When Does Protection Go Too Far?

As every executive protection agent knows, protection, duty, and confidentiality come above all else. But where is that line drawn? Is it when the principal is involved in an illegal act in front of them? Is it when the person they’re protecting is harming someone else? Or is it when law enforcement takes action, and the principal can no longer be in their care?

Recently, a viral video went around showing polarizing personality Andrew Tate being arrested by U.S. Marshals. In the video, Tate is seen trying to hand off his mobile phone to his bodyguard just seconds before being cuffed. However, the bodyguard missed the cue; the phone went on the floor and was picked up by someone else.

Other than the sensational headlines, this situation poses a deeper question within the EP community. Is it the protector’s job to stand by the principal and safeguard their possessions even when there’s a greater force impeding their work? Is it their duty to speak up or stay out of the way? 

Standing Behind the Principal But Being Out of the Way

If, for example, police arrive to arrest a principal, where does that put their protection detail? The protector knows that there could be a credible threat from an angry crowd outside. 

Does their responsibility to protect the principal continue during the arrest? Should they remain close enough to intervene if someone poses a physical threat, while avoiding any interference with law enforcement? And what happens when the principal gives an instruction that could potentially put the protector in legal jeopardy?

These questions become even more complicated when the principal is not simply being arrested, but is suspected of committing a crime or is openly engaging in unlawful behaviour in front of their detail.

When the Law Gets Involved

The question becomes even more complicated once law enforcement enters the picture. A protector’s rights and responsibilities can depend heavily on the jurisdiction, the nature of the alleged offence, and the laws governing private security or executive protection in that country. 

What a protector can legally do during an arrest, what they may be required to disclose, and where intervention could become obstruction are not necessarily the same everywhere. 

For international protection teams, those differences can add another layer to an already difficult situation and raise questions about how much of that legal responsibility should factor into the protector’s decisions in the moment.

Where Does the Line Fall?

For an executive protection professional, loyalty and confidentiality are fundamental to the job. But where does professional loyalty end and personal legal responsibility begin?

Is a protector expected to follow the principal’s instructions regardless of the circumstances? At what point could following those instructions become participation or facilitation? Does the answer change depending on whether the protector witnesses a crime, suspects one has occurred, or is directly instructed to assist?

There are also practical questions. Can a protector continue protecting a principal from third-party threats while that principal is in police custody? Should they safeguard the principal’s property? What information, if any, should they provide to authorities? And does the answer change depending on the jurisdiction, the offence, or the protector’s licensing requirements?

There may be no single answer that applies to every protection professional or every situation.

What matters is where the industry believes the line should be drawn, how prepared protectors are to recognize it when they encounter it, and, of course, falling in line with jurisdictions and complying with the law. 

As laws, rules, and challenges vary from one country to the next, there is no one-size-fits-all answer when a protector’s duty to the principal comes into conflict with legal or ethical boundaries. So how would you approach these situations, and where do you believe the line should be drawn?