Pick two of the types of criminal acts discussed in the readings and conduct an internet search for cases in which a security professional was charged with those particular offenses. Explain in detail the facts of the case, why you selected it and the outcome of the case.Technical Requirements• Your paper must be at a minimum of 2-3 pages (the Title and Reference pages do not count towards the minimum limit).• Scholarly and credible references should be used. A good rule of thumb is at least 2 scholarly sources per page of content.• Type in Times New Roman, 12 point and double space.ReferenceNemeth, C. (2011). Private Security and The Law-4th Edition (4th ed.). Waltham, MA: ElsevierButterworth-Heinemann.Lola Rabon, Appellee, v. Guardsmark, Inc., Appellant No. 76-2398 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT571 F.2d 1277; 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 12576 November 9, 1977, Argued February 16, 1978, DecidedPRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Sol Blatt, Jr., District Judge.DISPOSITION: Reversed.CASE SUMMARY: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant security company sought review of a judgment from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina which granted summary judgment to appellee injured person in her action which sought damages from the security company after the injured person was sexually assaulted at her place of employment by a security guard employed by the security company.OVERVIEW: The security company provided security services where the injured person was employed. The injured person was sexually assaulted by a security guard employed by the security company and sought to find the security company liable for the attack. The district court found that, under state law, the security company would have a higher standard of care because the assault occurred at the place where the security company’s business was carried out and because it was committed with a gun supplied by the security company. The court noted that only common carriers owed its patrons the highest degree of care. The court, however, disagreed with the district court’s extension of that standard of care to the security company. The court found that the cases which extended the highest degree of care to the employer all involved common carriers and that it was unclear from the law the reasons for the state’s adoption of the higher standard of liability. The court refused to extend liability to the security company for the unauthorized acts of its employee without some reasonable basis in the law and noted that S.C. Code § 56-646.1 et seq. was a licensing statute and did not impute liability. (Lola Rabon, Appellee, v. Guardsmark, Inc.)There are three reasons usually given for the extraordinary liability of common carriers. First, the contract of passage between the carrier and the passenger is said to contain an implied assurance that the passenger will be transported safely, second, common carriers are thought to be charged with public responsibilities; the stringent standard of care is therefore imposed as a matter of public policy. Third, the special duties of the common carrier arise from the fact that the passenger has entrusted his safety, as a bailor entrusts his goods, to the custody and safekeeping of the carrier. (Lola Rabon, Appellee, v. Guardsmark, Inc.)PEOPLE v. HOLLOWAY Docket No. 77-934 Court of Appeals of Michigan 82 Mich. App. 629; 267 N.W.2d 454; 1978 Mich. App. LEXIS 2255January 3, 1978, Submitted April 17, 1978, DecidedDISPOSITION: Reversed and remanded for trial.CASE SUMMARYPROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant was charged with concealed weapons offenses and filed a motion to suppress certain evidence. The trial court (Michigan) granted the motion to suppress, and the state appealed.OVERVIEW: A private security guard employed by a drugstore became suspicious that defendant intended to steal something and performed a pat down of defendant’s person. The security guard discovered a pistol and a knife concealed in defendant’s clothing and turned over defendant and the weapons to the police. Defendant claimed that the warrantless search of his person by the security guard violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment. The court held that the suppression of the pistol and the knife was improper. The court ruled that (1) the security guard was not a governmental official and was not acting under color of law, and (2) the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches, therefore, did not apply.Bruce Holloway was charged with carrying a concealed pistol and another [***2] concealed weapon. Defendant’s motion to suppress the concealed weapons as evidence was denied at the preliminary examination and defendant was bound over for trial. At trial, the defendant again made a motion to suppress and the trial judge granted the motion on the basis that private security guards are bound by the strictures of the Fourth Amendment and the defendant was ordered discharged, Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Susan D. Borman, J. The people appeal. Held: Private security guards who are not acting under “the color of the law” are not bound by the strictures of the Fourth Amendment. Security guards act under the color of law and are subject to the strictures of the Fourth Amendment. However, the evidence should not have been suppressed because the search conducted by the security guards was reasonable. (PEOPLE v. HOLLOWAY, 1978)OUTCOME: The court reversed the grant of the motion to suppress and remanded the case for trial.Opinion of the Court1. Searches and Seizures — Governmental Officers — Private Security Guards — Restraints — Constitutional Law. The Fourth Amendment restraints on the activities of governmental officers does not extend to searches by private security guards (US Const, Am IV).(PEOPLE v. HOLLOWAY, 1978)2. Searches and Seizures — Private Security Guards — Color of State Law — Reasonableness Standards — Police Officers. Private security guards, in reality, do act under color of state law and, therefore, their actions in searching a person are subject to the same reasonableness standards as are applicable to police officers.(PEOPLE v. HOLLOWAY, 1978)3. Searches and Seizures — Security Guards — Reasonableness of Search — Suppression of Evidence — Pat-Down Search. Evidence seized by security guards in a pat-down search of a defendant was admissible into evidence and the trial court should not have ordered the evidence suppressed where, under the circumstances surrounding the encounter between the security guards and the defendant, the search was reasonable. (PEOPLE v. HOLLOWAY, 1978)In Griffin v Maryland, 378 U.S. 130; 84 S Ct 1770; 12 L Ed 2d 754 (1964), the security guard involved had been deputized by the county sheriff for the express purpose of policing an amusement park where the incident complained of occurred. Williams v United States, 341 U.S. 97; 71 S Ct 576; 95 L Ed 774 (1951), involved a private detective who held a special police officer’s card and badge. The detective was accompanied by a city police officer sent by his superior to lend authority to the proceedings. It was under those circumstances that the United States Supreme Court determined that evidence obtained could be suppressed because it was acquired under “the color of the law”. Surely the facts in the foregoing cases are distinguishable from those at bar.(PEOPLE v. HOLLOWAY, 1978)
