NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WTVF) — Combining maximum visibility with maximum transparency may seem like conflicting thoughts, but not in the case of a new patch revealed Thursday by the state POST Commission.
The commission that regulates law enforcement in the state approved the new bright orange patch, which has the words “off-duty private duty law enforcement” and “security officer” printed on the front.
The department the officer reports to is printed on the bottom.
Certified law enforcement can now wear their uniforms, a security patch, or one of these patches while moonlighting as security guards.
That way we know if the person wearing anything that says “police” is who they say they are.
“I kind of like the idea where when we’re out in Downtown Nashville, we know who the police are and who is not the police,” said Commissioner Jonathan Beverly.
POST officials provided the following answers to frequently asked questions:
Whose responsibility is it to get the patch and make sure that off-duty officers are using it on their uniforms?
After the patch is approved, any contract security company that is licensed by the Detection Services Licensing Program (TDCI's security guard licensing program) may be subject to discipline by the Program for improperly using or displaying the patch. Once this patch is in circulation, what we should expect is that the only patches that say “police” on security/patrol officers would be the ones that were approved by POST or the ones that are a part of a full-time, POST-certified officer’s agency uniform.
When does the new patch take effect?
Once it is approved, a full-time, sworn, POST-certified officer may wear the patch while working off-duty for a licensed contract security company, pursuant to TCA 62-35-141.
Who will regulate the use of the patch?
The Detection Services Licensing Program will have authority over the patch’s use while being worn or displayed for security or patrol services by individuals performing services for contract security companies.
What will happen if an off-duty officer is found to not be wearing this patch when he or she should?
This would depend on the circumstances. However, TCA 62-35-141 does not require the patch to be worn by all off-duty officers. For example, an off-duty officer could still wear a patch that says “security.” This patch is an exception to the prohibitions in TCA 62-35-127 prohibiting the use or display of a patch that contains the word “police” or its equivalent. A full-time sworn, POST-certified officer could also wear his or her agency uniform instead of the patch, if it is done in compliance with TCA 62-35-141.
In summary, nothing prohibits an off-duty police officer from saying they are “Security” or an “Armed Guard” for example, but the law is clear that no person shall wear a patch or badge that contains the words “police” outside of the allowances in TCA 62-35-141, which includes the POST patch.
Commissioner Chief Deborah Faulkner shared her own story of seeing someone in casual clothing simply throw on a traffic vest that read traffic officer.
“I know he wasn’t a traffic officer,” Faulkner said.
She acknowledged the need for a uniform patch but also agreed that they should consider making this policy part of the yearly training required of certified officers.
“I want to make sure they don’t put something on that says “police” like a hard vest, that would cover up that patch,” said Faulkner.
Over the years, security guards with companies like Solaren Risk Management, have been accused of wearing “police” patches without being certified cops.
Solaren CEO, Jack Bryd, was also seen wearing “police” patches having never been certified by the state. He’s now expected to testify in a court hearing on Wednesday, March 26, between Solaren and the POST Commission.
POST officials have since reported that of the 50 employees wearing police attire for Byrd’s company, only five were presently working as full-time certified law enforcement officers.
Last fall, the Davidson County Sheriff’s office suspended fourdeputies who also worked for Byrd after discovering that they also wore police patches, without having any police powers.
Byrd has denied any wrongdoing and stands by his assertion that state law leaves enough gray area for his officers to wear police patches as long as they’re commissioned members of a law enforcement agency.
Byrd says he agrees with the idea of a uniform law enforcement patch for private security, if it meant better regulation of their security industry.
The state’s Detection Services Licensing Program would regulate the wearing of the new patch and make sure the right people have the patch.
If security companies don’t comply, they could face a fine or suspension.
Still others like Commissioner Sheriff Chad Partin were adamant that, the punishment should fit what he believes is a crime.
“It would be impersonating an officer and a district attorney general should be prosecuting these people downtown and locking them up in the Davidson County Jail is where they should be. Especially some of those I’ve seen that admitted they were convicted felons working for a certain company carrying a gun, guarding the good tourists and citizens of Tennessee in Downtown Nashville,” Partin said.
Rep. Yusuf Hakeem of Chattanooga says it’s one of the bigger problems he hoped to address not just in Tennessee, but nationwide.
Hakeem drafted a bill that was voted down this year by lawmakers without any comment, but it would have taken this current patch policy and applied it statewide.
Right now, the policy would only apply to “LEOs employed outside their current jurisdiction for jurisdictions with certain populations.”
Without consistency across the state, Hakeem says people won’t know who to trust.
“Implications are that a person who is not in law enforcement can attempt to take actions that are reserved for law enforcement officers,” Hakeem said.
The bill may be off the table, but the patch is here to stay.
A rather straightforward yet, transparent symbol leaving little doubt over who you can turn to for help.
