Municipalities; Company Police; Jurisdiction of

March 20, 1981

Subject:

Municipalities; Company Police; Jurisdiction of; G.S. Chapter 74A; 12 N.C.A.C. Subchapter 21.

Requested By:

Scott Perry Administrator Company & Railroad Police Commissions Criminal Justice Standards Division Department of Justice

Questions:

1. A corporation employing a company policeman is engaged to provide protection services for agents of a company that deals in gold and silver and the agents of that company operate from rented motel rooms. Would the company policeman have jurisdiction:

a.: In the rented motel room;
b.: Transporting money and/or gold and silver to/from that motel room to the agent’s motor vehicle;
c.: Over the motor vehicle and its contents while in transit?

2. A corporation employing company policemen is engaged to provide police protection and services for a small town or city which does not want to operate its own police department.

a.: Would the company policemen have the same jurisdiction as regular police officers?
b.: If yes, would the jurisdiction extend one mile beyond the city limits if authorized by the city constitution and by-laws?
c.: Would the company policemen have any jurisdiction when transporting prisoners from an area of normal jurisdiction to the nearest detention facility?

3. What jurisdiction would company policemen have if their assistance was requested by a regular police officer of sheriff’s deputy?

Conclusions:

1. a. Yes.

b.: No.
c.: No.

2. a. No.

b.: No.
c.: Only over the person arrested while transporting the person to a judicial official pursuant to

G.S. 15A-501.

3. The company policemen would possess the same jurisdiction as the law enforcement officer, just as any private citizen who received a similar request for assistance from the police under

G.S.: 74A-2(b) allows company policement "while in the performance of the duties of their employment" to make arrests with the same authority and in the same manner as law enforcement officers. The language of the statute, however, indicates the care taken by the General Assembly to limit the exercise of the arrest authority of company police. First, the company policeman has no "off-duty" arrest authority like that of public law enforcement officers. Second, the "territorial jurisdiction" of company policemen is carefully restricted to "property owned by or in the possession and control" of their employer or of persons who have contracted with their employer to provide security or protection for such property. These limitations are restated in 12 N.C.A.C. 2I .0303.

The sole "off premises" jurisdiction possessed by a company policeman is where the company policeman is in "hot pursuit of any person or persons for any offense committed upon property (owned by or in possession and control of their employer or of persons contracting with their employer for security or protection of such property." See the note to 12 N.C.A.C. 2I .0303(a)(3) for a discussion of "hot pursuit."

Accordingly, where the company policeman’s employer has been contractually engaged to provide protective services for a gold and silver dealer operating out of a motel room, the company policeman would have jurisdiction only in a motel room rented by the dealer. A rented motel room is clearly in the "possession and control" of the dealer contracting for the protective service. The company policeman’s arrest jurisdiction, however, would not extend to a motel lobby, the public parking area, nor while the dealer’s motor vehicle is in transit from one location to another.

In our opinion, a company policeman could not legally perform traditional law enforcement duties under contract to a small town which does not want to operate its own police department. Considerations of the common law prohibition against "farming public office" aside, G.S. 160A281 authorizes a city to "appoint a chief of police and to employ other police officers." We interpret this language to contemplate a direct employer-employee relationship between the city and officers rather than an "appointment" by a contractual arrangement with a company police officer’s employing company.

If such a direct employer-employee relationship is required by G.S. 160A-281, then the company policeman’s commission will cease to be valid since it is not transferable "from one employing agency to another." 12 N.C.A.C. 2I .0305. Furthermore, cities or towns are not included in the list of employers eligible to qualify employees as company policemen under G.S. 74A-1 and 12

N.C.A.C. 2I .0201.

Even if a direct employer-employee relationship is not required for a city or town to engage company policemen through a contract with their employing company, however, the jurisdiction of the company policeman would be so restricted as to make their policing virtually ineffective. In our opinion, the words in G.S. 74A-2(b)(2), "Upon property owned by or in the possession and control of" the city or town, limit the jurisdiction of the company policement to the town hall, city offices, and, perhaps, city parks. The areas within the city or town limits which include privately owned or leased dwellings, businesses, other lands, and possibly, public schools would not be either "owned by or in the possession and control of" the city or town. The resulting jurisdictional limitations would cause the company policeman to have the effect of a security guard for the city buildings.

G.S. 74A-2(b) gives company policemen in the performance of the duties of their employment all the powers of police officers to make arrest. We believe that the intent of the General Assembly in granting the powers of arrest was also to impose the same responsibilities laid upon police officers when making an arrest; namely, informing the person arrested of the charge against him and immediately taking him before a judicial official authorized to issue criminal warrants and to set bail pursuant to G.S. 15A-501. Therefore, the company policeman’s jurisdiction would continue over a person properly arrested while they proceed to the judicial official’s office. No jurisdiction would exist, however, for new arrests enroute unless made "upon property owned by or in the possession and control" the company policeman’s employer or a person has contracted with the employer for protective services for such property.

Pursuant to G.S. 15A-405, a law enforcement officer may request any person to assist "in effecting arrests and preventing escapes from custody." "When so requested, the private person has the same authority to effect an arrest or prevent escape from custody as the officer." Nothing in the General Statutes would prevent a law enforcement officer from making such a request of a company policeman at the scene.

Rufus L. Edmisten Attorney General

J. Gregory Wallace Assistant Attorney General