Is a security officer considered an 'agent' of the property owner or business owner where they are assigned to work?

A security officer is considered an 'agent' of the property owner or business owner where they are assigned to work because they act on behalf of that owner in the capacity of maintaining safety and security for the premises. This relationship implies that the security officer is often authorized to make decisions and take actions that protect the interests of the owner, such as checking IDs, monitoring security systems, and detaining individuals when necessary to prevent theft or other criminal activities.

The term "agent" suggests a role in which the security officer can represent the owner's interests and carry out duties aligned with improving security and enforcing rules on the property. This authority is typically granted through contracts or employment agreements that explicitly define the security officer’s responsibilities and the scope of their authority while patrolling or managing security for the property.

In contrast, the other options do not encompass the concept of agency as it pertains to the security officer's role. Saying that a security officer is not an agent would overlook the fundamental responsibilities they are tasked with, which are rooted in the authorization from the property or business owner. The options implying conditional agency, such as "only if authorized" or "only while on duty," misunderstand the inherent nature of the security officer's position, which is that they are operating as an