Private security is a crucial component of any jurisdiction's security system. To keep law and order, it frequently cooperates with local, state, and federal security forces. Due to the fact that private security personnel provide individualized attention and are thought to be more effective due to the use of better technology in combating crime, the majority of the elite or rather well-off members of society prefer using their services over those of state security officers. Any jurisdiction must make sure that private security is properly controlled because it plays a significant role in governance. This paper will focus on the regulation of private security within the State of Massachusetts which is divided into four broad categories namely: licensing, pre-employment, disciplinary and in the course of employment.
Before any person is considered to be part of any private security company, they need to fulfill certain conditions. The first one being that they should not be a convicted felon. Massachusetts does not accord any exception to this requirement and the onus of conducting a background check lies on the employing agency. The hiring of known convicts is expressly prohibited in Massachusetts. Prospective private police officers who have previously been convicted of crimes that are not felonies are in some instances allowed to be licensed. Most of the non-felony crimes are those that are those of a moral turpitude. Massachusetts further requires an applicant to have a high moral character. In order to prove this, applicants are usually required to give three referees who can attest to their character. These referees need to be non-kin. Unlike most states, Massachusetts does not require the private security officers to undergo some prerequisite training and mental health check up.
Licensing is the next requirement in Massachusetts. The private security organizations need to be registered whereas the private security personnel need not acquire any licenses. The colonel of police within the state is mandated to oversee the regulation and licensure of private police. Most states require the private security agents to be licensed but this requirement is not enshrined in the state regulations within Massachusetts. In the course of employment, the private police are not granted full arresting powers. These powers are only conferred to a specific type of private officers referred to as peace officers. They are required to undergo some mandatory training and in most instances, they have similar authority to the conventional police officers.
Relevant Case Law
In Commonwealth v. Steven M. Smeaton, the defendant, in this case, drove recklessly near the Smith College in Massachusetts and almost ran over a pedestrian who was walking on the sidewalk. John Wagner, a Smith College police officer, witnessed the incident and proceeded to arrest Smeaton who was later charged with reckless driving and driving under the influence. The defendant challenged the authority of the arresting officer and in his defense, he stated that the officer's jurisdiction was limited to the campus and not beyond it. The district court acquitted the accused on this basis but when the matter was appealed to the Supreme Court, the judge held that the court erred in law by acquitting the accused and stated that the campus police authority extended outside the campus in order to protect the community around the campus. This decision set a precedence that cases involving arrests by private police can be tried in a similar manner as the ones where an accused has been arrested by regular police officers.
Difference in Authority between Private and Public Police Officers
With as much as public and private security officers ensure that the society is safeguarded there is a distinction between the authority associated with the two security organs. In most cases, private police are the same as private citizens. As a general rule, they hardly are conferred with arresting powers and an exception to this is in relation to peace officers who have to undergo some specified exercises. Public police officers, on the other hand, have full apprehension powers and this is conferred to them by virtue of their law enforcement duties. The private police officers have very limited jurisdiction within the state. For example, a security guard at the mall is mostly confined to guarding the mall and areas around the mall. Public police officers, on the other hand, have unlimited jurisdiction to maintain law and order within the state. Public officers have the right to search people after they have arrested them. This power is not conferred to private security personnel.
Public police officers are required to ensure that they follow the requisite procedures to ensure that the evidence they have acquired in relation to a suspect is obtained in a legitimate manner and using the requisite procedures. This is in order to avoid any violation of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. Private police officers are not guided by this provision since they are not government officials therefore in as much as their evidence might be obtained in an unlawful manner it will be admissible in a court of law.
The Patriotic Act
The Patriotic Act is an abbreviation of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. It came into force in 2001 right after the deadly September 11 terrorist incident that rocked the United States. It mandated the security agents to act expeditiously and gave them the authority to initiate all means necessary to ensure that they protect the country against all intrusions that are likely to affect the security of the entire country (Barth, 2015). This law permitted the security personnel to put surveillance mechanisms that could listen into conversations within the country in order to pick out information that related to terrorist activities. The Act led to the gross violation of the Fourth Amendment to the constitution since it permitted the security officers to subject citizens to unreasonable searches without reasonable suspicion (Barth, 2015). The property of suspected citizens could also be unreasonably seized and the intelligence agencies could state that it was due to national security. Private information relating to citizens could be obtained without necessarily alerting a person (Barth, 2015).
The Patriotic Act Section 213 led to the prevalence of sneak and peek warrants by security officers. The police could undertake operations in a discrete manner where they could search a suspect then, later on, alert them of the search that has already been conducted. Section 206 allowed security officers to utilize roving wiretaps to pry on conversations of suspected criminals (Barth, 2015). Finally, the Act also led to a number of security operations that were tailored to trap and trace suspects (Barth, 2015). This was provided for under section 214 of the Act.
Reference
Barth, S. (2015). 5 Ways Patriot Act Violates Fourth Amendment. Newsmax. Retrieved 3 May
2017, from http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/patriot-act-law-enforcement-fourth-amendment/2015/06/04/id/648618/
