As the President of ELPS Private Detective Agency, Executive Director of Intellenet, and Past President and Chairman of the Board of the Pennsylvania Association of Licensed Investigators (PALI), I have observed alarming gaps in the enforcement of laws governing private investigators and security professionals in Pennsylvania. These gaps not only create risks for clients and citizens but also place an undue burden on county systems that are ill-equipped to manage them. Furthermore, the lack of a centralized licensing system contributes to inconsistencies in how security and investigative services are regulated across the 67 Commonwealth counties.
A Flawed Regulatory Structure
One of the most concerning aspects of Pennsylvania’s regulatory structure is that private investigators and security professionals are the only professions requiring a license that are not overseen by the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs (BPOA). Instead, licensure is handled at the county level. This contrasts with other licensed professions—such as doctors, lawyers, or accountants, where the licensing process is centralized and standardized through the Bureau.
In my discussions when Robert M. “Tommy” Tomlinson was still in office as a Senator, whose office oversaw the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs (BPOA), it was conveyed that the governor at the time was reluctant to expand the list of professions under state oversight. This hesitation has left private investigators without the centralized regulation that 29 other professions in Pennsylvania benefit from. Â We are governed by the Private Detective Act of 1953 (A little outdated to say the least!)
These professions include:
- Accountancy
- Architects
- Auctioneer Examiners
- Barber Examiners
- Certified Real Estate Appraisers
- Chiropractic
- Cosmetology
- Crane Operators
- Dentistry
- Engineers, Land Surveyors, Geologists
- Funeral Directors
- Landscape Architects
- Massage Therapy
- Medicine
- Navigation Commission
- Nursing
- Nursing Home Administrators
- Occupational Therapy
- Optometry
- Osteopathic Medicine
- Pharmacy
- Physical Therapy
- Podiatry
- Psychology
- Real Estate Commission
- Social Workers, Marriage & Family Therapists, Professional Counselors
- Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology
- Vehicle Manufacturers, Dealers & Salespersons
- Veterinary Medicine
During my tenure as President of the Pennsylvania Association of Licensed Investigators (PALI), I was scheduled to testify on this pressing issue. Unfortunately, the session concluded for the year before the testimony could proceed, and since then, there has been a disheartening lack of progress.
This stagnation is indeed a tragedy, and the people of Pennsylvania should be outraged. The absence of centralized regulation not only undermines our profession but also poses risks to the public we serve.
This decentralized approach creates numerous problems. Licensing responsibilities fall under the jurisdiction of the county’s Clerk of Courts and District Attorney’s (DA) office, neither of which has the time or resources to properly manage these duties. The result is a system where the same standards are not applied uniformly across the Commonwealth, leading to disparities in how the law is enforced. This inconsistency leaves room for unlicensed operators to exploit loopholes, allowing them to perform security work without the proper credentials or oversight.
The Crisis in Philadelphia
Nowhere is this problem more pronounced than in Philadelphia, where the prevalence of unlicensed and uninsured security guards and companies has reached critical levels. The city has become a hotspot for illegal security operations, with countless unregulated operators providing services without proper credentials. This not only endangers public safety but also puts businesses at severe legal and financial risk. Unlicensed security personnel often lack the necessary training, insurance coverage, and background checks, leading to incidents that could have been prevented with proper oversight.
In Philadelphia, the regulation of security personnel, including bouncers, is a significant concern due to incidents involving unlicensed or improperly trained individuals. The city mandates those bouncers—defined as individuals regularly performing duties related to security or maintaining order in establishments like bars, clubs, and restaurants—complete 16 hours of training from an approved provider and register with the Managing Director’s Office. This certification must be renewed every two years with an additional eight-hour refresher course (PHILA.GOV).
Despite these regulations, enforcement challenges persist. A 2024 investigation highlighted that Pennsylvania lacks a statewide licensing board for security guards, resulting in inconsistent oversight. Unarmed guards are not required to have any certification or training, and armed guards need only 40 hours of training. This regulatory gap has led to incidents where unlicensed or inadequately trained security personnel have been involved in violent confrontations (INQUIRER.COM).
For instance, in April 2024, a confrontation at a Philadelphia gas station resulted in a shootout between a security guard and an individual, leading to the individual’s death and the guard’s injury. The security guard was employed by a private company and was licensed to carry a firearm (6ABC.COM).
These incidents underscore the importance of proper training and certification for security personnel. Employers are urged to ensure that their security staff are appropriately trained and registered in compliance with local regulations to prevent such occurrences.
Businesses unknowingly hiring these unlicensed operators expose themselves to liability in the event of an incident. If an unlicensed guard is involved in an altercation, accident, or misuse of force, the business can face lawsuits, insurance claim denials, and reputational damage. Moreover, many of these operators do not carry workers’ compensation or general liability insurance, leaving both the guards and the public vulnerable.
Burden on County Clerks and District Attorneys
The county-based system for issuing licenses places an unnecessary administrative burden on local officials, particularly the Clerk of Courts and DA’s offices. These entities are already overburdened with criminal cases, civil disputes, and other court functions. Adding the responsibility of licensing private investigators and security professionals only diverts resources from more critical functions.
Moreover, the decentralized system leaves room for changes in interpretation when new clerks or county investigators take office. The transition between elected officials often leads to inconsistencies in how the Private Detective Act of 1953 is enforced, creating confusion among professionals and allowing unqualified individuals to slip through the cracks.
Liability Risks for Clients and the Public
The lack of proper licensing oversight also presents significant risks for businesses, clients, and the public. When security services are performed by unlicensed or underinsured individuals, there are serious legal and financial consequences. Many of these operators lack the necessary insurance coverage—such as general liability or workers’ compensation—leaving clients vulnerable to legal action if something goes wrong.
Additionally, many unlicensed operators performing armed security work fail to meet the requirements of Act 235, which is necessary to legally carry a firearm in Pennsylvania. Even when operators hold an Act 235 certification, they are still required to be licensed under the Private Detective Act of 1953 or work for a licensed agency. Hiring an unlicensed operator with only Act 235 certification is illegal and exposes clients to significant liability.
Further complicating the issue, many of these operators pay employees under the table, violating IRS regulations and engaging in tax fraud. This illegal practice not only harms legitimate businesses but also exposes workers to financial risk, as they may not be properly covered in the event of injury or legal action.
Inconsistencies Across Pennsylvania’s 67 Counties
The most alarming aspect of Pennsylvania’s current system is the inconsistency in how the Private Detective Act is interpreted across the state’s 67 counties. While some counties may rigorously enforce the law, others may lack the resources or expertise to properly vet applicants. As a result, individuals who would not meet the standards in one county may easily obtain a license in another, leading to a patchwork of enforcement that undermines the integrity of the profession.
The Need for Centralized Licensing
To protect clients and the public, Pennsylvania must centralize the licensing of private investigators and security professionals under the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs. A centralized system would ensure that all professionals meet the same rigorous criteria for background checks, insurance, and training. This would also alleviate the burden on local county offices and ensure that a uniform standard of enforcement is applied statewide.
Centralizing the process would eliminate the inconsistencies that currently allow unlicensed, underinsured, and unqualified individuals to operate unchecked in certain counties, especially in Philadelphia. With a centralized system, Pennsylvania can ensure that the security and investigative professions maintain the highest standards of professionalism, accountability, and public safety.
Illegal Use of PA Constables as Armed Security
In Pennsylvania, the misuse of state constables as armed security personnel has raised significant legal and ethical concerns. Despite their certification under Act 235 to carry firearms, constables are not licensed to perform security work under the Private Detective Act of 1953. Engaging in such activities without the appropriate license constitutes a violation of the law, exposing clients to substantial legal liabilities and safety risks.
A notable case highlighting this issue occurred in August 2019, when two state constables, Michael Robel and Kareem Johnson, were arrested for illegally using their elected positions to work as private security contractors on the Mariner East Pipeline project in Chester County. Both were charged with official oppression, Ethics Act violations, and bribery. Robel, a constable in Northumberland County, and Johnson, serving in Chester County, were found to have used their official authority for personal profit, undermining the integrity of law enforcement and government.
Clients who unknowingly hire constables for unlicensed security work are left vulnerable, as these constables typically lack the necessary general liability and workers’ compensation insurance required for such roles. No insurance company would defend unlicensed work, effectively leaving both clients and the public unprotected in the event of incidents. The employment of constables in these roles undermines licensed security professionals and poses a direct threat to the integrity of regulated security services in Pennsylvania.
Encouraging Pennsylvania to Learn from Other States
In addition to centralizing the licensing process, I would strongly encourage Pennsylvania state officials to join the International Association of Security and Investigative Regulators (IASIR). This organization provides a platform for regulators to share best practices, ensuring that state licensing systems are robust and effective. By joining IASIR, Pennsylvania can learn from other states that have already implemented successful centralized licensing models, ensuring that our system is consistent, fair, and effective.
Conclusion
The current county-based system for licensing private investigators and security professionals in Pennsylvania is deeply flawed. It places an undue burden on local officials, creates inconsistencies in enforcement, and exposes clients to significant risks. Without centralized oversight, unlicensed and uninsured operators will continue to slip through the cracks, putting the public at risk and damaging the integrity of the profession.
It is time for Pennsylvania to reform its licensing system. By centralizing this important function under the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs and learning from the experiences of other states through the International Association of Security and Investigative Regulators, we can create a safer, more accountable, and more professional security industry in the Commonwealth.
Jeffrey Stein President, ELPS Private Detective Agency; Executive Director, Intellenet; Past President and Chairman of the Board, Pennsylvania Association of Licensed Investigators (PALI)
For the latest news on everything happening in Chester County and the surrounding area, be sure to follow MyChesCo on Google News and MSN.