Many Security Guards Get Minimal Screening

Security guard Joseph Ferguson had no criminal record and passed his state-required tests with flying colors. He shot his .38-caliber and 9-millimeter handguns accurately and safely, and seemed to understand how and when to use deadly force.

In fact, instructors at the Sacramento shooting range where Ferguson trained Saturday thought he was the kind of student you would want in every class.

Hours later, Ferguson was a wanted man, suspected of gunning down the first of five victims in a 24-hour killing spree across Sacramento. By early Monday, he was dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

The deadly rampage raised the question: Can California prevent potentially violent people from becoming security guards based on little more than an open-book test and a few hours in a classroom?

Of the 50,000 applicants each year, state authorities reject as many as 2,500 or so because of their criminal records, said Kevin Flanagan, a spokesman for the state Department of Consumer Affairs, which regulates security guards.

Even applicants with criminal backgrounds can obtain a “guard card” that lets them work for up to four months while the check is underway--a legal provision that will be phased out by 2003.

Few private security firms use psychological testing. Many employers say money spent on screening and training for a job with such a high turnover is wasted.

“It really is up to the companies to be a responsible security company and go the extra mile, not just comply with state guidelines,” said Earle Graham, head of the California Assn. of Licensed Security Agencies, Guards and Associates.

“You’re getting pretty much what you pay for,” said Clancy Faria, president of the Peace Officers Research Assn. of California, which has pushed for more regulation of private security guards. “The psychological profiling is key. What is their motivation for becoming a security guard? It’s certainly not the pay.”

Burns International Security, Ferguson’s employer, does not use testing, mainly because state anti-discrimination laws make it difficult, said Burns Executive Vice President Jim McNulty.

“We have used it in the past, but where you run into trouble is with employment laws,” McNulty said. “And there are very few psychological tests out there that would give you a clear yes or no. . . . You have police officers who go berserk and they go through these tests.”

Ferguson had passed his state exam, as well as a background check, when he got his license in March 1999. He later completed an eight-hour baton training course and had no complaints against him, state records show.

He seemed fit to carry a loaded weapon, said Steve Caballero, founder of the California Security Training Academy in Sacramento, where Ferguson qualified in firearms handling Saturday after two days of training.

“He was polite, he was articulate, he made no indication to instructors that he was sullen or about to go over the edge at all,” Caballero said. “He was not sad, not sullen, elusive or reclusive. He interacted with all the students. We know now that when he was making telephone calls during breaks in class, he was making his threats.”

Ferguson was taught the laws of arrest, proper use of force, including “to never use the handgun on anyone unless they determine the life of someone or yourself is in danger,” Caballero said.

Once Ferguson turned in his paperwork and proof of citizenship, he needed only to pass a second criminal background check to legally carry a gun on the job.

Caballero said the state needs to require more of applicants. “In order to get a guard card, all you have to do is sit down with an employer, open a book and take a test,” he said. “I think, personally, as a trainer, these security guards need a heck of a lot more training.”

*

Times staff writer Greg Krikorian contributed to this story.