Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administration Efficiency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would let cannabis administration rely on State Police security guard certification to avoid duplicate fingerprinting
Summary
Senate Bill 299 would let the Maryland Cannabis Administration accept Maryland State Police security guard certification in lieu of a separate criminal-history fingerprinting requirement for cannabis agents who are security guards, removing a duplication of background checks, witnesses said.
Senator Mary Beth Carozza introduced Senate Bill 299 to eliminate what supporters described as a duplicative fingerprinting requirement for security guards working at licensed cannabis businesses.
Lisonbee Butler, division chief of policy implementation at the Maryland Cannabis Administration, told the committee that current law requires all cannabis agents to submit fingerprints to the MCA for criminal history checks in addition to any fingerprints provided for Maryland State Police certification. Under SB 299, a security guard would still register with MCA as a cannabis agent but would not need to submit an additional criminal history record check if the guard already possesses a Maryland State Police security guard certification.
Butler told senators the change would streamline registration because Maryland State Police conducts security background checks that are “more rigorous than MCA's for registration purposes.” Evan Abnett, president of the Maryland Investigators and Security Association, testified that the industry faces duplicative fees, training and fingerprint requirements and urged the committee to support the bill.
The MCA said it supports the bill as a means to remove an unnecessary burden on agents and security businesses while preserving registration and oversight: security guards would still be required to register with the MCA but could use MSP certification proof in lieu of a separate fingerprint submission to the cannabis agency. No opposition was recorded during the hearing; the committee indicated it would consider one requested amendment.
