Student’s Name:
Professor:
Course:
Date:
Security Law Paper, 300 Level Class
From 2009 to 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice charged 254 police officers throughout the United States with violating the individual rights of Americans. However, the private security industry does not relate to such figures despite the large number of persons that work in the private security industry. Private securities have a task of offering security to a company, business, organization or a person depending on the employer’s specification. The level of service offers highly depends on the task and expectation of the employer. However, private security guards face serious backlash from the public when some of the methods and procedures used infringe on human rights. The public finds it hard to prosecute private security for the lack of knowledge of the required procedure and expected channels (Harmon 33). Does a constitutional policy that prosecutes private security exist?
The constitution plays a fundamental role of protecting all citizens regardless of their actions or job descriptions. Fundamentally, the human right covers every individual in the state whether a criminal or not. Consequently, the constitution also protects citizens against abuse or unfair treatment from security personnel. However, the constitution limits the extent of its powers to limit public action. Many individuals interpret the fourth amendment to mean that the government protects citizens against unreasonable searches or seizure from public security (Obasogie and Newman 425). The interpretation does not factor the actions that private security guards perform when carrying out their duties. For example, a security guard at a supermarket performs an unwarranted search of any client that enters the building.
Ideally, the security guard violates the fourth amendment but still individuals subject to the search. Does such behavior mean that private security guards are above the law? Private security does not have any powers above that of normal citizens. Private security performs their actions under the jurisdiction of a normal citizen although they act on behalf of their employer’s interests. Why do the officials have the power to mishandle clients and even chase away individuals that they believe do not meet the interests of their employer? For example, it is common for a security guard to chase of a trespasser by using crude methods or, a security guard physically abusing a captured thief in an attempt to collect information. What channels can the victims of the cruelty use to bring to justice the individuals? The question faces debate from human rights activists. The activists believe that only clear policies and standardized protective coverage can help in the administration of Justice.
Analysis of case studies and court proceedings identify three factors that make it possible to prosecute private security guards under the constitution. The factors go against the notion that private security and private police systems can avoid the constitutional constrictions applied on public police. The three factors include criminal sanctions, means of prosecution, and Government contracts. Presenting objective proof of any of the three factors creates an opportunity for the punishment of private security officers that abuse their power.
Criminal Sanctions
Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 242 protects citizens against criminal offences conducted by government officials. The section states that any individual acting under the law, ordinance, statue, regulation, and custom has no right to willfully deprive a person of their rights as stipulated by the United States constitution (Johnson and Bridgmon 197). The section specifically focuses on government officials, public officers of the law, and any government official or person acting on behalf of the government. The statute includes public officials that hold any acting capacity in a government office.
For a person to be convicted, the prosecution must satisfy the court and the acting judge with three crucial aspects. First, the act committed by the accused must violate a constitutional right. Thus if defendants learn that the actions violate constitutional right, they can easily be regulated without the need for a specific constitutional right. Second, the accuser must prove that the individual was acting under the jurisdiction of the government. Such action should be characterized as acting under the “color of the law”. The defendant should also act under the rights conferred by the federal or state law in their official capacity. Lastly, the prosecution team should have objective proof of the intent to deprive citizens fundamental rights stipulated in the constitution. In summary, an individual is said to have acted against the constitution if their actions go against section 242 and they have knowledge that the action deprives the accuser fundamental rights as a US citizen. Specifically, private officers are persecuted when their actions fall in three main categories. The security officers acted on powers conferred by the government, were working on government contracts, or were off-duty. If a prosecution team can prove the following, the private security would be prosecuted swiftly.
Acting on Powers of the Government
William V. United States (U.S. Supreme Court 1945) provides proof of the prosecution of an individual that worked on official capacity conferred by the government. William worked as a private detective who had taken an oath. Furthermore, William was also issued with a special card by the City of Miami (100). While working on a private case that involved Lindsey Lumber Company, the accused used force to acquire information on the case. Furthermore, William displayed his badge and used the presence of a police officer to force the suspects to speak (99). The Jury decided that William had gone against section 242 of the constitution and was persecuted. The basis of the judgment stemmed from the fact that William represented the state in his actions by using a badge and due to the oath that he had taken in the City of Miami. Additionally, the presence of a police officer during the interrogation of suspect also showed the presence of public authority and thus William could not argue that he was acting as a private person during the process.
In another case involving United States V. Hoffman (U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, 1974), private personnel were convicted for assaulting trespassers. The two embers worked for Penn Central Transportation police Office. The officers ensured the organization’]s ground was not trespassed. During the process of exerting their power, the two officers physically assaulted passers-by (881). During their trial, the accused tried to argue that they acted on their own capacity (882). Unfortunately, the court ruled that the officers worked under, the color of the law” since the railway company police had the same powers of those of the central police officers of Illinois. The little evidence ensured that the officers were convicted of their crime despite appealing to the Supreme Court (883). A similar ruling was upheld since the prosecution team had court document that showed the central police had conferred their powers to the railway company.
Working Off-duty
Section 242 ensures that officers receive conviction despite committing specific action whether they are off duty or not. The prosecution has to prove that during the crime, the individual used official powers to conduct the crime although they were off duty. The section ensures that police officers do not abuse their official powers when off duty. The section does not limit itself to public officers but also includes private officers working in the capacity of government officials.
In United States V. White (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 2003) a private security guard was convicted for using his official powers when off duty. White worked as a private security guard at a strip club. When off duty, the police office assaulted a dancer and was taken to court. The court discovered that the accused had used official power by introducing himself as a police officer, obstructed the victim from calling the police and open an official police report that stated that the victim had assaulted a police officer. The three actions showed that White had used official police power despite being off-duty to carry out the carious acts. The action of wearing a gun and showing a badge showed that the individual had conferred official state power. Consequently, the federal judge ruled that the accused had to serve a 27-month sentence as well as three years of supervised release after being found guilty under section 242.
Government Contracts
The third factor makes security personnel viable for actions conducted during the time of the contractual relationship. The contractual relationship might be between an individual and the government or governmental institutions. In United V. Fuller (U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, 2009) the court convicted four defendants who had a contractual relationship with New Mexico County Correctional Facility. The four defendants were accused of assaulting inmates during the process of completing the contract. Two defendants actively took part in the assault while one just watched. The other accused helped in covering the situation to avoid litigation. The court found three of the accused guilt according to section 242. The three individuals actively took part n assaulting the inmates and conspiring to cover up the situation from the New Mexico Police department.
The four individuals did not have a public office but had a contractual relationship with a public entity at the time when the crime was committed. Therefore, the individuals were found guilty of infringing on the rights of the two inmates that were beaten. Specifically, prosecution of individuals under the last factor requires that the individuals’ rights were neglected according to the fifth and eighth amendment. The two laws coupled with code 18 USC section 242 provide solid evidence that convict law enforcers for abusing their authority and causing harm to citizens. The last example also showed that the law also protected convicted felonies from harm that officers cause them when they serve their time.
Overall, the study shows that private personnel can be convicted of crimes that they cause with their power. However, despite the use of the code in penalizing offenders the number of private officers committed does not match the number of incidents that occur. Many citizens avoid seeking litigation due to the lack of knowledge on section 242. Prosecutors also use other channels to punish offenders rather than taking them to court. For example, prosecutors might opt to settle the case out of court or through probation.
Additionally, many cases prove futile due to the lack of evidence that proves any of the three factors. Particularly, prosecutors find it hard to prove, “the color of law” or the intention to use power against the public. Nonetheless, both public and private officers should receive sufficient training on the requirements and laws pertaining to their jurisdiction to avoid ignorance of the law. Some private officers directly infringe on the rights of other citizens since they understand that the constitution lacks specific channels that can convict them. However, section 242 proves a useful tool in prosecution of officers that overstep their mandate and cause harm to others.
Nonetheless, other constitutional policies and amendments should be made to ensure that elaborate channels are developed to deal with the private security sector. Having the ability to prove “color of law”, constitutional infringement and provision of objective proof makes it hard for all cases to make it to court. Specific policies pertaining to the private security sector will make it easy for the private and public officers to work harmoniously. The policies will also necessitate the need for rigorous training in private security firms to ensure that all security personnel learn about the policies and the specific effects on citizens. Such training will improve the quality of service and reduce the number of crimes or cases associated with abuse of power by security personnel.
Works Cited
Harmon, Rachel. “Limited leverage: Federal remedies and policing reform.” . Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 32 (2012): 33-40.
Johnson, Brian R., and Phillip B. Bridgmon. “Depriving Civil Rights: An Exploration of 18 USC 242 Criminal Prosecutions 2001-2006.” Criminal Justice Review 34.2 (2009): 196-209.
Obasogie, Osagie K., and Zachary Newman. “Constitutional Interpretation Without Judges: Police Violence, Excessive Force, and Remaking the Fourth Amendment.” Va. L. Rev. 105 (2019): 425.
United States v. Fuller, Case No.: CR208-33 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 25, 2009).
United States v. Hoffman, 498 F.2d 879 (7th Cir. 1974).
Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97, 71 S. Ct. 576, 95 L. Ed. 774 (1951).