Can a private vendor manage Mississippi sheriff's deputies' off-duty security work and charge clients an additional fee for profit?

Plain-English summary

Section 17-25-11 lets certified law enforcement officers in Mississippi wear their uniforms, carry their official firearms, and drive their official vehicles while doing private security work in their off-duty hours, with their employing agency's approval. The Lee County sheriff was approached by a third-party vendor that wanted to act as an intermediary: the vendor would line up clients, manage the off-duty security detail, charge the client an additional fee, and pay the deputy out of the proceeds. The sheriff asked whether the vendor model was lawful.

The AG said yes, with conditions. Section 17-25-11 does not prohibit a third-party vendor from facilitating off-duty security and charging an additional profit-margin fee. The statute regulates the conditions under which the deputy can use the official uniform, weapon, and vehicle in private security work; it does not regulate the business model of the private security broker or staffing company.

The conditions Section 17-25-11 imposes still apply: the sheriff must approve the deputy's use of the official uniform, weapon, and vehicle "on an employee-by-employee basis and not by general order"; the sheriff must determine before approval that "the proposed employment is not likely to bring disrepute" to the agency, the officer, or law enforcement generally, and that the use of the official uniform, weapon, and vehicle "promotes the public interest"; the application and approval proceedings, including minutes, are public records; and the statute's liability, indemnity, notice, and jurisdiction requirements (subsections (3)–(5)) apply.

What this means for you

For sheriffs

The opinion holds the vendor model is not prohibited by Section 17-25-11. It does not change the sheriff's statutory role: approval of a deputy's use of the official uniform, weapon, and vehicle must be on an employee-by-employee basis and not by general order, and the sheriff must determine before approval that the proposed employment is not likely to bring disrepute and that the use of official equipment promotes the public interest.

For deputies and other certified law enforcement officers

The opinion holds that a certified officer may perform off-duty security through a third-party vendor using the official uniform, weapon, and vehicle, but only with the sheriff's individual approval and the required public-interest and no-disrepute findings. It holds the vendor's profit fee is not prohibited by the statute.

For private security vendors building an off-duty staffing model in Mississippi

The opinion holds Section 17-25-11 does not prohibit a third-party vendor from facilitating and managing off-duty security details and charging the client an additional fee for profit, so long as the statute's requirements are met. It notes the statute regulates the officer's use of agency property (approval, public-interest finding, and the liability, indemnity, notice, and jurisdiction provisions in subsections (3)–(5)), not the vendor's business model, and that application and approval proceedings are public records.

For private clients hiring off-duty security

The opinion holds the vendor's profit fee is permissible under Section 17-25-11. It conditions the lawfulness of the deputy's use of the official uniform, weapon, and vehicle on the sheriff's case-by-case approval and the required public-interest and no-disrepute findings.

Common questions

What does Section 17-25-11 actually allow?

It lets certified law enforcement officers (or certified part-time officers) employed by a county, municipality, or the Department of Public Safety wear the official uniform, carry the official firearm, and use the official vehicle while performing private security services in off-duty hours. It is the source of the "uniformed deputy moonlighting" practice you see at concerts, sporting events, and similar private events.

Does the sheriff have to approve each engagement?

The sheriff has to approve the deputy's use of the official uniform, weapon, and vehicle on an employee-by-employee basis. The approval is not a one-time blanket approval covering all future engagements; it is a person-by-person approval. The sheriff must find that the use of official equipment in the proposed private security work promotes the public interest and is not likely to bring disrepute.

Can the sheriff approve by a general order covering all deputies?

No. The statute is explicit: "Approval shall be on an employee-by-employee basis and not by general order."

Are the approval proceedings public?

Yes. "Any proceedings regarding application or approval and the minutes regarding same shall be a public record."

Can a third-party vendor charge a profit fee on top of the deputy's pay?

Yes. Section 17-25-11 does not prohibit a third-party intermediary from charging the client a fee that includes a profit margin. The statute regulates the deputy's use of agency property; it does not regulate the broker's business model.

Does the sheriff have to approve the vendor itself?

The statute requires approval of the deputy's use of agency property, not approval of the vendor. As a practical matter, the sheriff's approval may consider the conditions of the proposed engagement, including who is managing it and on what terms, since those facts feed the public-interest and no-disrepute findings. But the formal approval is for the deputy's use of the uniform, weapon, and vehicle.

What other Section 17-25-11 requirements should everyone be aware of?

Subsections (3)–(5) cover liability, indemnity, notice, and jurisdiction. The opinion does not unpack those provisions in detail, but they apply alongside the approval and public-interest requirements.

Background and statutory framework

Section 17-25-11(1) authorizes certified law enforcement officers to wear official uniforms and use official firearms and vehicles in off-duty private security work, with employing-agency approval. Approval is required on an employee-by-employee basis from the sheriff (for deputies), the governing authority and chief executive (for municipal officers), or the Commissioner of Public Safety (for DPS officers). Application and approval proceedings are public.

Section 17-25-11(2) imposes the substantive findings: the proposed employment must not bring disrepute to the employing jurisdiction, the agency, the officer, or law enforcement generally; and the use of official uniform, weapon, and vehicle in the discharge of the officer's private security work must promote the public interest.

Section 17-25-11(3)–(5) address liability, indemnity, notice, and jurisdiction.

Section 45-6-3 defines "certified law enforcement officer" and "certified part-time law enforcement officer" for purposes of Section 17-25-11(1).

Citations

• Miss. Code Ann. § 17-25-11
• Miss. Code Ann. § 45-6-3

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/divisions/opinions-and-policy/recent-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/J.-Johnson-November-25-2024-Third-Party-Vendor-for-Off-Duty-Security.pdf

Original opinion text

November 25, 2024
Sheriff Jim H. Johnson
Lee County, Mississippi
510 N Commerce Street
Tupelo, Mississippi 38804
Re:

Third-Party Vendor for Off-Duty Security

Dear Sheriff Johnson:
The Office of the Attorney General has received your request for an official opinion.
Background
According to your request, you have been approached by a third-party vendor asking to facilitate
and manage your off-duty security performed pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 17-25-11, which allows deputies to utilize their official uniforms, firearms, and vehicles "while in the
performance of private security services in off-duty hours." The vendor would charge an additional
fee to the private organization ("client") that is requesting the off-duty security. The vendor would
then pay the off-duty deputy. The vendor would thus make a profit.
Question Presented
Under Section 17-25-11, may a third-party vendor facilitate off-duty security detail, with Lee
County Sheriff's deputies utilizing their official uniforms, firearms, and vehicles, and charge an
additional fee — to the client requesting the security — for profit?
Brief Response
Nothing within Section 17-25-11 prohibits a third-party vendor from facilitating and managing
those law enforcement officers from the Sheriff's office who are serving as off-duty security and
then charging the client using such services an additional fee for profit.
Applicable Law and Discussion
Section 17-25-11 provides in part,

(1) Certified law enforcement officers or certified part-time law enforcement
officers, as defined in Section 45-6-3, who are employed by a county, municipality
or the Department of Public Safety may wear the official uniform and may utilize
the official firearm and the official vehicle issued by the employing jurisdiction
while in the performance of private security services in off-duty hours. The
governing authority of a municipality must approve of such use of the uniform,
official weapon and vehicle by municipal law enforcement officers by act spread
upon the minutes of such board and approved by the chief executive. The sheriff of
a county must approve such use of the uniform, official weapon and vehicle by
deputy sheriffs. The Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety must
approve such use of the uniform, official weapon and vehicle by officers of the
department. Approval shall be on an employee-by-employee basis and not by
general order. Any proceedings regarding application or approval and the minutes
regarding same shall be a public record.
(2) Each governing board and chief executive, sheriff or the Commissioner of the
Department of Public Safety shall determine before the use of the official uniform,
weapon and vehicle is approved that the proposed employment is not likely to bring
disrepute to the employing jurisdiction or its law enforcement agency, the officer
at issue, or law enforcement generally, and that the use of the official uniform,
weapon and vehicle in the discharge of the officer's private security endeavor
promotes the public interest.
The statute then goes on to set forth requirements regarding liability, indemnity, notice, and
jurisdiction. See Miss. Code Ann. § 17-25-11(3)-(5). Nothing within Section 17-25-11 prohibits a
third-party vendor from facilitating off-duty security detail and charging an additional fee for
profit. Accordingly, it is the opinion of this office that such action is allowed so long as the
requirements set forth in Section 17-25-11 are met, including but not limited to, the factual
determination that "the official uniform, weapon and vehicle in the discharge of the officer's
private security endeavor promotes the public interest," which must be made "on an employee-by-employee basis and not by general order." (emphasis added).
If this office may be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
LYNN FITCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL
By:

/s/ Maggie Kate Bobo
Maggie Kate Bobo
Special Assistant Attorney General