top of page
GET ANSWERS TO OUR MOST
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
If you’d like to get in touch regarding security expert witness needs. You can reach me at:
Once retained, a premises liability and security expert witness reviews the case materials, investigates the relevant elements, identifies additional information that may be needed, and advises counsel on security issues within their expertise. Based on the information available, and when asked to do so, the expert documents their opinion in a report and may testify in a deposition or at trial.
A security expert should love what they do, have attention to detail with excellent written and oral communications skills. The expert should have presentations and article or book authorship, which will typically evidence this. They should have recent or current experience in the area they are being retained.
A security expert witness should be engaged as soon as possible. The longer the wait, the more chance that environmental conditions will change at the site where the loss occurred. Additionally, complicated negligence, premise liability cases should cause the immediate engagement of an expert security witness. The purpose of this engagement is to assist with the validation of information and or help obtain new information. Alternatively, a subject security expert should be engaged if the opposing counsel retains thier own security expert.
Opposing council will always ask an expert "have you visited the site?", and "how can you render an opinion for something you have never seen?". So, the answer is as soon as possible. The longer the wait, the more chance that environmental conditions will change at the site where the loss occurred. The International Association of Professional Security Consultants (IAPSC) has a guideline which addresses forensic methodologies. Get it here:
No! Absolutely not. Camera/phone light sensitivity can drastically vary by camera/lens. The sensitivity of cameras can be misleading. Photos can identify relationships and environmental conditions, but a site visit by a security expert witness should be encouraged when considering causation with lighting. The assessment should be completed as soon as possible to the event.
A security expert witness is someone who has tenure in the application of proactive professional security management and who is or has been a security consultant, security director with significant amounts of tenure. They should also be able to address all facets of a security program -physical/architectural, security technology, and most importantly operations.
Law enforcement is predominately reactive and officers will probably be deposition and trial tested. However, a law enforcement officer testifying on security technology may not be the best fit and may lead to a Daubert motion. The key is to make sure you have a security expert witness who is practicing in the areas of causation, which led to the loss.
Interview, and make sure there is a good personality fit with your litigant team. Second, once you have confirmed that the fit is there, do your homework. LinkedIn, media, search engine queries should bring up relevant findings. Ask the expert for deposition, presentation, and or article(s) samples on the area of causation that you are seeking to substantiate.
Once you engage a security expert witness, they may request additional information from you. Ultimately, timely communication and payment are key. Once you retain a consultant, promptly compensate that consultant for their initial retainer and subsequent invoices. You will not get the best performance from anyone when there are concerns about payment. Ultimately, this hurts the expert/litigant relationship. Experts may also withhold work or abstain from future cases because of this.
A security expert witness should be unbioased with high integrity. In the absence of information to support a case, the expert should quickly abstain or recluse themselves from further involvement. Once retained, the security expert witness should review all documentation and alert the litigant team when complete. The litigant team should request a phone call and debriefing of the expert's opinion. The expert on this call should identify additional information to strengthen their opinion. Examples will include site visits, additional documentation, authorization for additional autonomous discovery (record management data searches), visualizations, etc. I have outlined a process that works well here: My process
Case documentation review is discoverable. Security expert witnesses will review cases and mark up drawings/pdf's for subsequent notes. Rendering opinions on these markups can show bias. A security expert witness's review should only highlight areas of the case that apply to their final opinion. They should not render opinions within the middle of the review.
No defining communication processes, which identify how communication is to be sent, and the information to be presented in that communication. Again, opinions should not be expressed in these communications.
Standards in this field are still developing. ASIS International and its Commission on Standards and Guidelines have produced several, including the ASIS Workplace Violence Prevention and Intervention Standard. The National Fire Protection Association also develops standards addressing security technology and active assailant response. Beyond those, many governmental bodies and industry associations publish security guidance that is publicly available but does not carry the weight of a standard.
A standard is a rigorous public process, which involves multiple people in its development and refinement. A standard process is typically overseen by a standard developing organization. A standard developing organization approves how the processes for the standard development and incorporates the public commentary and can subsequently be adopted as a code. There are no security codes presently. A guideline typically has no formal guidance for public comments and may or may not include peer reviewers. It is simply an instrument to inform others about best practices.
Act with the highest integrity.
Be honest always.
Be unafraid to recluse or abstain from a case.
Have extensive knowledge in the areas of causation.
Fully and autonomously investigate and seek additional information for solidifying their opinion.
Fully evaluate information and proactively seek information that could undermine that opinion.
Communicative both in writing and verbally. Knowing their respective audience when speaking/testifying.
Render aesthetically pleasing reports.
Think outside of the box.
Showing passion for their area of knowledge and expertise.
These are the categories of security conditions most often examined in premises security matters:
Security measures: whether locks, alarms, surveillance, or other measures were present, functional, and consistent with practices common to that property type.
Notice of risk: what the owner or operator knew about prior incidents or conditions, and how that information was communicated or acted on.
Lighting: whether illumination levels and placement were consistent with applicable guidance for the site and its use.
Hiring and training: how security personnel were screened, trained, supervised, and equipped for the conditions at the property.
Incident response: how staff detected, reported, and responded to incidents, measured against the property's own policies and procedures.
Surveillance: whether cameras and monitoring were positioned, maintained, and used in a manner consistent with their stated purpose.
Access control: how entry to the property and its interior areas was managed for residents, guests, employees, contractors, and deliveries.
Whether a legal duty existed in a given case, and whether any conduct met that duty, are legal questions determined by counsel and the court under the law of the relevant jurisdiction. My analysis addresses the security conditions and practices, not the legal conclusion.
bottom of page