CEO 79-23 -- April 18, 1979

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

CITY POLICE OFFICER OWNING OR MANAGING PRIVATE SECURITY BUSINESS OUTSIDE OF CITY

To: John D. O'Donnell, Attorney, Fort Lauderdale

Prepared by: Phil Claypool

SUMMARY:

Reference is made to CEO 78-82, which found that a city police officer who managed a private security business licensed under Ch. 493, F. S. had employment that would create a frequently recurring conflict between his private interests and the performance of his public duties which would impede the full and faithful discharge of his public duties, in violation of s. 112.313(7)(a), F. S. The basis for such finding is that a licensee's statutory responsibility to keep confidential information, received during the course of his security business (see s. 493.19, F. S.), is inconsistent with the proper performance of a police officer's sworn responsibility to uphold the law. Additionally, there exists the possibility that a police officer's access to confidential information to his department could be used to the benefit of a private client. These factors are not present, however, when the private security business is located and operated totally outside the jurisdiction of the city police officer, as a police officer's authority is subject to territorial limitations except when in fresh pursuit. Therefore, the confidentiality requirements imposed on managers and employees of security businesses would not be inconsistent with a police officer's performance of his public duties; his access to confidential police information poses less potential for misuse; and the appearance of impropriety is not as great when the security business is maintained and operated outside the area within his public jurisdiction. Accordingly, no prohibited conflict of interest is deemed to exist when a city police officer owns and manages a private security business which is located and operates only outside of the city.

QUESTION:

Does a prohibited conflict of interest exist when a city police officer owns and manages a private security business which is located and operated outside of the city?

Your question is answered in the negative.

In your letter of inquiry and in a telephone conversation with our staff, you advise that Robert Manfre is a sergeant with the police department of the City of North Lauderdale. In addition, you advise that Mr. Manfre is the owner and manager of a private security business which is located in the City of Lauderdale Lakes. The business is owned, operated, and maintained under a Broward County occupational license outside of the jurisdiction of the city which employs Mr. Manfre. You also advise that all of the duties and activities of the business are conducted outside of the City of North Lauderdale, although within Broward County. Finally, you advise that the primary business of the security firm is to provide security guards for an industrial park located near the City of Pompano Beach.

In a previous advisory opinion, CEO 78-82, we found that were a city police officer to manage a private security business licensed under Ch. 493, F. S., he would have an employment that would create a frequently recurring conflict between his private interests and the performance of his public duties and that would impede the full and faithful discharge of his public duties, in violation of s. 112.313(7)(a), F. S. The basis for our finding a conflict in this situation is that a licensee's statutory responsibility to keep confidential any information received during the course of his business (see s. 493.19, F. S.) is inconsistent with the proper performance of a police officer's sworn responsibility to uphold the law. Additionally, we found that the possibility that a police officer's access to confidential information in his department could be used to the benefit of a private client gives the appearance of impropriety and the appearance that the police officer has an advantage over his private competitors by virtue of his public position.

These factors are not present, however, when the private security business is located and operated totally outside the jurisdiction of the city police officer. A police officer's authority is subject to territorial limitations, except when he is in fresh pursuit of a person suspected of having committed a crime. 29A Fla. Jur. Sheriffs, Constables, and Police s. 78 and s. 901.25, F. S. (1978 Supp.). See also AGO 077-35. When outside of his jurisdiction, a city police officer has no greater authority to make an arrest than does any private individual. Sturman v. City of Golden Beach, 355 So.2d 453 (3 D.C.A. Fla., 1978), cert. denied, 361 So.2d 836. Therefore, when outside of his municipality, a city police officer generally is treated as being off duty, with no greater authority or responsibility than the ordinary citizen.

This being the case, the confidentiality requirements imposed on managers and employees of security businesses would not be inconsistent with a police officer's performance of his public duties when that security business is located and does business only outside of the officer's territorial jurisdiction. Nor do we feel that a police officer's access to confidential information through his official position presents as great a potential for the misuse of his position when the security firm is located outside of the city, as such information will relate primarily to the area within his jurisdiction rather than to the area in which the security firm operates. Similarly, the appearance of impropriety in these circumstances is not as great.

Accordingly, we find that the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees does not prohibit a city police officer from owning and managing a private security business which is located and operates only outside of the city.