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).

Cultural Diversity

With the recent events in Ferguson, the issue of cultural diversity in the criminal justice system has reemerged as an issue of significant public concern. While there may be relatively high levels of diversity in the police departments of large cities and in urban areas, there remains a startling lack of diversity in the police departments in many rural areas and in smaller cities. This is particularly true in areas that have had a history of racial inequities and where the communities are composed primarily of minorities. For example, while Ferguson, Missouri, is a predominantly black community, less than six percent of its police department is black (DePillis, 2014). While cultural diversity does not require that a police department's cultural, racial, or religious makeup exactly reflect the makeup of the surrounding community, such a startling disparity is suggestive of a lack of overall diversity. Of course, this problem is not limited to Ferguson. On the contrary, "White people are over-represented in police forces generally, especially in suburban towns where the population had grown increasingly diverse in a period of a decade or two. That's problematic, theoretically, because it undermines trust between the police and minority communities, which could escalate conflict rather than diffuse it. And it's why police forces have been pressed to diversify ever since the aftermath of race-related riots in the 1960s" (DePillis, 2014).

While racial diversity is not just a black or white issue, the reality is that racial conflict in the United States has historically been black and white. Therefore, looking at changing trends in the percentage of black officers in major metropolitan police departments can provide some insight into diversity in police departments. However, looking at different cities reveals some significant differences. In the 1960s, fewer than 5% of Los Angeles's police officers were black, compared to about 14% in 2000; Detroit increased from about the same percentage to around 63% in the same time period; Indianapolis began with almost 10% black officers and had around 18% black officers in 2000; San Francisco increased from around 2% to 10% of its officers being black; Washington increased from around 18% to over 65% of its force being black; Boston increased from around 2% to around 25%; and Denver increased from about 3% to around 10% (DePillis, 2014). Obviously, the composition of police forces varies dramatically depending on location, which makes sense because racial demographics vary wildly across the country. Moreover, historically some areas, like Indianapolis, had historically high black officer involvement, which one might suggest would lead to less race-based discrimination in officers on that police force. What these results makes clear is that it is impossible to talk about cultural diversity on police forces as a whole, since it varies so dramatically across the United States.

Because there is no central organization that tracks all security officers and many people fill security officer positions in addition to playing other roles in organizations, it is difficult to assess the cultural diversity of security officers. What is known is that cultural diversity is a critical issue for security officers. For example, security officers maintain a large presence on college campuses in the United States and must remain aware of the changing enrollment demographics of the campuses on which they serve. They are simultaneously taxed with trying to identify people who appear out of place on campus and also respecting the diverse populations of students that appear on their campuses. "Security officers help support the overall mission to establish and nurture an environment that values diversity and is free from racism and other forms of prejudice, intolerance, or harassment" (Rosenberg, 2014).

What does a lack of diversity mean for criminal justice professionals? Many people assume that a lack of diversity means greater discrimination, however that assumption is not necessarily warranted. A lack of diversity does appear to lead to greater discrimination, but the solution is not simply increasing diversity. On the contrary, increasing diversity in police forces that began with a non-diverse officer distribution may actually exacerbate some of the existing racial tension. To understand this, one must look at the basic function of policing. Police officers are in charge of maintaining law and order. FBI Director James Comey puts this another way, "At many points in American history, law enforcement enforced the status quo, a status quo that was often brutally unfair to disfavored groups" (FBI, 2015). Even today, some of these police forces, in small towns and in major metropolitan areas, are often seen as perpetuating systems of oppression that negatively impact black and brown people, particularly young men (Sleeper, 2015). Adding in minority officers does not change this function of law enforcement; they are still often called upon to enforce this status quo, which may still be unfair to disfavored groups. This disfavor may not appear in overt racial discrimination, but may be more subtle, such as in class-based discrimination. On the other hand, minority officers may be more frustrated with members of their own minority groups who offend because they feel as if these offenders are reinforcing stereotypes that the officers have struggled to escape. Combined with minority officers feeling pressure to assimilate into the rest of police force, they may perpetuate the same type of racial oppression as white officers do, whether intentional or non-intentional.

However, there does seem to be some merit to the notion that diversity improves community relations and the ability of the police to relate to the community at large. "To be sure, some of the studies agree diverse police departments have an easier time building bridges with minority communities" (DePillis, 2014). These bridges not only improve the way that the community perceives the police department, but also make it easier for the police to engage in their duties, because they enable cooperation from members of the community. Furthermore, even if minority officers do not seem less likely to engage in racial profiling, they have seemed less likely to engage in the use of excessive force, such as shooting unarmed suspects, a problem that has been of particular concern to the African America and Hispanic communities.

Of course, real diversity has to move beyond considerations of black and white and even black, brown, and white. Today's bogeyman is no longer the young African-American male, but the young Muslim male. Are there real-life foundations for the stereotypes that may cause police officers to treat young Muslim males as potential terrorists? Many people would erroneously answer that question in an affirmative manner, but the reality is that, in the United States, far more angry white Christian males have engaged in acts of domestic terrorism and religious-based violence than Muslim males, but Muslim males have become the new target of profiling. What this suggests is that cultural diversity is not an issue that will ever be solved; there will always be emerging groups whose differentness makes them a potential target for discrimination so that those in charge of enforcing laws, rules, and norms must always be cognizant of diversity in order to ensure that they are not discriminating when enforcing their rules.