Posted: September 21st, 2022

Describe at least two situations where a private security person

Criminal Justice
Assignment Instructions
Assignment Instructions (using size 12, Times New Roman font) as Word doc or docx:

–Describe at least two situations where a private security person could be impacted by the exclusionary rule. Use case examples to support your position.

The student will ensure all syllabus requirements are met. (Minimum word count is 350; max is 400 words). Cite at least two sources in Ace homework tutors – APA standards.
Criminal Justice
The exclusionary rule could impact the private security personnel in case of illegal or unreasonable search and in case of detention or false imprisonment (Paulsen, 1961). The federal statutes, as well as the constitution of the US, protect the individual from the unreasonable searches. The private guards should be aware of the power to search and seize, including exercising the lawful arrest by making sure that there is the availability of the search warrant or consent of a person. For instance, private security personnel may frequently conduct the searches for the suspected stolen property, in recovering the merchandise or for collecting the evidence for the internal investigation.
However, this is different from public law enforcement because they follow the constitution in exercising their powers. The four instances in which the search may be permissible by the private security include if there is available actual consent from a person if the implied consent is part of a condition of employment or incidental to a valid arrest (Rafferty, 1978). The exclusionary rule is not applied to the private parties regardless of whether the search was illegal. However, the private security personnel could be subject to the tort liability, especially during the actions taken during the search process such as theft, assault, and trespass, among others (Rafferty, 1978). The common case of Burdeau v. MacDowell is applicable in many instances, especially where the private security officer obtains evidence for the police as well as evidence for use in the pending processions.
On the other hand, the exclusionary rule is also applied in cases of false imprisonment or detection and involvement of the private guards. The unlawful restraint of the liberty of an individual is regarded as false imprisonment. For example, the case of Riley v. Stone revealed by false imprisonment may be due to words alone or acts alone or both or any method of exercising force (Rafferty, 1978). The unlawful or false detection may be involuntary, and the process is applied under the exclusionary rule. For instance, the statutes do not allow private security officers to detain a suspected shoplifter. The antishoplifting statutes have been adopted by several states whereby they do not permit an arrest but detention.

References
Paulsen, M. G. (1961). The Exclusionary Rule and Misconduct by the Police. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 52(3), 255. doi: 10.2307/1141102
Rafferty, S. B. (1978). State v. Nelson: Exclusion of Evidence Derived from a Private Search. Louisiana Law Review, 39(1), 10.

Order | Check Discount