Municipality Contracting to Provide Security at Local Hospital

Subject:

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

Questions: 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?

 

1.  
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: No.

 

1.  
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’ offduty 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