Around the country, many police officers often supplement their income by performing off-duty security work.  Sometimes the work is informal, only requiring their presence, other times, officers wear their police uniforms to provide a more official appearance during their private security work.  The concept of whether an officer is performing duties in connection with his regular employment was discussed in the Minnesota Supreme Court’s recent decision in Reetz v. City of St. Paul.

Officer Eric Reetz of the St. Paul Police Department was working such a security detail at the Dorothy Day Center in downtown St. Paul.  Under Department policy, the officer was required to wear his uniform during off-duty work, and have the work approved by the department.  In addition, he was allowed to use his patrol car with prior approval.  However, Officer Reetz signed an agreement with his off-duty employer stating he was an independent contractor whose duties consisted of assisting staff in examining clients’ bags that were brought into the shelter.

One day, while Officer Reetz was working his security job, a man smuggled in a knife and stabbed a client of the Dorothy Day Center.  The victim sued both the shelter as well as Officer Reetz for negligence.

After being notified of the suit, Officer Reetz requested to be defended and indemnified by the City of St. Paul under Minn. Stat. §466.07, which requires cities to defend and indemnify its employees who were acting in the performance of their duties.  The City refused, stating the officer was not acting the performance of his duties as a police officer at the time of the victim’s complaints.

Reetz petitioned the Minnesota court of appeals for a writ of certiorari, and the court held that the City’s decision was erroneous, and that Officer Reetz was acting in a dual capacity as a police officer during and a private security guard on the day of the stabbing.  The court noted that Reetz was “keeping the peace while in uniform.”  The decision was appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

After finding the court of appeals had jurisdiction to rule on the City’s decision, which could only be overturned if it was “arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.”  In its analysis of the statute, the Court looked at the dual capacity doctrine to determine whether the officer was acting in the performance of the duties of the position.

The Court determined that an off-duty officer “must be performing some duty under their law enforcement authority, such as exercising the arrest power or conducting a search incident to an arrest.”  Absent a specific act unique to the authority of a police officer, an off-duty officer operates as a private individual.  The Court found that a private security guard is similarly tasked with preventing and detecting crime, which Reetz was supposed to be doing while working for a private employer.  As such, the officer was not eligible for indemnification.

This should serve as a breath of fresh air for employers of law enforcement officers.  The Court provided a clear standard for employers who allow their peace officers to work off-duty for private employers.  Employers should study this decision and apply its holding to the letter when making determinations as to whether they should indemnify their officers.  If you, or your organization, need assistance in making such a determination, contact the Wiley Law Office for legal advice that works.