Non-LEO CHL to escort county employees

[seamusTX]

This is complicated, so bear with me.

The Galveston County tax collector opened an office in Friendswood, which is a large town on either side of I-45 south of Houston.

Apparently, a lot of people pay their taxes in cash, and a county employee is supposed to take it to the bank at the end of the day.

The constable's office declined to provide protection for this employee.

The tax collector then asked the city manager of Friendswood to provide a police escort. He also declined.

So a Friendswood city councilman and "and a resident with a concealed handgun permit agreed to escort the county employees for the Friday deposit, ..."

No word on why the county sheriff's office isn't providing protection, given that the tax collector is a county officer, or why they didn't hire an armored car.

If you're not familiar with Galveston County politics, they're contentious even for Texas.

http://news.galvestondailynews.com/stor ... 2396776a94

- Jim

[NcongruNt]

That sounds like the county is promoting security work by someone who is not certified by the state. The article does seem to indicate that it's not a permanent arrangement, but still shaky ground, if something bad happened.

[Penn]

Now everybody who reads the paper knows how the money moves. Before, no one probably had a clue.

Using a LEO doesn't provide for accountability, but using a resident with a CHL does?

[seamusTX]

I agree with NcongruNt that this situation puts the county and the CHL holder in a legal gray area, particularly if something goes wrong. Is the CHL holder an agent of the county or not? Is he performing a security function without the proper license?

Money transfers of this sort are very susceptible to robbery. Some people in the organization know who handles the money, how it is handled, and when it is taken out. Just one person like that either talking loosely or with criminal intent can set up a robbery.

I can't figure out why they don't get a safe of the kind used in convenience stores, which no one on the premises can open, and an armored car to pick it up. That costs money, but so does having the office robbed and employees killed or injured.

- Jim

[txinvestigator]

On duty LE should not be used to provide the escort.

I think the resident is committing a Class A Misdemeanor (operating as a security company without a license) and UCW, another misdemeanor. (the armed security officer must be in uniform with the weapon in plain view. There are several other laws and rules being broken.

Here is a recent opinoin regarding providing a regulated service with no compensation, from The Texas DPS Private Security Board

Church Volunteer Security Patrol May, 2007
A volunteer security patrol made up of church members would generally require licensing under the provisions of Section 1702.108 or 1702.222, regardless of whether any compensation is received as a result of the activities. The only exception to licensing provided by the legislature for nonprofit and civic organizations is found in Section 1702.327, which applies specifically to nonprofit and civic organizations that employ peace officers under certain circumstances and would not be applicable here.
However, there is one exception to licensing under Chapter 1702 provided by the legislature that could arguably apply, which can be found in section 1702.323 (“Security Department of Private Business�). This exception would allow volunteers to provide security services exclusively for one church, as long as they do not carry firearms and as long as they do not wear “a uniform with any type of badge commonly associated with security personnel or law enforcement or a patch or apparel with ‘security’ on the patch or apparel.� See TEX. OCC. CODE §1702.323(a) & (d)(2). Thus, the wearing of a uniform or any apparel containing the word “security� would subject them to the licensing requirements of the act.

[Kalrog]

Sounds like somebody needs to be deputized or things could be very bad legally.

[NcongruNt]

On duty LE should not be used to provide the escort.

I think the resident is committing a Class A Misdemeanor (operating as a security company without a license) and UCW, another misdemeanor. (the armed security officer must be in uniform with the weapon in plain view. There are several other laws and rules being broken.

Here is a recent opinoin regarding providing a regulated service with no compensation, from The Texas DPS Private Security Board

Church Volunteer Security Patrol May, 2007
A volunteer security patrol made up of church members would generally require licensing under the provisions of Section 1702.108 or 1702.222, regardless of whether any compensation is received as a result of the activities. The only exception to licensing provided by the legislature for nonprofit and civic organizations is found in Section 1702.327, which applies specifically to nonprofit and civic organizations that employ peace officers under certain circumstances and would not be applicable here.
However, there is one exception to licensing under Chapter 1702 provided by the legislature that could arguably apply, which can be found in section 1702.323 (“Security Department of Private Business�). This exception would allow volunteers to provide security services exclusively for one church, as long as they do not carry firearms and as long as they do not wear “a uniform with any type of badge commonly associated with security personnel or law enforcement or a patch or apparel with ‘security’ on the patch or apparel.� See TEX. OCC. CODE §1702.323(a) & (d)(2). Thus, the wearing of a uniform or any apparel containing the word “security� would subject them to the licensing requirements of the act.

Interesting. This is how my old church did it... people signed up on a list to do parking lot security and would patrol before, during, and after services. No uniforms or anything, just people from the church out and about. According to what you posted... if one of these folks happened to be a CHLer and armed (concealed) as they normally are, they would be in violation of the law. I understand that the intent was that they didn't want volunteer armed church security patrolling a parking lot, but in an incidental situation where the parking lot volunteer would have to disarm to do this flies in the face of logic. I doubt it has ever been tried in court, but the possibility seems there for this to go very wrong, legally speaking.

Now that I think about it, Longtooth's arrangement at his church seems to fall under this prohibited definition. He has an organized group of folks with an action plan in case something bad were to take place. Many of the folks are CHLers (himself included) and armed. This could constitute an armed volunteer security force as defined and prohibited above. He himself would be excluded, as he has control of the premises, but the others (except maybe deacons, who have a degree of control) could fall within this definition.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

[frankie_the_yankee]

Sounds to me like the law was written too broadly.

One night my wife had to take the cash home after a Explorer Post fundraiser. The amount was around $1000 as I recall. A cop offered to follow us home to which my wife answered, "No. That's OK. Frankie's got a gun. We're all set."

So did I act as a security officer without a proper license and uniform when I followed my wife home that night?

I think not.

[Penn]

That opinion quoted above reference the "Occupations" code. Most of the statutes reference "employees". If the citizen did this as a one time favor and was not paid, I don't think the occupations code is relevant.

The reason we all have CHL's is to provide security. (For ourselves and family - generally) But the situation is thge same. The citizen, escorting the tax man wasn't patrolling and looking for crime like the church volunteers, he was escorting someone with a lot of cash. Legally, I think he was okay. If something happened, there would definitely be civil issues.

[txinvestigator]

Sounds to me like the law was written too broadly.

One night my wife had to take the cash home after a Explorer Post fundraiser. The amount was around $1000 as I recall. A cop offered to follow us home to which my wife answered, "No. That's OK. Frankie's got a gun. We're all set."

So did I act as a security officer without a proper license and uniform when I followed my wife home that night?

I think not.

No you did not. However, the CHL fellow in question in Friendswood does not appear to be related to the person driving the money to the bank. The law is clear. If you provide a service that requires licensing, then you must be licensed to do it.

The state does not want untrained, non-licensed people providing such services. AND the background is stricter for guard licensing than CHL.

[Penn]

That opinion quoted above reference the "Occupations" code. Most of the statutes reference "employees". If the citizen did this as a one time favor and was not paid, I don't think the occupations code is relevant. What kind of security company works for free.

The reason we all have CHL's is to provide security. (For ourselves and family - generally) But the situation is thge same. The citizen, escorting the tax man wasn't patrolling and looking for crime like the church volunteers, he was escorting someone with a lot of cash. Legally, I think he was okay. If something happened, there would definitely be civil issues.

[txinvestigator]

That opinion quoted above reference the "Occupations" code. Most of the statutes reference "employees". If the citizen did this as a one time favor and was not paid, I don't think the occupations code is relevant.

The reason we all have CHL's is to provide security. (For ourselves and family - generally) But the situation is thge same. The citizen, escorting the tax man wasn't patrolling and looking for crime like the church volunteers, he was escorting someone with a lot of cash. TO PROTECT THAT PERSON Legally, I think he was okay. If something happened, there would definitely be civil issues.

No, its not OK. It is clear that being paid is not a requirement to be performing a service requiring registration with the Board. One of the services that require registration is to "engage in the business of or undertakes to provide a private watchman, guard, or street patrol service
on a contractual basis for another person to protect an individual from bodily harm".

Contractual means on-going or one time, and does not require the contract to be written.

The decision by the board I posted makes it clear that a written contract or compensation is irrelevant.

If he is riding with the money, he could also be providing the services of an armored car company

Texas Occupations Code
A person acts as an armored car company for the purposes of this chapter
if the person provides secured and protected transportation
of valuables, including money, coins, bullion, securities, bonds, or jewelry

Note there is no requirement for the vehicle to actually be armored.

If a person performs a service that requires licensing, paid or not, then the person IS acting as a company. Doing so without a license is a Class A misdemeanor.

[frankie_the_yankee]

So did I act as a security officer without a proper license and uniform when I followed my wife home that night?

I think not.

No you did not. However, the CHL fellow in question in Friendswood does not appear to be related to the person driving the money to the bank. The law is clear. If you provide a service that requires licensing, then you must be licensed to do it.

But there is nothing in the law that refers to people being related or not. So how is that relevant?

[txinvestigator]

So did I act as a security officer without a proper license and uniform when I followed my wife home that night?

I think not.

No you did not. However, the CHL fellow in question in Friendswood does not appear to be related to the person driving the money to the bank. The law is clear. If you provide a service that requires licensing, then you must be licensed to do it.

But there is nothing in the law that refers to people being related or not. So how is that relevant?

Because it was not the intent of the law to require licensing of people to protect their homes or families. It was intened to require licensing of those who do it for others and specifically and purposefully engage in actions that are regulated.

[Liberty]

The private security companies have good lobbiest . They probably don't like it much when someone does their work for free. Its not all that unusual, you can get in trouble for fixing someones airconditioner for free if you don't have the right license. Its the folks that have the licenses that right typically write the rules.