PRIVATE SECURITY BUSINESS AND SECURITY ALARM ACT
Act 330 of 1968
338.1051 Short title.
Sec. 1.
This act shall be known and may be cited as the "private security business and security alarm act".
History: 1968, Act 330, Imd. Eff. July 12, 1968 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 411, Eff. Mar. 28, 2001
Constitutionality Notes:
This act, which requires the licensing of guards, does not demonstrate the requisite degree of state action to bring the activities of guards under color of state law so as to subject their activities to constitutional restraint and to require guards to give suspects warnings of their constitutional rights before eliciting inculpatory statements, and especially does not subject the activities of private police who are employed to protect the property and employees of their employer to constitutional restraint because such guards need not be licensed under the act. Grand Rapids v Impens, 414 Mich 667; 327 NW2d 278 (1982).
Participation by an off-duty deputy sheriff from another county, employed as a private guard, with other guards in the apprehension and detention of a shoplifting suspect did not provide a sufficient relationship so as to bring the activities of the guards under color of state law and require warnings of the suspect's constitutional rights before eliciting inculpatory statements by the suspect where the deputy did not obtain the statements and identified himself to the suspect only as a store employee. Grand Rapids v Impens, 414 Mich 667; 327 NW2d 278 (1982).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1969–2025 · leading case:
Moore v. Detroit Ent., LLC, 755 N.W.2d 686 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
Moore v. Detroit Ent., LLC, 755 N.W.2d 686 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “See MCL 338.1051 et seq. ... We disagree. We do not believe that the mere licensing of security guards constitutes sufficient government involvement to require the giving of Miranda warnings.”
Williams v. Cunningham Drug Stores, Inc, 418 N.W.2d 381 (Mich. 1988).
“14 A merchant may voluntarily provide security guards in accordance with the Private Security Guard Act, MCL 338.1051 et seq.; MSA 18.185(1) et seq.”
Grand Rapids v. Impens, 327 N.W.2d 278 (Mich. 1982).
· cites it 2× “See MCL 338.1051 et seq.; MSA 18.185(1) et seq.”
Watson v. Aquinas Coll., 268 N.W.2d 342 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
“The issue presented in this case in whether the Private Security Guard Act of 1968, MCL 338.1051 et seq.; MSA 18.185(1) et seq.”
Scott v. Harper Rec., Inc, 480 N.W.2d 270 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).
“Even in light of the special relationship imposed on merchants to provide reasonable care to protect invitees from an unreasonable risk of harm related to their premises, the Court declined to hold as a matter of law that a merchant’s duty to provide reasonable care included the…”
People v. Biller, 609 N.W.2d 199 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
“, a company licensed under the Private Security Guard Act (psga), MCL 338.1051 et seq.; MSA 18.185(1) et seq.”
20250225_C366932_55_366932.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff then notified his supervisors, including defendant Bylsma, that this matter was creating a difficult working environment, and also expressed dissatisfaction with how his superiors were handling the investigation, asserting that they were not complying with their legal…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.