D.Vt.: Private security working with off-duty sheriffs at a concert were not state actors

Private security working in conjunction with local off-duty sheriffs deputies were not acting as agents of government in this case. Here, they held defendant so he could be removed by the sheriffs from the property, and there was no detention in the arrest sense. United States v. Craig, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8049 (D. Vt. February 4, 2009):

Similarly, there is no evidence that the Rutland Sheriffs offered or gave GMC Security any kind of reward for detaining Craig. These facts resemble those in United States v. Abney, where an off-duty police officer working as a private security guard questioned a person suspected of using counterfeit money and asked him to empty his pockets. The private security guard was not wearing a police uniform, identified himself as a security guard, and did not arrest, pat down, or physically restrain the suspect. The private security guard also testified that he acted to further the security interests of the private store in not receiving counterfeit notes. In those circumstances, the court determined that the private security guard was not acting as an agent or instrument of the government. United States v. Abney, No. 03 CR 60(JGK), 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15055, 2003 WL 22047842 at *5-*6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2003).

Like the security guard in Abney, GMC Security officers testified that they were acting to protect the interests of their employer, the Concert promoter, by avoiding any problems or confrontations at the Concert. The evidence here falls short of establishing that GMC Security acted as an instrument or agent of the government. Since the Fourth Amendment does not apply to private party action, there is no constitutional violation.

A clearing away from a house and not within an enclosure near the house was open fields. United States v. Armstrong, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8296 (D. V.I. February 4, 2009):

The clearing in which the Officer observed the marijuana plant was not near a home, nor was it included within any enclosure surrounding a home. The clearing was not used for any residential purposes; no one lived there. That there may have been a fence surrounding the entire property and a chain across the access road, is not sufficient for the area to be considered one in which society would reasonably expect the same privacy as within a home. The clearing was not within the curtilage, but rather was an open field. Thus, the Officer needed neither a reasonable suspicion nor probable cause to search.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.