The Ohio Court of Appeals has upheld the convictions of Darrell Quarles for engaging in the business of security services without a license. This decision affects Quarles and others in the security industry, highlighting the importance of licensing in protecting public safety. The court ruled that Quarles's constitutional challenges and claims regarding the evidence presented at trial were without merit.
Quarles faced two separate charges in the Hamilton County Municipal Court for operating as an unlicensed security provider. The first charge stemmed from an incident at Clutch OTR bar on October 19, 2023, while the second charge was related to an event at the Aura Room bar on February 29, 2024. After an investigation by the Ohio Department of Homeland Security and the Cincinnati Police Department, he was found guilty of both counts, which are classified as first-degree misdemeanors under Ohio law.
In his appeals, Quarles argued that the trial court's judgments were against the manifest weight of the evidence and that the state failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the charges. He also claimed that the statute requiring security services to be licensed, R.C. 4749.13, violated his due process and equal protection rights. The appeals court, however, rejected these arguments, affirming the trial court's decisions.
The case began when Quarles was investigated for allegedly providing security services without the necessary licensing. According to testimony from the Ohio Department of Homeland Security, individuals providing security services must obtain a “guard card,” a special license issued by the state. The law includes an exception for employees of businesses providing security services, but Quarles operated as a private security provider without such a license.
During the trial, the prosecution presented evidence that Quarles was seen working security at both bars, dressed in attire identifying him as a security guard and carrying a firearm. Additionally, Quarles admitted to operating his own security company, P&Q Security and Fugitive Recovery, which he acknowledged was unlicensed. The evidence included testimony from police officers who encountered Quarles during their duties, as well as body-worn camera footage showing him performing security-related tasks.
In the court's opinion, Judge Kinsley noted, “Quarles does not dispute that he was unlicensed. Therefore, the only question is whether Quarles furnished security services for hire at Clutch and Aura Room on the dates in question.” The court found that ample evidence supported the conclusion that Quarles was indeed providing security services without a license.
The court also addressed Quarles's constitutional challenges to R.C. 4749.13, stating that the statute does not violate his equal protection rights. The law distinguishes between licensed and unlicensed security providers based on employment status, a classification the court found to be rationally related to the legitimate government interest of public safety. The court emphasized that Quarles failed to demonstrate that the statute was unconstitutional.
As a result, the court affirmed the trial court's judgments, stating, “We overrule Quarles’s second and third assignments of error.” The ruling reinforces the necessity for security personnel to be properly licensed, as the state seeks to ensure public safety and distinguish between licensed security providers and law enforcement officers.
This ruling may have broader implications for the security industry in Ohio, as it underscores the legal requirements for operating as a security provider. Those in the industry must be aware of licensing requirements to avoid similar legal challenges.
Looking ahead, Quarles may have the option to appeal the ruling to a higher court, although details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of compliance with state laws governing security services.