California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Melendez v. City of Los Angeles, 63 Cal.App.4th 1, 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 469 (Cal. App. 1998):
People v. Hooker (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 878, 62 Cal.Rptr. 675 also involved a policeman working off-duty as a security guard for a drug store. The person he attempted to arrest for shoplifting resisted, and the issue was whether that person was guilty of battery on a police officer (Pen.Code, 243). The guard was wearing his police uniform when the events occurred. The court held that the fact that the officer was working for a private employer when the battery occurred "need not weaken or destroy his continuing authority as a peace officer." (Id. at p. 882, 62 Cal.Rptr. 675.)
A third case, People v. Millard (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 759, 93 Cal.Rptr. 402, involved the activities of two off-duty officers working as security guards for a store. The arrestee argued that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because a guard had conducted an unreasonable, warrantless search. The prosecution countered that the guard was acting as a private security guard at the time, and, as a result, the Fourth Amendment had no application. The court disagreed, holding that in making the arrest the officer was acting as a police officer, not as a private person. Since the search by a police officer was not justified, the conviction was reversed.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.