Arizona Security Visibility & Protection Act | Privateer Security Forces

Arizona Public Safety Proposal

Arizona Security Visibility & Protection Act

A practical, Arizona-focused proposal to (1) strengthen consequences for assaulting licensed security professionals and (2) establish a clear, color-based vehicle lighting identifier so the public can quickly recognize on-duty private security without confusing them with law enforcement.

This is a narrow, realistic package. No new police powers. No sirens. No traffic-stop authority. Just clearer identification and better deterrence.

Why This Matters

Arizona's private security professionals work where the public actually lives: shopping centers, hospitals, apartment communities, events, construction sites, hotels, schools, and critical infrastructure.

They're often the first trained person on scene when something goes sideways - domestic disturbances, assaults, trespassing, burglar alarms, and medical emergencies - especially before law enforcement arrives.

Arizona regulates private security under Title 32, Chapter 26. This proposal applies only to properly licensed or registered security professionals operating within that regulatory framework.

When security is clearly identifiable and assaults carry meaningful consequences, everyone benefits:

  • Safer security professionals
  • Safer residents, customers, and employees
  • Faster de-escalation and better coordination with police when needed

The Proposal (Two Parts)

1) Add licensed security professionals to Arizona's aggravated-assault protected victim list (on duty)

We propose that Arizona law treat an assault on an on-duty, readily identifiable, properly licensed or registered security professional similarly to assaults on other protected public-facing professionals.

Coverage would apply only when the security professional is clearly identifiable and performing lawful security duties within the scope of licensure.

The proposal does not apply to off-duty conduct or actions outside the scope of professional security services.

This is not about special treatment. It's about deterrence and accountability, because attacking the person trying to keep the peace is not normal workplace conflict. It's a public safety risk.

What this change does:

  • Increases deterrence by elevating certain assaults into aggravated assault when the offender knows, or should know, the victim is on-duty security.
  • Gives prosecutors a clearer tool when security is assaulted while lawfully performing security duties.
  • Encourages compliance and de-escalation when security is responding to incidents.

What this change does not do:

  • It does not expand arrest powers.
  • It does not make security law enforcement.
  • It does not excuse excessive force or poor conduct. Security stays accountable under existing criminal and civil law.

2) Standardize and reserve green + white lights for on-duty security vehicles (no purple)

Arizona currently relies heavily on amber + white for general hazards and roadway caution - construction, roadside work, towing, utility work, and disabled vehicles. Amber has become the universal hazard and work-zone cue, and that's fine.

Security needs a distinct identifier that:

  • Is visible,
  • Is not police-coded (red or blue), and
  • Can be reserved for security so it actually means something.

We propose to authorize and standardize green + white as the security-specific lighting combination in Arizona:

  • Amber = construction / roadway hazard / general caution
  • Green + White = clearly marked, licensed security vehicles actively engaged in protective services. This designation conveys visibility and identification only and does not confer enforcement authority or emergency vehicle status.

Importantly: green + white is not a request for emergency status. It is a visibility and identification standard.

Core Safeguards (Public Protections Built In)

This proposal is designed to reduce confusion, not create it.

1) No police imitation

  • No red or blue lighting and no audible emergency signaling devices.
  • Lighting configurations remain subject to Arizona vehicle equipment laws and regulatory approval requirements.
  • Any statutory change would expressly clarify that green + white lighting does not alter traffic law compliance obligations.
  • Vehicles using green + white must be clearly marked SECURITY.

2) No emergency-vehicle privileges

  • No right-of-way mandate.
  • No exemption from traffic laws.
  • No authority to stop vehicles on public roadways.

3) On-duty, limited use only

  • Green + white lights are for on-duty operations only, not commuting, not personal vehicles, and not because it looks cool.
  • Use should be limited to legitimate security duties such as patrol, alarm response, incident stabilization, scene safety, and other clearly identifiable protective services consistent with licensure.

4) Accountability for misuse

  • Misuse of security lighting to impersonate law enforcement, induce compliance, or attempt a traffic stop should trigger serious penalties under Arizona law.

Why Green? Why Not Purple?

Purple is not a recognized, standardized public safety identifier in Arizona. It creates confusion and invites the wrong assumption: Is this police? Is this a malfunctioning streetlight? Is this a gimmick?

Green is distinct, non-police-coded, and can be made meaningful if Arizona reserves it for properly regulated security professionals.

This is also consistent with the approach used in other states that already authorize green lighting for private security vehicles when engaged in security duties.

What This Is - And Is Not

This is:

  • A narrow, realistic proposal focused on safety, deterrence, and identification.
  • A professionalization step for the private security industry.

This is not:

  • A bid to turn private security into law enforcement.
  • A request for sirens, emergency driving, or automatic right-of-way.
  • A vigilante bill. Security remains bound by the same criminal laws and civil liabilities as everyone else.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does this give security guards police powers?

No. This proposal is about deterrence against assaults and standardizing identification lighting, not expanding authority.

Can security pull people over on public roads?

No. The intent is the opposite: reduce confusion and make it clear these are not emergency vehicles.

Will this affect construction vehicles or tow trucks?

No. Amber remains the hazard and work-zone standard. This proposal is about creating a separate, reserved identifier for security.

Who would be allowed to use green + white security lights?

Only properly licensed or registered private security agencies, their security vehicles, and proprietary company security programs that meet Arizona's regulatory requirements.

Will this change street lights or city lighting?

No. This is about vehicle lighting standards for licensed security vehicles.

Why not regulate flash patterns?

Modern LED warning systems vary by manufacturer and are widely used in alternating or synchronized sequences. This proposal focuses on color identity and safeguards rather than attempting to regulate manufacturer-specific timing configurations.

Read The Proposed Bill Language

If you want to review the companion language behind this proposal, we published a separate page with proposed amendatory text for A.R.S. sections 13-1204 and 28-947, along with a plain-English bill summary.

View proposed bill language

Get Involved

If you support clearer security identification and stronger deterrence against assaults on on-duty security professionals:

  • Share this proposal with your HOA, business association, and property management groups.
  • Ask your state legislators to support a focused, safeguards-first bill.
  • Partner with us - industry, communities, and allied stakeholders.

Questions, stakeholder interest, or partnership inquiries: contact Privateer Security Forces.

Selected Legal References

  • Arizona A.R.S. § 28-947 - Current Arizona front-visible lighting rule, which is why the proposal contemplates a statutory carve-out for green lighting.
  • Arizona A.R.S. § 13-1204 - Arizona's aggravated assault statute, including the current protected-victim structure.
  • Arizona A.R.S. § 32-2601 - Definitions for security guard, private security guard service, and registrant that keep the proposal limited to regulated professionals.
  • Arizona A.R.S. § 13-2411 - Arizona's law on impersonating a peace officer, relevant to misuse deterrence and enforcement.
  • Florida Stat. § 316.2397 - An example of an existing private-security lighting authorization model.