A young man walked into an Ogden gun store one day in February to purchase the firearm he needed to work as an armed security guard.
He didn’t pass the required background check, which revealed the 23-year-old was a restricted person who wasn’t legally allowed to have a gun.
Yet the next month, the Eagle Mountain man applied for and received a license from the state to become an armed security guard, and started work with a gun he got elsewhere.
And in June, he showed up for an interview with Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training with a gun strapped to his hip — then was charged with wrongfully possessing a firearm.
He had slipped through a loophole in the state Department of Professional Licensing’s background check process because the agency is prevented by state law from seeing juvenile court cases, it told The Salt Lake Tribune.
A Tribune analysis of four years of DOPL disciplinary records shows he is the only known restricted person recently given a license to work as an armed security guard; his ability to work in that role was suspended in June. But in a handful of other cases, people remained licensed to work with a gun for months after convictions for criminal behavior and other disqualifying events.
Those cases and interviews with security experts highlight challenges in the security industry, where there’s more demand than qualified people willing to take on the risky and relatively low-paying profession, said Tom Conley, spokesman for the International Foundation for Protection Officers.
There were 1.1 million security officers nationwide in May 2018, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, with a median annual wage of just over $32,000. The country’s 661,330 law enforcement officers made an average $65,400 a year.
DOPL has discussed the issue of juvenile court records with the Department of Public Safety and the Security Services Licensing Board, spokeswoman Jennifer Bolton said in an email.
“Unsealing juvenile records for consideration by a licensing agency is a sensitive public policy matter with legal implications that should be discussed by a legislative committee before a change is recommended by a state agency,” Bolton said.
Delayed reactions
The Tribune analysis showed other gaps can open as DOPL oversees licensed armed security guards. When guards become ineligible to legally have a firearm, months can pass before the division moves to limit their ability to work with a gun.
• A licensed armed security guard was charged with felony counts of unlawful possession of a credit card in November 2014, and misdemeanor counts of interfering with an arresting officer and impersonating an officer. He was convicted on felonies in September 2015 and became a restricted person. DOPL allowed him to remain licensed until December.
• In 2016, a licensed armed security guard and private probation officer allegedly impersonated an officer, held a driver at gunpoint and handcuffed him. After his April arrest, a judge freed him to await trial on the condition he not have guns or badges related to law enforcement. In August, DOPL ordered him to surrender his private probation officer license following an emergency order regarding inappropriate behavior with clients. But he remained a licensed armed security guard until Dec. 1, 2016. He later pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated assault, a third-degree felony.
• The wife of a licensed armed security guard successfully sought a protective order against him in June 2015 — which made him a restricted person, under federal law. He was charged that month with a misdemeanor count of electronic communication harassment and pleaded guilty in July. DOPL didn’t file disciplinary action against him until November 2016, when his license was revoked for the misdemeanor conviction and conditions were set for him to get it back. DOPL’s action did not mention the protective order that had disqualified him from having a gun months earlier.
• In May 2017, a licensed armed security guard became a federally restricted person when a protective order was entered against him, with a judge specifically saying his “use or possession of a weapon poses a serious threat of harm to the Petitioner,” according to DOPL disciplinary records. Yet DOPL didn’t take action against his license until October 2017.
That was seven months after Utah changed its definition of restricted persons to include individuals who are the subject of protective orders, fixing an issue lawmakers pointed to at the time: that local prosecutors and law enforcement generally did not enforce federal laws, including federal restricted status.
• An armed security guard was charged in May 2018 with felony counts of impersonating his dead brother in order to get his brother’s retirement funds. Three months later, his defense attorney said he wasn’t competent to stand trial because of a stroke. Although mentally incompetent Utahns are considered restricted persons, he kept his license for three more months before DOPL issued an emergency order to immediately suspend it. DOPL said: “It is simply not safe to have an individual who is alleging that he is not competent to proceed in a criminal trial to be licensed as both an armed and unarmed private security officer.”
• In an emergency order in December 2018, DOPL said an armed security guard had shown a pattern of “rash and violent” behavior since 2017, starting with an incident of domestic violence. He eventually made racist death threats against two Hispanic men and lied about being a corrections officer in September 2018, DOPL alleged, and was charged that month. But he had kept his license until the December order.
Bolton declined to discuss the cases, saying it would be “impossible” to address them because the division treats each case individually.
Licensees are required to alert DOPL if they are charged with a crime or named in any court process that would restrict firearm use. And DOPL takes action when it learns of active protective orders, Bolton said.
She added there are “many actions and steps taken behind the scenes by DOPL investigators and staff that cannot be made public during the case review process.”
Now, investigators frequently require accused licensees to sign a limitation agreement, which means they can’t work as an armed security guard until allegations against them are resolved, she said. If they are caught working, they will likely be charged criminally, Bolton said.
Such agreements weren’t used in any of these cases because it’s a new option, she said. Previously, DOPL could hold an emergency hearing to limit a guard’s work before charges were resolved.
DOPL’s “Verify a License” feature and its “Has My Professional Been Disciplined” tool allow employers and the public to learn whether a person has been disciplined or whether their license has been limited, she noted.
Investigators are “complaint-driven,” Bolton added, meaning they respond primarily to incidents or alleged violations only when someone makes a report to them.
Conley, who runs the Iowa-based security company The Conley Group, said state agencies are understaffed for the “tremendous load of licenses” they oversee. Their policies must balance the presumption of innocence with concerns raised by the role of an armed security guard, he added.
“So the question is, people who have that higher level of accountability and responsibility, whether it’s an EMT, a paramedic or a firefighter or a security officer, should there be a different set of rules that apply if you have a responsibility to protect others?
“Should you be able to work in between arrest and adjudication?” Conley asked. “And in some cases, I don’t think people should.”
‘Everything matched up’
When the Eagle Mountain man interviewed for an armed security guard job at All Pro Security in Provo earlier this year, he “looked sharp,” company CEO Bob Conner said. “He had a valid license through the state, everything matched up with what he was saying.”
But his attitude and behavior raised red flags during on-the-job training, Conner said, and he fired him.
When the man later applied to work at the now-closed Metro Security, Inc., assistant general manager Aaron Person looked at his military discharge records and contacted one of his past employers — CBI Security, which didn’t respond.
That happens sometimes, Person said, and ultimately Metro Security hired the man. But Person said he “questioned parts of his attitude and his seriousness” during training, and limited where he could work. He was on the job for about 17 days before he was suspended; within weeks, he was fired, Person said.
Conner and Person said their companies, and all the others in Utah, have to rely on DOPL’s judgment when the agency gives someone a license.
Person left Metro Security, Inc. with other employees after allegations arose against one of its partners, he said. They started Metro Security AIM, which requires most employees to undergo an additional round of state-certified armed and unarmed training. That allows Person, who teaches the classes, to further evaluate candidates.
“I want to spend time with them because, again, a lot of people can look great on paper and across from you for a short period of time,” Person said, “but eventually their character will start to show through.”
The Eagle Mountain man was in training to become a law enforcement officer when he arrived for a May interview with Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training. An officer told him “it was interesting” that he’d arrived with a firearm, since the man knew he wasn’t allowed to have one, according to a search warrant. He reportedly replied that he “worked with one every day.”
He was charged in June in 2nd District Court with wrongfully possessing a firearm, in connection with his attempt to purchase a gun. He was charged with the same offense in 4th District Court after police searched his home and found a handgun, ammunition, sets of body armor and other “firearm related items,” according to a probable cause statement. The cases are pending.
Conner said a database that logged a security guard’s discipline would be helpful to employers. Person and Brad Smith, general manager at Metro Security AIM, said a database of just a guard’s past employment would be useful. “That would be another red flag [for a candidate]; why has this person been to 30 companies?” Smith said.
Bolton said such a database was an “interesting idea that may justify consideration by the Legislature.” But she added that it’s still up to security companies to properly vet their applicants.
