Civil and Criminal Cases Research Essay

Criminal and Civil Cases

Criminal cases are typically legal proceedings that develop after a person commits an offense that is against the penal code of a specific jurisdiction. Even though the action may be against a specific person, it is typically seen as being against the government since it is their responsibility to uphold law and order. The prosecution and the accused are typically the parties to a lawsuit in criminal proceedings. Contrarily, civil cases are court proceedings that result from offenses involving private individuals. The majority of the time, it includes things like land transactions, tort liability, succession causes, and contractual issues. The remedies that are usually applicable to civil cases are either damages in order to compensate the victims, specific performance, injunctions and other equitable remedies such as restitution and rectification. Parties to a civil suit are the plaintiff and the defendant.

Burden of Proof in Criminal and Civil Cases

In criminal cases, the burden of proof is mostly beyond reasonable doubt. This loosely means that the court determining the matter need to be completely convinced that the accused person is the one who committed the criminal act. This point was sufficiently covered in the People v. O.J. Simpson case. The accused was charged with the murder of his wife and a friend to the wife in 1994. The jury that was to give a ruling in the matter was not convinced of the likelihood of the accused being the perpetrator of the two counts of murder. They proceeded to acquit him on grounds that the threshold was not sufficiently met.

In civil cases, on the other hand, the burden of proof is on a standard of probabilities. This means that there should be remoteness in the actions of the accused and the wrongful act. After the O.J. Simpson was acquitted in the criminal case the families of the deceased brought a civil suit to be compensated for the murder of their loved ones. Their action succeeded since, on a balance of probabilities, there was a likelihood that the accused was guilty and the court awarded $33 million in damages to the two families.

Private Security Personnel and Tort Law

A tort is a civil wrong that that is occasioned by one person (referred to as the tortfeasor) towards another person. The injured party is given the right to receive some of the remedies that are available in order to reinstate their status. Some of the remedies that are available are damages, injunctions (to prevent the wrongful act from manifestation) and other equitable remedies that are provided for. Tort law addresses various aspects of self-defense, apprehension of a wrongdoer and also provides for various ways of protecting people from actions that are likely to harm them or their property (U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice, 1976).

In relation to private security, the law of tort sets the manner in which personnel that is engaged in private security undertake their affairs. It imposes an element of liability towards these personnel in the cause of dispensing their duties. Private security personnel need to engage in their duties diligently in order to avoid any lawsuits that may arise due to negligent conduct.

Some of the actions that might lead to tortious lawsuits in relation to security personnel include: negligent conduct, intention to occasion harm towards the property or people they are supposed to protect and finally might be held liable without necessarily being negligent or have the intention to commit a tortious act (U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice, 1976). In Watkins v. Sears Roebuck & Co. 289 A.D.2d 73 (1st Dept. 2001) the plaintiff brought an action before court after he was apprehended by the defendant who was a security officer at a retail store. This came at the backdrop allegations that the plaintiff had stolen a boom box from the store. The court held that the nonlethal force that was used by the defendant was reasonable and therefore the action did not succeed. In Matti v. Temco serv. indus., Inc, 253 A.D.2d 415 (2d Dept. 1998) a security guard was sued after the plaintiff stated that he had failed to bring to the attention of the management of a dangerous material that was likely to cause injury. These accusations came after the plaintiff slipped and fell due to a rug that was at the exit of an office that she had visited. This action failed since the remoteness was not established and the defendant did not owe a duty to the third party.

Civil Liability and Private Security

Due to the fact that private security personnel are also deemed as private individuals, they are likely to incur civil liability while dispensing some of their duties. They, therefore, are required to exhibit a high standard of care in order to avoid this liability. Some of the various issues that are likely to cause civil liability include the following:

1. Assault

This is one of the more common actions that arise in the course of a private security personnel's line of work. This is due to the fact that it is in the nature of the job description that they are likely to encounter scenarios where they might be required to exercise some level of restraint or apprehension of various people. In some cases, one might allege that the private security officer exerted unreasonable force while apprehending them, therefore, it is often up to the courts to determine whether or not the force that was used was reasonable or not ("Civil Liability of Security Personnel", 2015). This was the issue for determination in Watkins v. Sears Roebuck & Co. 289 A.D.2d 73 (1st Dept. 2001) where the plaintiff broke his leg after the defendant (who was a security guard) tackled him in order to apprehend him.

2. False Imprisonment

A private security officer could have an action brought against them for false imprisonment if a person can prove that there was an unreasonable and malicious intention by the guard to detain them ("Civil Liability of Security Personnel", 2015). In Jacques v. Sears Rosebuck & Co., 30 N.Y.2d 466 (1972) the plaintiff's action for false imprisonment was dismissed since the defendant proved that reasonable grounds for the apprehension had been established.

3. Defamation

Private security officers are in some instances liable for defamation in the event that their utterances or accusations seem to attack the character reputation of an individual before people within the society ("Civil Liability of Security Personnel", 2015). When a security guard accuses an individual of shoplifting they can be liable for defaming that person if the accusations are found to be malicious and untrue. In Nevin vs. Citibank, the court held that the utterances by the security guard that stated that "a black female was making large purchases with a Citibank Visa card and thereafter puts the goods in her car and returns to the store" did not amount to defamation since they were factual information.

Measures to Mitigate Organizational and Institutional Liability

As with any career dealing with assets and protection or any sort of public service, organizational or institutional liability will always be an issue. There is no perfect system to eliminate liability. The private security profession is not an exception to that rule. Mitigation of liability is an important aspect of productivity for security professionals as well as their employers. There is no substitute for training, procedures, and policies; not to mention the proper supervision. This does not mean that security should be micromanaged. In fact, security officers need to be able to think outside the box and be able to think critically and evaluate situations, but they must also be respectful, properly trained and regular assessments of their performance should be made. In many cases, if a security officer presents him/herself using a positive, assertive yet nonaggressive attitude, many issues can be solved without negative effects. Private security must have constant training, updated procedures, and policies as well as be in good standing with the public police. If an organization is concerned with liabilities, or security leaders are concerned, addressing those concerns with law enforcement can only benefit the organization and help to prevent liabilities.

Conclusion

Security organizations could be more productive and efficient by ensuring constant ongoing training, evaluations, and updating policies and procedures. Regular job evaluations and meetings with team members can also be effective to ensure positive morale and appropriate or inappropriate behavior is addressed. By keeping a consistent program of effectiveness, liabilities can be lessened as a leader will be able to evaluate strengths and weaknesses of team and members and address each in turn. Team collaboration in private security is important. This also means that private security needs to be updated on laws, civil rights, authoritative limitations and private security relations with public police need to be consistent and up to par. With public police and private security communicating with each other and concerns being able to be addressed as well as proper training and policies and procedures, liabilities can be minimized.

References

Civil Liability of Security Personnel |. (2015). Lawexplores.com. Retrieved 9 May 2017, from

http://lawexplores.com/civil-liability-of-security-personnel/

U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice. (1976). Scope of legal Authority of

Private Security Personnel, 4. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/146908NCJRS.pdf