CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST

For many decades in Texas, the off-duty police industry freelancing in security has misrepresented themselves as low-paid victims to justify them being exempt from the the private security laws while using tax-payer funded equipment for their personal gain (the paycheck).

The fact is, the police are some of the highest paid gov't employees. The police get greedy in the pursuit of making more money off-duty to become millionaires, in most cases.

The real victims are the security companies who are self-funded . No work = No Company. The police have a job even if they do not have off-duty work.

The police target those who they feel are exposing this lie, as they did me, in the year 2020.

In 2020, the Houston Police Department (HPD), located in the State of Texas, filed a false complaint against myself and the security company I own, Houston Metro Security #B13132, with my licensing authority, the Texas Department of Public Safety, Private Security Bureau (DPS), alleging "questionable detentions" and other false allegations.

HPD had it out for me since 2005.

From 2005 to the time of the false complaint, HPD tried every tactic to get rid me:

• the traditional false reports
• making false allegations to the local District Attorney in attempt to get me criminally charged - this failed.
• defaming and misleading my customers
• misinforming my customers about my legal authority
• intimidating my officers
• attempting to embarrass me in front of violent suspects
• releasing my suspects back into the public streets to re-victimize the public to spite me, etc..

HPD was frustrated. Every strategy they could dream up was not working. Most other security companies bowed down or faced the wrath of HPD.

Why? It was due to HPD wanting to keep their grip on the security industry. They seen me as a threat. I made them work. They do not like that.

I was overwhelmingly cleared by DPS (see attached documents).

In the DPS findings, DPS confirmed security:

• can stop and search without probable cause
• enforce house rules where the initial encounter does not require probable cause
• can detain / arrest on criminal offenses - both felony and breach of peace (which includes misdemeanors).

The findings essentially stated in clear language, I did my job based on my training and experience, within the law.

In my encounters with HPD, when we called them out on our suspects, I correctly articulated my reasons to them, for my actions related to the suspect, but HPD chose not to listen.

HPD filed their complaint against me under a false premise knowing it was false.

The same "complainant" (an HPD Officer) stated they filed a complaint on me with DPS in 2019, which DPS stated in writing, was not true.

This is why it is a conflict-of-interest for police to freelance as security. The police have the ability to use their official position to:

• misrepresent facts of an arrest made by a security officer to the district attorney's office to get charges declined (as what occurred in my experience).
• filing false reports or false charges on the security officer to take his job or security license
• misinforming the security companies' client on their legal authority for the police to steal the job
• misinforming the public to undermine the security officer's authority, jeopardizing the security officer's safety.

Police are for public use, not private gain.

Private security is for private use.

One of the other findings is where DPS state that the police and security operate under a different set of rules. HPD was trying to criminalize these differences to their benefit. This what the police would call the "gray area," due to their lack of knowledge, in the subject matter.

I believe I am the only security company in Texas that has stood up against Texas' largest police agency (or any other Texas police agency) and their oppressive police misconduct - and prevailed.

I believe other security companies that are victims of oppressive police misconduct fail to act because they are intimidated by the police.

Hence, off-duty police should not engage in private security, unless:

• they obtain a security license, wear a security uniform, and work under a security company
• their police authority would cease while working security
• must pay for the insurance (they are currently uninsured when in the police uniform while off-duty)

The off-duty should comply to the private security laws like anyone else.

Think about all the security officers that were criminally charged, security companies shut down, and careers lost, prior to these DPS Findings.

See the attached (3) DPS documents related to their findings:

Page #12

Page #13

Page #14

Other similar articles I have authored:

Liability Insurance (Security) Vs Qualified Immunity (Police)

https://www.dhirubhai.net/posts/james-fowler-717686275_offdutypolice-privatesecurity-knowledgesharing-activity-7138620023677337600-FT2E?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

4th Amendment

https://www.dhirubhai.net/posts/james-fowler-717686275_are-private-security-officers-required-to-activity-7136806049050718208-kqRt?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

Police Trespass Affidavits

https://www.dhirubhai.net/posts/james-fowler-717686275_the-attached-police-trespass-affidavit-activity-7136373958609682432-W3O-?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

Why Hire Security?

https://www.dhirubhai.net/posts/james-fowler-717686275_hiresecurity-privatesecurity-security-activity-7139990875870257152-FJwR?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop