NCJ Number
110046
Journal
Security Volume: 25 Issue: 3 Dated: (March 1988) Pages: 31-32
Date Published
1988
Length
2 pages
Annotation
The growth and spread of city ordinances regulating security procedures in the workplace may represent more governmental intrusion into business practices than has any prior form of regulation.
Abstract
In Sharpe v. Gainesville, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida upheld Gainesville's law requiring convenience food stores to employ two persons who are continuously on duty on the premises from 8 p.m. until closing or 4 a.m. The law was enacted to prevent homicides and robberies at convenience food stores. Similarly, Akron, Ohio, has pioneered a radical city ordinance aimed at convenience stores. It mandated a variety of security procedures, including attendance by all late-night employees at a law enforcement-sponsored crime prevention program. Cities using these regulations have reported reductions in robberies. However, security decisionmakers should consider the failure of conveniences to provide input into the Gainesville law before it was passed. The police request for the law came only after extensive negotiations, in which police described the stores' position as merely requesting more police services. The law will clearly put many marginally profitable stores out of business. Economically distressed areas will be particularly hard hit. Further research and comment is needed on government's growing insistence on legislating and regulating security concerns with individuals and private businesses.