http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/who...urns-out-its-no

So private cops are allready here

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-02/tech/ip...hone?_s=PM:TECH
(or any of a hundred other similar articles about Apple's private cops searching someone's home while officers waited outside and the homeowner unaware that the cops searching his home were Apple's not local).

I'm not sure why the ability to hire a New York City Cop is a big surprise to someone. The haunted house I worked with always hired officers in uniform to be outside when we were in operation. A local porn store, sick of harassment and attempts to entrap them by local church groups has had a paid officer checking ids at the door. Why should Wall Street not do what many small businesses do?

http://www.google.com/search?q=off-duty+po...+security+guard for a ton of examples, feel free to add your town name to the search.

Well, before the rhetoric flies thick and hard in here, let me point out a few things...

Apple's private security is security - they have no authority to carry a gun beyond that of private citizens, they cannot make arrests (except citizen's arrests), they cannot detain you, etc.

Many, many police "moonlight" on the side as security as you say, but they're doing so contracted privately between themselves and the place they're moonlighting. The deal is NOT brokered by the city in any other case I've heard of, at least not for pay. In cases where the city PD office brokers a deal like that, they're saying, "We'll place an officer at your store because you're being harassed", not "Pay us 40 dollars an hour and we'll guard your store." The distinction between off-duty cop being paid privately and on-duty cop being paid privately is a HUGE one.

Security detail on individuals is generally something - again - the city or state foots the bill for, not private companies. Having the company foot the bill automatically creates a conflict of interest, because the cop is still "on the job" for the city, but risks losing pay if he sees any wrongdoing by his current paymaster.

Michael Jackson's funeral leaps to mind, although in that case, the taxpayers footed the bill for almost 4,000 officers for a private event at the request of the organizers of that event.

Quick look for cities that do this:
http://qctimes.com/news/local/crime-and-co...1cc4c03286.html - Quad cities apparently takes requests and passes them out. Final arrangements are not through the city.
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/12/be...eview_poli.html - Bedford heights require off-duty officers be used for parties in rented city-own buildings. Payment goes directly to officers, not through the city.
http://www.clearwaterpolice.org/patrol/offduty.asp - Clearwater, Fl - Seems to work the same way NYC is described as working.
www.winterhavenpd.com/forms/extra-dutydetailapp.doc - Winter Haven, Fl. Same deal. Booked through the city, paid through the city.

As above, how your city does it may vary, but the NYC policy is not unique.

That's again, not a private deal. That's a public event which would require police presence anyway, not private bodyguarding for pay. The city footed the bill, as you say - not the organizers. The NYPD having a "Paid Detail Unit" implies they are, in fact, on-duty.

With respect to your links: all of these relate to off-duty moonlighting, NOT on-duty policing for pay. Even so, my point is that it's rare, not that it's totally unheard of. And it's still a bad idea, legally speaking.

Sorry, when we hire an officer in uniform for the haunted house it is ENTIRELY to be an officer in uniform. They are policing for pay. We are hiring cops to be cops in and around the property while the haunted house is in operation. With them there to arrest people who get out of hand, it has kept things from getting out of hand for 20 years now.

(Note: Not the best, nor the worst part of town. Long lines, young people, drunk people, gang members, but everyone knows the cops are there and ain't going anywhere so they keep it cool while having fun.)

I honestly don't think it's rare. I think it's more likely that if you don't know who asked for the cops to be there, especially if they're outside, not inside the property, it's easy to assume the city put them there when it could simply be that some business or organization is paying for the officers to be there, possibly through the city, possibly through a private firm. It's also possible that the officers are there as a favor to the business or organization, without the business or organization having to pay and the taxpayers picking up the tab instead.

Almost universally in the US (I won't speak to other areas) a sworn law enforcement officer is still obligated to do their duty even "off the clock" this applies both in and out of uniform. So when you pay an officer to be present and in uniform even if their off duty it's as much as having an officer present.

Many cities do prefer the arrangements for such matters go through them so they can track them, there is supposed to be a limit on how much "extra hours" a police officer takes in and to theoretically limit corruption or the appearance of favoritism.

At least in theory it works both ways though, a LEO acting as a security presence is a LEO first and foremost and a company representative second or not at all.

Yeah, but if you hire an off-duty cop to guard a place, they are not there on orders from the city or district. They are engaging in employment outside of their work hours, outside of official sanctioning.

It is the act of official sanction that matters.



-k

To whom? As far as I know the courts don't care.

Hunting I can find the following:
http://www.icgov.org/docs/auto/police/genorder47.pdf (Iowa County)

Ok. That makes sense and matches what I see locally.

http://www.bridgeton.k12.nj.us/board/pdfs/4219.3.pdf has similar rules to Iowa County.

Note that since we're hiring officers in uniform, many of the guidelines come down to "make sure you call an on duty cop if you see or do anything". A lot of the rules involve being without identification or gear and those rules don't apply in the case of officers in uniform hired.

I'm missing where the official sanction matters at all. They are police officers, even when off duty. That's all the sanctioning they need.

The legal issue has nothing to do with how the individual officers are required to behave, but rather with the laws surrounding how police administration is allowed to use governmental resources. It's about opening the department to liability, not the individual officer. This is not, and has never been, about individual officers.

To draw a correlation, a Senator is allowed to accept gifts within the legal boundaries of such things, just as a police officer is allowed in some jurisdictions to moonlight. A senator is NOT allowed directly sell his vote in exchange for favors, by saying "I will only vote yes on this if you pay me X amount of money" - just as police are generally not allowed to get paid to bodyguard people while on-duty. And the problem with moonlighting IS in many ways, the same problem with a senator recieving gifts. The difference is, it's much easier to tell if a police officer has refused to enforce the law while on duty, because he did/did not recieve pay while off-duty.