Background
Darrell Quarles operated P&Q Security and Fugitive Recovery, an unlicensed private security company. Following a joint investigation by the Ohio Department of Homeland Security and the Cincinnati Police Department, Quarles was charged with two first-degree misdemeanor counts of engaging in the business of security services without a license under R.C. 4749.13(A). The charges arose from separate incidents: Quarles working security at Clutch OTR bar on October 19, 2023, and at Aura Room bar on February 29, 2024. On both occasions, officers observed Quarles stationed outside the establishments in security attire and armed with a firearm. Body-worn camera footage captured him performing security functions, and he admitted to investigators that he typically received $40–$50 in cash for his services and that his company lacked a license.
Before trial, Quarles moved to dismiss both charges on constitutional grounds, arguing that Ohio’s security services licensing statute, R.C. 4749.13, violated equal protection and due process by treating independent contract security guards differently from employees who perform security for their direct employer — the latter being exempt from the licensing requirement under R.C. 4749.01(H)(6). The Hamilton County Municipal Court denied the motions, and after a bench trial, convicted Quarles on both counts. He was sentenced to 180 days in jail (179 suspended) and one year of community control in each case, with sentences stayed pending appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The First Appellate District affirmed both convictions across all three assignments of error. On the constitutional challenge, the court applied rational basis review, finding that the licensing distinction between contract security personnel and direct employer-employee security arrangements bears a rational relationship to the legitimate government interest in public safety. Investigator testimony established that licensing requirements help prevent confusion between security guards and police officers and ensure guards are prepared to manage public danger — concerns the state reasonably concluded apply with less force to private employers, who have their own incentives to set safety standards for their staff. Because Quarles bore the burden of negating every conceivable basis supporting the classification and failed to do so, his equal protection claim failed. His due process claim — that the statute impaired his right to pursue his chosen profession — was rejected on the ground that the state may regulate professions to protect the public. A vagueness argument was deemed waived for failure to develop it below.
On the evidentiary challenges, the court found the State presented ample evidence that Quarles furnished security services for hire without a license at both locations. Officers observed him in security gear with a firearm outside operating bars; BWC footage showed him performing security functions; and his own statements — including acknowledging he owned an unlicensed security company and was paid in cash — supported the “for hire” element. The court concluded this was not an exceptional case warranting reversal on manifest weight grounds.
Key Takeaways
- Ohio’s security services licensing requirement (the “guard card” law) survives equal protection challenge: the distinction between contract security workers and direct-employer security employees is rationally related to public safety, and the challenger bears the burden of negating every conceivable basis for the classification.
- The state’s interest in regulating security personnel — preventing confusion with law enforcement and ensuring competence in managing public danger — constitutes a legitimate government interest sufficient to support licensing requirements under rational basis review.
- Undeveloped constitutional arguments, including a vagueness theory not raised below, will be waived or summarily overruled on appeal, underscoring the importance of fully briefing and preserving constitutional claims at the trial court level.
- Admissions by a defendant that he owned an unlicensed security company and was paid cash for security work, combined with officer observations and BWC footage, are sufficient to sustain a conviction for engaging in the business of security services without a license.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the constitutional footing of Ohio’s security services licensing regime and clarifies that the W2-employee exemption from the guard-card requirement is rationally grounded — not an arbitrary classification. For businesses that use contract security vendors, the case is a reminder that unlicensed contractors expose themselves to criminal liability, and that the exempt-employee carve-out is narrowly defined by employment and tax-withholding status, not simply by the nature of the work performed.
For practitioners, the opinion illustrates the steep burden facing litigants who mount rational basis constitutional challenges: courts will uphold a licensing scheme if any conceivable justification supports it, and skeletal appellate briefing without supporting authority will rarely survive scrutiny. Defense counsel handling similar charges should fully develop and preserve constitutional arguments at the motion-to-dismiss stage rather than relying on appellate briefing to fill in the gaps.