Committee clears bill updating private security rules, members raise public-perception concerns

The House Commerce Committee on Tuesday approved legislation updating rules for private protective services, including registration, training requirements and notification rules, and debated whether off-duty sworn officers may wear their official uniforms while acting as private security.

A bill sponsor told the committee HB2528, an administration measure, clarifies exemptions and registration requirements for private security and proprietary security organizations and establishes a two-year renewal cycle for some registrants. During the presentation the sponsor corrected an earlier misstatement about uniform policy, saying officers may wear their law-enforcement uniforms if their original employer gives permission and the private employer also authorizes it.

"I answered that question no, and I was wrong... they can actually do that," the sponsor said, then clarified that companies must give permission for the officers to wear their law-enforcement uniforms on their private job; otherwise, they must wear the company’s security uniform.

Several committee members warned that when a sworn officer wears an official uniform while working privately it can create a perception of law-enforcement authority. One member said that, even off duty, the uniform confers an appearance of authority that may cause the public to treat the wearer as an on-duty officer.

The sponsor responded that he had no concern about trained officers intervening when a crime occurs and emphasized the bill’s intent is to protect private employers and maintain safety.

The clerk recorded 18 ayes and 3 nays; the committee referred HB2528 to the finance committee.

Next steps: HB2528 will be considered by the House finance committee. Committee members asked staff to confirm how local policies and interjurisdictional issues will be handled in practice.