Security Scenario Legal Applications Exercises Paper Example

Exercise #1 - Security Operations and the Law

Explain Why the U.S. Courts Continue to make Distinctions between Public Law Enforcement Powers and Private Sector Enforcement Issues.

The U.S. courts make distinctions between private sector enforcement issues and public law enforcement powers to provide limits, which private agencies follow concerning individual rights. The US constitution allows private security officers to carry firearms, investigate, defend themselves, and arrest law offenders while protecting the interests of their employers (Scope of Legal Authority of Private Security Personnel, 1976). Therefore, due to the similarity of their functions with those of public law enforcement, the law must continually differentiate how private citizens carry out the activities since they do not possess special police powers. As a result, the court tries to explain the scope of private security legal authority through private citizen's limitation and rights.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Incorporate into Your Response Why a Practical Knowledge of the Law is Important to the Corporate Security Officer and the Security Director

Practical knowledge of the law is essential for corporate security officers since it allows them to execute their duties within legal limitations. Despite having similar responsibilities to those of the police, corporate security personnel does not work on behalf of the state (Scope of Legal Authority of Private Security Personnel, 1976). Additionally, regulations governing the conduct and responsibilities of corporate officers change from one jurisdiction to another; therefore, it is vital for security directors to equip their officers with adequate knowledge of the law before they start working to enhance accountability and avoid public harm.

What Impact Criminal and Tort Law have on a Corporation?

Criminal and tort laws have various impacts on corporations regarding security. Firstly, criminal law serves as an outer limit to corporate security functions. In this case, the law acts as a restraint to improper conduct in such a way that corporates must prove beyond reasonable doubt that an individual had an intent to commit a crime before he or she is prosecuted (Scope of Legal Authority of Private Security Personnel, 1976). On the other hand, tort law provides organizations with a mechanism to remedy wrongs done to them by others. However, it limits corporate security by allowing individuals to open lawsuits for injuries or damages caused by CSO personnel misconduct.

Exercise #2 - Security Scenario Legal Applications

Succinctly summarize the facts of the case regarding the arrest and any subsequent judicial action.

Pinkerton Inc. entered into a contract with Welsh Manufacturing to supply security services for its facility. The defendant provided unarmed and uniformed security officer, Donald Lawson, to guard its premises at night. Lawson confessed to participating and aiding in the three robberies on Welsh Manufacturing while still serving as a guard in the premises and after employment leading to a total loss of gold worth $200, 000 (Welsh Mfg., Div. of Textron, Inc. v. Pinkerton's, Inc.). The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was liable for the losses since it was negligent in hiring a security officer without assessing his trustworthiness and honesty.

Describe the issues did the court had to settle.

• Insufficient training and supervision
• Negligent hiring
• Assignment

Explain the court's ruling in each of those areas and its rationale

Firstly, the court ruled that the defendant was negligent in employing Lawson and assigning him to guard valuable items such as gold in Welsh Manufacturing premises. Secondly, the court ruled that there was substantial evidence to prove that did Pinkerton neither provide Lawson with a formal training program before assigning him for his first job nor conduct adequate on job supervisions (Welsh Mfg., Div. of Textron, Inc. v. Pinkerton's, Inc). Thirdly, the court found that there was overwhelming evidence to uphold a direct verdict since the defendant did not assign any duties that would affirm the employee's honesty and reliability before entrusting him to guard valuable assets within six months of employment. The court concluded that the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant engaged in negligent hiring; therefore, it upheld the decision of the previous jury and dismissed Pinkerton's appeal (Welsh Mfg., Div. of Textron, Inc. v. Pinkerton's, Inc.).

Describe the actual legal elements required to establish before a court to prove negligence.

For plaintiffs to prove and win a case of negligence they must prove all elements of negligence which include breach of contract, duty, causation, damages, and proximate cause. Notably, they must show that they suffered injuries due to carelessness. Juries are obligated to assess facts, affidavits, and evidence in identifying whether the above elements were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt.

References

Elements of a Negligence Case. (2019). FindLaw. Retrieved from https://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/elements-of-a-negligence-case.

htmlScope of Legal Authority of Private Security Personnel. (1976, September 27). Retrieved from, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/146908NCJRS.pdf

Welsh Mfg., Div. of Textron, Inc. v. Pinkerton's, Inc. (n.d.). Retrieved February 26, 2019, from https://law.justia.com/cases/rhode-island/supreme-court/1984/474-a-2d-436.html