E-mail us
Before Government Hires Private Protection, Somebody Must Check the Contractor
Austin Seman’s Warning About Unlicensed Security Companies Deserves Attention
Private security contractor vetting: By Matthew C. Parker
Independent Security Advisors LLC | EPTraining.us | Defending Democracy Initiative
November 11, 2026
Bottom Line
Private security professionals can provide excellent protection for elected officials, judges, corporate executives, and others facing credible threats. Before hiring a contractor, however, the organization must verify that the company is legally authorized to provide the services, carries appropriate insurance, and can supply personnel qualified for the assignment. The review must include any subcontractors and the individual agents who will perform the protective duties.
Abstract
On November 11, 2026, Austin Seman published an article examining unlicensed security companies, questionable subcontracting arrangements, employee screening, and the financial advantages contractors may gain by avoiding regulatory requirements. His article addresses several concerns also raised in two EPTraining.us articles published in September 2026 about using private security to protect public officials.
The connection is particularly relevant because the articles examine some of the same problems documented in Minnesota. Seman approaches those problems from the security contractor’s perspective, while our earlier work examined government responsibility for selecting, supervising, and paying for protective services.
Austin Seman Examines Problems Within the Private Security Industry
Austin Seman, founder and CEO of Fairline Security, published The Unlicensed Security Industry Hiding in Plain Sight on November 11, 2026. The article addresses security companies accepting assignments without required licenses, businesses attempting to operate under another company’s license, and contractors offering lower prices by avoiding expenses associated with lawful operations.
Seman also discusses the recruitment of security personnel through social media and private messaging groups, sometimes without adequate attention to licensing, background checks, or experience. These practices raise questions about who is actually performing security assignments and whether the company holding the contract has properly screened and authorized the people it sends to work.
His discussion of pricing deserves attention. A contractor that fails to maintain required insurance, licensing, or employee screening may be able to offer services at a lower price than a company paying those expenses. That does not mean every low bid indicates a regulatory problem. Smaller companies may have lower overhead or other legitimate advantages, but customers should examine what is included in each proposal before comparing prices.
Seman also addresses the distinction between legitimate subcontracting and arrangements in which one company attempts to use another company’s license to obtain work. Licensing and subcontracting laws differ among states, and the legality of an arrangement depends on the applicable law and the services being provided. The customer needs to identify the company responsible for the contract, the employer of the assigned personnel, and any other company participating in the operation.
Seman makes an important distinction concerning smaller security businesses. Company size does not determine professional competence, and independent operators may have substantial experience providing specialized services. The question is whether the business meets the applicable requirements and can demonstrate the capabilities needed for the assignment.
The Connection to Our September Articles
In September 2026, EPTraining.us published two articles addressing the use of private security to protect public officials. Who Should Protect Elected Officials: Police, Private Security, Reserves, or an Integrated Detail? was updated September 14, and Ten Days to Build the Detail — and What Happens When the Detail Loses the Mission appeared September 15.
Both examined the selection and supervision of protective personnel, the use of public funds, and the qualifications required for government protection assignments. They also examined the Minneapolis City Council’s decision to hire private security and questions surrounding one of the contracted companies.
Seman’s November article addresses several of these concerns through his examination of private security licensing and contracting practices. Although the articles have different objectives, they identify responsibilities that both security contractors and their customers must meet.
Minneapolis: A Protective Assignment and Questions About the Contractor
In June 2020, Minneapolis provided private security for City Council members Andrea Jenkins, Phillipe Cunningham, and Alondra Cano after they reported receiving threats. The decision followed the death of George Floyd and occurred during a period of intense public controversy over police reform. According to the Minnesota Star Tribune, the city ultimately spent $152,400 for temporary protection provided by two companies, Aegis and BelCom.
The decision to protect the council members should be evaluated separately from the decision about which contractors to hire. An elected official’s political positions do not determine whether a credible threat requires protection. Once officials authorize a protective assignment, they must determine whether the proposed contractor has the personnel, experience, and resources to perform the work.
Questions about one contractor emerged when FOX 9 examined its connection to a previously regulated security company. In a July 5, 2020 investigation, FOX 9 reported that Minnesota’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension had identified 147 employees with disqualifying criminal convictions among 734 employees of Entertainment Protection Group, a company previously involved in security for Super Bowl LIVE events.
FOX 9 also reported that Entertainment Protection Group subsequently entered into a regulatory agreement under which its license would lapse. Its owner, Erik Bergling, agreed not to occupy certain security-company management positions for at least ten years. The investigation identified Bergling as associated with Aegis Logistics, one of the companies hired to protect Minneapolis council members, under the title “Special Projects.”
That history provided grounds for examining the contractor’s management, regulatory background, and employee screening procedures. However, the earlier findings involving Entertainment Protection Group did not establish that the agents subsequently assigned to protect Minneapolis officials were unlicensed, unqualified, or improperly screened.
Seman cites the same Minnesota background-check audit in his November article while discussing security companies that operate without meeting applicable requirements. The Minneapolis case demonstrates why a government agency should examine the contractor’s regulatory history and verify the qualifications of the personnel assigned to the contract, rather than relying solely on the company’s current licensing information.
A Separate Security Dispute During the Derek Chauvin Trial
Seman also discusses a security arrangement associated with Derek Chauvin’s 2021 murder trial in Minneapolis. That matter was separate from the 2020 City Council protection contracts.
The arrangement later became the subject of litigation involving Scott Yelle, P1 Protection Services LLC, Recon Protection LLC, and the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association. According to September 25, 2021 reporting by the Minnesota Star Tribune, the association filed suit concerning alleged violations of confidentiality agreements and statements Yelle made about his role in the security operation. The reporting also described an allegation that P1 Protection Services lacked sufficient licensing for certain work involving access to secure courthouse areas.
The reported licensing issue was an allegation raised in litigation, not an independently verified final regulatory finding. The available reporting does not establish the ultimate resolution of every licensing question. Nevertheless, the dispute identifies matters that should be settled before a contractor begins sensitive security work, including the company’s legal authority, the responsibilities of subcontractors, confidentiality requirements, and the duties assigned to individual personnel.
Those requirements are especially important when a security assignment involves a high-profile criminal proceeding. Contractor selection must account for authorized access, protection of sensitive information, coordination with law enforcement, and the responsibilities of everyone participating in the operation.
Licensing Does Not Establish Executive-Protection Competence
Seman correctly emphasizes licensing, insurance, background checks, and compliance with state requirements. Minnesota regulates protective-agent businesses and establishes requirements for their employees. Organizations hiring those companies should verify licensing through the appropriate state authority and confirm that the authorization covers the services being purchased.
However, a properly licensed security company may still lack personnel trained to perform executive protection. General security assignments often involve access control, patrol, or observation. Executive protection may require threat assessments, protective intelligence, advance work, transportation planning, surveillance detection, protective movements, and emergency response. These duties require training and experience appropriate to the assignment.
A former police officer, military service member, or licensed security professional may bring valuable experience to a protective detail, but previous employment alone does not demonstrate proficiency in those duties. Contractors should be able to identify the relevant training completed by their personnel and explain how the required skills were evaluated.
Training records also need to be examined for what they actually establish. A certificate may document attendance or course completion without demonstrating that the student successfully performed protective movements, conducted an advance, prepared an operational plan, or responded to a practical emergency exercise. For demanding assignments, the organization may need to review course content, examine relevant operational experience, interview the proposed detail leader, or require demonstrations of essential skills.
Licensing determines whether the company is legally authorized to provide regulated services. Training, experience, and performance evaluation help determine whether the assigned personnel can perform the protective mission. A sound contractor evaluation must address both.
Government Responsibility Does Not End With the Contract
Private executive-protection contractors can provide useful capabilities to government agencies that do not maintain specialized protective units. Police departments may have to divert officers from patrol or investigations when officials require temporary protection, while experienced private personnel may already possess the specialized training needed for protective movements, advance work, and extended coverage.
The selection must account for the differences between private security and law enforcement. Private agents generally do not possess the same legal authority, investigative responsibilities, or access to restricted law-enforcement information as sworn officers. When a credible criminal threat exists, the protective detail needs established procedures for communication and coordination with the agencies responsible for investigations and emergency response.
Government officials also remain responsible for contract oversight. They should know what services are being purchased, how staffing and work hours will be documented, who supervises the detail, and which expenditures require authorization. Those records can be maintained without publicly disclosing sensitive routes, protective procedures, staffing arrangements, or other information that might endanger the protected official.
The same oversight applies to subcontracting. Government agencies and private organizations should know which company employs the agents, how they are screened, what training they have completed, and which business carries responsibility for supervision and insurance. If the contractor changes personnel or introduces additional subcontractors, the customer should be notified and given an opportunity to verify that the replacement arrangements meet the contract requirements.
These responsibilities should be established before the assignment begins and monitored during the contract. Changes in licensing, insurance, personnel, or supervision may affect the contractor’s continued ability to perform the work, especially when the mission involves an identified threat.
Practical Contractor-Vetting Checklist: Before You Sign the Contract
The incidents discussed in Minnesota and the contracting practices examined by Seman provide useful examples for organizations hiring private security. The following checklist identifies information that should be verified before awarding a protective-services contract. The review should reflect the assignment’s risks and comply with applicable state licensing laws, procurement requirements, and organizational policies.
- 1. Verify the company’s license. Use the appropriate state licensing authority to confirm the company’s legal name, license number, current status, authorized services, and any restrictions. Verify authorization in each jurisdiction where the contractor will operate.
2. Identify all companies performing the work. Determine which business holds the contract, which company employs the assigned agents, and whether subcontractors will participate. Verify the legal authorization of each business performing regulated services and establish responsibility for supervision and insurance.
- 3. Review management and regulatory history. Identify the company’s responsible owners and managers. Examine relevant public licensing records for disciplinary orders, restrictions, or suspensions, and request explanations of material findings. Distinguish established regulatory action from unresolved allegations.
4. Confirm insurance and workers’ compensation. Obtain current evidence of coverage and verify it with the broker or insurer when appropriate. Confirm that the policies cover the proposed work, assigned personnel, vehicles if applicable, and any subcontractors. Review relevant exclusions and coverage limits.
- 5. Verify personnel screening. Confirm that assigned agents satisfy applicable background-check, registration, licensing, and firearms requirements. Obtain lawful confirmation of completed screening without unnecessarily collecting sensitive personal records. Require approval of personnel substitutions.
6. Examine protective training and experience. Review the assigned personnel’s training in threat assessment, advance work, protective movements, transportation, surveillance detection, and emergency procedures as required by the mission. Determine whether their skills were practically evaluated and whether their previous assignments involved comparable duties.
- 7. Confirm legal authority and use-of-force policies. Determine what authority personnel possess, whether armed protection is authorized, and whether required permits or credentials are current. Review applicable use-of-force, detention, reporting, and law-enforcement coordination procedures.
8. Identify the detail leader. Establish who supervises the agents, approves operational changes, communicates with the customer, and coordinates emergency decisions. Confirm that the designated supervisor has experience appropriate to the assignment.
- 9. Review the protective plan. Require a plan appropriate to the identified threats and mission. Examine advance requirements, communications, transportation, medical response, emergency procedures, and coordination with law enforcement. Protect sensitive operational information from unnecessary disclosure.
10. Examine contract terms and pricing. Verify staffing levels, hours, billing rates, overtime, transportation expenses, equipment costs, and additional charges. Establish procedures for approving expenditures, documenting work, reporting incidents, and addressing contract violations.
- 11. Check relevant references. Contact previous clients who can discuss comparable protective assignments. Ask about supervision, reliability, personnel qualifications, operational planning, and performance. Distinguish general security experience from executive-protection experience.
12. Establish continuing oversight. Require notification of license changes, insurance lapses, material personnel substitutions, and new subcontractors. Periodically review staffing and performance, document deficiencies, and establish procedures for correcting or suspending services that do not meet contract requirements.
The level of examination should match the assignment. A company providing temporary access control at a public event may require a different review from one furnishing armed protection for an official facing a credible threat. The more demanding the mission, the more important it becomes to establish the qualifications of the assigned personnel, the experience of their supervisors, and the contractor’s ability to implement the protective plan.
Conclusion: Seman’s Article Deserves Attention
Austin Seman’s article makes a useful contribution to the discussion about private security licensing and contractor accountability. His examination of licensing requirements, subcontracting arrangements, employee screening, and contracting practices identifies problems that can affect security companies, their customers, and the people depending on their services.
His article reinforces a simple point: verify the contractor’s licensing, qualifications, and accountability before awarding protective work. For assignments involving public officials or others facing credible threats, that review should also establish whether the personnel possess the training and experience required to carry out the protective mission.
I encourage government administrators, police chiefs, security directors, and private security professionals to read Seman’s original article. His discussion provides useful information for organizations evaluating private security contractors, and the issues he raises warrant attention throughout the industry.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
1. How can I determine whether a private security company is properly licensed?
Start with the state agency responsible for regulating private security companies. Most states that require licensing maintain records identifying authorized companies, license status, and sometimes disciplinary actions. Verify the company’s legal name, license number, current status, and authorization to perform the services being purchased. Do not rely solely on a certificate supplied by the contractor.
Licensing requirements differ among states. A company authorized to provide security in one state may need a separate license before working in another. Government agencies and private clients should confirm the requirements in every jurisdiction where the contractor will operate.
2. Does a private security license qualify a company to provide executive protection?
Not necessarily. A company may satisfy the legal requirements for providing security services without employing personnel trained in executive protection. Depending on the assignment, protective duties may require threat assessment, advance work, protective intelligence, transportation planning, surveillance detection, and emergency-response procedures.
Before awarding an executive-protection contract, determine whether the assigned agents have completed relevant training and whether their skills were evaluated through practical exercises. General security experience, previous military service, or employment as a police officer may be valuable, but none automatically establishes competence in executive protection.
3. Can a security company legally operate under another company’s license?
A company generally cannot assume that another business’s license authorizes it to perform regulated security services independently. However, properly structured subcontracting arrangements may be permitted under applicable state law. Whether an arrangement is lawful depends on the jurisdiction, the services being performed, and the licensing requirements governing the companies and their personnel.
Before accepting such an arrangement, identify the licensed contractor, the actual employer of the agents, the company responsible for supervision, and the insurance covering the assignment. If the arrangement is unclear, obtain confirmation from the appropriate state licensing authority.
4. What should a government agency do when it needs protective personnel immediately?
An urgent threat may require a government agency to establish protection before completing its normal procurement process. The agency should determine whether emergency contracting procedures are available, identify qualified providers, and coordinate with law enforcement when the circumstances require it. Emergency procurement authority does not automatically waive security licensing or personnel requirements.
Agencies that may need temporary protection should maintain a list of previously evaluated contractors. Having licensing, insurance, references, and qualifications already reviewed can substantially reduce the administrative work required when a threat develops. The agency must still confirm that the personnel assigned to the actual operation are properly authorized and qualified.
5. Who is responsible when a private security contractor fails to meet licensing or personnel requirements?
Responsibility depends on the applicable law, contract terms, and circumstances of the violation. A security company may face regulatory action for operating without required authorization, employing ineligible personnel, or failing to meet other legal obligations. The organization hiring the contractor may also face contractual, administrative, or legal consequences depending on its responsibilities and conduct.
Government administrators and corporate security directors should therefore establish a documented selection process, identify who is responsible for verifying contractor qualifications, and require contractors to report changes in their licensing, insurance, staffing, or subcontracting arrangements. The contract should also provide appropriate remedies when the contractor fails to meet its obligations.
6. Should police officers or private security professionals protect elected officials?
The decision should depend on the threat, mission requirements, available personnel, and legal authority needed. Police officers bring law-enforcement powers, investigative resources, and established relationships with emergency-response agencies. Qualified private executive-protection professionals may bring specialized experience in protective planning, advance work, movement, and transportation.
In some circumstances, an integrated detail using both police and private protective personnel will provide the most appropriate capabilities. The government agency must establish who supervises the operation, how information will be shared, and how the protective team will coordinate with law enforcement during an emergency.
7. What should happen if a contractor’s license or insurance expires during an assignment?
Protective-services contracts should require the contractor to notify the customer immediately of licensing changes, insurance cancellations, or other developments affecting its authority or ability to perform the work. The customer should verify the change and determine whether the contractor can legally continue providing the contracted services.
If the company no longer holds the authorization required for the assignment, the organization should not permit the affected regulated work to continue while the problem remains unresolved. It should arrange lawful replacement coverage as necessary, particularly when stopping the service could leave a protected person exposed to an identified threat. The same review should apply when a contractor replaces personnel or introduces a new subcontractor during the assignment.
8. What is the most important information to verify before awarding an executive-protection contract?
The organization should establish that the contractor is legally authorized to provide the services, carries appropriate insurance, has properly screened its personnel, and can demonstrate experience relevant to the protective mission. It should also identify the detail supervisor, examine the proposed operational plan, and determine how the contractor will coordinate with police or emergency services.
These findings should be documented before the assignment begins. The purpose is to establish who is responsible for providing protection, whether the assigned personnel can perform their duties, and how the organization will monitor the contractor throughout the assignment.
About the Author
Matthew C. Parker is the founder and Chief Executive Officer of Independent Security Advisors LLC (ISA) and Director of Training for EPTraining.us. He has more than three decades of experience in diplomatic and executive protection, protective operations, and international security, including assignments protecting government officials, diplomats, corporate executives, political candidates, and private clients in the United States and abroad.
A retired U.S. Army combat veteran with 22 years of service, Parker has directed protective operations for senior military officials and advised and trained foreign government security personnel. His international experience includes protective operations, consulting, and advisory assignments in Africa, Iraq, and Ukraine.
Through EPTraining.us, he has developed executive-protection training programs for law enforcement, military, and private-sector professionals, including courses recognized or approved by state training and regulatory authorities.
Parker also directs ISA’s Defending Democracy Initiative, established in 2017 to address threats against public officials and political candidates through research, protective training, and support for state and local law enforcement.
Sources and Related Reading
Austin Seman
The Unlicensed Security Industry Hiding in Plain Sight — November 11, 2026
EPTraining.us — September 2026
Who Should Protect Elected Officials: Police, Private Security, Reserves, or an Integrated Detail? — Updated September 14, 2026.
Ten Days to Build the Detail — and What Happens When the Detail Loses the Mission — September 15, 2026.
Independent Reporting
FOX 9 — (In)Security: Unrest Saw Surge in Unlicensed Security — Tom Lyden, July 5, 2020.
Minnesota Star Tribune — Minneapolis Spent $152,400 for Private Security for Three City Council Members — Liz Navratil, July 14, 2020.
Minnesota Star Tribune — Minnesota Police Group Sues Wright County Man Involved in Derek Chauvin Trial Security — Chao Xiong, September 25, 2021.
FOX 9 — After UnitedHealthcare and Lawmaker Shootings, State Agency Warns of Unlicensed Private Security — Paul Blume, July 1, 2025.
Government References
Minnesota Department of Public Safety — Private Detective and Protective Agents Board
Minnesota Statutes § 326.336 — Employees of License Holders
Minnesota Statutes § 326.3381 — Licenses
#ExecutiveProtection #PrivateSecurity #SecurityLicensing #ContractorAccountability #SecurityManagement #PublicOfficialSecurity #ProtectiveServices #SecurityContractors #GovernmentSecurity #SecurityTraining #AustinSeman #DefendingDemocracy #EPTraining.US