We live in an era in which more and more often, the interface between the general public and those who for all appearances are acting under color of law, may well end up placing some of those citizens in the unenviable position of having their freedom curtailed, as well as their Constitutional rights, vacated, by such. In other words, those that are under governmental authority, such as police officers and other law enforcement personnel, know for a certainty that they have specific laws, as well as rules and regulations that they must adhere to, or else they could be found to be in violation of Constitutional law, and thereby the arrest or the seizing of goods from a given suspect, may well be found to be in violation of that law. On the other hand, there are, for instance, businesses or even portions of townships, that hire private security guards or their equivalency, to essentially “police” their premises and property, and of which, because these private security personnel are not governmental law enforcement, this thus essentially means in a lot of cases, that Constitutional rights for citizens in regards to searches, seizures, due process, self-incrimination, legal counsel, and equal protection, are essentially marginalized or are of no effect within this interactions.
The main problem then, with private security as it so currently operates, is that when the adjudication of Constitutional law, seems to state that the Constitution only applies to governmental officials and their corresponding interactions with the general public, but has little or nothing to say about private entities, acting under color of law – we do so find that a significant problem for the general public is that they have thus less legal rights when interacting with private security then they would have with an actual law enforcement officer. This thus lends itself to all sorts of potential abuses, for if the powers-to-be, in this era of massive corporate power, makes it their point, to see that they protect their private property through the exclusive use of private security guards; and if townships are able to circumvent their need for police officers, by contracting through private auspices, their own private security force, this thus essentially means that Constitutional law may not apply to those so being accosted by those private security forces.
After all, for all those that desire to have more law and order, but express a general dissatisfaction that the accused currently have too many rights, and therefore are often handled far too leniently; we find that the workaround to this is already in existence, which would appear to be private security forces acting under the color of law, instead. This thus signifies that whenever there exists an avenue in which the rights of the people, per the Constitution and its Amendments, can be successfully circumvented through the use of private security or its equivalency, then there is bound to be those that will see fit that this very thing so happens. Indeed, it doesn’t make any good sense, that law enforcement is held to account to adhere to the rules of the road; whereas, private security apparently is provided with free rein to act as law enforcement, but not be held to the same restrictions, so of.