Missouri bill would give legislative security staff statutory peace-officer status
January 12, 2026 | 2026 Legislature MO, Missouri
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Representative Mark West (District 102) told the House Committee on Corrections and Public Institutions that House Bill 2,107 would add statutory peace-officer status for legislative security staff, allowing them to be recognized as a law-enforcement agency by the U.S. Department of Justice and to access databases such as the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) and the Missouri Uniform Law Enforcement System.
West said the measure does not change the outward appearance, equipment or routine duties of current House or Senate security staff but would place their authority in statute rather than relying solely on constitutional language and chamber rules. "We're not changing anything," West said. "We're just giving them the statute power of arrest." He told the committee the bill carries a $0 fiscal note.
The bill’s stated purpose, as West described it, is to ensure legislative security staff receive the communications and access to law-enforcement information necessary to perform their duties, including during off-site legislative business. West said statutory recognition would allow staff to be classified as a law-enforcement agency by the Department of Justice and legally receive and share sensitive law-enforcement information with other agencies.
A member of the public, John Stanwal of Cole County, testified in opposition and framed the bill as an expansion of law-enforcement authority over citizens. "With all the rhinos I see, I don't know if I'm in South Africa or I'm in 1933 Nazi Germany," Stanwal said, urging the committee to be wary of granting additional powers to security staff.
Committee members asked whether legislative security staff already meet POST training requirements and whether the bill would change daily operations. Representative Cook said current staff undertake training and CEUs similar to other law-enforcement officers; West and others said the bill primarily codifies existing practices to preserve access if administrative policies change.
No formal motion or vote was recorded during the hearing. The chair closed the public hearing and moved the committee to its next agenda item.
West said the measure does not change the outward appearance, equipment or routine duties of current House or Senate security staff but would place their authority in statute rather than relying solely on constitutional language and chamber rules. "We're not changing anything," West said. "We're just giving them the statute power of arrest." He told the committee the bill carries a $0 fiscal note.
The bill’s stated purpose, as West described it, is to ensure legislative security staff receive the communications and access to law-enforcement information necessary to perform their duties, including during off-site legislative business. West said statutory recognition would allow staff to be classified as a law-enforcement agency by the Department of Justice and legally receive and share sensitive law-enforcement information with other agencies.
A member of the public, John Stanwal of Cole County, testified in opposition and framed the bill as an expansion of law-enforcement authority over citizens. "With all the rhinos I see, I don't know if I'm in South Africa or I'm in 1933 Nazi Germany," Stanwal said, urging the committee to be wary of granting additional powers to security staff.
Committee members asked whether legislative security staff already meet POST training requirements and whether the bill would change daily operations. Representative Cook said current staff undertake training and CEUs similar to other law-enforcement officers; West and others said the bill primarily codifies existing practices to preserve access if administrative policies change.
No formal motion or vote was recorded during the hearing. The chair closed the public hearing and moved the committee to its next agenda item.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
