Tweet
I am dually licensed as an armed and unarmed guard, my state requires a license for both type of sites (I.E. armed guard can not worked unarmed posts )
but there is some legislation to try to change that, whats your opinion
58-63-102(2) & 58-63-501(3) The Division received an email regarding the intent
of Utah Code §58-63-102(2) and 58-63-501(3). The
email questioned if an armed security officer can
work as an unarmed security officer, without
holding an unarmed security officer license. Mr.
Ormond explained that 58-63-501(3) states
“Unlawful conduct includes practicing or engaging
in, or attempting to practice or engage in activity for
which a license is required under this chapter,
unless the individual:
a. Holds the appropriate license under this
chapter”
Mr. Ormond further explained that it is unlawful for
an armed officer to work as an unarmed officer
without holding both licenses.
Mr. Waters commented that due to the additional
training that an armed officer undergoes they should
be entitled to stand either post. Mr. Anderton stated
that since this profession was initially licensed, it
has been assumed that an armed officer could stand
an unarmed post. He then added that in his opinion
that only half of the currently licensed armed
officers stand an armed post, he then suggested that
the Division should allow this practice. Mr. Ormond
commented that to allow this practice would require
a Statute change.
Mr. Waters commented that the issue would depend
on if the armed officer was working an unarmed
post with or without a weapon. If the officer has
access to a weapon, it should be an issue. However,
if the officer does not have access to a weapon it
should not be an issue. Ms. McGregor stated that
the liability to the company could be huge if this
situation arose. She then stated that she felt a statute
change should occur, adding a stipulation that
would allow this only if the officer does not have
access to a weapon. Ms. McGregor then questioned
Security Services Licensing Board
February 8, 2007
Page 7 of 9
Mr. Anderton, if this situation has occurred in the
past. Mr. Anderton stated “No”, but if it did the
officer would be terminated from his company. Mr.
Adams agreed stating that even if an unarmed
officer has a Concealed Carry Permit, the officer
would be terminated if they had access to their
weapon while on duty.
Mr. Rothe commented that to require officers to
hold two or three licenses was not acceptable, due
to the amount of money they make, and the cost
involved. Mr. Merchant, Mr. Waters and Ms.
McGregor agreed, stating that the Division should
find a way to reduce the fees instead of adding fees.
Mr. Waters then suggested licensing this profession
similar to a Peace Officer:
1. Unarmed – can only stand an unarmed post;
2. Armed – can stand either an armed or unarmed
post;
3. Unarmed Armored Car – can stand an unarmed
post or as unarmed armored car; and
4. Armed Armored Car – can stand any post, and
unarmed or armed armored car.
Ms. McGregor expressed her approval of this idea,
adding that strict guidelines would need to be
followed.
Mr. Ormond commented that 58-63-304 seams to
imply that a Peace Officer does not need to be
licensed as a security officer, qualifying agent, or as
a Contract Security Company. Mr. McCoy and Mr.
Merchant stated that several police agencies allow
there off duty Peace Officers to work Security.
However, the police agency does not allow their
equipment to be utilized while the Peace Officer is
working as a security officer.
Mr. Ormond stated that 58-63-301 and 58-63-304
might also need to be reviewed, and that a section
concerning concealed weapons permits, might need
to be added. Mr. Anderton agreed, stating that he
would look into the suggested changes.
Mr. Anderton stated that at the 2008 legislative
session the profession could propose a
“Housekeeping” bill to clear up this issue and any
Security Services Licensing Board
February 8, 2007
Page 8 of 9
other discrepancies with the current statute. Mr.
Ormond agreed, suggesting waiting until the 2008
legislative session to ensure that all issues are
addressed. Mr. Waters expressed a concern with the
changes not being made soon. Due to the cost
involved if a Security Officer must hold both an
unarmed and an armed license, this would require
an additional $99.00 per license. Mr. Ormond
agreed, and then explained how the fee is allocated
once received by this Division.
Mr. Young then reminded the Board that if HB181
passes the licenses and training will change for
contact security and armored car. Mr. Ormond
agreed, stating that there will need to be changes to
the training requirements.
but there is some legislation to try to change that, whats your opinion
58-63-102(2) & 58-63-501(3) The Division received an email regarding the intent
of Utah Code §58-63-102(2) and 58-63-501(3). The
email questioned if an armed security officer can
work as an unarmed security officer, without
holding an unarmed security officer license. Mr.
Ormond explained that 58-63-501(3) states
“Unlawful conduct includes practicing or engaging
in, or attempting to practice or engage in activity for
which a license is required under this chapter,
unless the individual:
a. Holds the appropriate license under this
chapter”
Mr. Ormond further explained that it is unlawful for
an armed officer to work as an unarmed officer
without holding both licenses.
Mr. Waters commented that due to the additional
training that an armed officer undergoes they should
be entitled to stand either post. Mr. Anderton stated
that since this profession was initially licensed, it
has been assumed that an armed officer could stand
an unarmed post. He then added that in his opinion
that only half of the currently licensed armed
officers stand an armed post, he then suggested that
the Division should allow this practice. Mr. Ormond
commented that to allow this practice would require
a Statute change.
Mr. Waters commented that the issue would depend
on if the armed officer was working an unarmed
post with or without a weapon. If the officer has
access to a weapon, it should be an issue. However,
if the officer does not have access to a weapon it
should not be an issue. Ms. McGregor stated that
the liability to the company could be huge if this
situation arose. She then stated that she felt a statute
change should occur, adding a stipulation that
would allow this only if the officer does not have
access to a weapon. Ms. McGregor then questioned
Security Services Licensing Board
February 8, 2007
Page 7 of 9
Mr. Anderton, if this situation has occurred in the
past. Mr. Anderton stated “No”, but if it did the
officer would be terminated from his company. Mr.
Adams agreed stating that even if an unarmed
officer has a Concealed Carry Permit, the officer
would be terminated if they had access to their
weapon while on duty.
Mr. Rothe commented that to require officers to
hold two or three licenses was not acceptable, due
to the amount of money they make, and the cost
involved. Mr. Merchant, Mr. Waters and Ms.
McGregor agreed, stating that the Division should
find a way to reduce the fees instead of adding fees.
Mr. Waters then suggested licensing this profession
similar to a Peace Officer:
1. Unarmed – can only stand an unarmed post;
2. Armed – can stand either an armed or unarmed
post;
3. Unarmed Armored Car – can stand an unarmed
post or as unarmed armored car; and
4. Armed Armored Car – can stand any post, and
unarmed or armed armored car.
Ms. McGregor expressed her approval of this idea,
adding that strict guidelines would need to be
followed.
Mr. Ormond commented that 58-63-304 seams to
imply that a Peace Officer does not need to be
licensed as a security officer, qualifying agent, or as
a Contract Security Company. Mr. McCoy and Mr.
Merchant stated that several police agencies allow
there off duty Peace Officers to work Security.
However, the police agency does not allow their
equipment to be utilized while the Peace Officer is
working as a security officer.
Mr. Ormond stated that 58-63-301 and 58-63-304
might also need to be reviewed, and that a section
concerning concealed weapons permits, might need
to be added. Mr. Anderton agreed, stating that he
would look into the suggested changes.
Mr. Anderton stated that at the 2008 legislative
session the profession could propose a
“Housekeeping” bill to clear up this issue and any
Security Services Licensing Board
February 8, 2007
Page 8 of 9
other discrepancies with the current statute. Mr.
Ormond agreed, suggesting waiting until the 2008
legislative session to ensure that all issues are
addressed. Mr. Waters expressed a concern with the
changes not being made soon. Due to the cost
involved if a Security Officer must hold both an
unarmed and an armed license, this would require
an additional $99.00 per license. Mr. Ormond
agreed, and then explained how the fee is allocated
once received by this Division.
Mr. Young then reminded the Board that if HB181
passes the licenses and training will change for
contact security and armored car. Mr. Ormond
agreed, stating that there will need to be changes to
the training requirements.
Comment