Please wait...
we’re processing your request.
Please wait...
we’re processing your request.
Published on 01/21/2025
Discover the advantages and disadvantages of employing uniformed police officers for security details at bars and clubs, commonly referred to as “Off-duty Officer” or “ODO”. In this blog, we'll delve into the nuanced perspectives surrounding this practice and explore the potential benefits and drawbacks.
The decision to have off-duty police officers work as security personnel at bars and clubs is complex, with opinions varying on the matter. This article aims to provide insights into the use of cops in such roles, presenting both the positive and negative aspects of the practice.
As a former law enforcement officer, I express a strong stance on the matter, I advocate against allowing off-duty cops to assume roles as in-house security guards. This would include the functions of wearing the establishment's attire and performing tasks such as ID checks. This poses serious risks from moral, ethical, and professional perspectives, jeopardizing the safety of officers, the city, and its citizens.
However, the discussion shifts when considering uniformed officers, working in teams of two with a police vehicle, stationed outside bars or clubs. This article explores the practice of law enforcement agencies permitting officers to work short shifts in uniform, acting as a visible deterrent to potential troublemakers and swiftly addressing issues before they escalate.
Many cities allow this practice, accompanied by clear and published guidelines that outline the officers' duties and responsibilities while on the premises. These guidelines typically emphasize that officers serve as general deterrents for crimes associated with alcohol service, maintain autonomy in decision-making based on department policies, and refrain from assuming routine tasks performed by venue employees.
1. Acting as a general deterrent to alcohol-related crimes at the venue.
2. Following department policies instead of taking orders from the club or bar management.
3. Restricting entry into the establishment unless requested for assistance.
4. Avoiding involvement in routine venue operations, such as ID checks and enforcing dress codes.
5. Assisting establishment employees when dealing with uncooperative or combative guests.
6. Enforcing city and state ordinances and laws as necessary.
The use of uniformed police officers for bar and club security is a practice surrounded by diverse opinions and considerations. By examining the pros and cons, we aim to shed light on the complexities of this issue and encourage informed discussions on the subject.
Officer details, commonly referred to as two-person units, are scheduled overtime positions that law enforcement departments fulfill upon request from bars, nightclubs, or entertainment venues. Let us explore the importance of clear guidelines governing the relationship between the establishment and the law enforcement agency, emphasizing key aspects like hourly wages, payment methods, workman's compensation coverage, minimum officer requirements, and scheduling.
When law enforcement agencies proactively establish comprehensive guidelines, they contribute to a smooth working relationship with the venue. These guidelines address crucial aspects to ensure transparency and effectiveness in officer detail arrangements.
Clearly defined rates paid by the establishment for each officer's service.
Establishing transparency in compensation to avoid discrepancies.
Specifying the method of payment, ensuring a secure and accountable transaction process.
Minimizing the risk of unauthorized or untraceable cash payments.
Outlining the coverage provided for officers to address any workplace injuries.
Ensuring the safety and well-being of officers during their detail shifts.
Defining the minimum number of officers required for effective security.
Avoiding situations where insufficient officers compromises the safety of the officers, the employees, and the guest.
Establishing a clear schedule for officers to ensure reliable coverage when needed most.
Preventing confusion and gaps in security by adhering to predetermined schedules.
Reflecting on experiences and insights gained from nationwide engagements, the following issues, both positive and negative, have been observed regarding officer details. This list serves as a starting point, acknowledging that there may be additional considerations not covered here.
1. Officers not wearing safety equipment.
2. Cash payments by the establishment leading to unethical behavior or violations in police department policy.
3. Officers parking too far away from the venue and neglecting the duties they are being compensated to perform.
4. Lack of engagement with the venue leading to compromises in security measures.
This list is not exhaustive, and we always welcome feedback, comments, and learned lessons from your personal experience. If there are additional issues or perspectives not covered here, I invite you to share your insights, fostering a more comprehensive understanding of officer details in venue security.
Now, let’s explore the nuanced advantages and disadvantages of having police officers present at bars and clubs, a practice known for its visual deterrent impact on potential troublemakers. We will delve into the complexities of this security strategy and gain insights into its effects on guest behavior, staff relations, and overall safety.
PRO - Police presence acts as an effective visual deterrent against potential troublemakers. The principle is straightforward: just as drivers instinctively adhere to traffic rules when they spot a police car, the mere presence of officers near a venue encourages compliance with rules and standards of conduct. Many venue operators appreciate having police nearby, believing it helps ward off undesirable guests.
CON – The presence of police officers parked outside or standing at the bar entrance can sometimes deter guests. This may occur if individuals have minor legal issues, such as a traffic warrant, or engage in recreational drug use. They might avoid entering to prevent potential interactions with law enforcement. Additionally, some patrons may have a general discomfort with police, leading venue operators to worry that a visible police presence could discourage these guests from visiting.
PRO - Bouncers can leverage the police presence to convince uncooperative guests to leave, emphasizing potential police involvement. “Hey, I don’t want to get the police involved, why don’t we just leave?”
CON - Guests who are uncooperative are often highly intoxicated and may be indifferent to the possibility of police intervention. They typically believe that their actions are either justified or not wrong. The police presence did not make a difference.
PRO - In case of trouble, police officers are already on-site, eliminating the need for a 911 call and ensuring swift resolution.
CON - When an incident occurs, police document it even if 911 was not called. This is particularly true in cases leading to an arrest. Such documentation can later be used in administrative settings, like license hearings, or in reviewing Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) or music permits for the bar or club.
PRO - Establishing a positive rapport with the police fosters better understanding and cooperation. They understand your operation better and aren’t as likely to take real enforcement action against you should they see something your staff does wrong.
CON - Police officers consistently uphold their duties. While they might occasionally overlook minor, inconsequential matters, they will take action on significant issues. This could involve addressing the matter themselves or informing other law enforcement personnel, such as state ABC agents, to intervene. Essentially, police officers always maintain their professional responsibilities.
PRO - Police officers are available to make arrests when necessary. In cases of clear violations, such as fake IDs at the door, overly intoxicated individuals refusing to leave, or injuries resulting from a fight, officers are present to apprehend and penalize the offending party.
CON - Police often opt to simply remove individuals rather than arrest them. Arrests are typically reserved for serious acts of violence like stabbings, shootings, or severe assaults. It's important to remember that officers on overtime duty are compensated for their time, whether it involves active engagement or not. Consequently, they might prefer less demanding tasks like monitoring over the more labor-intensive process of making arrests. Just like you - cops don’t like writing paper – and that needs to happen when an arrest is made.
The most significant grievance I frequently encounter, and have personally witnessed, revolves around uniformed officers working overtime shifts. After completing a strenuous 10-hour day and already handling complex reports, the last thing these officers want is to deal with minor incidents like fake ID arrests or misdemeanor assaults at bars or clubs.
Picture this: an obviously intoxicated guest, who had a physical altercation with a bouncer or manager, is handed over to the officer. The officer, fatigued from a long day, assesses the situation, restrains the intoxicated individual, and engages with the employee who was a victim of the assault. The officer, hesitant to make an arrest, may consider alternative solutions, such as asking the intoxicated person to leave the premises.
In some cases, the intoxicated individual may claim they were unaware of the bouncer's role as a security guard and allege assault. The officer, faced with conflicting accounts and lacking a clear view of the incident, may contemplate arresting all parties involved. Frustratingly, the manager or bouncer, simply doing their job, may opt to avoid escalation and ask the officer to escort the unruly guest away.
The officer, after collecting basic information from the guest, permits them to leave independently. This scenario, understandably, causes frustration and raises concerns about effective law enforcement in such situations. While a straightforward solution exists, it extends beyond the scope of this discussion.
Unpacking the downsides of enlisting overtime police officers for bar or club security reveals a blend of financial considerations and operational challenges. From escalating expenses to apprehensions about potential retaliation and concerns over officer conduct, these drawbacks warrant a closer examination.
CON -Employing 2 or 3 overtime cops for bar security can become prohibitively expensive, especially when multiple officers are required. At an average rate of $35 per hour per officer, with overtime pay at approximately $53 per hour, the total cost for a 2-person mandatory assignment for 5 hours on a Friday and Saturday can reach around $530. Adding a $2 per hour service charge for the patrol car, workman's comp, and other expenses brings the total to approximately $550 per weekend.
CON - Operators hesitate to voice complaints about officers' conduct due to concerns about potential retaliation. While instances of actual retaliation are rare, the fear of such consequences lingers in the minds of bar and club operators.
CON - Instances of officers acting inappropriately towards guests are a concern, potentially fueled by fatigue from working extended shifts. Overtime detail officers, at times, display a "fed up" attitude that permeates interactions with over-intoxicated guests. Aggressive behavior, including pushing or shoving, coupled with repeated threats of arrest, can lead to a frustrating and counterproductive environment. Off-duty officers are not always thinking a hospitality mindset and their behavior may not reflect the kind of guest experience the operator wants to deliver.
The drawbacks associated with hiring overtime police officers for bar security extend beyond financial considerations to include concerns about potential retaliation and instances of inappropriate officer conduct. Addressing these challenges requires a careful balance between cost management and ensuring a professional and respectful security presence in nightlife establishments.
As we wrap up this discussion, it becomes clear that the dynamics between off-duty, overtime detail officials and venue owners are nuanced and multifaceted. While off-duty officers often rely on the additional income from these shifts, bar owners seek a safer environment for their patrons and hope for proactive law enforcement. Unfortunately, the gap between these expectations and reality often leads to an invisible wall of distrust building up between the two groups.
From the perspective of operators, the cost of utilizing overtime details appears to outweigh the benefits. The anticipated payoff for creating a safer environment for guests is often elusive, contributing to a lack of tangible value for the establishment.
Moreover, the ethical challenges faced by officers in these settings are significant. Working in a bar or club introduces numerous opportunities for compromising their professional oath, making it difficult for officers to navigate the fine line between enforcing the law and succumbing to potential temptations.
In my view, the use of overtime details poses a substantial expenditure for bars and clubs, with limited returns. The inherent challenges for officers, coupled with the potential ethical dilemmas, create an environment where success is nearly impossible. As we ponder the path forward, it's crucial to consider alternative strategies that foster a collaborative and trustful relationship between law enforcement and nightlife establishments.
