Committee hears bill to remove duplicate fingerprinting for cannabis security guards; amendments widen scope

A House Economic Matters Committee hearing on Senate Bill 299 centered on a proposal to eliminate a redundant background-check requirement for security guards working at licensed cannabis facilities.

An unnamed presenter for the bill told the committee, "this legislation would eliminate an unnecessary redundancy in statute, which currently requires those in the security guard industry to submit fingerprints or a national crime histories record check both to the Maryland Cannabis Administration, even if they are already certified by the Maryland State Police." The presenter said the bill had passed the Senate unanimously and asked the committee for a favorable report.

The bill initially was narrowly tailored to address security guards serving cannabis businesses after Tactical American Security Consulting in Salisbury raised the issue, the presenter said. The presenter added that she and Senator Feldman "worked closely with the Maryland cannabis administration to make this very narrow so that it would, we could basically remove this redundancy. And that's how the bill passed out of the Senate."

Several committee members voiced concern after learning the cross-filed House bill carried amendments added in the Senate Finance Committee that would broaden the exemption beyond cannabis security guards. The amendments would expand the exemption to exclude certain entities from the duplicative check, including video lottery operators, sports wagering facilities and healthcare facilities. One committee member warned that the change "went from security guard... to a very broad set of circumstances" and said the expansion raised questions about jurisdiction because those sectors fall under other committees' purviews.

Delegate Chris Adams, identified in the hearing as the House cross-file sponsor of the companion House bill, told the committee he supported using the Senate-passed vehicle so long as the additional amendments did not harm the bill's chances of passage. "Provided that these amendments don't hurt the bill's chances of passing, then I'm okay with the amendments," Adams said.

Judge Rogers, who said he and other sponsors had sought a broader fix for duplicative training and licensing in other sectors, noted that Senate Finance added the amendments to make the measure "a little bit more comprehensive because... we're talking about security guards and retraining requirements for security guards." He said some amendments grew out of previously separate legislation that had stalled.

Committee members repeatedly emphasized their preference for the original, narrowly tailored language if the broader amendments had not been worked out with the other committees and stakeholders. The hearing concluded with no vote recorded on SB 299.

The record shows the bill originated to resolve duplicate fingerprinting and background-check submissions between the Maryland Cannabis Administration and the Maryland State Police; the Senate-amended House companion would extend related exemptions to additional regulated facilities, prompting concern about cross-committee jurisdiction and a request from several members that the narrow cannabis-focused language be preserved if stakeholder issues remain unresolved.