During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), like many public agencies, shifted a variety of services online. Since then, the DMV, in many states, has improved its reputation as slow-moving and understaffed; today’s DMV is quicker and easier than ever. But in Colorado, there’s been one change that is not as welcome—adding security guards.
In recent months, Colorado has contracted with private security firms to place armed security guards in DMV offices across the state. These guards—hired from private security firms—are not only assigned to stand around with weapons but to act as receptionists and a point of contact for individuals walking in. Derek Kuhn, a Communications Manager for the Colorado Department of Revenue (specifically the office of motor vehicles and tax issues), defines the position this way:
“The role of the Security Guard hired/assigned to a Colorado Driver License Office, is to provide professional protective services, assisting in maintaining order and security within a defined area and to protect State employees, customers, property, and assets by utilizing extensive training, knowledge, and expert guidance they receive from the contracted security vendor.”
Although the policy may seem fair on the surface, it could make life more difficult for undocumented immigrants. Colorado law allows for noncitizens to acquire driver’s licenses, meaning that undocumented individuals—which roughly number 190,000 in the state—make up a significant portion of DMV-goers. This is particularly true in popular resort towns like Aspen, as they rely on a low-wage immigrant workforce to run a service industry that caters to the wealthy.
Imagine this: You are an undocumented Colorado resident who needs to renew your legally obtained noncitizen driver’s license and your residential address at the same time. Post-COVID, you are once again required to come to the DMV office. You arrive a few minutes early for the appointment and walk into the office to check in. Immediately inside the door is a six-feet-three-inches-tall, bald white man in full head-to-toe tactical gear with a handgun in his holster, a taser on the opposite side, a bandoleer of spare magazines, dark wraparound sunglasses, and a bullet proof vest marked “SECURITY.” This man is sitting at a small desk by the door and immediately begins berating you with questions: “Name, Sir? Do you have an appointment? What time? Can I see your ID?”
When I, an equally tall white man walking into the DMV that day, was asked these same questions, it was nothing more than a frustrating exchange. To the Latinx man that went through this same interrogation after me, the tension in his eyes and the experience was palpable across the room.
I was not at the DMV for myself, and so I opted to leave the office shortly after this man was turned away for having arrived too early. I spoke to him about the experience in the parking lot, on the strict condition he was unnamed in any published article on the subject.
I asked him if this was his first time being treated like that in the DMV, to which he replied “Yes, it was. They didn’t have that [security guard check-in] the last time we came.” I asked them how it felt to have to surrender his ID to a man who looked like the police before he could even get to see the agents at the desk for his legal appointment. He said it was “stressful” and “a little scary” but not unusual.
There was a fully militarized guard acting as a gatekeeper of a public office, where he was the first point of contact for potentially undocumented individuals.
He said he lives with a persistent fear that somehow his immigration status will be revealed to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and he will be deported.
After our conversation ended, I walked back into the office to see if the guard was wearing any kind of insignia tying him to the State of Colorado. In place of the typical unit or department patches, his black tactical uniform simply had the words “SECURITY” in several places, with no indication that he was employed by the state or which private security firm he worked for.
In effect, there was a fully militarized guard acting as a gatekeeper of a public office, where he was the first point of contact for potentially undocumented individuals. His role and appearance created the illusion that he was authorized to receive and view an individual’s identification materials in a way that strongly implied he would decide whether or not someone could even enter the premises.
When I reached out to the DMV on this practice, Kuhn said that:
“Security personnel are prohibited from handling documents or giving procedural/processing information to customers. They are required to direct customers to trained Driver License staff for assistance/information.”
According to him, the responsibility of reporting such violations, or any type of “inappropriate behavior” falls on the shoulders of the affected customers.
The glaring issues here are twofold: First, the individual security contractor likely violated the law by reviewing the personal identification documents of a handful of individuals entering the office; and second, any resulting discomfort—which is particularly felt by undocumented individuals—is redirected onto their shoulders to report it.
But where would they report it? The contractor sits within earshot and line of sight of every desk in the office. The DMV phone number is automated and centralized, not office-specific. Given the presence of the officer, would someone who could be deported risk complaining to the state?
To further compound the issue, Colorado is one of nine states in the country that does not regulate private security companies, according to The Denver Post.
There is no centrally located database or archive of which state or federal entities employ private security, but the trend appears to be rising nationwide. Individuals in Oregon reported similar private security practices at their local Social Security offices.
We must ask if being cross-examined on our identities by an armed private security contractor with no identification or affiliation qualifies as safety, and to what degree do these policies place noncitizens in danger?