Transit Guards

Discussion Questions: Watch the following video: Seattle Transit Guards Stand and Watch Beating (https://youtu.be/6hrG3lz2PQs)

The chapter on The Path to Professionalism covers several topics and ends with a discussion of ethical considerations. Watch the video below as if you were watching it from the train platform as it was occurring. Describe your “perception” of the security officers. In your opinion, are there any ethical considerations regarding the “inaction” of the security officers? What would you suggest the new language in the contract be changed to other than “observe and report” (if you would change it)?

Instructions: Fully utilize the materials that have been provided to you in order to support your response. Your initial post should be at least 350 words. APA format citations

2 Regulation, Licensing,

Education, and Training The Path to Professionalism

in the Security Industry

CHAPTER OUTLINE

Introduction: The Impetus for Increased Regulation …………………………………………………………. 21

Federal Regulation………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 28

State Regulation …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 30

Age……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..32

Experience Requirements ……………………………………………………………………………………………..32

Licensure…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..34

Personal Character ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….37

Education and Training ………………………………………………………………………………………………..39

Professional and Continuing Education …………………………………………………………………………51

Model Educational Programs: Curricula …………………………………………………………………………53

Ethical Considerations …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 57

Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 63

Discussion Questions ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 63

Notes……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 64

Introduction: The Impetus for Increased Regulation Much needs to be said about the security industry’s call for increased professionalism

and standards. Is it merely shallow puffery—calling for respect, skilled personnel,

occupational status, and direction without taking the requisite steps to insure that

reality? Or is private security following the path to professionalism, insisting on well-

regulated personnel, highly proficient in the field’s varied tasks, properly educated,

and motivated to continuous training and professional improvement? “Professionalism

carries with it certain responsibilities as well as certain privileges.”1

Any quest for professionalism mandates serious licensing requirements and quantifi-

able standards or levels of personal achievement, education, and experience. Security

personnel must be both aware and strictly attentive to the dramatic surge of law and

legislation outlining required levels of training and standards. “The private security field

Private Security and the Law

Nemeth, C. (2011). Private security and the law. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from apus on 2020-09-14 13:42:55.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

is entering a new era—an era of governmental regulation . . . and training of the guard

force is a major focus of this regulatory thrust.”2

The National Private Security Officer Survey, whose respondents included security

directors, facilities and plant managers, security executives, and professional organiza-

tions, manifests an appreciation for regulation, either of a public or private variety, to

ensure a quality workforce.3 Some findings were as follows:

• 75 percent check personal references

• 24 percent use psychological evaluation

• 40 percent use drug screening

• 53 percent believe there will be increased federal regulation of security officers

• 40 percent favor increased regulation4

Governments have not been shy about jumping into the oversight role of the private

security industry, and this tendency has heightened since 9/11. A bipartisan bill, the

Private Security Officer Employment Standards Act of 2002, sponsored by Senators Levin,

Thompson, Leiberman, andMcConnell, sought review of past criminal histories of private

security personnel. The legislative intent concerning the act is plain on its face:

Congress finds that

1. employment of private security officers in the United States is growing rapidly;

2. private security officers function as an adjunct to, but not a replacement for, public

law enforcement by helping to reduce and prevent crime;

3. such private security officers protect individuals, property, and proprietary

information, and provide protection to such diverse operations as banks, hospitals,

research and development centers, manufacturing facilities, defense and aerospace

contractors, high technology businesses, nuclear power plants, chemical

companies, oil and gas refineries, airports, communication facilities and operations,

office complexes, schools, residential properties, apartment complexes, gated

communities, and others;

4. sworn law enforcement officers provide significant services to the citizens of

the United States in its public areas, and are supplemented by private security

officers;

5. the threat of additional terrorist attacks requires cooperation between public and

private sectors and demands professional security officers for the protection of

people, facilities, and institutions;

6. the trend in the nation toward growth in such security services has accelerated rapidly;

7. such growth makes available more public sector law enforcement officers to combat

serious and violent crimes;

8. the American public deserves the employment of qualified, well-trained private

security personnel as an adjunct to sworn law enforcement officers;

9. private security officers and applicants for private security officer positions should

be thoroughly screened and trained; and

22 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

10. standards are essential for the selection, training, and supervision of qualified

security personnel providing security services.5

Terrorism alone has justified a new vision of professionalism and corresponding

oversight.6 The U.S. State Department paints a grim picture of terrorism’s impact on

asset and facility integrity. Terrorism has changed the landscape. Data on numbers of

international attacks from 1997 to 2002, shown in Figure 2.1, unfortunately chart an

inclined plane with no end in sight.7

The security industry itself wishes some level of standardization in matters of

licensure, regulation, and professional standards. Because private security personnel

are increasingly involved in the detection and prevention of criminal activity, use of

ill-trained, ill-equipped, and unsophisticated individuals is not only unwarranted but

foolhardy. See Table 2.1.8

Consider the potential liabilities, both civil and criminal, that can potentially arise froma

security employee who has little or no training or has not been diligently screened. J. Shane

Creamer, former attorney general for the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, argues decisively:

There is a variety of problems involving abuse of authority which impact society itself.

These range from very serious instances in which a private security officer shoots

someone to a minor instance of using offensive language. These actions occur in the

context of an attempted arrest, detention, interrogation or search by a guard or a retail

security officer. There is a striking consistency among private security executives’ views,

personal-injury claims statistics, responses of security personnel, complaints recorded

by regulatory agencies, court cases, and press accounts. One is led to the inescapable

conclusion that serious abuses occur—even if their frequency is unknown.9

Lack of proper standards, training, and educational preparedness results in a predic-

table shortage of skilled and dutiful security practitioners. Promotion of these traits and

professional characteristics could and does curtail a plethora of common private

enforcement problems, including the following:

• unnecessary use of force

• false imprisonment claims

• false arrest assertions

• improper or illegal search and seizure techniques

• proliferation of lawsuits

• misuse of weaponry

• abuse of authority

Certainly, state legislatures, federal authorities, and even local governing bodies

are mindful. “On the local level governmental regulation dealing with training is prolif-

erating. Cities, counties, and states are contemplating, or have already enacted, legisla-

tion or ordinances mandating standards for private security guards within their

Chapter 2 • Regulation, Licensing, Education, and Training 23

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

40 8

38 3

28 2

27 8

12 2

61 59 35

29 18 14 15 10

27 17 17 17 13

Diplomat Government Military OtherBusiness

67 96

11 4

10 1 10

1998

Total Facilities Struck by International Attacks, 1998-2003

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

44 1

13 1 6

FIGURE 2.1 Total number of facilities struck by terrorist attacks between 1998 and 2003.

24 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Table 2.1 Employment by Industry, Occupation & Percent Distribution

Chapter 2 • Regulation, Licensing, Education, and Training 25

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

jurisdiction—standards that rarely fail to include training requirements.”10 Oversight is

fairly expected and sensibly demanded of our governmental bodies:

The states have the authority to regulate and license the private security industry,

whether private detectives, watchmen, guard services, security agencies or any other

activity related to personal and property security. The state may set reasonable

standards and requirements for licensing. The courts stand ready to examine the

regulations but only when these enactments appear unreasonable, capricious in

purpose or arbitrary in design. Furthermore, they stand ready to examine either

the uniformity or disparateness of impacts when implementing the regulations.11

The ramifications of inadequate regulation and licensing are far reaching. The 1985

study, Crime and Protection in America: A Study of Private Security and Law Enforcement

Resources and Relationships,12 by the National Institute of Justice, categorized how

abuses and unprofessional behavior usually manifests itself in conduct:

• deceptive advertising

• improper equipment

• conflicting uniform designs

• aggressive, unprofessional techniques

• deceptive sales techniques

• fictitious bidding processes

• high turnover rates (personnel)

• lack of business longevity

• internal fraud and criminal corruption

• avoidance of confrontation

• lack of liability insurance

• low-grade personnel13

Even from an industry self-interest point of view, increased standards and regulatory

requirements seem to correlate to eventual salary and position. The ASIS International

Table 2.1—Cont’d

26 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

database and study, Compensation in the Security Loss Prevention Field, corroborates the

correlation:

The survey serves as a benchmark, confirmingwhatmany industry professionals have

known: For instance, unarmed security officers rank at the low end of the salary spec-

trum, with an average income of less than $16,000 a year. The compensation study

also highlights some more novel findings, pointing to the Certified Protection Profes-

sional (CPP) designation as a distinct factor in higher income.14

Salaries also vary by geographic region and by armed or unarmed status. In 1993,

unarmed salaries ranged between $12,000 and $21,000, and salaries for armed security

officers ranged between $13,000 and $35,000.15

As the public justice system privatizes further, increased regulation and licensing will

occur. Without it, abuse of authority will only escalate. At present, there is no national

regulatory consensus to ensure a uniform design, though most states fall into one of

these categories:

1. Some jurisdictions have absolutely no regulatory oversight in the private security

industry.16

2. Some jurisdictions heavily regulate armed security professionals, but disregard other

private security activities.17

3. Some jurisdictions use existing state and municipal police forces to regulate the

industry, while others promote self-regulation and education.18

4. Some jurisdictions cover the activities of alarm companies, while others exempt them.

5. Some jurisdictions devise separate regulatory processes for private detectives, but

not for security guards or officers, while others make no distinction.19

6. Most jurisdictions have little education or training requirements, though the trend is

toward increased education.20

7. Jurisdictions that require examinations for licensing are in the minority.

8. Those that regulate have an experience requirement.

9. Criminal record checks for prospective private employees for those states that

regulate are increasing.

At present, the regulatory climate is a hodgepodge of philosophies exhibiting increas-

ing uniformity. Moreover, regulation at the state and local levels has often been hastily

developed and quickly enacted following the media accounts alleging abuses of security

guards’ powers and the commission of criminal actions by the guards.21 Usually, one

hears about the regulatory crisis when scandal erupts or some criminality occurs within

the security community. It is indisputable that there is a linkage between the behavior,

good or bad, and the level of regulatory requirements and oversight in the security

industry. More effective licensing and regulation for the private security industry can

be attained by statewide preemptive legislation and interstate licensing agency reci-

procity. With the number of national private security companies, the legislatures must

Chapter 2 • Regulation, Licensing, Education, and Training 27

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

address these two critical components of the licensing and regulation process. In states

with a proliferation of local licensing ordinances, legislatures must take a leadership role

in establishing uniform and fair legislation.

In addition, states must enter into interstate licensing reciprocity similar to that used

by public law enforcement agencies in such matters as auto licenses, driver’s licenses,

and similar regulation. Currently, the national security companies are required to be

licensed in many states. This is not cost effective either for the security companies or

ultimately the users of security services. Many smaller security companies that operate

in several jurisdictions in adjacent states experience the same burden.22

Given these dynamics, a call for professionalism both from industry sources as well

as governmental entities has been continuous and steadfast, and there are signs of

significant progress. At both the federal and state level, the push is on for increased

controls, but our examination will weigh these questions:

Federal and State Regulation

What is the present level of governmental regulation of the security industry? Has

there been increased attention given to qualifications? To education and training?

Is a movement afoot to professionalize legislatively?

Education and Training

How much education and training has been legislated for security personnel? Is

security education a viable academic exercise? What forms of specialized

education should be legislatively or administratively required?

Model Statutory Designs that Promote Security Professionalism

How are statutes that involve the security industry composed? What types of

statutory designs exists? What types of statutory authority promote

professionalism in the security industry?

As the security industry takes on higher levels of responsibility in the elimination of

crime, the enforcement of law, and the maintenance of the community, legislation and

regulatory policy can only accelerate.

Federal Regulation Aside from the states’ efforts to professionally regulate the security industry, the federal

government, through both direct and indirect means, has had some input into this

industry’s current standing. Historically, private security’s union/business activities,

from the Molly Maguires to the Homestead Steel Strike, have forced national scrutiny

of the industry.23 Recent events of paramilitary security contractors engaged in covert

activities in the Middle East, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan only heighten this pen-

chant for oversight. Through the opinions of the U.S. attorney general and congressional

passage of the Anti-Pinkerton acts, private security has been the subject of continuous

governmental oversight.24

28 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

The administrative agencies of the federal government, who extensively contract

out for private security services, also influence private sector qualifications through

their numerous requirements. These regulatory agencies have set standards on age,

experience, education, and character:

• Department of Homeland Security

• Federal Aviation Administration

• Department of Defense

• Interstate Commerce Commission

• Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• Securities and Exchange Commission

• Food and Drug Administration

• Office of the Inspector General

• General Accounting Office25

Federal legislation that impacts on private security practice is another means of reg-

ulatory control. Throughout the Clinton and Bush years, and certainly since the debacle

of 9/11, various bills have been proposed to nationalize and standardize the security

industry and its practice. In reaction to terrorism, Congress has enacted a host of mea-

sures that deliver security services in many contexts.26 The Homeland Security Act of

200227 signifies a major reorientation in the legislative landscape. The mission of the

Homeland Security Agency notes, “In technology and safety, rules and facilities prac-

tices, the security world has been turned on its head.”28 In addition, there is an expecta-

tion that private security companies and corporations will be active, cooperative players

in the defense of a nation as to terror. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

promotes the integration of private sector security firms working in conjunction with

public law enforcement. More specifically, DHS erected a Private Sector Office and

Outreach Group dedicated to these ends.29

The federal system entangles itself in all sorts of activities prompted by laws and

legislation. Data collection, information gathering, and its maintenance are often the

subject of federal legislation such as the following:

• The Fair Credit Reporting Act30

• The Freedom of Information Act

Polygraphs have also been the subject of congressional oversight with the passage of the

Polygraph Protection Act of 198031 and the Employee Polygraph Protection Act.32 With

extensive limitations on pre-employment screening and further encumbrances on inter-

nal investigations, employees and polygraph vendors see little promise in the future

role of the polygraph,33 yet the statutes manifest a federal nervousness about the industry.

There is momentum for increased regulation, particularly since the terrorist attacks

of 2001. At the federal level, The Law Enforcement and Industrial Security Cooperation

Act of 1996 (H.R. 2996)34 was introduced, though it was not passed. H.R. 2996 encou-

raged cooperation between the private and public sectors. If passed, this bill would have

Chapter 2 • Regulation, Licensing, Education, and Training 29

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

been a solid step for the security industry to take toward an active role in opening the

lines of communication with law enforcement and in turn, sharing ideas, training, and

working in conjunction with each other, all indirectly influencing standards. The content

of the proposed bill is instructive and certainly foretells an active future for the security

industry. The rationale for bill adoption is fourfold:

1. Seventy percent of all money invested in crime prevention and law enforcement each

year in the United States is spent by the private sector.

2. There are nearly three employees in private sector security for every one in public law

enforcement.

3. More than half of the responses to crime come from private security.

4. A bipartisan study commission specially constituted for the purposes of examining

appropriate cooperative roles between public sector law enforcement and private

sector security will be able to offer comprehensive proposals for statutory and

procedural initiatives.35

The Private Security Officer Employment Standards Act of 200236 represents formidable

federal involvement.

The impetus for federal legislation is real and forceful. So much of what the industry

does has grave consequences. Technical and electronic intrusions into the general

citizenry, especially in the age of computers, raise many concerns. The private security

industry must be attuned to legal and human issues that involve privacy. The industry

must adopt policies and practices that achieve “a delicate balance between the forces

of liberty and authority—between freedom and responsibility.”37

State Regulation Few would argue the enhanced trend toward regulation. Even police organizations such

as the International Association of Police Chiefs (IACP) have promulgated minimum

standards. All private security officers must meet the applicable statutory requirements

and the established criteria of the employer, which may exceed minimum mandated

requirements. Federal law mandates that candidates for employment must be citizens

or possess legal alien status prior to employment. All applicants who are hired or

certified as a private security officer should meet the following minimum criteria:

A. Be at least 18 years of age—“unarmed” private security officer.

B. Be at least 21 years of age—“armed” private security officer and comply with U.S. Public

Law 104-208 Section 658 (the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997).

C. Possess a valid state driver’s license (if applicable).

D. Not have been:

1. Convicted or pled guilty or nolo contendere to a felony in any jurisdiction;

2. Convicted or pled guilty or nolo contendere to a misdemeanor involving moral

turpitude, acts of dishonesty or acts against governmental authority, including the

use and/or possession of a controlled substance within a seven-year period;

30 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

3. Convicted or pled guilty or nolo contendere to any crime in any

jurisdiction involving the sale, delivery, or manufacture of a controlled

substance; or

4. Declared by any court to be incompetent by reason of mental disease or defect

that has not been removed or expunged.

E. Submit two sets of classifiable fingerprints and two passport-sized photographs,

along with applicant’s name, address, date of birth, social security number,

citizenship status, and a statement of conviction of crimes in order to conduct a state

criminal record check, and a FBI criminal history check, prior to permanent

employment as a private security officer. In all instances, these actions must be taken

prior to the private security officer’s being armed.

F. Furnish information about all prior employment through the employer making a

reasonable effort to verify the last seven years of employment history, and checking

three personal references.

G. Successfully pass a recognized preemployment drug screen.

Suggested nonregulated preemployment applicant criteria include the following:

A. High school education or equivalent;

B. Military discharge records (DD 214);

C. Mental and physical capacity to perform duties for which being employed;

D. Armed applicants shall successfully complete a relevant psychological evaluation to

verify that the applicant is suited for duties for which being employed.38

An overwhelming majority of American states have passed legislation governing the

security industry. This legislation promulgates standards on education and training,

experiential qualifications, and personal character requirements.

That the power to regulate is quite extraordinary is indisputable. The grant or denial

of a license has economic and professional implications and regulatory authority must

be attentive to due process and constitutional challenges. Most case law reviews not

the constitutionality of the regulatory power, but the procedural rules and due process

that accompany the industry’s oversight. Appellate cases that challenge the process of

oversight are fairly common. In Moates v. Strength,39 an appeals court granted summary

judgment to the licensing authority because the appellant was incapable of showing

a disregard for procedural regularity. The court noted, “The court cannot recognize

a party’s subjective belief that wrongdoing will occur as a viable claim for deprivation

of that party’s civil rights.”40

Although it is not the function of this section to review each and every piece of

legislation promulgated by the states, the reader will be provided with a broad-based

overview of legislative trends and standards. To commence, review the complete Florida

Act given in Appendix 1. In Florida, as in most jurisdictions, state legislation tends

to emphasize these regulatory categories:

• Age

• Experience requirements

Chapter 2 • Regulation, Licensing, Education, and Training 31

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

• Gradations of licensure

• Personal character

• Education and training

Age

Age and its relation to eligibility are evident in most regulatory frameworks. Does age pro-

vide any assurance of better performance, ethical adherence, and professional demeanor?

Whenone considers the seriousness ofmany security tasks, it seems logical that age is a cru-

cial factor in licensing and regulation. Connecticut’s statutory provision is a case in point:

The applicant for a private detective or private detective agency license shall be not less

than twenty-five years of age and of good moral character and shall have had at least

five years’ experience as a full-time investigator, as determined in regulations adopted

by the commissioner pursuant to section 29-161, or shall have had at least ten years’

experience as a police officer with a state or organized municipal police department.41

Most states are less rigorous than Connecticut, though age is usually a factor according

to the type of license applied for. In many jurisdictions, age limitations are outlined

when applying for a private investigator’s license:

Hawaii—Be not less than eighteen years of age;42

Indiana—Is at least twenty-one (21) years of age;43

Delaware—Be at least 25 years of age;44

Arkansas—Be at least twenty-one (21) years of age;45

More typically, state legislatures propose minimal age requirements. Iowa makes a

qualification for a license conditional on being at least 18 years of age.46 Other jurisdic-

tions following the 18-year-old rule for numerous licensed positions in security include

Maine47 and Georgia.48 All in all, most jurisdictions allow applicants to be admitted at

the legal age of majority.

Experience Requirements

A majority of states have an experience requirement, a fact somewhat inconsistent

with the age qualifications. North Carolina experience provisions are more stringent

than most states:

Experience Requirements/Security Guard And Patrol License

(a) In addition to the requirements of 12 NCAC 07D .0200, applicants for a security

guard and patrol license shall:

(1) establish to the Board’s satisfaction three years experience as a manager,

supervisor, or administrator with a contract security company or a proprietary

security organization performing guard and patrol functions; or

32 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

(2) establish to the Board’s satisfaction three years experience as a manager,

supervisor, or administrator in security with any federal, U.S. Armed Forces,

state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency performing guard and

patrol functions.49

Requiring experience in justice-related occupations seems the norm. Georgia’s experi-

ence requirements represent this tendency

(3) The applicant for a private detective company license has had at least two

years’ experience as an agent registered with a licensed detective agency, or

has had at least two years’ experience in law enforcement, or has a four-year

degree in criminal justice or a related field from an accredited university or

college; and the applicant for a security company license has had at least two

years’ experience as a supervisor or administrator in in-house security

operations or with a licensed security agency, or has had at least two years’

experience in law enforcement, or has a four-year degree in criminal justice

or a related field from an accredited university or college;50

The Georgia legislature allows police and law enforcement training as a substitute for

the experience requirement. Other substitute activities for the experience requirements

are as follows:

Have a minimum of two years of experience, education or training in any one of the

following areas, or some combination thereof:

Course work that is relevant to the private investigation business at an accredited

college or university;51

Employment as a member of any United States government investigative agency,

employment as a member of a state or local law-enforcement agency or service as a

sheriff;

Employment by a licensed private investigative or detective agency for the purpose of

conducting the private investigation business;

Service as a magistrate in this state; or

Any other substantially equivalent training or experience;52

an insurance adjuster;53

an internal investigator or auditor while making an investigation incidental to the

business of the agency or company by which the investigator or auditor is singularly

and regularly employed;54

The emphasis placed on experience is a positive sign in the industry’s quest for profes-

sionalism. Inept and inexperienced persons should not be entrusted with the obligations

of private security. This trend toward security professionalism is further evidenced by the

statutory reciprocity that exists between public and private justice, namely credit granted

for law enforcement experience, or a waiver of the experience qualifications for those who

have served in public law enforcement. Hawaii’s statute is typical of this reciprocity:

Chapter 2 • Regulation, Licensing, Education, and Training 33

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Experience requirements. The board may accept the following:

. . .

(4) Have had experience reasonably equivalent to at least four years of full-time

investigational work;55

While great strides are evident in the jurisdictional experience rule, many states

blatantly disregard the experience issue. Kansas lacks experience requirements:

75-7b05. License, initial or renewal; fee set by attorney general.

(a) Every application for an initial or a renewal license shall be accompanied by a fee

in an amount fixed by the attorney general pursuant to K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 75-7b22,

and amendments thereto.

(b) In addition to the application fee imposed pursuant to subsection (a), if the applicant

is an organization and any of its officers, directors, partners or associates intends to

engage in the business of such organization as a private detective, such officer,

director, partner or associate shallmake a separate application for a license andpay a

fee in an amount fixedby the attorney general pursuant toK.S.A. 2008 Supp. 75-7b22,

and amendments thereto.56

Equally silent on experience is New Jersey.57

Licensure Regulation by license is the state’s effort to regularize security practice and its particular posi-

tions. By overseeing occupations and professions, from lawyers to security officers, the state

gives credence to the field’s influence and importance and symbolizes a need to quality con-

trol those engaging in its activities. Review the Private Detective, Private Alarm, Private

Security, and Locksmith Act of 2004.58 Licensure classifications include the following:

Classes of Individual Licenses

• Private Detective59

• Private Security Contractor60

• Private Alarm Contractor61

Classes of Business Certification

• Private Detective Agency62

• Private Security Contractor Agency63

• Private Alarm Contractor Agency64

Varying degrees of experience, education and training, bond, and age are cited,

depending on the license desired. Not surprisingly, the licensure requirements impose

the heaviest burdens on those who can exert force, handle weaponry, or own and

operate a security agency.

These statutory gradations are testimony to the dynamic growth andmaturation of the

security industry. Legislators, as a rule,make lawswhen pressed or prodded by the ebb and

flow of social and political pressure. At times, political action comes from enlightened

34 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

activism, at other times the impetus is scandal or some reactionary setting. “This new

era—an era of regulation for the private security industry offers a great challenge, and that

challenge will be met if the interested parties recognize their common business interests

as well as their collective responsibility to the community at large.”65

The Florida legislature poses another set of licensure categories even more grandiose:

5N-1.116 Classification of Licenses; Insurance; Fees.

(1) Classifications. The following shall be the classifications of licenses:

PRIVATE INVESTIGATION

Agency Class “A”

Private Investigator Class “C”

Armed Private Investigator Class “C” & Class “G”

Branch Office Class “AA”

Manager Class “C”, Class “MA” or Class “M”

Intern Class “CC”

PRIVATE SECURITY

Agency Class “B”

Security Officer Class “D”

Armed Security Officer Class “D” & Class “G”

Branch Office Class “BB”

Manager Class “MB” or Class “M”

REPOSSESSION ACTIVITY

Agency Class “R”

Recovery Agent Class “E”

Branch Office Class “RR”

Manager Class “MR” or Class “E”

Intern Class “EE”

COMBINED PRIVATE INVESTIGATION AND SECURITY

Agency Class “A” & Class “B”

Branch Office Class “AB”

Manager Class “M”

SCHOOLS

Security Officer School/Training Facility Class “DS”

Security Officer Instructor Class “DI”

Recovery Agent School/Training Facility Class “RS”

Recovery Agent Instructor Class “RI”

FIREARMS

Instructor Class “K”

Statewide Firearm License Class “G”

MANAGERS

Private Investigative Agency or Branch Class “C”, “MA”, or “M”

Private Security Agency or Branch Class “MB” or “M”

Recovery Agency or Branch Class “E” or “MR”

Armed Manager Appropriate Manager’s License & Class “G”66

Chapter 2 • Regulation, Licensing, Education, and Training 35

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Florida licensing law promotes an interplay and reciprocity between public and

private law enforcement by granting credit for public law experience. Equally stressed

is education, its level obtained, and the degree correlating to the security position.

In sum, the more complicated the position, the higher the regulatory demand. For

example, a private investigator applicant may substitute some of the experiential

requirements by adhering to the following regulatory pattern:

(a) Private investigative work or related fields of work that provided equivalent

experience or training;

(b) Work as a Class “CC” licensed intern;

(d) Experience described in paragraph (a) for 1 year and experience described in

paragraph (e) for 1 year;

(e) No more than 1 year using:

1. College coursework related to criminal justice, criminology, or law enforcement

administration; or

2. Successfully completed law enforcement-related training received from any

federal, state, county, or municipal agency;67

Additionally, the Florida statute fully recognizes the serious burden that is placed

upon the armed security officer. Both armed personnel and their instructors are placed

under stringent guidelines:

In order to qualify for the Class “G” license, you must have successfully completed 28

hours of range and classroom training provided by a licensed Class “K” Firearms

Instructor within the preceding 12 months. The Firearms Instructor will issue

a Certificate of Firearms Proficiency (Form DACS-16005) to you upon completion

of this training. A copy of this certificate must be included with your application.

Acceptable Alternatives for the 28 Hours of Range and Classroom Training

1. If you are certified by FDLE’s Criminal Justice Standards & Training

Commission (CJSTC) as a law enforcement officer or correctional officer AND

you are currently employed in either of these capacities, a copy of your valid

ID card issued to you by your employing law enforcement agency will satisfy

the training requirement.

2. If within the preceding 12 months you have successfully completed a training

program approved by the CJSTC for certification of graduates as law

enforcement officers or correctional officers, a copy of your certificate of

completion from that program will satisfy the training requirement.

3. If you qualify for a Class “K” Firearms Instructor License in accordance with

the requirements set forth in s. 493.6105(7(a), FS, a copy of one of the law

enforcement or security firearms instructor certificates listed in this section will

satisfy the training requirement.68

36 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Licensure grades and requirements vary according to the level of responsibility

exerted. Some states need the security agency itself to perform internal oversight of its

own employees. Thus, the security firm or proprietor needs a license that includes a

right to supervise or evaluate those under its command. Given the growth of security

personnel, it makes good sense to transfer the task of policing one’s own to those in

occupational proximity—the agency itself. New Mexico sets up such a policy in its list

of qualifications for operation of business. The statute holds that

[a] licensee shall at all times be legally responsible for the good business conduct of

each of his employees, including his managers.69

In sum, these legislative classifications are further evidence of the technical,

business, and professional sophistication evolving in the security industry. As the field

matures and develops, legislative activity and regulation mirrors the development.

Personal Character

Traditionally, “good” character was the chief criteria for license issuance. Stating such

criteria is easy. Defining and interpreting these criteria are highly subjective. The diver-

sity of good character definitions is testimony to the creative draftsmanship of legisla-

tors. The desire is plain—to license only those individuals who are not thieves, liars,

untrustworthy scoundrels, or other reprehensible characters. Character bespeaks loudly

the man or woman’s suitability for the job.

In North Carolina, a license will be issued to a person who “is of good moral character

and temperate habits.”70

Who is the judge of temperance? Can this trait be objectively measured? Indiana

tries to make it plain by denying a license to specific applicants:

(a) The board may deny a license unless the applicant makes a showing satisfactory

to the board that the applicant or, if the applicant is a business entity, the officer or

partner referred to in subsection (b):

(1) has not committed an act which, if committed by a licensee, would be grounds

for the suspension or revocation of a license under this chapter;

(2) has not been convicted of a:

(A) felony; or

(B) misdemeanor that has a direct bearing upon the applicant’s ability to practice

competently;71

While this legislative guidance is commendable, the lawmaker and regulator must be

keen on the clarity of the act in question. Imprecision of language leads to abuse of

discretion. Character is a difficult thing to measure precisely.

Ohio provides more objective criteria:

(a) Has a good reputation for integrity, has not been convicted of a felony within the last

twenty years or any offense involving moral turpitude, and has not been adjudicated

Chapter 2 • Regulation, Licensing, Education, and Training 37

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

incompetent for the purpose of holding the license, as provided in section 5122.301

[5122.30.1] of the Revised Code, without having been restored to legal capacity for

that purpose.72

With this statutory definition, the evaluator measures the applicant by a past criminal

history.

Arizona does an even better job of delineating the notion of good character. The

applicants shall:

Within the five years immediately preceding the application for an agency license,

not have been convicted of any misdemeanor act involving:

(a) Personal violence or force against another person or threatening to commit any

act of personal violence or force against another person.

(b) Misconduct involving a deadly weapon as provided in section 13-3102.

(d) Arson.

(e) Theft.

(f) Domestic violence.

(g) A violation of title 13, chapter 34 or 34.1 or an offense that has the same elements

as an offense listed in title 13, chapter 34 or 34.1.

(h) Sexual misconduct.73

Arkansas adds further criteria in its search for acceptable conduct and character—the

absence of alcohol and drug abuse. The statute holds that before issuance of a license,

prospective security professionals should not be suffering from habitual drunkenness

or from narcotic addiction or dependence:

No license shall be granted to any person who has within five (5) years been

convicted of a willful violation of any law of the United States, or of any state,

relating to opium, coca leaves, or other narcotic drugs, or to any person who is a

narcotic drug addict.74

Other states, such as New Jersey75 and New York,76 attempt to prove character by

relying on the judgment of others. New York specifically requests:

(1) Such application shall be approved, as to each person or individual so

signing the same, by not less than five reputable citizens of the

community in which such applicant resides or transacts

business77

Statutory constructions sometimes measure character acceptability by reliance on

one’s moral order or disorder. The historic term for a deficit in character is “moral turpi-

tude.” “Moral turpitude” is defined as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the

private and social duties a person owes to another person, or to society in general,

contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between persons, and

38 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

conduct that is contrary to justice, honesty, or good morals. The following is a non-

exclusive list involving moral turpitude:

1. Any act involving dishonesty or fraud

2. Any criminal act involving deception

3. Any act involving sexual misconduct

4. Any offense with an element of specific criminal intent

Iowa illustrates the difficulty of dealing with the definition of good character though

it delineates the unacceptable:

1. Applications for a license or license renewal shall be submitted to the commissioner

in the form the commissioner prescribes. A license or license renewal shall not be

issued unless the applicant:

a. Is eighteen years of age or older.

b. Is not a peace officer.

c. Has never been convicted of a felony or aggravated misdemeanor.

d. Is not addicted to the use of alcohol or a controlled substance.

e. Does not have a history of repeated acts of violence.

f. Is of good moral character and has not been judged guilty of a crime involving

moral turpitude.

g. Has not been convicted of a crime described in section 708.3, 708.4, 708.5, 708.6,

708.8, or 708.9.

h. Has not been convicted of illegally using, carrying or possessing a dangerous weapon.

i. Has not been convicted of fraud.

j. Provides fingerprints to the department.

k. Complies with other qualifications and requirements the commissioner adopts by

rule.78

Efforts to define and measure character are never easy because of the subjective

nature of character and moral determinations. Although there is much that can be

agreed upon as to the nature of what constitutes good character, there are distinct out-

looks that are either more tolerant or judgmental in design and scope. Finding a balance

is the best approach for the regulator.

n n n

Visit the National Association of Security Companies (NASCO) and find a rich database of

information on the regulatory process at http://www.nasco.org/member-area/state-regs.

n n n

Education and Training

Professionalism for the security industry remains an empty promise without a commit-

ment to education, scholarly research and development, and academic rigor. Regulatory

bodies throughout the United States have been placing heightened emphasis on

Chapter 2 • Regulation, Licensing, Education, and Training 39

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

education and training as part of the minimum qualifications of an applicant.79 The Pri-

vate Security Advisory Council,80 a federally funded consortium of public law enforce-

ment specialists and private security experts, has made numerous recommendations

concerning the upgrading of educational standards. The council notes eloquently:

[W]hile private security is a vast crime prevention and reduction resource, it will for

the most part remain only a potential resource until steps are taken to eliminate

incompetence and unscrupulous conduct. Many private security personnel are only

temporary or part-time employees who are often underpaid and untrained for their

work. The protection of lives and property is an awesome societal responsibility,

and the public interest demands that persons entrusted with such responsibilities

be competent, well-trained, and of good moral character.81

In the early 1990s, the National Private Security Officer Survey portrayed an industry

pool in need of higher educational achievement, reporting that most positions require a

high-school diploma.82 The requirements seem to be elevating on some levels. The 2002

Virginia Security Officer Study reported that over 55 percent of the survey respondents

possessed at least some college-level education.83 See Figure 2.2.

From the lowest echelon employee in a security organization to the highest supervisory

personnel, education and training is inexorably tied to occupational development.84 A 1973

study,Private Police in theUnited States: Findings and Recommendations, heralds education

as a remedy to deficiencies in the security industry. Insisting onminimums, the study relays:

• All types of private security personnel should receive a minimum initial training

program of at least 120 hours.

high school

36.1%

non-high school

8.4%

Level of Education

college graduate

23.9%

some college

31.6%

FIGURE 2.2 Education levels of security personnel.

40 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

• Federal funds should be made available to develop appropriate training programs,

including curricula, materials, and methodology.

• State regulatory agencies should require minimum training programs—in terms of

quality, curriculum, and hours of instruction for all types of private security

personnel.

• Appropriate higher education, such as a bachelor’s degree in police science and

administration should also be a substitute for part of the minimum experience

requirements.85

The Private Advisory Council, as well as a RAND Study on private security,86 critique

the paucity of the education and training provided to security personnel. The RAND

Study concludes:

65 percent of private security personnel had no training at all prior to commencing job

assignments. Approximately one-half of private security personnel carried firearms,

but less than 20 percent had ever received any firearms training in their present job.87

The National Association of Private Security Industries, Inc., of Dallas, Texas, con-

firms the urgent need for training and education for the contract guard firm. A recent

report by the National Association of Private Security Industries stated that contract

guard firms want their officers to be trained in liability avoidance, documentation and

reports, patrol techniques, midlevel security supervision, laws of arrest, and first aid.88

The call for increased education and training has been broad based.89 “In security, as

in other functions of an organization, the higher an executive climbs, the broader is his

need for education.”90 Education of public and private law enforcement can

dismiss prior notions or opinions, that is, to motivate them to think on a factual basis.

The appalling lack of knowledge of the law can be corrected by immersing the officer in

a study of the legal problems. Topics such as powers and restrictions on private police,

law of arrest, search and seizure procedures, electronic eavesdropping, civil liabilities,

and licensing statutes can be studied. Perhaps through an educational experience an

officer may not allow enthusiasm to overcome judgment in his daily rounds.91

The National Association of Security Companies corroborates the urgent need for

educational preparation for the industry and concludes the causal connection between

professionalism and education:

The National Association of Security Companies (NASCO) is the nation’s largest

contract security trade association, representing private security companies that

employ more than 250,000 of the nation’s most highly trained security officers

servicing every business sector. NASCO is leading efforts to set meaningful standards

for the private security industry and security officers by monitoring state and

federal legislation and regulations affecting the quality and effectiveness of private

security services.92

Chapter 2 • Regulation, Licensing, Education, and Training 41

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

At the collegiate and university level, the development and legitimization of the aca-

demic discipline of security studies has been both steady and impressive. Currently,

1,476 institutions in the United States offer some coverage of security and protective

studies, though most do not offer full-fledged degrees.93 Some of the institutions offer-

ing degrees and courses in the field are the following:

• Alabama State University

• American University

• Auburn University—Montgomery

• Baylor University

• California State University—various locations

• California University of Pennsylvania

• Eastern Kentucky University

• Fairmont State College

• Jackson State University

• John Jay College of Criminal Justice

• Marquette University

• Sam Houston State University

• Seton Hall University

• Texas A & M University

• Xavier University

n n n

For a complete listing of universities and colleges that offer security-related education, see

the ASIS International listing of participating institutions at http://www.asisonline.org/

education/universityPrograms/traditionalprograms.pdf.

n n n

How security studies grow and evolve is likely a parallel story to how the academic

discipline of criminal justice came to be. Criminal justice education illustrates the long

and sometimes vicious battle for legitimacy within traditional academic circles. Now an

academic discipline firmly entrenched in more than 1,100 colleges and universities,

criminal justice’s search for legitimacy in stodgy academic environs may soon be over.94

Security training has been an integral course within criminal justice studies but is in its

seminal stage at the undergraduate and graduate levels. “Growth in security academic

programs has been significant. Nationwide, there were 33 certificate and degree pro-

grams 15 years ago. By 1990, the total had increased to 164.”95 In a degree-granting

framework there has been steady growth, particularly at the graduate level.96 ASIS Inter-

national, through its foundation, established a master’s degree in security management

at Webster University. “The Webster curriculum features a Master of Arts (MA) and a

Master of Business Administration (MBA) option and reflects current security theory

and practice. The program, guided by the Foundation, will be frequently revised to

42 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

better meet the needs of students and will reflect input from university studies, corpo-

rate surveys and other assessments.”97

Its core curriculum contains seven required business courses, including statistical

analysis, business accounting systems, business information systems, financial

planning, operations and production management, economics for the firm, and busi-

ness policy. The program also requires eight security courses, which are the same

courses required for the MA degree covering legal and ethical issues in security manage-

ment, management and administration courses, asset protection, information systems

security, emergency planning, and an integrated studies course.98

Jim Calder of the University of Texas argues that as long as protective security studies

is so heavily tethered and entangled with criminal justice, its growth will be slower than

expected:

Security Studies must move from separate-but-equal status to total interaction with

other aspects of criminal justice education. My premise is that the criminal justice

system cannot reduce property crime profoundly (because of social structural lim-

itations) and thus must rely more heavily on security forces.99

There has been discussion about whether security studies need to exist independently

or as an aligned subject matter with criminal justice. Christopher Hertig, CPP, remarks:

Security curricula exist on many campuses today, and an increasing number of

criminal justice programs include courses in security, loss prevention, or safety.

While many people dispute the wisdom of having security courses attached to crim-

inal justice programs, the reality is that the majority of courses are within criminal

justice curricula. This is not likely to change anytime soon. I believe that working

with an existing program is generally more productive than idly wishing for some-

thing that may never be.100

Since 9/11 certificates and even degrees are popping up in “Homeland Security,”101

some argue that a new academic discipline is emerging.102 If anything, security educa-

tion is a major complement to traditional criminal justice and police science programs.

“Security studies can offer criminal justice education an end to the past overbearing

concern for the quantity of crime as the primary indication of social and political

controls. Security is less concerned with quantity than it is about location, specifically,

whether crimes of all types are committed within a social location under its control.”103

The argument for security education and training is compelling, particularly when

coupled with the drive toward professionalism. One certainly cannot exist without the

other as Richard Post lucidly poses:

Is security a profession? No, probably not to the extent that law enforcement or

many of the other areas of criminal justice are professions. . . . But, we have made

Chapter 2 • Regulation, Licensing, Education, and Training 43

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

a start. Things are beginning to move forward, and it is entirely possible that secu-

rity may be considered the profession of the future.104

Considering these arguments, have the states enhanced educational requirements for

licensure? Does the legislative process recognize the role education and training play in

the future of security as an industry and the privatization movement? Legislative analy-

sis manifests some sound redirection in favor of education and training. While some

states like Colorado105 are constitutionally unable, at least at this juncture, to mandate

licensure requirements, and others simply do not require it, more and more states

require some level of training for personnel.

Education and training can take many forms, such as that mandated in Arizona.

Figure 2.3106 outlines the training topics that security companies are required by law

to provide to their personnel.

Other states require applicants to pass an examination covering a broad range of

topics. State administrative agencies even provide bibliographic lists to help applicants

prepare.107 Recent statutory amendments in Illinois highlight the trend toward edu-

cation and training. For the applicant in Illinois, a security-training program of at least

20 hours must be documented. Topics include the following:

(1) The law regarding arrest and search and seizure as it applies to private

security.

(2) Civil and criminal liability for acts related to private security.

(3) The use of force, including but not limited to the use of nonlethal force

(i.e., disabling spray, baton, stun gun or similar weapon).

(4) Arrest and control techniques.

(5) The offenses under the Criminal Code of 1961 [720 ILCS 5/1-1 et seq.] that are

directly related to the protection of persons and property.

(6) The law on private security forces and on reporting to law enforcement agencies.

(7) Fire prevention, fire equipment, and fire safety.

(8) The procedures for service of process and for report writing.

(9) Civil rights and public relations.108

Education is the centerpiece of the Illinois legislation. When combined with under-

graduate training and experience, the proviso rewards those seeking licensure

with such backgrounds. Applicants can substitute certain experience requirements

with postsecondary education. Specifically for private security contractors, the educa-

tional provision states that in lieu of experience, the applicants may demonstrate that

they have:

An applicant who has a baccalaureate degree or higher in police science or a

related field or a business degree from an accredited college or university shall be

given credit for 2 of the 3 years of the required experience. An applicant who has

an associate degree in police science or in a related field or in business from an

accredited college or university shall be given credit for one of the 3 years of the

required experience.109

44 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

FIGURE 2.3 Unarmed Security Guard Training Syllabus.

(Continued)

Chapter 2 • Regulation, Licensing, Education, and Training 45

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

FIGURE 2.3—Cont’d.

46 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

FIGURE 2.3—Cont’d

(Continued)

Chapter 2 • Regulation, Licensing, Education, and Training 47

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

FIGURE 2.3—Cont’d.

48 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

FIGURE 2.3—Cont’d

Chapter 2 • Regulation, Licensing, Education, and Training 49

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Additionally, Georgia insists on certification for all security personnel utilizing

weaponry.

The board shall have the authority to establish limits on type and caliber of such

weapons by rule:

The board shall have the authority to require periodic recertification of proficiency

in the use of firearms and to refuse to renew a permit upon failure to comply with

such requirement.110

Louisiana education and training for an armed security guard includes the following:

(a) Legal limitations on use of weapons.

(b) Handling of a weapon.

(d) Dim light firing.

(e) A shoot, don’t shoot program.

(f) Stress factors.111

Naturally, as the complexity of security work increases, so too are the educational and

training requirements. Florida sets up a variable system of educational requirements,

depending on job classifications. For example:

Class “G” shall include, but is not limited to 24 statewide hours of range and

classroom training, no more gun permit than 8 hours of such training shall consist

of range training.112

The requirements are not staggering by any stretch of the imagination, but a start; a

posture emphasizing the role education plays in attaining professionalism.

Delaware has mandatory firearms training for all private detectives and investigators.

Delaware’s board of examiners is the watchdog agency for the security industry and

decided effective July 30, 1979, that

[n]o person duly licensed by the Board shall be permitted to carry a pistol, revolver,

or any firearm, prior to the completion of a course of instruction as designed by the

Division of State Police. Instruction shall include, but not be limited to, safety, use of

deadly force and marksmanship training. Each person shall thereafter be recertified

annually.113

Legislative coverage, at least in the education and training area, is becoming

more specialized. With strong advocacy for specialized training and instruction in

computer-based fields,114 airport and aircraft,115 and animal handling, both the industry

itself and governmental authorities are focusing on training requirements. Virginia, as

50 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

an example, has promulgated Compulsory Minimum Training Standards for Courthouse

and Courtroom Security Officers. The coverage comprises the following:

1. Basic Security Procedures

A. Security Threats

B. Search Procedures and Prisoner Movement in Court Environment

C. Explosives and Bomb Search and Security Procedures

2. Court Security Responsibilities

A. Duties and Responsibilities of Court Security Personnel

B. Identification of Personnel, Package Control, and Detection Devices

C. Sequestered Juries and Witnesses

D. Recognizing and Handling Abnormal Persons

3. Legal Matters

A. Constitutional Law and Liabilities

B. Virginia Court Structure

4. Notebook and Report Writing

5. Skills

A. Firearms

B. Moot Problem

C. Disorders and Proper Techniques of Removing Unruly Prisoners from the

Courtroom

D. Courtroom Demeanor and Appearance116

Professional and Continuing Education

The industry’s professional associations and groups have played a distinct role in the

delivery of education services. The Certified Protection Professional (CPP) Program tests

rigorously those wishing the designation. The following topics are covered:

• Emergency planning

• Legal aspects

• Personnel security

• Protection of sensitive information

• Security management

• Substance abuse

• Loss prevention

• Liaison

• Banking

• Computer security

• Credit card security

• Department of Defense

Chapter 2 • Regulation, Licensing, Education, and Training 51

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

• Educational institutions

• Manufacturing

• Utilities

• Restaurants and lodging

• Retail security

• Transportation and cargo security

• Telecommunications117

Jon C. Paul, director of security services for a major hospital, applauds the CPP

designation. “The CPP designation is the hallmark of excellence in our profession—a

fact that is recognized in our industry and is becoming more widely recognized by the

organizations we serve.”118 The American Bankers’ Association awards the Certified

Financial Services Security Professional (CFSSP) to those passing an exam covering

banking practices. Other continuing education programs, training seminars, and other

advanced studies are provided by a wide array of professional associations and groups

whose addresses and phone numbers are listed in Appendix 2:

CPP Chris Hertig advises busy security operatives that even Web-based education is

now readily available. These newer programs take “correspondence courses” one

step further. “There’s the Certified Protection Officer (CPO) and Security Supervisor

programs from the International Foundation for Protection Officers (IFPO)

Bellingham, Wash., and Calgary, Canada,” says Hertig. In addition, the Carrollton,

Texas-based Professional Security Television Network offers a videocassette series.

The U.S. Department of Defense offers distance learning for its facility security

managers. And firms such as Defensive Tactics Institute in Albuquerque, New

Mexico offer video training and critiques in areas such as personal protection.

Universities offering criminal justice and security degree programs may also have

independent distance studies.119

From all perspectives—academically, legislatively, and industrially—there is a major

push for increased education and training. The industry and its participants recognize

the need to upgrade their image as a professional occupation and the parallel necessity

of increased educational requirements. CPP Lonnie Buckels understands the inter-

relationship between education and professionalism:

The designation of professional has to be earned. For example, look at the medical

profession. For decades, practicing medicine was thought to be part of the black

arts. In some regions of the world it still is. However, after years of hard work, cou-

pled with agonizingly slow technical advancements, medical practitioners are hon-

ored professionals. We have made steady progress in our quest for professional

designation in the security industry. But we must continue this progress and be

patient—professionalism takes time.120

52 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Model Educational Programs: Curricula

Previously we discussed the influence of the Private Security Advisory Council, whose

many impacts include the development of model curricula for security professionals.

Its recommended training program for armed security officers is reproduced here:

Minimum Training Standards for Armed Security Officers

Pre-assignment Training

Prior to assuming any actual duty assignment, each new security officer should

receive at least 8 hours of formal classroom training and successfully pass a

written examination on the subjects.

Orientation and overview in security—2 hours

Criminal justice and the security officer, including legal powers and

limitations—2 hours

Emergencies—2 hours

General duties—2 hours

Weapons Training

Prior to being issued a firearmor taking an assignment requiring the carrying of or

having access to a weapon, the security officer should receive at least 6 hours

formal classroom training, successfully pass awritten examination on the subjects

and successfully complete an approved 18-hour firearms target shooting course.

Classroom:

Legal and policy restraints on the use of firearms—3 hours

Firearms safety, care, and cleaning—3 hours

Range:

Principles of marksmanship—6 hours

Single action course—6 hours

Double action course—6 hours

Basic Training Course

Within threemonths of assuming duties, a security officer should complete a 32-

hour basic training course. At least 4 hours should be classroom instruction and

up to a maximum of 16 hours may be supervised, on-the-job training.

Classroom:

Prevention in security systems—1 hour

Legal aspects and enforcement of rules—1 hour

Routine procedures—1 hour

Emergency and special procedures—1 hour

The IACP also promulgates minimum coverage in training. The following are

recommended:

• Minimum basic training requirements and relevant, continuous in-service training

for private security officers should be required. A formal mechanism to establish

curriculum requirements and hours of training should be established.

Chapter 2 • Regulation, Licensing, Education, and Training 53

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

• All private security officer training should be reviewed and approved for certification

by a state regulatory agency. Instructors will also be certified by the state regulatory

agency. All training will be validated by approved testing criteria.

• Private security officer basic or in-service training should include the following

elements based upon needs analysis related to job function:

1. Security officers fall into one or more of these categories based upon their job

function:

a. Unarmed security officers

b. Armed security officers

c. Unarmed non-sworn alarm responder

d. Armed non-sworn alarm responder

e. Armored car guard

2. Security officers’ training needs will be addressed in large part under these topic

areas as appropriate:

a. Legal

b. Operational

c. Firearms

d. Administrative

e. Electronic

f. Armored transport

g. Use of force

• Due to the varied nature of security tasks and duties along with the proper training

for each, the demands for each specific setting should be assessed for the level of

training certification to build public trust and confidence.121

Annual Firearms Proficiency Re-Qualification

Each armed security officer must re-qualify at least once every twelve months in

an 8-hour firearms proficiency course.

Legal and policy restraints on the use of firearms 3 hours

Range re-qualification in target shooting 5 hours122

States have utilized the PSAC advisory recommendations in designing their own

curricula. Assess the similarities as well as differences in the educational components

of the North Dakota plan.

Apprentice Security Officer Training Curriculum Outline (16 Hours)

SECTION I. SECURITY ORIENTATION/OVERVIEW:

A. Introduction and overview.

1. To the course.

2. To the employing organization.

B. Role of private security.

1. Brief history of private security.

2. Overview of organization’s security operations.

3. Role of security in crime prevention and assets.

4. Protection.

54 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

5. Components of private security services.

6. Primary functions/activities of security personnel.

C. Ethical standards for security personnel.

1. Code of ethics for private security personnel.

D. Qualities essential to security personnel.

1. Attitude/public relations.

2. Appearance.

3. Personal hygiene.

4. Physical fitness.

5. Personal conduct/deportment.

6. Discipline.

7. Knowledge of responsibilities.

SECTION II. CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND SECURITY PERSONNEL:

A. The nature and extent of crime.

1. Overview.

a. The criminal law.

B. The criminal justice system.

1. Overview.

a. The security person’s relationship.

C. Legal powers and limitations.

1. Rights of a property owner.

2. Detention/arrest powers (citizen’s or statutory).

3. Search and seizure.

4. Use of force.

SECTION III. GENERAL DUTIES:

A. Patrol techniques.

1. Functions of patrol.

2. Types of patrol.

3. Preparing for patrol.

4. Dealing with juveniles.

5. Personal safety on the job.

6. Traffic control.

B. Access control.

1. Why access control.

2. Types of access control systems.

3. Controlling an entrance or exit.

C. Note taking/report writing.

1. Importance of note taking/report preparation.

2. Daily/shirt reports.

3. Incident/special reports.

SECTION IV. EMERGENCIES:

A. Fire prevention and control.

1. What is fire.

2. Causes of fire.

Chapter 2 • Regulation, Licensing, Education, and Training 55

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

3. Classes of fire.

4. Recognition and identification of fire hazards.

5. Firefighting, control and detection equipment.

6. Role in fire prevention.

7. What to do in case of fire.

B. Handling emergencies.

1. Bomb threats and explosions.

2. Natural disasters.

3. Mentally disturbed persons.

4. Medical emergencies.

5. First aid.

Security Officer Training Curriculum Outline (32 Hours)

SECTION I. SECURITY SYSTEMS:

A. Physical security.

1. Definition.

2. Purpose.

3. Locks and key control.

4. Barriers.

5. Access control systems.

6. Alarm systems.

B. Information security.

1. Definition.

2. Information classifications.

3. Information and document control procedures.

C. Personnel security.

1. Threats to employees.

2. Employee theft.

SECTION II. EMERGENCY PROCEDURES:

A. Medical emergencies of other emergency procedures.

B. Defensive tactics.

C. Unusual occurrences.

1. Strikes, demonstrations, etc.

SECTION III. ROUTINE PROCEDURES:

A. Patrol.

1. Prevention.

2. Response to calls for service.

3. Response to crime-in-progress.

4. Crime scene protection.

B. Reporting.

1. Information collection.

2. Report preparation.

C. Dealing with problems unique to the individual’s assignment.

56 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

SECTION IV. LEGAL ASPECTS AND ENFORCEMENT OF RULES:

A. Legal authority.

1. Authority of security personnel.

2. Regulation of security personnel.

B. Observing and reporting infractions of rules and regulations.

1. Organizational rules and regulations.

2. Security rules and regulations.123

Arkansas also provides a formidable program of instruction for prospective security

professionals:

17-40-208. Training of personnel.

(a) The Arkansas Board of Private Investigators and Private Security Agencies shall

establish training programs to be conducted by agencies and institutions

approved by the board.

(b) The basic training course approved by the board may include the following:

(1) Legal limitations on the use of firearms and on the powers and authority of

the private security officer;

(2) Familiarity with this chapter;

(3) Field note taking and report writing;

(4) Range firing and procedure and handgun safety and maintenance; and

(5) Any other topics of security officer training curriculum which the board

deems necessary.

section concerning the training requirements of this chapter.

(d) When an individual meets the training requirements approved by the board, that

individual shall not be required to be trained over again until the private security

officer’s or commissioned security officer’s renewal training is required, which is two

(2) years after the private security officer or commissioned security officer is licensed,

regardless of the company by which the private security officer or commissioned

security officer is employed or trained.124

Ethical Considerations The true test of professionalism should be its unwavering dedication to ethical conduct,

professional values, and occupational integrity. Many states describe and outline

conduct that is unlawful and thus unethical. The Committee of National Security

Companies (CONSCO) has ratified a code of ethics that promotes ethical rigor:

Officer Code of Ethics

• Serve employer and clients loyally and faithfully.

• Perform duties in compliance with the law.

• Conduct themselves professionally.

Chapter 2 • Regulation, Licensing, Education, and Training 57

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

• Perform duties fairly and impartially.

• Render complete, accurate, and honest reports.

• Remain alert to client’s interest.

• Earn respect through integrity and professionalism.

• Improve performance through training and education.125

Pinkerton’s Security, Inc., a massive security service provider, also publishes ethical stan-

dards for its employees. See Figure 2.4.126

The ASIS International Code of Ethics is reproduced to demonstrate the continuing

correlation between the professional duties and the framing of ethical standards.

See Figure 2.5.127

State legislatures give codified instruction on acceptable behavior. Review Figures 2.6

and 2.7 as examples of this effort. Will these guidelines promote professionalism?

FIGURE 2.4 Sample Employee Ethics guidelines.

58 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

FIGURE 2.4—Cont’d

Chapter 2 • Regulation, Licensing, Education, and Training 59

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

FIGURE 2.5 ASIS International Ethical Guidelines.

60 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

FIGURE 2.6 Maine Statutory Authority in Unlawful Conduct.

(Continued)

Chapter 2 • Regulation, Licensing, Education, and Training 61

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

FIGURE 2.6—Cont’d

FIGURE 2.7 Vermont Unprofessional Conduct Statute.

62 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Summary Security’s road to professionalism is filled with hidden dangers—rhetoric without sub-

stance, intentions without purpose, and commitment without resources. The security

industry must take this professional sojourn seriously, if only because inaction will cause

a legislative substitute. No doubt, many states are lagging behind in this impetus, but

more states are set to raise age requirements, experience level, and educational qualifi-

cations as well as personal standards of conduct. The future appears inclined toward

heightened regulation and standards.

Discussion Questions 1. What level of qualifications is necessary for entry into the security industry in your

jurisdiction?

2. Determine how many private and public institutions of higher education provide

academic studies in private security?

FIGURE 2.7—Cont’d

Chapter 2 • Regulation, Licensing, Education, and Training 63

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

3. What is the proper definition of good character? Should minor drug usage be an

example of negative character?

4. Should a written examination be required before licensure as a security officer? What

subjects should be included?

5. Devise a security training program totaling 100 hours of instruction.

6. Name at least two ethical considerations or concerns that constantly arise in the

private security industry.

7. Should there be differing levels of qualification depending on the private security

position?

Notes 1. David W. Sackman, At the Crossroads of Professionalism, 30 Sec. Mgmt. 73 (1986).

2. Richard A. Lukins, Security Training for the Guard Force, 20 Sec. Mgmt. 32 (1976); see also Todd Savage, Security Officers: New Demands Require New Training, 150 Safety & Health 64 (1994); Jeff Maahs & Craig Hemmens, Train in Vain: A Statutory Analysis of Security Guard Training Requirements, 22 Int’l J. Comp. & Applied Crim. Justice 91–101 (1998); Jay Akasie, Thwarting Terror- ists, Forbes, Sept. 21, 1998, at 162; Courtney Leatherman & Denise K. Magner, Notes on the Curric- ulum, Chronicle of Higher Education, Mar. 9, 1994, at A19.

3. Note, Survey Yields New Results on Officer Turnover, Training, 29 Sec. 71 (1992); Savage, supra note 2; Leatherman & Magner, supra note 2; Reed A. Castle, A Study of the Security Officer 10 (2002).

4. Note, Survey, supra note 3, at 72; Castle, supra note 3, at 10.

5. 107th Congress, 2d session, Senate Bill 2238, April 24, 2002; see generally Maahs & Hemmens, supra note 2.

6. Akasie, supra note 2.

7. U.S. Department of State, Patterns of Global Terrorism 2003, Appendix G: Total Facilities Struck by International Attacks, 1998-2003 (2004), available at http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2003/ 31751.htm.

8. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008-18 National Employment Matrix: Private Detectives and Investigators (2009), available at ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ep/ind-occ.matrix/occ_pdf/occ_33-9021.pdf.

9. J. Shane Creamer, Private Police in the United States: Findings and Recommendations, 10 Sec. World 66 (1973); see also Castle, supra note 3, at 10.

10. Lukins, supra note 2; Maahs & Hemmens, supra note 2, at 91–101.

11. Richter H.Moore, Jr., Licensing and Regulation of the Private Security Industry: AHistorical View of the Courts Role, 13 J. Sec. Admin. 37, 58–59 (1990); see also Maahs & Hemmens, supra note 2, at 91–101.

12. National Institute of Justice, Crime and Protection in America: A Study of Private Security and Law Enforcement Resources and Relationships (1985); see also Operation Cooperation, Guidelines for Partnerships between Law Enforcement & Private Security Organizations (2000); Clifford Shearing & Philip C. Stenning, The Interweaving of Public and Private Police Undercover Work in Private Policing (1987); S. Ronald Hauri, Public-Private Security Liaison: The Synergy of Cooperation, Crime & Justice Internat’l, Oct. 1997, at 16.

13. Crime and Protection in America, supra note 12, at 26–29; see also Operation Cooperation, supra note 12; Shearing & Stenning, supra note 12; Hauri, supra note 12.

14. Note, Certification, Firearms Boost Salaries, 30 Sec. 69 (1993).

64 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

15. Id.

16. For example, Colorado, whose efforts to license were declared unconstitutional, given the language of the regulation.

17. For example, Pennsylvania, which requires significant firearms training.

18. For example, Delaware’s State Police oversee the licensing aspects.

19. For example, New York.

20. For example, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, and Ohio.

21. Arthur J. Bilek, John C. Klotter, & R. Keegan Federal, Legal Aspects of Private Security 29 (1980).

22. William C. Cunningham, John J. Strauchs, & Clifford W. VanMeter, Private Security Trends 1970 to 2000: The Hallcrest Report II 322-323 (1990).

23. See Chapter 1.

24. James D. Horan, The Pinkertons: The Detective Dynasty that Made History (1967); Milton Lipson, The Business of Private Security (1975).

25. Bilek et al., supra note 21, at 34 (1980).

26. Note, The Security Officer Employment Standards Act of 1991, 15 J. of Sec. Admin. Educ. 1 (1992); note, Guardsmark Endorses Proposed Standards for Security Officers, 28 Sec. 48 (1991); Bill Zalud, Federal Security Officer Standards Proposed in Controversial Senate Bill, 28 Sec. 60, 62 (1991); Stephen C. George, New Officer Bill Sets Standards for Both Armed and Unarmed, 29 Sec. 53 (1992); note, Zalud Report: Reports and Incidents that Impact Asset Protection, 30 Sec. 108 (1993); note, Experts Rate New Officer Bill, 30 Sec. 66 (1993); Security Officers Quality Assurance Act of 1992, H.R. 5931, 102nd

Cong. (1992); Security Officer Employment Standards Act of 1991, S. 1258, 102nd Cong. (1991).

27. 6 C.F.R. pt. 25 (2003).

28. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 68 Fed. Reg. 59,684 (Oct. 16, 2003) 6 C.F.R. pt. 25 (2003).

29. Charles P. Nemeth, Homeland Security: An Introduction to Principles and Practice 168-169 (2010).

30. 15 U.S.C. }1681 (1970).

31. See 131 Cong. Rec., S. 1815 (1988).

32. 29 U.S.C. }2001; Graham v. Beasley, 180 F. Supp. 2d 760 (E. NC., 2001).

33. Arkansas Gazette, June 29, 1988; see also Charles P. Nemeth, Erosion of the Privacy Right and Poly- graphs, 21 Forensic Sci. Int’l. 103 (1984).

34. The Law Enforcement and Industrial Security Cooperation Act of 1996, H.R. 2996, 104th Cong. (1996).

35. Id.

36. Private Security Officer Employment Standards Act of 2002, S. 2238, 107th Cong. (2002).

37. Thomas H. O’Connor, Privacy versus Governmental Regulation: A Bicentennial View, Mass. L. Rev. Special Const. Issue 46 (1987).

38. Private-Sector Liaison Committee, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Private Security Officer Selection, Training and Licensing Guidelines 5.

39. 57 F. Supp. 2d. 1305 (1999).

40. Moates v. Strength, 57 F. Supp. 2d. 1305, 1310 (1999).

41. Conn. Gen. Stat. }29-154a (2008).

42. Haw. Rev. Stat. }463-6 (2009).

43. Ind. Code Ann. }25-30-1-8 (2009).

44. Del. Code Ann. tit. 24, }1319 (2010).

Chapter 2 • Regulation, Licensing, Education, and Training 65

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

45. Ark. Code Ann. }17-40-306 (2009).

46. Iowa Code }80A.4 (2008).

47. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 32, }9405 (2009).

48. Ga. Code Ann. }43-38-6 (2009).

49. 12 N.C. Admin. Code 07D.0301 (2009).

50. Ga. Code Ann. }43-38-6 (2009).

51. W. Va. Code }30-18-2 (2009).

52. Numerous jurisdictions waive many requirements for attorneys. See Iowa Code, }80A.2 (2009); Mont. Code Ann. }37-60-105(4)(a) (2009).

53. Mont. Code Ann. }37-60-105 (2009).

54. Mont. Code Ann. }37-60-105 (2009).

55. Haw. Rev. Stat. }463-6 (2009).

56. Kan. Stat. Ann. }75-7b05 (2008).

57. N.J. Stat. Ann. }45:19-8 (2010).

58. Ill. Admin. Code tit. 68, 1240.10 et seq. (2009).

59. Ill. Admin. Code tit. 68, 1240.10 (2009).

60. Ill. Admin. Code tit. 68, 1240.200 (2009).

61. Ill. Admin. Code tit. 68, 1240.100 (2009).

62. Ill. Admin. Code tit. 68, 1240.400 (2009).

63. Ill. Admin. Code tit. 68, 1240.400 (2009).

64. Ill. Admin. Code tit. 68, 1240.400 (2009).

65. Lukins, supra note 2, at 35.

66. Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 5N-1.116 (2009).

67. Fla. Stat. }493.6203 (2010).

68. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Application for the Class “G” Statewide Firearm License, 3 (2010), available at http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/onestop/forms/16008.pdf.

69. N.M. Stat. Ann. }61-27A-10 (2009).

70. N.C. Gen. Stat. }74C-8 (2009).

71. Ind. Code Ann. }25-30-1-8 (2010).

72. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. }4749.03 (2010).

73. Ariz. Rev. Stat. }32-2612 (2010).

74. Ark. Code Ann. }20-64-204 (2010).

75. N.J. Stat. Ann. }45:19-8 et seq. (2010).

76. N.Y. Ins. Law }2108 (Consol. 2010).

77. N.Y. Ins. Law }2108 (Consol. 2010).

78. Iowa Code }80A.4 (2010).

79. Charles P. Nemeth & K. C. Poulin, Private Security and Public Safety: A Community Based Approach Ch. 9 (2005); Charles P. Nemeth, A Status Report on Criminal Justice Education (1988); Savage, supra note 2; Maahs & Hemmens, supra note 2; Akasie, supra note 2; Leatherman & Magner, supra note 2; see also James F. Pastor, Terrorism and Public Safety Policing: Implications for the Obama

66 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Presidency (2009); James F. Pastor, Security Law & Methods (2006); James F. Pastor, The Privatization of Police in America: An Analysis and Case Study (2003).

80. Private Security Advisory Council, Guidelines for the Establishment of State and Local Private Advi- sory Councils (1976).

81. Id. at 7.

82. Note, Survey, supra note 3, at 72.

83. Castle, supra note 3, at 10.

84. Agnes L. Baro, Law Enforcement and Higher Education: Is There an Impasse? 10 J. Crim. Just. Ed. 57 (1999).

85. Creamer, supra note 9, at 68.

86. National Advisory Commission on Standards and Goals, Private Security, Report of the Task Force Report on Private Security (1976).

87. Private Security Advisory Council, supra note 80, at 8.

88. Note, Security Endorses Campus Incident Reporting; Divided on Same for Business, 28 Sec. 8, 9 (1991).

89. For example, The Law Enforcement and Industrial Security Cooperation Act of 1996, H.R. 2996, calls for increasing training and cooperation between public and private entities.

90. J. Fletcher & H. Borokawa, Non-Security Education, 1 J. Sec. & Pri. Police 14 (1978); see also Savage, supra note 2; Maahs & Hemmens, supra note 2; Akasie, supra note 2; Leatherman & Magner, supra note 2.

91. J. Kostanoski, The Private Police and Higher Education, 1 J. Sec. Admin. & Pri. Police 26 (1978); see also Savage, supra note 2; Maahs & Hemmens, supra note 2; Leatherman & Magner, supra note 2.

92. National Association of Security Companies (NASCO), About NASCO (2010), at http://www.nasco .org/about-nasco.

93. Data from a search conducted using the National Center for Education Statistics College Degree search tool at http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cool/Search.asp.

94. Charles P. Nemeth, Directory of Criminal Justice Education, Including Criminology, Law and Justice Related Education (1991); Nemeth & Poulin, supra note 79; Nemeth, Status Report, supra note 79; Pastor, Terrorism, supra note 79; Pastor, Security Law, supra note 79; Pastor, Privatization of Police, supra note 79.

95. Cunningham et al., supra note 22, at 322.

96. Richard Post notes, in his article Toward Rational Curriculum Development for Private Protective Services, First National Conference on Private Security (1978), that there are around 119 degree granting programs; see also Dr. Norman Bottom’s annual compilation of security education programs in his Journal of Security Administration, showing around 165 programs. See also Pastor, Terrorism, supra note 79; Pastor, Security Law, supra note 79; Pastor, Privatization of Police, supra note 79.

97. Note, ASIS in Action, 35 Sec. Mgmt. 116 (1991).

98. Peter Ohlhausen, Invest in Security’s Future, 35 Sec. Mgmt. 49, 50 (1991).

99. James Calder, The Security-Criminal Justice Connection: Toward the Elimination of Separate-but- Equal Status, 3 J. of Sec. Admin. 25 (1980).

100. Christopher A. Hertig, What Course Should We Take? 35 Sec. Mgmt. 218 (1991).

101. Kimberly Chase, Homeland Security Technology: A Hot New Academic Specialty? Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 20, 2004, at http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0120/p18s02-legn.html.

Chapter 2 • Regulation, Licensing, Education, and Training 67

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

102. Certificate in Homeland Security/Emergency Management, Ohio Dominican eLearning Program, 1216 Sunbury Road, Columbus OH 43219, at http://elearning.ohiodominican.edu/programs/ certificates/homeland_security.shtml.

103. Calder, supra note 99, at 33.

104. Richard Post notes in his article Toward Rational Curriculum Development for Private Protective Services, First National Conference on Private Security 6 (1978); see also Savage, supra note 2; Maahs & Hemmens, supra note 2; Akasie, supra note 2; Leatherman & Magner, supra note 2.

105. See Colorado v. Romar, 559 P. 2d 710 (1977).

106. Ariz. Rev. Stat. }32-2613, }32-2632 (2010); see also S.C. Code Ann. }40-17-40 (2010).

107. Some states requiring exams include North Dakota, Montana, Delaware, New York, Ohio, New Mexico, Vermont, Arkansas, and Iowa.

108. Ill. Admin. Code tit. 68, 1240.10 et seq. (2009).

109. Ill. Admin. Code tit. 68, 1240.10 et seq. (2009).

110. Ga. Code Ann. }43-38-10 (2009).

111. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. }37:3284 (2010).

112. Fla. Stat. Ann. }493.6106(6) (West 2010).

113. State of Delaware, Rules for the Board of Examiners for Private Detectives, Mandatory Firearms Training Program (1979).

114. Jerome Lobel, Training: TheMissing Line inComputer Security, 17 Sec.World 28 (1980); International Association of Chiefs of Police, Fifth Annual Law Enforcement Data Processing Symposium, 1981.

115. A. Potter, Security Training: The Airport Operator’s Responsibility, 43 FBI L.E. Bul. 131 (1974).

116. Va. Code Ann. }53-168.1 (1979).

117. John T. Smith, Develop Yourself Professionally, 35 Sec. Mgmt. 92, 92-93 (1991).

118. Ian C. Paul, Certified Protection Professional Progress Report, 35 Sec. Mgmt. 86 (1991).

119. Note, Distance Education: Learn from Home, 30 Sec. 8 (1993); for a current listing of programs offered, visit the NCES’ IPEDsCool search engine at http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cool/Search.asp.

120. Lonnie R. Buckels, Professionalism: An Impossible Task? 35 Sec. Mgmt. 108 (1991).

121. Private-Sector Liaison Committee, supra note 38, at 7.

122. Private Security Advisory Council, supra note 80; see also Case Western Reserve Law School, Private Police Training Manual (1985).

123. N. D. Cent. Code }43-30-05-06 (2010).

124. Ark. Code Ann. }17-40-208 (2009).

125. Note, CONSCO Ethics Codes Set Stage for Self-Regulation, 29 Sec. 57 (1992).

126. Pinkerton’s, Inc., Investigations Department Training Manual 27-28 (1990).

127. American Society for Industrial Security, Code of Ethics, at http://www.asisonline.org/membership/ resources/codeofethics.pdf; see also R. Gallati, Introduction to Private Security 181-182 (1983).

68 PRIVATE SECURITY AND THE LAW

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Related posts

Select at least one student to whom you will administer the informal RTI assessment created in Clinical Field Experience A. Score the assessment and share the results with the student to increase understanding of his or her strengths and areas for improvement.

Examples of nonbiased formal and informal specialized diagnostic assessments that are administered to the students being evaluated, including any legal and ethical requirements.