Bloomington, Minn., Code of Ordinances § 15 § 15.104
BURGLARY PREVENTION - INTRUSION DETECTION DEVICES (Bloomington Buildings and Structures Code)
Operative Text
(a) If it is determined by the Chief of Police that the security measures and locking devices prescribed in §§ 15.97 through 15.103 of this Article V do not adequately secure the building, he or she may require the installation and maintenance of photoelectric, ultrasonic and other intrusion detection device. In exercising his or her discretion he or she shall consider whether: (1) The business establishment has experienced a high incidence of burglary in the past; or (2) The type of merchandise and its inventory value require added security protection. (b) If he or she determines that such installation is required, notice in writing shall be given to the responsible person setting forth the installation to be made and the period within which same shall be completed. Failure to complete the installation in the time specified shall result in enforcement action as provided in this Article V . (1958 Code, § 40.13) (Ord. 67-71, passed 12-28-1967; Ord. 2002-1, passed 1-14-2002)
Bloomington, Minn., Code of Ordinances § 15.104 gives the Chief of Police authority to require certain commercial buildings to install and maintain intrusion detection devices—such as photoelectric or ultrasonic systems—when standard locks and security measures are deemed insufficient. The determination is based on factors like the property's history of burglaries or the high value of merchandise stored on-site. When such a requirement is issued, the responsible party receives written notice specifying what must be installed and the deadline for completion; missing that deadline triggers enforcement action under Article V.
Plain English — not legal advice.
Under § 15.104, commercial property operators in Bloomington should be aware that the Chief of Police can independently assess whether standard security hardware meets the code's threshold and can mandate additional intrusion detection systems. Compliant operators typically respond promptly to any written notice issued under this section, complete the required installation within the stated timeframe, and retain documentation confirming the work was finished on schedule. Failing to meet the deadline specified in the notice exposes the responsible person to formal enforcement action as outlined in Article V of the ordinance.
General guidance for property managers — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult an attorney for advice on your case.
While § 15.104 primarily addresses obligations placed on building operators and business owners rather than residential tenants, occupants of commercial spaces should know that this provision establishes a mechanism for the Chief of Police to mandate enhanced security measures when a property has a documented burglary history or high-value inventory. If you believe a building's security is inadequate and may fall under this provision, tenant-rights organizations or local legal aid resources can help clarify how Article V enforcement procedures might apply. Reviewing the written notice process described in § 15.104 can also help occupants understand what corrective steps a responsible party is required to take and within what timeframe.
General guidance for tenants — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult a tenant-rights organization or attorney for advice on your case.
Generated September 15, 2026 — auto-generated, not yet human-reviewed. See /transparency for methodology.
Effective Timeline
References Out
No outbound references recorded yet for this provision.
References In
No inbound references recorded yet for this provision.