NET WORKING HERE

LAW Writer® Ohio Laws and Rules
Ohio Administrative Code Home Help Route: Ohio Revised Code» TITLE [29] XXIX CRIMES -- PROCEDURE» CHAPTER 2921: OFFENSES AGAINST JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
2921.51 Impersonation of peace officer or private police officer.
(A) As used in this section:

(1) “Peace officer” means a sheriff, deputy sheriff, marshal, deputy marshal, member of the organized police department of a municipal corporation, or township constable, who is employed by a political subdivision of this state, a member of a police force employed by a metropolitan housing authority under division (D) of section 3735.31 of the Revised Code, a member of a police force employed by a regional transit authority under division (Y) of section 306.35 of the Revised Code, a state university law enforcement officer appointed under section 3345.04 of the Revised Code, a veterans’ home police officer appointed under section 5907.02 of the Revised Code, a special police officer employed by a port authority under section 4582.04 or 4582.28 of the Revised Code, or a state highway patrol trooper and whose primary duties are to preserve the peace, to protect life and property, and to enforce the laws, ordinances, or rules of the state or any of its political subdivisions.

(2) “Private police officer” means any security guard, special police officer, private detective, or other person who is privately employed in a police capacity.

(3) “Federal law enforcement officer” means an employee of the United States who serves in a position the duties of which are primarily the investigation, apprehension, or detention of individuals suspected or convicted of offenses under the criminal laws of the United States.

(4) “Impersonate” means to act the part of, assume the identity of, wear the uniform or any part of the uniform of, or display the identification of a particular person or of a member of a class of persons with purpose to make another person believe that the actor is that particular person or is a member of that class of persons.

(5) “Investigator of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation” has the same meaning as in section 2903.11 of the Revised Code.

(B) No person shall impersonate a peace officer, a private police officer, a federal law enforcement officer, or investigator of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation.

(C) No person, by impersonating a peace officer, a private police officer, a federal law enforcement officer, or investigator of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation shall arrest or detain any person, search any person, or search the property of any person.

(D) No person, with purpose to commit or facilitate the commission of an offense, shall impersonate a peace officer, a private police officer, a federal law enforcement officer, an officer, agent, or employee of the state, or investigator of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation.

(E) No person shall commit a felony while impersonating a peace officer, a private police officer, a federal law enforcement officer, an officer, agent, or employee of the state, or investigator of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation.

(F) It is an affirmative defense to a charge under division (B) of this section that the impersonation of the peace officer, private police officer, or investigator of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation was for a lawful purpose.

(G) Whoever violates division (B) of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. Whoever violates division (C) or (D) of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the purpose of a violation of division (D) of this section is to commit or facilitate the commission of a felony, a violation of division (D) is a felony of the fourth degree. Whoever violates division (E) of this section is guilty of a felony of the third degree.

Effective Date: 03-14-2003; 01-04-2007; 04-04-2007

Private police
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Private Police)

Private police are law enforcement bodies that are owned and/or controlled by non-governmental entities.

These can be firms to which the government contracts out police work (e.g. the 1975-1977 Oro Valley, Arizona-Rural/Metro contract, the 1980 Reminderville, Ohio-Corporate Security contract, the 1976 Indian Springs, Florida-Guardsmark contract, and the 1976 Buffalo Creek, West Virginia-Guardsmark contract). Or, they can be officers who contract with various firms to patrol the area, as in the case of the San Francisco Patrol Specials.

A specific type of private police is company police, such as the specialized railroad police. In some cases, private police are sworn in as government employees in order to ensure compliance with the law, as in the Kalamazoo, Michigan-Charles Services contract, which lasted 3 1/2 years. In Florida, Critical Intervention Services has full arrest powers within its jurisdiction.

Relationship to anarcho-capitalism
Private police figures prominently in anarcho-capitalist theory and, along with advocacy of private defense agencies, dispute resolution organizations, and private production of law, distinguishes it from minarchism. Since complete privatization of the police function (with funding, control, ownership, etc. of all police forces passing to private entities) would eliminate the ability of the state to forcibly collect taxes, arguably the only way it could work would be within the context of a society in which all other services were privatized as well. Moreover, the state would lose the ability to intervene to enforce its concept of justice; this factor also tends to make it incompatible with the idea of a night watchman state that could take action to protect liberty.

History
In Great Britain, the police function was historically performed by private watchmen (existing from 1500 on), thief-takers, and so on. The former were funded by private individuals and organizations and the latter by privately-funded rewards for catching criminals, who would then be compelled to return stolen property or pay restitution.

In 1737, George II began paying some London and Middlesex watchmen with tax moneys, beginning the shift to government control. In 1750, Henry Fielding began organizing a force of quasi-professional constables. The Macdaniel affair added further impetus for a publicly-salaried police force that did not depend on rewards. Nonetheless, In 1828, there were privately financed police units in no fewer than 45 parishes within a 10-mile radius of London.

The ability of people to sue private police could be another safeguard. Companies would have an incentive to carefully screen applicants and fire abusive employees, in order to avoid costly lawsuits that could cause their liability insurance premiums to rise.

Public police, by contrast, are covered by sovereign immunity in many situations; and in any case, the public police lack an owner whose potential to suffer financially from lawsuits would provide a strong incentive to take action. Theoretically, the citizens as a whole might be considered the "owner" of government; but the difference is that these owners lack a means of selling their investment if their fellow owners refuse to cooperate in taking action to avoid losses; and there is less potential for hostile takeover or bankruptcy to affect a change in control, as the government can simply raise taxes (or print money, in some cases) to compensate for financial losses.

There are the usual public choice issues involved that can thwart public sector reform, such as the fact that citizens realize their individual votes have little chance of affecting the outcome. As Bruce L. Benson notes, "Many people are very concerned about what the government is doing for (or to) them, but they rationally choose not to invest in information about candidates or to vote because they recognize that the costs of doing so exceed the benefits."

Another advantage cited by Benson is that private police would have a contractual responsibility to protect their customers.[3] In Warren v. District of Columbia, the court found that public police have no such responsibility.[4] Thus, they cannot be sued if they fail to respond to calls for help, for instance.

James F. Pastor addresses such disadvantages by analyzing a number of substantive legal and public policy issues which directly or indirectly relate to the provision of security services. These can be demonstrated by the logic of alternative or supplemental service providers. This is illustrated by the concept of "para-police." Para-police is another name for private police officers. Many public safety agencies use auxiliary police officers, who are part-time sworn police officers. Some also use reserve police officers, who are hired on an "as needed" basis, with limited police powers. These officers are typically called to duty for special details or events. In contrast to auxiliary and reserve officers, private policing is a relatively new and growing phenomenon.

There are several key distinctions between these options. Briefly, the distinctions relate to the level of police powers associated with the officer, the training levels required for each officer, the funding sources for the service provision, and the contractual and liability exposures related to each supplemental arrangement. Each alternative or supplemental service has its own strengths and weaknesses. The use of private police, however, has particular appeal because property or business owners can directly contract for public safety services, thereby providing welcome relief for municipal budgets. Finally, private police functions can be flexible, depending upon the financial, organizational, political, and situational circumstances of the client. [5]


Perceived disadvantages
Under anarcho-capitalism, taxpayers would not be forced to fund police services; these transactions would be voluntary. One argument against such a policy is that it would disadvantage the poor, who could not afford to spend much money on police. Thus, some less radical libertarians favor issuing police vouchers to each citizen, granting them a certain amount of money to hire a private police company of their choice at taxpayer expense.

There are counter-argument to this stance as well, though; one is that it could hurt citizens who are forced to pay taxes to fund a certain level of police services, when they might need the money more for other products such as food or health care. For those citizens, it might be in their best interest to take a greater risk of being victimized in exchange for being able to afford other necessities.

Another counter-argument is that there are many necessities besides police services that the poor often lack; for instance, shoes. Yet, many countries that provide free police services do not give away shoes for free; in those countries, everyone is expected to provide their own shoes, or to seek the assistance of charitable organizations (or individuals) to provide them with shoes. Similarly, in the absence of government sponsorship of police, philanthropists might step up to provide grants to poverty-stricken individuals and communities in need of police.

Murray Rothbard notes, "police service is not "free"; it is paid for by the taxpayer, and the taxpayer is very often the poor person himself. He may very well be paying more in taxes for police now than he would in fees to private, and far more efficient, police companies. Furthermore, the police companies would be tapping a mass market; with the economies of such a larger-scale market, police protection would undoubtedly be much cheaper."[6]

Public police, by contrast, are limited in size by the political jurisdiction; although some local public police forces already contract with national private firms for specialty services, such as maintenance of communications equipment, for which it would not be economical for them to hire a full-time government employee.[7]

Ultimately, some people see the potential for a “dual system” of policing—one for the wealthy and one for the poor—and others see the provision of private security as the primary protective resource in contemporary America. [8]


Schools of
thought Agorist · Buddhist · Capitalist · Christian · Collectivist · Communist · Crypto · Feminist · Free market · Green · Heathian anarchism · Immediatist · Individualist · Info · Insurrectionary · Leftist · Lifestylist · Mutualist · Pacifist · Pan · Philosophical · Platformist · Post-anarchism · Post-colonial · Post-left · Primitivist · Social · Syndicalist · Vegan · Zenarchy ·

Theory and
practice Anarchy · Black bloc · Class struggle · Communes · Co-operatives · Counter-economics · Direct action · Direct democracy · Economics · Especifismo · Propaganda of the deed · Self-ownership · Social ecology · Spontaneous order · Squatting · Workers' self-management


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_police"
Categories: Law enforcement

What exactly is a PRIVATE police officer ? Big Dave