OHIO SECURITY OFFICER STOPS AND APPROACHES
Terry v. Ohio, Graham v. Connor, and Cleveland-Related Security Operations
Prepared and Presented By:
OPOTA — Commander T. Reed
Professional Training and Law Enforcement Credentials:
Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy (OPOTA)
Commander T. Reed
—
I. PURPOSE
This section establishes a professional framework for lawful approaches, investigative detentions, use-of-force decisions, and related security encounters conducted by security personnel in the State of Ohio, including operations in Cleveland.
Security personnel shall exercise sound judgment, use only the degree of force objectively reasonable under the circumstances, and comply with applicable Ohio law, organizational policies, training requirements, and the limits of their lawful authority.
II. INITIAL APPROACHES AND VOLUNTARY CONTACTS
A security officer may generally approach a person on property where the officer is lawfully present and may ask questions or request cooperation. A voluntary contact should remain noncoercive, and the person should be free to leave unless a lawful basis for detention exists.
When appropriate, security personnel should identify themselves, maintain a professional demeanor, explain the reason for the contact when practicable, and employ de-escalation techniques. An officer should not imply that a person is required to remain or answer questions unless the officer possesses lawful authority to detain the person.
The following circumstances, standing alone, generally do not establish reasonable suspicion or justify a detention:
– Presence in Cleveland or in a particular neighborhood;
– Presence on private property when the person has lawful access or permission;
– Appearance, clothing, age, race, ethnicity, or perceived social status;
– Nervousness, refusal to answer questions, or a desire to leave;
– A generalized belief that criminal activity may be occurring.
III. CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS — TERRY v. OHIO AND GRAHAM v. CONNOR
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), is a significant decision of the United States Supreme Court addressing brief investigative detentions and limited protective pat-downs under the Fourth Amendment.
Under Terry, a law-enforcement officer may briefly detain a person when the officer can identify specific and articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, creating reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity. A protective pat-down for weapons may be conducted when the officer reasonably believes the person is armed and dangerous.
A Terry detention is limited in scope and duration. It is distinct from an arrest, and a protective pat-down is not a general search for evidence.
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), establishes that claims involving force during a seizure are evaluated under the Fourth Amendment’s objective-reasonableness standard. The question is whether the officer’s actions were objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting the officer at the time, without relying on hindsight. Relevant considerations may include the severity of the suspected offense, whether the person posed an immediate threat, and whether the person was actively resisting or attempting to evade detention.
Although Terry and Graham directly address governmental law-enforcement action, their principles provide important legal and operational benchmarks for evaluating security-related encounters. Private security personnel must recognize that their authority may be more limited than that of sworn law-enforcement officers and must comply with applicable Ohio law, company policy, property rules, and contractual authority.
A person’s presence in Cleveland, on private property, or in a particular neighborhood does not, by itself, establish reasonable suspicion or justify force.
IV. APPLICABLE OHIO REVISED CODE
ORC § 2901.01 — Definitions
Establishes definitions relevant to Ohio criminal law, including concepts concerning force and deadly force.
ORC § 2901.05 — Self-Defense and Defense of Another
Establishes Ohio’s statutory framework concerning self-defense and defense of another.
ORC § 2935.04 — Private-Person Arrest
Addresses circumstances under which a private person may make an arrest without a warrant.
ORC § 2935.041 — Detention of Shoplifters
Provides specific authority concerning the detention of persons reasonably believed to have committed qualifying theft-related offenses involving merchandise.
ORC § 2935.06 — Private-Person Arrest Procedures
Addresses procedures following a private-person arrest and the delivery of an arrested person to the appropriate authority.
V. STOPS AND DETENTIONS
Security personnel should carefully distinguish between a voluntary approach and a detention.
A detention occurs when, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would not feel free to leave. Before initiating a detention, security personnel should identify the specific facts supporting the stop and confirm that the detention is authorized by applicable Ohio law, company policy, property rules, or another recognized source of authority.
A lawful stop should be:
1. Based on specific and articulable facts or another legally recognized justification;
2. Limited in scope and duration to the purpose of the stop;
3. Conducted in a professional and nondiscriminatory manner;
4. Documented accurately and promptly;
5. Terminated when the lawful basis for the detention no longer exists.
Security personnel should avoid unnecessary physical contact, threats, coercion, or prolonged questioning. If the circumstances exceed the officer’s lawful authority, training, or ability to manage safely, law-enforcement assistance should be requested.
VI. PROTECTIVE PAT-DOWNS, SEARCHES, AND FORCE
A protective pat-down is not automatically authorized merely because a person is detained. A limited pat-down for weapons requires a reasonable belief, based on specific facts, that the person is armed and dangerous.
A protective pat-down must remain limited to locating potential weapons. It is not a general search for evidence, contraband, identification, or property. Any additional search must be supported by separate lawful authority, consent, company policy, or another applicable legal justification.
Security personnel should not conduct a pat-down solely because a person appears suspicious, refuses to answer questions, is present in a particular area, or is suspected of a minor policy violation without facts indicating a weapons-related safety concern.
Any use of force must be objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and proportionate to the lawful objective. Personnel should consider the severity of the suspected offense, the immediacy of any threat, the person’s actions, the availability of de-escalation, and whether the person is resisting or attempting to evade detention. Force must not be used as punishment or solely because a person is verbally uncooperative, refuses to answer questions, or exercises a lawful right to leave.
VII. APPLICATION TO SECURITY OPERATIONS
Security personnel should understand and apply the following fundamental principles:
1. A voluntary approach is generally permissible when conducted within the officer’s lawful authority and without coercion.
2. A detention requires an objectively reasonable basis under the circumstances and applicable law.
3. A person’s presence in Cleveland or on private property does not, by itself, establish reasonable suspicion.
4. A protective pat-down is limited to determining whether a person is armed and dangerous; it is not a general search for evidence.
5. Authority to detain or arrest does not automatically authorize the use of force beyond what is objectively reasonable and reasonably necessary.
6. The totality of the circumstances must be considered.
7. Under the principles of Graham v. Connor, force must be objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting the officer at the time.
8. Security personnel should request law-enforcement assistance when circumstances exceed their lawful authority, training, or ability to manage the incident safely.
VIII. OPERATIONAL EXAMPLE
If a security officer observes a person inside a Cleveland retail property repeatedly concealing merchandise, bypassing points of sale, and moving toward an exit, those specific observations may support further investigation or detention when authorized by applicable Ohio law and company policy.
The security officer should identify themselves, communicate the reason for the contact when appropriate, use professional de-escalation techniques, and follow applicable procedures concerning observation, reporting, detention, and notification of law enforcement.
A person who merely appears suspicious, is present in a particular area, or refuses to answer questions does not automatically provide sufficient grounds for a Terry-type detention or protective pat-down.
If the officer reasonably believes the person is armed and dangerous, any protective pat-down must remain limited to identifying potential weapons. If the person presents an immediate threat of death or serious physical injury, the circumstances must be evaluated under the applicable provisions of Ohio law governing self-defense and defense of another. Any force used must also be evaluated under the objective-reasonableness principles described in Graham v. Connor.
IX. PROFESSIONAL POLICY STATEMENT
Security personnel shall not approach, detain, search, or use force against a person solely because of appearance, location, reputation, or a generalized belief that criminal activity may be occurring. A voluntary approach must remain noncoercive unless a lawful basis for detention develops. Any detention, protective pat-down, arrest, or use of force must be supported by a legally recognized justification under applicable Ohio law and must be consistent with the individual’s lawful authority, training, and organizational policy. Force must be objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and must not be used as punishment or retaliation.
Terry v. Ohio should be understood as an important constitutional framework concerning reasonable suspicion, limited investigative detention, and protective pat-downs. Graham v. Connor provides the objective-reasonableness framework for evaluating force during a seizure. Applicable Ohio Revised Code provisions establish the statutory framework governing self-defense, defense of others, private-person arrest, and detention.
X. TRAINING PRINCIPLE
«“Begin with a professional, noncoercive approach. Specific facts—not assumptions—must support a detention. A protective pat-down is limited to determining whether a person is armed and dangerous. Any force must be objectively reasonable, lawful, proportionate, and evaluated under the totality of the circumstances.”»
—
Prepared and Presented By
Commander T. Reed
OPOTA-Certified Law Enforcement Professional
Security and Law Enforcement Training
Professional Standard: Lawful Authority • Reasonable Force • Sound Judgment • Accountability
