Could company police officers acting under a contract between their agency and Newton Grove enforce laws on the town’s streets and in private businesses?

Plain-English summary

The AG considered law-enforcement actions by officers of North Carolina Security Personnel (NCSP) while the company had a contract with the town of Newton Grove. The available original text begins with the territorial limits in N.C.G.S. § 74E-6(c); its opening request and earlier discussion are missing from this copy. The AG expressly assumed the town's contract with NCSP was lawful for purposes of the analysis.

Under the quoted statute, company police authority extends to real property owned or controlled by their employer, real property covered by a contract for on-site company police security, and other real property during continuous and immediate pursuit for an offense committed on one of those properties. The AG concluded that, apart from that pursuit exception, the officers lacked territorial jurisdiction to take law-enforcement action on streets and highways around the protected property. It concluded NCSP officers acting under the town contract lacked authority on Newton Grove's streets and in its private businesses.

The town had also explored a direct employer-employee relationship with some NCSP officers. The AG said it appeared they continued to act under the NCSP contract rather than as town employees. Citing an earlier opinion, it read G.S. § 160A-281's police-employment language to contemplate a direct relationship between city and officers, not a contract with a company police agency. On those facts, their actions on streets and in private businesses could not be justified as actions of city employees.

Currency note

This advisory opinion was issued in 2001. Check current statutes and the terms of any actual officer appointment or security contract before applying its analysis today.

What this means for you

If you manage company police: The opinion focuses on the real property covered by § 74E-6(c) and its immediate-pursuit exception. A general town service contract did not give the NCSP officers jurisdiction on Newton Grove's streets and private businesses in the circumstances described.

If you advise a municipality: The opinion distinguishes officers directly employed by a city under § 160A-281 from company police serving under a contract with their agency. It did not decide whether the NCSP–town contract was itself valid or survey other ways for a city to obtain police services.

Common questions

Did the AG declare Newton Grove's contract with NCSP invalid?
No. It expressly assumed the contract was lawful and addressed the officers' territorial authority and whether they were city employees.

Could NCSP officers enforce laws on any property beyond their employer's own?
The quoted statute also covers property for which the employer contracted to provide on-site company police security and other real property during continuous and immediate pursuit for an offense on covered property.

Were the officers acting as town employees?
The AG said it appeared they continued to serve under the contract between NCSP and Newton Grove. It therefore did not treat their street and business enforcement actions as actions of city employees.

Did the opinion approve another outsourcing arrangement?
No. The surviving text does not discuss agreements with another municipality or a county sheriff.

Citations

• N.C.G.S. § 74E-6(c): company police territorial authority quoted in the surviving text.
• North Carolina General Statute 160A-281: authority to appoint a police chief and employ other officers, as discussed by the AG.
• 50 NCAG 94 (1981): earlier office interpretation of direct city employment cited in the opinion.

Source

• Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/territorial-jurisdiction-of-company-police-agencies/

Original opinion text

(1) Real property owned by or in the possession and control of their employer.

(2) Real property owned by or in the possession and control of a person who has contracted with the employer to provide on-site company police security personnel services for the property.

(3) Any other real property while in continuous and immediate pursuit of a person for an offense committed upon property described in subdivisions (1) or (2) of this subsection.

(emphasis added). N.C.G.S. § 74E-6(c).

It is clear therefore that company police officers are limited to exercising law enforcement authority only on the real property of their employer. Unless the company police officers are in continuous and immediate pursuit of a person for an offense committed upon this real property, the officers lack the territorial jurisdiction to take law enforcement actions on the streets and highways in and around this real property. Assuming the contract between NCSP and the Town is lawful, the NCSP officers would lack law enforcement authority on the streets and private businesses in the Town.

Your letter references an attempt by the Town to pursue a direct employer-employee relationship with some of the officers of NCSP and seek independent certifications for the officers. However, it would appear that the officers are not acting as employees for the town of Newton Grove, and are continuing to serve under the authority of a contract between the Town and NCSP. North Carolina General Statute 160A-281 authorizes a city to "appoint a chief of police and to employ other police officers. . ." This office has interpreted this language to contemplate a direct employer-employee relationship between the city and the officers rather than a contractual arrangement with a company police officer agency and the city. See: 50 NCAG 94 (1981). Consequently, the law enforcement actions of these company police officers, on the streets and private businesses in and around the town of Newton Grove, cannot be justified as the company police officers are not employees of the city.

Therefore, it is our opinion that any enforcement actions taken by company police officers for NCSP, while acting pursuant to a contract between their agency and the town of Newton Grove, on the streets and private businesses of Newton Grove are unlawful.

We hope you find this information responsive to your inquiry. This is an advisory opinion. It has not been reviewed and approved in accordance with the procedures for issuing a Formal Attorney General's Opinion.

Very truly yours,

James J. Coman
Senior Deputy Attorney General
Law Enforcement and Prosecutions Division

John J. Aldridge, III
Assistant Attorney General
Law Enforcement Liaison Section