Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proposed Legislation Sections 169.98, subdivision 3; 626.88, subdivision 2

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Proposed Legislation Sections 169.98, subdivision 3; 626.88, subdivision 2

    https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbi...l&session=ls87

    (c) A security guard may not operate a motor vehicle in the course of employment that has the term "public safety" displayed on the motor vehicle. A security guard may continue to use a motor vehicle that displays the term "public safety" until August 1, 2012, if the vehicle was put into service and displayed the term "public safety" before August 1, 2011.

    A security guard may not wear or display a badge that contains the phrase "public safety" during the course of the guard's employment.


    ------
    http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/jo...2011012406.PDF
    Senators Limmer, Ingebrigtsen, Hoffman, Newman and Harrington (Chief) introduced– S.F. No. 107:
    A bill for an act relating to public safety; clarifying approved security motor vehicle and uniform markings; amending Minnesota Statutes 2010, sections 169.98, subdivision 3;



    Thoughts?

    Seems like someone has something to prove with someone for this proposed change. An utter waste of money and time considering the shear number of places using this.
    Last edited by TheBlueJustice; 03-10-2011, 08:35 AM.

  • #2
    This seems strange?

    Maybe it's just me but this is really nit-picky? I know more and more Cities are moving towards a general "Public Safety" name for their Fire/Police/EMS Services, and I do not even know that many places that use the term Public Safety for Security. Because in all honesty. Public Safety-The Safety of the Public, is something a lot of security companies do not do or cannot do, especially corporate entities, not including some hospital security and other armed security. Other places that do "Security" just report and act as figureheads of their respected employers. There is nothing wrong with, just how it works in a litigation filled world.


    I guess it is what it is. With what happened in WI anything can happen!

    NATEDOG! Where are you! I am awaiting your long post haha
    Last edited by ShinkagePD510; 03-10-2011, 08:48 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Good..secuirty vehicles should be marked security and that is all. They should not be white..in fact I know there already is a law regarding that.
      Happy to be here proud to serve

      "Well it appears this lock does not accept american express."

      Never trust fire fighters to point out a suspect.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by squad51 View Post
        Good..security vehicles should be marked security and that is all. They should not be white..in fact I know there already is a law regarding that.
        It's semantics. Safety and security words are both relating to police jobs and non-sworn security jobs. Police do as much security work during their shift as well as safety work. Why are these legislatures attacking these words?? You might as well just leave off any marking whatsoever on the vehicles and uniforms.

        You will also notice that there is nothing specifically restricting the words "Public Safety" on the uniform patches.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by TheBlueJustice View Post
          It's semantics. Safety and security words are both relating to police jobs and non-sworn security jobs. Police do as much security work during their shift as well as safety work. Why are these legislatures attacking these words?? You might as well just leave off any marking whatsoever on the vehicles and uniforms.

          You will also notice that there is nothing specifically restricting the words "Public Safety" on the uniform patches.


          My God.... No wonder we talk about Govt extended sessions every year now. With all the important decisions we need to make now (LGA, Budget, etc) why are we wasting our time with this?

          Does Harrington really have nothing better to contribute to his constituents than sponsoring this garbage? I am willing to bet that most cops in their own jurisdictions can tell whether a car is their own or from a security company. For large cities like Mpls/ St.Paul, you guys are probably too busy with calls to worry much about this anyway, so who cares....

          Comment


          • #6
            If we could just get the Feds to restrict TSA's bag screeners from having "Officer" on their badges, we'd be in business.
            The views expressed in the above post are the sole opinion of the author and do not reflect any official position by the author's employer and/or municipality.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by squad51 View Post
              Good..secuirty vehicles should be marked security and that is all.
              I agree

              Comment


              • #8
                I think it is a problem, you have these security companies buying CVPIs painting them to look like police cars, putting light bars on them and driving around acting like they are cops, pacing people, speeding, pulling up on real police vehicles. There is a secuirty car downtown that was constantly showing up around bar close. It was a problem, because people thought that guy was a cop..he wasn't and was getting involved with stuff that he had no buiness doing. I used to work security and I am glad that I drove a vehicle marked as such. I did not want to be confused as a police officer.

                ALso we have had numerous times were we have had wannabes in their security cars do stuff way way out of bounds. No thanks.

                Public Safety should be restricted to Gov. Security is security. Security officers or secuirty guards are generally restricted to the property they are hired to protect, putting public saftey on their shirts, or vehicles can confuse people as there arer police and fire departments along with a state agencyc that have those markings.
                Happy to be here proud to serve

                "Well it appears this lock does not accept american express."

                Never trust fire fighters to point out a suspect.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by MNCountyCop View Post
                  I agree
                  +1

                  Security officers could be put in greater danger if they are mistaken as Police officers. Also from personal experience working in the industry, some security officers need to be reminded that they are NOT police officers and have very restricted authority. It also helps the public distinguish the two.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The House bill's chief author is Tony Cornish, a retired DNR Conservation Officer and current Chief of Police in Lake Crystal. Retired SPPD Chief John Harrington is a Senate co-author. The legislation is supported by the MPPOA. If you can't handle having "security" on your car instead of public safety, you've got issues.
                    "All government agencies, whether they be police, fire, sanitation, parks, etc., operate on a budget. That budget provides funding for them to employ a specific number of people. The can't just add someone to their staff because he speaks three languages or has a neat haircut."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by TheBlueJustice View Post
                      https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbi...l&session=ls87

                      (c) A security guard may not operate a motor vehicle in the course of employment that has the term "public safety" displayed on the motor vehicle. A security guard may continue to use a motor vehicle that displays the term "public safety" until August 1, 2012, if the vehicle was put into service and displayed the term "public safety" before August 1, 2011.

                      A security guard may not wear or display a badge that contains the phrase "public safety" during the course of the guard's employment.


                      ------
                      http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/jo...2011012406.PDF
                      Senators Limmer, Ingebrigtsen, Hoffman, Newman and Harrington (Chief) introduced– S.F. No. 107:
                      A bill for an act relating to public safety; clarifying approved security motor vehicle and uniform markings; amending Minnesota Statutes 2010, sections 169.98, subdivision 3;



                      Thoughts?

                      Seems like someone has something to prove with someone for this proposed change. An utter waste of money and time considering the shear number of places using this.
                      Originally posted by TheBlueJustice View Post
                      It's semantics. Safety and security words are both relating to police jobs and non-sworn security jobs. Police do as much security work during their shift as well as safety work. Why are these legislatures attacking these words?? You might as well just leave off any marking whatsoever on the vehicles and uniforms.

                      You will also notice that there is nothing specifically restricting the words "Public Safety" on the uniform patches.
                      See above...


                      Originally posted by gopherpuckfan View Post
                      If we could just get the Feds to restrict TSA's bag screeners from having "Officer" on their badges, we'd be in business.
                      Ha! The biggest pot-head I've ever met in my life is a TSA screener.


                      Originally posted by squad51 View Post
                      I think it is a problem, you have these security companies buying CVPIs painting them to look like police cars, putting light bars on them and driving around acting like they are cops, pacing people, speeding, pulling up on real police vehicles. There is a secuirty car downtown that was constantly showing up around bar close. It was a problem, because people thought that guy was a cop..he wasn't and was getting involved with stuff that he had no buiness doing. I used to work security and I am glad that I drove a vehicle marked as such. I did not want to be confused as a police officer.

                      ALso we have had numerous times were we have had wannabes in their security cars do stuff way way out of bounds. No thanks.

                      Public Safety should be restricted to Gov. Security is security. Security officers or secuirty guards are generally restricted to the property they are hired to protect, putting public saftey on their shirts, or vehicles can confuse people as there arer police and fire departments along with a state agencyc that have those markings.
                      Wolf is out of business, so there goes half of the problem. I do agree that private security, contract or proprietary, should not be able to use the term "Public Safety." In fact, private contract security is already not allowed to use that term as a condition of their licensing with the state.

                      326.3381 LICENSES. Subdivision 1. Prohibition. No person shall engage in the business of private detective or protective agent, or advertise or indicate in any verbal statement or in written material that the person is so engaged or available to supply those services, without having first obtained a license as provided in sections 326.32 to 326.339.

                      Subd. 1a. Proprietary employers. A proprietary employer is not required to obtain a license, but must comply with section 326.336, subdivision 1, with respect to the hiring of security guards.


                      It goes on to say;

                      326.3384 PROHIBITED ACTS. Subdivision 1. Prohibition. No license holder or employee of a license holder shall, in a manner that implies that the person is an employee or agent of a governmental agency, display on a badge, identification card, emblem, vehicle, uniform, stationery, or in advertising for private detective or protective agent services: (1) the words "public safety," "police," "highway patrol," "state patrol," "sheriff," "trooper," or "law enforcement"; or (2) the name of a municipality, county, state, or of the United States, or any governmental subdivision thereof.

                      http://www.dps.state.mn.us/pdb/Resou...a_Statutes.pdf

                      This is already illegal for private contract security companies. The only thing that this legislation will do is restrict it from proprietary security in addition to private contract. Which they should. If you are not a public entity, you are not protecting the public, you are protecting customers and clients.

                      There ya go Shinkage
                      Last edited by natedog54; 03-11-2011, 03:32 PM.
                      Just call me "Sir Robin"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by natedog54 View Post
                        See above...


                        Ha! The biggest pot-head I've ever met in my life is a TSA screener.




                        Wolf is out of business, so there goes half of the problem. I do agree that private security, contract or proprietary, should not be able to use the term "Public Safety." In fact, private contract security is already not allowed to use that term as a condition of their licensing with the state.

                        326.3381 LICENSES. Subdivision 1. Prohibition. No person shall engage in the business of private detective or protective agent, or advertise or indicate in any verbal statement or in written material that the person is so engaged or available to supply those services, without having first obtained a license as provided in sections 326.32 to 326.339.

                        Subd. 1a. Proprietary employers. A proprietary employer is not required to obtain a license, but must comply with section 326.336, subdivision 1, with respect to the hiring of security guards.


                        It goes on to say;

                        326.3384 PROHIBITED ACTS. Subdivision 1. Prohibition. No license holder or employee of a license holder shall, in a manner that implies that the person is an employee or agent of a governmental agency, display on a badge, identification card, emblem, vehicle, uniform, stationery, or in advertising for private detective or protective agent services: (1) the words "public safety," "police," "highway patrol," "state patrol," "sheriff," "trooper," or "law enforcement"; or (2) the name of a municipality, county, state, or of the United States, or any governmental subdivision thereof.

                        http://www.dps.state.mn.us/pdb/Resou...a_Statutes.pdf

                        This is already illegal for private contract security companies. The only thing that this legislation will do is restrict it from proprietary security in addition to private contract. Which they should. If you are not a public entity, you are not protecting the public, you are protecting customers and clients.

                        There ya go Shinkage
                        I was waiting for it! And you did not disappoint.

                        Side-note:

                        You guys hire a lot recently!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by ShinkagePD510 View Post
                          I was waiting for it! And you did not disappoint.

                          Side-note:

                          You guys hire a lot recently!
                          Currently hiring 5...
                          Just call me "Sir Robin"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Wonder if this would apply to MNSCU schools? Almost all theMNSCU schools are called Public Safety. Campus Security would sound really lame, and not really fitting for most of those departments as they do a whole lot more than checking doors like a private security companies do.
                            Always Outnumbered, Never Outgunned

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by natedog54 View Post
                              Currently hiring 5...
                              Wowwww.

                              People Leaving. No? Wait lemme guess...CLINICS!

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 6097 users online. 332 members and 5765 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X