in 1833, Philadelphia was the first city to establish a modern day police department, which functioned 24 hours a day and operated independently. In 1844, New York followed suit, but actually established two different police departments; a daytime duty and a night watch (Sabath, 2015). The departments were not distinct from the political system and were quickly known for their political corruption.

Municipal police departments were not the only vestige of British criminal justice to come to the American criminal justice system. The United States also adopted the British sheriff system. "As American moved toward the west, in most frontier towns the Sheriff was the chief law enforcement official. He could be recruited from the local community, or more often a Sheriff was selected by his reputation, and not always a savory one" (Sabath, 2015). Many locations continue to have Sheriffs, and, where they continue, they are still selected by the public, though the selection process is generally through elections and would probably disqualify some of the more famous sheriffs from the past.

The history of private security is even longer than the history of governmental police. In fact, private security forces almost certainly predate written history and written laws. "One of the earliest recorded examples of private security forces being utilized dates back to the thirteenth century B.C. Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses the II hired Nubians (popularly known as Medjai), Libyans, Syrians, and Sherdens (from Sardinia) to compliment Egyptian's own military and security forces" (Dyonder, 2009). While it is unlikely that this was the first use of private security, it was the first documented use of such forces. "This established practice continued and evolved in ancient Rome where the wealthy hired private security to protect themselves and their property from the encroaching Mongol Hordes" (Dyonder, 2009). This private security was a worldwide phenomenon and, in different areas these private security forces began to organize and join forces with one another.

In England, the idea of private security developed in a different manner. In 1285, the Statute of Winchester established various concepts for the villages including "the concept of 'hue and cry' whereby it was each and every citizen's obligation to apprehend felons" (Dyonder, 2009). The concept of the citizen's arrest came from this statute, as did the right of the sheriff to form a posse of citizens. Furthermore, part of the ongoing agreements between the English citizens and the government was that the citizens retain these private rights to guard themselves, which, of course, translated into the right to hire people to guard them.

In the United States, private security is highly associated with the Pinkertons. "In the 1850s Allan Pinkerton (a former Chicago police detective) created the Pinkerton Agency, his own private security agency" (Dyonder, 2009). The Pinkertons were primarily employed by the very wealthy, such as the banks and railroads, and they were followed by the creation of other private security firms. When the Great Depression hit the United States, crime rates skyrocketed, and so did the need for private security. The need was so intense, that President Roosevelt actually "passed an executive order giving the U.S. War Department mandate to procure and train private security to guard against any threat to U.S. industry" (Dyonder, 2009). This use of private security set an industry standard, so that people began to expect that high-dollar or sensitive industries would employ security guards to protect their property and/or their sensitive information.

Policies and Procedures

Police department policies and procedures vary with the size, location, and purpose of the department. However, most police department policy and procedure manuals are going to cover the same basic information and direct their officers how to engage in their daily job functions. Moreover, these policy and procedure manuals are generally going to tell them what behavior is considered acceptable and what behavior is considered unacceptable during the course of their job. These manuals generally contain information about basic elements of police department procedure: department management; personnel administration; work rules and benefits; administrative procedures; code of conduct and use of force; relations with other agencies; field operations; and investigations (City of Minneapolis, 2013). They may also contain information on special circumstances, such as procedures when the suspects are juveniles or how to handle domestic violence scenarios. In department management, policies and procedures would outline basic administration as well as the chain of command, which is critical in police department procedure. Personnel administration would discuss performance requirements and evaluation procedures, as well as the internal affairs process. Work rules and benefits would discuss things as mundane as uniforms and as critical as substance abuse issues. Administrative procedures would cover the day-to-day operating procedures in the department, such as how reports should appear or how to get department vehicles. The code of conduct would outline how officers are supposed to behave, including the permitted use of force, as well as permitted and prohibited on-duty and off-duty behaviors. Relations with other agencies would discuss cooperation with other agencies as well as community programs. Field operations would discuss specific types of policing details and units. Investigations would outline the appropriate procedures for different types of criminal investigations (City of Minneapolis, 2013).

While there are a number of different organizations that oversee security guards and some states actually require certification of security guards, the closest thing to a federal organization that oversees security guards is the Federal Protective Service. It has published an information manual that is similar to the policies and procedures that can be found at many private security firms and with many private employers. At the most basic level, these policies would outline: a security guard's roles and responsibilities; typical duties; appearance standards; acceptable and unacceptable conduct; guidelines for interacting with people; and sexual harassment guidelines (Federal Protective Service, 2008). However, these manuals might also include very specific guidelines for dealing with scenarios including: hostage situations; bomb threats; workplace violence; escorting disruptive people from the premises; preventing or responding to terrorist attacks; dealing with fires or natural disasters; dealing with sabotage and espionage; and handling civil disturbances (Federal Protective Services, 2008). In addition, these manuals would describe the recordkeeping or reporting required to handle any of those scenarios.

Ethical Codes

Because there are so many different law enforcement and private security agencies, and no single organization that oversees either the public or private sector, it is impossible to define a single code of conduct for either public or private law enforcement agents. However, there are certain common elements that recur in a number of ethical codes for private organizations and for public organizations. Many of these elements are shared for public and private organizations, while others are tailored specifically to the job description.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police has developed a Model Policy Standards of Conduct. Originally written in 1957 and periodically revised to reflect changes in ethical and moral norms, the code is one that has been adopted by many law enforcement agencies. "The code of ethics states that the officer's fundamental duties are to serve the community; safeguard lives and property; protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and respect the constitutional rights of all to liberty, equality, and justice. The code of ethics also states that officers must keep their private lives unsullied and recognize the badge as a symbol of public faith and trust" (Grant, 2002). The code of conduct and the code of ethics work together to form a fairly comprehensive guideline for officer behavior.

Their guidelines are not intended to be exhaustive, but do highlight the areas that law enforcement agencies and personnel are most likely to encounter in the course of their jobs. The standards of conduct focus on accountability; officers are expected to be accountable for their behavior, and to answer for their actions without any deception. In addition, officers are expected to: (1) obey laws, agency policies, rules, and procedures, and lawful orders; (2) not engage in conduct unbecoming an officer; (3) be accountable through their chain of command; (4) treat their fellow employees with respect, courtesy, and professionalism; (5) interact with the public, including violators, in a civil and professional manner and refrain from use of excessive force; (6) refrain from using alcohol while on duty, reporting for duty while intoxicated, appearing intoxicated in public at any time, submit to drug or alcohol screening when requested, and refrain from using illegal drugs; (7) report any gifts or gratuities that they receive and refrain from accepting gifts or gratuities in exchange for ignoring any illegal acts; (8) not abuse their position as officers to resolve personal disputes; (9) refrain from beginning a personal relationship with suspects or their family members or from joining any criminal organizations; (10) refrain from making public statements that could have a negative impact on the department; (11) refrain from political activity while working; and (12) protect the privacy of agency information (2015).

While these rules of conduct may seem straightforward, it is important to keep in mind that some of the real-life scenarios that officers face can result in them having to prioritize between different parts of the ethical guidelines. For example, officers are directed to respect the chain of command, but they are also instructed not to violate and laws or organizational rules or regulations. However, there may be scenarios in which commanding officers instruct officers to do something that violates laws or rules. This can be a serious ethical conflict, especially for novice officers who are relying upon commanding officers to teach them how to be safe while performing their duties as law enforcement officers.

Like police officers, security personnel are in positions where they could abuse their power and need a code of conduct to govern their behavior to help them resolve ethical conflicts. There are a number of different professional organizations that govern professional behavior for security officers, though there are no requirements that security professionals join any professional organizations. Security Officers of America is one of those organizations and has a code of conduct that is similar to the conduct codes of similar organizations. This code include: (1) swearing to protect life and property; (2) reducing the employer's losses and crime; (3) respecting the constitutional rights of suspects; (4) acting with honesty, sincerity, and integrity; (5) uphold the law; (6) uphold the employer's policies and procedures; (7) to act without bias; (8) to report all violations of the law or of the employer's policies to the supervisor or employer; (9) to maintain the employer's privacy; (10) to cooperate with law enforcement and government agencies; (11) not to take any additional compensation or gratuities; and (12) to act as a professional (Security Officers of America, 2015).

Incarceration Rates and Public Trust

One of major problems plaguing the U.S. criminal justice system, and both the private and public officers in charge of enforcing the laws, is that the United States has the highest incarceration rate of all industrialized nations. "At the end of 2010, there were 2,266,800 people in U.S. prisons and jails," which is an incarceration rates of 732 people in every 100,000 (Wagner, 2012). Taken as a stand-alone statistic that number is very alarming because it represents a huge number of people incarcerated in the United States, requiring a significant investment of public funds in jailing those people. Furthermore, every jailed person has friends and family in the community, which means that each incarceration has a ripple effect that goes well beyond the incarcerated individual.

However, when you realize that these number draw disproportionately from young black and Latino males, you see a disparate impact that literally devastates some communities. "The young, the male, the Black, and the Latino are disproportionately incarcerated. Put those factors together and you have almost 9% of Black men in their late 20s behind bars" (Wagner, 2012). Latino men are not impacted quite as severely, but almost 4% of Latino men in their late 20s are incarcerated (Wagner, 2012). When you consider that the overall incarceration rate is less than 1%, this is clearly disproportionate.

What does it mean for communities to lose such large percentages of their young males? Well, the first thing to consider is that, for many communities, it actually translates into them losing virtually all of their young males. Many of these incarcerated males come from the same neighborhoods, so that there are minority neighborhoods where the incarceration rates of young males can be higher than 50%. This means that many children are growing up without the influence of a father, not just in a home, but in their neighborhood. Families are not only missing out on the earning potential of men during their prime earning years, but also divert funds from their households to send money to their relatives in jail. Furthermore, the problems continue even after the family member is released from jail; ex-cons are often unable to find employment and may become a financial burden on their families. This can lead them back to the same criminal behavior that resulted in the initial incarceration because of the underlying financial desperation.

In the families, this can also lead to severe distrust of the police. Where other communities may think of the police as there to help them and protect them from crime, minority communities may see the police as targeting all of their young males as potential criminals. These perceptions are not unwarranted. Many people would like to believe that the racial disparity in incarceration rates can be explained by higher criminality in black and Latino populations. However, the reality is that crime rates appear to be fairly consistent across race, especially when controlled for socioeconomic class. What does appear to vary by race is the sentence imposed for the crime. "Prison sentences of black men were nearly 20% longer than those of white men for similar crimes in recent years" (Palazzolo, 2013). These longer sentences do not necessarily only reflect a greater length of incarceration; they may also mean conviction for felonies rather than misdemeanors, which can have a more significant impact on future opportunities.

However, focusing on sentencing only acknowledges a small segment of the problem. There is bias at almost every stage of the criminal justice system. For example, African-American males are no more likely to engage in drug crimes than white males, but far more likely to be arrested than white males. In fact, minority neighborhoods are targeted for drug stings at much higher rates than college campuses, though college campuses have much higher drug usage rates. From that point forward, every time there is a decision-making point in the criminal justice system, bias works to disfavor people of color, particularly males people of color, so that the 20% increase in sentences only reflects a small portion of the actual bias that they experience.

For their communities, this can mean an absolute distrust of the police. Families may be reluctant to call the police when they are victims of crimes because they fear that the police will treat them as suspects, rather than victims. They may be especially reluctant to contact the police for family or status-based offenses, such as domestic violence or drug crimes, because they may be well-aware that the social interventions that might be offered to white offenders would not be offered to people of color. Instead, some communities develop a very anti-police attitude that turns into an us-versus-them mentality, with police officers seen as invading forces, rather than community members who are helping to keep order.

How this attitude impacts security guards in the community varies by community. Oftentimes, security guards in a community are members of a community. They may be underpaid and may be protecting the interests of outside groups that have come in to profit off of the economic misfortune of disadvantaged groups. In some circumstances, there is a history of tension between business owners and community residents. In other instances, security guards are protecting local businesses owned by local business owners. Because of these variables, it is really difficult to predict how the mistrust of the police will translate into community attitudes towards security guards.

Conclusion

Security guards and police officers are complimentary components of the criminal justice system. Both types of officers offer first-line defense and deterrence against crime and apprehend suspects. However, police officers have a public duty while security guards have a duty to their private employers that might put their interests in conflict with the public interest. What this means is that while there are similarities in the roles and responsibilities that come with both professions, there will always be significant differences, as well.