Committee approves amendment and advances bill to allow national background checks for massage and adult entertainment licenses

The Minnesota House Elections, Finance and Government Operations Committee voted to adopt an A3 amendment and recommended House File 286, as amended, to pass and be re-referred to the General Register. The bill would authorize counties and cities to obtain national fingerprint-based criminal-history checks in addition to current state checks for applicants for adult entertainment establishments and massage business licenses.

Representative Bridal Perryman, a co-author, said the bill responds to instances where out-of-state actors used ostensibly legitimate massage or entertainment licenses to operate trafficking businesses in Minnesota. Testimony in support came from former and current local police chiefs who described enforcement gaps when local background checks rely on a state criminal-history database limited to in-state convictions and recent arrest information under the purpose code used for local licensing checks.

Dave Ventura, retired chief of police of Waite Park, described a pattern of massage establishments with connections to multiple states and said local authorities had difficulty verifying out-of-state records. Anthony Resnacek, Waite Park chief of police, explained that the background checks used for local licensing typically use purpose code E, which (per his testimony) returns adult arrest data only if less than one year old and adult convictions only within Minnesota. He said the proposed change would require fingerprint-based checks that trigger a national criminal-history search and provide a more complete view of applicants’ records.

Representative Bridal Curran and Representative Perryman emphasized the bill’s bipartisan support and said the authors narrowed the original scope to focus on adult entertainment establishments and massage businesses to target trafficking concerns. The committee adopted the A3 amendment "to get the bill in shape with the proper wording" and then moved the amended bill forward by voice vote.

Supporters noted the Minnesota Sheriffs Association and Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association previously supported similar language and that the bill is intended as a targeted public-safety and licensing tool rather than a separate state licensing system. The committee did not record a roll-call vote on the measure in the public transcript; it was recommended to the General Register for further consideration.