Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Patrol vehicles, what do you get to drive?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • pramsey
    replied
    Hack,

    I figured you would know who I was. As you said, I am a nice guy and a straight shooter. The last thing I want is to have to admit that I know what you have been up to and did nothing to correct it. Plausible deniability.

    I will give you the same advise I gave you before. What you are doing is not legal. Lay low, and keep quiet. Posting on the internet about your business is not laying low and will get you in trouble.

    If you doubt me, I have heard first hand from the state that they view what you are doing as operating a security business without a license. Why they haven't taken action? I don't know. Be thankful and don't provoke a response from them. And as far as your proprietary security angle. Please read below. I told you before to look up and read the statute and you chose not to. So it is listed below. There is no grey area.

    The state has set up standards and rules in an effort to professionalize the industry. I ignored you as you went around these rules. Don't go around and flaunt it in our faces.

    I see you deleted your posts. Good call. It also shows you know where you stand.

    So once again...lay low.

    Per the XXXXXXXXX State Statute the only requirement to working as a Proprietary Officer is that the employer needs to have a XXX criminal history check of the employee. It does not forbid the hiring of that person in that capacity if the employer so desires. However as for you and the other contract companies, they are not allowed to hire a Criminal due to the Licensing Boards rules. Do you seriously think that I would have been working for this many years & having as much contact with local law Enforcement, without knowing exactly what I can and can't do!
    326.3381 LICENSES.
    Subdivision 1. Prohibition. No person shall engage in the business of private detective or protective agent, or advertise or indicate in any verbal statement or in written material that the person is so engaged or available to supply those services, without having first obtained a license as provided in sections 326.32 to 326.339.
    Subd. 1a. Proprietary employers. A proprietary employer is not required to obtain a license, but must comply with section 326.336, subdivision 1, with respect to the hiring of security guards.

    326.336 EMPLOYEES OF LICENSE HOLDERS.
    Subdivision 1. Background check. A license holder may employ, in connection with the business of private detective or protective agent, as many unlicensed persons as may be necessary; provided that every license holder is at all times accountable for the good conduct of every person employed. When a license holder hires a person to perform services as a private detective or protective agent, the employer shall submit to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension a full set of fingerprints of each employee and the written consent of the employee to enable the bureau to determine whether that person has a criminal record. The employee is a conditional employee until the employer receives a report from the bureau that, based on a check of the criminal records maintained by the bureau, the prospective employee has not been convicted in Minnesota of a felony or any offense listed in section 326.3381, subdivision 3, other than a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor assault. During the period of conditional employment, the person may not serve as a private detective or protective agent, but may be trained by the employer. The bureau shall immediately forward the fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and request the Federal Bureau of Investigation to conduct a criminal history check of each conditional employee. The bureau shall determine if the Federal Bureau of Investigation report indicates that the employee was convicted of a disqualifying offense and shall notify the employer accordingly. The employer shall immediately dismiss an employee who has been convicted of a disqualifying offense.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Read and digest this very carefully, inhousehack:

    I don't know what SIW's policy is for this sort of thing. I have brought this entire little "discussion" up to the Editor in Chief. Including the posts that you deleted, and information I recieved from "A senior member," who actually isn't pramsey. Not sure, nor do I care, who pramsey is.

    If the Minnesota Department of Public Safety is involved in this, and one of the parties discloses your statements on the board, I'm sure that Cygnus will cooperate completely.

    As to your status as a felon operating a private security business, I'm sure the state will deal with this transgression whenever they feel like. Just be glad that the people involved in this don't start sending letters with your criminal record attached to your "employers."

    I think I'm the only evil bastard around here who's evil to do such things, and I just don't care enough to be bothered. The players involved, of course, aren't as evil as me.

    You're not armed, so there are small blessings. You think you can buy a taser, but Taser will not allow its distributors to sell to felons. My condolences on that, as the job is dangerous even if you are a felon, even if you are operating illegally, and I don't wish being hurt on anyone.

    I don't know who you are, or what you did, only the information given to me by multiple parties. All I know is that when one operates illegally, they take their chances with the state, and I hope you have retained a good civil lawyer to represent you before the Private Detective Board.

    Good luck, sir, I think you'll need it.

    Leave a comment:


  • pramsey
    replied
    I'm not worried about a lawsuit. I have all the proof I would need. But this really isn't the place to air all that out. I already put out more than I really wanted to.

    My only point in all this is there are some key contributors to this site, some that are along for the ride, and some that need to be ignored. Hack is one to be ignored.

    And as far as Minnesota...what is funny is they have very few rules...but when they do spit one out...yeah. They get a bit silly. No Black, white, blue, red, maroon, brown, tan, or green. So that leave the security companies with grey, gold (assuming they don't call that metallic tan), and uhm....pink.
    Last edited by pramsey; 01-15-2007, 07:46 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by pramsey
    Yes I can back it up. I would not have even hinted at it if it wasn't true and provable.

    The vehicle stuff is easy. Check the statutes here. If the car was on the road prior to 2002, the company can keep using it at long as it met guidelines pre-2002. Buying a car older than 2002 doesn't take you back to pre-2002 statutes.

    As far as the rest, what he does is he works for several different companies "in-house". He drives around and checks on each of them and they pay him a nightly "wage". In reality he has several clients, and charges them a nightly patrol fee.

    This sounds like a patrol service as opposed to an "in-house" security program. The state licensing agency is aware of him and agrees. I'm not sure why they haven't taken any action yet. So like I said...he should lay low as opposed to drawing attention to what he is doing.

    The fortunate part for him is his clients are duplexes, and small apartment complexes that could not afford to pay for the services of a licensed and insured agency. So license holders aren't losing any business. If license holders don't complain, the state doesn't do much.

    He doesn't have insurance covering his actions. He claims to work under the insurance of the various companies that hire him.

    1. I doubt they are aware of this, or at least are not aware of what liability they are taking on if they are aware of it. But I don't know this for sure.

    2. Even if they are aware of this, and the risk, it is still viewed as unlicensed activity by the state in providing a service that they view as needing a license.

    Even if the state were to state the arrangement did not require a license, he is still unable to work in Minnesota as an "in-house" officer as by statute they must adhere to the same hiring standards as contract agencies. His felony conviction (for which he serverd two years in prison) prevents him from working as a security officer. I have a printout of his record, so I know that part is factual.


    I am not trying to attack someone just because he is skirting the law with his vehicle. Anyone who has been doing this job for a while has done a little skirting. Or at least major stretching. What bothers me is we have an individual that has taken all of our goals for professionalism in the industry and mocked them. This is worse than the Rambo wannabe's that get hired by a secrity company and run around like their badge makes them God. He can't get hired by a security company so he runs around with a badge and car he bought.

    On a side note...for the yellow curb thing. Yellow curbs typically mean nothing in Minnesota. That one is a "Don't hit this thing that keeps you from driving on our grass!" It is just to draw attention. The state has no regulations on fire lanes. Fire lanes are established by city ordinances. Fire lanes on private property are treated the same as on public. In Minneapolis the only requirement is that the City Fire Marshal approve the marking of the fire lane. It could be signs, or maybe even painted road. I've never made a list, but all I have ever seen is signs posted at the start end and of the fire lane. Longer lanes will have additional signs in between.
    Interesting. The operation you describe does sound like a patrol service for hire.

    The difference between libel and non-libel, as we know, is evidence. You are prepared to defend your position, which is more than most libelous persons do. As to truth, if he wishes to contest it... Then he can pay the fees and sue you. And, if what you say is true, perhaps you can buy his lovely car after you win.

    Also, MN has the silliest rules on cars ever.

    Leave a comment:


  • pramsey
    replied
    I'm sure the Minneapolis fire marshal has set standards...but all the ordinances require is "Approval by the City Fire Marshal". So I'm not sure what they are.

    Leave a comment:


  • security steve
    replied
    Our site has yellow curbs with signs approximately 5 ft tall which read, "Fire Lane - no stopping, standing or parking allowed. Towing Enforced."

    We, along with the city police issue citations which can run up to several hundred dollars. Of course, we are in charge of the City Water and Sewer and have a zero tolerance for parking on our curbs. Also, if the car is there, turned off and no driver in site, it will be towed immediately.

    It is interesting to know the different rules and regulations in regards to fire lanes and handicap spots. Our local government has some pretty specific ones (such as color and sign, size, colors, verbage etc) and will not touch it unless specifically to local regs. Maybe we can start a new thread as to not hijack this one.

    Leave a comment:


  • pramsey
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    Congratulations, you have won our prize for libelous statements. I do hope you can back some of these statements up, in case that the post decides to sue you.

    I'm quite sure that Cygnus Business Media will cooperate with any court of jurisdiction issuing a subpoena for your IP address and other information.

    For reference, the person he's referring to is Director of the Private Detective
    Board of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety.
    Yes I can back it up. I would not have even hinted at it if it wasn't true and provable.

    The vehicle stuff is easy. Check the statutes here. If the car was on the road prior to 2002, the company can keep using it at long as it met guidelines pre-2002. Buying a car older than 2002 doesn't take you back to pre-2002 statutes.

    As far as the rest, what he does is he works for several different companies "in-house". He drives around and checks on each of them and they pay him a nightly "wage". In reality he has several clients, and charges them a nightly patrol fee.

    This sounds like a patrol service as opposed to an "in-house" security program. The state licensing agency is aware of him and agrees. I'm not sure why they haven't taken any action yet. So like I said...he should lay low as opposed to drawing attention to what he is doing.

    The fortunate part for him is his clients are duplexes, and small apartment complexes that could not afford to pay for the services of a licensed and insured agency. So license holders aren't losing any business. If license holders don't complain, the state doesn't do much.

    He doesn't have insurance covering his actions. He claims to work under the insurance of the various companies that hire him.

    1. I doubt they are aware of this, or at least are not aware of what liability they are taking on if they are aware of it. But I don't know this for sure.

    2. Even if they are aware of this, and the risk, it is still viewed as unlicensed activity by the state in providing a service that they view as needing a license.

    Even if the state were to state the arrangement did not require a license, he is still unable to work in Minnesota as an "in-house" officer as by statute they must adhere to the same hiring standards as contract agencies. His felony conviction (for which he serverd two years in prison) prevents him from working as a security officer. I have a printout of his record, so I know that part is factual.


    I am not trying to attack someone just because he is skirting the law with his vehicle. Anyone who has been doing this job for a while has done a little skirting. Or at least major stretching. What bothers me is we have an individual that has taken all of our goals for professionalism in the industry and mocked them. This is worse than the Rambo wannabe's that get hired by a secrity company and run around like their badge makes them God. He can't get hired by a security company so he runs around with a badge and car he bought.

    On a side note...for the yellow curb thing. Yellow curbs typically mean nothing in Minnesota. That one is a "Don't hit this thing that keeps you from driving on our grass!" It is just to draw attention. The state has no regulations on fire lanes. Fire lanes are established by city ordinances. Fire lanes on private property are treated the same as on public. In Minneapolis the only requirement is that the City Fire Marshal approve the marking of the fire lane. It could be signs, or maybe even painted road. I've never made a list, but all I have ever seen is signs posted at the start end and of the fire lane. Longer lanes will have additional signs in between.
    Last edited by pramsey; 01-15-2007, 06:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by security steve
    It looks like the vehicle is parked on a yellow curb, which usually indicates a fire lane???
    In most cases, traffic laws do not apply on private property. Fire lanes must be red, in most states, for it to be an actual fire lane, where you can be fined. A yellow curb is "do not park here," and in most states, the only thing you can do is have the vehicle towed as an unwanted vehicle.

    In other states, you may do nothing to the car, as it requires police intervention to have it towed.

    In this guy's case, the entire curb looks to be marked yellow for visibility.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by pramsey
    *sigh* When state statute mandated background requirements make it illegal for any company to hire you...just buy your own car and call it "In-House Patrol"...lol

    Hack needs to worry less about putting the vandals in jail and worry about keeping himself out.

    1. The vehicle is not legal. The statute states the vehicle must be put into service prior to 2002. Not manufactured prior to that.

    2. The vehicle must have posted on three sides the name of your company. That includes the company name of an in house security program.

    3. The correct term for what you are doing is not Private Proprietary Security. Ther term you are looking for is operating without a protective agents license. At least that is what Marie Ohman said at the Department of Public Safety PDB.

    4. You are not authorized to be a security officer; contract, proprietary, or even hack, in the state. Specific criminal convictions make that against statute. It's a long list...but burglary is on there.

    My advice to Hack...time to find a new line of work. There is no room for rogue wanna-bes in our business. Our goal here is to professionalize the industry. What you are doing is illegal. It is a miracle the state board hasn't shut you down yet. But until they do, the best advise I can give you is lay low. Collect the money while you can, because it won't last forever.

    My advice to everyone else...don't take any advice from an individual that flaunts his disrespect for every rule, law, professionalism and common courtesy the rest of us are trying to instill in this business.
    Congratulations, you have won our prize for libelous statements. I do hope you can back some of these statements up, in case that the post decides to sue you.

    I'm quite sure that Cygnus Business Media will cooperate with any court of jurisdiction issuing a subpoena for your IP address and other information.

    For reference, the person he's referring to is Director of the Private Detective Board of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety.

    Leave a comment:


  • security steve
    replied
    It looks like the vehicle is parked on a yellow curb, which usually indicates a fire lane???

    Leave a comment:


  • Charger
    replied
    Originally posted by james2go30
    This is off topic...but I you avatar...icon...whatever looks like the lights on a patrol car...sure thats what it is...but I first I thought it was the grill from K.I.T. from Knightriderlol...talk about a brainfart. Guess I'm just tired.
    Time to lay off the caffeine, maybe? LOL

    Leave a comment:


  • james2go30
    replied
    hey bridgegate

    This is off topic...but I you avatar...icon...whatever looks like the lights on a patrol car...sure thats what it is...but I first I thought it was the grill from K.I.T. from Knightriderlol...talk about a brainfart. Guess I'm just tired.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charger
    replied
    Originally posted by pramsey
    *sigh* When state statute mandated background requirements make it illegal for any company to hire you...just buy your own car and call it "In-House Patrol"...lol

    Hack needs to worry less about putting the vandals in jail and worry about keeping himself out.

    1. The vehicle is not legal. The statute states the vehicle must be put into service prior to 2002. Not manufactured prior to that.

    2. The vehicle must have posted on three sides the name of your company. That includes the company name of an in house security program.

    3. The correct term for what you are doing is not Private Proprietary Security. Ther term you are looking for is operating without a protective agents license. At least that is what Marie Ohman said at the Department of Public Safety PDB.

    4. You are not authorized to be a security officer; contract, proprietary, or even hack, in the state. Specific criminal convictions make that against statute. It's a long list...but burglary is on there.

    My advice to Hack...time to find a new line of work. There is no room for rogue wanna-bes in our business. Our goal here is to professionalize the industry. What you are doing is illegal. It is a miracle the state board hasn't shut you down yet. But until they do, the best advise I can give you is lay low. Collect the money while you can, because it won't last forever.

    My advice to everyone else...don't take any advice from an individual that flaunts his disrespect for every rule, law, professionalism and common courtesy the rest of us are trying to instill in this business.
    Are we to assume then that you know this guy personally? You've made some pretty big accusations there. Might be wise not to just spout stuff off like that unless you have solid evidence to back it up. Whether that vehicle is legal or not will depend on what state he's in. In this area, that vehicle would be perfectly legal for security use.

    Leave a comment:


  • pramsey
    replied
    *sigh* When state statute mandated background requirements make it illegal for any company to hire you...just buy your own car and call it "In-House Patrol"...lol

    Hack needs to worry less about putting the vandals in jail and worry about keeping himself out.

    1. The vehicle is not legal. The statute states the vehicle must be put into service prior to 2002. Not manufactured prior to that.

    2. The vehicle must have posted on three sides the name of your company. That includes the company name of an in house security program.

    3. The correct term for what you are doing is not Private Proprietary Security. Ther term you are looking for is operating without a protective agents license. At least that is what Marie Ohman said at the Department of Public Safety PDB.

    4. You are not authorized to be a security officer; contract, proprietary, or even hack, in the state. Specific criminal convictions make that against statute. It's a long list...but burglary is on there.

    My advice to Hack...time to find a new line of work. There is no room for rogue wanna-bes in our business. Our goal here is to professionalize the industry. What you are doing is illegal. It is a miracle the state board hasn't shut you down yet. But until they do, the best advise I can give you is lay low. Collect the money while you can, because it won't last forever.

    My advice to everyone else...don't take any advice from an individual that flaunts his disrespect for every rule, law, professionalism and common courtesy the rest of us are trying to instill in this business.
    Last edited by pramsey; 01-15-2007, 11:08 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • EMTGuard
    replied
    Inhousehack,
    Very nice work on that older car. Sorry to hear that you have so many problems with your equiptment getting trashed. I hope that you can sometimes prosecute those involved. Keep up the good work.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X