Daily ip Troian
Volume LXXII, Number 39
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, California
Monday, November 14, 1977 ■
What price should university pay for private protection?
■Membei's < officers) shall strictly obey and properly execute any lawful order issued by any supervisor of higher rank and classification. . Members shall not willfilly violate any Fed-eml statute <or> State laws.. ."
—Ethics and Guidelines of the University of Southern California for Campus Security, p. 5
‘.4 security guard is not a policeman or peace officer. He does not have the training of a policeman, he does not have the same duties of a policeman and he does not have the same powers as a policeman according to the law. . .(A security officers) poweis are no more than that of an otxhnary citizen..."
—Exercising the Powers to Arrest.
State Department of Consumer Affairs. 1975
"USC Security continues to operate under procedures that apply to an official police agency. They have disregarded every attempt by this department to assist them in their operation. . They must conform to those guidelines ivhich are established by law."
—Interdepartmental memo.
Los Angeles Police Department, Southwest Division. 1977
In early 1977. the USC Security Officers' Assn. was formed by the security officers, "with the specific goals of professionalizing our department and providing better and more efficient protection and service to the USC community.” in the words of an association spokesman.
The association is technically a union, but sees itself as being concerned less about wages than protection and service. Its members are currently under orders not to speak with the press, and some security personnel are under investigation and consideration for disciplinary action for quotes and comments regarding crime at the university, as published in the Daily Trojan of Nov. 7.
There is a disagreement between members of the association and the Campus Security administration re-
garding the adequacy of the force and the legality and advisability of certain security policies.
As a matter of course, the security administration has refused to discuss the association or its 22-page proposed agreement, explaining that the matter is presently under negotiation and all management personnel have been advised not to speak regarding it.
Risking the disciplinary action, some officers have disclosed their experiences as members of Campus Security .Their comments, combined with reports from the Los Angeles Police Department, break ground into policies not publicly discussed until now.
★	★ ★
According to the office ofthe Los Angeles City Attorney, Campus Security isenforcing provisions ofthe California
ANALYSIS
h«ii«iiiiipimmi.......mrnmmmsmmmmmm
Penal Code which it has questionable authority, as a private security agency, to uphold.
Campus Security officers are legally registered as security guards and do not have the peace officer status accorded to LAPD officers or campus police, at universities such as UCLA, Stanford and Los Angeles City College.
The differences between the two are significant. Security guards are essentially private citizens licensed to protect specific property and persons, according to the Department of Consumer Affairs’ guide. Guarding property and persons in general is reserved for the peace officers.
Peace officers may stop anyone on the street provided he has a reasonable suspicion of acrime. Security guards cannot force anyone to give identification. As one security officer put it, “If someone refuses to give us identification, we can’t do anything. Legally, were liable for false
arrest just fordetaining someone,unless we were present at the commission of a misdemeanor or felony, or it is absolutely clear to us that the individual committed the
crime.”
The consumer affairs guide states, “Police enforce all laws — security guards are primarily concerned with those laws which relate to the persons or property they were hired to protect."However,in the past, officers have been directed by their administration to enforce laws beyond university property, and beyond the jurisdiction of security guides as prescribed by the state.
A meeting was called in April, 1977 between a deputy city attorney. Capt. Matthew Hunt and Sgt. John Staugaard of the LAPD Southwest Division and the administration and personnel of Campus Security. At the meeting, according to several participants, the deputy city attorney informed them ofthe illegality of certain off-and on-campus law enforcement policies of the security department.
He enumerated in particular the trespass provisions of the penal code which were being forced illegally by orders of administrators in the campus security department, participants at the meeting said. These included Section 602 of the code, which is enforced regularly on campus and university property against nonstudent trespassers.
The relevant provisions of 602 were deemed by the city attorney’s office as not being applicable to USC. The university is an open- and not closed-access area. Also, intent to injure, interfere or deprive of rightful possession of property must be proved before action may be taken. This, the deputy city attorney pointed out, requires a case-by-case analysis, and is not part of routine policy.
The deputy city attorney reportedly said individual officers could also suffer the consequences of these violations. “He (deputy city attorney) said the duties required by our department were illegal and could leave the individual officers exposed not only to civil lawsuits, but criminal prosecution and jail time,“ said an officer who was present at the meeting. A memorandum was circu-
(continued on page 2)
Students react to Campus Security with concern, ignorance
By Dave Leon Moore
Kfalure Editor
The veteran student at this university knows that crime should not be discussed on an abstract or theoretical basis. It really happens.
During the past few weeks, for exam pie. the Row has been the victim of a series of Burglaries.-Students and USC's Campus Security force alike acknowledge the problem of campus crime.
Often, however, students and Cam pus Security have a few problems getting their signals straight. The plain fact is that many students just don't* know what Campus Security is and. even ifthey do.there is a wide range of opinions concerning what services Campus Security should provide and
MICHELE SAWA
how adequately security officers do their job.
In a recent random survey, a reporter asked students to consider the following questions:
—	What role should Campus Security play at the university?
—	Do you think Campus Security does an adequate job?
—	What changes, if any, would you like to see made concerning the pres-, ent crime prevention system at USC?
“Much of the problem is carelessness on our part." said Mike Mann, a
FRANK TORRES
Row resident and president of the Interfraternity Council. “I don't think there’s a lot we can do except maybe in the way of informative programs for students.”
M?nn said the most recent Row’ burglary was the result of a faulty back door. “They just walked in while everyone was sleeping.” he said.
“I would like to see a set program informing people w'hat they’re supposed to do.” Mann said. He said that Row representatives had already met with officers from the Los Angeles
7 would like to know how they’re reci'uited. . .They always seem to dodge that question. I think there should be much more dealing with students on a personal level on their part.’
Police Department’s Southwest Division and that a meeting with Campus Security officials will be held in the near future.
Mann is concerned with more than just preventive measures on the partof the students, however. “I would like to know how they’re (Campus Security) recruited,” he said. "They always seem to dodge that question. I think there should be much more dealing with students on a personal level on their part.
“I would also like to know exactly what they patrol — what they consider to be a priority call. I would like to know w hat kind of people they are and what kind of people they're under.”
(continued on page 8)