PoliceLink

Most States have licensing guidelines and regulations for various security personnel. Should security have some type of arrest authority beyond that of the citizen's arrest? Why or why not?

No and the reason why is they don't have any training in handly aggressively perp or multiple people.

You do! It is called a Citizen's Arrest. But other than exercising that power , I don't fee; that Security should do it.

The reason's being that you lack the experience of take down techniques, and a broader knowledge of the law. If you wre to arrest somebody and it went sour on your you are leaving YOURSELF wide open for the following charges:

1) Forcible Confinement

2) ACBH

3) Kidnapping

______________________________________

4) A False arrest lawsuit

For the multitude of reasons already noted.........

Gomer Pyle, the Ultimate Security Guard...

"Citizen's arrest, citizen's arrest!"

This old chestnut again!!!!  They do have "some type of legal arrest authority" - you are really asking if they should should have MORE authority.

There is no definitive answer - because just like police standards, training and regulations vary from state to state and even jurisdiction to jusrisdiction - so do those for the private security industry.  I do wish that peace officers would not compare their role with security officers, and security officers not think that they are underpaid police officers.  Both have different roles.  Both functions have good officers and bad officers.  Over the years, I have held basic and supervisory positions in both.

In California, where there is state regulation and licensing of private security, the role of the security officer is primarily prevention, and in the event of an incident to observe and report.  A security officer does not need either the powers or the training afforded to a peace officer.  A security officer's role is not to effect arrests except in very specific circumstances - when the powers of arrest afforded to every citizen are sufficient to complete that role.  Basically that is that they have witnessed a public offence / misdemeanor, or KNOW that a felony has been committed and have probable cause to arrest the suspect.  That's a simplification - but pretty much covers most eventualities.

There are some occupations where although not peace officers some limited peace officer powers are extended to security officers or other enforcement roles - primarily to allow arrests on probable cause for felonies where it is not KNOWN but suspected that the felony has been committed.  These requires IN ADDITION TO the state mandated Security Officer training, that the person completes the basic level of Peace Officer powers of arrest (PC832) which is also required of probation and parol officers and National Guard.

I keep hearing about police officers getting "extra work" doing security functions - that's great - I have employed off duty cops, but they often make really bad security officers - because they still think that they are cops.  I have also seen officers who perceive poor performance from security officers goad them into doing things that they should not be doing.  Cops need to remember that at the basic level, an unarmed security guard may do nothing more than sit at a desk and hand out visitor passes for basic wage - that is not law enforcement!

Many security officers are under the direct management of private clients who know nothing about security or law enforcement.  They do not want cops - they want people who give directions, carry heavy bags, find 'lost' vehicles in the parking lot, administer minor first aid, protect the management from liability claims, restart escalators, etc etc - so when, as a cop, you respond to a call at their place - you are being called to do something very different, for which you have received months and years of training - not forty hours most of which was about observe, report, and customer service.

So - should they have MORE authority than they have?  Probably not.  Do they understand they extent of they authority that they do have?  Do they have more that 'citizens' powers available?  Are they prepared to undertake the training?  Write the reports? etc etc  Probably not. 

KibblesnBits says ...

I only believe that those with LEO or possibly Corrections experience should have arrest power. Unless you have some AMAZING training. If you've met even one of my coworkers, you'd see why I would literally petition AGAINST security arrest powers.

Are they like this?

Not unless the Security Officer also carries a Peace Officers license.

Not only no but hell no...I cant talk for all states but Arizona has a very high standard for Law Enforcement Officers. Security personel do not have the training needed when it comes to the law. Bottom line if you want to be a police officer with the authority to arrest then go and take the steps to become a police officer. There are no room for wantabes. If you dont want to take the time and become certified and live up to the standards it takes to be a law enforcement officer then dont expect or want the same authority as one.

I can really concieve of no situation where a security officer would need to make an arrest. Would they be required to complete a Uniform Citation as well? Would they be responsible for transporting the prisoner to a detention facility? As long as they continue to have the ability to detain until law enforcement arrives, there is just really no need for arrest authority. A store owner may detain a shoplifter, a private property owner can detain a trespasser (at least in Kentucky). Actually, what is allowed is the use of "physical force", which by statutory definition includes detention.  So, why would an arrest be warranted? Leave things just the way they are. Also keep in mind that detaining a subject is very likely to be just as hazardous as attempting an arrest.

I guess it would depend on the circumstances. As a campus security officer and all the training we get as well as the training that we have planned I would have to differ with many of you. I would have to say yes. Sorry all of you that say no.

Retleo says ...

For the multitude of reasons already noted.........

STOP PUTTING THIS GOD DAMN PHOTO UP!!!! I FIND IT SO FUCKING DISRESPECTFULL.  MAYBE IF YOU DID A LITTLE RESURCH YOU WOULD FUCKING REALIZE THAT THAT GUY IS A MARINE.  WHILE IN IRAQ HIS HUMVEE WAS STRUCK BY AND IED.  MOST OF HIS BODY WAS SUVERLY BURNED AND HE HAD TO HAVE SKIN GRAPHS.  HE IS NOT A RETARD.  TAKE ALL THESE PIC OF OF THIS DAMN SIGHT BEFORE YOU REALLY PISS ME OFF!!!!!!!!

The question is: What type of Security? Security has a broader meaning these days. Arrest authority for security personnel would depend on the site or person or whatever is being secured, wouldn't it? I would hope so, because I would hate to know the security guard watching a parking lot could make an arrest (you parked over the line 3 times in the last week.....and you did it again today. You're under arrest!) in liue of cite and release; or that the security guard watching over a chemical plant couldn't effect an immediate arrest (here's your cite Mr Akmed, I don't have access to NCIC or the Interpol database, so you're free to go.) because of jurisdiction and/or questions of authority.

I think this whole business could only be accomplished (if its truely needed) if the security companies and local law enforcement agencies could reach some sort of collective agreement in terms of jurisdiction and powers of arrest. Maybe a limited jurisdiction and non applicablity to HR 218 would help out.

Afterall, LEO, or Security, we all have the same purpose right?

So in answer to the question: No.

Leave the power of arrest to those that are sworen officers.  It is not that hard to call for them if you need someone with the power of arrest.  I have the same power of arrest as does any citizen in Montana, and have never needed any more.  I don't need more authority then that, and if I do, I turn them over to the full time officers.

bad_LT says ...

YOU WANT ARREST POWERS??????? BECOME A COP..................

Agreed....