Wackenhut Corporation v. Aponte, Civ. No. 395-65.

• Decision Date: 23 June 1966
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 395-65.
• Citation: 266 F. Supp. 401
• Parties: The WACKENHUT CORPORATION, Marvil International Security Services, Inc., and Robert S. Hopler, Plaintiffs, v. The Hon. Salvador Rodriguez APONTE, Superintendent of Police, the Hon. Rafael Hernandez Colon, Secretary of Justice and the Hon. Roberto Sanchez Vilella, Governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

266 F. Supp. 401

The WACKENHUT CORPORATION, Marvil International Security Services, Inc., and Robert S. Hopler, Plaintiffs, v. The Hon. Salvador Rodriguez APONTE, Superintendent of Police, the Hon. Rafael Hernandez Colon, Secretary of Justice and the Hon. Roberto Sanchez Vilella, Governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Civ. No. 395-65.

United States District Court D. Puerto Rico.

June 23, 1966.

McConnell, Valdés & Kelley, San Juan, P. R., for plaintiffs, Wackenhut Corp. and Robert S. Hopler.

Parke, Graves & Rodríguez-Maduro, Santurce, P. R., for plaintiff, Marvil International Securities Services, Inc.

González Jr., González-Oliver & Novak, Santurce, P. R., for plaintiff, Caribbean Refining Co.

Rafael Hernández Colón and Rafael A. Rivera-Cruz, Dept. of Justice, San Juan, P. R., for defendants.

Before MARIS and McENTEE, Circuit Judges, and RUIZ-NAZARIO, District Judge.

OPINION OF THE COURT

MARIS, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiffs in this case seek an injunction restraining the enforcement against them of the Private Detectives Act of Puerto Rico approved June 29, 1965, No. 108, 25 L.P.R.A. § 285 et seq. Upon their application a district judge then temporarily presiding by assignment in this court issued a temporary restraining order on September 16, 1965. Upon the application of the plaintiffs the Chief Judge of the First Circuit on January 13, 1966 constituted the present district court of three judges to hear and determine the plaintiffs' application for an interlocutory and permanent injunction. Hearings were held on February 8, February 11 and April 27, 1966.

The Wackenhut Corporation, one of the plaintiffs, is a Florida corporation authorized to do business in Puerto Rico. Marvil International Security Services, Inc., another of the plaintiffs, is a corporation of Puerto Rico, and Robert S. Hopler, the third plaintiff, is a resident of Puerto Rico and district manager in Puerto Rico of The Wackenhut Corporation. Both Wackenhut and Marvil are engaged in the business as independent contractors of providing guards and watchman services for industrial concerns. They allege that the Private Detectives Act of Puerto Rico deprives them of liberty, property and livelihood without due process of law in violation of the Constitution of the United States in that

"(a) It unreasonably, arbitrarily and capriciously prohibits them from rendering the same services which it is permissible for persons in their individual capacity to render.

"(b) It unreasonably, arbitrarily and capriciously includes guards and watchmen employed by agencies providing guard and watchman services to the general public in the definition of `private detectives'.

"(c) It unreasonably, arbitrarily and capriciously prohibits said plaintiffs from rendering guard and watchman services during the course of conflicts among workers, or between workers and employers, or in cases in which petitions for union elections have been filed, whereas said plaintiffs would not be so prohibited were they rendering said services in their individual capacity.

"(d) It unreasonably, arbitrarily and capriciously prohibits plaintiff Marvil from using trained dogs in rendering guard and watchman services, whereas an individual rendering said services with trained dogs would not be so prohibited."

Section 3 of the Private Detectives Act which became effective July 1, 1965, makes it illegal to engage in the private detective business without first having obtained a license from the Superintendent of Police. Section 2 defines "Private Detective" as

"* * * a person who for private purposes, or in behalf of private persons exclusively, hires his services to (a) conduct investigations or inquiries with the purpose of obtaining information on public offenses, damages caused or attempted; the habits, credibility, conduct, movements, whereabouts, associations, transactions, reputation or character of any person; the location of stolen or lost property with the object of recovering same through the corresponding legal procedures; the causes and origin of and responsibility for fires or accidents or damages to real or personal property; the occurrence of any event; the truth or falsehood of any statement or representation; (b) procure or obtain evidence to be used before investigative or arbitration committees or boards, or before the courts in civil or criminal actions; (c) protect persons or real or personal property; or for preventing thefts or the misapplication or illegal appropriation of money, bonds, stock, or any kind of securities or documents."

One of the requirements imposed by section 4 for obtaining a license as a private detective is

"(k) To have successfully passed a course of study in a private detectives' school authorized by the Police Superintendent, with a minimum of 1,000 hours of study, and competent professional practice as determined by the Superintendent through regulation."

Section 7 requires all licensed private detectives and agencies to furnish a bond in the sum of $5,000.00.

The Act also regulates and requires the licensing of private detectives agencies and of safety agencies for the protection of private enterprises. By section 2 "Private Detectives Agency" is defined to mean and include

"any person engaged in the private detective business and employing one or more persons for such purposes."

"Safety Agency for the Protection of Private Enterprises" is defined to mean and include

"any person especially engaged in the rendering of custodial services or in the protection of private property in industrial, commercial and mercantile establishments, or in those related with agricultural enterprises and employing one or more persons for such purposes."

Section 19 of the Act prohibits private detectives and agencies covered by the Act from using trained dogs in the rendering of the private detective services defined in section 2 of the Act.

Section 20 prohibits private detectives and agencies covered by the Act from rendering services in cases "involving conflicts among laborers or labor-management disputes, or where a petition for election has been filed."

Section 31 states that the provisions of the Act shall not be applicable "to watchmen, night watchmen and guards who in their individual capacity are engaged in such trades or occupations in private enterprises or in public, industrial, commercial or agricultural establishments."

Finally section 16 of the Act authorizes the Superintendent of Police with the approval of the Governor to "promulgate such rules and regulations as he may deem convenient to make more feasible the implementation" of the Act.

The contentions of the plaintiffs may be summarized as follows:

They assert first, that it is arbitrary and unconstitutional for the Act to join in a single category for purposes of regulation under the designation "private detectives" those who...