Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Security Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would let private security firms hire special police officers; supporters say it extends protections to lower-resourced properties
Summary
Senate Bill 455 would permit licensed security agencies to hire and manage special police officers, extending the option to smaller or lower-resourced properties that lack in-house security management.
Get email alerts on the Security Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Bill 455 would permit licensed security agencies in Maryland to hire and manage special police officers (SPOs) and assign them to client properties, rather than the current practice that limits hiring to property owners.
Senator Mike McCay told the House Judiciary Committee the bill authorizes security agencies licensed by the Maryland State Police to employ SPOs if the agency has five years of prior law enforcement or investigator experience. Evan Abnett, president of the Maryland Investigators and Security Association, said the bill does not expand SPO powers or jurisdiction; SPOs retain arrest and detainment authority only on the property where they are licensed.
Abnett said smaller properties—homeowners associations, apartment complexes and lower-income or culturally disadvantaged areas—often cannot afford in-house security management and so cannot employ SPOs under current rules. Allowing security firms to manage SPOs, he said, enables less-affluent properties to obtain officers who carry limited detainment authority.
Committee members asked about liability and insurance. Abnett said when SPOs are employed by a security agency, that agency is generally required by law to carry additional liability insurance (commonly including assault and battery coverage) that supplements the property’s insurance; that, he testified, provides an “additional layer of insurance protection that doesn't currently exist” when a property directly employs SPOs.
Committee members asked no vote during the hearing; testimony concluded after questions and the committee moved on to other bills.

