BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Senator Jerry Hill, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 921 Hearing Date: June 22,
2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Jones |
|----------+------------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |April 27, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Janelle Miyashiro |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Private investigators: Disciplinary Review Committee.
SUMMARY: Establishes a Private Investigator Disciplinary Review
Committee (DRC) within the Bureau of Security and Investigative
Services (Bureau) to review a request of a licensee to contest
an administrative fine or to appeal the denial of a license.
Authorizes an applicant applying for an original license or
renewal of a license as a private investigator to put his or her
email address on the application at his or her discretion.
Existing law:
1) Provides for the licensure and regulation of private
investigators (PIs) by the Bureau of Security and
Investigative Services (Bureau) in the Department of Consumer
Affairs (DCA) under the Private Investigator Act (Act), which
requires the Director of the DCA (Director) to administer and
enforce the Act. (Business and Professions Code (BPC) §§
7512 et. seq.)
2) Defines a "private investigator" as a person, firm, company,
association, partnership, or corporation, other than an
insurance adjuster, who engages in business to protect
persons or makes investigations for the purpose of obtaining
information with reference to:
AB 921 (Jones) Page 2
of ?
a) Crime or wrong-doings against the United States of
America.
b) The identity habits, conduct, business, honesty,
associations, acts, character, etc. of any person.
c) The cause or responsibility for fires, libels, losses,
accidents, damage, or injury to persons or property.
d) The location, disposition, or recovery of lost or
stolen property.
e) The securing of evidence to be used in court or
investigating committee. (BPC § 7521)
3) Requires the Director to furnish, at least once every two
years, one copy of the current licensing law, rules, and
regulations to every licensed business under this Act without
charge. (BPC § 7519)
4) Authorizes the Director to deny, suspend, or revoke a license
if he or she determines that the licensee violated specified
provisions in the Act. (BPC § 7561.1)
5) Authorizes the Director to impose a civil penalty of no
greater than $500 instead of suspending or revoking a license
issued under the Act for the violation of specified
provisions if the Director determines that the imposition of
the civil penalty better serves the purposes of the Act. (BPC
§ 7563)
6) Establishes procedures for hearings of denials, suspensions,
or revocations of a license in accordance with those in the
Government Code. (BPC § 7518)
AB 921 (Jones) Page 3
of ?
7) Establishes two Private Security DRCs, one in northern
California and one in southern California, which licensees
have the option of using to review administrative fines and
licensure decisions, except as specified. (BPC §§
7581.1-7581.5)
8) Establishes an Alarm Company Operator DRC, which licensees
have the option of using to review administrative fines and
licensure decisions, except as specified. (BPC §§
7591.17-7591.20)
This bill:
1) Establishes a Private Investigator Disciplinary Review
Committee (DRC) within the Bureau to review a request from a
licensee to contest an administrative fine or appeal the
denial of a license.
a) The members of the DRC will consist of five members
appointed by the Governor: three members actively engaged
in the business of licensed private investigation and two
public members. Each member of the DRC will be appointed
for a term of four years.
b) Requires a licensee or applicant for a license, to
request review by written notice to the DRC within 30 days
of the issuance of a citation and requires the DRC to
notify the appellant within 30 days of the review of the
DRC's decision.
c) Requires the DRC to meet every 60 days or as
frequently required and authorizes members of the DRC to
be paid per diem and reimbursed for actual travel
expenses.
2) Authorizes an applicant applying for licensure or renewal as
a private investigator to put his or her email address on the
application at his or her discretion.
FISCAL
EFFECT: This bill is keyed "fiscal" by Legislative Council.
According to the Assembly Appropriations analysis written on May
AB 921 (Jones) Page 4
of ?
6, 2015, this bill will result in ongoing costs of approximately
$47,000 annually (special funds) to the Bureau for a half-time
staff services analyst (SSA) position and four hearings per year
associated with the new DRC.
COMMENTS:
1. Purpose. This bill is sponsored by the California
Association of Licensed Investigators (CALI). According to
the Author, "Under current law, licensed private
investigators who wish to contest the assessment of an
administrative fine or to appeal a denial of a license must
embark upon a process that can take more than a year to
obtain a final resolution. This legislation would amend the
Private Investigator Act to require the establishment of a
DRC?The option to opt in voluntarily to a DRC could save the
licensee time as the matter could be resolved more quickly."
2. Background. A private investigator is an individual, who
amongst other duties, investigates crimes, investigates the
identity, business, occupation, character, etc., of a person,
investigates the location of lost or stolen property,
investigates the cause of fires, losses, accidents, damage or
injury, or secures evidence for use in court. Private
investigators may protect persons only if such services are
incidental to an investigation; they may not protect
property. According to Bureau's 2014 sunset report, there
are around 9,885 PI licensees currently registered in
California.
3. Disciplinary Review Committees (DRCs). Current law provides
for three DRCs within the Bureau. The Private Security
Services Act establishes two DRCs, one in Northern California
and one in Southern California and the Alarm Company Act
establishes one DRC. The DRCs provide their respective
applicants and licensees an alternate path to consider
appeals of the Bureau's decisions to deny, suspend, or revoke
licenses, or assessments of administrative fines.
The purpose of the DRC is to consider appeals from applicants
and licensees on the Bureau's decisions to issue a fine, or
deny, suspend, or revoke a license. The scheduling of the
DRC is dependent on the number of appeals received;
AB 921 (Jones) Page 5
of ?
therefore, the Bureau states that it is not feasible to
establish an annual calendar for DRC meetings.
The Bureau posts notices and agendas for its meetings of the
Private Security DRCs and Alarm Company DRC in accordance
with the noticing requirement prescribed by the Bagley-Keene
Open Meeting Act. Currently, meeting notices and agendas
remain on the website indefinitely. However, older
information is archived by year to ensure current information
is accessible. The Bureau does not post draft or final
minutes for its DRC, or webcast DRC meetings.
The Private Security Services Act establishes two DRCs, one
in northern California and one in southern California and the
Alarm Company Operator Act establishes one DRC. The DRCs
provide their respective applicants and licensees an
alternate path to consider appeals of the BSIS's decisions to
deny, suspend or revoke licenses, or assess administrative
fines. All DRCs are comprised of five members appointed by
the Governor, three of whom are professional members actively
engaged in their respective businesses and two of whom are
public members. DRC meetings are scheduled depending on the
number of appeals received and are conducted in accordance
with the Open Meeting Act.
The Private Security Services Act and the Alarm Company
Operator Act have different processes for their respective
DRCs. For Private Security DRCs, applicants and licensees
have the option of filing an appeal with the DRC or through
the administrative hearing process. If the applicant or
licensee requests the appeal to be heard first by the DRC,
the applicant or licensee may still appeal a DRC decision
through the administrative process. For the Alarm Company
Operator DRC, applicants and licensees are required to file
their appeal with a DRC first, and are then provided the
ability to appeal a DRC decision through the administrative
process. The Collateral Recovery DRC in this bill is modeled
after the Alarm Company DRC.
When applicants and licensees file their appeals to a DRC,
Bureau staff schedules the appeal review for an upcoming
meeting and mail the respondent information about the meeting
and what to expect. Approximately two weeks before a
scheduled DRC meeting, Bureau staff provides each DRC member
AB 921 (Jones) Page 6
of ?
with a case file for each appeal to be heard during the
meeting. During the hearing, the applicant or licensee is
afforded the opportunity to present his or her case. He or
she may be represented by an attorney and may bring witnesses
as character references or observers of the incident
resulting in the Bureau's action. DRC members ask questions
to clarify issues related to the case to obtain the
information needed to make a decision on the appeal. The
average hearing time per person is 15-30 minutes. The Bureau
staff mail the applicant or licensee the DRC's decision on
their appeal within 30 days.
In March of this year, the Assembly Committee on Business and
Professions and the Senate Committee on Business, Professions
and Economic Development held a joint sunset oversight
hearing to review several of the boards and bureaus under the
DCA, including the Bureau. In the Bureau's sunset report, it
noted, "To maximize the efficiency of its disciplinary
activities, the [Bureau] ensures that those licensees
eligible to have their appeals heard by a Bureau [DRC] are
properly notified of this option in a timely manner. Each
year, approximately 900 [Bureau] licensees request an appeal
of their denials, suspensions, or imposition of fines through
DRC[s]."
The Bureau notes that the number of pending appeal cases
changes depending on the fluctuating quantity of incoming
appeal requests from applicants and licensees. It also
states that it has been able to address a high number of
pending appeals by scheduling two-day hearings and meeting
monthly to accommodate the number of appeals. Once an appeal
is received by the Bureau, an appellant is generally
scheduled for hearing within 30 to 60 days. According to the
Bureau, this approach has resulted in no ongoing backlogs.
Over the last three fiscal years:
The Private Security DRC had an annual average of 20
meetings and an average caseload of 35 appeals per meeting.
The Alarm Company Operator DRC held an annual average of 3
meetings and had an average caseload of 9 appeals per
meeting.
The annual cost for the Southern California Private
AB 921 (Jones) Page 7
of ?
Security DRC, which had 11 meetings, was $27,820.32, and
for the Northern California Private Security DRC, which had
10 meetings, was $12,700.00. The annual cost for the Alarm
Company Operator DRC, which had four meetings, was
$7,978.69. This does not include staff time.
The Private Security DRC overturned an average of 203
decisions and upheld an average of 345 decisions. The
Alarm Company DRC overturned an average of five decisions
and upheld an average seven decisions.
The Private Security DRC received an annual average of
12 citation appeals. The Alarm Company DRC received one
citation appeal (FY 2013-14).
There was an annual average of 11 requests for formal
administrative appeals for citations and fines for all BSIS
professions.
By way of comparison, for licensees under the Collateral
Recovery Act, over the last three fiscal years:
There were 38 citations and 1 appeal, for an annual
average of 13 citations and less than one appeal each year.
There were 58 license denials and 17 appeals, for an
annual average of 19-20 denials and 5-6 appeals each year.
According to BSIS, the average time for appeals of a
license denial under the Act is 570 days. Based on the
past three fiscal years, the overall average time for cases
to be considered through the administrative hearing process
is 290-300 days.
1. Email Addresses. Under current law, an applicant for a new
or renewed PI license is not authorized to provide an email
address on his or her application. The current application
for a new or renewed PI license does not allow for the
addition of an email address, as there is no space for an
applicant to fill one in. As email has become an almost
primary means of communication, the industry feels that this
should be reflected in an update to the license application.
The Author asserts that it is in the best interest of the
AB 921 (Jones) Page 8
of ?
consumer that an applicant for an original or renewed private
investigator license be allowed to provide the state with a
business email address that will be available as a public
record along with other specific information regarding
individual licensees. This bill will allow an applicant for
a new or renewed PI license to use a business email address
on his or her application at his or her discretion.
2. Prior/Related Legislation. AB 281 (Gallagher, 2015) of the
current legislative session would establish a disciplinary
review committee for licensed repossessors.
( Status : This bill was passed out of the Senate Business
Professions and Economic Development Committee on June 15,
2015 and is waiting for a hearing date in the Senate
Appropriations Committee.)
AB 409 (Yee, Chapter 381, Statutes of 2006) provided
licensees under the Board of Barbering and Cosmetology with
appeal rights to the DRC established by the Board.
AB 3291 (McPherson, Chapter 1285, Statutes of 1994)
established the Private Security Disciplinary Review
Committee.
3. Arguments in Support. Writing in support of the bill, the
California Association of Licensed Investigators (CALI)
states, "AB 921 would amend the Private Investigator Act in
the Business and Professions Code to require the
establishment of a disciplinary review committee (DRC)? This
option could save the licensee time as the matter could be
resolved more quickly. This option could save the Department
of Consumer affairs (DCA) time and expense as a DRC decision
accepted by the licensee would not proceed through the more
expensive adjudicatory route. A licensee who disagrees with
a DRC decision would be able to return to the current
process?In addition, AB 921 would amend Section 7525.1? This
provision has not been revised to allow for an email address
be provided. It is in the best interest of the consumer that
an applicant for an original or renewed licensed private
investigator license provides the state with a business email
address that will be available as a public record along with
other specific information regarding individual licensees."
4. Recommended Author's Amendments. The Private Investigator
AB 921 (Jones) Page 9
of ?
DRC that this bill will establish is modeled after the
existing Alarm Company DRC. However, there are three
sections in the BPC for the Alarm Company DRC that are not
included in this bill. For clarity in defining the functions
and protocols of the Private Investigator DRC and consistency
with the already existing Alarm Company DRC, the Author
should amend and include the following sections under the
Private Investigator Act:
Section XXXX. (a) The Private Investigator Disciplinary
Review Committee shall perform the following functions:
(1) Affirm, rescind, or modify all appealed decisions
concerning administrative fines assessed by the bureau
against a person licensed with the department under this
chapter.
(2) Affirm, rescind, or modify all appealed decisions
concerning denial, revocation, or suspension of licenses, and
certificates, registrations, or permits issued by the bureau,
except denials or suspensions ordered by the director in
accordance with Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 11500) of
Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(b) The Private Investigator Disciplinary Review Committee
may grant a probationary license, certificate, registration,
or permit with respect to the appealed decisions described in
subdivision (a).
Section XXXX. If the appellant does not request a hearing
within 30 days; the review committee's decision shall become
final.
(1) A licensee may request a hearing in accordance with
Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 11500) of Part 1 of
Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code if he or she
contests an assessment of an administrative fine, or to
appeal a denial, suspension, or revocation. A hearing may
also be requested if the appellant disagrees with the
decision made by the Alarm Company Operator Disciplinary
Review Committee.
(2) A request for a hearing shall be by written notice to the
bureau within 30 days of the issuance of the decision by the
review committee. A hearing pursuant to this subdivision
shall be available only after a review by the disciplinary
review committee.
Section XXXX. The disciplinary review committee shall be
AB 921 (Jones) Page 10
of ?
provided all evidence used by the bureau in reaching its
decision prior to hearing an appeal.
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:
Support: California Association of Licensed Investigators
(Sponsor)
Opposition: None on file as of June 16, 2015.
-- END --