Why portable weapons detection units should not be the default approach

As the use of weapons detection systems expands across healthcare and other occupancies, a key question has emerged: should these systems be permanently installed or deployed as portable units? While portable systems may appear to offer flexibility, they introduce a range of safety, operational and compliance concerns that make them a less favorable solution in most environments.

Recent clarification for the use of weapons detection systems came through two tentative interim amendments (TIAs) to the National Fire Protection Association’s NFPA 101, Life Safety Code. TIA 12-7 and TIA 24-1 reinforce that these systems are permitted within the means of egress, provided they comply with applicable requirements. However, the allowance of portable systems should not be interpreted as an endorsement of their routine use. In fact, the conditions tied to their use highlight the very challenges they present.

Understanding the code position

The approval of the TIAs clarifies that weapons detection systems can be incorporated into the means of egress when they meet the applicable provisions. Importantly, they include language specific to portable systems:

“If the weapons detection system is portable, the written fire safety plan required by 18.7.2.2 shall address the possible relocation of the equipment during a fire or similar emergency.”

This requirement is significant. It acknowledges that portable systems may need to be moved during an emergency to maintain a safe and unobstructed means of egress. However, it also underscores the operational complexity and risk of relying on relocation during an event.

Safety risks in emergency conditions

The means of egress must function reliably under the most stressful and unpredictable conditions. Portable weapons detection units introduce variables that can compromise that reliability, including:

• Obstruction hazards. Portable units can be knocked over or become displaced, creating barriers in egress paths.
• Inconsistent configuration. Their placement may vary over time, leading to confusion during evacuation.
• Restricted egress: Systems that are improperly repositioned can restrict overall egress width beyond code-required minimums. 
• Dependence on human action. Relocation depends on staff recognizing an emergency and responding immediately — something that cannot be guaranteed.

These risks are especially problematic in environments where seconds matter and predictable egress is critical.

The TIAs require that when the portable systems are used, relocation be addressed in the fire safety plan; however, planning for relocation is not the same as ensuring it can be executed effectively.

In practice, staff may not be aware of the emergency in real time, or competing priorities may prevent device relocation. Emergency events can sometimes unfold too quickly for a coordinated relocation to effectively take place. 

Considerations for healthcare

The clinical, operational and code realities of healthcare facilities add additional levels of complexity when using portable weapons detection systems. 

Defend-in-place environments. Hospitals operate as defend-in-place environments, where the priority during an emergency is not rapid evacuation, but rather continuity of care and protection of patients.

This introduces additional constraints. For instance, staff priorities during emergencies are focused on patient care, movement of patients and clinical response — not equipment relocation. Also, many patients cannot be easily or quickly moved, requiring significant staff attention and resources. Assigning responsibility for relocating portable detection systems may directly conflict with these clinical priorities.

Even with 24/7 staffing and routine drills, expecting healthcare personnel to reliably relocate equipment during an emergency is unrealistic and misaligned with the operational reality of hospital response.

Use of fire alarm systems. Another critical concern is the interaction between portable systems and alarm-based responses.

There have been documented instances where active shooters have intentionally activated fire alarms to create confusion and force movement within a building. Also, some organizations have procedures where fire alarm activation is part of the response to an active threat.

In both scenarios, activation of the fire alarm may trigger the relocation procedures outlined for portable systems. This creates a dangerous condition where staff may begin moving equipment unnecessarily and entry points may become unsecured during the relocation. This in turn can leave the facility vulnerable to additional threats entering the building.

Rather than enhancing safety, portable systems in these situations can introduce new vulnerabilities at the exact moment when security and control are most critical.

Shifting away from portable as the default

There is a growing tendency among some authorities having jurisdiction to favor portable systems as a safer or more flexible solution (see related article below to learn why). 

However, this perspective should be reconsidered. Portable systems introduce avoidable hazards in egress paths and depend on uncertain human action during emergencies. This can create conflicting priorities for staff and may unintentionally increase vulnerability during security incidents.

A better approach would be to opt for permanent weapons detection systems that are designed to comply with code requirements for installation. This strategy eliminates the need for relocation during emergencies and reserves portable systems for limited, well-justified scenarios.

The NFPA TIAs provide important clarification for incorporating weapons detection systems in the means of egress. And although they include provisions for portable systems, that should not be interpreted as the preferred approach.

In healthcare, where the focus is on defending in place and prioritizing patient care, portable weapons detection units introduce unnecessary risk and operational complexity. The path forward is to prioritize permanent, code-compliant installations and clearly communicate that portability is the exception, not the rule.

Related article // Why healthcare may be better positioned, but still challenged, when using portable systems

Healthcare occupancies are often cited as being better suited to manage portable systems for a few reasons, including: continuous staffing, regular emergency drills and staff education, and defined command structures. In most other occupancies, conditions like these, which are required to safely manage portable systems, do not exist.

Business and mercantile. Limited staffing, minimal emergency training and high staff turnover can make portable systems difficult to manage. In some cases, only one security staff member may be available to relocate equipment, even though doing so may require two people. These occupancies also are more likely to rely on contracted security personnel, who may vary by shift and may not be familiar with the facility’s emergency procedures for this equipment.

Educational. Staff are primarily focused on student supervision rather than operational response. As in healthcare, their first priority during an emergency is the safety and accountability of those they are responsible for, not equipment relocation.

Industrial. Limited staffing and minimal emergency training may reduce the ability to safely and reliably relocate portable systems during an emergency.

Assembly. One potential exception may be certain assembly occupancies. Event spaces for concerts or sporting events hire staff specifically to focus on controlling large occupant flows for entrance as well as emergency egress, so it’s common to screen people as they enter the venue, especially for ticketed events. However, at un-ticketed assembly spaces, the situation may be different, and people may be able to come and go as they please. In these situations, staff may not be present to handle relocation of portable devices in case of an emergency. 

While healthcare organizations may not deal with many of the limiting factors seen in other industries, that does not eliminate the inherent risks of using portable weapons detection systems. Even in healthcare, portable systems should be used cautiously and only when a well-developed, realistic plan can be executed without compromising patient care or egress safety.

Chad Beebe, AIA, CHFM, CFPS, CBO, FASHE, deputy executive director, ASHE Regulatory Affairs.