8/14/2019 Private Policing- Research Questions and Findings

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/private-policing-research-questions-and-findings 1/2

SecureLaw Ltd. Phone: 312-423-670065 West Jackson Blvd., #112 Fax: 312-692-2322Chicago, IL. 60604-3598 www.securelaw.info Email: info@securelaw.info

Private Policing: Research Questions & FindingsI have been interested in this subject since the early 1990’s. Even as a police officerduring the 1980’s, I often considered the realities of the “job” as it related to privatepolicing. Over time, I concluded that police were overwhelmed with numerous serviceoriented calls—not to mention the violence stemming from gangs and drugs. My researchof private policing included ride-alongs with private police officers as they patrolled thestreets of a Chicago neighborhood. I believe that this research technique, while relativelycommon for criminologists who study “public police,” was unique to the body of knowledge relating to “private police.” This research culminated with my doctoraldissertation defense on September 10, 2001. At that time, and to a great degree today, thissubject was, and is, rather esoteric. The dissertation subsequently formed the basis of myfirst book, The Privatization of Police in America: An Analysis & Case Study .

Methodology and Findings

As an attorney, who previously represented police unions and security firms, I wasinterested in the legal issues involving private police. In assessing this concern, I lookedat three research questions:

1. What functions do private police actually perform?2. Should they be considered “public actors”?3. If so, do they violate the constitution?

My findings included the following conclusions: private police largely perform an “ordermaintenance” function. However, that was not all they did. They also focused, to someextent, on “law enforcement.” While I agree with the notion that private police willtypically avoid making arrests, this premise may not be true in a public environment.Unlike the function of security personnel within “mass private property” (such asshopping malls and sport/concert facilities), my research took place on public streets,alleys, parks, and the like. In a public environment, my contention is that private policewill be more inclined to “act like the police.” Notwithstanding this assertion, the majorityof the work product was with “order maintenance” based functions. A lesser emphasis—but considerable—given the implications, however, involved law enforcement. That is:making arrests for drugs, guns, and for other disorderly behaviors.

Second, I also used case law—and its logical implications—and concluded that theprivate police officers in this case study would be considered “public actors.” I arguedand described the substantial nexus between the government and the private securityfirms. These nexus, or connections, between the security firms and the governmentincluded licensing, contracts, adopting a “special service district,” voting on areferendum, obtaining a resolution from the Chicago City Council, instituting a

8/14/2019 Private Policing- Research Questions and Findings

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/private-policing-research-questions-and-findings 2/2

SecureLaw Ltd. Phone: 312-423-670065 West Jackson Blvd., #112 Fax: 312-692-2322Chicago, IL. 60604-3598 www.securelaw.info Email: info@securelaw.info

governing board, and the like. These factors, coupled with their functional work product

(as described above), were important evidence in coming to this conclusion.

Third, in concluding that private police officers were public actors, this legal conclusion“opens the door” to constitutional protections. Stated another way, I concluded theprivate police officers violated 4 th amendment protections in their quest to provide publicsafety services to the community. The ironic spirit of this conclusion is that thecommunity did not seem to care about constitutional protections, as opposed to personalsafety and security. This theme, in my mind, is the key issue with private policing. Onone hand, I believe security is a commodity that can be bought and sold. Particularly,when people are fearful, the demand for this commodity is strong—even if the perceptionof security is more “smoke and mirrors” then real. On the other hand, people tend to care

little about such “esoteric” things as constitutional rights when their safety and security isin jeopardy.

This is the challenge in the era of terroristic threats. If government cannot adequatelyprotect “the people,” then security firms will increasingly fill (or attempt to fill) thisdemand for protection. If security services are performed with little regard toconstitutional protections, then the private sector paradoxically attributes to the rise of the“police state.” Given that one of the principles of terrorism is to force governmentoverreaction, the scope and nature of the security industry must be considered in thisequation.

In summary, the threat of terrorism will increase the need—and the market—for securityservices. As the level of fear arises, people will “buy” their own protection. Purchasing“security,” however, has its own set of unintended consequences. Security firms mustperform professionally. If they fail to do so, they will make many mistakes—and likely—abuse their authority. The abuse of power, particularly in a terroristic climate, will resultin a paradoxical situation: draconian “police” tactics by “security” personnel in the questto keep people safe. This potential must be carefully considered. While I am an advocatefor private policing, due in part to my belief that police need help to protect thecommunity—and the homeland, security services must be accomplished in a professionalmanner. This includes better selection, training, standards, salaries, and accountability. Inthe end, the irony is as follows: we need security as much as security needs professionals!It is my desire to foster both aspects of this ironic formula.

Copyright, James F. Pastor, 2010