What can happen if an officer fails to conduct a security check?

• A. The officer may be held liable for negligence if someone is harmed as a result.
• B. The officer cannot be liable.
• C. The agency is automatically liable.
• D. Only internal discipline.

Answer: (A)

Failing to conduct a security check breaks the officer’s duty to keep the facility safe. In civil terms, this is a breach of the duty of care. If someone is harmed because the check wasn’t performed, and the officer’s failure helped cause the harm, the officer can be held liable for negligence. The key elements are that there was a duty to act, a breach of that duty, a causal link to the harm, and demonstrable damages. This isn’t automatically the agency’s liability in every case—liability can arise for the officer personally and, depending on the facts, may extend to the agency under theories like vicarious liability. It’s also not limited to internal discipline; civil consequences can accompany disciplinary actions. So the strongest outcome is that the officer may be held liable for negligence if someone is harmed as a result.