WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HF 4066

Functions performed by protective agent license holders and their employees classified, minimum preservice established, and training requirements for protective agents and their employees based on the functions performed by the person continued.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Pete Johnson

Minnesota bill classifying security agent functions and establishing tiered preservice and ongoing training requirements based on job duties performed.

Introduction and first reading, referred to Public Safety Finance and Policy
#occupationsandprofessions #publicsafetydepartment
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HF 4066

Legislative bill overview

HF 4066 establishes a classification system for functions performed by protective agents (security personnel) and their employees in Minnesota, setting minimum preservice training requirements and ongoing training standards based on specific job functions. The bill creates differentiated regulatory standards rather than applying uniform requirements across all security roles. It continues an existing framework while refining how training obligations are tied to actual duties performed.

Why is this important

Security personnel operate in positions of public trust with authority to access properties, handle sensitive information, and sometimes carry weapons. Clear classification and training standards ensure workers have competency appropriate to their responsibilities, while inconsistent or excessive requirements could burden smaller security firms. This directly affects both public safety and the viability of Minnesota's security industry.

Potential points of contention

  • Defining "functions": Disagreement over which specific duties warrant which training levels—too narrow definitions may create loopholes while overly broad ones could increase compliance costs
  • Preservice vs. ongoing training balance: Questions about whether minimum preservice hours are sufficient or if more emphasis should be on continuing education, and how this compares to other states
  • Enforcement and compliance mechanisms: Unclear how violations will be monitored and what penalties exist, which affects whether standards will be meaningfully upheld
  • Cost implications: Training requirements increase business expenses; ambiguity about who bears costs (employers, employees, licensing fees) and impact on market competition

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.