Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sunset Legislation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BSIS outlines proposed changes in Senate Bill 1454 during sunset review, including new enforcement tools and training requirements
Summary
The Bureau of Security and Investigative Services said draft provisions in its Senate Bill 1454 sunset package would extend some licensing sunsets and add enforcement authorities — including higher administrative penalties and new documentation requirements for private investigators — pending legislative negotiation.
The Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (BSIS) told its advisory committee that provisions drafted for its sunset bill, Senate Bill 1454, could add enforcement tools and new regulatory requirements for private security and private investigators.
Lynn (bureau chief) said the bureau had completed testimony in the Legislature’s sunset review and that "the bill is now in the Senate Judiciary Committee"; she told the committee she expected the measure to move forward and said the bureau does not sponsor legislation but uses the sunset bill to present priorities. Assistant Chief Sam Studalski outlined policy proposals the bureau submitted to lawmakers, calling them a "wish list" under negotiation.
Sam said the bureau and staff identified a number of specific changes that may be carried in SB 1454, including removal of outdated exemptions in the Proprietary Security Services Act, authorization for online application submission, and changes to unlicensed-activity enforcement. "In order for us to issue an administrative citation for unlicensed activity, we rely on Business and Professions Code section 125.9," he said. The bureau has proposed removing a long-standing exemption that has blocked use of that citation process for certain industries (repossession was cited as one example).
Sam said the bureau also proposed adding private security and proprietary security into the list of professions for which the director may delegate authority to issue infraction citations (Business and Professions Code section 146). For unlicensed activity, the bureau proposed raising the maximum administrative penalty currently capped at $5,000 to as much as $20,000 in "egregious circumstances" (for example, lack of insurance, unlicensed armed guards, or no training).
On private investigators, Sam said the draft language would seek to require written client agreements, clearer fee disclosures and explanation of services, and minimum records-retention periods so the bureau and consumers can review the agreements when complaints arise. He described the change as aiming to protect both consumers and investigators by setting expectations in writing.
Sam also identified an initial proposal to require certification for some less-than-lethal devices used by security guards, noting tasers specifically as a near-term focus: "If the guard's gonna carry a taser, they need to have training completed, they need to have a training certificate," he said, suggesting the bureau would model those rules after existing chemical agent training requirements.
Committee members and public commenters pressed for data and detail. Jerry Desmond of the Association of Licensed Investigators asked for the underlying complaint counts tied to the bureau's stat—Jerry said the committee analysis referenced that "27% of consumer complaints about PIs alleged that a PI failed to render services"—and asked for how many total PI complaints that represents and how many were sustained. Sam acknowledged the issue has recurred in bureau reviews and said the proposals were driven by repeated investigative difficulty when agreements or records are not available.
The bureau opened the list of draft provisions for legislative negotiation and advised committee members to contact legislative staff if they wish to express support or opposition before language is finalized.
Ending: The bureau said it expects SB 1454 to continue moving through committee and onto the Senate floor; dates and final text were not specified during the meeting.
