If a NC city contracts with a private hospital to assign uniformed, armed city police officers to provide security at the hospital full time, does the city have to obtain a private security license under Chapter 74C?

Plain-English summary

A municipality contracted to assign six uniformed, armed police officers to a nonprofit hospital for full-time police services. The hospital would pay the municipality, and the officers would enforce applicable law and hospital rules. The North Carolina Private Protective Services Board asked whether the city needed a Chapter 74C private protective services license and whether municipal liability insurance changed the answer. The AG answered no to both questions.

The opinion gives two grounds. G.S. 74C-2 addresses a private person or business engaging in private protective services, while this contract assigned municipal police officers as part of their official duties. G.S. 74C-3(b)(2) also exempted employees of a political subdivision acting within the course and scope of their official employment. The AG said that enforcing hospital rules in addition to law did not turn these officers into private security guards.

The opinion expressly limits itself to the contract described. It notes that the contract made no provision for services during the officers’ off-duty hours, but gives no conclusion about how an off-duty arrangement would be licensed. It also does not decide whether the municipality had authority to make the contract. Municipal liability insurance did not change the licensing answer; the AG said it supported the conclusion that the officers were acting as municipal employees.

Currency note

This opinion applies the Private Protective Services Act as it stood in 1988. Check current Chapter 74C and the terms of a present arrangement before relying on it.

Background and statutory framework

The question concerned a contract for police services, with the officers in uniform and armed and with access to a municipal police vehicle. The AG characterized their work as regular official duties rather than private guard work. The opinion quotes the statutory exemption for a political subdivision employee “engaged in the performance of his official duties within the course and scope of his employment.” Its answer rests on that characterization and the specific contract terms.

Common questions

Does a city need a private protective services license for the contract described here?

The AG said no. The officers were assigned to provide police services as part of their regular official duties, and the opinion applied the political subdivision employee exemption.

Did enforcing hospital rules make the officers private security guards?

No. The AG expressly said that enforcing hospital rules did not change them into security guards under this contract.

Did the opinion decide how off-duty hospital security work is licensed?

No. It observes that this contract had no off-duty service provision and restricts its conclusion to the stated facts.

Did municipal liability insurance change the result?

No. The AG said the insurance did not alter the licensing answer and, if anything, supported the view that the officers were acting within municipal employment.

Source

• Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/municipality-contracting-to-provide-security-at-local-hospital/

Original opinion text

Requested By: James F. Kirk, Administrator, Private Protective Services Board

Questions:

1. Does Chapter 74C of the General Statutes require that a municipality obtain a private protective service license when the municipality provides police services on a contractual basis to a non-profit hospital?

2. Does the fact that the municipality maintains liability insurance on the officers assigned to furnish police services to the hospital change the answer to Question 1?

Conclusions:

1. No.

2. No.

Question 1. A municipality has entered into a contract with a non-profit hospital under which the municipality has agreed to assign six municipal police officers to provide full-time police services to the hospital. The contract provides that the officers shall be in uniform, shall be armed, and shall have access to a municipal police vehicle. The police officers are to be responsible for enforcing all applicable local, State, and federal laws and also the rules and regulations of the hospital. The hospital will pay to the municipality as consideration for the police services provided during the first four years of the contract an aggregate sum in excess of $600,000.

It is our opinion that a municipality is not required under such circumstances to obtain the license provided for in the Private Protective Services Act. The Act applies to a private person, firm, association, or corporation ". . . engaging in a private protective service business or activity in this State . . . ." G.S. § 74C-2. It is clear that the contract calls for the assignment of municipal police officers to the hospital as a part of their official duties and not as private security guards. The fact that the police officers also enforce the rules of the hospital does not change the officers into security guards.

Furthermore, the Act excludes law enforcement officers from its coverage while the officers are on duty. G.S. § 74C-3(b)(2) specifically exempts any employee of a political subdivision of the State from the Act so long as the employee ". . . is engaged in the performance of his official duties within the course and scope of his employment with the . . . political subdivision . . . ." The officers involved here who are assigned to provide law enforcement services at the hospital are performing their official duties within the course and scope of their employment by the municipality and, therefore, are exempt from the Act by its terms.

The scope of this opinion is restricted to the particular facts of this matter previously stated. We emphasize that the opinion is based upon the view that the contractual police services are performed by the officers as their regular official duties as municipal employees. There is no provision in the contract for the services to be furnished to the hospital during the officers' off-duty hours. Further, this opinion does not pass upon the authority of the municipality to contract to provide police services to the hospital.

Question 2. The fact that the police officers assigned to the hospital duty are fully covered under the municipality's liability insurance does not alter or modify the answer to Question 1. To the extent that it has any significance, it supports the conclusion that, when providing police services to the hospital, the officers are employees performing their duties within the course and scope of their employment by the municipality.

LACY H. THORNBURG
Attorney General

Teresa L. White
Associate Attorney General