STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 5969

August 31, 1981

DETECTIVES:

Licensing of police officers as private detectives

POLICE:

Licensing as private detectives

The licensing of active police officers as private detectives does not constitute a conflict of interest because the Legislature has expressly authorized such licensure.

Colonel Gerald L. Hough

Director

Department of State Police

714 South Harrison Road

East Lansing, Michigan 48823

You have requested my opinion on the following two questions:

The Private Detective License Act of 1965, 1965 PA 285; MCLA 338.821 et seq; MSA 18.184(1) et seq, provides for the licensure and regulation of private detectives and investigators.

As originally enacted, 1965 PA 258, supra, Sec. 6(1), enumerated the qualifications for licensure of private detectives, and in pertinent part, provided:

Thus, as originally enacted, experience obtained as a police officer provided the requisite training for qualification as a private detective, but its terms would not have precluded a holding that it is against public policy to license a public police officer as a private detective. In the Matter of William Stanley; 204 Pa, Super 29; 201 A2d 287 (1964).

1978 PA 311 amended 1965 PA 285, Sec. 6(g) supra, to insert new language into 1965 PA 285, Sec. 6(1) supra, underscored below. In pertinent part, it now provides:

By adding the words 'or is any of the following' the Legislature manifested its clear intention to permit a qualified police officer to be licensed as a private detective.

Inasmuch as the Legislature has authorized police officers to be licensed as private detectives, there is no conflict of interest in such licensure.

However, it must be observed that although the Legislature has seen fit to permit qualified police officers to be licensed as private detectives, it does not follow that police departments must permit police officers employed by them who are licensed as private detectives to engage in such occupation while they serve as police officers. Local police departments have the authority to 'regulate the conduct, both on and off duty, of its officers in an effort to preserve the integrity of the department and of its individual officers and the public's confidence in the department. . . .' Sponick v Detroit Police Department, 49 Mich App 162, 178; 211 NW2d 674, (1973). Included in the power to regulate the activities of officers is the authority to limit or prohibit outside employment. Reasonable regulations restricting or eliminating outside employment by police officers have been consistently upheld. 88 ALR2d 1235, 1236-1240. However, it must be observed that if regulation of outside employment may be considered a condition of employment, any rules or policies of a police department may be subject to appropriate collective bargaining. See Central Michigan University Faculty v Central Michigan University; 404 Mich 268; 273 NW2d 21, (1978). In this regard, OAG, 1975-1976, No 4975, p 432 (April 26, 1976), concluded that rules on outside employment are 'terms and conditions of employment' and, hence, are mandatory subjects of collective bargaining.

It is my opinion, therefore, that the licensing of active police officers as private detectives does not constitute a conflict of interest because the Legislature in 1978 PA 311 has expressly authorized such licensure. In view of the potential for abuse inherent in any such dual employment arrangements, it is nevertheless appropriate for a public employer to undertake to regulate outside employment of its police officers in order to preserve the integrity of the police department.

In light of the answer to your first question, it is unnecessary to consider your second question.

Frank J. Kelley