Introduction
Private defense firms employ defense personnel or guards to safeguard property and the citizens of a given region or country. Opposed to police officers, private security personnel are civilians who are formally employed to prevent illegal activities or actions that are inappropriate on the property through high visibility observation, conducting patrols, checking various alarm systems installed within an organization, and/or through direct checks on people and belongings including baggage. The primary function of the security personnel is to “detect, observe, deter, and report” acts of crime (Van Steden & Nalla, 2010, p. 215). They are not mandated to execute the arrest. However, they are given authority to arrest citizens or execute any activity that fulfills their functions as agents of law enforcement when requested by sheriffs and/or police officers (Wakefield, 2007, p.13). The increasing importance of the roles of security personnel in enhancing law and order has forced many states and nations to set legal guidelines for training security personnel. The purpose of this paper is to discuss various legal issues in the process of training security personnel.
The emergence of Training Concerns among Security Personnel
Tantamount to the police professional training approaches, training of personnel serving in private security companies have been evolving as time progresses. Van Steden and Sarre (2007) reveal how security personnel receives poor payment and training (p.227) perhaps because private security companies are paid poorly for the security services that are provided by their security guards. According to Wackenhut Training Institute (2004), initially, contracts to offer security services were given from the basis of cost competitiveness as opposed to levels of professionalism and experience in the industry showcased by the bidding companies (p.13). However, this trend was altered radically in the US following September 11 2001 revolutionary assault. Organizations began taking security issues seriously. They began altering their methodologies for evaluating bids for private security organizations based on professionalism and experience as the chief factors for winning contracts.
In response to the new trend of the private security industry, private security firms began to pump more money to fund training programs for their employees. Different states also started initiating legislation on the training of security personnel. Button (2007) amplifies this argument by asserting, “the term security professionalism began to surface, with large private security firms such as Blackwater, USA beginning to offer training services for the private security industry that approached the level of training provided by the military” (p.23). Emphasis on professionalism in private security sectors made security firms offer higher remuneration to their employees in the bid to attract personnel having background training in the military to be deployed in special and strategic operations. This meant that security personnel would argue the state security systems including the police in some instances. The situation, therefore, created friction in the mandates of various law enforcement agents. This challenge necessitated the creation of legal frameworks to guide the approaches deployed by private security firms to train their personnel in many states of the US and other parts of the world. For instance, in the state of New Jersey, from 2006, it became mandatory for every security personnel to undergo a state-enforced and certified training program. This law is termed SORA. This legislation was created in the quest to increase the state’s control over the quality of security services.
Legal Issues in the Training of Security Personnel
For organizations in the private security sector to have effective personnel, they need to hire and train people acquainted with the operation of security surveillance systems together with the ability to assess potential threats. They also need to have the ability to work collaboratively with the public (Van Steden & Nalla, 2010, p. 220). Based on this argument, the law in the state of New Jersey requires security personnel instructors not to involve themselves in acts that impair public trust for them to have their licenses renewed. According to Rigakos (2005), competence is an essential aspect for consideration in the training of security personnel since “the ability of US companies to protect the nation’s critical infrastructure and/or contribute to homeland security efforts depends largely on the competence of private security officers” (p.78). This implies that the legal provisions on the training of security personnel as established by different states are significant in the extent that they help in the proper screening of security personnel and their instructors before they are allocated duties within organizations.
Considering the increasing significance of private security firms in enhancing the success of security initiatives developed by the department of homeland security, it is also important to consider various legal distinctions between state law enforcers and security officers. The state of New Jersey’s legal provisions on the training of security personnel defines a security officer as a person who offers security services such as “protection of a person or property, real or personal, from injury or harm, deterrence, or any other purpose whatsoever for either for hire, fee or rewards” (State of New Jersey, 2006, p.2). Law enforcers are people who are employed permanently and working full time to serve functions such as arresting, rehabilitating people who have violated the law, detecting, detaining and or convicting people who have violated the law as directed by municipal law provisions, state law, county laws or laws prescribed by the U.S. constitution. This implies that law enforcement officers only serve in the realm of criminal law. They do not involve themselves in civil law. Indeed, in the case of Warren v. District of Columbia, the court held that police officers do not have any legal authority to protect citizens at an individual level (Stucky, 2005, p.151). However, private security personnel may have this obligation. However, they are not legally anticipated to offer protection for all people within private properties.
Legal frameworks on the training of security personnel set the minimum qualifications for persons who are deemed fit to serve in the security firms together with training requirements, licensing requirements, and even qualifications for tutors in the training of security personnel. However, these laws vary from state to state and from nation to nation (Pastor, 2003). From 2008, the state of New Mexico demanded all security personnel to undergo mandatory FBI certified training having been taken through intensive FBI background scrutiny. It is also required for security personnel who are authorized to carry firearms to go through additional training on handling and caring of firearms. They are also supposed to pass psychological health tests (Anderson, 2008, p.83).
In North Carolina, safety personnel must be enlisted within the records of classified defensive services board to be qualified. This body serves the principal functions of licensing security personnel and addressing issues related to training coupled with education of people, association companies, and corporations, which provide security services across North Carolina. Under the legal guidelines for the operation of the board, security personnel are classified into two. The first category is unarmed security personnel while the second category involves all armed security personnel. Unarmed security personnel must complete 16 hours direct classroom training program for them to acquire certification (Anderson, 2008, p. 83). Armed security personnel are required to attend additional direct classroom training for 16 hours. The citification to carry a firearm is based on the qualification for gun range that is carried on regular duties. For Oklahoma, decree enforcement schooling board approves defense personnel. Unarmed security personnel must be 18 years and above while armed security personnel must be 21 years and above. Unarmed security personnel undergo 40 hours classroom training. They must also excel in criminal tests and checks. Psychological test is another requirement for armed security person apart from undergoing 40 extra training hours in comparison with the unarmed security personnel.
In South Carolina, legal issues in the training and management of security personnel are different from the above-discussed three states. Security personnel are conferred equal powers to arrest people tantamount to deputies of sheriffs when such people are on the grounds of the properties they (security personnel) are charged with their protection (Anderson, 2008, p.79). However, many security firms provide policies, which prohibit their personnel to arrest in the fear of strict liability issues together with inadequate confidence on the persons (the security personnel) they have deployed to conduct business on their behalf. The law also gives the security personnel the freedom to utilize blue lights together with traffic radars. SLED is the main body responsible for the licensing of the security personnel. Such personnel must undergo 8 hours of training in case they are not to carry firearms while those carrying firearms undergo 8 extra hours of training.
In Virginia, from 1980s, the law provides the department of criminal justice to certify and register security personnel. The department is also charged with the registration of people who enforce the law within the state of Virginia (Button, 2007, p.44). Unarmed security personnel are required to undertake 18 hours training in a classroom that is administered by a certified instructor. The certification cards are obtained within a period of 90 days upon employment by a private security firm. The card is subject to renewal after every two years. For certification as armed security personnel, law in the state of Virginia provides that a person must successfully undergo 16 hours of training in firearms handling, additional 6 hours training on how to execute arrest that is considered legally lawful besides qualifying for the caliber required for arms that are intended to be handled by such persons. The armed security personnel are also subject to annual firearm qualification testing for them to receive endorsement to continue handling the firearms. The state code authenticates armed security personnel to conduct arrest. However, it denies unarmed security personnel this authority (Button, 2007, p.45). Arrests are only legally valid if they are conducted in the jurisdictional areas where the security personnel are employed to execute their duties. Defense personnel are given powers through the state regulation to give orders for people to appear before judges to answer charges of transgression coupled with other illegal acts.
Security personnel are given the privilege by the law of the state of Virginia to undergo a 40-hour extra training to achieve the status of peace conservators within the firms that employ them. Upon successful appointment to this position by the circuit court judge, the personnel acquire similar powers to police officers. These powers are only executed while on the property guarded by the security personnel. Such powers include the legal duty to act as a witness in a court of law for a felony act, and the power to pursue fleeing offenders. Peace conservators are also allowed to utilize red illumination together with car sirens. Similar to the case of other states discussed above, FBI checks and police checks for criminal background history are also important for security personnel in the state of Virginia.
Upon consideration of the above-discussed legal issues in the training of security personnel in the US, it is evident that training is a necessary requirement for security firms to consider if they are to have merits in the industry in terms of winning contracts. Hence, it is important to consider legal issues related to the selection and recruitment of instructors to provide the training services. These legal issues are different, though similar in some ways for different states. Since the discussion of the laws in all states is beyond the scope of this paper, a general consideration of the laws is made with reference to the state of New Jersey.
According to the State of New Jersey (2006), people who seek employment in the security firms as security personnel must undergo 24 hours of classroom training course (p. 9). Certified instructors administer this course. Section 4.1 (b) of the legislation on security personnel training as provided for by the state of New Jersey requires the security personnel to be taught a minimum of 2 hours. Subjects taught include counterterrorism together with homeland security, mechanism of emergency responses, and communication process during incidences of emergency. Avoidance of theft, extents of the use of forceful interventions, law-safeguarding civilians on matters of forced detection, and ethics and codes of conduct in law enforcement and first aid are also taught (State of New Jersey, 2006, p.9). The law further provides, “all registered security officers shall complete an approved eight-hour refresher course of classroom instruction taught by a certified security officer instructor prior to having the certificate renewed pursuant to N.J.A.C. 13:55 A-3.6” (State of New Jersey, 2006, p.9). This provision implies that security companies must consider certain acceptable legal credentials while hiring persons to act as instructors for new security personnel recruits.
Among the many credentials, age is an important parameter for successful selection as an instructor across many states in the US. The state of New Jersey sets this age at 25 years (State of New Jersey, 2006, p.10). Such persons also need to possess 20 years working experience in supervisory roles at a managerial capacity in a security organization. The organization must be legally licensed to offer security services subject to action of the chapter on private detectives as enumerated in the 1939 act or subject to action of other jurisdictional laws of established by US. Alternatively, a successful security instructor needs to satisfy these requirements, but with an experience of 15 years in addition to possession of associates degree acquired from an university or a college that is credited by the state. 10 years experience in the service at a security managerial caliber may also be considered while accompanied by the possession of an undergraduate degree from a fully-fledged university or college (State of New Jersey, 2006, p.10).
In the state of New Jersey, application for security training instructor requires formal applications. The law provides, “a person seeking to become a certified security instructor shall submit an application for registration as a security officer instructor on a form provided by, and in a manner prescribed by, the superintendent” (State of New Jersey, 2006, p.10). Other legal requirements include submission of fingerprints accompanied by consent on clean criminal background history in such a manner that complies with the direction from the superintendent. The law requires security-training instructors to complete refresher courses prescribed by the superintendent. Such courses last for 16 hours. This training is done before renewal of instructors’ licenses as prescribed by N.J.A.C 13:55 A-5.5. These requirements place emphasis on the need to have security personnel trained by academically qualified and experienced persons in the effort to enhance professionalism in the private security industry.
The above legal requirements do not automatically guarantee the renewal or acquiring of a license to execute the function of a security personnel instructor. In many states, superintendents are given authority to deny license applications by persons seeking to become trainers for security personnel. They may also revoke or even suspend licenses for different reasons ingrained within legal frameworks for training of security persons subject to the operation of different states’ legal clauses or laws on training of security personnel. In case of New Jersey, legal issues guide the appropriate action of the superintendent such as conviction of a licensed instructor for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th degree acts of crime as enumerated in the New Jersey criminal justice codes and/or provided for in title 2C. N.J.S.A. 2C:35-2 defines acts of unlawful sale of dangerous substances or possession of such substances, which may prompt the decision to cancel the license of a practicing security personnel instructor.
The discussion of various applications of law in the in matters of selection of instructors and security personnel proves that competence and the ability to handle security issues are important considerations that private security companies need to understand. In fact, according to the National Association of Security and Investigative Regulators (2005), “private security selection and training criteria vary from state to state ranging from comprehensive training requirements for every private security officer to little or no training at all” (p.15). Compliance with various legal provisions in matters of training of security personnel is necessary in the effort to provide effective security services and/or meeting the anticipation of the department of homeland security.
Conclusion
Legal provisions on the training of security personnel have evolved over years from no training requirement to specification of training hours in legislation for different states. Legal requirements for instructors interested in the training of security personnel have also been evolving with time in the effort to ensure that security personnel employed by different security firms help in the fulfillment of initiatives of the department of homeland security. The paper proved that, although the specification of the number of training hours for security personnel varies in different states, there is legal contention that training for security personnel is necessary. Evidence for such training is reflected by certification requirements. In all states of the US, it is an offense to employ uncertified security personnel.
Reference List
Anderson, T. (2008). Affairs of State. Security Management, 2(1), 83-84.
Button, M. (2007). Security Officers and Policing: Powers, Culture and Control in the Governance of Private Space. Aldershot: Ashgate.
National Association of Security and Investigative Regulators. (2005). Model State Regulation of Private Security Officers and Their Employers. Waterloo, IA: National Association of Security and Investigative Regulators.
Pastor, F. (2003). The Privatization of Police in America: An Analysis and Case Study. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Rigakos, G. (2005). The New Para-police: Risk Markets and the Commoditization of Social Control. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
State of New Jersey. (2006). Law and public safety: security officer and security officers companies. Web.
Stucky, D. (2005). Local politics and police strength. Justice Quarterly, 22(2), 139-169.
Van Steden, R.., & Nalla, M. (2010). Citizen satisfaction with private security guards in the Netherlands: perceptions of unambiguous occupation. European Journal of Criminology, 7 (3), 214-234.
Van Steden, R.., & Sarre, R. (2007). The growth of private security: Trends in the European Union. Security Journal, 20(3), 222-235.
Wackenhut Training Institute. (2004). Wackenhut Security Officer Training Materials. Palm Beach Gardens, FL: The Wackenhut Corporation.
Wakefield, A. (2007). The study and Practice of Security: Today and Tomorrow. Security Journal, 20(1), 13-14.