private police licensing

8/14/2019 Private Police Licensing

1/5

SecureLaw Ltd. Phone: 312-423-6700

65 West Jackson Blvd., #112 Fax: 312-692-2322

Chicago, IL. 60604-3598 www.securelaw.info Email: [email protected]

PRIVATE POLICE LICENSING

Addressing licensing standards within the security industry has been percolating foryears. As those in the security industry are quite aware, the quest to professionalizesecurity officers is often tied to licensing regulations. The essence of this connection is asfollows: in order to increase the service level and effectiveness of security officers, it iswidely understood that training, pay and selection standards need to be heightened. Whilethese three factors are often interrelated, this piece will focus on licensing standardsasthese are the most cleanly attributable to governmental regulations.

Licensing standards directly relate to the issue of legal authority. As the work of securityofficers is increasing in scope and frequency (see Public Safety Policing model), the need

to maintain professionalism is critical. As private security expands into the public way,and to securing critical infrastructure, it is necessary to promulgate standards. Stated inanother way, in order to perform the work of the police, private police officers shouldbe trained in a manner commensurate with their functional work product. Training andlicensing standards must prepare these officers for the complexities of policing. Indeed,the largest security association in the world, ASIS International, has recognized this fact.In furtherance of this goal, The Private Security Officer Selection and TrainingGuideline has been adopted. In this guideline, the authors note that security officers must also be able to work closely and effectively with public safety personnel. i This isdirectly in line with the thesis of this paper.

This guideline is, by far, the most comprehensive approach to addressing the training andselection needs of security officers. While this guideline is designed for private securityofficers generally, it has direct application to private police officers. Simply stated, theguideline is both relevant and pointed. This guideline recommends state regulation insuch areas as background investigations, training, continuing education, insurance,licensing, and oversight bodies. In addition, the guideline suggests certain selectioncriteria for new hires, including criminal history, education, citizenship, fingerprinting,photographs, drug screening, and other personal information related to the applicant.Without getting into the details of these criteria, suffice it to say that each of these factorswill go a long way toward establishing more professionalism in the security industrygenerally, and in those private police officers who operate within the public realm.

ii

Indeed, since the actions of private police officers are likely to be much more visible inthe public realm, the need to meet or exceed these criteria is of critical importance.

The circumstances driving the need to get our arms around licensing can be seen in thisexample. Police in Kansas City, Mo., have recently cracked down on a city hotel that wasallegedly using unlicensed security. This significance is illustrated by the fact thatapproximately 6,000 private security guards are licensed by the city. Kansas City requiresprivate security guards to be licensed to help ensure the uniformity of standards within


2/5




the industry, said Tammy Gallagher, supervisor of the Police Departments privateofficers licensing unit. In an apparent attempt to skirt the licensing standards, a hotel in

Kansas City declared it would no longer be using security guards. However, according topolice, the hotel simply changed the name of their security staff to guest services.Police arrested the unlicensed worker on charges of false impersonation. They alsorequired the hotel to license all members of its security staff. By licensing securityguards, the city can be sure that they are qualified to carry guns, that they understand thelimitations of their authority, that they are insured, and that they have not been convictedof a felony, Gallagher explained. Licenses cost up to $125 per employee annually, and$250 for private security agencies, Gallagher said.

iii

This example clearly demonstrates the tension between the need to regulate and thedesire to innovate. Of course, the provision of security services may involve decisions of

life and deathor less dramaticallylaw and order. Since these are of criticalimportance, we must maintain appropriate levels of accountability. One way to achievethis worthy goal is through licensing. As the above example illustrates, government canreadily provide standards through licensing regulations. A useful analogy can be seenfrom the current vehicle licensing laws. For example, states have been empowered by thelegislature to regulate the issuance of drivers licenses and in the operation of vehicles.The logic of these regulations demonstrates the dual concerns ofcriticality andfunctionality. In this sense, states restrict the operation of certain vehicles, such largetrucks, the transportation of people (particularly children and other special needindividuals), the use of motorcycles, and the transportation of hazardous materials. Theseare achieved through drivers license classifications (from A to M). Each of these

classifications is loosely based on the notion that the driver either must have specializedtraining (i.e. motorcycles, and transportation of people and hazardous materials) and/orthat the operation of a particular vehicle entails certain risks to the general public (or eventhe driver).

Obviously, part of the logic to require specialized training relates to the potential publicsafety concernsi.e. the criticality of the job or the operation of the vehicle. In addition,these licensing classifications are also based on the weight of the vehicle, which can beloosely related to the differentfunctional attributes of driving a passenger vehicle versusdriving a large truck and trailer. Hence, the licensing classifications go to the substantialdifferences in operating these very different vehicles. Finally, drivers licensing laws alsoaccount for special circumstances, such as age requirements, special vehicles,probationary licenses, and restricted permits.

This being said, it is not necessary that the training and selection standards be equivalentto public police officers. Police typically receive 600 to 800 hours of training. Instead, thebest practice would be to develop a training curriculum that focuses on the particular roleor function to be performed. The different levels and types of training would then beregulated by a particular type of license issued by the state (or other government entity).


3/5


4/5




Similarly, tactical police officers typically are more trained and skilled than patrol

officers. They tend to be much more proactive, looking to engage suspicious persons andmake arrests when appropriate. In the same way, the armed/proactive private patrolofficer will receive more training than the hybrid patrol officer. They also will makemore arrests, and conduct themselves in a more proactive manner. They will look toengage suspicious persons, yet they will still perform various order maintenancefunctions. These are comparable to the models used in Hollywood BID and MarquettePark. Finally, the respective sectors will also have their SWAT components. In the publicsector, these officers will be a proportionately larger percentage of public policingpersonnel (pursuant to the Public Safety Policing model). These SWAT officers (and tosome extent tactical officers as well) will represent the militarization aspects of the newpolicing model. In the private sector, these SWAT officers can be compared to those

performing security functions in combat zones, such as Blackwater (now Xe) and TripleCanopy. In any case, of course, the functions of private police substantially differ withinthe sector. For example, traffic control aides are quite different from the tasks of securityofficers at a nuclear power plant. Each should be trained and licensed at a different level.However, as noted above, there are similarities across the sectors. Consequently, theskills and job description of different types of private police officers must be accountedforjust as in public policing. The licensing should range from class A to D or E,depending upon the particular legislative approach. Similarly, training should range from20 or 40 hours minimum, and rise to 200 to 800 hours for street patrols and utility/criticalinfrastructure security.iv

It is time to implement these licensing regulations within the security industry. Instead ofhaving two broad classifications (i.e. such unarmed with 20 hours of training versusarmed with 40 hours of training), licensing requirements should be based on the functionsand criticality of the job that the security officer performs. These relate to jobdescriptions and the level of training needed for the task to be performed. The morecritical the job, the more training required. Hence, the nature and function of the work isthe driving force of licensing standards.

In summary, I suggest private police licensing should be associated and contrasted to thejob descriptions of public policing (see attached chart) and to vehicle licensing standards.I envision requiring training and selection standards based on the functions of the job andthe critical nature of the job. As such, we need to think about the characteristics of thejob, not merely some arbitrary 20/40 hour unarmed versus armed requirement. Unlesslicensing standards are tied to the realities of the job, the value of any such standardswould be negligible. This being said, the exact number of training hours, the types ofrequired training, and the background and selection standards are subject to debate.


5/5




It is my assertion that these details can be ironed outif the decision makers are sensitiveof the paradigm shift that needs to occur within and outside of the security industry. In

this sense, I advocate the focus on the public safety industry, which combines the

resources of both the private and public sectorsdesigned to enhance the level of publicsafety in contemporary America. These issues were discussed in my ground breakingbooks entitled: The Privatization of Police in America: An Analysis & Case Study andTerrorism and Public Safety Policing: Implications for the Obama Presidency.

It is my hope that this brief summary helps move licensing toward a more professionalapproach.

James F. Pastor, 2010

ENDNOTES

i Private Security Officer Selection and Training (2004). ASIS International.ii See, for example, Pastor, James F. (2006). Security Law and Methods. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann; and Nemeth, Charles P. (1989). Private Security and the Law. Cincinnati: Anderson.iii Alm, Rick (2005). Police Give Hotel Deadline to License Security Staff, Kansas City Star(05/10/05).iv Pastor, James F. (2003). The Privatization of Police in America: An Analysis & Case Study. Jefferson,N.C., McFarland.

private police licensing

Documents