Hello Classmates and Professor,

After researching a few different cases involving private security search and seizure, I decided to go with the United States v. Day case. The central aspect that appealed to me about this case was that it involved armed guards dealing with an armed citizen. On July 5, 2008, two private security officers were conducting a patrolling an apartment complex in Chesterfield County, Virginia. The officers noticed a group of people outside a home arguing with people inside the apartments. The officers observed Day moving toward the house with a weapon at the low ready. At this point, officers exited the vehicle with their guns drawn and ordered Day to freeze. Upon reaching Day, officers placed him in handcuffs and conducted a pat-down search without giving him a Maranda warning. The initial search failed to produce any suspicious bulges. The officers asked Day if he had anything illegal in his possession, to which Day alerted them of a bag of marijuana. The officers removed the marijuana and questioned him about the firearm, which Day said was for self-defense. Day was later turned over to the public police force and tried for drug possession and possession of a weapon by a drug user.

Before trial, Day sought to suppress the evidence that was found by the private security officers. The District Court ultimately concluded that the pat-down search was justified because it was needed to ensure the officers’ safety and the people in the apartment complex. The subsequent interrogation actions without a Mirada warning and the retrieval of the marijuana were subject to suppression.

The consideration in both the United States v. Day and the United States v. Lacey Lee Koenig and Lee Graf cases were if the private security officers were working within the scope of their position as outlined by company interest or as government officers. In the previously mentioned case, the United States v. Day, the officers acted within private interests when apprehending the suspect and conducting the pat-down search. However, they began interrogating the suspect without a Miranda warning and removing drugs from his person; they began acting in government officers’ traditional role. This case embodies the challenge of security personnel when apprehending potential criminals. They must stay within their role as specified by private interests. Doing this helps to ensure that they act within the law and not violate the fourth amendment.

Thank you for reading,

Tyson Houchens

References:

Nemeth, C. (2011). Private security and the law. ProQuest Ebook Central https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

PRIVATE POLICE AND PERSONAL PRIVACY: WHO’S GUARDING THE GUARDS? (1995). New York Law School Law Review. doi:https://edge.apus.edu/access/content/group/440320/Week%203%20Resources/40_N.Y.L._Sch._L._Rev._225%2C_.pdf

Strickland, C. J. (2011). Regulation without Agency: A Practical Response to Private Policing in United States v. Day. NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW, 89(4), 8th ser. doi:https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4503&context=nclr