Uniforms

[CorpSec]

Statute number?

Toggle back a page on this thread and the whole statute is there. 626.88.

[davis002]

Toggle back a page on this thread and the whole statute is there. 626.88.

That is very strange... I never noticed that before. I might send an email to the PDB for clarification. Thanks for pointing that out though!

[CorpSec]

That is very strange... I never noticed that before. I might send an email to the PDB for clarification. Thanks for pointing that out though!

I am sure Marie and her cronies might have their own spin on it. But, as long as the statute is written the way it is, I can't see how they could blame any unarmed guard provider for dressing their officers as they see fit.

Not many people read that deep into the statute. Quite a few Minneapolis cops clammed up and shrugged their shoulders when I pointed it out to them over the 4 years I wore blue and worked there. They couldn't and didn't argue that, by statute, I wasn't covered by the uniform provision since I was unarmed.

[sgtnewby]

Here it is:

626.88 UNIFORMS; PEACE OFFICERS, SECURITY GUARDS; COLOR.
Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) For the purposes of this section, the following terms have
the meanings given them.
(b) "Peace officer" means an employee of a political subdivision or state law enforcement
agency who is licensed pursuant to sections 626.84 to 626.863 charged with the prevention and
detection of crime and the enforcement of the general criminal laws of the state and who has full
power of arrest, and shall also include Minnesota state troopers, state conservation officers, park
police, and University of Minnesota police officers.
(c) "Security guard" means any person who is paid a fee, wage, or salary to perform one
or more of the following functions:
(1) prevention or detection of intrusion, unauthorized entry or activity, vandalism, or trespass
on private property;
(2) prevention or detection of theft, loss, embezzlement, misappropriation, or concealment of
merchandise, money, bonds, stocks, notes, or other valuable documents or papers;
(3) control, regulation, or direction of the flow or movements of the public, whether by
vehicle or otherwise, to assure protection of private property;
(4) protection of individuals from bodily harm;
(5) prevention or detection of intrusion, unauthorized entry or activity, vandalism, or trespass
on Minnesota National Guard facilities, including, but not limited to, Camp Ripley and Air
National Guard air bases; or
(6) enforcement of policies and rules of the security guard's employer related to crime
reduction insofar as such enforcement falls within the scope of security guard's duties.
The term "security guard" does not include: (i) auditors, accountants, and accounting
personnel performing audits or accounting functions; (ii) employees of a firm licensed pursuant to
section 326.3381 whose duties are primarily administrative or clerical in nature; (iii) unarmed
security personnel; (iv) personnel temporarily employed pursuant to statute or ordinance by
political subdivisions to provide protective services at social functions; (v) employees of air
or rail carriers.
Subd. 2. Uniforms. Uniforms for peace officers shall be of uniform colors throughout the
state as provided herein. Uniforms for:
(a) municipal peace officers, including University of Minnesota peace officers and peace
officers assigned to patrol duties in parks, shall be blue, brown, or green;
(b) peace officers who are members of the county sheriffs' office shall be blue, brown,
or green;
(c) state troopers shall be maroon;
(d) conservation officers shall be green.
The uniforms of security guards may be any color other than those specified for peace
officers.
This subdivision shall apply to uniforms purchased subsequent to January 1, 1981.
Subd. 3. Exception. Security guards employed by the Capitol Complex Security Division of
the Department of Public Safety are not required to comply with subdivision 2.
History: 1980 c 578 s 9; 1981 c 37 s 2; 1981 c 310 s 16; 1983 c 293 s 109; 1Sp1985 c 10 s
118; 1986 c 444; 1989 c 209 art 2 s 1; 1997 c 7 art 1 s 169; 2005 c 10 art 2 s 4; 2006 c 273 s 13

Good job, that's the one I was talking about. However, many security agencies get away with it. Regions hospital still wears all navy blue from when they were Ramsey County Medical Center, even though, according to that statute, they were still illegal back then.

[sgtnewby]

That is very strange... I never noticed that before. I might send an email to the PDB for clarification. Thanks for pointing that out though!

Funky, isn't it?

[CorpSec]

Regions has never been armed so they have always been ok by statute to wear blue.

When I started in security in 92, Pinkerton had the Ramsey County Hospital/Region account. All Pinkerton officers wore light blue shirts and gray/blue pants with a dark blue stripe.

[davis002]

Regions has never been armed so they have always been ok by statute to wear blue.

When I started in security in 92, Pinkerton had the Ramsey County Hospital/Region account. All Pinkerton officers wore light blue shirts and gray/blue pants with a dark blue stripe.

I think Regions Security has baton & oc. According to the State of Minnesota, "armed" includes batons, oc, etc.

[Andy Taylor]

Ahh... Sounds like fun. LOL

I'm not familiar with CA regulations... Is In-house security required to get licensed as well there? I know OR regulates both contract and in-house, but WA only does contract. Since they took him in, I'm assuming he probably had some of his stuff concealed, without a permit or something?

Yea, that's a prime example of taking 'the look' too far. I'm happy with my regular uniform, unless I'm getting 'down & dirty' somewhere. THEN I'll spring for some BDUs... But a full-on tactical rig would just be silly for my work.

Armed in-house must meet the same license requirements as contract armed. Unarmed in-house has a seperate "propietary security guard" license that requires a background check, but not the training of the standard guard card. You can work in-house on a standard guard card.

[Andy Taylor]

I am wondering every-ones opinion concerning uniforms. I see, in rare cases, the class a suit, the traditional "police style" class b/c uniforms, bdu/511 trousers and a polo shirt, jump suits, jeans and tee-shirts - special events, sporting complexes, ect..... last but least, The one that really gets me going, with the exception of the security officers that wear these for a purpose in the daily operation of their job. The I am a bad-ass want to be , bdu trousers, a drop tactical holster, tee-shirt with a tactical vest with security on the back, loaded to the gilt with toys, including another weapon for those quick draw needs and a badge on the sam brown or on a chain around the neck, in-which in Ca. is illegal, and can not forget the mirrored sunglasses and/or the cover that says Sheriff or Police on it. I know the traditional class b/c uniform is the standard, however, what type of uniform do you wear and what uniform would you prefer?

To my understanding a badge on a chain is not illegal in CA. In CA a shoulder patch must be worn on each sleave that identifies the name of the security company and has the wording "private security". The patches must also be approved by BSIS, and the uniform as a whole must be approved by local LE that has jurisdiction where the guard is working. Makes for a real P.I.A. if a company works more than one city/county. Although I know that most companies don't bother with the local approval. Of course none of these regulations apply to in-house as the burden is put on the PPO. No PPO is required for in-house therefore the law can not be enforced.

[CorpSec]

I think Regions Security has baton & oc. According to the State of Minnesota, "armed" includes batons, oc, etc.

What statute is that covered under? I guess it makes sense, but when I hear an officer say they are working armed I consider that a firearm. I wear a suit and have a 2 oz can of Freeze+P in a holder on my belt. I would never say I was working armed.

Of course prevailing wisdom often has nothing to do with what the lawmakers have decided.

[Andy Taylor]

What statute is that covered under? I guess it makes sense, but when I hear an officer say they are working armed I consider that a firearm. I wear a suit and have a 2 oz can of Freeze+P in a holder on my belt. I would never say I was working armed.

Of course prevailing wisdom often has nothing to do with what the lawmakers have decided.

That is what i have always thought. Armed=gun. I guess technically anything that one carries as a weapon would make one armed. You are quite correct in your statement about lawmakers.

[N. A. Corbier]

Minnesota's Security Company Licensing Statute defines a security guard, as well as what an "armed security guard" is. The Peace Officer Uniform Statute substitutes it's own definition of "security guard," using the wording in Subsection 1 to redefine it.

Since the Uniform statute does not define what "armed" or "unarmed security personnel" is, one has to use the Security Company Licensing Statute. The Security Company Licensing Statute specifically states that one who is armed with a firearm, nightstick, baton, pepper spray, or EMD device is "armed" for the purposes of the statute.

Which means that CorpSec is armed with a (concealed) weapon for the purposes of the security licensing statute, and the uniform statute. If he wears a proscribed color, he is in violation of the law.

Also, due note that the statute for uniforms states that a "security guard" is any person who is paid to perform those duties as listed. This is different than the Licensing Statute, which requires the person carry upon their person some insignia that says they're security.

So, it would cover the "uniforms" of plain-clothes persons if they meet the definition of a "uniform." Many states consider the definition of a uniform, thanks to the national security company lobby, to be any clothing that is uniform in issue and identifies the person as not a member of the public. This includes the suit, especially if the security person carries or displays a badge or patch, as well as polo shirts and other such "non-uniforms."

A good example of this is in Florida, a "uniform" can simply be the company name embroidered on the shirt or pants. That's all that's required to make a "uniform." In Minnesota, like Wisconsin, a badge carried on the person suffices.

[N. A. Corbier]

That is what i have always thought. Armed=gun. I guess technically anything that one carries as a weapon would make one armed. You are quite correct in your statement about lawmakers.

Some states make the determination of "armed" being any weapon because they want to regulate everything the security guard carries. This makes it so that only totally unarmed, slick-belt, security personnel go unregulated.

Mainly, this is a loophole to ensure that O&R companies aren't inconvenienced by security legislation.

[CorpSec]

So, the slick belters (which is most of the security around here) can wear whatever color they want and everyone that carries even OC is bound by the statute. Thanks for the clarification N.A.

With that being said, some security companies around here still wear some or all blue and carry gear up to, and including, a firearm.

Good ol Minnesota!

[N. A. Corbier]

I don't think the state cares unless someone makes waves, honestly.

I haven't looked at the statute in awhile, you may be required to be certified to some state standard to even possess the can of OC because you're someone bound by the "security guard" definition.