- POST-certified Sworn Officers with Primary Jurisdiction: An increasing category for colleges and universities, these departments often send their officers
to a POST-certified police academy. They usually have full powers of arrest and do not need to call upon the services of another police department for routine incidents. These officers have already met state, national or other weapons training standards for law enforcement and generally have the same credentials you would find with municipal, county, state, federal or other law enforcement agencies.
Arming these officers would generally be low-risk from a training standpoint. If an incident goes to court, the institution would generally have national rubrics, plenty of expert testimony and plenty of data on its side. Generally speaking, provided that the officer in question has acted reasonably and according to training, the courts have sided with the officer regarding the use of force.
- Sworn Officers with Jurisdictional Authority coming from another department or special statute: This is often referred to as “special officer,” “special constable” or “special deputy.” If a university’s officers’ legal authority is being derived from another department, that issuing department may want to retain the decision-making authority, leaving no choice for the administration.
Again, as with contract security, being able to understand the department’s rationale and training along with its other standards is important since the university is still not relieved of responsibility. If such standards are contrary to intuition, it is the institution’s responsibility to raise the concern with the jurisdictional authority. If the institution retains this decision-making responsibility, then the institution should research and consider implementing their state’s POST training standards.
Again, this would allow the institution the benefits mentioned earlier. These types of departments are usually split. Some, while having authority derived from another department, are still considered full-fledged departments and follow POST training standards. Some departments are only an auxiliary or reserve type and usually attend a shortened program. Some of these special officers may not be permitted to carry weapons by regulation or, increasingly, because of liability insurance costs.
3. Occupational Safety
Campuses should also look at the issue from a human resources/occupational safety standpoint. Does your department sponsor or require certain trainings? Most institutions require specialized training and most require training programs that are not directly controlled by the institution (i.e., a municipal police academy, a regional or state security officer program).
Even most internal training programs, such as one at Indiana University Police Academy, utilize and have to meet state or other standardized requirements. Institutions may not be
able to control the content of the training program, including the use of weapons. This is a major concern since the act of compensating for and/or requiring certain training may still constitute endorsement of the training on the part of the institution. What this means from a legal standpoint depends on the context of the training, but could be a decision-maker itself.
Let’s take a look at an example from law enforcement’s neighbors in public safety, Emergency Medical Services (EMS). 
If a training program teaches an EMT to use a stethoscope as a vital part of assessment and treatment, the EMT would then expect to be able to use the stethoscope in the course of his/her duties. However, if the employer banned the use of stethoscopes and instead required the EMT to call another EMS department anytime the use of a stethoscope was required, the EMT could actually still perform at least some of the duties of the job. The EMT could still, for example, assess a patient, determine whether a stethoscope was needed, stabilize/immobilize a patient to prevent further injury, and even perform lifesaving CPR if needed. In fact, while the example of a stethoscope is extreme, EMS across the nation performs this way in regards to other equipment and medications in the form of “basic life support” vs. “advanced life support” services. Not all 911 responses get “advanced life support” responses. This is also hotly debated in the EMS world, but while the employer must be willing to take a little bit of risk in this ban, the employer may not have done anything wrong, per se (so long as EMS regulations allowed this). For a police officer, not having a cruiser/vehicle is a similar concept. While the officer will not be able to conduct a motor vehicle stop, the officer can still do most of their job without it.
On the contrary, if a training program teaches an EMT to use gloves and a mask for their own safety as personal protective equipment (PPE), the EMT would then expect to be able to use gloves and a facemask on the job. However, even if the employer didn’t provide it, the EMT would still expect to be able to use them for his/her own personal safety. In other words, the employer could not ban the use of gloves and a facemask. This could otherwise be construed as an occupational hazard for which the employer did not act appropriately. Thus, the stethoscope is a “tool of the trade” and the gloves are PPE.
