Approved lights???

[SpecialAgentKC]

To add: In Washington State, authorized emergency vehicles are required to have the red lamp. Law enforcement vehicles are exempted from this requirement. Blue lamps can be used in conjunction or in lieu of the red lamps. The specifics fall under WAC 204-21-130 (below). That rule also regulates flashing amber lamps for a laundry list of uses, which incidently, does not include security specifically....

Non-governmental/non-sworn security personnel may use red lamps only under the permission of State Patrol through an Authorized Emergency Vehicle Permit (of the Boeing ilk)...it's covered under Chapter 204-36 WAC.*

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=204-21-130

* http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=204-36

Take care all.... --K.

[Charlie Fox]

In Washington state it is my understanding you can have any light with a clear lens installed in any vehicle as long as you do not use it. If you use the light on any area that is not private property and use red and white together or red and blue together it is illegal. If you use red and blue together on private property and attempt to stop someone it is impersonating an LEO.

The wrench in here that doesn't make any sense to me is that only state agencies can use all blue. (I.E. State Patrol, State Park Rangers) It is funny because all the stateys vehicles are Red/blue front and red/blue/white to the back and sides so why the restriction when they don't use it any ways?

No flame here but RCW 46.37 states that clear shall not be used to the rear. It also states that all emergency vehicles shall have a red light visible 360 degrees from 500 feet.

HOWEVER - the law also designates the state patrol as the final abiter of what is approved. This means if the state patrol says its OK, then it can be used. Hence the use of taillight flashers, clear lights in lightbars, corner strobes, etc. The whole "red light" rule has pretty much been ignored.

There is no law stating that blue is only for state agencies. It does restrict it to law enforcement use only. Private security is restricted by that and what they can use on public roadways. You may have red lights facing front on private property, but the minute you activate them on a public roadway you are in violation. Typically the "rule of thumb" used by most LEO's is clear/amber is OK, red to the rear is OK, using them while the vehicle is in motion is questionable (off private property), using them to "run code" is prohibited. THIS IS NOT SET IN STONE! YMMV!

[Swifty]

In Washington state it is my understanding you can have any light with a clear lens installed in any vehicle as long as you do not use it. If you use the light on any area that is not private property and use red and white together or red and blue together it is illegal. If you use red and blue together on private property and attempt to stop someone it is impersonating an LEO.

The wrench in here that doesn't make any sense to me is that only state agencies can use all blue. (I.E. State Patrol, State Park Rangers) It is funny because all the stateys vehicles are Red/blue front and red/blue/white to the back and sides so why the restriction when they don't use it any ways?

[Echos13]

Concur....

[SoCal Public Safety]

FireEMSPolice has provided a link for International warning light laws

This thread is supposed to be about "approved lights."

Sorry Curtis, I guess we got a little off-topic. My bad.

[Curtis Baillie]

FireEMSPolice has provided a link for International warning light laws

This thread is supposed to be about "approved lights."

[FireEMSPolice]

http://forums.securityinfowatch.com/...ead.php?t=5852

End of thread

[SoCal Public Safety]

I dunno.. seen some sites with guards here and there that run along these lines.

+1 lol, my point exactly.

I wasn't saying Geek Squad is trying to present themselves as Security or LE. I just don't see any reason they need to wear a badge, especially when there is the potential for confusion.

[Echos13]

If someone mistakes a black & white VW beetle driven by someone who appears to be a geeky jehovah's witness with a badge, then that person deserves to be hit in the head with a tack hammer because they are stupid.

Look at the photo... do any of you honestly see a hardcore team of crime fighters?

I dunno.. seen some sites with guards here and there that run along these lines.

[mjw064]

And I found this.
Geek badge for $475 !!
well, nobody buy my badge for over $400
http://www.newbegin.com/html/misc__item_detail_14.html

That badge is a generic $35 badge that you can buy custom imprinted from almost any badge distributor ... all you'd need is the Geek Squad emblem in the middle (which you could certainly obtain for less than $400) and you have the badge. That badge is probably a fake anyway.

[Limo LA]

Yes they did cite them in 2005.
now they are (should be) black body and white roof, No white doors.

http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2005...lls_over_.html

Some of out of state news wrote as "CHP gave them ticket because Geekmobile look like too much to CHP squad car"
I think It's a just state police enforced state vehicle code. that's all.
local police won't but CHP enforce funeral escort's Red flashing light too.

And I found this.
Geek badge for $475 !!
well, nobody buy my badge for over $400
http://www.newbegin.com/html/misc__item_detail_14.html

[gonzo1510]

C.H.P. came down on these guys and had them paint the doors of their cars which were white.

[mjw064]

Not exactly what I was talking about, but point taken...


I imagine most security officers don't look anymore like a "hardcore team of crime fighters" than these guys...

That's just silly. They are fixing computers ... not implying that they are performing security or police functions. Under your theory, halloween costumes with badges would need a special permit ... not to mention the NYC Dept of Sanitation workers who also have badges.

The reason why security is regulated so heavily in many places in regards to uniforms and badges is because of bad decisions made by security employees, wherein they overstep their authority or imply that they are the police. If there is a rash of Geek Squad members out implying that they are the police, then you might also see some of those regulations that would also apply to them.

[Limo LA]

It's the same thing with Famous Dave's BBQ. Their catering trucks resemble Fire Dept. Paramedic Units. Although they have amber light bars, it's hard to tell at first, and the the trucks are all red and generally say the name of the city and "F.D." on the doors. Of course the FD stands for Famous Dave's, but it could be misleading.

California Vehicle code prohibit to paint vehicle look like "Law enforcement agency"
I guess vehicle look like Fire department are not violating V.C.

CA V.C.
27605. No person shall own or operate a motor vehicle painted in
the manner described in Section 40800 to resemble a motor vehicle
used by a peace officer or traffic officer on duty for the primary
purpose of enforcing the provisions of Division 10 (commencing with
Section 20000) or Division 11 (commencing with Section 21000)
pursuant to Section 40800.
The provisions of this section shall not apply to vehicles which
are painted one solid color or to vehicles first registered on or
before January 1, 1979. These provisions shall not apply to vehicles
which are any of the following:
(a) Owned by vehicle manufacturers or dealers.
(b) Used by law enforcement agencies in the enforcement of the
provisions of Division 10 (commencing with Section 20000) or Division
11 (commencing with Section 21000).
(c) Owned by persons or companies who use the vehicles exclusively
for movie or television production and display signs stating "movie
car" prominently on the doors.
(d) Owned by persons or companies who use the vehicles exclusively
for funeral escort purposes.
(e) Motorcycles, as defined in Section 400, without insignia.

However someone who isn't licensed in anything, a private citizen, can wear a badge? Now I'm confused...

CA B&P code prohibit to wear Security badge to any citizen.
But if it doesn't say "Security" or any PPO #, any company name, I guess it would not impersonation.

CA B&P code 7582.3.
(d) Any person who: (1) acts as or represents himself or herself
to be a private patrol operator under this chapter when that person
is not a licensee under this chapter; (2) falsely represents that he
or she is employed by a licensee under this chapter when that person
is not employed by a licensee under this chapter; (3) carries a
badge, identification card, or business card, indicating that he or
she is a licensee under this chapter when that person is not a
licensee under this chapter;

[davis002]

I still have a seriously hard time believing that any sane person would confuse them for law enforcement. This isn't much different than someone complaining about a stripper wearing a cop uniform, because they don't want the general public to think she is law enforcement.