PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED ARTICLE

CONSUMER TIPS

3 pages, posted 12/98

HIRING THE RIGHT SECURITY EXPERT
By Roger H. Schmedlen, CPP, CFE, CII, MIPI


Expert witnesses may be overused in some classes of litigation.  However, they are often neglected or underused in security negligence matters.

In fact, few attorneys know what to look for in a security expert.  A presumed asset may ultimately prove to be a liability in the courtroom.  Further, there seems to be an anti-expert trend developing among some attorneys and judges.  This attitude is particularly prevalent in the security/loss control bailiwick.  Based upon the review of depositions of some security "experts," I understand this growing perception--that the credibility and competence of security experts are becoming suspect.  For example:

In two cases involving late night attacks, security experts testified that lighting was inadequate after viewing the properties in question during the daylight hours. (Lighting exceeded the standards in both cases.)

  • Recently, a security expert testified that no lighting standards exist, except for a 1916 standard found in an unidentified book in a small-town library. (Upto-date minimum and recommended standards do exist.)

  • A security expert testified that an apartment building was exceptionally vulnerable based on the high population of single female tenants.  He based this belief on a walk through the complex. (The population of single females was actually 23 percent.)

  • A security expert testified that crime statistics in a rural Michigan township were the worst he had ever seen in the United States. (The actual crime statistics showed the township to be relatively crime free.)

  • In several cases, security experts have testified quoting the volume of public service calls, as if they were true crime statistics. (Public service calls include dog-catcher runs, EMS responses, fire department runs, motorist assistance, etc.)

  • A security expert testified that security at a small manufacturing plant was deficient and not up to security standards.  Why?  Because the plant " lacked a moat." (Ironically, the case involved a February incident - when a moat would have been iced over and any supplemental alligators would have been dormant.)

    • Most negligence cases tend to share a certain sameness and, frequently, those cases progress in a predictable manner.  In such routine causes, experienced attorneys can draw on their personal experience and expertise to provide the best service for their clients.

    However, each security negligence matter tends to be distinctly different.  Many attorneys handling these types of cases find it difficult formulating a good working definition of the term "security." Due to a lack of experience with real-world security, lawvers are forced to base their initial conclusions about a case on incorrect assumptions (often shared by the general public). Such flawed presumptions, when applied to case strategy, can prove disastrous.

    What Is A Security 'Expert?

    A security expert is a security practitioner; that is, a person who makes a living working in the security field on a daily basis.

    In general, law enforcement officers, college teachers, sociologists, private investigators, psychologists, business managers and criminologists cannot be considered security "experts." Attorneys who have employed people from these professions often find that they lack credibility and expertise in security as "security practitioners."

    Of course, there are exceptions to this rule.  For instance, a police officer trained and functioning as a community affairs officer conducting regular security surveys would certainly be qualified as a security practitioner.  But most police officers respond to criminal events and often will be the first to admit they have little knowledge or expertise in the security field.

    In addition, a college professor who teaches security courses, who has earned the CPP (Certified Protection Professional) certification by examination, and who performs off-campus security evaluations may also be qualified.  However, some faculty members may reject the reality that one annual crime per 40 citizens is about as good as it gets.  Instead, some prefer theoretical assumptions.