1939 The statute pertaining to private officers in Kansas City contained language for authority to regulate and license private detectives. This statute can be traced, substantially unchanged, to the Charter of the City of St. Louis as it existed at the time the Missouri state constitution was adopted.
1986 U.S. Department of Labor, Standard Industrial Classification lists two categories for private security: Private Detectives and Armored Courier.
Spring 1993 Missouri Legislature amends the statute pertaining to regulation of Private Officers in Kansas City. The title drops the language including Private Detectives.
November 1993 New title 17 Administrative Rules which pertain to Private Officers in Kansas City were adopted. No public hearing was held. The publication adopting the rules indicates that the board has chosen to ignore negative comments pertaining to the introduction of physical standards for armed licensees, the impact of new rules on persons previously licensed, the failure to provide an equitable reciprocity of licensing outside Kansas City, and the failure to regulate police officers performing security services off-duty in Kansas City. The definitions of private officers do not meet the standard industrial classifications, are overlapping, and do not include the full range of security services provided by the industry. The language also includes ‘authorization' which conflicts with or exceeds the authority granted in existing state statutes that control state agencies generally and the board specifically.
1995 Publication of proposed rule on testing of private officers. No final publication occurred that year or the next.
1996 The Ad Hoc Advisory Council is formed; the authority, basis or intent of formation is not known. Many existing professional organizations are not included; licensees are not notified of the action. The Council seems to have included and to have been oriented on corporate security.
November 1996 KCMo Board of Police Commissioners adopts a licensing fee increase. There is no public notice of the intent to do so, no notification of a public hearing, and no notification to current licensees.
December 1996 The KCMo fee increase is announced to the licensees by letter from the Private Officer Licensing Section. It is effective in early 1997. Here is the fee structure imposed by the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners without notice to begin in February 1997 (for a license only good in Kansas City, MO):
December 1996 KAPI members report the problem and ask why they weren't informed. Research into the legal requirements indicates that the agency had an obligation to adopt a fee increase by a specific legal procedure which includes a requirement for publication to provide public notice and opportunity to comment.
27 January 1997 KAPI Attorney writes letter of inquiry to the KCMOPD Private Officer Licensing Section, raising the legal issue.
5 February 1997 KAPI Attorney receives a letter of reply from Dale Close, KCMO Police Advisor asserting the opinion that the agency is not required to comply with the state law that pertains to adopting regulations (which would include the adoption of licensing fees).
11 February 1997 KAPI Attorney writes letter to Missouri Attorney General asking for a legal opinion on the action by the state agency.
3 March 1997 The Missouri Attorney General responds by letter giving no opinion of the basis that it does not intervene in "local government matters".
26 March 1997 KAPI representatives appear at the scheduled meeting of the Board of Police Commissioners as previously scheduled in advance. After waiting over four hours, KAPI begins its presentation. Written copies of the material is provided in chart form. The KAPI presentation being delivered was interrupted by Commissioner Simon. He asserted that the association has not adequately looked into the matter and challenged them to sue if they don't like it. When the KAPI representative attempted to complete the presentation, Commissioner Simon interrupted the continuation, complaining that the speaker had interrupted him (The KAPI representative had the floor, not Commissioner Simon). Commissioner Daniels then asked for a letter to further explain the situation indicating that it was not clear. The KAPI representative states that he will provide one. He concludes by commenting that all he is hearing from the Board is, "if you don't like it, the courthouse is across the street." The written material pointed out four problem areas: fee increase adopted improperly, fee increase is excessive, the dual requirement for occupational license and private officer license is improper, and the regulation is being applied inequitably allowing KCMo police officers to work without a license.
26 March 1997 A Missouri Senator requests a legal interpretation concerning part of these issues and their application to pending legislation. The reply received from the Missouri Attorney General stated that the fees were adopted properly. A review of the opinion form shows that the opinion came from the KCMo Police Advisor; the same agency/person whose procedure was being questioned.
27 March 1997 KAPI provides a letter of explanation to each individual commissioner and the Attorney for the Board by mail. No reply is ever received to this letter.
A KAPI representative contacts the administrative offices of the Board of Police Commissioners to request review of the transcript of the meeting in which the fees were adopted. He is advised that transcripts are only available for review by purchase at a price of $400.00 each.
31 March 1997 Law firm of King, Hershey, Coleman, Koch & Stone is retained by KAPI to review the situation and accomplish a limited legal objective.
15 May 1997 KCMO Board of Police Commissioners republishes the 1995 testing rule change.
1 July 1997 KAPI representatives meet with the attorney for the Board of Police Commissioners to discuss the situation and propose a solution. The attorney asks for a letter and advises that he will take it up with the board.
2 July 1997 KAPI provides a letter outlining the problem and suggesting possible solutions.
5 September 1997 The attorney for the Board of Police Commissioners sent a letter advising that resolution is not possible.
16 September 1997 Final publication of a rule pertaining to testing of private officers in KCMo appears in the Missouri Register.
16 October 1997 KAPI members file a petition with the Missouri Department of Administration requesting a review of the fee increase as permitted by Missouri Statutes.
21 October 1997 The Missouri Department of Administration returns the petition stating that it no longer had authority to review the matter due to a recent change. A check showed that the Missouri legislature had implemented an emergency change to the statute effective in the spring. The change does not appear in the published Code of State Regulations; it is only available by examining state publications of recent legislation.
1997North American Standard Industrial Classification issued by U.S. Department of Commerce. This classification system differentiates between investigative services, security guard and patrol services, courier services, alarm services, and security or safety consultation services.
20 January 1998 KAPI appears at the scheduled meeting of the Board of Police Commissioners through its attorney Douglas Stone. The commissioners reject the presentation stating that they had already decided the matter. Commissioner Mulvihill accuses the attorney of simply running up legal bills.
22 January 1998 The Private Officer Licensing Section mails out ‘termination' notices to companies and persons who have declined to pay the illegally imposed fee.
30 January 1998 KAPI Attorney requests records from KCMo Board of Police Commissioners.
2 February 1998 KCMo Police Department Legal Advisor replies to the records request indicating that it will take a lot of time to provide these records.
18 February 1998 A class action civil suit is filed in Cole County Circuit Court K.A.P.I. et al vs Mulvihill, et al CV 198-203-CC. A Temporary Restraining Order is requested, but denied by the state court. The civil case has seven counts which allege that the fee increase was enacted improperly outside of legal channels, it is legally invalid, it is unreasonably high, it is being unequally enforced, and that the improper enactment and enforcement constitute civil rights violations.
Defendants respond and request a transfer of the case to the Federal District Court; this is an option available to them to dispose of the civil rights allegations. K.A.P.I. agrees and the case is moved to the Western District of Missouri, Central Division K.A.P.I. et al vs Mulvihill, et al 98-4056-CV-C-BA.
31 August 1998 A hearing is held at the Jefferson City federal courthouse on motions for summary judgment.
21 October 1998 Federal Magistrate Knox issued a ruling in civil case 98-4056-CV-C-BA. The magistrate ruled in favor of the defendants on their motion for summary judgment while declining to rule on the plaintiff's motion.
The defendant's had sought to have the civil rights portion of the case overturned on the basis that they were entitled to immunity as a legislative body. In a ruling which is difficult to follow, the judge concluded that the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners and any employees of the Kansas City Police Department's Legal and Private Officer Licensing Section acting under their orders were entitled to either legislative immunity or qualified immunity in setting the fees and taking other actions.
He reached this decision partly on the basis of the reasonable man doctrine, concluding that some legislators could have reasonably believed that they were acting within their authority even if they had, in fact, acted outside of the authority granted to them by the state legislature.
While reaching this conclusion, the magistrate did not rule on the procedure used to adopt the fee structure or the related termination actions. In short, if the board acts within its authority it's immune; if the board acts outside of its authority, it is still immune if it thinks that it is acting within it. The reasoning behind the conclusion is apparently based upon a sequential, two-part error, made by differing board members, three years apart.
Then, exercising an option available to him, the magistrate remanded the decision on the propriety of the fee adoption and the and other board actions back to the state court for a decision.
After reviewing the decision with the KAPI attorney, the Board of Directors for KAPI has voted to continue the case in state court while foregoing the appeal at the federal level. While it appears that part of the magistrate's decision is likely to overturned if challenged, the core portion of the case remains with the state court. The resources to pursue both courses are limited. In addition, once a decision is reached in state court, there would still be an option for a similar action in the federal court.
A telephonic conference is scheduled for the week of November 16-20 to restart the action in state court. KAPI is confident of a favorable resolution on these counts.
November 1998 The remainder of the case was remanded to the Cole County Circuit.
December 30, 1998 A hearing on motions for summary judgment was held in Jefferson City in the Cole County Circuit Court. The critical point of the arguments focused on whether a fee is an ‘administrative rule' as defined by Missouri statutes. If it is, the position advocated by KAPI will succeed. Further questions advanced by the judge focused on the size of the increase and the amount of funds at issue.
March 1999 A motion for class certification was filed in the Cole County Circuit Court. It established three classes.
April 1999 A telephone conference call was held to discuss the class certification.
29 April 1999 An order was issued by the Cole County Circuit Court in K.A.P.I. et al vs Mulvihill, et al CV 198-203-CC. The court certified the three classes and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on the critical issue; the fees were improperly adopted and were, therefore legally invalid.
May 1999 The Private Officer Licensing Section posted a reduced fee structure (1996 level) with provisions for future collection of the higher amount. They began accepting terminated licensees, but processed them as new applicants rather than reinstated licensees.
21 May 1999 The Kansas City Business Journal runs a lead story with color photo on page 1 concerning the KAPI civil suit.
25 May 1999 The Kansas City Star places an article on the civil action in the Metropolitan section of the paper, but includes it only in the Metro edition.
28 May 1999 An informal meeting between KAPI and representatives of the police board and the police department was held at the request of the defendant's attorney. The issues in the case were not discussed, but related topics concerning future actions such as direct input from the industry and processing of applicants were included.
28 May 1999 Kansas City Week in Review, a weekly TV broadcast appearing at 7:30pm Fridays on KCPT Channel 19 in Kansas City, includes the topic of the civil action in their discussion of weekly stories. The journalists raised questions about the exercise of power by the board.
25 August 1999 Hearing is held in state court in Jefferson City on the remaining counts. The issues are: