r/SecurityOfficer

Following a July 4 shooting on Coligny Beach, the Town of Hilton Head Island moved this week to add nighttime security patrols in certain public areas — but not the beach.

Armed Security Guards will patrol town-owned beach parks, parking lots, public parks and facilities, but not the beach itself, Town Manager Marc Orlando announced at a Tuesday town council meeting. Patrols began Thursday evening and are expected to continue into the fall before picking up again next beach season.

Private Security Guards have the authority to detain and arrest, but not transport individuals, Orlando said. When law enforcement response is needed, Guards will coordinate with the Beaufort County Sheriff’s Office.

During the day, town community code enforcement officers will continue to supplement BCSO operations on the beach. Town-owned beach parks, parks and parking lots close at 10 p.m., Orlando said.

The town contracts with Island Security Services, LLC for armed Security Guard services. The firm was awarded the contract through a public bidding process in October 2024. Orlando did not say how much the extra patrols would cost the town.

Asked why Guards would not patrol the sand, the town’s Public Safety Director Bob Bromage cited “jurisdictional considerations” but declined to share further details with The Packet.

Is there anyway of becoming a fully independent security/Bodyguard. I'd appreciate any and all tips & tricks.

Penal Code section 148, subdivision (a)(1) (section 148(a)(1)) makes it a misdemeanor to “willfully resist[], delay[], or obstruct[] any public officer, peace officer, or . . . emergency medical technician . . . in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment . . . .” (§ 148(a)(1), italics added.) Law enforcement personnel have long been considered public officers within the meaning of section 148(a)(1).

A “school security officer” (Ed. Code, § 38001.5, subd. (c)) is a public safety officer employed by a school district and charged with “ensur[ing] the safety of school district personnel and pupils and the security of the real and personal property of the school district.” (Id., § 38000, subd. (a).) School security officers, although not sworn peace officers, work in partnership with local law enforcement agencies to achieve the statutory goals of ensuring the safety of persons and property on public school premises, and are considered by law “supplementary to city and county law enforcement agencies.” (Ibid.) The question in this case is whether a school security officer is a “public officer” for purposes of a misdemeanor charge of willfully resisting, delaying, or obstructing a public officer in violation of section 148(a)(1). As will be explained, the legislative history of section 148(a)

(1) reflects that the term “public officer” as used therein has long been understood to include public officials and employees who perform law enforcement-related duties in connection with their office or employment. School security officers plainly fall within that category of public officers. Employed by local school districts, with their public duties specifically defined in the Education Code, school security officers work in partnership with local law enforcement officers to protect the safety of persons and property on public school premises. We conclude that school security officers, like sworn peace officers, fall within the protection of section 148(a)(1). Because the Court of Appeal below reached a contrary conclusion, its judgment will be reversed.

More in Article

The Education Code authorizes the governing board of any public school district to establish a police or security department. (Ed. Code, § 38000, subd.

(a).) Under section 38001 of that code, “[p]ersons employed and compensated as members of a police department of a school district, when appointed and duly sworn, are peace officers, for the purposes of carrying out their duties of employment pursuant to Section 830.32 of the Penal Code.”

Officer Butts was not a sworn peace officer within the meaning of Education Code section 38001. Instead, he was a school security officer employed by the San Bernardino City Unified School District and assigned to the security department of Arroyo Valley High School in San Bernardino. Hence, the question before us is whether Officer Butts, in his role as a school security officer, is a “public officer” within the meaning of section 148(a)(1)

More in article...

JUDGES conclude that a school security officer, as defined in section 38001.5, subdivision (c) of the Education Code, is a “public officer” within the meaning of section 148(a)(1) of the Penal Code. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed, and the matter remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.

I had an interaction at Ontario Mills today that left me questioning how private mall security is trained to deal with customers who are already complying.
Here’s the context, because I don’t want to leave out the reason we were asked to leave:
We had a dog with us. Ontario Mills does not allow dogs inside, so security told us we needed to leave. We did not refuse. We were already leaving the mall.
I’m not disputing the mall’s right to enforce its no-dog policy.
That isn’t the issue.
The issue is what happened while we were complying.
During the interaction, one of the security officers, who was visibly equipped/armed and acting in an official security capacity, told us:
“I’m gonna kick you out of the mall.”
The statement is captured on video with audio.
And that’s the part I can’t reconcile.
Kick us out for what? We were already leaving.
There was no need to convince us to leave. We understood that dogs were not permitted and were on our way out.
So what exactly was the security officer trying to accomplish by escalating the language?
If “kick you out” simply meant “you need to leave,” that instruction was already being followed.
If she meant that she was prepared to physically remove us, then that raises an even more serious question:
Why would physical removal even be contemplated against customers who were already voluntarily leaving?
Maybe “kick you out” was just an expression.
But when those words come from someone exercising security authority while visibly carrying security equipment/a weapon, customers should not have to determine in real time whether “kick you out” is figurative or whether physical action is about to follow.
There was an extremely simple professional way to handle this:
“Dogs aren’t permitted inside the mall. Please take the dog outside.”
We would have left.
In fact, we were leaving.
That is why I think this raises a broader issue than whether somebody was simply “rude.”
Private security officers are given significant authority by property owners. With that authority should come an obligation to use proportionate, professional and de-escalatory communication, particularly when the person on the receiving end is already complying.
I have preserved the original video and audio. I plan to formally ask Ontario Mills/Simon Property Group to preserve its surveillance footage and answer several questions:
What threat or resistance was the security officer attempting to overcome if we were already leaving?
Does Simon consider “I’m gonna kick you out of the mall” appropriate language for security personnel addressing customers who are complying with an instruction?
What did the officer mean by “kick you out”?
And if physical removal was being contemplated, what exactly were we doing at that moment that supposedly made physical intervention necessary?
I understand some people will say, “It’s private property. If they tell you to leave, leave.”
I agree.
That’s exactly what we were doing.
And that is precisely why I’m questioning what happened next.
Having the authority to enforce a rule and having a legitimate reason to escalate an encounter are not the same thing.
So I’m curious, especially from people who work in security, law enforcement, property management, or risk management:
If customers are already voluntarily leaving after being told about a no-dog policy, is this how professional mall security is supposed to handle the situation?

I recently witnessed something disturbing. A man being chased by a security guard in the alley behind the Brentwood Ralph’s (by UCLA) was tased 4 or 5 times after he gave back the food he stole. These weren’t 5 second tases. They all seemed to be excessive in themselves. The man was not violent, didn’t threaten the security guard or pose a threat of any kind. In fact, he kept telling the guard he was just hungry. It was beyond disturbing to watch. When I called the police about a half an hour later (I had left my phone at home) the 911 operator I spoke with said they had never received a call from anyone at Ralph’s. Clearly the security guard didn’t report it because of what had done. After speaking to several security guard over the last few days I found out that a security guard must report any use of force to the police and to the agency that administers the guard card immediately. This man is a danger to our city. He should not be in a possession of any weapon (I believe he also carries a gun) or in a position of authority. I’m not sure who to report this to. If no one at Ralph’s reported this incident, i doubt the upper management would care enough to follow through on a report from a concerned citizen. Any suggestions?