Regarding “Contractor is accused of stealing credit cards from Chesapeake” (News, Nov. 8): Does anyone else question the actions of the Chesapeake security officer? Perhaps the story's wording is misleading; however, based on what is written, this raises concerns about legitimate investigative actions. As a security manager, my understanding of the law is that the actions of a security officer are limited to the place of employment. To review surveillance videos at various companies, interview a suspect and search their home (willingly or not) are the actions of a police officer. There have been several national court cases in which overreaching security officers' actions have been greatly criticized.
While I suspect the security officer may be a retired police officer, they don't retain the same abilities and their actions are limited in scope. Why do we need the police if private businesses can do their job? I'm concerned that the overreaching actions of the officer set a bad precedent for security and violate the Constitutional protections we have. That the police leadership or the district attorney didn't question these actions also troubles me. While I understand Chesapeake wants to prevent crime, the ends don't justify the means.
Linda Hyams, Oklahoma City